FORT LAUDERDALE — Fifteen federal lawsuits allege that a network of companies and individuals participated in the downstream handling, transfer and use of investor funds tied to what plaintiffs describe as a fraudulent investment scheme involving promissory notes marketed nationwide.
The cases assert federal securities claims and name a consistent group of defendants, including Aspire Events LLC, Collective Equity Inc., Themed STR Capital Fund and multiple associated individuals and entities.
The plaintiffs allege the lawsuits stem from “the downstream transfer, concealment, deployment and retention of investor proceeds derived from an unlawful and fraudulent promissory note offering” operated through non-party Norada Capital Management and related entities, according to 15 complaints filed last month in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The filings collectively contend that investor funds were raised through high-yield promissory notes and then routed through a network of affiliated entities and ventures.
The complaint states that between approximately January 2020 and August 2024, the Norada enterprise raised “tens of millions of dollars” from investors nationwide by offering unsecured promissory notes that promised annual returns between 12% and 17%, or higher, sometimes with additional bonus inducements.
The plaintiffs allege that rather than being used to generate legitimate returns, investor funds were commingled and redistributed across entities, including ventures tied to the named defendants.
The lawsuits further allege that funds moved through multiple bank accounts controlled by Norada-related entities and were transferred to ventures associated with the defendants, including Aspire Events, Collective Equity and Themed STR Capital Fund.
In some instances, the complaint alleges that funds were routed through intermediary entities before being deployed into additional ventures, including Retail Ecommerce Ventures, which is also named as a defendant.
The plaintiffs assert that the structure functioned as a broader capital-raising operation in which investor funds were continuously raised and redistributed, with some payments to earlier investors allegedly funded by newer investor contributions.
The complaint characterizes the operation as a Ponzi scheme, alleging that funds were “used to satisfy obligations to earlier investors and to capitalize affiliated ventures rather than to generate legitimate operating returns.”
The filings cite multiple sources supporting the plaintiffs’ claims, including a Securities and Exchange Commission judgment against a key figure associated with the Norada enterprise, a guilty plea to wire fraud in a related federal criminal case and allegations made in a separate SEC civil action involving Retail Ecommerce Ventures and its principals.
The complaint also references investor communications, webinars and promotional materials that allegedly tied the defendants’ ventures to the investment offerings.
According to the complaint, investor-facing materials portrayed various ventures, including so-called “Mastermind Businesses” and e-commerce brand acquisitions, as core components supporting the promised returns on the notes.
The plaintiffs allege these representations were misleading and that the ventures were not capable of generating sufficient revenue to sustain the advertised returns without continued investor inflows.
The lawsuits also point to alleged warning signs, including the termination of banking relationships by a major financial institution, the migration of accounts to another bank and overlapping promotional narratives across different entities.
The plaintiffs contend these factors should have raised concerns about the sustainability and legitimacy of the investment program.
In one case detailed in the complaint, plaintiffs reported investing a combined $960,000 in the promissory notes, which were marketed as being backed by a diversified portfolio of profitable businesses expected to outperform traditional investments.
The plaintiffs allege those representations were false and that their funds were transferred without receiving equivalent value in return.
Across the 15 lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking remedies that include recovery of transferred funds, compensatory and punitive damages where permitted, and equitable relief such as disgorgement, injunctions, and the possible appointment of a receiver.
The cases are part of a broader set of legal actions referenced in the complaint, including related proceedings in federal courts in California and Wyoming involving other parties connected to the alleged scheme.
The plaintiffs state that the Florida lawsuits are not duplicative but instead target separate defendants accused of independently receiving and benefiting from investor funds.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida case numbers: 3:26-cv-00770, 3:26-cv-00775, 3:26-cv-00777, 3:26-cv-00779, 3:26-cv-00780, 3:26-cv-00781, 3:26-cv-00782, 3:26-cv-00783, 3:26-cv-00784, 3:26-cv-00785, 3:26-cv-00786, 3:26-cv-00787, 3:26-cv-00788, 3:26-cv-00789, 3:26-cv-00790
