SECURITIES AND TRADE COMMISSION SEC BRINGS CRISIS ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTH FLORIDA CHECK CASHING COMPANY AND AFFILIATES

01 September 2020
SECURITIES AND TRADE COMMISSION SEC BRINGS CRISIS ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTH FLORIDA CHECK CASHING COMPANY AND AFFILIATES

LITIGATION RELEASE 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 us 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 company that is start-up providing "check cashing" and "payday advance" solutions; ACE Management, LLC and ACE Payday Management, Inc., two entities separately recognized as Ace Payday's Manager; and James Bianco ("Bianco"), whom managed Ace Payday and its own affiliates. The Commission alleges that defendants raised at the least $800,000 from at the least 30 investors by fraudulently providing and membership that is selling in Ace Payday through telemarketers called "independent sales workplaces" or "ISOs. " The Complaint alleges that defendants told investors that 90% associated with the providing profits is utilized to build up Ace Payday's company whenever, in fact, 40% to 45% went along to the ISOs as product product product sales commissions. The Complaint additionally alleges that defendants lured investors by promising extortionate investment returns and also by baselessly projecting extremely positive earnings all the way to 720per cent each year. 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 motion for a initial injunction is planned for April 5, 2002.

The Complaint names as defendants:

Ace Payday, a Florida liability that is limited headquartered in North Miami Beach, Florida.

Bianco, a resident of North Miami Beach, Florida, together with leader of Ace Payday, Ace Management, LLC, and Ace Payday Management, Inc.

Ace Management, LLC, identified into the providing materials as being a Florida liability that is limited, Ace Payday's "Manager, " and "a specialist pay day loan 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 actually carried out the offering in the form of various written materials, which they delivered to potential investors at the way associated with the ISOs.

Within these materials, defendants describe Ace Payday being a start-up business in the commercial 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 advantageous asset of taking part in this profitable industry. " Defendants task that the business's pay day loan operations will produce "the average of as much as 360% revenue per 12 months" and that the business's check cashing operations will create "up to 720per cent each year. " they provide investors (a) interest in the price of 20% per year become paid for a price of 5% each quarter for 3 years, and b that is( a pro-rata share for the business's profits. In fact, between 40% and 45% of this providing profits have now been utilized to pay the ISO's, which behave as unregistered agents soliciting investors that are unsophisticated. 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 didn't meet its quarterly responsibilities to investors.

The Commission's problem charges all the defendants with breaking the antifraud and enrollment conditions regarding the federal securities laws and regulations, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) associated with the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of this Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 approved cash thereunder. As well as the emergency relief described above, the Complaint seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations of this securities rules, disgorgement, and civil charges.