Skip to content

Robin Weiss and Vanessa Huber Secure Seven Figure Judgment for Receivership Estate

May 2, 2024

Robin Weiss and Vanessa Huber secured a summary judgment ruling for Kevin Kent in his role as Receiver for Elm Street Investments stemming from a $100 million fraudulent investment scheme.

Kent’s case arose from a criminal investigation and prosecution of a Pennsylvania investment advisor who was initially arrested in August 2019 and indicted for securities fraud in June 2020.

According to the SEC, the advisor raised “approximately $105 million from approximately 40 investors based on false representations that she would invest their money in publicly traded securities through various trading strategies that she championed as providing consistently high returns.” The SEC complaint alleged that the adviser “made very few investments in these trading strategies, and instead largely used investors’ money to repay other investors and for her own personal investments.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey appointed Kent as Receiver in June 2020 over the assets of the adviser and entities she controlled, to marshal, pursue, and preserve those assets for the benefit of Smith’s victims. Among those entities was Elm Street Investments, which made a loan of more than $1.5 million in connection with a real estate transaction in Florida, memorialized by a promissory note and secured by a secondary mortgage.

The property was subsequently lost through a foreclosure action brought by the first mortgage holder, and the promissory note was never repaid. On Kent’s behalf, Weiss and Huber initiated action to enforce the promissory note, seeking to recover the principal amount of the loan, plus interest. The defendant raised various defenses including fraudulent inducement, unclean hands, and in pari delicto. On April 25, the court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Kent.

“As counsel for the Receiver, we’re thrilled to have successfully concluded this matter, which outcome will ultimately benefit those harmed by the fraudulent investment scheme,” Weiss said. “Our hope is that this ruling will go a long way in helping to secure more favorable outcomes in other litigation we have initiated on behalf of the Receivership Estate.”

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Legal Updates

California Announces Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with GM Over Connected Vehicle Data

On May 8, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with several California district attorneys and the California Privacy Protection Agency, announced a $12.75 million settlement with General Motors and its connected vehicle service OnStar. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law by collecting and selling connected vehicle data without adequate consumer notice or consent.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Long Saga of Colorado AI Act Appears to Have Come to Close With Revised Law

Ever since its initial passage into law in 2024, the Colorado AI Act has been a lightning rod for controversy and calls for change. Over the ensuing two years, multiple attempts to amend the law were floated and proposed by consumer and industry groups. The implementation of the law itself was delayed several times to allow for such changes, with Governor Jared Polis calling a special session of the legislature last August to specifically address potential changes. All of those attempts appear to have culminated in Senate Bill 189 having passed both the Colorado House (57-6) and Senate (34-1) this week. The bill next heads to the desk of Governor Jared Polis where it is expected to be signed into law and to take effect as of January of 2027.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Using “Schedule A” Litigation to Combat Online Trademark Infringement

In today’s digital world, trademark infringement is a significant concern for businesses aiming to protect their brand identity. Accordingly, it is important for businesses to implement a multifaceted online enforcement strategy to protect their intellectual property rights. Among the various legal avenues available to combat counterfeit goods and unauthorized use of trademarks, “Schedule A” lawsuits, which are most often filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have emerged as a powerful tool. As intellectual property attorneys at Clark Hill, we regularly help businesses secure and enforce their IP rights. Here, we will explore what Schedule A trademark infringement litigation entails, how it works, and why it’s essential for companies to understand this avenue for enforcing their legal rights.

Explore more