Schemer

Subscribe to Schemer via RSS

Christian Fiene and Erik Kiser v. Matthew Schweinzger was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on October 27, 2021, seeking damages of more than $500,000 for state statutory and common law claims related to the Defendant’s role in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Zachery Horwitz and his company, 1inMM Capital, LLC (the “Horwitz Scheme”).

The Horwitz Scheme defrauded investors by representing that proceeds from each promissory note placed in 1inMM’s offering were going to be used to purchase the rights of particular movies, which would then be licensed to major streaming services such as HBO and Netflix.  However, Horwitz and 1inMM had no relationship with HBO or Netflix and had no plans to license any movie rights to those companies.

Plaintiffs Fiene and Kiser are two individuals who were duped into investing into the Horwitz Scheme.  Defendant Schweinzger, the Plaintiffs’ former college classmate, is a principal of JJMT Capital, LLC (“JJMT”), which Plaintiffs allege was created for the sole purpose of selling promissory notes to fund the Horwitz Scheme’s fake film licensing deals.  JJMT was paid 15% commission on each investment.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Fiene v. Schweinzger

Securities and Exchange Commission v. BNZ One Capital, LLC, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 28, 2021 claiming Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act,  the Securities Exchange Act,  and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as the registration provisions of the Securities Act. The SEC also brings claims against individual Defendants Barber and Zimmerle for violations of the broker-dealer registration provisions of the Exchange Act and accuses them of being secondarily liable for BNZ’s fraud as control persons pursuant to the Exchange Act.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. BNZ One Capital, LLC, et al.

Marfleet v. Hardin, et al. was filed in the Western District of Tennessee on October 20, 2021. The complaint alleges Defendants operated a nationwide real estate Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors by falsely promising “secured” real estate investments and above-market rates of return in exchange for capital.

Plaintiff Barry Marfleet (“Plaintiff”) is an individual investor. Defendants are James Hardin and his two companies, Defendant Hardin Enterprises Inc. and Defendant MRH Holdings, LLC, (collectively “Defendants”).

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Marfleet v. Hardin, et al.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Woods, Livingston Group Asset Management Company d/b/a Southport Capital, and Horizon Private Equity, III, LLC was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on August 20, 2021. The SEC alleges that Defendants defrauded investors, many of whom were elderly, with illusory promises of guaranteed returns for their investment in the Defendants’ affiliated fund.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. Woods, et al.

SEC v. Bullard, et al. is a new complaint filed by the SEC in the District of Minnesota on August 27, 2021.  The complaint alleges Jason Dodd Bullard and his wife Angela Romero-Bullard (the “Bullards”), the owners of Bullard Enterprises LLC (collectively “Defendants”), defrauded around 200 investors of approximately $17.6 million as part of a Ponzi scheme where the Bullards falsely claimed investors funds would be used to trade foreign currencies. The complaint alleges Defendants violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10-b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. Bullard, et al.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. MJ Capital Funding, LLC, et al. was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida on August 9, 2021, claiming that defendant Johanna M. Garcia ran a Ponzi scheme using her companies and co-defendants, MJ Capital Funding, LLC and MJ Taxes and More, Inc., to trick investors into believing they were funding loans to small businesses, when in reality, the investors’ “returns” were funded with money obtained by new investors.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. MJ Capital Funding, LLC, et al.

Fatime Abdel-Fakhara, et. al. v. The State of Vermont, et. al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont on August 24, 2021 by investors claiming that the State of Vermont and several individual Defendants wrongfully solicited and used investor funds to complete the last two phases of a Vermont ski resort after they had knowledge that the first six phases were funded through a Ponzi scheme. The complaint alleges claims for: (1) civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) constitutional taking without just compensation against the State of Vermont; (3) constitutional taking with no Due Process against the State of Vermont; and (4) gross negligence against the individual defendants.
Continue Reading… New Complaint – Fatime Abdel-Fakhara v. The State of Vermont

Puleo, et al. v. Nelson, et al. was filed in the Central District of California on August 10, 2021, seeking damages based on more than thirty claims for violation of various state and federal securities laws, elder financial abuse, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with a real estate Ponzi scheme.

Plaintiffs are numerous individual and trustee investors who invested in student housing projects either as individuals, through their business enterprises, or as trustees of trusts.  Defendants are Nelson Partners, a California limited liability company that sponsored the offering of the real estate interests, Patrick Nelson as the sole owner, president, and chief executive officer of Nelson Partners (collectively, “Nelson Partners”), Axonic Capital LLC, a hedge fund (“Axonic”), and various other individual and corporate investment advisors and funds affiliated with Nelson Partners and Axonic.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Puleo, et al. v. Nelson, 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