Photo of Anthony Le

Anthony Le

Subscribe to Anthony Le's Posts

Anthony has a broad array of experiences assisting with compliance issues, regulatory and enforcement matters, internal investigations, and individual and class litigation. His diverse practice helps him achieve the most efficient and practical results for his clients spanning the financial services, technology, automobile, and retail sectors.

Contact:Read more about Anthony Le

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff Melanie E. Damian, in her capacity as the Court-Appointed Receiver for Today’s Growth Consultant, Inc. d/b/a The Income Store (“TGC”) (the “Receiver”) filed a complaint against Defendant Core Financial Outsourcing of Chicago (“Core Financial”) in the Northern District of Illinois (“Damian II”) seeking damages, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The complaint alleges five claims for professional negligence, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and two violations of the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.

This action stems from a prior enforcement action seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against TGC and its founder, Kenneth D. Courtright, III (“Courtright”), based upon TGC and Courtright’s alleged violation of federal securities laws and operation of a website services Ponzi scheme.

We previously wrote about PLB Investments LLC et al v. Heartland Bank and Trust Co. et al., a related case initiated by various defrauded investors of TGC against two bank defendants that
Continue Reading… New Complaint – Damian as Receiver of Today’s Growth Consultant, Inc. v. Core Financial Outsourcing of Chicago, LLC

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff Melanie E. Damian, in her capacity as the Court-Appointed Receiver for Today’s Growth Consultant, Inc. d/b/a The Income Store (“TGC”) (the “Receiver”) filed a complaint against Defendant SmithAmundsen, LLC (“Defendant”) in the Northern District of Illinois seeking damages, restitution, interest, and costs.  Specifically, the complaint alleges two claims for legal malpractice and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

This action stems from a prior action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) against TGC and its founder, Kenneth D. Courtright, III (“Courtright”), wherein the SEC alleged TGC and Courtright violated federal securities laws and sought civil penalties and injunctive relief to halt their wrongful activity.

We previously wrote about PLB Investments LLC et al v. Heartland Bank and Trust Co. et al., a related case initiated by various defrauded investors of TGC against two bank defendants concerning TGC’s website services Ponzi scheme.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Damian, as Receiver of Today’s Growth Consultant, Inc. v. SmithAmundsen, LLC

Securities Exchange Commission v. David J. Bunevacz et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 5, 2022, seeking an injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil penalties. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 17(a), 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933.

The SEC brought this enforcement action against David J. Bunevacz (“Bunevacz”) and two entities under his control, Caesarbrutus LLC and CB Holding Group Corp., along with his stepdaughter Mary Hayca Bunevacz (“Mary Hayca”).  Bunevacz and his entities are engaged in the production and sale of cannabis products, particularly “vape” pens infused with Cannabidiol (“CBD”).

Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. David J. Bunevacz et al.

Backed by unrealistically ambitious owners, well-intentioned business ideas that fail to meet expectations or become unsustainable regrettably often become full-fledged Ponzi schemes.  Today’s Growth Consultant, Inc. (“TGC”) represents an entity that faced the same fate.

TGC advertised to potential investors its expertise in building, acquiring, and monetizing online websites.  Investors paid an upfront fee to TGC to purchase, host, maintain, and market the investors’ websites in exchange for TGC’s guarantee that investors would receive a minimum rate of return in perpetuity on the revenues TGC generated from those websites.  TGC raised at least $75 million during a nearly three year period, but its business model proved unsuccessful—it failed to timely purchase and build the promised websites or generate the promised revenue to cover the guaranteed returns to investors.  Instead, TGC turned into a Ponzi scheme to sustain its failing business by paying early investors with money it raised from later investors.

TGC maintained its business bank accounts at Defendants Heartland Bank and Trust Company (“Heartland”) and PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  TGC banked with Heartland until October 2018, and with PNC thereafter until December 2019.  Defendants provided TGC with typical banking services, including deposit accounts, commercial loans and revolving lines of credit, ACH capabilities, and transfers into, out of, and among TGC’s accounts.

In a recent decision in PLB Investments LLC et al. v. Heartland Bank and Trust Co. et al., the Northern District of Illinois decided that various defrauded investors of TGC (“Plaintiffs”) did not set forth sufficient allegations to show actual knowledge of a Ponzi scheme or bad faith in support of various Illinois state law claims against PNC.  No. 20 C 1023, 2021 WL 5937152 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2021).  While different jurisdictions set varying thresholds for adequately alleging actual knowledge or bad faith, PLB Investments emphasizes the importance of analyzing these elements early on to determine whether a plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts on the pleadings.

Continue Reading… Illinois Federal Court Carves Up Plaintiffs’ Ponzi Scheme Claims For Lack of Actual Knowledge or Bad Faith

Puleo, et al. v. Nelson, et al. was filed in the Central District of California on August 10, 2021, seeking damages based on more than thirty claims for violation of various state and federal securities laws, elder financial abuse, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with a real estate Ponzi scheme.

Plaintiffs are numerous individual and trustee investors who invested in student housing projects either as individuals, through their business enterprises, or as trustees of trusts.  Defendants are Nelson Partners, a California limited liability company that sponsored the offering of the real estate interests, Patrick Nelson as the sole owner, president, and chief executive officer of Nelson Partners (collectively, “Nelson Partners”), Axonic Capital LLC, a hedge fund (“Axonic”), and various other individual and corporate investment advisors and funds affiliated with Nelson Partners and Axonic.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Puleo, et al. v. Nelson, et al.