SEC v. Eliyahu Weinstein; Aryeh L. Bromberg; Joel L. Wittels; Richard M. Curry; Christopher J. Anderson; and Alaa Mohamed Hattab, No. 3:23-cv-03848, District of New Jersey (July 24, 2023) — Complaint

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
By:  ANTONIA M. APPS
Regional Director
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
New York, New York 10004-2616
Tel:      (212) 336-1100
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
(Designated Local Counsel)
By: Matthew J. Mailloux
Assistant U.S. Attorney
970 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Email: [email protected]
Tel:      (973) 645‐2837
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ELIYAHU WEINSTEIN, ARYEH L. BROMBERG,
JOEL L. WITTELS, RICHARD M. CURRY,
CHRISTOPHER J. ANDERSON, AND ALAA
MOHAMED HATTAB,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint
against Defendants Eliyahu Weinstein (“Weinstein”), Aryeh L. Bromberg (“Bromberg”), Joel L.
Wittels (“Wittels”), Richard M. Curry (“Curry”), Christopher J. Anderson (“Anderson”), and
Alaa Mohamed Hattab (“Hattab”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:

2

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
1. This action concerns a multi-million dollar Ponzi-like fraud scheme orchestrated
by Defendant Eliyahu Weinstein—a twice-convicted fraudster—and carried out by Weinstein
and his five co-Defendants.
2. In or about November 2021, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels,
through their entity Optimus Investments, Inc. (“Optimus”), began their fraudulent scheme to
raise millions of dollars from investors purportedly to finance lucrative transactions involving
Optimus’s overseas purchase, distribution, and re-sale of in-demand healthcare products.
3. In January 2022, Defendants Anderson and Curry formed Tryon Management
Group LLC (“Tryon”) to raise capital to invest in Optimus’s purported deals through Tryon’s
sale of short-term promissory notes to individual investors linked to individual purported
Optimus deals (“Tryon Note” or “Tryon Notes”).
4.  From at least January 2022 through the present (“Relevant Period”), Defendants
Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Anderson, and Curry schemed to mislead investors and
prospective investors regarding the profitability of purported Optimus deals in order to induce
sales of the Tryon Notes and to convince existing noteholders to delay repayment of their notes
and/or roll over their investment into other Optimus deals. Meanwhile, these same Defendants
used investor funds for improper purposes, including to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier
investors with later-invested funds.
5. Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels (“Optimus Defendants”) initially
concealed Weinstein’s identity, and thus his criminal record, from Anderson and Curry as well as
from Tryon’s investors. But in late August 2022, Anderson and Curry learned of Weinstein’s
true identity and of additional fraudulent conduct by the Optimus Defendants regarding the

3

purported Optimus deals, and thereafter joined the Optimus Defendants in continuing the
fraudulent scheme to raise money from investors. From that point forward, Anderson and Curry,
together with the Optimus Defendants, worked together to raise additional funds and to persuade
investors to delay repayment of their Tryon Notes, while hiding Weinstein’s identity and
Defendants’ prior and continued fraudulent conduct.
6. Defendant Hattab knowingly provided substantial assistance to the other
Defendants in carrying out their fraudulent scheme.
7. Hattab purported to broker certain of the Optimus deals, and he substantially
participated in the other Defendants’ fraudulent scheme by: initially hiding Weinstein’s identity
from Curry and Anderson; providing Anderson and Curry misleading information regarding at
least one of the Optimus deals; and, from late August 2022 forward, joining his co-Defendants’
continuing fraudulent scheme to hide Weinstein’s identity from Tryon investors, misuse Tryon
investor funds, and continue to raise funds from Tryon investors for improper purposes.
8. Defendants’ scheme defrauded at least 150 Tryon investors out of a total of at
least $38 million.
VIOLATIONS
9. Through this conduct and as alleged further here, Defendants Weinstein,
Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson have violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-
5].
10. Through this conduct and as alleged further here, Defendants Weinstein,
Bromberg, and Wittels aided and abetted Defendants Curry’s and Anderson’s violations of

4

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, in violation of Section 15(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] and Section
20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)].
11. Through this conduct and as alleged further here, Defendant Hattab aided and
abetted the other Defendants’ violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in violation of Section 15(b) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] and Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)].
12. Unless Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined, they will again
engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this complaint and
in acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
13. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by
Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)]; and Exchange Act
Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)].
14. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendants
from violating the federal securities laws this Complaint alleges they have violated; (b) ordering
Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains or unjust enrichment received as a result of the
violations alleged here and to pay prejudgment interest, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections
21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 78u(d)(7)]; (c) ordering Defendants to pay
civil money penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)]; and
Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; (d) permanently prohibiting Defendants
from serving as officers or directors of any company that has a class of securities registered
under Exchange Act Section 12 [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports under

5

Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e) [15
U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; (e) permanently
enjoining Defendants from directly or indirectly—including, but not limited to, through any
entity owned or controlled by them—participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any
security, except that such injunction shall not prevent each from purchasing or selling securities
for their own personal accounts; and (f) ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem
just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section
22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
16. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts,
practices, and courses of business alleged here.
17. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)]
and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendants may be found in, are inhabitants
of, or transact business in the District of New Jersey, and some of the acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District.
DEFENDANTS
18. Weinstein, age 48, resides in Lakewood, New Jersey. Weinstein led and directed
operations at Optimus but hid his identity from its investors by using the alias “Mike Konig” and
by not holding an official title or documented ownership interest in Optimus. Weinstein thus hid
from investors his two prior fraud convictions based on charges brought by the United States
Attorney for the District of New Jersey. In January 2013, Weinstein pleaded guilty to fraud and

6

other charges involving a $200 million real estate Ponzi scheme and, on February 25, 2014, was
sentenced to 22 years in prison and ordered to pay $224 million in restitution. In May 2013—
while under indictment for his real estate fraud—Weinstein was charged for a separate, $6.7
million fraud involving purported sales of pre-IPO Facebook shares and Florida real estate.
Weinstein again pleaded guilty and, on December 15, 2014, received another two-year prison
sentence for the second fraud—bringing his total prison sentence to 24 years. In January 2021,
President Donald J. Trump commuted both of Weinstein’s sentences to time served. Weinstein
has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity.
19. Bromberg, age 48, resides in Lakewood, New Jersey. Optimus’s New Jersey
Certificate of Incorporation lists Bromberg and Wittels as comprising its “Board of Directors”
and “Wittels” as its “Incorporator.” Bromberg was primarily involved in raising capital for
Optimus and in its strategy for communicating with Optimus investors. Bromberg has never been
registered with the Commission in any capacity.
20. Wittels, age 56, resides in Lakewood, New Jersey. Wittels was primarily
responsible for Optimus’s accounting and bookkeeping. Wittels has never been registered with
the Commission in any capacity.
21. Curry, age 36, resides in Northumberland, Pennsylvania. Curry co-founded
Tryon with Anderson and, according to Tryon’s New Jersey Certificate of Formation, the two
served as Tryon’s sole “Members” and “Managers.” Curry was responsible for raising investor
funds for Tryon, conducting due diligence into potential Tryon investments, and managing the
funds that Tryon raised. Curry has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity.
22. Anderson, age 47, resides in Readington, New Jersey. Anderson is the other co-
founder of Tryon. Anderson was responsible for raising capital from Tryon investors, as well as

7

tracking Tryon’s receipt and use of investor funds. Anderson has never been registered with the
Commission in any capacity.
23. Hattab, age 34, resides in Canada. Hattab’s affiliated entities purportedly acted as
brokers with suppliers on certain of the purported Optimus deals. Hattab has never been
registered with the Commission in any capacity.
RELATED PARTIES
24. Optimus was incorporated in New Jersey in September 2021. Optimus purported
to raise and deploy capital in the healthcare supply chain industry, including for example,
purported transactions involving Covid-19 masks and first aid kits. Optimus purported to be
operated by co-founders Bromberg and Wittels, but Weinstein actually led and directed its
operations. Optimus has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity.
25. Tryon is a limited liability company that Anderson and Curry formed in New
Jersey in January 2022. Anderson and Curry are Tryon’s sole co-founders and co-owners. Tryon
has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity.
26. Cornerstone Trading Group, LLC (“Cornerstone”) is a limited liability
company formed in New Jersey in May 2022. Cornerstone’s New Jersey Certificate of
Formation lists Bromberg, Wittels, Anderson, and Curry as its sole “Members” and “Managers.”
The Optimus Defendants, Curry, and Anderson formed Cornerstone ostensibly to receive,
consolidate, and better track Optimus and Tryon investor funds. Cornerstone has never been
registered with the Commission in any capacity.

8

FACTS
 A.  Background
27. In or about 2017-2018, Anderson and Curry met and became real estate business
partners. Curry, who previously had worked as a medical supply wholesaler, also continued to
operate in that business.
28. In or around July 2021, Curry became acquainted with Wittels and invested his
personal funds in a purported Wittels deal involving personal protective equipment. Wittels
subsequently persuaded Curry to reinvest his purported profits from that deal into additional
deals.
29. In or about November 2021, Wittels introduced Bromberg to Curry as Wittels’
business partner in Optimus which, the two represented to Curry, had been formed to engage in
medical supplies distribution deals.
30. By in or about January or February 2022, Anderson and Curry learned from their
interactions with the Optimus Defendants that Weinstein (then using the alias “Mike Konig”)
was the go-to person behind the Optimus deals, and that Wittels and Bromberg relied on
Weinstein (then “Mike Konig”) to direct and carry out Optimus’s purported deals.
31. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants sought and obtained
financing for their purported deals from various investors, including Curry, Anderson, and
Tryon.
32. By at least January 2022, Bromberg and Wittels represented to Curry that
Optimus needed capital to engage in new deals, and they offered to pay Curry a portion of the
profits on such deals in exchange for Curry raising capital for Optimus.

9

33. In or around January 2022, Curry and Anderson established Tryon as an
investment vehicle through which to raise cash to fund the purported Optimus deals that
Bromberg and Wittels were offering.
34. Beginning in or about January 2022, and throughout the Relevant Period,
Anderson and Curry had oral understandings with Bromberg and Wittels that Tryon was to
receive 35% of Optimus’s returns on each of the Optimus deals for which Tryon provided
funding.
35. During the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants pitched the purported
Optimus deals to Anderson and Curry as follows. Optimus was to arrange funding for acquiring
medical supplies overseas—such as Covid-19 test kits, face masks, and first aid kits—which
would then be re-sold to a contracted purchaser at a profit. Optimus was to use those profits, in
turn, to pay Tryon and other Optimus investors the promised returns on their investments.
36. During the Relevant Period, through Anderson’s and Curry’s sales of the Tryon
Notes, they raised funds for the Optimus deals directly from investors and collectively became
the main source of Optimus’s capital.
37. The Tryon Notes varied but generally included these terms: the “Borrowers”
(Anderson, Curry, and Tryon) agreed to pay the “Lender” (the noteholder), within 60-90 days,
the note’s principal loan amount plus interest at an annualized rate of 20% to 50%,
 as well as an
“equity return” (i.e., another percentage of the loan amount, typically up to 10%).
38. During the Relevant Period, Curry and Anderson pitched the Tryon Notes to
potential investors, and Anderson was responsible for drafting the Tryon Notes and maintaining
any related documentation and bookkeeping.

10

39. Curry and Anderson pitched each set of the Tryon Notes to prospective investors
both orally and through written communications.
40. In pitching the Tryon Notes to investors, Curry and Anderson generally
represented that Tryon was offering the notes in order to fund a particular Optimus deal,
including by describing the nature of the particular deal to be funded.
41. For at least some, if not all, of the Tryon Note offerings, Anderson and Curry
disseminated Tryon advertising materials that included the following flow chart, which indicated
to prospective investors that the source of each Tryon Note holder’s investment return was to be
the anticipated return on the particular Optimus deal associated with that Tryon Note:

42. Tryon’s advertising materials also presented Anderson and Curry as “[f]amily
[c]entric,” “[f]aith-based” and “[m]en of honor” who provided access to “unique lending
opportunities.”

11

43. Beginning in or about January 2022 and throughout the Relevant Period—based
on their contemporaneous conversations with Anderson and Curry regarding Tryon’s method of
raising capital for Optimus—the Optimus Defendants knew that Tryon was raising capital for
each of the purported Optimus deals through Tryon’s offer and sale of Tryon Notes to individual
investors; that generally each Tryon Note was linked to a particular purported Optimus deal; and
that the Tryon investors expected to be repaid on their Tryon Notes with investment returns from
each purported Optimus deal associated with each Tryon Note.
44. Anderson and Curry typically collected and wired to Optimus the Tryon Note
funds associated with each purported Optimus deal, with the expectation—based on their oral
understandings with Bromberg and Wittels—that Optimus would then use each such pool of
capital to fund each associated Optimus deal and would, in turn, pay Tryon its investment return
on each such Optimus deal.
45. By at least February 2022, Anderson and Curry knew that the Optimus deals were
not yielding the promised investment returns, but they continued to pitch additional deals to
investors.
46. In or around late May 2022, Anderson, Curry, Bromberg, and Wittels formed
Cornerstone, ostensibly to better track and account for Tryon investor funds and Anderson’s and
Curry’s expected investment returns on the purported Optimus deals.
47. Although Weinstein—then going by “Mike Konig”—declined to be a named
partner in Cornerstone, he continued to hold himself out as running the purported Optimus deals
and had direct or indirect access to Cornerstone’s bank account.
48. During the Relevant Period, in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, Defendants
Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson misled Tryon investors and prospective

12

investors regarding the progress and profits of a number of purported Optimus deals, including
the examples described in paragraphs 49-88 below.
B.  Representative Optimus Deals
 1.  Pharmex Deal
49. In or about December 2021, Bromberg introduced Curry to a deal that the
Optimus Defendants called “Pharmex” (“Pharmex Deal”).
50. For the Pharmex Deal, Bromberg told Curry that Optimus needed to raise $10
million for the purchase of 23 million N-95 face masks from a supplier in Turkey (in two
tranches) to fill an existing purchase order from an Israeli distributor. Bromberg sought to have
Curry raise $5 million for the Pharmex Deal and offered Curry a 40% return on any capital he
raised for the Pharmex Deal.
51. In December 2021, for the first tranche of the Pharmex Deal, Curry provided
Optimus approximately $3.8 million—a significant portion of which Curry personally
contributed, and the rest of which he raised from a small group of investors (who included
Anderson).
52. Curry promised all but one of his Pharmex Deal investors 35% returns within 60
days, or by mid-February 2022.
53. In early February 2022—knowing that the Pharmex Deal had not yet yielded any
investment return and to convince his investors to roll their investments over into another
Optimus deal—Anderson and Curry misrepresented to their investors that the purported Pharmex
Deal had been profitable.
54. Thus, for example, on February 6, 2022, Anderson sent the following false email
to investors regarding the first tranche of the purported Pharmex Deal:

13

Congratulations, we did it. Not only did we assist Pharmex Corporation in serving
their clients and improving public health in Israel, but we made a bunch of money
doing it. I know at the beginning of this journey, the deal sounded to [sic] good to
be true, once in a while though, fairy tales do come true. Many of you have rolled
over your principal investment into the [Optimus] GSA deal. Thank you for your
continued trust.

55. As Anderson and Curry knew at the time, Anderson’s February 6, 2022 email was
false because Optimus had not yet paid any return on the Pharmex Deal, as evidenced by Curry’s
statement the next day, February 7, 2022, in a WhatsApp chat with the Optimus Defendants:
Any chance if pharmex money doesn’t come back in time optimus could spot the
money for my investors?  It’s only like 1.252mm without my profits...It would
seriously be YUGE [sic] for me to be able to promise this.

56. By misleading their Pharmex Deal investors, Anderson and Curry were able to
persuade most of them to forgo payment of their purported (but fictional) investment returns and,
instead, roll their investments into other Optimus deals.
57. For Pharmex Deal investors who insisted on repayment of their investments, the
Optimus Defendants, Anderson, and Curry created the false impression that Tryon was paying
them back with Pharmex Deal profits while, in fact—as the Optimus Defendants, Anderson, and
Curry knew—Anderson and Curry repaid them with unrelated funds that they borrowed from
Optimus.
58. Thus, on February 10, 2022, to repay Anderson’s and Curry’s investors on the
Pharmex Deal, Bromberg caused Optimus to wire to Tryon $1,252,000—with the reference
“Pharmex Return”—even though Curry and Bromberg knew those funds were not generated by
the Pharmex Deal.
59. In a February 23, 2022 WhatsApp exchange, Curry thanked Bromberg for
providing the $1,250,000 to repay the Pharmex Deal investors, which both men knew was not
generated by the Pharmex Deal:

14

Curry:  It means a LOT that Optimus scraped the money together to pay
my investors... I really really appreciate that.

Bromberg:  Of course were [sic] a [expletive] team buddy.

60. Throughout the Relevant Period, as the Optimus Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded, Curry and Anderson continued to mislead their Tryon investors regarding the
success and progress of purported Optimus deals in order to convince them to forgo immediate
repayment on their investments and, instead, roll over their investments into subsequent
purported Optimus deals.
61. Thus, for example, in a March 16, 2022 WhatsApp chat among Weinstein, Curry,
and Wittels concerning payouts due on the Pharmex Deal, Curry wrote, “we will work on getting
everyone to agree to roll over their money (they will not know that we won’t see it for another 30
days :( ) but we’re going to just figure it out on our end.  Mike [referring to Weinstein], what I
need from you is [a] list of all the deals we have on the table so I can pitch to my investors where
there [sic] money is going to be used (you can do this on the phone with me but writing it out is
helpful).”  Weinstein responded, “Ok, will do.”
62. In addition, in or about June 2022, Wittels sent misleading account statements to
non-Tryon Optimus investors—which Anderson helped Wittels prepare—that created the false
impression that the Pharmex Deal profits had been received when, in fact (as Wittels and
Anderson knew and had discussed among themselves) no profits from the Pharmex Deal had
been received.
2.  Baby Formula Deals
63. In or about late May 2022, during a shortage of baby formula in the United States,
Weinstein and Bromberg proposed to Anderson and Curry a deal to purchase baby formula from
a supplier in Turkey, using Hattab as the broker on the transaction (“Formula Deal 1”).

15

64. In or around June 2022, Anderson and Curry sold an initial set of Tryon Notes to
raise funds for Formula Deal 1.
65. Hattab, through one or more of his affiliated entities, purported to act as a broker
for Formula Deal 1.
66. In or about June and July 2022—through his communications with Anderson
and/or Curry regarding Formula Deal 1—Hattab understood that Anderson and Curry were
raising, and had raised, funds from their investors to help finance Formula Deal 1 and that they
had provided those funds to Optimus to help finance Formula Deal 1.
67. In or around late July or early August 2022, Anderson and Curry began to attempt
to raise money for a second Formula Deal (“Formula Deal 2”) (collectively with Formula Deal 1,
“Formula Deals”).
68. In preparing to solicit investors for Formula Deal 2, Curry and Anderson asked
Hattab for proof that Formula Deal 1 had been completed.
69. In a July 29, 2022 WhatsApp chat, Curry asked Hattab for a “screenshot” of
payments to his bank account for Formula Deal 1 as proof that Formula Deal 1 had been
completed and that Tryon (and its investors) would receive their expected investment returns for
Formula Deal 1.
70. Hattab responded on WhatsApp to Anderson’s July 29 request by stating that he
would send the screenshot “today.”
71. Later that same day, July 29, 2022, Hattab provided Weinstein a screenshot of a
portion of one of Hattab’s on-line bank account statements, which reported incoming wires of
approximately $2.26 million (“Screenshot”).

16

72. Later that same day, July 29, 2022, Weinstein (using his alias “Mike Konig”) sent
Anderson the Screenshot.
73. Hattab and Weinstein provided the Screenshot to Anderson and Curry to deceive
them into believing that Tryon’s investors would receive their expected investment return on the
Formula 1 Deal from the $2.26 million that Hattab had received.
74. In fact—as Hattab and Weinstein knew prior to July 29, 2022—Optimus and
Hattab had not used Tryon investor funds to finance Formula Deal 1 (Weinstein had diverted
those funds for other purposes), and Weinstein and Hattab did not intend to use any proceeds of
Formula Deal 1 to repay Tryon or its investors.
75. As of July 29, 2022, Hattab and Weinstein knew that Anderson and Curry had
requested the Screenshot as proof of Tryon’s anticipated payout on Formula Deal 1, and both
knew or recklessly disregarded that Anderson and Curry would rely on such proof of Formula
Deal 1 in order to pitch Formula Deal 2 to Tryon investors.
76. On August 3, 2022, relying on the misleading Screenshot and other false
information that Weinstein and Hattab had provided Anderson and Curry regarding Formula
Deal 1, Anderson sent an email to a broker (“Broker”) who was helping Tryon solicit new
investors (“August 3 Email”).
77. Anderson’s August 3 Email summarized Formula Deal 1—including Tryon’s or
Cornerstone’s (fictitious) investment return on that deal—and Anderson attached to his email as
proof the misleading Screenshot that Hattab and Weinstein had provided.
78. Also in his August 3 Email—based on the false and misleading information that
Weinstein and Hattab had provided regarding Formula Deal 1—Anderson pitched Formula Deal
2 to the Broker.

17

79. On August 6, 2022, Anderson and Curry emailed Tryon investors an update
touting Formula Deal 1 and pitching Formula Deal 2 (“August 6 Email”):
We successfully completed our first formula deal with 4 x 28,200 800g Cans (4
Containers).  That’s 112,200 cans of formula being distributed to families in
Texas at fair prices.  Needless to say, we felt so good about this one, that we have
another deal in the pipeline for 29 more containers.  And it is LIVE.  If you want
in on this deal, Offering is 25% within 3-4 Months (Although we think it will be
faster).  Funding on this is open from 8/08-8/19.  ACt [sic] now,... Only 4mm in
funding room left!

80. Anderson and Curry based the August 6 Email on the false and misleading
information that Weinstein and Hattab had provided to them regarding Formula Deal 1.
81. In fact, as Weinstein and Hattab knew—and as Anderson and Curry later
learned—Optimus had not invested Tryon investor funds in Formula Deal 1, and Formula Deal 2
never actually occurred.
3.  Mask Deals
82. In mid-May 2022, the Optimus Defendants, Curry, and Anderson launched a deal
involving the purported purchase of 100,000,000 face masks from a certain vendor in Turkey
(“Turkish Vendor”), and purported resale of the masks to a certain product distribution company
(“Distribution Company”) that, the Optimus Defendants told Anderson and Curry, was involved
in many of the purported Optimus deals (“Mask Deal 1”).
83. For Mask Deal 1, Curry, and Anderson offered investors the option to purchase
either four-month Tryon Notes at a 25% annualized rate of return, or seven-month Tryon Notes
at a 50% annualized rate of return.
84. A Tryon deal sheet for Mask Deal 1, which Anderson and Curry created and sent
to potential investors, stated that Tryon needed to raise $6.6 million to complete full payment
($29 million) to the Turkish Vendor.

18

85. By the end of May 2022, Anderson and Curry had raised approximately $3.2
million for Mask Deal 1 through the sale of Tryon Notes and had provided those funds to
Optimus.
86. In or around July or August 2022, the Optimus Defendants, Anderson, and Curry
launched a second mask deal (“Mask Deal 2”) (collectively with Mask Deal 1, the “Mask
Deals”), pursuant to which masks again were to be supplied by the Turkish Vendor.
87. For Mask Deal 2, Anderson, and Curry raised $4.4 million through the sale of
Tryon Notes and provided those funds to Optimus to fund Mask Deal 2.
88. As Anderson and Curry later learned, Weinstein did not use the Tryon Notes’
proceeds raised for the Mask Deals to fund the Mask Deals; rather, Weinstein fraudulently
diverted those funds, knowing that they were intended to fund the Mask Deals, and knowing that
Anderson and Curry had sold Tryon Notes for that purpose. In late August 2022, Weinstein
admitted to Curry and Anderson that he had diverted the funds, claiming to have instead made
unrelated investments in the Turkish stock market.
C.  Ponzi-like Payments to Investors
89. Throughout the Relevant Period, as part of their scheme to mislead investors
regarding the success of the purported Optimus deals, the Optimus Defendants, Curry, and
Anderson further schemed to conceal the failure of those deals by repaying Tryon and Optimus
investors with loans from Optimus to Tryon and vice versa; by using later investor funds to repay
earlier investors; and by simultaneously persuading many Tryon Note holders to forgo
immediate repayment and, instead, roll their purportedly successful investments into new
purported Optimus deals that involved, in at least some cases, the issuance of new Tryon Notes.

19

90. For example, as explained in paragraphs 49-62 above, by at least February 2022,
Anderson and Curry had begun to receive requests from Tryon Note holders for past due note
payments regarding the Pharmex Deal and, because no payment on the Pharmex Deal had been
received (and to avoid disclosing this fact to then-current and prospective investors), Anderson
and Curry borrowed funds from Optimus to repay those Pharmex Deal investors who chose not
to roll over their investments.
91. In another example, in April 2022, Bromberg (with Wittels’ knowledge and
consent) asked Curry to transfer to Optimus several million dollars of Tryon investor funds so
that Optimus could make payments due to its non-Tryon investors. Curry and Anderson did so
despite knowing that such transfers contradicted Anderson’s and Curry’s promises to the Tryon
Note holders regarding Tryon’s use of their invested funds to invest in Optimus deals.
92. Similarly, in mid-May 2022—to trick an investor into believing that a purported
Optimus deal in which that investor had invested had been successful—Bromberg agreed to
Curry’s request to repay the investor using Optimus funds unrelated to the purported deal, and
Bromberg falsely labeled the wire transfer with a specific Optimus deal name. In fact, as
Bromberg and Curry knew, that purported Optimus deal had not yet paid any profits. Within a
month of receiving that false and misleading wire payment, the same investor made additional
significant investments in purported Optimus deals.
93. Wittels participated in cycling Optimus and Tryon investor funds to mislead
Anderson and Curry—and by extension, their Tryon investors—into believing that they were
receiving profits from Optimus deals when, in fact, they were receiving later investors’ money.
94. Thus, for example, on May 3, 2022, Tryon wired Optimus $2.9 million that Tryon
had raised from its investors to fund one of Optimus’s purported deals. The next day, Wittels

20

wired $2.5 million to Tryon, falsely representing to Anderson and Curry that the $2.5 million
constituted profits from the Pharmex Deal when, in fact, it came from the $2.9 million that Tryon
had wired to Optimus the previous day.
95. Similarly, in an August 3, 2022 WhatsApp chat—among Anderson, Curry,
Bromberg, and Wittels—Anderson and Wittels discussed Optimus’s need to make a $125,000
payment due to an Optimus investor related to a particular purported Optimus deal. That same
day, Anderson and/or Curry caused Cornerstone to wire Optimus $125,000 unrelated to that deal
and, seven days later, Optimus wired the investor the $125,000, with a wire memo (falsely)
noting the purported corresponding Optimus deal in which the investor had invested.
D. The Defendants Hid Weinstein’s Identity
96. From the time that Curry and Anderson first became involved with Optimus, until
late August 2022, the Optimus Defendants (and, for at least part of this period, Defendant
Hattab) intentionally hid Weinstein’s true identity from Anderson and Curry—and so from
Tryon’s investors and potential investors—referring to Weinstein solely by the alias “Mike
Konig.”
97. To obtain Optimus deal information to provide to his investors, Curry initially
communicated directly with Bromberg and Wittels through frequent WhatsApp chats and
telephone calls.
98. Beginning by at least January 2022, as Optimus’s payments to Tryon on its
purported deals began to be delayed and, consequently, as Curry and Anderson began to ask
Bromberg and Wittels for more detailed information about the deals, Bromberg referred Curry to
a “Mike Konig” (who, unbeknownst to Curry and Anderson, was actually Weinstein).

21

99. At Weinstein’s direction, Bromberg and Wittels described “Mike Konig” to Curry
as a wealthy businessman whom Bromberg had known for 35 years, and who maintained
relationships with Optimus’s suppliers.
100. Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels thus intentionally concealed from Curry and
Anderson Weinstein’s true identity and criminal history, and downplayed his lead role at
Optimus.
101. By at least March 2022, Curry and eventually Anderson regularly communicated
directly, by telephone and WhatsApp chat, with Weinstein (pretending to be “Mike Konig”),
Bromberg, and Wittels.
102. As further explained at paragraphs 111-121 below, the Optimus Defendants and
Hattab continued to hide Weinstein’s true identity from Anderson and Curry (and, thus, from
Tryon’s investors) until late August 2022—at which time Anderson and Curry learned of
Weinstein’s true identity and agreed to continue to conceal it from Tryon’s investors.
E.  The Optimus Defendants, Curry, and Anderson Hid
the Identity of a Second Felon Involved in Optimus Deals

103. In addition to hiding his own identity, Weinstein also hid from Anderson and
Curry—and, thus, from Tryon investors—the true identity of a Weinstein business associate
involved in certain of the Optimus deals, who was also a felon convicted for his involvement in a
Ponzi-like scheme (“Felon”).
104. Early on in the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants informed Anderson and
Curry of the Distribution Company, which, they claimed, was involved in many of the purported
Optimus deals.

22

105. Thus, in periodic Tryon newsletters and other communications with its investors,
Anderson and Curry routinely referred to the Distribution Company as a critical component of
the Optimus deals in which Tryon purportedly was investing the Tryon Note holders’ funds.
106. Also early on in the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants provided Anderson
and Curry the name of their principal contact at the Distribution Company, who was the Felon.
107. However, the contact name that the Optimus Defendants had provided to
Anderson and Curry for the Felon was an alias; Weinstein was attempting to hide from Anderson
and Curry the real identity of the Felon.
108. By at least June 2022, Bromberg and Wittels also knew that the name that they
had provided for the Felon was an alias, and that he was a felon.
109. By June 2022, Curry and Anderson learned the true identity of the Felon.
110. After June 2022, Anderson, Curry, and the Optimus Defendants nonetheless
continued to hide the true identity of the Felon from Tryon’s investors, for fear that disclosure of
such information would end the Optimus and Tryon investment scheme.
F.  Defendants Jointly Continued Their Fraudulent Scheme After August 2022
111. On or about August 22, 2022, Curry and Anderson had an in-person meeting with
Hattab (“August 22 Meeting”), the ostensible purpose of which was to discuss a possible Tryon
investment in Hattab’s plastic bottle company, Saniton Plastic Co. (“Saniton”).
112. At the August 22 Meeting, Anderson and Curry initially proposed to Hattab that
they invest into Saniton $30 million of Tryon’s anticipated profits from its investments in the
purported Optimus deals.
113. Hattab, however, informed Anderson and Curry at the August 22 Meeting: that
Tryon would not realize its expected profits from the Mask Deals and the Formula Deals; that,

23

rather than investing Tryon funds in those deals, Weinstein had diverted that money; that the
“Mike Konig” with whom Anderson and Curry had been communicating was actually
Weinstein, a twice convicted Ponzi-scheme fraudster; that no Tryon money had been invested in
Formula Deal 1; that Weinstein had directed Hattab to provide Anderson and Curry the
Screenshot for Formula Deal 1; and that the Screenshot (and Formula Deal 1) did not actually
involve any Tryon investment.
114. Hattab further proposed to Anderson and Curry at the August 22 Meeting that, if
they agreed not to contact the FBI about Weinstein, Hattab would grant Tryon a 49% interest in
Saniton and 70% of Hattab’s Saniton profits.
115. Hattab also informed Anderson and Curry at the August 22 Meeting that Formula
Deal 2 was not an actual deal. Hattab nonetheless asked Anderson and Curry to continue to raise
funds for Saniton from Tryon’s investors, under the guise of raising funds for the fictional
Formula Deal 2.
116. On or about August 25, 2022, Anderson and Curry provided to Hattab $1.875
million that they previously had raised from Tryon investors for Formula Deal 2, with the
understanding that Hattab would use those funds to finance Saniton, not Formula Deal 2.
117. Hattab then arranged an August 26, 2022 in-person meeting among Anderson,
Curry, Weinstein, Bromberg, and Hattab (“August 26 Meeting”), at which time Weinstein
admitted to Anderson and Curry: his true identity; that he had provided Anderson and Curry fake
bills of lading for the Formula Deals; that he had used the Tryon investor funds raised for the
Mask 1 Deal to invest instead in Turkish stocks; and that he (Weinstein) had diverted other
Tryon investor money into Optimus deals other than those for which the Optimus Defendants
had promised Anderson and Curry they would employ those funds.

24

118. During the August 26, 2022 Meeting, Anderson acknowledged to the others
present that it was illegal for Tryon to use older investor funds—or unrelated Optimus funds—to
repay Tryon Note holders, but that Tryon would need to continue to do so to avoid defaulting on
$35 million in Tryon Notes that were coming due in October 2022.
119. During the August 26 Meeting, Weinstein and Bromberg asked Anderson and
Curry to continue the fraudulent scheme—to hide from Tryon and Optimus investors all of the
above information about their and the Optimus Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, and Weinstein,
Bromberg, Hattab, Anderson, and Curry jointly agreed to do so.
120. Shortly after the August 26, 2022 Meeting, Anderson and Curry further learned
that Optimus had diverted over $1 million of Tryon investor funds that had been earmarked for a
purported Optimus deal to instead purchase a home in Jackson, New Jersey. When Anderson and
Curry confronted Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels with this information, Wittels admitted that
he had purchased the home for Weinstein and his family using Tryon investor funds that had
been earmarked for an Optimus deal.
121. For the rest of the Relevant Period, notwithstanding what Anderson and Curry
had learned about the Optimus Defendants’ fraudulent conduct—i.e., Weinstein’s hidden
identity, the falsified Optimus documents, and Optimus’s misappropriation of investor funds—
the Optimus Defendants and Anderson and Curry actively concealed those facts from Tryon’s
investors.
122. Also during the rest of the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants in concert
with Anderson and Curry continued to try to sell new Tryon Notes and to persuade existing
Tryon Note holders to forgo immediate repayment, and instead, roll over their funds into new
purported Optimus deals (that Defendants knew were fictitious). Beginning by at least the end of

25

2022, they also sought note modification agreements with existing Tryon Note holders whose
notes had become past due.
123. Additionally, Anderson and Curry continued to attempt to raise, and did raise,
funds from Tryon investors under the false pretense of financing other purported Optimus Deals
when, in fact (as Anderson, Curry, the Optimus Defendants, and Hattab knew), they intended to
use, and did use, those funds to invest in Saniton.
124. Thus, on or about September 15, 2022, Anderson and Curry sent Hattab $500,000
for Saniton that they had raised from Tryon investors after the August 22 Meeting. As Hattab
knew from his discussions with Anderson and Curry, they had raised those funds under the false
pretense that they would be invested in an Optimus deal, not Saniton.
125. In an October 20, 2022 WhatsApp chat with Bromberg, Curry stated, “I’m at the
airport, will be trying to raise some money here as well to float”; and a few days later, on
October 23, Curry wrote to Bromberg, “I slept for 12 hours straight the first night, and then
proceeded to lie to all my investors, which was real fun.”
126. On or about October 24, 2022, Anderson and Curry sent Hattab another $300,000
for Saniton which, as Hattab knew, they had raised from Formula Deal investors, or an
institutional lender, under the guise that the money was for an Optimus deal, not Saniton.
127. In or around October or November 2022, Anderson and Curry sent Hattab $2
million, at least part of which, Hattab knew, they had raised for the Formula Deals—to use
instead to finance an oil deal with Hattab and others unrelated to the Formula Deals.
128. In a November 7, 2022, WhatsApp chat, Curry urged Weinstein to obtain bank
loans to repay several million dollars in Tryon Notes that were coming due within two weeks,
and further told Weinstein that Tryon would repay the loans by convincing Tryon investors to

26

“roll” their investments (meaning re-invest their initial investment) into a “year long [Tryon]
fund.” The next day, Curry added, “we just have to cycle people’s money in and back out,” to
which Weinstein responded, “Understood.”
129. In a November 29, 2022, WhatsApp chat, Curry told Bromberg that he needed
$100,000 to re-pay a large Tryon investor, and Curry similarly urged Bromberg to lend Tryon
those funds and cycle the loan with new investor funds:
just do what I do, send what’s in your account, and backfill with what you raise, I
used to do it all the time, when I had money, just please something. It will build
so much momentum.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson)

130. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 129.
131. Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, directly or
indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities and by the use of the means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or the mails, (1) knowingly or recklessly
have employed one or more devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, (2) knowingly, recklessly,
or negligently have obtained money or property by means of one or more untrue statements of a
material fact or omissions of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and/or (3) knowingly,
recklessly, or negligently have engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of
business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
132. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and
Anderson, directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities

27

Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder
(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson)

133. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 129.
134. Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, directly or
indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities
exchange, knowingly or recklessly have (i) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices
to defraud, (ii) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or
more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading, and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices,
or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
135. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and
Anderson, directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange
Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels)

136. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 129.
137. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants
Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial
assistance to Defendants Curry and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert

28

with others, in the offer or sale of securities and by use of the means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails: (a) knowingly or
recklessly employed devices schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) knowingly, recklessly, or
negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or
omissions of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (c) knowingly, recklessly, or
negligently engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of such securities.
138. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels are
liable for aiding and abetting Defendants Curry’s and Anderson’s violations of Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 77o(b)] and, unless enjoined, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels will again aid and
abet violations of these provisions.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Act Section 10(b)
(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels)

139. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 129.
140. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants
Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial
assistance to Defendants Curry and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities
exchange, knowingly or recklessly (1) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to

29

defraud; (2) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or
more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (3) engaged in one or more acts, practices,
or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
141. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels are
liable for aiding and abetting Defendants Curry’s and Anderson’s violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder
pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)] and, unless enjoined,
Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels will again aid and abet violations of these
provisions.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b)
(Defendant Hattab)

142. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 129.
143. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendant
Hattab, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial assistance to Defendants
Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in
concert, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities
exchange, knowingly or recklessly (1) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to
defraud; (2) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or
more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances

30

under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (3) engaged in one or more acts, practices,
or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
144. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Hattab is liable for aiding and abetting
Defendant Weinstein’s, Bromberg’s, Wittels’, Curry’s, and Anderson’s violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]
thereunder pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)] and, unless
enjoined, Defendant Hattab will again aid and abet violations of these provisions.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
(Defendant Hattab)

145. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 129.
146. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendant
Hattab, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial assistance to Defendants
Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in
concert with others, in the offer or sale of securities and by use of the means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails: (a) knowingly or
recklessly employed devices schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) knowingly, recklessly, or
negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or
omissions of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (c) knowingly, recklessly, or
negligently engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of such securities.
147. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Hattab is liable for aiding and abetting

31

Defendant Weinstein’s, Bromberg’s, Wittels’, Curry’s, and Anderson’s violations of Section
17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] and, unless enjoined, Defendant Hattab will again aid and abet violations of
these provisions.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court grant the following
relief:
I.
Permanently enjoining Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and attorneys
and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or
indirectly, Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. §§77q(a)], and Exchange Act Section 10(b)
[15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];
II.
Ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received
directly or indirectly, with pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations,
pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and
78u(d)(7)];
III.
Ordering Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(d)
[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];
IV.
 Permanently prohibiting Defendants from serving as officers or directors of any company
that has a class of securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that

32

is required to file reports under Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to
Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C.
§ 78u(d)(2)];
V.
Permanently enjoining Defendants from directly or indirectly—including, but not
limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by them—participating in the issuance,
purchase, offer, or sale of any security; provided, however, that such injunction shall not
prevent each from purchasing or selling securities for their own personal accounts; and
VI.
Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands that this
case be tried to a jury.

33

Dated:   July 19, 2023               U.S SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
New York, New York  COMMISSION
    By:
    /s/            Antonia            Apps
                                                                        Antonia            M.            Apps,            Regional            Director
      Tejal Shah
                                                                        Wendy            B.            Tepperman
      Jack Kaufman
                                                                        Teresa            A.            Rodriguez
                                                                        Mary            Kay            Dunning
                                                                        Laurel            S.            Fensterstock
                                                                        U.S.            SECURITIES            AND            EXCHANGE
      COMMISSION
                                                                        New            York            Regional            Office
                                                                        100            Pearl            Street,            Suite            20-100
                                                                        New            York,            New            York            10004-2616
                                                                        (212)            336-0106            (Kaufman)
                                                                        Email:            [email protected]

Local Counsel for Plaintiff
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (Designated Local Counsel)
By: Matthew J. Mailloux
Assistant U.S. Attorney
970 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Email: [email protected]
Tel:      (973) 645‐2837

34

LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION

 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2, I certify that the matter in controversy alleged in the
foregoing Complaint is not the subject of any other civil action pending in any court, or of any
pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.

Dated:   July 19, 2023               U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
New York, New York  COMMISSION
    By:
    /s/            Antonia            Apps
                                                                        Antonia            M.            Apps,            Regional            Director
      Tejal Shah
                                                                        Wendy            B.            Tepperman
      Jack Kaufman
                                                                        Teresa            A.            Rodriguez
                                                                        Mary            Kay            Dunning
                                                                        Laurel            S.            Fensterstock
                                                                        U.S.            SECURITIES            AND            EXCHANGE
      COMMISSION
                                                                        New            York            Regional            Office
                                                                        100            Pearl            Street,            Suite            20-100
                                                                        New            York,            New            York            10004-2616
                                                                        (212)            336-0106            (Kaufman)
                                                                        Email:            [email protected]

Local Counsel for Plaintiff
PHILIP R. SELLINGER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (Designated Local Counsel)
By: Matthew J. Mailloux
Assistant U.S. Attorney
970 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Email: [email protected]
Tel:      (973) 645‐2837

35

DESIGNATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 101.1(f)
 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 101.1(f), the undersigned hereby designates the United
States Attorney for the District of New Jersey to receive service of all notices or papers in this
action at the following address:
Matthew J. Mailloux
Assistant U.S. Attorney
970 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Email: [email protected]
Tel:  (973) 645‐2837

Dated:   July 19, 2023               U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
New York, New York  COMMISSION
    By:
    /s/            Antonia            Apps
                                                                        Antonia            M.            Apps,            Regional            Director
      Tejal Shah
                                                                        Wendy            B.            Tepperman
      Jack Kaufman
                                                                        Teresa            A.            Rodriguez
                                                                        Mary            Kay            Dunning
                                                                        Laurel            S.            Fensterstock
                                                                        U.S.            SECURITIES            AND            EXCHANGE
      COMMISSION
                                                                        New            York            Regional            Office
                                                                        100            Pearl            Street,            Suite            20-100
                                                                        New            York,            New            York            10004-2616
                                                                        (212)            336-0106            (Kaufman)
                                                                        Email:            [email protected]

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
By:  ANTONIA M. APPS 
Regional Director 
New York Regional Office 
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 
New York, New York 10004-2616 
Tel:  (212) 336-1100 

PHILIP R. SELLINGER 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
(Designated Local Counsel) 
By: Matthew J. Mailloux 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
970 Broad Street 
Newark, New Jersey 07102 
Email: [email protected] 
Tel:  (973) 645‐2837 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

-against-

ELIYAHU WEINSTEIN, ARYEH L. BROMBERG, 
JOEL L. WITTELS, RICHARD M. CURRY, 
CHRISTOPHER J. ANDERSON, AND ALAA 
MOHAMED HATTAB,  

Defendants. 

Civil Action No.  

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), for its Complaint 

against Defendants Eliyahu Weinstein (“Weinstein”), Aryeh L. Bromberg (“Bromberg”), Joel L. 

Wittels (“Wittels”), Richard M. Curry (“Curry”), Christopher J. Anderson (“Anderson”), and 

Alaa Mohamed Hattab (“Hattab”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges as follows: 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 1 of 35 PageID: 1



2 
 

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 

1. This action concerns a multi-million dollar Ponzi-like fraud scheme orchestrated 

by Defendant Eliyahu Weinstein—a twice-convicted fraudster—and carried out by Weinstein 

and his five co-Defendants. 

2. In or about November 2021, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels, 

through their entity Optimus Investments, Inc. (“Optimus”), began their fraudulent scheme to 

raise millions of dollars from investors purportedly to finance lucrative transactions involving 

Optimus’s overseas purchase, distribution, and re-sale of in-demand healthcare products.  

3. In January 2022, Defendants Anderson and Curry formed Tryon Management 

Group LLC (“Tryon”) to raise capital to invest in Optimus’s purported deals through Tryon’s 

sale of short-term promissory notes to individual investors linked to individual purported 

Optimus deals (“Tryon Note” or “Tryon Notes”).   

4.  From at least January 2022 through the present (“Relevant Period”), Defendants 

Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Anderson, and Curry schemed to mislead investors and 

prospective investors regarding the profitability of purported Optimus deals in order to induce 

sales of the Tryon Notes and to convince existing noteholders to delay repayment of their notes 

and/or roll over their investment into other Optimus deals. Meanwhile, these same Defendants 

used investor funds for improper purposes, including to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier 

investors with later-invested funds.   

5. Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels (“Optimus Defendants”) initially 

concealed Weinstein’s identity, and thus his criminal record, from Anderson and Curry as well as 

from Tryon’s investors. But in late August 2022, Anderson and Curry learned of Weinstein’s 

true identity and of additional fraudulent conduct by the Optimus Defendants regarding the 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 2 of 35 PageID: 2



3 
 

purported Optimus deals, and thereafter joined the Optimus Defendants in continuing the 

fraudulent scheme to raise money from investors. From that point forward, Anderson and Curry, 

together with the Optimus Defendants, worked together to raise additional funds and to persuade 

investors to delay repayment of their Tryon Notes, while hiding Weinstein’s identity and 

Defendants’ prior and continued fraudulent conduct.  

6. Defendant Hattab knowingly provided substantial assistance to the other 

Defendants in carrying out their fraudulent scheme.   

7. Hattab purported to broker certain of the Optimus deals, and he substantially 

participated in the other Defendants’ fraudulent scheme by: initially hiding Weinstein’s identity 

from Curry and Anderson; providing Anderson and Curry misleading information regarding at 

least one of the Optimus deals; and, from late August 2022 forward, joining his co-Defendants’ 

continuing fraudulent scheme to hide Weinstein’s identity from Tryon investors, misuse Tryon 

investor funds, and continue to raise funds from Tryon investors for improper purposes.    

8. Defendants’ scheme defrauded at least 150 Tryon investors out of a total of at 

least $38 million. 

VIOLATIONS 

9. Through this conduct and as alleged further here, Defendants Weinstein, 

Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson have violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 

1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-

5]. 

10. Through this conduct and as alleged further here, Defendants Weinstein, 

Bromberg, and Wittels aided and abetted Defendants Curry’s and Anderson’s violations of 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 3 of 35 PageID: 3



4 
 

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder, in violation of Section 15(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] and Section 

20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)]. 

11. Through this conduct and as alleged further here, Defendant Hattab aided and 

abetted the other Defendants’ violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) 

of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in violation of Section 15(b) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] and Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)]. 

12. Unless Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined, they will again 

engage in the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business set forth in this complaint and 

in acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business of similar type and object. 

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

13. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by 

Securities Act Sections 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)]; and Exchange Act 

Section 21(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)].  

14. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendants 

from violating the federal securities laws this Complaint alleges they have violated; (b) ordering 

Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains or unjust enrichment received as a result of the 

violations alleged here and to pay prejudgment interest, pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 

21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 78u(d)(7)]; (c) ordering Defendants to pay 

civil money penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)]; and 

Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; (d) permanently prohibiting Defendants 

from serving as officers or directors of any company that has a class of securities registered 

under Exchange Act Section 12 [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports under 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 4 of 35 PageID: 4



5 
 

Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 

U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; (e) permanently 

enjoining Defendants from directly or indirectly—including, but not limited to, through any 

entity owned or controlled by them—participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any 

security, except that such injunction shall not prevent each from purchasing or selling securities 

for their own personal accounts; and (f) ordering any other and further relief the Court may deem 

just and proper.  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

15. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Securities Act Section 

22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].  

16. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have made use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, 

practices, and courses of business alleged here. 

17. Venue lies in this District under Securities Act Section 22(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)] 

and Exchange Act Section 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. Defendants may be found in, are inhabitants 

of, or transact business in the District of New Jersey, and some of the acts, practices, 

transactions, and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District.   

DEFENDANTS 

18. Weinstein, age 48, resides in Lakewood, New Jersey. Weinstein led and directed 

operations at Optimus but hid his identity from its investors by using the alias “Mike Konig” and 

by not holding an official title or documented ownership interest in Optimus. Weinstein thus hid 

from investors his two prior fraud convictions based on charges brought by the United States 

Attorney for the District of New Jersey. In January 2013, Weinstein pleaded guilty to fraud and 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 5 of 35 PageID: 5



6 
 

other charges involving a $200 million real estate Ponzi scheme and, on February 25, 2014, was 

sentenced to 22 years in prison and ordered to pay $224 million in restitution. In May 2013—

while under indictment for his real estate fraud—Weinstein was charged for a separate, $6.7 

million fraud involving purported sales of pre-IPO Facebook shares and Florida real estate. 

Weinstein again pleaded guilty and, on December 15, 2014, received another two-year prison 

sentence for the second fraud—bringing his total prison sentence to 24 years. In January 2021, 

President Donald J. Trump commuted both of Weinstein’s sentences to time served. Weinstein 

has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

19. Bromberg, age 48, resides in Lakewood, New Jersey. Optimus’s New Jersey 

Certificate of Incorporation lists Bromberg and Wittels as comprising its “Board of Directors” 

and “Wittels” as its “Incorporator.” Bromberg was primarily involved in raising capital for 

Optimus and in its strategy for communicating with Optimus investors. Bromberg has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

20. Wittels, age 56, resides in Lakewood, New Jersey. Wittels was primarily 

responsible for Optimus’s accounting and bookkeeping. Wittels has never been registered with 

the Commission in any capacity. 

21. Curry, age 36, resides in Northumberland, Pennsylvania. Curry co-founded 

Tryon with Anderson and, according to Tryon’s New Jersey Certificate of Formation, the two 

served as Tryon’s sole “Members” and “Managers.” Curry was responsible for raising investor 

funds for Tryon, conducting due diligence into potential Tryon investments, and managing the 

funds that Tryon raised. Curry has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

22. Anderson, age 47, resides in Readington, New Jersey. Anderson is the other co-

founder of Tryon. Anderson was responsible for raising capital from Tryon investors, as well as 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 6 of 35 PageID: 6



7 
 

tracking Tryon’s receipt and use of investor funds. Anderson has never been registered with the 

Commission in any capacity. 

23. Hattab, age 34, resides in Canada. Hattab’s affiliated entities purportedly acted as 

brokers with suppliers on certain of the purported Optimus deals. Hattab has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity.       

RELATED PARTIES 

24. Optimus was incorporated in New Jersey in September 2021. Optimus purported 

to raise and deploy capital in the healthcare supply chain industry, including for example, 

purported transactions involving Covid-19 masks and first aid kits. Optimus purported to be 

operated by co-founders Bromberg and Wittels, but Weinstein actually led and directed its 

operations. Optimus has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity.   

25. Tryon is a limited liability company that Anderson and Curry formed in New 

Jersey in January 2022. Anderson and Curry are Tryon’s sole co-founders and co-owners. Tryon 

has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

26. Cornerstone Trading Group, LLC (“Cornerstone”) is a limited liability 

company formed in New Jersey in May 2022. Cornerstone’s New Jersey Certificate of 

Formation lists Bromberg, Wittels, Anderson, and Curry as its sole “Members” and “Managers.” 

The Optimus Defendants, Curry, and Anderson formed Cornerstone ostensibly to receive, 

consolidate, and better track Optimus and Tryon investor funds. Cornerstone has never been 

registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 7 of 35 PageID: 7



8 
 

FACTS 

 A.  Background 

27. In or about 2017-2018, Anderson and Curry met and became real estate business 

partners. Curry, who previously had worked as a medical supply wholesaler, also continued to 

operate in that business.   

28. In or around July 2021, Curry became acquainted with Wittels and invested his 

personal funds in a purported Wittels deal involving personal protective equipment. Wittels 

subsequently persuaded Curry to reinvest his purported profits from that deal into additional 

deals. 

29. In or about November 2021, Wittels introduced Bromberg to Curry as Wittels’ 

business partner in Optimus which, the two represented to Curry, had been formed to engage in 

medical supplies distribution deals.  

30. By in or about January or February 2022, Anderson and Curry learned from their 

interactions with the Optimus Defendants that Weinstein (then using the alias “Mike Konig”) 

was the go-to person behind the Optimus deals, and that Wittels and Bromberg relied on 

Weinstein (then “Mike Konig”) to direct and carry out Optimus’s purported deals. 

31. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants sought and obtained 

financing for their purported deals from various investors, including Curry, Anderson, and 

Tryon. 

32. By at least January 2022, Bromberg and Wittels represented to Curry that 

Optimus needed capital to engage in new deals, and they offered to pay Curry a portion of the 

profits on such deals in exchange for Curry raising capital for Optimus.   

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 8 of 35 PageID: 8



9 
 

33. In or around January 2022, Curry and Anderson established Tryon as an 

investment vehicle through which to raise cash to fund the purported Optimus deals that 

Bromberg and Wittels were offering.  

34. Beginning in or about January 2022, and throughout the Relevant Period, 

Anderson and Curry had oral understandings with Bromberg and Wittels that Tryon was to 

receive 35% of Optimus’s returns on each of the Optimus deals for which Tryon provided 

funding.  

35. During the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants pitched the purported 

Optimus deals to Anderson and Curry as follows. Optimus was to arrange funding for acquiring 

medical supplies overseas—such as Covid-19 test kits, face masks, and first aid kits—which 

would then be re-sold to a contracted purchaser at a profit. Optimus was to use those profits, in 

turn, to pay Tryon and other Optimus investors the promised returns on their investments.    

36. During the Relevant Period, through Anderson’s and Curry’s sales of the Tryon 

Notes, they raised funds for the Optimus deals directly from investors and collectively became 

the main source of Optimus’s capital.  

37. The Tryon Notes varied but generally included these terms: the “Borrowers” 

(Anderson, Curry, and Tryon) agreed to pay the “Lender” (the noteholder), within 60-90 days, 

the note’s principal loan amount plus interest at an annualized rate of 20% to 50%, as well as an 

“equity return” (i.e., another percentage of the loan amount, typically up to 10%). 

38. During the Relevant Period, Curry and Anderson pitched the Tryon Notes to 

potential investors, and Anderson was responsible for drafting the Tryon Notes and maintaining 

any related documentation and bookkeeping.   

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 9 of 35 PageID: 9



10 
 

39. Curry and Anderson pitched each set of the Tryon Notes to prospective investors 

both orally and through written communications.  

40. In pitching the Tryon Notes to investors, Curry and Anderson generally 

represented that Tryon was offering the notes in order to fund a particular Optimus deal, 

including by describing the nature of the particular deal to be funded.  

41. For at least some, if not all, of the Tryon Note offerings, Anderson and Curry 

disseminated Tryon advertising materials that included the following flow chart, which indicated 

to prospective investors that the source of each Tryon Note holder’s investment return was to be 

the anticipated return on the particular Optimus deal associated with that Tryon Note: 

 
42. Tryon’s advertising materials also presented Anderson and Curry as “[f]amily 

[c]entric,” “[f]aith-based” and “[m]en of honor” who provided access to “unique lending 

opportunities.” 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 10 of 35 PageID: 10



11 
 

43. Beginning in or about January 2022 and throughout the Relevant Period—based 

on their contemporaneous conversations with Anderson and Curry regarding Tryon’s method of 

raising capital for Optimus—the Optimus Defendants knew that Tryon was raising capital for 

each of the purported Optimus deals through Tryon’s offer and sale of Tryon Notes to individual 

investors; that generally each Tryon Note was linked to a particular purported Optimus deal; and 

that the Tryon investors expected to be repaid on their Tryon Notes with investment returns from 

each purported Optimus deal associated with each Tryon Note. 

44. Anderson and Curry typically collected and wired to Optimus the Tryon Note 

funds associated with each purported Optimus deal, with the expectation—based on their oral 

understandings with Bromberg and Wittels—that Optimus would then use each such pool of 

capital to fund each associated Optimus deal and would, in turn, pay Tryon its investment return 

on each such Optimus deal.   

45. By at least February 2022, Anderson and Curry knew that the Optimus deals were 

not yielding the promised investment returns, but they continued to pitch additional deals to 

investors. 

46. In or around late May 2022, Anderson, Curry, Bromberg, and Wittels formed 

Cornerstone, ostensibly to better track and account for Tryon investor funds and Anderson’s and 

Curry’s expected investment returns on the purported Optimus deals.  

47. Although Weinstein—then going by “Mike Konig”—declined to be a named 

partner in Cornerstone, he continued to hold himself out as running the purported Optimus deals 

and had direct or indirect access to Cornerstone’s bank account.   

48. During the Relevant Period, in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, Defendants 

Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson misled Tryon investors and prospective 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 11 of 35 PageID: 11



12 
 

investors regarding the progress and profits of a number of purported Optimus deals, including 

the examples described in paragraphs 49-88 below. 

B.  Representative Optimus Deals  

 1.  Pharmex Deal 

49. In or about December 2021, Bromberg introduced Curry to a deal that the 

Optimus Defendants called “Pharmex” (“Pharmex Deal”).  

50. For the Pharmex Deal, Bromberg told Curry that Optimus needed to raise $10 

million for the purchase of 23 million N-95 face masks from a supplier in Turkey (in two 

tranches) to fill an existing purchase order from an Israeli distributor. Bromberg sought to have 

Curry raise $5 million for the Pharmex Deal and offered Curry a 40% return on any capital he 

raised for the Pharmex Deal.   

51. In December 2021, for the first tranche of the Pharmex Deal, Curry provided 

Optimus approximately $3.8 million—a significant portion of which Curry personally 

contributed, and the rest of which he raised from a small group of investors (who included 

Anderson).  

52. Curry promised all but one of his Pharmex Deal investors 35% returns within 60 

days, or by mid-February 2022.  

53. In early February 2022—knowing that the Pharmex Deal had not yet yielded any 

investment return and to convince his investors to roll their investments over into another 

Optimus deal—Anderson and Curry misrepresented to their investors that the purported Pharmex 

Deal had been profitable.  

54. Thus, for example, on February 6, 2022, Anderson sent the following false email 

to investors regarding the first tranche of the purported Pharmex Deal:   

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 12 of 35 PageID: 12



13 
 

Congratulations, we did it. Not only did we assist Pharmex Corporation in serving 
their clients and improving public health in Israel, but we made a bunch of money 
doing it. I know at the beginning of this journey, the deal sounded to [sic] good to 
be true, once in a while though, fairy tales do come true. Many of you have rolled 
over your principal investment into the [Optimus] GSA deal. Thank you for your 
continued trust.   
 
55. As Anderson and Curry knew at the time, Anderson’s February 6, 2022 email was 

false because Optimus had not yet paid any return on the Pharmex Deal, as evidenced by Curry’s 

statement the next day, February 7, 2022, in a WhatsApp chat with the Optimus Defendants:  

Any chance if pharmex money doesn’t come back in time optimus could spot the 
money for my investors?  It’s only like 1.252mm without my profits…It would 
seriously be YUGE [sic] for me to be able to promise this.   
 
56. By misleading their Pharmex Deal investors, Anderson and Curry were able to 

persuade most of them to forgo payment of their purported (but fictional) investment returns and, 

instead, roll their investments into other Optimus deals. 

57. For Pharmex Deal investors who insisted on repayment of their investments, the 

Optimus Defendants, Anderson, and Curry created the false impression that Tryon was paying 

them back with Pharmex Deal profits while, in fact—as the Optimus Defendants, Anderson, and 

Curry knew—Anderson and Curry repaid them with unrelated funds that they borrowed from 

Optimus. 

58. Thus, on February 10, 2022, to repay Anderson’s and Curry’s investors on the 

Pharmex Deal, Bromberg caused Optimus to wire to Tryon $1,252,000—with the reference 

“Pharmex Return”—even though Curry and Bromberg knew those funds were not generated by 

the Pharmex Deal. 

59. In a February 23, 2022 WhatsApp exchange, Curry thanked Bromberg for 

providing the $1,250,000 to repay the Pharmex Deal investors, which both men knew was not 

generated by the Pharmex Deal:  

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 13 of 35 PageID: 13



14 
 

Curry:  It means a LOT that Optimus scraped the money together to pay 
my investors… I really really appreciate that.  

 
Bromberg:  Of course were [sic] a [expletive] team buddy.  
    
60. Throughout the Relevant Period, as the Optimus Defendants knew or recklessly 

disregarded, Curry and Anderson continued to mislead their Tryon investors regarding the 

success and progress of purported Optimus deals in order to convince them to forgo immediate 

repayment on their investments and, instead, roll over their investments into subsequent 

purported Optimus deals. 

61. Thus, for example, in a March 16, 2022 WhatsApp chat among Weinstein, Curry, 

and Wittels concerning payouts due on the Pharmex Deal, Curry wrote, “we will work on getting 

everyone to agree to roll over their money (they will not know that we won’t see it for another 30 

days :( ) but we’re going to just figure it out on our end.  Mike [referring to Weinstein], what I 

need from you is [a] list of all the deals we have on the table so I can pitch to my investors where 

there [sic] money is going to be used (you can do this on the phone with me but writing it out is 

helpful).”  Weinstein responded, “Ok, will do.”   

62. In addition, in or about June 2022, Wittels sent misleading account statements to 

non-Tryon Optimus investors—which Anderson helped Wittels prepare—that created the false 

impression that the Pharmex Deal profits had been received when, in fact (as Wittels and 

Anderson knew and had discussed among themselves) no profits from the Pharmex Deal had 

been received.   

2.  Baby Formula Deals 

63. In or about late May 2022, during a shortage of baby formula in the United States, 

Weinstein and Bromberg proposed to Anderson and Curry a deal to purchase baby formula from 

a supplier in Turkey, using Hattab as the broker on the transaction (“Formula Deal 1”).  

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 14 of 35 PageID: 14



15 
 

64. In or around June 2022, Anderson and Curry sold an initial set of Tryon Notes to 

raise funds for Formula Deal 1.  

65. Hattab, through one or more of his affiliated entities, purported to act as a broker 

for Formula Deal 1. 

66. In or about June and July 2022—through his communications with Anderson 

and/or Curry regarding Formula Deal 1—Hattab understood that Anderson and Curry were 

raising, and had raised, funds from their investors to help finance Formula Deal 1 and that they 

had provided those funds to Optimus to help finance Formula Deal 1. 

67. In or around late July or early August 2022, Anderson and Curry began to attempt 

to raise money for a second Formula Deal (“Formula Deal 2”) (collectively with Formula Deal 1, 

“Formula Deals”).  

68. In preparing to solicit investors for Formula Deal 2, Curry and Anderson asked 

Hattab for proof that Formula Deal 1 had been completed.  

69. In a July 29, 2022 WhatsApp chat, Curry asked Hattab for a “screenshot” of  

payments to his bank account for Formula Deal 1 as proof that Formula Deal 1 had been 

completed and that Tryon (and its investors) would receive their expected investment returns for 

Formula Deal 1. 

70. Hattab responded on WhatsApp to Anderson’s July 29 request by stating that he 

would send the screenshot “today.” 

71. Later that same day, July 29, 2022, Hattab provided Weinstein a screenshot of a 

portion of one of Hattab’s on-line bank account statements, which reported incoming wires of 

approximately $2.26 million (“Screenshot”). 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 15 of 35 PageID: 15



16 
 

72. Later that same day, July 29, 2022, Weinstein (using his alias “Mike Konig”) sent 

Anderson the Screenshot. 

73. Hattab and Weinstein provided the Screenshot to Anderson and Curry to deceive 

them into believing that Tryon’s investors would receive their expected investment return on the 

Formula 1 Deal from the $2.26 million that Hattab had received.  

74. In fact—as Hattab and Weinstein knew prior to July 29, 2022—Optimus and 

Hattab had not used Tryon investor funds to finance Formula Deal 1 (Weinstein had diverted 

those funds for other purposes), and Weinstein and Hattab did not intend to use any proceeds of 

Formula Deal 1 to repay Tryon or its investors.  

75. As of July 29, 2022, Hattab and Weinstein knew that Anderson and Curry had 

requested the Screenshot as proof of Tryon’s anticipated payout on Formula Deal 1, and both 

knew or recklessly disregarded that Anderson and Curry would rely on such proof of Formula 

Deal 1 in order to pitch Formula Deal 2 to Tryon investors. 

76. On August 3, 2022, relying on the misleading Screenshot and other false 

information that Weinstein and Hattab had provided Anderson and Curry regarding Formula 

Deal 1, Anderson sent an email to a broker (“Broker”) who was helping Tryon solicit new 

investors (“August 3 Email”).  

77. Anderson’s August 3 Email summarized Formula Deal 1—including Tryon’s or 

Cornerstone’s (fictitious) investment return on that deal—and Anderson attached to his email as 

proof the misleading Screenshot that Hattab and Weinstein had provided.  

78. Also in his August 3 Email—based on the false and misleading information that 

Weinstein and Hattab had provided regarding Formula Deal 1—Anderson pitched Formula Deal 

2 to the Broker.      

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 16 of 35 PageID: 16



17 
 

79. On August 6, 2022, Anderson and Curry emailed Tryon investors an update 

touting Formula Deal 1 and pitching Formula Deal 2 (“August 6 Email”):   

We successfully completed our first formula deal with 4 x 28,200 800g Cans (4 
Containers).  That’s 112,200 cans of formula being distributed to families in 
Texas at fair prices.  Needless to say, we felt so good about this one, that we have 
another deal in the pipeline for 29 more containers.  And it is LIVE.  If you want 
in on this deal, Offering is 25% within 3-4 Months (Although we think it will be 
faster).  Funding on this is open from 8/08-8/19.  ACt [sic] now,… Only 4mm in 
funding room left!  

 
80. Anderson and Curry based the August 6 Email on the false and misleading 

information that Weinstein and Hattab had provided to them regarding Formula Deal 1.  

81. In fact, as Weinstein and Hattab knew—and as Anderson and Curry later 

learned—Optimus had not invested Tryon investor funds in Formula Deal 1, and Formula Deal 2 

never actually occurred. 

3.  Mask Deals 

82. In mid-May 2022, the Optimus Defendants, Curry, and Anderson launched a deal 

involving the purported purchase of 100,000,000 face masks from a certain vendor in Turkey 

(“Turkish Vendor”), and purported resale of the masks to a certain product distribution company 

(“Distribution Company”) that, the Optimus Defendants told Anderson and Curry, was involved 

in many of the purported Optimus deals (“Mask Deal 1”).   

83. For Mask Deal 1, Curry, and Anderson offered investors the option to purchase 

either four-month Tryon Notes at a 25% annualized rate of return, or seven-month Tryon Notes 

at a 50% annualized rate of return.   

84. A Tryon deal sheet for Mask Deal 1, which Anderson and Curry created and sent 

to potential investors, stated that Tryon needed to raise $6.6 million to complete full payment 

($29 million) to the Turkish Vendor.  

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 17 of 35 PageID: 17



18 
 

85. By the end of May 2022, Anderson and Curry had raised approximately $3.2 

million for Mask Deal 1 through the sale of Tryon Notes and had provided those funds to 

Optimus.   

86. In or around July or August 2022, the Optimus Defendants, Anderson, and Curry 

launched a second mask deal (“Mask Deal 2”) (collectively with Mask Deal 1, the “Mask 

Deals”), pursuant to which masks again were to be supplied by the Turkish Vendor.   

87. For Mask Deal 2, Anderson, and Curry raised $4.4 million through the sale of 

Tryon Notes and provided those funds to Optimus to fund Mask Deal 2.   

88. As Anderson and Curry later learned, Weinstein did not use the Tryon Notes’ 

proceeds raised for the Mask Deals to fund the Mask Deals; rather, Weinstein fraudulently 

diverted those funds, knowing that they were intended to fund the Mask Deals, and knowing that 

Anderson and Curry had sold Tryon Notes for that purpose. In late August 2022, Weinstein 

admitted to Curry and Anderson that he had diverted the funds, claiming to have instead made 

unrelated investments in the Turkish stock market.  

C.  Ponzi-like Payments to Investors 

89. Throughout the Relevant Period, as part of their scheme to mislead investors  

regarding the success of the purported Optimus deals, the Optimus Defendants, Curry, and 

Anderson further schemed to conceal the failure of those deals by repaying Tryon and Optimus 

investors with loans from Optimus to Tryon and vice versa; by using later investor funds to repay 

earlier investors; and by simultaneously persuading many Tryon Note holders to forgo 

immediate repayment and, instead, roll their purportedly successful investments into new 

purported Optimus deals that involved, in at least some cases, the issuance of new Tryon Notes. 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 18 of 35 PageID: 18



19 
 

90. For example, as explained in paragraphs 49-62 above, by at least February 2022, 

Anderson and Curry had begun to receive requests from Tryon Note holders for past due note 

payments regarding the Pharmex Deal and, because no payment on the Pharmex Deal had been 

received (and to avoid disclosing this fact to then-current and prospective investors), Anderson 

and Curry borrowed funds from Optimus to repay those Pharmex Deal investors who chose not 

to roll over their investments.  

91. In another example, in April 2022, Bromberg (with Wittels’ knowledge and 

consent) asked Curry to transfer to Optimus several million dollars of Tryon investor funds so 

that Optimus could make payments due to its non-Tryon investors. Curry and Anderson did so 

despite knowing that such transfers contradicted Anderson’s and Curry’s promises to the Tryon 

Note holders regarding Tryon’s use of their invested funds to invest in Optimus deals. 

92. Similarly, in mid-May 2022—to trick an investor into believing that a purported 

Optimus deal in which that investor had invested had been successful—Bromberg agreed to 

Curry’s request to repay the investor using Optimus funds unrelated to the purported deal, and 

Bromberg falsely labeled the wire transfer with a specific Optimus deal name. In fact, as 

Bromberg and Curry knew, that purported Optimus deal had not yet paid any profits. Within a 

month of receiving that false and misleading wire payment, the same investor made additional 

significant investments in purported Optimus deals.     

93. Wittels participated in cycling Optimus and Tryon investor funds to mislead 

Anderson and Curry—and by extension, their Tryon investors—into believing that they were 

receiving profits from Optimus deals when, in fact, they were receiving later investors’ money.  

94. Thus, for example, on May 3, 2022, Tryon wired Optimus $2.9 million that Tryon 

had raised from its investors to fund one of Optimus’s purported deals. The next day, Wittels 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 19 of 35 PageID: 19



20 
 

wired $2.5 million to Tryon, falsely representing to Anderson and Curry that the $2.5 million 

constituted profits from the Pharmex Deal when, in fact, it came from the $2.9 million that Tryon 

had wired to Optimus the previous day.  

95. Similarly, in an August 3, 2022 WhatsApp chat—among Anderson, Curry, 

Bromberg, and Wittels—Anderson and Wittels discussed Optimus’s need to make a $125,000 

payment due to an Optimus investor related to a particular purported Optimus deal. That same 

day, Anderson and/or Curry caused Cornerstone to wire Optimus $125,000 unrelated to that deal 

and, seven days later, Optimus wired the investor the $125,000, with a wire memo (falsely) 

noting the purported corresponding Optimus deal in which the investor had invested.  

D. The Defendants Hid Weinstein’s Identity 

96. From the time that Curry and Anderson first became involved with Optimus, until 

late August 2022, the Optimus Defendants (and, for at least part of this period, Defendant 

Hattab) intentionally hid Weinstein’s true identity from Anderson and Curry—and so from 

Tryon’s investors and potential investors—referring to Weinstein solely by the alias “Mike 

Konig.”  

97. To obtain Optimus deal information to provide to his investors, Curry initially 

communicated directly with Bromberg and Wittels through frequent WhatsApp chats and 

telephone calls.   

98. Beginning by at least January 2022, as Optimus’s payments to Tryon on its 

purported deals began to be delayed and, consequently, as Curry and Anderson began to ask 

Bromberg and Wittels for more detailed information about the deals, Bromberg referred Curry to 

a “Mike Konig” (who, unbeknownst to Curry and Anderson, was actually Weinstein).   

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 20 of 35 PageID: 20



21 
 

99. At Weinstein’s direction, Bromberg and Wittels described “Mike Konig” to Curry 

as a wealthy businessman whom Bromberg had known for 35 years, and who maintained 

relationships with Optimus’s suppliers.  

100. Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels thus intentionally concealed from Curry and 

Anderson Weinstein’s true identity and criminal history, and downplayed his lead role at 

Optimus.   

101. By at least March 2022, Curry and eventually Anderson regularly communicated 

directly, by telephone and WhatsApp chat, with Weinstein (pretending to be “Mike Konig”), 

Bromberg, and Wittels.  

102. As further explained at paragraphs 111-121 below, the Optimus Defendants and 

Hattab continued to hide Weinstein’s true identity from Anderson and Curry (and, thus, from 

Tryon’s investors) until late August 2022—at which time Anderson and Curry learned of 

Weinstein’s true identity and agreed to continue to conceal it from Tryon’s investors.  

E.  The Optimus Defendants, Curry, and Anderson Hid 
the Identity of a Second Felon Involved in Optimus Deals 

 
103. In addition to hiding his own identity, Weinstein also hid from Anderson and 

Curry—and, thus, from Tryon investors—the true identity of a Weinstein business associate 

involved in certain of the Optimus deals, who was also a felon convicted for his involvement in a 

Ponzi-like scheme (“Felon”). 

104. Early on in the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants informed Anderson and 

Curry of the Distribution Company, which, they claimed, was involved in many of the purported 

Optimus deals.   

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 21 of 35 PageID: 21



22 
 

105. Thus, in periodic Tryon newsletters and other communications with its investors, 

Anderson and Curry routinely referred to the Distribution Company as a critical component of 

the Optimus deals in which Tryon purportedly was investing the Tryon Note holders’ funds. 

106. Also early on in the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants provided Anderson 

and Curry the name of their principal contact at the Distribution Company, who was the Felon.    

107. However, the contact name that the Optimus Defendants had provided to 

Anderson and Curry for the Felon was an alias; Weinstein was attempting to hide from Anderson 

and Curry the real identity of the Felon. 

108. By at least June 2022, Bromberg and Wittels also knew that the name that they 

had provided for the Felon was an alias, and that he was a felon. 

109. By June 2022, Curry and Anderson learned the true identity of the Felon.  

110. After June 2022, Anderson, Curry, and the Optimus Defendants nonetheless 

continued to hide the true identity of the Felon from Tryon’s investors, for fear that disclosure of 

such information would end the Optimus and Tryon investment scheme. 

F.  Defendants Jointly Continued Their Fraudulent Scheme After August 2022  

111. On or about August 22, 2022, Curry and Anderson had an in-person meeting with 

Hattab (“August 22 Meeting”), the ostensible purpose of which was to discuss a possible Tryon 

investment in Hattab’s plastic bottle company, Saniton Plastic Co. (“Saniton”).  

112. At the August 22 Meeting, Anderson and Curry initially proposed to Hattab that 

they invest into Saniton $30 million of Tryon’s anticipated profits from its investments in the 

purported Optimus deals.     

113. Hattab, however, informed Anderson and Curry at the August 22 Meeting: that 

Tryon would not realize its expected profits from the Mask Deals and the Formula Deals; that, 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 22 of 35 PageID: 22



23 
 

rather than investing Tryon funds in those deals, Weinstein had diverted that money; that the 

“Mike Konig” with whom Anderson and Curry had been communicating was actually 

Weinstein, a twice convicted Ponzi-scheme fraudster; that no Tryon money had been invested in 

Formula Deal 1; that Weinstein had directed Hattab to provide Anderson and Curry the 

Screenshot for Formula Deal 1; and that the Screenshot (and Formula Deal 1) did not actually 

involve any Tryon investment.  

114. Hattab further proposed to Anderson and Curry at the August 22 Meeting that, if 

they agreed not to contact the FBI about Weinstein, Hattab would grant Tryon a 49% interest in 

Saniton and 70% of Hattab’s Saniton profits. 

115. Hattab also informed Anderson and Curry at the August 22 Meeting that Formula 

Deal 2 was not an actual deal. Hattab nonetheless asked Anderson and Curry to continue to raise 

funds for Saniton from Tryon’s investors, under the guise of raising funds for the fictional 

Formula Deal 2. 

116. On or about August 25, 2022, Anderson and Curry provided to Hattab $1.875 

million that they previously had raised from Tryon investors for Formula Deal 2, with the 

understanding that Hattab would use those funds to finance Saniton, not Formula Deal 2.  

117. Hattab then arranged an August 26, 2022 in-person meeting among Anderson, 

Curry, Weinstein, Bromberg, and Hattab (“August 26 Meeting”), at which time Weinstein 

admitted to Anderson and Curry: his true identity; that he had provided Anderson and Curry fake 

bills of lading for the Formula Deals; that he had used the Tryon investor funds raised for the 

Mask 1 Deal to invest instead in Turkish stocks; and that he (Weinstein) had diverted other 

Tryon investor money into Optimus deals other than those for which the Optimus Defendants 

had promised Anderson and Curry they would employ those funds. 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 23 of 35 PageID: 23



24 
 

118. During the August 26, 2022 Meeting, Anderson acknowledged to the others 

present that it was illegal for Tryon to use older investor funds—or unrelated Optimus funds—to 

repay Tryon Note holders, but that Tryon would need to continue to do so to avoid defaulting on 

$35 million in Tryon Notes that were coming due in October 2022.   

119. During the August 26 Meeting, Weinstein and Bromberg asked Anderson and 

Curry to continue the fraudulent scheme—to hide from Tryon and Optimus investors all of the 

above information about their and the Optimus Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, and Weinstein, 

Bromberg, Hattab, Anderson, and Curry jointly agreed to do so.  

120. Shortly after the August 26, 2022 Meeting, Anderson and Curry further learned 

that Optimus had diverted over $1 million of Tryon investor funds that had been earmarked for a 

purported Optimus deal to instead purchase a home in Jackson, New Jersey. When Anderson and 

Curry confronted Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels with this information, Wittels admitted that 

he had purchased the home for Weinstein and his family using Tryon investor funds that had 

been earmarked for an Optimus deal.   

121. For the rest of the Relevant Period, notwithstanding what Anderson and Curry 

had learned about the Optimus Defendants’ fraudulent conduct—i.e., Weinstein’s hidden 

identity, the falsified Optimus documents, and Optimus’s misappropriation of investor funds—

the Optimus Defendants and Anderson and Curry actively concealed those facts from Tryon’s 

investors. 

122. Also during the rest of the Relevant Period, the Optimus Defendants in concert 

with Anderson and Curry continued to try to sell new Tryon Notes and to persuade existing 

Tryon Note holders to forgo immediate repayment, and instead, roll over their funds into new 

purported Optimus deals (that Defendants knew were fictitious). Beginning by at least the end of 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 24 of 35 PageID: 24



25 
 

2022, they also sought note modification agreements with existing Tryon Note holders whose 

notes had become past due.  

123. Additionally, Anderson and Curry continued to attempt to raise, and did raise, 

funds from Tryon investors under the false pretense of financing other purported Optimus Deals 

when, in fact (as Anderson, Curry, the Optimus Defendants, and Hattab knew), they intended to 

use, and did use, those funds to invest in Saniton.  

124. Thus, on or about September 15, 2022, Anderson and Curry sent Hattab $500,000 

for Saniton that they had raised from Tryon investors after the August 22 Meeting. As Hattab 

knew from his discussions with Anderson and Curry, they had raised those funds under the false 

pretense that they would be invested in an Optimus deal, not Saniton.  

125. In an October 20, 2022 WhatsApp chat with Bromberg, Curry stated, “I’m at the 

airport, will be trying to raise some money here as well to float”; and a few days later, on 

October 23, Curry wrote to Bromberg, “I slept for 12 hours straight the first night, and then 

proceeded to lie to all my investors, which was real fun.” 

126. On or about October 24, 2022, Anderson and Curry sent Hattab another $300,000 

for Saniton which, as Hattab knew, they had raised from Formula Deal investors, or an 

institutional lender, under the guise that the money was for an Optimus deal, not Saniton.  

127. In or around October or November 2022, Anderson and Curry sent Hattab $2 

million, at least part of which, Hattab knew, they had raised for the Formula Deals—to use 

instead to finance an oil deal with Hattab and others unrelated to the Formula Deals. 

128. In a November 7, 2022, WhatsApp chat, Curry urged Weinstein to obtain bank 

loans to repay several million dollars in Tryon Notes that were coming due within two weeks, 

and further told Weinstein that Tryon would repay the loans by convincing Tryon investors to 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 25 of 35 PageID: 25



26 
 

“roll” their investments (meaning re-invest their initial investment) into a “year long [Tryon] 

fund.” The next day, Curry added, “we just have to cycle people’s money in and back out,” to 

which Weinstein responded, “Understood.” 

129. In a November 29, 2022, WhatsApp chat, Curry told Bromberg that he needed 

$100,000 to re-pay a large Tryon investor, and Curry similarly urged Bromberg to lend Tryon 

those funds and cycle the loan with new investor funds: 

just do what I do, send what’s in your account, and backfill with what you raise, I 
used to do it all the time, when I had money, just please something. It will build 
so much momentum. 
  

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) 

(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson) 
 

130. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 129. 

131. Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, directly or 

indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities and by the use of the means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or the mails, (1) knowingly or recklessly 

have employed one or more devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, (2) knowingly, recklessly, 

or negligently have obtained money or property by means of one or more untrue statements of a 

material fact or omissions of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in 

light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and/or (3) knowingly, 

recklessly, or negligently have engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of 

business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

132. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and 

Anderson, directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 26 of 35 PageID: 26



27 
 

Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder 

(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson) 
 

133. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 129. 

134. Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, directly or 

indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities 

exchange, knowingly or recklessly have (i) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices 

to defraud, (ii) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or 

more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 

under which they were made, not misleading, and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, 

or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 

135. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and 

Anderson, directly or indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange 

Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) 

(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels) 
 

136. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 129. 

137. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants 

Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial 

assistance to Defendants Curry and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 27 of 35 PageID: 27



28 
 

with others, in the offer or sale of securities and by use of the means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails: (a) knowingly or 

recklessly employed devices schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) knowingly, recklessly, or 

negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or 

omissions of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the 

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (c) knowingly, recklessly, or 

negligently engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of such securities. 

138. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels are 

liable for aiding and abetting Defendants Curry’s and Anderson’s violations of Section 17(a) of 

the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 77o(b)] and, unless enjoined, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels will again aid and 

abet violations of these provisions. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Act Section 10(b) 

(Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels) 
 

139. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 129. 

140. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants 

Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial 

assistance to Defendants Curry and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in 

connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities 

exchange, knowingly or recklessly (1) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 28 of 35 PageID: 28



29 
 

defraud; (2) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or 

more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 

under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (3) engaged in one or more acts, practices, 

or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 

141. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels are 

liable for aiding and abetting Defendants Curry’s and Anderson’s violations of Section 10(b) of 

the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] thereunder 

pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)] and, unless enjoined, 

Defendants Weinstein, Bromberg, and Wittels will again aid and abet violations of these 

provisions. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) 

(Defendant Hattab) 
  

142. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 129. 

143. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendant 

Hattab, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial assistance to Defendants 

Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in 

concert, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the use of the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities 

exchange, knowingly or recklessly (1) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to 

defraud; (2) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or 

more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 29 of 35 PageID: 29



30 
 

under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (3) engaged in one or more acts, practices, 

or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 

144. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Hattab is liable for aiding and abetting 

Defendant Weinstein’s, Bromberg’s, Wittels’, Curry’s, and Anderson’s violations of Section 

10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] 

thereunder pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(e)] and, unless 

enjoined, Defendant Hattab will again aid and abet violations of these provisions. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Aiding and Abetting Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) 

(Defendant Hattab) 
 

145. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 129. 

146. By engaging in the acts and conduct described in this Complaint, Defendant 

Hattab, directly or indirectly, provided knowing and substantial assistance to Defendants 

Weinstein, Bromberg, Wittels, Curry, and Anderson, who, directly or indirectly, singly or in 

concert with others, in the offer or sale of securities and by use of the means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails: (a) knowingly or 

recklessly employed devices schemes, and artifices to defraud; (b) knowingly, recklessly, or 

negligently obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or 

omissions of a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the 

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or (c) knowingly, recklessly, or 

negligently engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of such securities. 

147. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Hattab is liable for aiding and abetting 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 30 of 35 PageID: 30



31 
 

Defendant Weinstein’s, Bromberg’s, Wittels’, Curry’s, and Anderson’s violations of Section 

17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Act 

[15 U.S.C. § 77o(b)] and, unless enjoined, Defendant Hattab will again aid and abet violations of 

these provisions. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court grant the following 

relief: 

I. 

Permanently enjoining Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and attorneys 

and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them from violating, directly or 

indirectly, Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. §§77q(a)], and Exchange Act Section 10(b) 

[15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];  

II. 

Ordering Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and/or unjust enrichment received 

directly or indirectly, with pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations, 

pursuant to Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(5) and 21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and 

78u(d)(7)]; 

III. 

Ordering Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(d) 

[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; 

IV. 

 Permanently prohibiting Defendants from serving as officers or directors of any company 

that has a class of securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 31 of 35 PageID: 31



32 
 

is required to file reports under Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to 

Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78u(d)(2)]; 

V. 

Permanently enjoining Defendants from directly or indirectly—including, but not 

limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by them—participating in the issuance, 

purchase, offer, or sale of any security; provided, however, that such injunction shall not 

prevent each from purchasing or selling securities for their own personal accounts; and  

VI. 

Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands that this 

case be tried to a jury. 

  

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 32 of 35 PageID: 32



33 
 

Dated:   July 19, 2023              U.S SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  
New York, New York  COMMISSION 
    By: 
    /s/ Antonia Apps     

      Antonia M. Apps, Regional Director 
      Tejal Shah 
      Wendy B. Tepperman 
      Jack Kaufman 
      Teresa A. Rodriguez 
      Mary Kay Dunning 
      Laurel S. Fensterstock 
      U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  
      COMMISSION 
      New York Regional Office 
      100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 
      New York, New York 10004-2616  
      (212) 336-0106 (Kaufman) 
      Email: [email protected] 
 
 
Local Counsel for Plaintiff 
PHILIP R. SELLINGER 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (Designated Local Counsel) 
By: Matthew J. Mailloux 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
970 Broad Street 
Newark, New Jersey 07102 
Email: [email protected] 
Tel:  (973) 645‐2837 
  

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 33 of 35 PageID: 33



34 
 

LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION 
 

 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2, I certify that the matter in controversy alleged in the 

foregoing Complaint is not the subject of any other civil action pending in any court, or of any 

pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.   

 

Dated:   July 19, 2023              U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  
New York, New York  COMMISSION 
    By: 
    /s/ Antonia Apps     

      Antonia M. Apps, Regional Director 
      Tejal Shah 
      Wendy B. Tepperman 
      Jack Kaufman 
      Teresa A. Rodriguez 
      Mary Kay Dunning 
      Laurel S. Fensterstock 
      U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  
      COMMISSION 
      New York Regional Office 
      100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 
      New York, New York 10004-2616  
      (212) 336-0106 (Kaufman) 
      Email: [email protected] 
 
Local Counsel for Plaintiff 
PHILIP R. SELLINGER 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (Designated Local Counsel) 
By: Matthew J. Mailloux 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
970 Broad Street 
Newark, New Jersey 07102 
Email: [email protected] 
Tel:  (973) 645‐2837 
 
  

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 34 of 35 PageID: 34



35 
 

DESIGNATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 101.1(f) 

 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 101.1(f), the undersigned hereby designates the United 

States Attorney for the District of New Jersey to receive service of all notices or papers in this 

action at the following address: 

Matthew J. Mailloux 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
970 Broad Street 
Newark, New Jersey 07102 
Email: [email protected] 
Tel:  (973) 645‐2837 
 
 

Dated:   July 19, 2023              U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  
New York, New York  COMMISSION 
    By: 
    /s/ Antonia Apps     

      Antonia M. Apps, Regional Director 
      Tejal Shah 
      Wendy B. Tepperman 
      Jack Kaufman 
      Teresa A. Rodriguez 
      Mary Kay Dunning 
      Laurel S. Fensterstock 
      U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  
      COMMISSION 
      New York Regional Office 
      100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100 
      New York, New York 10004-2616  
      (212) 336-0106 (Kaufman) 
      Email: [email protected] 
 

 

Case 3:23-cv-03848   Document 1   Filed 07/19/23   Page 35 of 35 PageID: 35