Dispute centers on allegations that a second $250,000 loan was never funded while enforcement was pursued under two separate sets of loan and security documents
A Texas business dispute has escalated into serious allegations of fraud, fraudulent inducement and conspiracy involving Selim Kiralp of Plano, Texas, and two companies identified in court filings as being under his control.
Counterclaims and a third-party petition filed by Texas Logistics and Fulfillment Services, LLC and related parties allege an unusual series of financial transactions involving two separate $250,000 obligations.
At the heart of the case is a straightforward allegation: only one of the two $250,000 transactions was actually funded.
The allegations remain pending and have not been finally adjudicated by the court.
The Original $250,000 Loan
According to the court filing, Selim Kiralp, LLC provided a $250,000 loan to We Store Frozen Holdings, LLC in November 2024.
That loan was documented through a promissory note and secured by a Security Agreement, Assignment of Rents and Leases and an Equity Transfer Agreement covering membership interests in We Store Frozen.
The filing acknowledges that this original $250,000 transaction was funded and that payments began to be made on the loan.
The controversy concerns what allegedly happened afterward.
A Second $250,000 Transaction
According to the counterclaims, Selim Kiralp later represented that the original debt and associated security would be transferred from We Store Frozen to Texas Logistics.
The filing alleges that Kiralp represented that a second transaction involving Texas Logistics would substitute for and discharge the original obligations — not create a second, duplicate obligation on top of the first.
Texas Logistics and the related parties say they relied on those representations.
In May 2025, they entered into another series of agreements involving Texas Logistics, including a second $250,000 promissory note, an Equity Transfer Agreement, a Security Agreement and guaranties.
But there was a significant difference between the two transactions.
According to the counterclaims, the second $250,000 was never funded.
Filing Alleges No Money Was Advanced
The second transaction involved Kiralp Capital, LLC, another entity the filing identifies as controlled by Selim Kiralp.
Texas Logistics alleges that Kiralp Capital never advanced the $250,000 contemplated by the second transaction.
According to the filing:
No loan proceeds were ever advanced to Texas Logistics.
The counterclaims point to the transaction documents themselves, alleging that the Security Agreement stated only that Kiralp Capital had “agreed to lend” up to $250,000 and that the promissory note provided that interest would run from the date money was actually advanced.
The filing also states that the note reflected an origination fee of $0.00.
Texas Logistics therefore alleges that the consideration for the second transaction failed or never existed.
30% Per Month Interest Alleged in Second Note
The filing makes another striking allegation about the second transaction.
According to the counterclaims, the second $250,000 promissory note carried a stated interest rate of 30 percent per month and was secured by new liens against Texas Logistics’ assets and equity.
Yet Texas Logistics maintains that it never received the $250,000 contemplated by that note.
That alleged combination — a $250,000 promissory note, a stated 30% monthly interest rate and security against company assets and equity, without the corresponding loan proceeds allegedly being advanced — is now a central issue in the litigation.
Allegations of Attempted Double Recovery
The dispute became even more serious when enforcement was allegedly pursued under both transactions.
Texas Logistics alleges that rather than treating the second transaction as a replacement for the original obligation, as it says had been promised, enforcement was pursued under both sets of documents.
The counterclaims characterize this as an effort to obtain a double recovery on a single $250,000 funded debt.
According to the filing, only the original We Store Frozen transaction was funded.
The pleading alleges that the second transaction created another $250,000 obligation and additional liens even though the corresponding $250,000 was never advanced.
Selim Kiralp Accused Personally of Fraud
The claims are not limited to the corporate entities.
Texas Logistics and the other third-party plaintiffs have brought claims directly against Selim Kiralp individually, including fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
According to the filing, Kiralp is the president and controlling principal of both Selim Kiralp, LLC and Kiralp Capital, LLC.
The third-party plaintiffs allege that Kiralp personally made material representations concerning the restructuring.
They claim he represented that the original debt and security would be transferred, that the second transaction would substitute for and discharge the original obligations, and that Kiralp Capital would fund the new $250,000 loan.
The filing alleges those representations were false.
More significantly, the third-party petition alleges that Kiralp knew the representations were false or made them recklessly and that promises concerning future performance were allegedly made without a present intention to perform them.
Texas Logistics claims it relied on those representations when entering into the second transaction.
Fraud and Conspiracy Claims
The counterclaims assert causes of action including breach of contract, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy.
The third-party petition separately asserts claims against Selim Kiralp individually for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
The filing alleges that Kiralp and the entities he controls acted together to induce the parties into what the counter-plaintiffs describe as an unfunded duplicate transaction, encumber assets and equity, and pursue recovery under both transactions.
Texas Logistics alleges that the conduct exposed it and the other parties to double liability, clouded or encumbered their assets and equity, caused out-of-pocket losses and resulted in additional consequential damages.
More Than $1 Million Sought
The counter-plaintiffs and third-party plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 million in monetary relief, together with other relief requested from the court.
The dispute ultimately presents a fundamental financial question:
If the second $250,000 was never advanced, why should an obligation for that money be enforceable at all — particularly if the second transaction was represented as a replacement for the original debt?
That question, along with the fraud and conspiracy allegations against Selim Kiralp, will now be addressed through the litigation.
For Texas Logistics, the position stated in its court filing is clear: there was one funded $250,000 loan, the second $250,000 allegedly never arrived, yet enforcement was pursued under both transactions.
Selim Kiralp and the other opposing parties are entitled to contest these allegations. The claims described in this article are allegations contained in pending court filings, and no final judicial determination that Kiralp committed fraud has been made.
