Analysis, Impact, and Outlook on Ponzi Scheme Litigation
Notable litigation filed during August 2023 includes: (1) SEC v. Rocha; (2) Legum v. Garfinkel, et al.; and (3) SEC v. Conn. Jr.
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.
Notable litigation filed during March 2023 includes: (1) SEC v. Woodard; (2) SEC v. Kaplan; (3) James Bay Resources Limited, et al. v. Lockett & Horwitz, et al.; (4) Miklos v. McNamara, et al.; and (5) Scura, et al. v. Heppner, et al.
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…
Notable litigation filed during January 2023 includes: (1) SEC v. Engel; (2) Firestone, et al. v. Residential Properties Resources Fund II, LLC, et al.; (3) Ellusionist Cash Balance Plan and Trust, et al. v. Spiegel Accountancy Corp., et al.; and (4) SEC v. Ellison-Meade.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lam, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 22, 2022, claiming Defendants Brian Lam (“Lam”), Nathan Nguyen (“Nguyen”), NineSquare Capital Partners LLC (“NineSquare Capital”), and Nguyen Group LLC (“NGL”) (collectively, “Defendants”) violated several provisions of the Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act. Specifically, the SEC seeks permanent injunctive relief against all Defendants to prevent future violations of the federal securities laws, permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants Lam and Nguyen from participating in an unregistered securities offering, disgorgement with prejudgment interest from Defendants and Relief Defendants Yi Ping Lu and Thy Stacy Nguyen (the “Relief Defendants”), and civil penalties against Defendants.
The SEC filed this action against Defendants for operating an offering fraud that targeted the Vietnamese-American community, which raised $11.7 million from 73 investors nationwide from March 2020 to January 2022. Defendant Lam orchestrated the fraud through his company NineSquare, a Delaware limited partnership which purported to be a hedge fund. Defendant Nguyen is the principal of NGL, a company that helped solicit investors in NineSquare. The two Relief Defendants, Yi Ping Lu, Lam’s wife, and Thy Stacy Nguyen, Nguyen’s wife, purportedly used proceeds from the fraud to pay for luxury homes purchased in their names.Continue Reading New Complaint – Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lam, et al.
SEC v. JMJ Capital Group and Richard Lee Ramirez is a Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) enforcement action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on September 30, 2022. JMJ Capital Group (“JMJ”) is a California corporation and Richard Lee Ramirez (“Ramirez”) is the owner and sole operator of JMJ…
Oregon JV LLC v. Advanced Investment et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on March 2, 2022. Plaintiff asserts claims sounding in fraud and requests compensatory and equitable relief against a construction lender and other individuals and entities that funded various loans to a homebuilder with a history of fraud and embezzlement.
Plaintiff is a company that managed a construction loan pool for non-party Joseph Russi. Defendant Advanced Investment Corp (“AIC”) is an Oregon-based corporation that previously managed the loan pool at issue. The remaining Defendants consist of trustees of various trusts, Oregon-based financial institutions, and several Oregon residents, all of which were investors in the subject loan pool (the “Defendant Lenders”).Continue Reading New Complaint – Oregon JV LLC v. Advanced Investment et al.
Aarus Enterprises LLC v. Burgerim Group USA, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles on February 15, 2022, seeking civil damages from a fraudulent investment scheme involving the purchase and sale of fast-food burger franchises. Specifically, the complaint alleges promissory fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and concealment.
Plaintiffs include over fifteen individuals and entities who invested in the burger franchises. The Defendants are the burger franchise Burgerim Group USA, Inc. (“Burgerim”) and unnamed individuals who participated in the scheme.
Plaintiffs contend they were presented the chance to invest in Burgerim, which represented itself as the fastest growing fast-food burger franchise. Burgerim told investors they could purchase a franchise for $50,000, a portion of which could be financed or paid later. Burgerim also offered to assist with real estate transactions in opening the franchise restaurants. But Burgerim did not deliver on those promises. Instead, it gave investors unrealistic financing options and unworkable estimates for construction timelines and costs. Burgerim also hid from investors that it used new franchisees’ fees to repay existing franchisees and received kickbacks from vendors, real estate agents, and other representatives.Continue Reading New Complaint – Aarus Enterprises LLC v. Burgerim Group USA, Inc.
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
