Business Litigation | Financial Services | Automotive Industry

A high-stakes legal dispute is playing out in federal court in Albany, New York, where Houston-based Stellantis Financial Services is seeking the seizure of millions of dollars’ worth of vehicle inventory it claims was financed, sold, and never paid for. The lawsuit names Bul Auto Sales & Service 1 Inc., a luxury used car dealership, and its owner Vladimir Ranguelov as defendants, alleging breach of contract and misuse of a $4 million line of credit extended in 2023.

The case centers on an allegedly broken floorplan financing arrangement—a common but tightly regulated type of commercial loan that allows dealerships to finance inventory with lender oversight. Stellantis is asking the court to approve an order of seizure and a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent further asset transfers, claiming more than $3.7 million in unpaid obligations.

Floorplan Finance Goes Flat

According to Stellantis, Bul Auto entered into a floorplan loan agreement in 2023, using the funds to acquire luxury inventory, including Alfa Romeo, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi vehicles. As is typical in such agreements, Stellantis retained a security interest in each unit and required that proceeds from any sale be remitted promptly to pay down the debt.

But according to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, things unraveled after an audit in May 2025 revealed that dozens of financed vehicles were missing from the dealership’s lot. Stellantis claims those vehicles were sold to consumers or transferred to third parties without paying down the loan balance—a practice known as “selling out of trust.”

Court documents indicate that 23 vehicles tied to the loan are now unaccounted for or in the possession of individuals with conflicting ownership claims. Stellantis pegs the outstanding balance on the loan at just under $3.74 million.

Seeking Emergency Relief

To safeguard its ability to recover the collateral or its value, Stellantis is seeking an order of seizure—a remedy permitted under New York law when a secured creditor can show that personal property is at risk of being concealed, removed, or disposed of before final judgment. The TRO, if granted, would freeze the defendants’ ability to transfer, encumber, or sell any further vehicles pending resolution of the case.

In support of the motion, Stellantis submitted affidavits outlining its lien rights, audit results, and interactions with Bul Auto management. The company alleges that Ranguelov has “refused to account for the missing vehicles” and has provided “no credible explanation” for where the proceeds of their sale went.

Broader Legal and Criminal Exposure

This federal lawsuit is just one part of a broader legal storm facing Bul Auto and its principal. At least four separate state court lawsuits have been filed in Albany County by other lenders seeking to recover additional millions in unpaid auto financing agreements. The Times Union reports that law enforcement, including the FBI and Colonie Police Department, are also investigating the dealership’s operations, including a second location in Jacksonville, Florida.

While no criminal charges have been filed as of press time, the case has raised red flags among finance companies and regulators alike. If investigators determine that vehicles were intentionally sold without satisfying liens or disclosing encumbrances to buyers, potential charges could include wire fraud, larceny, or grand theft auto.

Legal Implications for the Industry

This lawsuit underscores the fragility of trust-based lending models in the auto industry and the challenges lenders face in recovering high-value collateral. Floorplan financing relies heavily on regular audits, transparent sales reporting, and immediate repayment of proceeds. When those guardrails fail, as Stellantis alleges here, litigation is often the only remedy.

Courts evaluating seizure orders must consider:

• The likelihood of success on the merits of the lender’s contract and lien claims;
• The risk of irreparable harm if the assets are not frozen;
• Whether a bond or undertaking is required to protect the defendant against wrongful seizure.

If the court grants Stellantis’s request, the case may set a precedent for how aggressively floorplan lenders can act to protect their security interests—even before a final judgment is reached.

Conclusion: What’s Next

A hearing on Stellantis’s TRO and seizure motion is expected later this summer. If approved, federal marshals could be authorized to take possession of the vehicles or their proceeds. A scheduling order will likely follow for pretrial disclosures and discovery in the fall.

Whether this case resolves through judgment or settlement, its outcome will have implications far beyond Albany. For lenders, it’s a warning to tighten audit protocols and monitor dealer trust accounts. For dealers, it’s a reminder that breaching financing terms—especially those tied to secured inventory—can lead not only to litigation, but to law enforcement scrutiny.

---

Editor’s Note: Stellantis Financial Services is a subsidiary of Stellantis N.V., a multinational automaker that owns Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and other major brands. Neither Stellantis N.V. nor its manufacturing operations are parties to the suit.

Case Reference: Stellantis Financial Services v. Bul Auto Sales & Service 1 Inc. and Vladimir Ranguelov, Case No. 1:25-cv-00856, U.S. District Court, N.D.N.Y.