Heinen v. iDigrati, LLC, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia on December 16, 2021, claiming civil damages for breach of contract and state securities violations in connection with purported investments in promissory notes sold by Defendants.

Plaintiff is an individual who invested $200,000 with Defendant in exchange for a promissory note. Defendants are the investment company, iDigrati, LLC (“iDigrati”) and its two operating individuals, Narendra Patel and Bruce Rowland.  Rowland is deceased and is represented by his estate in this action.

Ampersand Capital Partners has announced it has sold portfolio company Adaptas Solutions to IMI.

Adaptas, based in Palmer, Mass., provides components for complex laboratory instruments in the life sciences, diagnostics and lab automation markets.

IMI, formerly Imperial Metal Industries, is a British-based engineering company that designs, manufactures and services engineered products that control…

Sentinel Capital Partners has acquired TTG Imaging Solutions, according to a news release.

TTG, based in Pittsburgh, Pa., provides a range of products and services to cardiology, oncology and other types of providers. Founded in 2004, the company has grown significantly in recent years, completing nine transactions since March 2019.

Sentinel Capital Partners…

In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit weighed in on what standard to apply in reviewing government motions to dismiss False Claims Act (FCA) actions.  As discussed in detail in a July 2021 Law360 article titled “Tide Is Turning Against FCA Case Dismissals,” a three-way circuit split has developed regarding the standard governing a government motion to dismiss a whistleblower’s non-intervened qui tam case, but the varying approaches in the courts may be less important to the viability of government dismissals than the actions of the executive and legislative branches.[1]

Finback Investment Partners has invested in Equality Health, according to a news release.

Equality, based in Phoenix and founded in 2015, is a population health risk management company and provider of value-based physician networks focused on improving care delivery for underserved populations.

Finback, based in Coral Gables, Fla., is a private equity…

Two related cases, Bradley D. Sharp v. Shinhan Bank Co., Ltd. (the “Shinhan Action”) and Sharp v. Daishin Securities Co., Ltd. (the “Daishin Action”), were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on November 23, 2021 by the receivers for various businesses under the Direct Lending Investments, LLC umbrella of companies (“Direct Lending”).  Both actions allege that certain redemptions paid out to investors in a fraudulent investment scheme constitute constructive and actual fraudulent transfers under California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, regardless of the investors’ knowledge of the underlying fraud.

Plaintiffs in both actions are receivers (the “Receivers”) appointed in the underlying SEC enforcement action against an investment manager entity that was used to carry out a fraudulent investment scheme (the “Receivership Entity”). Defendants in the Shinhan Action are investment funds (the “Defendant Funds”) that invested in the scheme, trustees (the “Defendant Trustees”) that entered into subscription agreements with the Receivership Entity on the Defendant Fund’s behalf, and fund managers (the “Defendant Managers,”) that sold the funds to investors.   Defendant in the Daishin Action is a South Korean investment company that invested in the scheme.