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

SECURITIES AND TRADE COMMISSION SEC BRINGS CRISIS ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTHERN 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 an urgent situation enforcement action in america 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 start-up company purportedly providing “check cashing” and “payday advance” solutions; ACE Management, LLC and ACE Payday Management, Inc., two entities individually 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 very least $800,000 from at the least 30 investors by fraudulently providing and offering account units in Ace Payday through telemarketers called “independent product sales workplaces” or “ISOs. ” The Complaint alleges that defendants told investors that 90% for the providing profits will be utilized to build up Ace Payday’s company whenever, in reality, 40% to 45per cent went along to the ISOs as product product sales commissions. The Complaint also alleges that defendants lured investors by guaranteeing exorbitant investment returns and also by baselessly projecting extremely positive earnings of up to 720% 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 guidelines, freezing defendants’ assets, and giving other crisis relief. A hearing regarding the Commission’s movement for the preliminary injunction is scheduled for April 5, 2002.

The Complaint names as defendants:

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

Bianco, a resident of North Miami Beach, Florida, therefore the executive that is chief of Payday, Ace Management, LLC, and Ace Payday Management, Inc.

Ace Management, LLC, identified within the providing materials being a Florida restricted liability business, 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 carried out the providing by way of different written materials, that they provided for potential investors at the way for the ISOs.

In these materials, defendants describe Ace Payday as 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 us today, ” and encourage investors to “take benefit of playing this profitable industry. ” Defendants task that the business’s cash advance operations will produce “the average of as much as 360% revenue per and that the organization’s check cashing operations will create “up to 720percent each year. 12 months” they feature investors (a) interest during the price of 20% per year become compensated at a level of 5% each quarter for cash central 36 months, and b that is( a pro-rata share associated with business’s earnings. In reality, between 40% and 45% for the providing profits have now been used to pay the ISO’s, which behave as unregistered agents soliciting investors that are unsophisticated. Defendants don’t have any foundation for guaranteeing 20% interest payable quarterly or projecting such profits that are optimistic specially now, as Ace Payday currently has did not fulfill its quarterly responsibilities to investors.

The Commission’s problem charges most of the defendants with violating the antifraud and registration conditions associated with federal securities guidelines, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of this Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of this Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Besides the emergency relief described above, the Complaint seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations associated with securities laws and regulations, disgorgement, and penalties that are civil.