Notable litigation filed during April 2023 includes: (1) SEC v. French, et al., (2) Gary Kennedy v. Ghap, LLC, et al., (3) Abanda v. OurBloc LLC, et al.,(4) Sunrise NPL, LLC v. Easy Financial, LLC, et al., and(5) Joseph v. General Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventist et al.
SEC v. French, et al., No. 1:23-cv-01443-JPB (N.D. Ga.).
The SEC filed suit against schemers and relief defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme through the sale of promissory notes. The complaint alleges that Defendant French and his company MJF Holdings, LLC sold more than $20 million in promissory notes to investors throughout the country. Defendants represented to prospective investors their money would be deployed into small business lending or fractional-loan investing program in exchange for a 12% return, but instead was funneled and pooled into Defendant’s personal accounts, used to pay referral fees, and to make Ponzi payments to earlier investors. The SEC seeks recovery for violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act.
Gary Kennedy v. Ghap, LLC, et al., No. 153-341520-23 (Tex. Dist.).
Ponzi victims filed suit against the schemers in Texas State Court in Tarrant County for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme concerning promissory notes. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs invested their IRA accounts with schemers to purchase promissory notes that would be used to invest in various properties. Plaintiff were promised they would be repaid their principal plus interest from the sale of the properties. However, while Plaintiffs’ notes have matured, they allege they have still not been repaid their principal plus interest. The schemers sent an email correspondence to all investors admitting that when payments became due before profit distributions were available from the sale of properties, the schemers raised additional funds to pay earlier investors. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; and (3) imposition of a constructive trust.
Abanda v. OurBloc LLC, et al., No. 8:23-cv-01071-PX (D. Md.).
Ponzi victims filed suit against the schemers in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme involving cryptocurrency and High Yield Savings Accounts. The complaint alleges that the schemers created proprietary cryptocurrency tokens and Ponzi victims were encouraged to purchase the proprietary cryptocurrency tokens. Thereafter, the scheme evolved where Ponzi victims were encouraged to invested in High Yield Savings products in exchange for a high yield. The invested funds were then diverted, commingled, and used for other purposes including to pay yields to earlier investors, with substantial amounts misappropriated by the schemers for personal use and to fund other unrelated investments and businesses. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of (1) violation of securities law; (2) breach of contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) securities fraud; and (5) fraud in the inducement.
Sunrise NPL, LLC v. Easy Financial, LLC, et al., No.ATL-L-000700-23 (N.J. Sup. Ct.).
Ponzi victim filed suit against the schemers and title company in the New Jersey Superior Court for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme involving the sale of mortgage loans. The schemers would sell numerous loans that were in payment default to the same investors. This particular action stems from the scheme and targets a specific sale where schemers aided and abetted by entering into an assignment agreement after the mortgage was purchased and assigned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks recovery under theories of (1) fraud; (2) negligence; (3) aiding and abetting fraud; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) declaratory judgment.
Joseph v. General Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Adventist, et al., No. 1:23-cv-21552-RNS (S.D. Fla.).
Ponzi victims filed suit against the schemers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme involving trading of cryptocurrency. The schemers promised parishioner investors a 5% return each week based on the development of a special robot to assist trading in cryptocurrency. The schemers did not invest any of the money collected, but rather used later investors’ money to pay earlier investors. Plaintiffs seeks recovery under theories of (1) federal RICO; (2) fraud; (3) civil conspiracy to commit fraud; (4) exemplary punitive damages; (5) three counts of Florida RICO; (8) Florida Securities And Investor Protection Act; (9) negligent hiring, training, and supervision; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (11) negligent infliction of emotional distress.