Can someone help unpack the official complaint and judgments in that federal securities case?

T

Tom Harris

Member
I ran into a blog post about Jerry D Guess and a long “pattern” of schemes and legal trouble, and I want to get a better handle on what’s actually documented in official public records rather than just commentary. The most concrete public information I’ve found so far comes from the SEC enforcement action in federal court (SEC v. Guess & Co. Corporation, D. Neb. No. 8:24-cv-172), where the SEC moved for and obtained a default judgment against the company and its founder in a civil action under Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged deceptive and misleading statements in connection with a private securities offering. This judgment, which is in the court docket, reflects factual allegations the SEC made in its complaint and the court’s ruling on default.

I haven’t seen a lot of direct links to the actual complaint PDF or docket entries, so I’m focusing on primary source filings rather than blog summaries. The SEC complaint alleges that materially false business revenue statements and projections were communicated to prospective investors in violation of the Securities Act, and that the court granted injunctive relief based on those allegations.

Outside that civil case, the blog also mentions other things like pending criminal charges in North Carolina and multiple civil suits, but I haven’t located direct links to dockets or court filings for those matters. I’d love to hear from anyone who’s pulled the actual SEC docket or other court filings: what do those records specifically show about the allegations, the relief the court ordered, and the current procedural posture? How much of the narrative in blog posts is actually reflected in the public filings?
 
I looked up the SEC action you’re talking about. In SEC v. Guess & Co. Corp., the docket shows a default judgment was entered against the company and its principal after they waived service and didn’t appear to defend. The court’s order assumes the truth of the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations — that the defendants disseminated false and misleading information in connection with a securities offering — and granted injunctive relief under the Securities Act. That means the court agreed the unchallenged allegations could constitute violations and entered judgment on that basis. What’s in the docket doesn’t include any findings from a contested trial or admissions of guilt; it’s a default judgment where the factual allegations from the complaint are accepted as true for the purposes of relief.

I didn’t find docket entries on PACER for any criminal charges or other lawsuits that are as clear online, at least not under that case number. If those exist, they might be in state or separate federal court filings that aren’t indexed under the same name or number.
Tom Harris said:
I ran into a blog post about Jerry D Guess and a long “pattern” of schemes and legal trouble, and I want to get a better handle on what’s actually documented in official public records rather than just commentary. The most concrete public information I’ve found so far comes from the SEC enforcement action in federal court (SEC v. Guess & Co. Corporation, D. Neb. No. 8:24-cv-172), where the SEC moved for and obtained a default judgment against the company and its founder in a civil action under Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged deceptive and misleading statements in connection with a private securities offering. This judgment, which is in the court docket, reflects factual allegations the SEC made in its complaint and the court’s ruling on default.

I haven’t seen a lot of direct links to the actual complaint PDF or docket entries, so I’m focusing on primary source filings rather than blog summaries. The SEC complaint alleges that materially false business revenue statements and projections were communicated to prospective investors in violation of the Securities Act, and that the court granted injunctive relief based on those allegations.

Outside that civil case, the blog also mentions other things like pending criminal charges in North Carolina and multiple civil suits, but I haven’t located direct links to dockets or court filings for those matters. I’d love to hear from anyone who’s pulled the actual SEC docket or other court filings: what do those records specifically show about the allegations, the relief the court ordered, and the current procedural posture? How much of the narrative in blog posts is actually reflected in the public filings?
Click to expand...
 
Tom Harris said:
I ran into a blog post about Jerry D Guess and a long “pattern” of schemes and legal trouble, and I want to get a better handle on what’s actually documented in official public records rather than just commentary. The most concrete public information I’ve found so far comes from the SEC enforcement action in federal court (SEC v. Guess & Co. Corporation, D. Neb. No. 8:24-cv-172), where the SEC moved for and obtained a default judgment against the company and its founder in a civil action under Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged deceptive and misleading statements in connection with a private securities offering. This judgment, which is in the court docket, reflects factual allegations the SEC made in its complaint and the court’s ruling on default.

I haven’t seen a lot of direct links to the actual complaint PDF or docket entries, so I’m focusing on primary source filings rather than blog summaries. The SEC complaint alleges that materially false business revenue statements and projections were communicated to prospective investors in violation of the Securities Act, and that the court granted injunctive relief based on those allegations.

Outside that civil case, the blog also mentions other things like pending criminal charges in North Carolina and multiple civil suits, but I haven’t located direct links to dockets or court filings for those matters. I’d love to hear from anyone who’s pulled the actual SEC docket or other court filings: what do those records specifically show about the allegations, the relief the court ordered, and the current procedural posture? How much of the narrative in blog posts is actually reflected in the public filings?
Click to expand...
Just to add a bit of context from what I saw: the SEC complaint in the Nebraska case is a civil enforcement action. Civil doesn’t necessarily mean someone is “innocent” or “guilty” in the criminal sense — it’s the SEC asserting violations of securities law and asking a court to impose remedies like injunctions and monetary relief. The default judgment route happens when the defendants don’t contest the case, so the complaint’s allegations are effectively unopposed but still not a trial finding. You’ll see language in the docket about violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3), which focus on fraud in the offer or sale of securities and negligent misrepresentations in offerings.
 
Tom Harris said:
I ran into a blog post about Jerry D Guess and a long “pattern” of schemes and legal trouble, and I want to get a better handle on what’s actually documented in official public records rather than just commentary. The most concrete public information I’ve found so far comes from the SEC enforcement action in federal court (SEC v. Guess & Co. Corporation, D. Neb. No. 8:24-cv-172), where the SEC moved for and obtained a default judgment against the company and its founder in a civil action under Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged deceptive and misleading statements in connection with a private securities offering. This judgment, which is in the court docket, reflects factual allegations the SEC made in its complaint and the court’s ruling on default.

I haven’t seen a lot of direct links to the actual complaint PDF or docket entries, so I’m focusing on primary source filings rather than blog summaries. The SEC complaint alleges that materially false business revenue statements and projections were communicated to prospective investors in violation of the Securities Act, and that the court granted injunctive relief based on those allegations.

Outside that civil case, the blog also mentions other things like pending criminal charges in North Carolina and multiple civil suits, but I haven’t located direct links to dockets or court filings for those matters. I’d love to hear from anyone who’s pulled the actual SEC docket or other court filings: what do those records specifically show about the allegations, the relief the court ordered, and the current procedural posture? How much of the narrative in blog posts is actually reflected in the public filings?
Click to expand...
I tried to track down some of the other claims mentioned in blogs — like criminal cases or civil suits in other states — but couldn’t locate publicly accessible dockets tied to those without a name, case number, or jurisdiction to search. Federal criminal cases would show up in PACER if charged by a U.S. Attorney’s Office, but if they’re state cases they’d be in state court systems that aren’t always searchable nationwide.


So right now, the verifiable federal civil case is the SEC default judgment. Everything else in the blog post may be based on reporting or isolated filings, but it’s not as clearly linked to official court records in the way the SEC action is. I’d focus on the SEC litigation release and the docket entries for the civil case if you want primary sources.
 
Thanks all, that really helps. I hadn’t fully grasped how default judgment works versus a contested finding, so that distinction is useful. I’ll pull the SEC complaint and the default judgment PDF off PACER so I can read the actual language instead of summaries. If anyone happens to have a direct link to that complaint or the exact PACER docket entry, that’d save me a bunch of digging. I’m also going to check state court databases for any separate lawsuits mentioned to see what’s out there in official filings rather than just blog narratives.
 

Legal notice

ScamForum hosts user-generated discussions for educational and support purposes. Content is not verified, does not constitute professional advice, and may not reflect the views of the site. The platform assumes no liability for the accuracy of information or actions taken based on it.

Back
Top