Notable litigation filed during December 2023 includes: (1) Wells, et al. v. Edisto River Investors, LLC, et al.; (2) Dagan, et al. v. Greenfield, et al.; (3) SEC v. Agridime LLC, et al.; and (4) Barnett, et al. v. Bey, et al.
Wells, et al. v. Edisto River Investors, LLC, et al., No. 2023-CP-230636 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Greenville Cnty.)
Ponzi victims filed suit against defendant schemers in South Carolina state court for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme in which individuals were solicited to invest in commercial real estate ventures. The complaint alleges that defendants induced victims to loan a total of $2.6 million dollars with a promise to pay quarterly ordinary interest. However, defendant schemers failed to pay out quarterly installment payments because each of the ventures were either failing or nonexistent. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of breach of contract and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Dagan, et al. v. Greenfield, et al., No. A-23-883197-C (Nev. Dist. Ct.)
Court-appointed trustee filed suit against administrator of the debtor’s co-conspirator’s estate in Nevada federal court for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme. The complaint alleges that the co-conspirator received and retained funds from the debtor, arising out of the debtor’s 15-plus year fraudulent investment scheme. Because the debtor is currently a party to proceedings in Israel with respect to the Ponzi scheme, the debtor’s trustee now seeks recovery from the co-conspirator under theories of aiding and abetting a fraud and civil conspiracy.
SEC v. Agridime LLC, et al., No. 4-23CV-1224P (N.D. Tex.)
The SEC filed suit against defendant schemers in Texas federal court for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme run through investments in the purchase, care, and processing of cattle. The complaint alleges that more than 2,100 investors funded cattle purchases to passively profit from cattle ownership with guaranteed annual returns ranging from 15% to 32%. However, rather than using investor funds to purchase cattle, they were instead used to pay returns to existing investors. To protect the public from further fraudulent activity, the SEC seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
Barnett, et al. v. Bey, et al., No. 2023-L-012907 (Ill. Cir. Ct.)
Ponzi victims filed suit against the defendant schemers in Illinois state court for losses arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme run through purported real estate joint venture investments in and around Chicago. The complaint alleges that the schemers promised to teach investors how to profit from “flipping” distressed properties through a joint venture program for 30% of the profits, and in return for financing the operation, investors would receive 70% of the profits. However, schemers hid undisclosed fees from investors and concealed that investor funds were instead used to fund other real estate and construction projects. Plaintiffs seek recovery under theories of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, consumer fraud, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.