Investors

Subscribe to Investors via RSS

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 Midyear Roundup, the majority of actions filed in September involved real estate investment schemes and targeted solicitation of affinity groups.

Notable litigation filed in September 2023 includes: (1) Conlan v. Roach, et al.; (2) Reispec Develop. LLC v. Pina, et al.; (3) Dottore v. SDR Realty; (4) SEC v. Kubler, et al.; (5) McGrath v. Palowet Inv., LLC; (6) SEC v. Feloni, et al.; (7) SEC v. Aras Inv. Bus. Grp., et al.; (8) American Eagle Oil & Gas Co., et al. v. Navarro Prod. Co., et al.; (9) Luppino v. Spano, et al.; and (10) SEC v. Motil, et al.

Continue Reading… Notable Litigation – September 2023

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…

Continue Reading… Ponzi Perspectives: 2022 Year-End Roundup

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…

Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. JMJ Capital Group and Richard Lee Ramirez

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.