Schemer

Subscribe to Schemer via RSS

Abidog v. New York Life Insurance Co. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on June 18, 2021, seeking damages and rescission of unregistered promissory notes sold in a Ponzi scheme that deprived elderly and other unwitting investors of their life savings.  The fifteen-count complaint alleges violations of California statutory and common law, as well as federal securities law.

Defendant Felix Chu is a former agent of Defendants New York Life Insurance Company and NYLIFE Securities LLC (collectively, “New York Life”) who used his role at New York Life to perpetrate the Ponzi scheme.  Plaintiffs are investors in the scheme.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Abidog v. New York Life Insurance Co.

SEC v. The Estate of Kenneth J. Casey is a case filed by the SEC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2, 2021, claiming that Kenneth Casey (“Casey”), the founder of Professional Financial Investors, Inc. (“PFI”), a real estate investment and management company, personally misappropriated over $10 million from investors as part of a scheme where Casey falsely told investors that their money would be used to invest in multi-unit residential and commercial real estate. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Casey violated 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].

According to the complaint, Casey’s fraudulent scheme began to unravel shortly after his death, when questions arose about the solvency of PFI and one of Casey’s other companies, PISF. The SEC had previously filed an action against the president of PFI for his role in a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate funds from investors.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. The Estate of Kenneth J. Casey

Whitmore v. Horwitz was filed in the Central District of California on April 20, 2021, seeking class certification and unspecified civil damages. The complaint alleges fraud by omission, aiding and abetting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs are a group of investors seeking to represent a class of those who invested in Horwitz’s company, 1inMM Capital, LLC (“1inMM”). The defendants are Zachary Horwitz, 1inMM, and City National Bank (“City National”), the bank that Horwitz and 1inMM used.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – Whitmore v. Horwitz

The SEC filed SEC v. Silver in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on April 13, 2021, claiming Defendant Silver orchestrated and carried out a string of frauds to cover up tens of millions of dollars in losses on bad bets to keep his investment advisory business afloat. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Defendant Silver was the co-founder, managing partner, and chief operating officer of his business, International Investment Group LLC (“IIG”), which specialized in advising clients in investments in emerging market economies. IIG formed three private funds with stated strategies of investing trade finance loans marketed to qualified institutional investors.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. Silver

The SEC filed SEC v. Horwitz in the Central District of California on April 5, 2021, alleging that Defendant Horowitz violated federal securities laws in connection with fraudulent promissory notes issued by Horwitz’s company. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act, 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and 10b-5 of the Exchange Act Rules.

Defendant Horwitz was the owner and operator of Defendant 1inMM, which purported to be a company in the business of obtaining distribution rights to certain movies in order to license those rights to media companies like Netflix and HBO.

Continue Reading… New Complaint – SEC v. Horwitz