Judge Issues Directed Verdict for MSBF in Hussain Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
Syed Sajid Hussain initiated a lawsuit against MSBF Corporation, doing business as MSBF, Inc., and several individual Defendants Babar Ali Khan, Sadia Hussain, and Syed Amir Hussain in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford. The Plaintiff commenced the action to recover losses he claimed he suffered from his involvement in an alleged investment or business relationship with the Defendant corporation and its principals. The core of the dispute revolved around financial agreements, notes, and the subsequent breakdown of the relationship, which the Plaintiff asserted caused him substantial financial damage and other legal injuries.
Cause
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, centered on a comprehensive set of legal allegations that arose from business dealings between the parties. The specific causes of action the Plaintiff pursued were numerous and detailed, touching upon fundamental aspects of contract law and financial misconduct.
Contract and Covenant Violations
Mr. Hussain asserted the Defendants broke their original agreement with him, constituting a Breach of Contract. He named both the corporation and Babar Ali Khan in this claim, insisting they did not uphold their end of the bargain. Building on this, the Plaintiff also charged the same parties with Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. This claim maintained that even if they followed the letter of the agreement, the Defendants had acted unfairly or dishonestly, violating the implied promise of good faith that existed in their business relationship.
Financial and Statutory Misconduct
The Plaintiff had levied serious accusations of financial wrongdoing against the Defendants. He charged the corporation and Mr. Khan with Statutory Theft, arguing that they had improperly taken or retained his money in violation of Connecticut state law. Additionally, he included other claims that specifically addressed the nature of the transaction, such as Specific Performance, where he requested the Court force the Defendants to fulfill the exact terms of the original agreement.
Fraudulent Transfer and Deceptive Practices
Mr. Hussain brought claims against the individual Defendants, Sadia Hussain and Syed Amir Hussain, for Intentional Fraudulent Transfer and Constructive Fraudulent Transfer. These charges alleged that the other Defendants had transferred assets to the individual Defendants specifically to hide them or prevent Mr. Hussain from recovering what he was owed. Finally, the Plaintiff pursued a claim for Violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) against the corporation and Mr. Khan, arguing that their conduct in the business dealings was unethical and misleading, violating the state's consumer protection laws.
Injury
Mr. Hussain sought compensation for the financial harm he suffered due to the Defendants' alleged refusal to honor their obligations. His injuries included the loss of money he invested or lent, as well as the anticipated profits he expected to receive from the agreement. The Plaintiff also claimed losses related to the Defendants’ inability or refusal to perform the agreed-upon actions.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff’s initial demand for relief requested money damages exceeding $2,500, which signaled a significant financial dispute. Given the number of claims, which included statutory theft and CUTPA violations, the Plaintiff sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and any other appropriate legal and equitable relief the Court could award.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case followed a typical legal path: the Plaintiff filed the complaint, and the Defendants then filed their formal response. The proceedings showed that a prior legal action had taken place between the parties, which became a critical factor in the defense's strategy.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Syed Sajid Hussain
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Austin B. Johns, Esq.
Defendant(s): MSBF Corporation d/b/a MSBF, Inc. | Babar Ali Khan | Sadia Hussain | Syed Amir Hussain
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Gerald M. Beaudoin, Esq.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Mr. Hussain’s legal team laid out a foundation that the Defendants had entered into a clear business relationship and financial agreement with the Plaintiff. They presented evidence asserting that the Defendants broke the terms of this deal and that their subsequent actions—including the alleged transfer of assets and refusal to perform—were illegal, dishonest, and amounted to unfair trade practices, directly causing the Plaintiff's financial ruin.
Defense
The Defendants mounted a multifaceted defense. Their primary argument was that a prior legal case between Mr. Hussain, MSBF, Inc., and Babar Ali Khan had already resulted in a Stipulation for Judgment. They argued that this prior resolution was Res Judicata—a final judgment on the merits that prevented the Plaintiff from bringing a second, "repetitive" action on the same claims. The defense also argued that the Plaintiff’s claims were invalidated because the original agreement was tied to a promissory note that the Defendants had already paid off in full, thereby triggering a self-terminating clause and invoking the doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction. They further contended that Mr. Hussain was Estopped from claiming an interest in the business because he had signed a statement specifically disclaiming any ownership interest during the initial loan transaction.
Jury Verdict
The matter did not proceed to a final jury verdict. Instead, on October 28, 2025, after the presentation of evidence concluded, the Superior Court issued an order for a directed verdict.
The Court had found that Mr. Hussain failed to present the proof that the law required to prevail on a sweeping majority of his claims. Since the Court made this legal determination, it removed the counts from the jury’s consideration and formally directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the Defendants on the following twenty-three counts:
Count One: Breach of Contract (MSBF Corporation)
Count Two: Breach of Contract (Babar Ali Khan)
Count Three: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (MSBF Corporation)
Count Four: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Babar Ali Khan)
Count Five: Specific Performance
Count Six: Statutory Theft (MSBF Corporation)
Count Seven: Statutory Theft (Babar Ali Khan)
Count Eight: Unjust Enrichment (MSBF Corporation)
Count Nine: Unjust Enrichment (Babar Ali Khan)
Count Ten: Conversion (MSBF Corporation)
Count Eleven: Conversion (Babar Ali Khan)
Count Twelve: Intentional Fraudulent Transfer (MSBF Corporation)
Count Thirteen: Intentional Fraudulent Transfer (Babar Ali Khan)
Count Fourteen: Intentional Fraudulent Transfer (Sadia Hussain)
Count Fifteen: Intentional Fraudulent Transfer (Syed Amir Hussain)
Count Sixteen: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer (MSBF Corporation)
Count Seventeen: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer (Babar Ali Khan)
Count Eighteen: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer (Sadia Hussain)
Count Nineteen: Constructive Fraudulent Transfer (Syed Amir Hussain)
Count Twenty: Statutory Theft (Sadia Hussain)
Count Twenty-One: Statutory Theft (Syed Amir Hussain)
Count Twenty-Two: Promissory Estoppel (MSBF Corporation)
Count Twenty-Three: Promissory Estoppel (Babar Ali Khan)
The directed verdict effectively dismissed the Plaintiff’s core financial and contract claims against all Defendants before the case finished. A final resolution for the remaining counts, which included the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violations, would have been necessary to fully conclude the entire matter.