Tag: Innovation Marketing LLC

  • BULLETIN: Judge In Zeek Clawback Cases Grants Receiver’s Motion To Certify Class Of 9,400 Alleged Winners; Todd Disner Faces Default; Phil Piccolo May Be Background Player

    breakingnews72BULLETIN: (Updated 11:11 p.m. ET U.S.A.) Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen has certified a class of more than 9,000 alleged “winners” of more than $1,000 in the Zeek Rewards scheme.

    Receiver Kenneth D. Bell sued more than 10 named “winners” in February 2014 in a case styled “Kenneth D. Bell v. Todd Disner, et al.” The suit included class claims against about 9,400 winners of smaller sums.

    The ruling by Mullen effectively means the winners of the smaller sums are now defendants who will be represented by the same lawyers representing the larger winners. Bell “proposed that one or more of the following named Defendants serve as Class Representatives: Trudy Gilmond and Trudy Gilmond, LLC; Jerry Napier; Darren Miller; Rhonda Gates; Innovation Marketing, LLC; Aaron Andrews; Shara Andrews; Global Internet Formula, Inc.; T. LeMont Silver; Karen Silver; and Durant Brockett,” Mullen wrote.

    Disner is facing a default judgment of more than $2 million, but is trying to get it reversed.

    Bell asked for the class certification in July 2014, explaining that he “asked that the Court appoint one or more of the largest net winners sued by name as class representatives because they will, by virtue of their own defense to the same claims, be adequate and appropriate representatives for the rest of the Net Winner Class.”

    Mullen agreed today with that logic.

    “If the Receiver herein was forced to file separate actions against the 9,400 Defendants, he would certainly be risking inconsistent and varying adjudications,” Mullen wrote. “If one court found that a fraudulent transfer occurred, but another court did not, then those inconsistent decisions would place the Receiver in a stalemated or conflicted position. If the Receiver attempted to enforce a valid judgment against a particular Defendant, that Defendant might refuse to pay because other Defendants similarly situated were not held to be liable for the same underlying conduct related to ZeekRewards. An additional layer of inconsistency would arise if the Receiver attempts to settle a lawsuit, but the Net Winner Defendant is not willing to compromise since that Defendant is already aware of the inconsistent adjudication based on the same set of facts. These anomalous results would leave the Receiver in an untenable position and circumstances such as these are precisely why class actions exist.”

    Mullen specifically found that, with 9,400 defendants, Bell had satisfied the “numerosity requirement” to make a class-action reasonable and efficient. He also found that Bell had established a “commonality factor” in that the smaller winners had things in common with the larger ones.

    These included questions about “whether ZeeksRewards’ operation was a Ponzi and/or pyramid scheme,” Mullen wrote.

    And, he noted, “[a]ll class members had or controlled usernames and accounts with ZeekRewards through which they received funds from [Zeek operator Rex Venture Group]. Further, each class member received more money from RVG than they paid into RVG (their ‘net winnings’) during the course of their participation as affiliates in the ZeekRewards program. There is also a common question of law, that is: whether the payments from ZeekRewards to class members are fraudulent transfers that must be disgorged and repaid.”

    Bell also satisfied a “typicality” requirement that examines whether “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class,” Mullen ruled.

    At the same time, the judge ruled, Bell had shown that the class of 9,400 would receive “fair and adequate representation.”

    “Here, the proposed Class Representatives’ interests are not antagonistic to, but rather aligned with, the interests of the unnamed class members because they share the common objective to defend against having to return funds received from ZeekRewards as demanded by the Receiver. Thus, there is no conflict which would defeat adequacy of representation.”

    Mullen rejected contentions that the defendants did not have enough in common for the matter to proceed as a class action.

    He also rejected contentions that the largest winners “simply cannot afford to represent the Net Winner Class, noting that “their protestations of poverty ring hollow in light of the fact that together they won over $11 million in profits from ZeekRewards.”

    Regardless, Mullen observed, the “Court has repeatedly made it clear that the Receiver will be required to help fund the defense of the class.”

    A footnote in the ruling reads (italics added):

    That Court is mindful that despite the large winnings of the Named Defendants, it is possible that much of the net winnings has been dissipated. As stated at the last status conference in this matter, the Court fully expects that the Named Defendants will provide the Receiver with any and all evidence of their financial status and the location of all net winnings received from ZeekRewards, including deposition testimony as to the same. Such financial transparency will not only aid the Court in its determination as to what extent the Receiver shall be required to fund the defense of the class, but will also undoubtedly aid in any settlement discussions.

    Disner, who pitched both the AdSurfDaily Ponzi scheme and Zeek, is now listed as a “Black Diamond” member on the website of an MLM program known as Lumaxa.

    Lumaxa sells Nyloxin, a pain-relief product made from cobra-venom. Longtime MLM huckster Phil Piccolo has been linked to the Nyloxin program once sold through MyNyloxin.com and may be a Zeek winner. Another business with a Piccolo tie was known as Text Cash Network or TCN. It operated from the area of Boca Raton, Fla.

    As the PP Blog reported in December 2011, the name of Rex Venture Group once appeared on TCN’s website.

    An entity known as “TCN CUSTOMER SERVICE INC” of Boca Raton is listed as a Zeek winner.

    Lumaxa, the company to which the MyNyloxin domain now rotates, may be facing some challenges, a source with knowledge of the “program” told the PP Blog.

    “The company is sounding desperate to have people keep their money invested, and in fact giving more, higher rates of interest to cancel their withdrawals and earn more,” the source said.

    Rod Cook, the “MLM Watchdog,” reported last year that Piccolo was scamming sellers of Nyloxin.

    Scott Miller, who pushed the TelexFree “program” now alleged to be a $1.8 billion pyramid scheme, also is listed as a Lumaxa “Black Diamond.”

    Also see August 2014 BehindMLM.com report.

    NOTE: Our thanks to the ASD Updates Blog.

  • URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: Court Denies Zeek Winners’ Motions To Dismiss Clawback Actions, Upholds Jurisdiction

    breakingnews72URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: (3rd Update 10:03 a.m. ET Dec. 10 U.S.A.) The federal judge presiding over clawback cases against alleged Zeek Rewards “winners” has dismissed jurisdictional challenges and a claim by the winners that Zeek was not selling securities under the Howey Test.

    The rulings mean that clawback claims seeking millions of dollars from the winners remain intact.

    Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen of the Western District of North Carolina also has ruled that the receiver’s request to impose a constructive trust against the winners to prevent further dissipation of Zeek winnings was proper.

    The clawback defendants, including Trudy Gilmond, Trudy Gilmond LLC, Jerry Napier, Darren Miller, Durant Brockett, Rhonda Gates, Innovation Marketing LLC, Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Global Internet Formula Inc., T. Lemont Silver and Karen Silver, had contended the fact they performed some work to score their winnings took a Howey prong out of play because they did not expect profits based solely upon the efforts of others. Absent this prong, the winners argued, receiver Kenneth D. Bell could not prove Zeek was selling unregistered securities as investment contracts.

    “Defendants’ emphasis upon the long hours they worked to recruit . . .  others is misplaced,” Mullen ruled. “Without the essential managerial efforts of [Zeek President Paul] Burks and [Zeek operator Rex Venture Group], no profits would have been generated at all.”

    And, Mullen added, “As the Court finds that it clearly has subject matter jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to address the Receiver’s ancillary and supplemental jurisdiction argument or his argument that the Court also has diversity jurisdiction.”

    Meanwhile, Mullen ruled that the winners’ claims that Bell could not pursue fraudulent-transfer claims under North Carolina law were without merit.

    “Defendants argue that this claim must be dismissed because neither the Receiver nor RVG  (in whose shoes he stands) is a ‘creditor’ as defined in the North Carolina Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (‘NCUFTA’) and therefore he has no standing to pursue fraudulent transfer claims. Defendants’ argument is without merit.”

    On the issue of the imposition of a constructive trust against the winners, Mullen ruled (italics added):

    “Defendants’ argument that they should not be subjected to the imposition of a constructive trust because their own fraud is not the subject of the complaint fails. The Complaint sets forth allegations sufficient to show that ‘some other circumstance’ makes it inequitable for these Defendants to retain the funds they received . . .  This ‘other circumstance’ is that Defendants received the funds from an admitted Ponzi and pyramid and that the funds are nothing more than other people’s money wrongfully diverted from RVG. Therefore, Defendants have received property which they ‘ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy.’”

    Zeek figures Dawn Wright-Olivares and Daniel Olivares pleaded guilty to investment-fraud conspiracy earlier this year.

     

  • URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: Lawsuits Against Zeek Insiders, Winners Believed Imminent; Paul Burks, Dawn Wright-Olivares, Darryle Douglas Among Alleged Insiders; AdSurfDaily Figures Todd Disner And Jerry Napier Among Alleged Winners; Prospective Defendants’ List Also Includes Legendary HYIP Hucksters T. LeMont Silver And Aaron/Shara

    breakingnews72URGENT >> BULLETIN >> MOVING: (UPDATED 5:27 P.M. ET DEC. 16 U.S.A. ) The court-appointed receiver in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme case has advised a federal judge that he intends to sue Zeek operator Paul R. Burks and five alleged insiders, amid allegations they developed and operated a colossal fraud, breached their fiduciary duties, converted and wasted corporate assets and enriched themselves unjustly.

    Included with Burks as alleged insiders are former Zeek COO Dawn Wright-Olivares, Daniel Olivares, Roger Plyler, Darryle Douglas and Alexandre “Alex” De Brantes. De Brantes and Wright-Olivares are husband and wife.

    Receiver Kenneth D. Bell suggested the lawsuit could be filed within days and has asked Senior U.S. District Judge Graham C. Mullen to approve the filing of the complaints.

    And in a move that could send shockwaves across the HYIP Ponzi landscape, Bell advised Mullen that he intends to sue alleged net winners Todd Disner and Jerry Napier, both of whom were AdSurfDaily Ponzi pitchmen. Disner, Bell advised the court, is associated with an entity known as Kestrel Spendthrift Trust and will be sued in his individual capacity and in his capacity as trustee for Kestrel.

    How a spendthrift trust somehow became involved in Zeek could not immediately be determined. Such trusts typically exist to protect the assets of individuals who may be irresponsible with money.

    Also on Bell’s defendants’ list are legendary hucksters T. LeMont Silver, Aaron Andrews and Shara Andrews. The Andrews are known as “Team Aaron Shara.”

    Other alleged Zeek winners Bell advised the court he intends to sue include Trudy Gilmond, Trudy Gilmond LLC, Darren Miller, Rhonda Gates, David Sorrells, Innovation Marketing LLC, Global Internet Formula Inc., Karen Silver, Michael Van Leeuwen, Durant Brockett, David Kettner and Mary Kettner.

    Lawsuits will not be limited to just these 17 alleged winners, Bell advised the court. The plan, he said, was to sue “those who received at least $1,000 more from ZeekRewards than they paid in.”

    Their profits “came from the scheme’s victims,” Bell said, proposing to the judge that they be treated as a “defendant class of the remaining ‘net winners.’”

    The final list of defendants is expected to include many names. Bell has asked the court to impose the rules of complex litigation and to order an initial conference to be held as early as Jan. 13.

    Gilmond’s clawback exposure may exceed $1.364 million, according to court filings in December 2012. Sorrells’ exposure may exceed $943,000. The Kettners may have exposure that exceeds $1 million.

    How much exposure the other prospective defendants have was not immediately clear.

    What is clear is that Zeek’s alleged $600 million Ponzi- and pyramid scheme that was popularized in part on infamous Ponzi forums could land promoters in court soon.

    After the U.S. Secret Service exposed the $119 million ASD Ponzi scheme in 2008, Disner sued the United States — and lost. Disner’s lawsuit was filed even as he was promoting Zeek, a “program” that planted the seed it paid out even more than ASD’s 1 percent a day. Alongside the SEC, the Secret Service also is investigating Zeek.

    Among Disner’s contentions when he sued the government over its ASD-related actions was that the Ponzi case was a “house of cards” and a “tissue of lies.”

    ASD operator Andy Bowdoin, however, later admitted ASD was a Ponzi scheme and that his company never operated lawfully from its inception in 2006 through its collapse in 2008.

    Bowdoin, now 79, was sentenced in August 2012 to 78 months in federal prison. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud in May 2012, after prosecutors produced evidence that Bowdoin had participated in at least two other MLM fraud schemes while out on signature bond and awaiting trial in the ASD Ponzi case.

    NOTE: Our thanks to the ASDUpdates Blog.