Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Subscribe to Breach of Fiduciary Duty

September was an active month for Ponzi litigation with nearly a dozen new complaints filed alleging fraudulent investment activity. The SEC continues to drive Ponzi-related litigation; in addition to four enforcement actions brought last month, previous SEC litigation precipitated several complaints filed by investors and court-appointed receivers. Consistent with the trends discussed in Ponzi Perspective’s…

Notable litigation filed during August 2023 includes: (1) SEC v. Rocha; (2) Legum v. Garfinkel, et al.; and (3) SEC v. Conn. Jr.

SEC v. Rocha, No. 1:23-cv-11779-LTS (D. Mass.)

The SEC filed suit against the schemer defendant for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi wherein the defendant promised to invest the…

Notable litigation filed during June 2023 includes: (1) Bowman v. Unibank; (2) SEC v. Baston; (3) Hafen v. Guyon, et al.; (4) SEC v. Royal Bengal Logistics, et al.; (5) Decimal Capital Partners v. Benavente; and (6) Agri Capital v. Soberal, et al.

Bowman v. Unibank, No. 2:23-cv-00971-JCC (W.D.

…

Notable litigation filed during May 2023 includes: (1) SEC v. Bartlett; (2) SEC v. Griffin; (3) Warrow v. Turnipseede; and (4) Commodity Future Trading Commission v. Galles.

SEC v. Bartlett, Case No. 8:23-cv-00765 (C.D. Cal.)

The SEC filed suit against defendant schemers in California federal court for an alleged scheme…

McGuireWoods’ Ponzi Litigation team launched its Ponzi Perspectives blog in early 2021. Since that time, we’ve posted detailed case alerts of Ponzi-related complaints filed throughout the country and posted key decisions that have the potential to influence controlling law on Ponzi-related issues involving financial institutions. This 2022 year-end round up summarizes the cases and opinions analyzed…

McGuireWoods’ Ponzi Litigation team launched its Ponzi Perspectives blog in early 2021.  Since that time, our focus is to track key cases and decisions that have the potential to influence controlling law on Ponzi-related issues.  The blog also offers analysis on practical considerations when defending Ponzi litigation.  This 2022 mid-year round up summarizes the new…

Tu Le et al. v. Prestige Community Credit Union, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 18, 2022, is the second putative class action filed in connection with a church-based investment scheme propped up by Ponzi-type payments, this time targeting the bank that housed the schemers’ accounts.

Plaintiffs Tu Le, Geneva Nguyen, and Mai T. Ly are individuals who invested in a scheme run by entities related to a now-defunct church and its pastor, convicted felon Kent R.E. Whitney (the “Whitney Schemers”).  The scheme targeted individuals by misrepresenting that their funds would be used to open investment accounts earning over 10% interest, but very little of investor funds actually went into trading accounts. Defendant Prestige Community Credit Union (“Prestige”) is the credit union purportedly used by the Whitney Schemers.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all individuals who invested and lost money with any of the Whitney Schemers, as well as a sub-class of all such class members who were residents of California and over 65 years old at the time of investment.Continue Reading New Complaint – Tu Le et al. v. Prestige Community Credit Union

Bui v. Nguyen was filed in California Superior Court on December 30, 2021, claiming relief for civil damages. Specifically, the complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory fraud, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and conversion.

Plaintiffs are three individuals who invested funds with Defendants The Church for the Healthy Self a/k/a CHS Trust (“Defendant Church”), its pastor Kent Whitney (“Whitney”), other individuals touting the alleged scheme, and various television stations.Continue Reading New Complaint – Bui v. Nguyen, et al.

DeCoster v. One Seven d/b/a We Are One Seven, J Wellington Financial, LLC, and Jason Jodway was filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Macomb, Michigan on January 28, 2022, seeking damages and equitable relief along with interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees for claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent supervision.

Plaintiffs Michelle and Lawrence DeCoster are individuals who allegedly fell victim to a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Heartland Group Ventures, LLC and its affiliates (“Heartland”).  Defendant Jason Jodway (“Jodway”) is alleged to have advised the Plaintiffs to invest in the scheme, and Defendants One Seven d/b/a We are One Seven (“One Seven”) and J Wellington Financial, LLC (“Wellington”) are purportedly liable for the actions of Jodway as their agent, though Jodway’s connection to Wellington is not clear.Continue Reading New Complaint – DeCoster v. One Seven d/b/a We Are One Seven, LLC