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 an urgent situation 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”), who managed Ace Payday as well as its affiliates. The Commission alleges that defendants raised at the least $800,000 from at the very 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 build up Ace Payday’s business whenever, in fact, 40% to 45per cent decided to go to the ISOs as product product sales commissions. The Complaint also alleges that defendants lured investors by promising investment that is excessive and also by baselessly projecting extremely optimistic profits as much as 720percent each year. Regarding the Commission’s movement, the court issued an purchase temporarily restraining defendants from breaking the antifraud and enrollment conditions of this federal securities laws and regulations, freezing defendants’ assets, and giving other crisis relief. A hearing regarding 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, and also the leader of Ace Payday, Ace Management, LLC, and Ace Payday Management, Inc.
Ace Management, LLC, identified when you look at the offering materials as a Florida restricted obligation business, Ace Payday’s “Manager, ” and “a specialist wage advance and look 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 form of different written materials, that they delivered to investors that are prospective the way associated with the ISOs.
During these materials, defendants describe Ace Payday as being a start-up business in the industry of providing “retail wage advance” and “check cashing” services, declare that check cashing is possibly ” the quickest growing industry in the us today, ” and encourage investors to “take benefit of taking part in this profitable industry. ” Defendants task that the business’s cash advance operations will produce “the average of as much as 360% revenue per year” and therefore the business’s check cashing operations will generate “up to 720percent each year. ” They offer investors (a) interest during the price of 20% per year become compensated at a consistent level of 5% each quarter for 36 months 
, and (b) a pro-rata share associated with business’s earnings. In fact, between 40% and 45% associated with the providing profits have now been used to pay the ISO’s, which become unregistered agents soliciting investors that are unsophisticated. Defendants do not have foundation for promising 20% interest payable quarterly or projecting such positive earnings – particularly now, as Ace Payday currently has did not fulfill its quarterly responsibilities to investors.
The Commission’s problem charges every one of the defendants with breaking the antifraud and enrollment provisions of this federal securities rules, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) associated with Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of this Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. As well as the emergency relief described above, the Complaint seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations associated with securities laws and regulations, disgorgement, and civil charges.
