Fraudulent Transfer

Subscribe to Fraudulent Transfer

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

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.

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.Continue Reading New Complaint – Schwartz v. McGregor

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.

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.Continue Reading New Complaints – Sharp v. Shinhan Bank Co., et al. & Sharp v. Daishin Securities Co., Ltd.

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”).Continue Reading New Complaint – Winkler v. Roshak, 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.

The collapse of a Ponzi scheme usually follows a familiar pattern.  When the scheme is exposed, the company created by the schemer—which is usually little more than a sham entity—is placed into receivership or declares bankruptcy (or both).  A receiver or bankruptcy trustee is then tasked with recovering any funds belonging to the estate so that they may be distributed to creditors.  As part of this process, these court-appointed parties step into the shoes of the company and may bring any litigation that the company itself could have brought.  Bankruptcy trustees are also granted the exclusive right to bring “general claims” on behalf of the entities’ creditors.

This process creates a thorny question: who may seek recovery from a third party alleged to have been involved in the fraud?  Creditors that lent funds to sham companies often pursue claims against financial institutions that banked the schemers on aiding-and-abetting theories.  Yet receivers and trustees also often bring these claims, leading to duplicative litigation and the question of who properly “owns” the claim.

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota provides important guidance on this question.  Ritchie v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 14-cv-04786, 2021 WL 2686079 (D. Minn. June 30, 2021) untangles who has standing to bring claims against a third party alleged to have aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme.  As the Court explains, “general” claims for loss of funds belong exclusively to court-appointed bankruptcy trustees.  Third parties may only bring particularized claims that arise from injuries “directly traceable” to the defendant’s conduct.  Ritchie thus serves as a touchstone in disputes over standing in Ponzi litigation.Continue Reading Minnesota Court Untangles Who Owns What Claim in the Fallout of a Ponzi Scheme

Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd, et al. was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on May 28, 2021.  The complaint was filed by a Receiver appointed in an action brought by the Commodity Futures Trade Commission (the “CFTC”) alleging the operation of a Ponzi scheme.  The complaint alleges (1) aiding and abetting fraud, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, (3) gross negligence, and (4) simple negligence.  In addition, the complaint seeks to avoid alleged fraudulent transfers received by ATC Brokers Ltd.

Plaintiff is the court appointed Receiver over Oasis International Group, Limited, Oasis Management LLC, and Satellite Holdings Company (the “Oasis Entities”) in an action filed by the CFTC, titled Commodity Futures Trade Commission v. Oasis International Group, Limited, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2019).  Defendants include: (1) ATC Brokers Ltd., the exchange firm the Ponzi scheme operators used to carry out the scheme; (2) Spotex LLC, the entity that provided the software used to carry out the Ponzi scheme; and (3) an owner of both entity Defendants.Continue Reading New Complaint – Wiand as Receiver for Oasis International Group, Limited, et al. v. ATC Brokers Ltd, et al.