Notable litigation filed during August 2024 includes: (1) Garcia, et al. v. Jazzberry Digital Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 30-2024-01419250 (Cal. Super. Ct.); (2) Dottore v. Scheibal Property Development, Inc., No. cv-2024-08-08-3519 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pl.); and (3) SEC v. Mendia-Alcaraz, et al., No. 24-cv-5823 (N.D. Cal.).
Fraudulent Transfer
Notable Litigation – July 2024
Notable litigation filed during July 2024 includes: (1) SEC v. Kralik, et al., No. 24-cv-01460 (C.D. Cal.); (2) Yang, et al. v. Fei, et al., No. 24-cv-05055 (S.D.N.Y.); (3) Mentink, et al. v. Rowe, et al., No. 24-cv-02047 (D.D.C.); (4) Osprey Investment, Inc. v. Sawyer, et al., No. 24-cv-443476 (Cal. Super.
Continue Reading… Notable Litigation – July 2024Notable Litigation – January 2024
Notable litigation filed during January 2024 includes: (1) Bajuri v. Shiba Prop, LLC, et al. and (2) SEC v. Lee, et al.
New Complaint – Damian as Receiver of Today’s Growth Consultant, Inc. v. Core Financial Outsourcing of Chicago, LLC
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
New Complaint – Conlan v. Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp.
Conlan v. Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on June 14, 2022, claiming Defendants illegally profited from violations of securities laws. The complaint seeks to avoid multiple actual and constructive fraudulent transfers.
Plaintiff is court-appointed substitute receiver Mark Conlan (the “Receiver”), serving as representative and fiduciary of the creditors of the defendants named in the action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) captioned United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mediatrix Capital Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02594-RM-SKC (the “SEC Action”). Defendants Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp., Autumn Gold Service, Crown Financial Services, Crown Private Limited, Marta Nystrom, Mercury Alternative Fund, Patricia Velcich, Phenom Ventures, Ritossa Investment Holding Ltd., and Y Man Investments are brokers that allegedly received funds in connection with the foreign currency trading scheme at issue in the SEC Action.
The SEC Action names individuals Michael A. Young, Michael S. Stewart, and Bryant E. Sewall and entities Mediatrix Capital Inc. (“Mediatrix”), Blue Isle Markets Inc., and Blue Isle Markets Ltd. (collectively, the “Receivership Defendants”).
Continue Reading… New Complaint – Conlan v. Alternative Asset Management Acquisition Corp.
New Complaint – Schwartz v. McGregor
Schwartz v. McGregor was filed in the District Court of Denver County, Colorado on January 10, 2022, seeking relief under Colorado’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, C.R.S. § 38-8-101-112 (“CUFTA”), including a turnover and accounting and damages for actual and constructive fraud.
Plaintiff Gary Schwartz is a court-appointed Receiver (“Receiver”) on behalf of a multi-million-dollar fraudulent investment scheme perpetrated by Mark Ray (“Ray”). The Receiver was appointed over Mark Ray, Custom Consulting & Product Services, LLC, MR Cattle Production Services, LLC, Universal Herbs, LLC, DBC Limited, LLC, RM Farm & Livestock, LLC, Sunshine Enterprises (the “Estate entities”). Defendant Eric McGregor (“Defendant”) was an investor in the Ponzi scheme who allegedly received numerous avoidable transfers from the Estate entities.
New Complaint – Freitag, as Receiver for ANI Development LLC v. Dean Libs, et al.
Freitag, as Receiver for ANI Development LLC v. Dean Libs, et al. was filed in the Southern District of California on January 25, 2022, asserting one claim for fraudulent transfer.
Plaintiff is the court-appointed permeant receiver for ANI Development LLC (“ANI Development”), American National Investments, Inc., and their subsidiaries and affiliates (“Receivership Entities”) in an action titled SEC v. Gina Champion-Cain, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01628-LAB-AHG (“SEC Action”). Plaintiff was appointed Receiver in the SEC Action and was vested with exclusive authority and control over the assets of the Receivership Entities, as well as investigatory powers. This action is against Defendant Dean Libs, in his individual capacity, and Defendant Dean Libs Inc., a California corporation.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – Freitag, as Receiver for ANI Development LLC v. Dean Libs, et al.
New Complaints – Sharp v. Shinhan Bank Co., et al. & Sharp v. Daishin Securities Co., Ltd.
Two related cases, Bradley D. Sharp v. Shinhan Bank Co., Ltd. (the “Shinhan Action”) and Sharp v. Daishin Securities Co., Ltd. (the “Daishin Action”), were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 23, 2021 by the receivers for various businesses under the Direct Lending Investments, LLC umbrella of companies (“Direct Lending”). Both actions allege that certain redemptions paid out to investors in a fraudulent investment scheme constitute constructive and actual fraudulent transfers under California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, regardless of the investors’ knowledge of the underlying fraud.
Plaintiffs in both actions are receivers (the “Receivers”) appointed in the underlying SEC enforcement action against an investment manager entity that was used to carry out a fraudulent investment scheme (the “Receivership Entity”). Defendants in the Shinhan Action are investment funds (the “Defendant Funds”) that invested in the scheme, trustees (the “Defendant Trustees”) that entered into subscription agreements with the Receivership Entity on the Defendant Fund’s behalf, and fund managers (the “Defendant Managers,”) that sold the funds to investors. Defendant in the Daishin Action is a South Korean investment company that invested in the scheme.
New Complaint – Winkler v. Roshak, et al.
Geoff Winkler, as Receiver for Profit Connect Wealth Services, Inc. v. William Roshak, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on November 4, 2021 asserting claims for (1) fraudulent transfer; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) declaratory relief; and (4) attorneys’ fees and costs.
Plaintiff is the court-appointed receiver of Profit Connect Wealth Services, Inc. (“Profit Connect”) in an action titled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Profit Connect Wealth Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-cv-01298-JAD-BNW (D. Nev.) (the “SEC Action”). Plaintiff was appointed as the Receiver in that matter and granted broad authority to investigate claims and institute actions and legal proceedings on behalf of Profit Connect and its investors. This action is against Defendants William Roshak in his individual capacity and d/b/a/ William George Photography, Melissa Roshak, Tetiana Luzhanska, and Tina M. Leiss, in her sole capacity as the executive officer of the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (“PERS”).
New Complaint – Mills v. Trustmark National Bank, et al.
Mills v. Trustmark National Bank, et al. was filed in the Southern District of Mississippi on August 19, 2021 by a receiver appointed on behalf of companies engaged in a scheme to defraud investors by producing false deeds for the purchase and sale of timber.
Plaintiff Alysson Mills (“Plaintiff”) is the Receiver for Arthur Adams (“Adams”) and his company turned Ponzi scheme Madison Timber Properties, LLC (“Madison Timber”). The defendants are Trustmark Corporation d/b/a Trustmark National Bank (“Trustmark”), Southern Bancorp Bank (“Southern”), Riverhills Bank (“Riverhills”), Bennie Butts (“Butts”), and Jud Watkins (“Watkins”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Butts and Watkins were employees of Trustmark and Riverhills during the alleged Ponzi scheme.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – Mills v. Trustmark National Bank, et al.