FTC v. Online Trading Academy
LAST UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
CASE STATUS: Pending
Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. OTA Franchise Corporation, a Nevada Corporation; Newport Exchange Holdings, Inc., a California corporation; NEH Services, Inc., a California corporation; Eyal Shachar, also known as Eyal Shahar, individually and as an officer of OTA Franchise Corporation and Newport Exchange Holdings, Inc.; Samuel R. Seiden, individually and as an officer of OTA Franchise Corporation, and Darren Kimoto, individually and as an officer of OTA Franchise Corporation, Defendants.
FTC MATTER/FILE NUMBER: 182 3175 X200032
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:20-cv-00287-JVS
FEDERAL COURT: Central District of California
CASE SUMMARY
Online Trading Academy will be required to offer debt forgiveness to thousands of consumers who purchased its “training programs,” while the company’s founder and other individuals will together pay between $5 and $9.1 million and turn over assets under the terms of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that is expected to result in more than $10 million to benefit injured consumers.
The FTC brought a lawsuit alleging that OTA, led by Eyal Shachar, had deceived consumers for years with claims that purchasers of OTA’s investment training were likely to generate significant income. OTA claimed that anyone could learn to use its strategy, and filled its sales pitch with testimonials and hypothetical trades showing significant profits.
CASE TIMELINE
September 15, 2020
Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment (97.54 KB)
PRESS RELEASE: FTC Settlement Requires Online Trading Academy to Forgive Consumer Debt, and Principals to Turn Over Millions in Cash and Assets
May 29, 2020
Federal Trade Commission v. OTA Franchise Corporation (9th Cir.), Answering Brief of the FTC, 20-55356 (456.24 KB)
April 7, 2020
Preliminary Injunction (267.48 KB)
PRESS RELEASE: FTC Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Investor Training Scheme Online Trading Academy
March 30, 2020
OTA Franchise Corporation, Newport Exchange Holdings, Inc., NEH Service, INC., Eyal Shachar, Samuel Seiden, and Darren Kimoto v. Federal Trade Commission (N.D. Ill.), FTC Motion to Dismiss, 1:20cv802 (23.6 KB)
February 25, 2020
Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze, and Other Equitable Relief (1.04 MB)
PRESS RELEASE: FTC Obtains Temporary Restraining Order Against Alleged Investor Training Scheme Online Trading Academy
February 12, 2020
Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (554.19 KB)
Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Notices Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (1.48 MB)
PRESS RELEASE: FTC Sues Online Trading Academy for Running an Investment Training Scheme
For more information, see here: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/1823175/online-trading-academy
These materials were obtained directly from the Federal Government public websites and are posted here for your review and reference only. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works. These may not be the most recent versions. The U.S. Government may have more current information. We make no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of this information or the information linked to. Please check the linked sources directly.
