Bernhard Law Firm files two new contract breach lawsuits on Florida high-value properties, is engaged to facilitate an SEC investigation into a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme, and files appearances to defend two contract breach suits. If you need representation in business, investment, and financial disputes, contact Bernhard Law Firm at abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com, 786-871-3349, www.bernhardlawfirm.com.

As garnered from the public pleadings and press releases:

“The complaint also alleges that Elm treated the funds as his personal piggy bank, tapping them to buy a $1.75 million home, luxury automobiles, jewelry, and cover daily living expenses.”

SEC v. Elm – The Ponzi Scheme Under SEC Investigation

“The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced fraud charges and an asset freeze against a Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based investment adviser, its manager, and three related funds with defrauding investors in a scheme that raised more than $17 million since November 2013. The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida on January 15, 2015, charged Elm Tree Investment Advisors LLC, its founder and manager, Frederic Elm, and three funds, Elm Tree Investment Fund LP, Elm Tree “e”Conomy Fund LP, and Elm Tree Motion Opportunity LP. According to the complaint, Elm, formerly known as Frederic Elmaleh, his unregistered investment advisory firm, and three funds misled investors and used most of the money raised to make Ponzi-like payments to the investors. The complaint also alleges that Elm treated the funds as his personal piggy bank, tapping them to buy a $1.75 million home, luxury automobiles, jewelry, and cover daily living expenses. Elm’s wife, Amanda Elm, formerly Elmaleh, is named as a relief defendant based on her receipt of investor monies.

The SEC’s complaint charges Elm, his advisory firm and the Elm Tree funds with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as well as Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint also charges Elm and ETIA with violations of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8. The SEC is seeking relief for investors, including return of allegedly ill-gotten gains, with interest, and financial penalties.”

VT v. Resort – A Resort Cabana Takeover

“obtained control of the association board and records, and have used this position to obfuscate the [Owners’] ownership and eject them”

This is the [Owners] action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the condominium association responsible for maintenance of the records governing the [Owners’] Pool Cabana 3, and another unit’s owners who seek to acquire Pool Cabana 3 without consideration or right. After purchasing Pool Cabana 3 in 2010 through a valid and approved assignment, the [Owners] fully remodeled and furnished it at great cost, installing a bathroom, wet bar, and conditioned living room. Between 2010 and 2015, the [Owners] have openly occupied it to the known exclusion of all other owners, which is standard for all pool cabanas in the condominium. However, in April 2015 new condo members [the Intervenors] obtained control of the association board and records, and have used this position to obfuscate the [Owners’] ownership and eject them from Pool Cabana 3. The Association is now attempting a baseless non-judicial eviction, demanding the [Owners] deliver the furnished luxury cabana immediately to the [Intervenors] without payment or legal basis. The [Owners] seek a declaration that Pool Cabana 3 is properly in their exclusive occupation, and an injunction prohibiting the cabana’s misappropriation.

S v. N&N – A Design District Seller Backs Out

“This is [property investor’s] action for breach of an “as is” residential contract for sale and purchase of real property against deed holders [the Sellers]. [Property investor] contracted with Sellers in June 2015 for purchase of a residence in Miami. Sellers drafted a contract providing that upon [property investor’s] delivery of a deposit, the Sellers would enter closing to transfer ownership of the property. All agreed and signed. [Property investor] transferred the deposit and readied the full purchase price for exchange of the deed, but the Sellers failed to close. [Property investor] has completed all conditions precedent to the sale. After [property investor’s] repeated requests for Sellers to properly close, the Sellers stopped communication. [Property investor] seeks enforcement of the sales contract or damages for his lost investment.

D&O v. S – An Employer’s Retributive Lawsuit

Under this suit, an employer has sued its former employee for repayment of bonuses after the employee changed jobs.

PC v. Y – Contractual Indemnification in Retail Payment Systems Suit

Under this suit, a payment systems supplier has sued retail outlets under contracts for marketing and payment systems. Those outlets have sought contractual indemnification from former management.

If you need representation in business, investment, and financial disputes, contact Bernhard Law Firm at abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com, 786-871-3349, www.bernhardlawfirm.com.