TelexFree, Inc. : Memberships Securities Litigation
On or around 03/31/2015 (Other)
Filing Date: May 08, 2014
According to the Complaint, is is alleged that Defendants are management and the top promoters of TelexFree — which operated as a pyramid scheme whereby Defendants sold “memberships” that, when purchased, purportedly permitted purchasers to earn in excess of a 200% return. Class members were not required to sell any of TelexFree’s product, or to perform any actual work, in order to receive this 200% return. Rather, TelexFree and Defendants claimed that Class members would earn their return from the efforts of others, including but not limited to TelexFree. In reality, Class members would receive nothing, and TelexFree and Defendants would profit, to the tune of at least $300 million and potentially as much as $1 billion.
On March 19, 2015, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and approved Lead Counsel. A consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31. The consolidated Complaint dropped the federal securities claims.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: TelexFree, Inc.
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: N/A
Company Market: Privately Traded
Market Status: Privately Held
About the Company & Securities Data
"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.
In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
First Identified Complaint
Samuel E. Griffith, et al. v. James M. Merrill, et al.