BOCA RATON, Fla.
May 10, 2013
/PRNewswire/ -- United States Regional Economic Development Authority, LLC (USREDA) and its legal counsel played a pivotal role in persuading a Federal Court judge to return capital to defrauded foreign investors in a timely manner according to official court documents. Despite this, an alleged misinformation campaign appears to have been created by attorneys who spread information to these investors as it relates to the case. This according to an
letter received by USREDA from its legal counsel,
-based Quarles & Brady LLP, which claims that the misinformation campaign accused USREDA of acting against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) efforts to return investor monies.
an April 23 release by the SEC
, in the matter of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. A
Convention Center, LLC (ACCC),
, and Intercontinental Regional Center Trust of
, LLC, (Civil Action No. 13-cv-982), Judge St. Eve in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
ordered the return of more than
in escrowed funds for "an investment scheme defrauding foreign investors." The ruling requires capital be repaid to the 297 foreign investors who had contributed to the project as part of the EB-5 pilot program, which gives immigrant investors a path to U.S. residency in return for their financing of job-creating domestic projects with a
"The ACCC project director (
) is not the only one who may have acted dishonestly; some lawyers appear to have tried to profit from the litigation," said USREDA CEO and President
. "There is a great deal of misinformation circulating around this case, and USREDA is working hard to be sure that the truth is heard and the investors are properly protected and receive the return of their investment."
USREDA's position on this matter stems from court documents which demonstrate that a number of firms claimed "dozens" of clients would require a delay in ruling so that all unrepresented investors could have a voice in the court. However, no representation was ever made by these firms on behalf of their clients (in court) with the exception of one law firm from
that represented a single client. In addition, several clients claimed that other law firms sought to "represent" them only through a misguided letter to the SEC in which the lawyers falsely told their clients it was the SEC - and not the Court - who controlled the investment monies, according to USREDA.
In an effort to remedy confusion in this matter, USREDA and its legal counsel fought for over half of the 297 investors involved in this case to receive legal representation before the Federal Court at no cost to the investors, which has resulted in the funds being returned their rightful owners.