SECURITIES AND TRADE COMMISSION SEC BRINGS CRISIS ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTH FLORIDA CHECK CASHING COMPANY AND AFFILIATES
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 the usa District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ACE Payday Plus, LLC, d/b/a ACE Payday Plus II, LLC (“Ace Payday”), a start-up business purportedly providing “check cashing” and “payday advance” solutions; ACE Management, LLC and ACE Payday Management, Inc., two entities individually defined as Ace Payday’s Manager; and James Bianco (“Bianco”), whom managed Ace Payday as well as its affiliates. The Commission alleges that defendants raised at the very least $800,000 from at the very least 30 investors by fraudulently offering and membership that is selling in Ace Payday through telemarketers called “independent product sales workplaces” or “ISOs. ” The Complaint alleges that defendants told investors that 90% of this offering profits could be utilized to produce Ace Payday’s company whenever, in fact, 40% to 45% decided to go to the ISOs as product sales commissions. The Complaint additionally alleges that defendants lured investors by guaranteeing investment that is excessive and also by baselessly projecting extremely positive earnings as high as 720percent each year. From the Commission’s movement, the court issued an purchase temporarily restraining defendants from breaking the antifraud and enrollment conditions for the federal securities guidelines, freezing defendants’ assets, and giving other crisis relief. A hearing in the Commission’s movement for a injunction that is preliminary planned for April 5, 2002.
The names that are complaint defendants:
Ace Payday, a Florida liability that is limited headquartered in North Miami Beach, Florida.
Bianco, a resident of North Miami Beach, Florida, plus the executive that is chief of Payday, Ace Management, LLC, and Ace Payday Management, Inc.
Ace Management, LLC, identified when you look at the providing materials as a Florida limited obligation company, Ace Payday’s “Manager, ” and “a specialist wage advance 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 carried out the providing in the shape of different written materials, that they delivered to potential investors at the way for the ISOs.
During these materials, defendants describe Ace Payday as a start-up business in the commercial of providing “retail wage advance” 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 playing this profitable industry. ” Defendants task that the business’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 720percent each year. 12 months” they provide investors (a) interest in the price of 20% per year become compensated for a price of 5% each quarter for 3 years, and b that is( a pro-rata share associated with business’s earnings. In reality, between 40% and 45% regarding the providing profits have now been used cash central to pay the ISO’s, which work as unregistered brokers soliciting unsophisticated investors. Defendants do not have foundation for guaranteeing 20% interest payable quarterly or projecting such profits that are optimistic particularly now, as Ace Payday currently has did not satisfy its quarterly responsibilities to investors.
The Commission’s grievance charges most of the defendants with breaking the antifraud and enrollment conditions of this federal securities legislation, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) associated with Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) associated with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Aside from the emergency relief described above, the Complaint seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations for the securities legislation, disgorgement, and penalties that are civil.