SECURITIES AND TRADE COMMISSION SEC BRINGS CRISIS ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTHERN FLORIDA CHECK CASHING BUSINESS 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 the usa 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 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 and its particular affiliates. The Commission alleges that defendants raised at the very least $800,000 from at the least 30 investors by fraudulently providing and attempting to sell account devices in Ace Payday through telemarketers called „independent product sales workplaces” or „ISOs. ” The Complaint alleges that defendants told investors that 90% regarding the providing profits will be utilized to build up Ace Payday’s business whenever, in fact, 40% to 45per cent went to the ISOs as product product sales commissions. The Complaint also alleges that defendants lured investors by guaranteeing investment that is excessive and also by baselessly projecting extremely positive earnings as much as 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 from the Commission’s movement for the injunction that is preliminary 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, as well as the leader of Ace Payday, Ace Management, LLC, and Ace Payday Management, Inc.

Ace Management, LLC, identified into the providing materials being a Florida restricted obligation business, Ace Payday’s „Manager, ” and „a specialist pay day loan 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 actually 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 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 advantageous asset 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 and that the business’s check cashing operations will generate „up to 720percent each year. 12 months” they provide investors (a) interest in the price of 20% per year to be compensated for a price of 5% each quarter for 3 years, and (b) a pro-rata share associated with the business’s earnings. In reality, between 40% and 45% for the providing profits have already been utilized to pay the ISO’s, which become unregistered brokers soliciting unsophisticated investors. Defendants haven’t any foundation for guaranteeing 20% interest payable quarterly or projecting such profits that are optimistic particularly now, as Ace Payday currently has neglected to satisfy its quarterly responsibilities to investors.

The Commission’s problem charges every one of the defendants with breaking the antifraud and enrollment conditions of this federal securities 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 thereunder. As well as the emergency relief described above, the Complaint seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations of this securities regulations, disgorgement, and penalties that are civil.