Notable litigation for October includes: (1) Karvounides, et al. v. Antonas, et al.; (2) Capital Providers of Cambridge Sarano, LLC, et al. v. Robl, et al.; (3) Investors in Friends of Production Capital LLC v. Friends of Production Capital LLC; and (4) Orrico, et al. v. ABC Capital Investments, LLC.
Karvounides, et al. v. Antonas, et al., No. CV-2022-10-3414 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Summit Cty)
Ponzi victims filed suit against the schemers in Ohio state court for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme run through a purported hedge fund by Adamantios Antonas. The complaint alleges that the Defendants targeted the Greek community in Northeast Ohio, representing to even his own friends and family that the hedge fund would generate high returns as reflected in allegedly falsified account statements. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of fraudulent transfer and unjust enrichment and request an accounting and appointment of a receiver of the companies.
Capital Providers of Cambridge Sarano, LLC, et al. v. Robl, et al., No. 2:22-cv-7265 (C.D. Cal.); Investors in Friends of Production Capital LLC v. Friends of Production Capital LLC, No. 2:22-cv-7260 (C.D. Cal.)
In two complaints filed in California federal court, Ponzi victims filed a suit against Defendants Kevin Robl, Remington Chase aka William Westwood aka William Eliot (“Remington”), and Production Capital LLC for their alleged scheme to defraud investors in the course of contracting with a production studio providing visual effects on motion pictures. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of conversion, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent conveyance, fraud, misrepresentation, and violations of federal securities law.
Orrico, et al. v. ABC Capital Investments, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-3960 (E.D. Pa.)
Ponzi victims filed suit in Pennsylvania federal court against ABC Capital Investments, LLC, and several subsidiary and related companies. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a RICO enterprise to solicit investments for the purpose of purchasing and managing rental properties. Defendants allegedly represented that Defendants would renovate the properties and “guarantee” all rental income for the first twelve months with options to purchase additional rental protection for subsequent years, which Plaintiffs allege did not occur and, instead, Defendants allegedly paid earlier investors with the initial investments made by newer investors. Plaintiffs assert claims for racketeering, fraud, and breach of contract.