Plaintiff Surefire Dividend Capital, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed Surefire Dividend Capital, LP v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Financial Services LLC in the Supreme Court of New York for the County of New York on April 15, 2021, claiming at least $46,598,676.84 in money damages, along with its costs and attorneys’ fees.  Specifically, the complaint alleges claims for aiding and abetting fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Financial Services LLC (“ICBC”).

Plaintiff is an entity investor in Broad Reach Capital, LP (“Broad Reach”)—a purported hedge fund allegedly turned Ponzi-scheme ran by Brenda Smith (“Smith”).  The defendant served as the clearing broker for Broad Reach, maintained several accounts on behalf of Broad Reach, and allowed many transfers from the Broad Reach accounts to other accounts controlled by Smith, both internally and externally.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Surefire Dividend Capital, LP v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Financial Services LLC

Trinh Ngoc Pham v. The Church for the Healthy Self, A/K/A CHS Trust, et al. is a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California seeking damages related to a church-based investment scheme propped up by Ponzi-type payments.

Plaintiff is an individual who invested into the defendants’ church under the impression that the…
Continue Reading… New Complaint – Trinh Ngoc Pham v. The Church for the Healthy Self, A/K/A CHS Trust, et al.

In a recent decision in Anderjaska v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., the Southern District of New York decided that three national banks were not subject to general jurisdiction in New York for allegedly aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme.

Anderjaska highlights the utility of procedural mechanisms when defending against Ponzi-related allegations in a forum where a bank neither has its principal place of business nor its place of incorporation.  Such procedural tools should not be overlooked as a means to defend litigation.

Continue Reading… Personal Jurisdiction – An Effective Defense As Illustrated by the Southern District of New York in Dismissing Ponzi Litigation

Elghossain v. Bank of Audi, et al. was filed in the Southern District of New York on March 11, 2021, claiming that Plaintiffs were victims of a Ponzi scheme within the Lebanese banking system.

Plaintiffs are a married couple—both citizens and residents of the United States.  The defendants are two Lebanese banks, Bank Audi and Banque Du Liban.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Elghossain v. Bank of Audi, et al.

SEC v. George S. Blankenbaker, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on March 31, 2021, seeking a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from future trading, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. George S. Blankenbaker, et al.

Peters v. Gallun, et al. was filed in the Central District of California on February 18, 2021, claiming civil damages for violations of securities law, breach of contract, and conversion.

Plaintiff is an individual working as a movie producer in California (“Peters”).  The defendants are an individual acting as a business manager and equine sales agent (“Gallun”) and Gallun’s limited liability company.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Peters v. Gallun, et al.

EHC Aspen Properties, LLC v. CCUR Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior Court of California for Orange County on March 15, 2021, asserting that the Defendants coerced Plaintiff into investing in an aircraft financing Ponzi scheme.

Plaintiff is limited liability company in California managed by Luis Serrano.  The defendants are three entities—CCUR Holdings, Inc., CCUR Aviation Finance, LLC, and JDS1, LLC—and an individual, Igor Volshteyn.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – EHC Aspen Properties, LLC v. CCUR Holdings, Inc., et al.

Ebury Street Capital, LLC, et al. v. McOsker, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on February 12, 2021, claiming civil damages for an alleged $3.5  million Ponzi scheme perpetrated by the defendants.

Plaintiffs are entities in the business of buying tax lien certificates, and defendants are individuals and entities who purported to be legitimate brokers and market-makers for the selling and trading of tax lien certificates.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Ebury Street Capital, LLC, et al. v. McOsker, et al.

Ocean Development Partners, LLC (MA) and Ocean Development Partners (RI) v. Dmity Deych, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts on March 11, 2021, seeking damages and equitable relief for federal statutory and state law claims related to the defendants’ purported scheme to defraud the purchasers of certain real estate.

Plaintiffs are limited liability companies located in Massachusetts and Rhode Island that entered into an agreement to purchase a real estate development project and luxury vacation community (the “Investment”).  The defendants are individuals and entities who, largely unbeknownst to plaintiffs, likewise had an ownership or other interest in the Investment.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Ocean Development Partners, LLC, et al. v. Dmity Deych, et al.

Mar v. Mohr, et al. was filed in a California state court on February 11, 2021 as a putative class action for $170 million in civil damages against alleged co-conspirators of a retirement planning fraudster’s business.  Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of California securities law, fraud and deceit, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.

The named plaintiff is an individual investor who seeks to represent two classes amounting to over 100 other investors.  The defendants include an individual (“Mohr”) and his corporate entity, EquiAlt, LLC.  Mohr purported to provide retirement planning services alongside his licensed business of selling life insurance.  Mohr’s attorney (“Wassgren”) and unnamed Doe defendants are also included in the suit.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Mar v. Mohr, et al.