U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Litigation Release No. 26310, dated May 23, 2025.
The SEC has dismissed four civil enforcement actions. Three cases were dismissed entirely with prejudice on May 22, 2025. In a fourth case, claims against specific defendants for unregistered dealer activity were dismissed with prejudice, though the overall litigation continues. The SEC stated these dismissals were policy decisions, not based on the merits of the allegations.
Imagine you're playing a game, and the referee starts some games but then decides to stop playing a few of them. The referee didn't say who was right or wrong in those stopped games; they just decided to end them. The SEC, which is like the referee for financial markets, did something similar by closing four cases. They didn't say if the people they were suing had done anything wrong or not; they just decided to stop pursuing those specific cases.
Disclaimer: all facts are drawn from the SEC's own filings; the claims described are allegations unless and until a court rules or the parties settle, and some cases end in dismissal.
On May 22, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed joint stipulations with the defendants in three separate cases to dismiss, with prejudice, the following ongoing civil enforcement actions against them: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Adam R. Long, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-14260 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 28, 2023); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tri-Bridge Ventures, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05711 (D.N.J. filed Apr. 29, 2024); and Securities and Exchange Commission v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022). Also on May 22, 2025, the Commission filed joint stipulations with defendants River North Equity, LLC, Edward M. Liceaga, and Michael A. Chavez in a fourth ongoing civil enforcement action, Securities and Exchange Commission v. River North Equity LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01711 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 11, 2019), to dismiss, with prejudice, the Commission’s claims against them for unregistered dealer activity under Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission’s litigation in this matter otherwise remains ongoing. The Commission’s decision to exercise its discretion and dismiss these pending enforcement actions and claims rests on its judgment that the dismissals are appropriate as a policy matter, not on any assessment of the merits of the claims alleged in the actions. Furthermore, as stated in each of the joint stipulations, the Commission’s decision to seek dismissal of the actions or claims “does not necessarily reflect the Commission’s position on any other case.”