SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. HVIZDZAK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Filing
152
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT indicating as follows: (1) the 146 Motion to Unfreeze Limited Assets to Pay for Attorneys' Fees filed by Defendants Shane Hvizdzak, Hvizdzak Capital Management, LLC, High Street Capital LLC, and High Street Capit al Partners, LLC, and joined by Defendant Sean Hvizdzak is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) the Court's Order dated 8/11/21, (Docket No. 94 ), as previously modified by the Court's Order dated 11/15/21, (Docket No. 111 ), is further MODIFIED to provide that this case is STAYED in its entirety; however, a party may move to modify or lift the stay based upon a change of circumstances or for other good cause shown; and (3) the 121 Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for De fendants Shane Hvizdak, Hvizdzak Capital Management, LLC, High Street Capital LLC, and High Street Capital Partners, LLC filed by Attorney Efrem M. Grail is GRANTED. See Memorandum and Order for further details. Signed by Judge W. Scott Hardy on 1/17/23. (kw)
Case 1:20-cv-00154-WSH Document 152 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
HVIZDZAK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC; HIGH STREET CAPITAL LLC;
HIGH STREET CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LLC; SHANE HVIZDZAK; and
SEAN HVIZDZAK,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 20-154E
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Unfreeze Limited Assets to Pay for Attorney’s
Fees, (Docket No. 146), filed by Defendants Shane Hvizdzak (“Shane”) and Hvizdzak Capital
Management, LLC, High Street Capital LLC, and High Street Capital Partners, LLC (collectively,
the “Entity Defendants”), Defendant Sean Hvizdzak’s (“Sean”) Response to and Joinder in the
Motion, (Docket No. 148), and Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”)
Opposition thereto, (Docket No. 149). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ Motion will
be denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
This SEC civil enforcement action alleges that Defendants, brothers Shane and Sean
Hvizdzak, and the affiliated Entity Defendants, violated the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities
Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) by fraudulently raising and
subsequently misappropriating tens of millions of dollars of largely retail investor funds from the
Case 1:20-cv-00154-WSH Document 152 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 7
sale of limited partnership interests in High Street Capital Fund USA, LP, that they claimed would
invest in digital assets. (See Docket No. 74, ¶ 1). Shane and Sean were indicted in a parallel
criminal proceeding on August 10, 2021. (See United States v. Shane Hvizdzak and Sean Hvizdzak,
Crim. No. 21-30E, Docket No. 1).
Shortly after this civil action commenced, the Court entered a temporary restraining order
followed by a preliminary injunction freezing approximately $6 million of investor funds that
remained in Defendants’ financial accounts. (Docket Nos. 8, 21). The Court subsequently ordered
the liquidation of certain digital assets, which increased the total value of those frozen assets to
over $7 million. (Docket Nos. 68; 74, ¶ 3). The SEC contends that at least $24 million in additional
investor funds entrusted to Defendants remain missing. (Docket Nos. 74, ¶ 3; 149 at 3). Although
the Court partially stayed this case on August 11, 2021, after Shane and Sean were indicted, the
stay did not prelude the SEC from continuing to search for and locate additional investor assets1
through both formal and informal means of discovery. (Docket Nos. 94, 111). The SEC now
represents that it has not located any additional investor assets despite completing its search after
undertaking diligent efforts. (Docket No. 149 at 4).
On March 25, 2022, Shane’s retained counsel, Attorney Efrem M. Grail, moved to
withdraw as counsel of record in both the civil and criminal cases. (Civ. No. 20-154E, Docket No.
121; Crim. No. 21-30E, Docket No. 59). Subsequently, Shane took extensive time in attempting
to secure new counsel, causing the Court to conduct numerous status conferences2 to discern
whether (and when) he would be engaging replacement counsel for himself in both the criminal
1
The Court also ordered the parties to engage in negotiations regarding interim relief aimed at returning the
frozen assets to the investors. (Docket No. 111). The parties engaged in extensive negotiations culminating in the
SEC’s proposed settlement with the Entity Defendants, but Shane and his counsel terminated their attorney-client
relationship and Attorney Grail moved to withdraw from representation in this case on the cusp of consummating the
settlement for interim relief. (Docket No. 121).
2
See Crim. No. 21-30E, Docket Nos. 61, 62, 66, 74, 80.
-2-
Case 1:20-cv-00154-WSH Document 152 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 7
and civil cases and for the Entity Defendants in the civil case. Given the apparent lack of progress
related to Shane’s attempt to retain new counsel, on July 1, 2022, the Court granted Mr. Grail’s
motion to withdraw as counsel in the criminal case and appointed an assistant federal public
defender to represent Shane. (Crim. No. 21-30E, Docket Nos. 84, 86). At present, Mr. Grail’s
motion to withdraw as counsel in the civil case remains pending, (see Docket No. 121), and he still
is the attorney of record for Shane and the Entity Defendants in this case.
At a hearing on October 19, 2022, Shane represented that he had retained Attorney Michael
DeRiso to represent him and the Entity Defendants in both the civil and criminal cases, but that he
needed a brief period to secure funds to finalize the retention. (Docket No. 136). The Court gave
Shane until October 21, 2022 to complete this engagement, but Shane failed to do so by that
deadline. Then, on November 4, 2022, with legal representation for Shane and the Entity
Defendants in this civil case still unresolved, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing
Shane to explain why substitute counsel has not yet entered an appearance. (Docket No. 140). On
November 8, 2022, Mr. DeRiso entered his limited appearance in both the criminal and civil cases
in order to file a motion to unfreeze assets for legal representation. (Civ. No. 20-154E, Docket
Nos. 142, 143, 144; Crim. No. 21-30E, Docket Nos. 91, 92, 93). Immediately thereafter, Mr.
DeRiso filed motions in both cases seeking to unfreeze $250,000 to pay for attorney’s fees on
behalf of Shane and the Entity Defendants. (Civ. No. 20-154E, Docket No. 146; Crim. No. 2130E, Docket No. 94). Sean filed responses in both cases joining these motions. (Civ. No. 20154E, Docket No. 148; Crim. No. 21-30E, Docket No. 96). Although Sean does not take a position
on Shane’s motions and defers to the Court’s discretion, he submits that if the Court were to
unfreeze assets for Shane, then in the interest of equity it ought to unfreeze a commensurate amount
of assets for Sean’s attorney’s fees, too. (Id.).
-3-
Case 1:20-cv-00154-WSH Document 152 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 7
II. ANALYSIS
This Court froze the assets at issue in order to prevent their dissipation and diversion
pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), Section 21(d) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. (Docket Nos. 8, 21). See also
SEC v. Infinity Group Co., 212 F.3d 180, 197 (3d Cir. 2000). Shane and the Entity Defendants
now ask the Court to unfreeze $250,000 to retain new counsel in both the civil and criminal cases.
If the Court is inclined to grant such relief, Sean also requests that the Court unfreeze $250,000 to
pay his attorney’s fees.3 This Court has the discretion to do so, but it is guided here by several
factors that courts commonly consider in securities cases when evaluating a defendant’s request to
release frozen assets: first, whether such assets are traceable to the allegedly fraudulent activity;
second, whether unfreezing such assets would assist in returning funds to their rightful owners or
otherwise be in the investors’ interests; and third, whether the frozen assets fall short of the amount
necessary to compensate victims of the alleged fraud scheme. See, e.g., SEC v. Forte, 598 F. Supp.
2d 689, 692-93 (E.D. Pa. 2009); SEC v. Abdallah, Case No. 1:14-cv-1155, 2017 WL 11680996, at
*2-3 (N.D. Ohio March 24, 2017) (citing cases). None of these factors support unfreezing assets
to pay Shane’s and the Entity Defendants’ attorney’s fees on the current record.
First, Shane and the Entity Defendants have not established that $250,000 (or any other
amount) of frozen assets are not the investors’ funds or are otherwise not traceable to the alleged
fraud, despite carrying the burden of doing so. See SEC v. End of the Rainbow Partners, LLC, No.
17-cv-02670, 2019 WL 8348323, at *13 (D. Colo. Nov. 25, 2019). Defendants’ Motion references
$7.1 million in assets frozen by the SEC and another $400,000 seized by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, but the Motion does not trace the ownership of any non-forfeited assets to
3
When addressing these Motions at a recent status conference, Mr. DeRiso represented that Shane would share
any unfrozen assets with Sean for the purpose of paying for legal counsel.
-4-
Case 1:20-cv-00154-WSH Document 152 Filed 01/17/23 Page 5 of 7
Defendants themselves or otherwise establish that such assets are not traceable to the purported
fraud. Moreover, the SEC’s motion for a temporary restraining order describes in detail the funds
that are now frozen and traces the “vast majority” of those funds to the investors. (Docket Nos. 3,
4). Shane and the Entity Defendants simply have not identified any of Defendants’ funds (which
are not subject to criminal forfeiture) that are not the investors’ funds or not traceable to the
purported fraud.
Second, Shane does not establish how unfreezing such assets to pay for legal fees in this
case would assist in returning funds to their rightful owners or otherwise be in the investors’
interests. The Court recognizes that securing legal counsel for the Entity Defendants could aid in
expeditiously consummating a potential agreement as to interim relief intended to return the
currently frozen assets to the investors, and that limited settlement efforts would not likely
consume a material amount of frozen assets, but Defendants’ Motion does not seek such limited
relief.
Third, the approximately $7 million of frozen assets is woefully short of the approximately
$31 million allegedly taken from the investors, leaving a shortage of $24 million. Shane and the
Entity Defendants attempt to explain that they are asking for a “modest” amount of frozen funds
that represents a mere 3% of the total amount frozen. However, the percentage of the investors’
funds requested to be unfrozen and redirected for Defendants’ attorneys’ fees is irrelevant. Rather,
the appropriate inquiry is whether sufficient assets remain to cover the investors’ losses. Here, it
would be inequitable to redirect $250,000 or $500,000 of the investors’ funds for Defendants’ legal
fees, especially when approximately $24 million of the investors’ funds purportedly remain
unaccounted for.
-5-
Case 1:20-cv-00154-WSH Document 152 Filed 01/17/23 Page 6 of 7
III.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion without prejudice to
refiling if they can establish that the Court should exercise its discretion to unfreeze assets
consistent with the relevant factors addressed herein. Furthermore, the Court modifies its Order
dated August 11, 2021 (as previously modified by the Court’s Order of November 15, 2021),
staying this civil proceeding solely in relation to Defendant Shane Hvizdzak’s deposition, (see
Docket Nos. 94, 111), and stays this case in its entirety4 now that the SEC has exhausted its
discovery efforts to identify and freeze additional investor funds. See Landis v. North American
Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936). However, as previously noted, the Court recognizes the burden that an
indefinite stay would place upon the SEC, interested non-parties, and the public. Accordingly, a
party may move to modify or lift the stay based upon a change of circumstances or other good
cause. Finally, given that this case is now stayed, the Court will grant Mr. Grail’s motion to
withdraw as counsel for Defendants.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2023, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum
above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1) The Motion to Unfreeze Limited Assets to Pay for Attorney’s Fees, (Docket No. 146),
filed by Defendants Shane Hvizdzak, Hvizdzak Capital Management, LLC, High Street
Capital LLC, and High Street Capital Partners, LLC, and joined by Sean Hvizdzak,
(Docket No. 148), is DENIED without prejudice;
4
This stay shall not preclude the parties from revisiting discussions regarding interim relief or otherwise
engaging in settlement discussions.
-6-
Case 1:20-cv-00154-WSH Document 152 Filed 01/17/23 Page 7 of 7
2) The Court’s Order dated August 11, 2021, (Docket No. 94), as previously modified by
the Court’s Order dated November 15, 2021, (Docket No. 111), is further MODIFIED
to provide that this case is STAYED in its entirety; however, a party may move to
modify or lift the stay based upon a change of circumstances or for other good cause
shown; and,
3) Attorney Efrem M. Grail’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for
Defendants Shane Hvizdak, Hvizdzak Capital Management, LLC, High Street Capital
LLC, and High Street Capital Partners, LLC, (Docket No. 121), is GRANTED for good
cause shown.
s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?