LITIGATION LAUNCH NO. 17422 / March 19, 2002
Securities and Exchange Commission v. ACE Payday Plus, LLC d/b/a ACE Payday Plus II, LLC, ACE Management, LLC, ACE Payday Management, Inc., and James Bianco, Case No. 1-02-20858-Civ. -Ungaro-Benages (S.D. Fla. March 19, 2002)
Today, the Commission filed a crisis enforcement action in america District Court when it comes to Southern District of Florida against ACE Payday Plus, LLC, d/b/a ACE Payday Plus II, LLC (“Ace Payday”), a start-up company purportedly providing “check cashing” and “payday advance” services; ACE Management, LLC and ACE Payday Management, Inc., two entities individually defined as Ace Payday’s Manager; and James Bianco (“Bianco”), who managed Ace Payday as well as its affiliates. The Commission alleges that defendants raised at the very least $800,000 from at the least 30 investors by fraudulently providing and membership that is selling in Ace Payday through telemarketers called “independent product product sales workplaces” or “ISOs. ” The Complaint alleges that defendants told investors that 90% associated with the providing profits could be utilized to develop Ace Payday’s company when, in fact, 40% to 45per cent went along to the ISOs as product product cashland sales commissions. The Complaint additionally alleges that defendants lured investors by guaranteeing investment that is excessive and also by baselessly projecting wildly optimistic earnings as high as 720per cent per 12 months. The court issued an order temporarily restraining defendants from violating the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws, freezing defendants’ assets, and granting other emergency relief on the Commission’s motion. A hearing in the Commission’s movement for a initial injunction is planned for April 5, 2002.
The names that are complaint defendants:
Ace Payday, a Florida limited liability business headquartered in North Miami Beach, Florida.
Bianco, a resident of North Miami Beach, Florida, together with executive that is chief of Payday, Ace Management, LLC, and Ace Payday Management, Inc.
Ace Management, LLC, identified into the providing materials as a Florida restricted obligation business, Ace Payday’s “Manager, ” and “a specialist pay day loan and always check cashing Management Co. “
Ace Payday Management, Inc., a Florida organization identified on Ace Payday’s Florida state filings since the LLC supervisor for Ace Payday.
The Complaint alleges that:
Defendants have actually carried out the providing by way of different written materials, that they provided for potential investors at the way regarding the ISOs.
In these materials, defendants describe Ace Payday as being a start-up business in the industry of providing “retail pay day loan” and “check cashing” services, declare that check cashing is possibly ” the quickest growing industry in the usa today, ” and encourage investors to “take benefit of taking part in this lucrative industry. ” Defendants project that the company’s pay day loan operations will produce “the average of as much as 360% revenue per and that the business’s check cashing operations will create “up to 720per cent each year. 12 months” they provide investors (a) interest in the price of 20% per year become compensated at a consistent level of 5% each quarter for 3 years, and b that is( a pro-rata share associated with business’s earnings. In fact, between 40% and 45% for the providing profits have now been utilized to compensate the ISO’s, which work as unregistered agents soliciting unsophisticated investors. Defendants do not have foundation for guaranteeing 20% interest payable quarterly or projecting such positive earnings – specially now, as Ace Payday currently has neglected to satisfy its quarterly responsibilities to investors.
The Commission’s issue charges all the defendants with breaking the antifraud and enrollment conditions associated with federal securities rules, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) for the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) associated with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Besides the emergency relief described above, the Complaint seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations for the securities guidelines, disgorgement, and penalties that are civil.
