Notable litigation filed during December 2022 includes: (1) Eichler v. Vbit Technol. Corp;. (2) SEC v. Fernandez, et al.; (3) Vincent v. Barber, et al.; (4) O’Dowd v. Barber, et al.; (5) Nguyen v. Barber, et al.; (6) M. Manni v. Barber, et al.; (7) J. Manni v. Barber, et al.; and (8) Ames, et al. v. Nelson, et al.
Link to Eichler v. Vbit Technol. Corp., Civ. No. 1:22-cv-01574-CFC (D. Del.) Eichler v. Vbit Technol. Corp., Civ. No. 1:22-cv-01574-CFC (D. Del.)
Ponzi victims filed suit against schemer defendants for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme run through purported Bitcoin mining companies, VBit Technologies Corp. and Advanced Mining Group. The complaint alleges that the Defendants promised to sell, lease, and service specialized computer hardware to mine Bitcoin for investors, but in reality, functioned as a Ponzi scheme that paid earlier investors with newer investor funds. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of RICO participation and conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964(c), 1962(c), common law fraud, civil conspiracy, conversion, Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 DE Code §§ 2531, 2511, Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent misrepresentation.
Link to SEC v. Fernandez, et al., Civ. No. 4:22-cv-04265 (S.D. Tex.) SEC v. Fernandez, et al., Civ. No. 4:22-cv-04265 (S.D. Tex.)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed suit against defendant schemers for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme run through purported “financial growth” and “foreign exchange (‘forex’) trading expert” companies, Avail Progression, LLC and Elite Generators, Inc. The complaint alleges that Defendants promised to pay investors guaranteed returns by trading their funds in the forex markets, but instead used investor funds to make Ponzi-like payments and to cover Defendants’ personal expenses. The SEC seeks recovery under theories of violations of several provisions of the Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act, permanent injunctive relief against all Defendants to prevent future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties.
Link to Vincent v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7754; O’Dowd v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7755 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Nguyen v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7756, (Cal. Super. Ct.); Manni v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7757 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Manni v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7758 (Cal. Super. Ct.) Vincent v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7754; O’Dowd v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7755 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Nguyen v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7756, (Cal. Super. Ct.); Manni v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7757 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Manni v. Barber, et al., Civ. No. T22-7758 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
Link to Ames, et al. v. Nelson, et al., Civ. No. 2:22-cv-09400-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal.) Ames, et al. v. Nelson, et al., Civ. No. 2:22-cv-09400-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal.)
Ponzi victims filed suit against defendant schemers for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme run through purported real estate investment firms, Nelson Partners LLC and Axonic Capital LLC, that claimed to specialize in acquiring and managing off-campus student housing projects. The complaint alleges that Defendants targeted the senior citizen community and misappropriated investor funds to pay for the next project that it would sell to another group of investors, like a Ponzi scheme. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of violations of federal securities law, elder financial abuse, violations of state securities law, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraud.