Category Archives: Zeek Rewards Suits

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Files Civil Suit Against Alleged Norwegian “Net Winners”

ZeekWe have a new case just filed today, 3:15-cv-81, in the Western District of North Carolina. I noticed it as it was a new and unassigned case on the original case listings going back to 2012.  Below are the named defendants who hail from Norway:

The Defendants

12. Geir Vidar Pleym is, upon information and belief, a resident of Oslo, Norway. Pleym is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $256,917.29 under one or more usernames, including “freeasabird.”
13. Roger Guldahl is, upon information and belief, a resident of Halden, Norway. Guldahl is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $200,271.51 under one or more usernames, including “norway.”

14. Anne Liv Dale is, upon information and belief, a resident of Kristiansand, Norway. Dale is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $158,896.14 under one or more usernames, including “ALGold777.”
15. Fredrik Skjoldt is, upon information and belief, a resident of Oslo, Norway. Skjoldt is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $97,694.27 under one or more usernames, including “lambo.”
16. Robert Ulvberget is, upon information and belief, a resident of Elverum, Norway. Ulvberget is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $72,569.11 under one or more usernames, including “megamaniac.”
17. Stian Alexander Karlsen is, upon information and belief, a resident of Oslo, Norway. Karlsen is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $65,000.94 under one or more usernames, including “xander09.”
18. Pia Cecilie Fore is, upon information and belief, a resident of Heggedal, Asker, Norway. Fore is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $62,115.13 under one or more usernames, including “julie4.”
19. Knut Fore is, upon information and belief, a resident of Asker, Norway. Fore is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $60,436.49 under one or more usernames, including “speedykf.”
20. Fredrik Harald Skjoldt is, upon information and belief, a resident of Oslo, Norway. CMS Huset AS is, upon information and belief, a shell company through which Skjoldt was a ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of $57,586.54 individually or collectively with Morten Skaar, under one or more usernames, including “huset.”
21. Morten Skaar is, upon information and belief, a resident of Oslo, Norway. CMS Huset AS is, upon information and belief, a shell company through which Skaar was a ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of $57,586.54 individually or collectively with Morten Skaar, under one or more usernames, including “huset.”
22. Odd Steinar Nordlien is, upon information and belief, a resident of Faaberg, Lillehammer, Norway. Nordlien is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $55,019.09 under one or more usernames, including “quadrant.”
23. Anne-Mette Helland is, upon information and belief, a resident of Mandal, Norway. Vita-min AS is, upon information and belief, a shell company through which Hellend was a ZeekRewards “affiliate” and “net winner” of $53,428.51 under one or more usernames, including “AMGold 777.”

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Files Civil Suits Against Alleged “Winners” In New Zealand and British Virgin Islands

breaking news

Over the past week or so, Zeek receiver Kenneth Bell has filed 2 new Civil cases in the Western District of North Carolina aimed at overseas affiliates.  They are:

3:15-cv-70, entitled “Bell v. Brownie et al” wherein he claims the following:

12. Hamish Brownie is, upon information and belief, a resident of Christchurch, New Zealand. Brownie is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $507,413.36 under one or more usernames, including “3.”

13. Praveen Kumar is, upon information and belief, a resident of Auckland, New Zealand. Kumar is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $115,152.13 under one or more usernames, including “wealthmastry.”

14. David Ian MacGregor Fraser is, upon information and belief, a resident of Auckland, New Zealand. Fraser is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $89,722.00 under one or more usernames, including “sovlife.”

3:15-cv-55, entitled “Bell v Solomon et al” wherein he claims the following:

12. Agnita Solomon is, upon information and belief, a resident of Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Solomon is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $2,057,355.61 under one or more usernames, including “ASolomon.”

13. Marguerite D. Hodge is, upon information and belief, a resident of the British Virgin Islands. Hodge is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $115,776.29 under one or more usernames, including “mdh01.”

14. Susan Forbes is, upon information and belief, a resident of Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Forbes is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “net winner” of $603,288.30 under one or more usernames, including “ladysue.”

15. Marcus Drigo is, upon information and belief, a resident of Road Town,Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Drigo is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a “netwinner” of $70,262.52 under one or more usernames, including “mjblues.”

16. Patrice Harewood is, upon information and belief, a resident of Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Harewood is a former ZeekRewards “affiliate” and was a“net winner” of $59,940.74 under one or more usernames, including “Susielee.”

As evidenced by these 2 new Civil cases, Mr. Bell is going after anyone and everyone unjustly enriched by the Zeek Rewards scheme.

More as these cases go on, all we have so far are the complaints themselves, located on the Files website.

FunClubUSA: Order to Strike Answer and Enter Default

I just saw this today, an Order from Judge Richard F Boulware, II, in the case #14-cv-190 filed against Fun Club USA by OfferHubb.  Here is the main substance of this Order:

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by October 29, 2014. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation(s) that (ECF No. 9) Answer of Defendant Fun Club USA, Inc., should be stricken and its default entered based on Defendant’s failure to comply with this Court’s Order to obtain counsel. Therefore, the Court has determined that Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation should be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this opinion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that the Answer of Defendant Fun Club USA, Inc.,[ECF 9] is stricken and its default entered based on Defendant’s failure to comply with this Court’s Order to obtain counsel.

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Findings and Recommendation and Order to Defendant Fun Club USA, Inc., c/o Robert Craddock, (Address withheld by me)

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close case.
DATED this 29th day of January, 2015.

Fun Club USA had 14 days to file any objection to the Finding and Recommendation indicated here, Doc 26, the Magistrate’s recommendations.

Zeek Rewards: Preferred Merchants Solutions and NXSystems Orders

Today, Senior District Judge Graham Mullen issued the following orders; one orders the production of documents from Preferred merchants Solutions, the other denies NXSystems Motions for added time:


 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Receiver’s Supplemental Brief in Support of his Contempt Motion (Doc. No. 294), in which he requests a production of certain documents in advance of the deposition of Mr. Meyer. Pursuant to the Court’s broad discretionary power in supervising this equity receivership, the Court hereby orders Preferred Merchants and Mr. Meyer to produce to the Receiver by 10:00 a.m. Wednesday morning, December 17, the following: A full accounting of the use and location of the RVG funds transferred to Preferred Merchants /Meyer in August 2012 from the date of the transfer to the present and all documents related to the creation, governing documents, transfer of assets into and current holdings of the “Cook Islands Trust” described by Preferred Merchants’ and Mr. Meyer’s counsel to the Court on November 24, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED

Signed: December 16, 2014


 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon NxSystems, Inc.’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Receiver’s Motion for an Order Directing NxSystems, Inc. to Turn Over Receivership Assets and/or Find it in Contempt of the Court’s Agreed Order (Doc. No. 303). A brief hearing was held on this matter on December 16, 2014. For the reasons stated in open court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that NxSystems, Inc.’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond is hereby DENIED; and NxSystems, Inc. is directed to provide to the Receiver an accounting of the funds at issue within thirty days.

Signed: December 16, 2014

Ponzitracker: More on the Opposition to Zeek Rewards Attorney Liens

Ponzitracker.com has an article up about the recent Opposition to Attorney Charging Liens, a motion made by an attorney representing some Zeek affiliates and who filed claims for them, after getting them to sign a contract with him. This is the same attorney that represented the “Belsome Appeal” group.

It is well worth reading, here’s the link.

 

m4s0n501

Zeek Rewards: Judge Signs Order Allowing International Net Winner Actions

BREAKING NEWS:

The receiver filed a “REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO INSTITUTE ACTIONS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL NET WINNERS” today and Judge Mullen granted it. Here is part of what Kenneth Bell filed:

The Receiver has previously filed actions against the insiders who created and operated ZeekRewards, the net winners who won more than $1000 (asserting claims against the largest net winners as individual defendants / class representatives and a defendant class of the remaining net winners) and certain attorneys involved in advising RVG and promoting the scheme. By this request, the Receiver seeks leave to file one or more actions in this Court and in foreign courts to pursue claims for the return of fraudulently transferred money and disgorgement of net funds received against significant “net winners” who reside outside the United States. The foreign “net winners” to be pursued all won at least $1000, the threshold previously approved by this Court. With due regard for the interests of efficiency, cost and judicial economy, the Receiver intends to consolidate cases against net winners from each foreign country and from more than one country when possible and appropriate.

Judge Mullen approved this action thus:

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Receiver’s Request for Leave to Institute Actions Against International Net Winners. The Receiver alleges that these persons and entities won money in the ZeekRewards program and should be required to pay their net winnings back to the RVG for the benefit of ZeekRewards’ victims. For good cause, the Court will grant the Receiver’s request.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Receiver is hereby granted leave to file the actions for which leave has been requested.

Zeek Rewards: Kenneth Bell Files Amended Complaint Against Kevin Grimes

Kenneth Bell, receiver for Rex Ventures Group, has filed an Amended Complaint in his Malpractive lawsuit against Zeek “compliance” attorney, Kevin Grimes.

This lawsuit is one of several steps the Receiver is taking pursuant to his court-ordered duties to the Receivership Estate to recover damages for the harms incurred by RVG.

By virtue of his knowledge of RVG and ZeekRewards and his legal expertise, Grimes knew or should have known that RVG was perpetrating an unlawful scheme which involved a pyramid scheme, an unregistered investment contract and/or a Ponzi scheme. Despite this knowledge, Grimes actively encouraged investors to participate in the scheme by creating a so-called “compliance” program through his captive entity, MLM Compliance VT, LLC (“MLM Compliance”), which provided a false façade of legality and legitimacy and knowingly allowed his name to be used to promote the scheme. Grimes’ improper and negligent actions, which breached his fiduciary duties to RVG and assisted RVG’s Insiders to breach their fiduciary duties, caused significant damage to RVG. As described in detail below, Grimes and his firms are liable to RVG both for those damages and the profits they made from RVG. In addition, Grimes and MLM Compliance are liable to repay to the Receiver the more than $840,000 they received from RVG for the bogus compliance course.

Farther down the Amended Complaint, mr. Bell alleges this:

Beginning at least as far back as 1997, Paul Burks, RVG’s owner and lead executive, operated a number of generally unsuccessful multi-level marketing businesses through Rex Venture Group, LLC (and related entities).

Dawn Wright-Olivares was RVG’s Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Marketing Officer of ZeekRewards. Together with Burks, Wright-Olivares developed the ZeekRewards scheme.

Other key employees of RVG included Daniel (“Danny”) Olivares, Wright-Olivares’ stepson who was responsible for designing and running RVG’s websites and databases with Burks; Alexandre (“Alex”) de Brantes, Wright-Olivares’ then-fiancée who had the title of Executive Director of Training and Support Services; Roger Plyler, who handled “affiliate relations”; and Darryle Douglas, who was a member of RVG’s senior-level management. Collectively, these individuals may be referred to as RVG’s “Insiders.”

And then there is this:

Grimes helped in several ways. First, despite his knowledge that ZeekRewards was a fundamentally flawed and unlawful pyramid and/or Ponzi scheme and was selling unregistered securities, Grimes, through his entity MLM Compliance, offered to create and did create a so-called “compliance course” specifically designed to encourage investors and potential investors to believe that if they satisfied the course then it would be a lawful enterprise. Thus, Grimes and MLM Compliance knowingly allowed Zeek to portray a false appearance of legality through their bogus “compliance” course.

I have uploaded the full document (9) onto the Files website.

Zeek Rewards: Kenneth Bell Files Opposition to Disner’s Motion to Set Aside Default

Below is the opening statements from Kenneth Bell’s filing today, in which he opposes Todd Disner’s

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

The Receiver, through the undersigned counsel, provides the following Response in Opposition to Defendant Todd Disner’s Motion to Set Aside Default. For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny the Motion.

INTRODUCTION

The Court should not find “good cause” exists to set aside Mr. Disner’s existing default. After failing to file an answer despite having personally received the Complaint three months ago and filing a notice of appearance in the action nearly a month before the default, Mr. Disner now seeks to avoid the default. But, he fails to suggest legitimate circumstances that might constitute good cause for his failure to plead or defend. This Court should not grant Mr. Disner’s belated request when he was served with the Complaint roughly three months ago and has significant litigation experience involving another Ponzi scheme. Also, allowing Mr. Disner additional time to file an answer despite there being no good cause to set aside the default would delay this case as to all parties involved and create additional and unnecessary costs to the Receivership.

The filing goes on to say:

As previously set forth in the Receiver’s Application for Entry of Default, Defendant Todd Disner was personally served with the Summons and Complaint by means of a process server on April 16, 2014. (Doc. No. 41-1). Disner does not dispute the date and manner of this service (although he has lied about it as discussed below). The Receiver heard nothing from Disner for nearly two months. Then, Disner filed with the Court a “Notice of Appearance” providing notice to the Court and parties that he was appearing pro se on behalf of himself and the Kestrel Spendthrift Trust. (Doc. No. 18). This notice is dated May 21, 2014 but was not mailed until two weeks later, on June 5, 2014, as indicated in the postmark on the envelope enclosing the notice. (Doc. No. 18-1). The notice was filed by the Clerk of Court on June 10, 2014.

Disner filed nothing further with this Court, nor did he contact the Receiver. As a result, after the extended June 30, 2014 deadline for filing an answer had passed, the Receiver filed a Motion for Entry of Default against Disner on July 2, 2014, citing his failure to plead or otherwise defend the lawsuit. (Doc. No. 41). The Clerk of Court entered default against Disner on July 3, 2014. (Doc. No. 44).

……

The Receiver filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Disner on July 8, 2014, which requests that the Clerk of Court enter judgment against Disner pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1) for the sum certain amount of $2,079,757.88, which includes $1,800,037.06 in principal, and prejudgment interest at the North Carolina statutory rate from the date of the last transfer (July 30, 2012) to the date the motion was filed in the amount of $279,720.82.

The complete document (66) is on the Files website, under Zeek case 14-cv-00091.

Zeek Rewards: Receiver Lists Settlements in 2nd Quarter Report

The receiver has filed his 2nd Quarter report and in it is this:

Lawsuit Against Insider Defendants  (emphasis added)

The lawsuit against the ZeekRewards Insiders was placed on the same track as the lawsuit against U.S. net winners, and the Receiver’s counsel attended the scheduling conference on April 15, 2014 regarding this matter as well. On the June 30, 2014 deadline for answers and motions to dismiss, defendants Beth C. Plyler and James L. Quick, as Co-Trustees of the Roger A. Plyler Revocable Trust and Co-Administrators of the Estate of Roger Anthony Plyler, filed a motion to dismiss the Receiver’s lawsuit. In addition, Plyler and Quick, as well as defendant Alex de Brantes, filed Answers to the Receiver’s claims. No counterclaims were filed against the Receiver in this case.

The Receiver engaged in multiple settlement discussions with certain Insider defendants during the second quarter. By the filing date of this report, the Receiver had reached settlement agreements with Paul Burks, Dawn Wright-Olivares, and Daniel Olivares, pending Court approval.

Each of these defendants agreed to a consent judgment of $600 million to be satisfied with substantially all of their assets.

I have added the new filings to the Files website, Case # 12-cv-519

Zeek Rewards: Todd Disner Files Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Affidavit and Entry of Default Judgement

True to form, Todd Disner is filing more Pro Se motions to get some form of “do-over” based on the self-professed “lack of knowledge” that he was supposed to reply by a certain date. But then, this is not his first rodeo; he was a prominent figue in the ASD case and he is no stranger to the legal system. He and his suspended lawyer friend, Dwight Schweitzer, inserted themselves into the ASD case numerous times.

Now, as what many call a “serial promoter”, Disner now find himself neck deep in Zeek.  His motion today espouses the following:

  • The Affidavit of Michael Busen is both false and misleading… that the total sums received by the Defendant were not in fact received by him either personally or as a trustee of Kestrel Spendthrift Trust.
  • The Defendant has no knowledge of how the sums alleged in the Plaintiff’s Affidavit were arrived at.
  • Under the business agreement with Zeek rewards, the Defendant was entitled to be paid as a result of performing certain activities he was required to engage in on that day..

What utter nonsense.  Let us not forget that Disner made it a point to showcase his large, new Condo on YouTube, a Condo he bought with proceeds from Zeek Rewards.

Secondarily, Disner filed a “Counter-Affidavit in Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion that a Default judgement be Entered Against the Defendant and in Support of the Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit”.  Holy crap, the title is as long as the rest of the filing!

Disner goes on to say he does not believe the sums mentioned by the Plaintiff are accurate and that because there is “no listing by date, amount, check number and payee” that they are not his??

I have uploaded this filing to the Files website.

1 2 3 18