SEC v. Philip E. Riehl, No. 2:20-cv-00510, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Jan. 31, 2020) — Complaint

IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
F
OR
THE
EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
S
ECURITIES
AND
EXCHANGE
C
OMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v
.
P
HILIP
E.
RIEHL,
Defendant.
C
OMPLAINT
Civil
Action
No.
J
ury
Trial
Demanded
P
laintiff
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
(the
"SEC")
files
this
Complaint
against
d
efendant
Philip
E.
Riehl
("Riehl")
and
alleges
as
follows:
N
ATURE
OF
THE
ACTION
1
.
This
matter
involves
fraudulent
securities
offerings
conducted
by
defendant
Riehl.
2
.
From
at
least
2010
through
late
2018,
Riehl
offered
promissory
notes
to
members
o
f
a
close-knit
religious
community
with
which
he
was
affiliated.
Riehl
sold
the
promissory
n
otes
to
hundreds
of
investors
throughout
the
country
and
abroad,
taking
in
approximately
$60
m
illion.
3
.
Riehl
promised
investors
that
he
would
repay
their
principal
investment
with
i
nterest,
usually
at
a
rate
higher
than
that
offered
by
traditional
banks.
Riehl
told
investors
that
h
e
personally
guaranteed
repayment
of
their
notes.
4
.
Riehl
told
investors
that
he
would
use
their
money
to
make
loans
to
other
m
embers
of
the
religious
community
who
wanted
to
borrow
money,
typically
to
finance
the

borrowers'
businesses
or
real
estate
purchases.
Riehl
maintained
that
he
would
be
able
to
make
t
hese
payments
of
principal
and
interest
by
charging
his
borrowers
a
higher
interest
rate
than
he
p
aid
his
investors.
5
.
Kiehl
told
investors
that,
to
mitigate
risk
associated
with
borrowers'
inability
to
r
epay
their
loans,
he
required
two
co-signers
for
each
loan.
This
statement
was
false.
Kiehl
has
n
ow
admitted
that
he
made
loans
without
requiring
any
co-signers.
6
.
Kiehl
also
offered
an
d
sold
many
of
his
investors
new
notes
issued
by
a
struggling
d
airy
business
called
Trickling
Springs
Creamery,
LLC
("TSC").
Kiehl
was
the
majority
owner
o
f
TSC
when
he
offered
and
sold
the
TSC
notes.
7
.
Kiehl
promised
to
pay
4.5-5%returns
on
TSC
notes,
while
failing
to
disclose
to
i
nvestors
that
TSC
was
suffering
financial
difficulties,
which
he
exacerbated
by
increasing
T
SC's
debt
load
without
a
corresponding
infusion
of
money
into
TSC.
8
.
Kiehl
also
failed
to
disclose
to
TSC
investors
that
their
notes
would
be
s
ubordinate
to
existing
bank
debt,
and
that
he
did
not
personally
guarantee
repayment
of
the
TSC
n
otes.
9.
In
later
years,
as
TSC
was
in
dire
financial
straits,
Kiehl
misappropriated
certain
i
nvestor
funds
to
finance
TSC
despite
instructions
not
to
use
investor
money
in
that
manner.
1
0.
TSC
ultimately
failed,
and
Kiehl
was
unable
to
pay
back
investors,
who
are
owed
m
illions
of
dollars
in
unpaid
principal.
1
1.
By
engaging
in
the
conduct
described
in
this
Complaint,
Kiehl
violated,
an
d
u
nless
enjoined
will
continue
to
violate,
Section
17(a)
of
the
Securities
Act
of
1933
(the
"
Securities
Act")
[15
U.S.C.
§
77q(a)]
and
Section
10(b)
of
the
Securities
Exchange
Act
of
1934
(
the
"Exchange
Act")
[15
U.S.C.
§
78j(b)]
and
Rule
lOb-5
thereunder
[17
C.F.R
§
240.1Ob-5].
2

JURISDICTION
AND
VENUE
1
2.
The
Commission
brings
this
action
pursuant
to
Sections
20(b)
and
20(d)
of
the
S
ecurities
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
77t(b)
and
77t(d)]
and
Sections
21(d)
and
(e)
of
the
Exchange
Act
[
15
U.S.C.
§
78u(d)
and
78u(e)],
to
enjoin
acts,
transactions,
practices,
and
courses
of
business,
a
nd
to
obtain
disgorgement,
prejudgment
interest,
civil
penalties,
and
such
other
and
further
r
elief
as
the
Court
may
deem
just
and
appropriate.
1
3.
The
Court
has
jurisdiction
over
this
action
pursuant
to
Sections
20(b),
20(d),
and
2
2(a)
of
the
Securities
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§§
77t(b),
77t(d),
and
77v(a)]
and
Sections
21(d),
21(e),
a
nd
27(a)
of
the
Exchange
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§§
78u(d),
78u(e),
and
78aa(a)].
Riehl
has,
directly
or
i
ndirectly,
made
use
of
the
means
and
instrumentalities
of
interstate
commerce,
of
the
mails,
or
o
f
the
facilities
of
a
national
securities
exchange
in
connection
with
the
acts,
practices,
and
c
ourses
of
business
alleged
in
this
Complaint.
1
4.
Venue
lies
in
this
judicial
district
pursuant
to
Section
22(a)
of
the
Securities
Act
[
15
U.S.C.
§
77v(a)]
and
Section
27(a)
of
the
Exchange
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
78aa(a)].
Among
other
t
hings,
certain
of
the
acts,
practices,
and
courses
of
business
constituting
the
violations
of
the
f
ederal
securities
laws
alleged
herein
occurred
within
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania,
i
ncluding
that
Riehl
made
misrepresentations
to
investors
residing
within
this
district.
D
EFENDANT
1
5.
Philip
E.
Riehl,
age
68,
is
a
resident
of
Myerstown,
Pennsylvania.
Since
a
pproximately
1992,
Riehl
provided
accounting
services
to
members
of
his
religious
community
t
hrough
his
sole
proprietorship,
Riehl
Accounting.
Riehl
is
not
a
licensed
CPA.
O
THER
ENTITIES
1
6.
Riehl
Accounting
is
an
accounting
business
solely
owned
and
operated
by
Riehl.

17.
Trickling
Springs
Creamery,
LLC
("TSC")
is
a
defunct
private
business.
TSC
w
as
formerly
engaged
in
the
business
of
processing
and
selling
dairy
products,
with
its
principal
p
lace
of
business
in
Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania.
Riehl
initially
loaned
money
to
TSC.
In
2
007,
his
loan
was
converted
to
equity,
making
Riehl
the
majority
owner
of
TSC.
TSC
operated
f
rom
approximately
2001
to
September
2019.
TSC
filed
for
bankruptcy
in
December
2019.
F
ACTS
I
.
Riehl's
Background
and
Creation
of
Riehl's
Investment
Program
1
8.
Starting
in
about
1992,
Riehl
began
working
primarily
as
an
accountant
through
h
is
solely
owned
business,
Riehl
Accounting.
Riehl
chiefly
provided
tax
accounting
services
to
o
ther
members
of
a
close-knit
religious
community
to
which
he
belonged.
1
9.
In
or
around
1995,
Riehl
sought
to
purchase
a
farm
in
Berks
County,
P
ennsylvania.
After
reviewing
possible
financing
options
with
traditional
banks,
Riehl
instead
a
sked
several
of
his
accounting
clients
to
loan
him
the
money
to
finance
his
purchase,
promising
t
hem
repayment
at
an
interest
rate
greater
than
that
offered
on
deposits
by
local
banks.
2
0.
Riehl's
accounting
clients
agreed
to
lend
Riehl
the
money
at
the
promised
interest
r
ate,
and
thereafter
word
spread
within
Riehl's
religious
community
that
Riehl
was
accepting
i
nvestments
and
promising
higher
rates
of
return
than
those
typically
offered
by
banks.
2
1.
From
this
beginning,
Riehl
developed
his
own
investment
program,
in
which
he
r
aised
money
by
issuing
promissory
notes
to
investors
("Riehl
Notes").
He
then
pooled
investor
m
oney
and
used
it
to
make
loans
to
other
members
of
his
religious
community.
2
2.
Riehl
typically
made
loans
to
farmers
and
other
types
of
commercial
businesses,
s
uch
as
barn
builders,
trucking
companies,
and
construction
companies,
who
were
unable
to,
or
c
hose
not
to,
obtain
loans
from
traditional
banks.
These
loans
were
documented
by
simple
p
romissory
notes
to
Riehl,
signed
by
the
borrowers.

23.
Riehl
knew
that
members
of
his
religious
community
had
a
high
level
of
trust
and
r
espect
for
one
another,
and
he
relied
on
this
trust
to
secure
investments.
2
4.
Riehl
provided
each
investor
with
a
promissory
note,
signed
by
him,
and
p
ersonally
promised
to
repay
the
investors
with
interest.
2
5.
Around
2015,
the
SEC
began
an
investigation
of
Riehl
and
his
investment
p
rogram.
2
6.
Riehl
told
the
SEC
staff
he
was
not
accepting
new
investments,
was
in
the
process
o
f
winding
down
his
investment
program,
and
always
required
two
co-signers
for
loans
made
f
rom
his
investment
program.
These
statements
were
not
true.
I
I.
Riehl
Acquires
Majority
Ownership
of
TSC
and
Offers
and
Sells
TSC
Notes
2
7.
TSC
opened
in
2001
and
was
in
the
business
of
processing
and
selling
dairy
p
roducts.
2
8.
Riehl
initially
loaned
money
to
TSC,
and
in
2007,
his
loan
was
converted
to
e
quity,
making
Riehl
a
majority
owner
of
TSC.
2
9.
TSC
struggled
financially.
To
address
these
financial
issues,
Riehl
decided
to
r
aise
money
for
TSC
by
offering
and
selling
notes
issued
by
TSC
("TSC
Notes"),
which
were
s
tructured
almost
identically
to
the
Riehl
Notes,
but
with
TSC
as
the
sole
obligor.
3
0.
The
TSC
Notes
reflected
the
amount
of
the
investment,
the
rate
of
interest,
which
v
aried
between
4.5%and
5%,
the
investors'
names
and
addresses,
and
the
redemption
p
rovisions.
I
II.
Riehl
Sells
TSC
Notes
Without
Disclosing
TSC's
Deteriorating
Financial
Condition
a
nd
Eliminates
His
Personal
Guarantee
to
Repay
Many
Investors
3
1.
Riehl
actively
solicited
investments
in
TSC
from
his
existing
Riehl
Note
i
nvestors.

32.
For
many
of
the
TSC
Notes
that
Riehl
sold,
rather
than
raising
additional
capital
f
or
TSC,
Riehl
merely
issued
new
TSC
Notes
to
his
existing
investors,
replacing
himself
with
T
SC
as
the
note's
payor
and
effectively
eliminating
his
personal
guarantee
to
repay
the
investors.
3
3.
In
so
doing,
Riehl
burdened
TSC
with
millions
of
dollars
of
additional
debt
w
ithout
any
corresponding
infusion
of
capital,
and
TSC
was
insolvent
for
all
or
most
of
the
time
t
hat
Riehl
sold
TSC
Notes.
3
4.
Riehl
did
not
disclose
to
the
TSC
Note
investors
that
he
was
imposing
this
debt
b
urden
on
TSC
while
eliminating
his
personal
guarantee
to
previous
Riehl
Note
investors.
3
5.
Riehl
also
did
not
disclose
to
TSC
Note
investors
that
TSC
had
existing
bank
debt
t
o
which
the
TSC
Notes
were
subordinate,
failing
to
tell
investors
that
if
TSC
defaulted
they
w
ould
not
be
repaid
until
TSC's
bank
lenders
were
repaid
first.
3
6.
Riehl
did
not
require
that
TSC
have
two
co-signers
to
repay
its
debts,
contrary
to
h
is
promise
that
he
would
require
two
co-signers
for
any
loan
issued
using
investor
money.
3
7.
From
at
least
2015
to
December
2018,
Riehl
offered
and
sold
to
approximately
1
10
investors
at
least
175
TSC
Notes
worth
approximately
$7.8
million.
3
8.
In
late
2018,
Riehl
received
his
last
investment
of
$150,000.
Riehl
told
this
i
nvestor
that
Riehl
would
repay
him
in
a
few
days.
Riehl
knew
that
this
investor
did
not
want
to
i
nvest
in
TSC,
however,
TSC
was
struggling
financially
and
needed
an
immediate
infusion
of
c
ash
for
operations.
Against
the
investor's
instruction,
Riehl
transferred
the
$150,000
to
TSC.
T
SC
continued
to
struggle
financially,
and
Riehl
never
repaid
the
investor.
I
V.
Collapse
of
Riehl's
Investment
Program
and
TSC
3
9.
On
September
10,
2018,
Riehl
sent
a
letter
to
his
investors
stating
that
he
was
g
oing
to
wind
down
his
investment
program,
he
was
no
longer
accepting
new
investment
funds,

and
that
his
religious
community
was
assisting
with
the
closing
of
his
business
and
the
r
epayment
of
his
outstanding
loans.
4
0.
On
January
18,
2019,
Riehl
sent
another
letter
to
his
investors,
apologizing
for
his
m
isconduct,
and
stating:
"I
am
sorry
for
any
form
of
dishonesty
I
am
guilty
of,
and
for
my
part
i
n
any
false
impressions.
This
includes
stating
repeatedly
that
I
require
two
signatures
for
each
l
oan.
This
gave
a
false
sense
of
security,
in
that
such
a
considerable
percentage
of
funds
invested
w
ere
channeled
into
my
personal
projects."
4
1.
TSC
ultimately
closed
its
operations
on
September
27,
2019,
and
its
remaining
a
ssets
are
subject
to
liquidation.
4
2.
Investors
in
Riehl
and
TSC
Notes
are
currently
owed
millions
of
dollars,
with
l
ittle
chance
of
full
repayment.
V
.
Riehl
Violated
the
Securities
Laws
4
3.
The
promissory
notes
that
Riehl
offered
and
sold
to
investors
are
securities
within
t
he
meaning
of
the
Securities
Act
and
Exchange
Act.
4
4.
Riehl
sold
the
Riehl
Notes
and
TSC
Notes
as
investments,
and
the
purchasers
of
t
hese
instruments
invested
with
the
expectation
of
profit.
4
5.
Riehl
sold
the
Riehl
Notes
and
TSC
Notes
to
individual
members
of
the
general
p
ublic,
not
to
commercial
investors,
and
these
instruments
are
not
subject
to
a
regulatory
scheme
t
hat
significantly
reduced
the
risks
inherent
in
their
purchase.
4
6.
Riehl
engaged
in
the
conduct
described
herein,
including
the
sales
and
offers
to
s
ell
the
promissory
notes,
by
use
of
the
means
or
instruments
of
transportation
or
communication
i
n
interstate
commerce,
the
instrumentalities
of
interstate
commerce,
and/or
by
use
of
the
mails.
7

47.
Riehl
made
material
untrue
statements
and
omitted
to
state
material
facts
n
ecessary
in
order
to
make
the
statements
made,
in
light
of
the
circumstances
under
which
they
w
ere
made,
not
misleading.
4
8.
A
reasonable
investor
would
consider
the
misrepresented
facts
and
omitted
i
nformation
—among
other
things,
misrepresentations
and
omissions
regarding
Riehl's
r
equirement
of
two
co-signers
to
each
loan,
Riehl's
personal
guarantee,
and
the
use
of
investor
m
oney
important
in
deciding
whether
to
purchase
the
promissory
notes.
4
9.
Riehl
made
the
untrue
statements
and
omissions
to
state
a
material
fact
described
h
erein
in
the
offer
of,
and
in
connection
with
the
purchase
or
sale
of,
securities.
5
0.
In
connection
with
the
conduct
described
herein,
Riehl
acted
knowingly
and
r
ecklessly.
Riehl
knew
or
was
reckless
in
not
knowing
that
he
was
making
material
m
isrepresentations
and
omitting
to
state
material
facts
necessary
to
make
certain
statements
not
m
isleading
under
the
circumstances.
5
1.
Riehl
was
the
maker
of
the
false
and
misleading
statements
because
he
made
the
m
isstatements
directly
to
investors.
5
2.
Riehl
obtained
money
or
property
from
investors
through
his
material
untrue
s
tatements
and
omissions
to
state
a
material
fact
necessary
in
order
to
make
the
statements
made,
i
n
light
of
the
circumstances
under
which
they
were
made,
not
misleading.
Riehl
obtained
a
pproximately
$60
million
in
principal
investments
from
investors.
5
3.
Riehl
used
devices,
schemes,
and
artifices
to
defraud
investors,
and
engaged
in
a
cts,
transactions,
practices,
or
courses
of
business
that
operated
as
a
fraud
or
deceit
upon
i
nvestors.

FIRST
CLAIM
FOR
RELIEF
V
iolations
of
Section
17(a)
of
the
Securities
Act
5
4.
The
Commission
realleges
and
incorporates
by
reference
each
and
every
a
llegation
in
paragraphs
1
through
53,
inclusive,
as
if
they
were
fully
set
forth
herein.
5
5.
As
a
result
of
the
conduct
alleged
herein,
Defendant
Riehl
in
the
offer
or
sale
of
s
ecurities,
directly
or
indirectly,
by
the
use
of
the
means
or
instruments
of
transportation
or
c
ommunication
in
interstate
commerce,
or
the
mails:
a
.
knowingly
or
recklessly
employed
devices,
schemes,
or
artifices
to
d
efraud;
b
.
knowingly,
recklessly,
or
negligently
obtained
money
or
property
by
m
eans
of
any
untrue
statements
of
material
fact,
or
omitted
to
state
m
aterial
facts
necessary
in
order
to
make
the
statements
made,
in
light
of
t
he
circumstances
under
which
they
were
made,
not
misleading;
and/or
c
.
knowingly,
recklessly,
or
negligently
engaged
in
transactions,
practices,
or
c
ourses
of
business
which
operated
or
would
operate
as
a
fraud
or
deceit
u
pon
the
purchasers
of
securities.
5
6.
By
engaging
in
the
foregoing
conduct,
Riehl
violated,
and
unless
enjoined
will
c
ontinue
to
violate,
Section
17(a)
of
the
Securities
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
77q(a)].
S
ECOND
CLAIM
FOR
RELIEF
V
iolations
of
Section
10(b)
of
the
Exchange
Act
and
Rule
lOb-5
Thereunder
5
7.
The
Commission
realleges
and
incorporates
by
reference
each
and
every
a
llegation
in
paragraphs
1
through
53,
inclusive,
as
if
they
were
fully
set
forth
herein.
5
8.
As
a
result
of
the
conduct
alleged
herein,
Defendant
Riehl
knowingly
or
r
ecklessly,
in
connection
with
the
purchase
or
sale
of
securities,
directly
or
indirectly,
by
use
of

the
means
or
instrumentality
of
interstate
commerce
or
of
the
mails,
or
of
a
facility
of
a
national
s
ecurities
exchange:
a
.
employed
devices,
schemes,
or
artifices
to
defraud;
b
.
made
untrue
statements
of
material
fact,
or
omitted
to
state
material
facts
n
ecessary
in
order
to
make
the
statements
made,
in
light
of
the
c
ircumstances
under
which
they
were
made,
not
misleading;
and/or
c
.
engaged
in
acts,
practices
or
courses
of
business
which
operated
or
would
o
perate
as
a
fraud
or
deceit
upon
any
person
in
connection
with
the
p
urchase
or
sale
of
any
security.
5
9.
By
engaging
in
the
foregoing
conduct,
Riehl
violated,
and
unless
enjoined
will
c
ontinue
to
violate,
Section
10(b)
of
the
Exchange
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
78j(b)],
and
Rule
lOb-5
t
hereunder
[17
C.F.R.
§
240.1Ob-5].
P
RAYER
FOR
RELIEF
W
HEREFORE,
the
Commission
respectfully
requests
that
the
Court
enter
a
final
j
udgment:
A
.
Permanently
restraining
and
enjoining
Riehl
from
violating
Section
17(a)
of
the
S
ecurities
Act
[15
U.S.0
§
77q(a)]
and
Section
10(b)
of
the
Exchange
Act
[15
U.S.C.
§
78j(b)]
a
nd
Rule
lOb-5
thereunder
[17
C.F.R
§
240.1Ob-5];
B
.
Ordering
Riehl
to
disgorge
any
and
all
ill-gotten
gains
derived
from
his
unlawful
c
onduct,
together
with
prejudgment
interest
thereon;
C
.
Ordering
Riehl
to
pay
a
civil
penalty
pursuant
to
Section
21(d)(3)
of
the
Exchange
A
ct
[15
U.S.C.
~
78u-1]
and
Section
20(d)
of
the
Securities
Act
[15
U.S.C.
~
77t];
D
.
Retaining
jurisdiction
of
this
action
for
purposes
of
enforcing
any
final
judgment
a
nd
orders;
and
10

E.
Granting
such
other
and
further
relief
as
this
Court
may
deem
just
and
appropriate.
J
URY
DEMAND
P
ursuant
to
Rule
38(b)
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure,
the
Commission
hereby
r
equests
a
trial
by
jury.
D
ated:
January
29,
2020
Res
lly
submitted,
J
ennifer
un
Barry
M
ark
R.
Sylvester
K
ingdon
Kase
P
aulina
L.
Jerez
S
ecurities
an
d
Exchange
Commission
1
617
JFK
Blvd.,
Suite
520
P
hiladelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103
(
215)
597-3100
(telephone)
(
215)
597-2740
(facsimile)
B
arry)@sec.gov
S
[email protected]
A
ttorneys
for
Plaintiff
S
ecurities
and
Exchange
Commission
11

JS
44
(Rev.
02/19)
CIVIL
COVER
SHEET
T
he
JS
44
civil
cover
sheet
and
the
information
contained
herein
neither
replace
nor
supplement
the
fi
ling
and
service
of
pleadings
or
other
papers
as
required
by
law,
except
as
p
rovided
by
local
rules
of
couR.
This
form,
approved
by
the
Judicial
Conference
of
the
United
States
in
September
1974,
is
required
for
the
use
of
the
Clerk
of
Court
for
the
p
urpose
of
in
itiating
the
civil
docket
sheet.
(SEC
INSTRUCT/ONSON
NEXT
PAGE
OFTH/S
FORM.)
I
.
(a)
PLAINTIFFS
S
ecurities
and
Exchange
Commission
(
b)
County
of
Residence
of
First
Listed
Plaintiff
(
EXCEPT
IN
U.
S
PLAINT/FF
CASESf
~
C~,
Attome
S
(Firm
Name,
Address,
and
Telephone
Number)
J
enrnfer
C.
B
y
arry
U
.S.
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
1
617
JFK
Bivd,
Suite
520,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103
DEFENDANTS
P
hilip
E.
Kiehl
1
830
Camp
Swatara
Road,
Myerstown,
PA
17067
C
ounty
of
Residence
of
First
Listed
Defendant
LebdnOn
(
!N
U.S.
PLAINTIFF
CASES
ONLY)
N
OTE:
IN
LAND
CONDEMNATION
CASES,
USE
THE
LOCATION
OF
T
HE
TRACT
OF
LAND
INVOLVED.
A
tt
orneys
(IfKnotivnJ
C
hristopher
A.
Sarno,
Esq.
C
lymer
Musser
&Sarno,
PC
4
08
West
Chestnut
St.,
Lancaster,
PA
17603
I
I.
BASIS
OF
JURISDICTION
(Place
an
'x"
in
one
soz
only)
III.
CITIZENSHIP
OF
PRINCIPAL
PARTIES
(PJa~e
an
'x"
in
One
eoxror
Plaintiff
(
For
Dii~ersiry
Cases
Only)
and
One
Box
far
Defendant)
C
~
1
U.S.
Government
O
3
Federal
Question
PTF
DEF
PTF
DEF
P
laintiff
(U.S.
Government
Not
a
Parry)
Citizen
of
This
State
O
1
O
1
Incorporated
or
Principal
Place
O
4
O
4
o
f
Business
In
This
State
O

2
U.S.
Government
O
4
Diversity
Citizen
of
Mother
State
O
2
O
2
Incorporated
and
Principal
Place
O
5
O
5
D
efendant
(/ndicale
Citizenship
oj'Par[ies
in
Item
/II)
of
Business
In
Monier
State
C
itizen
or
Subject
of
a
O
3
O
3
Foreign
Nation
O
6
O
6
F
orei
n
Coun
i
V
NA
TiTRR.
(1F
CI
i1T
iw,.,.,.
,,,,
~~v^
:..
nom,,
u,,.
n.d.~i
('lick
here
fnr
Nnhir~~
of
knit
('nrle
I)ecrrinti~inc
C
ONTRACT
TORTS
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
BANKRUPTCY
THERSTATUTES
O

110Insurance
PERSONAL
INJURY
PERSONAL
INJURY
O
625
Drug
Related
Seizure
O
422
Appeal
28
USC
158
O
375
False
Claims
Act
O

l20
Mazine
O
310
Airplane
O
365
Personal
Injury
-
of
Property
21
USC
881
O
423
Withdrawal
O
376
Qui
Tam
(31
USC
O

130
Miller
Act
O
315
Airplane
Product
Product
Liability
O
690
Other
28
USC
157
3729(a))
O

140
Negotiable
Instrument
Liability
O
367
Health
Care)
O
400
State
Reapportionment
P
R
PE
'
'
RIGH'['S
O

150
Recovery
of
Overpayment
O
320
Assault,
Libel
&
PhazmaceuNcal
O
410
Mtitrust
O

820
Copyrights
&

Enforcement
of
Judgment
Slander
Personal
Injury
O
430
Banks
and
Banking
O

15
]
Medicaze
Act
O
330
Federal
Employers'
Product
Liability
O
830
Patent
O
450
Commerce
D

152
Recovery
of
Defaulted
Liability
O
368
Asbestos
Personal
O
835
Patent
-Abbreviated
O
460
Deportation
S
tudent
Loans
O
340
Marine
Injury
Product
New
Drug
Application
O
470
Racketeer
Influenced
and
(
Excludes
Veterans)
O
345
Mazine
Product
Liability
O
840
Trademmk
Corcupt
Organizafions
Y
O

153
Recovery
of
Overpayment
Liability
PERSONAL
PROPERTY
O
480
Consumer
Credit
O

710
Fair
Labor
Standards
O
861
HIA
(1395f~
o
f
Veteran's
Benefits
O
350
Motor
Vehicle
O
370
Other
Fraud
O
485
Telephone
Consumer
O

160
Stockholders'
Suits
O
355
Motor
Vehicle
O
371
Truth
in
Lending
Act
O
862
Black
Lung
(923)
Protection
Act
q

190
Other
Contract
Product
Liability
O
380
Other
Personal
O
720
LabodManagement
O
863
DI
WC/DIW
W
(405(g))
O
490
CablelSat
TV
O

195
Contract
Product
Liability
O
360
Other
Personal
Property
Damage
Relations
O
864
SSID
Title
XVI
2L
850
Securities/Commodities/
O

196
Franchise
Injury
O
385
Prope~iy
Damage
O
740
Railway
Labor
Act
O
865
RSI
(405(g))
Exchange
O

362
Personal
Injury
-
Product
Liability
O
751
Family
and
Medical
O
890
Other
Statutory
Actions
M
edical
Mal
ractice
Leave
Act
O

790
Other
Labor
Litigation
O

791
Employee
Retirement
O
891
Agriculhual
Acts
O

893
Environmental
Matters
D

895
Freedom
oflnformafion
R
EAL
PROPERTY
CIVIL
RIGHTS
PRISONER
PETITIONS
FEDERAL
TAX
SUITS
O

210
Land
Condemnation
O
440
Other
Civil
Rights
Habeas
Corpus:
O
870
Taxes
(U.S.
Plaintiff
O

220
Foreclosure
O
441
Voting
O
463
Alien
Detainee
Income
Security
Act
or
Defendant)
Act
O

230
Rent
Lease
&Ejectment
O
442
Employment
O
510
Motions
to
Vacate
O
871
IRS
—Third
Party
O
896
Arbitration
O

240
Torts
to
Land
O
443
Housing/
Sentence
26
USC
7609
O
899
Administrative
Procedure
O

245
Tort
Product
Liability
Accommodations
O
530
General
Act/Review
or
Appeal
of
A
NMIGILITIOIY
O

290
All
Other
Real
Property
O
445
Amer.
w/Disabilities
-
O
535
Death
Penalty
Agency
Decision
O

462
Naturalization
Application
E
mployment
Other:
O
950
Constitutionality
of
O

446
Amer.
w/Disabilities
-
O
540
Mandamus
&Other
O
465
Other
Immigration
State
Statutes
O
ther
O
550
Civil
Rights
Actions
O

448
Education
O
555
Prison
Condition
O

560
Civil
Detainee
-
Conditions
of
C
onfinement
V
.
ORIGIN
(Place
an
'X"
in
One
Box
Only)
~
'
1
Original
O
2
Removed
from
O
3
Remanded
from
O
4
Reinstated
or
O
5
Transferred
from
Q
6
Multidistrict
O
8
Multidisuict
P
roceeding
State
CouR
Appellate
Court
Reopened
Another
District
Litigation
-
Litigation
-
specify)
Transfer
Direct
File
C
ite
the
U.S.
Civil
Statute
under
which
ou
are
filing
(Do
not
cite
jurisdictional
statutes
unless
diversity):
V
I.
CAUSE
OF
ACTION
15
U.S.C.
77
a),
15
U.S.C.
§
y
78'
b),17
C.F.R
§
240.10b-5
B
rief
description
of
cause:
S
ecurities
Fraud
V
II.
REQUESTED
IN
L7
CHECK
IF
THIS
IS
A
CLASS
ACTION
DEMAND
$
CHECK
YES
only
if
demanded
in
complaint:
C
OMPLAINT:
i
JNDER
RULE
23,
F.R.Cv.P.
NRY
DEMAND:
~
Yes
ONo
V
III.
RELATED
CASES)
(See
instructions):
NDGE
_
~~
DOCKET
NUMBER
_
_
I
F
ANY
Hon.
Edward
G.
Smith
Cr.
No.
20-048
D
ATE
0
1
/29/2020
R
ECEIPT
#
AMOUNT
APPLYINGIFP
JUDGE
MAG.
JUDGE

JS
44
Reverse
(Rev.
02/19)
I
NSTRUCTIONS
FOR
ATTORNEYS
COMPLETING
CIVIL
COVER
SHEET
FORM
JS
44
A
uthority
For
Civil
Cover
Sheet
T
he
JS
44
civil
cover
sheet
and
the
information
contained
herein
neither
replaces
nor
supplements
the
filings
and
service
of
pleading
or
other
papers
as
r
equired
by
law,
except
as
provided
by
local
rules
of
court.
This
form,
approved
by
the
Judicial
Conference
of
the
United
States
in
September
1974,
is
r
equired
for
the
use
of
the
Clerk
of
Court
for
the
purpose
of
initiating
the
civil
docket
sheet.
Consequently,
a
civil
cover
sheet
is
submitted
to
the
Clerk
of
C
ourt
for
each
civil
complaint
filed.
The
attorney
filing
a
case
should
complete
th
e
form
as
follows:
I
.(a)
Plaintiffs
-Defendants.
Enter
names
(last,
first,
middle
initial)
of
plaintiff
an
d
defendant.
If
the
plaintiff
or
defendant
is
a
government
agency,
use
o
nly
the
full
name
or
standard
abbreviations.
If
the
plaintiff
or
defendant
is
an

official
within
a
government
agency,
identify
first
the
agency
an
d
t
hen
the
official,
giving
both
name
an
d
title.
(
b)
County
of
Residence.
For
each
civil
case
filed,
except
U.S.
plaintiff
cases,
enter
the
name
of
the
county
where
the
first
listed
plaintiff
resides
at
the
t
ime
of
filing.
In
U.S.
plaintiff
cases,
enter
the
name
of
the
county
in
which
the
first
listed
defendant
resides
at
the
time
of
filing.
(NOTE:
In
land
c
ondemnation
cases,
the
county
of
residence
of
the
"defendant"
is
the
location
of
the
tr
act
of
land
involved.)
(
c)
Attorneys.
Enter
the
firm
name,
address,
telephone
number,
an
d
attorney
of
record.
If
th
ere
are
several
attorneys,
list
them
on
an

attachment,
noting
i
n
this
section
"(see
attachment)".
I
I.
Jurisdiction.
The
basis
of
jurisdiction
is
set
forth
under
Rule
8(a),
F.R.Cv.P.,
which
requires
that
jurisdictions
be
shown
in
pleadings.
Place
an

"X"
i
n
one
of
the
boxes.
If
there
is
more
than
one
basis
of
jurisdiction,
precedence
is
given
in
the
order
shown
below.
U
nited
States
plaintiff
(1)
Jurisdiction
based
on
28
U.S.C.
1345
and
1348.
Suits
by
agencies
apd
officers
of
the
United
States
are
included
here.
U
nited
States
defendant.
(2)
When
the
plaintiff
is
suing
the
United
States,
its
officers
or
agencies,
place
an
"X"
in
this
box.
F
ederal
question.
(3)
This
refers
to
suits
under
28
U.S.C.
1331,
where
jurisdiction
arises
under
the
Constitution
of
the
United
States,
an
amendment
t
o
the
Constitution,
an

act
of
Congress
or
a
treaty
of
the
United
States.
In
cases
where
the
U.S.
is
a
party,
the
U.S.
plaintiff
or
defendant
code
takes
p
recedence,
an
d
box
1
or
2
should
be
marked.
D
iversity
of
citizenship.
(4)
This
re
fers
to
suits
under
28
U.S.C.
1332,
where
parties
are
citizens
of
different
states.
When
Box
4
is
checked,
the
c
itizenship
of
the
different
parties
must
be
checked.
(See
Section
III
below;
NOTE:
federal
question
actions
take
precedence
over
diversity
c
ases.)
I
II.
Residence
(citizenship)
of
Principal
Parties.
This
section
of
the
JS
44
is
to
be
completed
if
diversity
of
citizenship
was
indicated
above.
Mark
this
s
ection
for
each
principal
party.
I
V.
Nature
of
Suit.
Place
an
"X"
in
the
appropriate
box.
If
there
are
multiple
nature
of
suit
codes
associated
with
the
case,
pick
the
nature
of
suit
code
t
hat
is
most
applicable.
Click
here
for:
Nature
crf
Suit
Code
Descriptions.
O
rigin.
Place
an

"X"
in
one
of
the
seven
boxes.
O
riginal
Proceedings.
(1)
Cases
which
originate
in
the
United
States
district
courts.
R
emoved
from
State
Court.
(2)
Proceedings
initiated
in
state
courts
may
be
removed
to
the
district
courts
under
Title
28
U.S.C.,
Section
1441.
R
emanded
fr
om
Appellate
Court.
(3)
Check
this
box
for
cases
remanded
to
the
district
court
for
further
action.
Use
the
date
of
remand
as
the
filing
d
ate.
R
einstated
or
Reopened.
(4)
Check
this
box
for
cases
reinstated
or
reopened
in
the
district
court.
Use
the
reopening
date
as
the
filing
date.
T
ransferred
fr
om
Another
District.
(5)
For
cases
transferred
under
Title
28
U.S.C.
Section
1404(a).
Do
not
use
this
for
within
district
tr
an
sfers
or
m
ultidistrict
litigation
tr
an
sfers.
M
ultidistrict
Litigation
—Transfer.
(6)
Check
this
box
when
a
multidistrict
case
is
transferred
into
the
district
under
authority
of
Title
28
U.S.C.
S
ection
1407.
M
ultidistrict
Litigation
—Direct
File.
(8)
Check
this
box
when
a
multidistrict
case
is
filed
in
the
same
district
as
the
Master
MDL
docket.
PLEASE
N
OTE
THAT
THERE
IS
NOT
AN
ORIGIN
CODE
7.
Origin
Code
7
was
used
for
historical
records
an
d
is
no
longer
relevant
due
to
changes
in
s
tatue.
V
I.
Cause
of
Action.
Report
the
civil
statute
directly
related
to
the
cause
of
action
and
give
a
brief
description
of
the
cause.
Do
not
cite
jurisdictional
s
tatutes
unless
diversity.
Example:
U.S.
Civil
Statute:
47
USC
553
Brief
Description:
Unauthorized
reception
of
cable
service
V
II.
Requested
in
Complaint.
Class
Action.
Place
an
"X"
in
this
box
if
you
are
filing
a
class
action
under
Rule
23,
F.R.Cv.P.
D
emand.
In
this
space
enter
the
actual
dollaz
amount
being
demanded
or
indicate
other
demand,
such
as
a
preliminary
injunction.
J
ury
Demand.
Check
the
appropriate
box
to
indicate
whether
or
not
a
jury
is
being
demanded.
V
III.
Related
Cases.
This
section
of
the
JS
44
is
used
to
reference
related
pending
cases,
if
any.
If
there
are
related
pending
cases,
insert
the
docket
n
umbers
an
d
the
corresponding
judge
names
for
such
cases.
D
ate
and
Attorney
Signature.
Date
and
sig►
the
civil
cover
sheet.

UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
F
OR
THE
EASTERN
DISTRICT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
D
ESIGNATION
FORM
(
to
be
used
by
counsel
or
pro
se
plainti„~j"to
indicate
the
category
of
the
case
for
the
purpose
of
assignment
to
the
appropriate
calendar)
A
ddress
of
Plaintiff:
1617
JFK
Blvd,
Suite
520,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103
A
ddress
of
Defendant:
1830
Camp
Swatara
Road,
Myerstown,
PA
17067
P
lace
of
Accident,
Incident
or
Transaction:
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania
R
ELATED
CASE,
IFANY.•
C
ase
Number:
CC.
No.
20-048
J„age:
Hon.
Edward
G.
Smith
Date
Terminated:
C
ivil
cases
are
deemed
related
when
Yes
is
an
swered
to
an
y
of
the
following
questions:
1
.
Is
this
case
related
to
property
included
in
an

earlier
numbered
suit
pending
or
within
one
year
Yes
q
No
q
p
reviously
terminated
action
in
this
court?
2
.
Does
this
case
involve
the
same
issue
of
fact
or
grow
out
of
the
same
tr
an
saction
as
a
prior
suit
Yes
~
No
q
p
ending
or
within
one
year
previously
terminated
action
in
this
court?
3
.
Does
this
case
involve
the
validity
or
infringement
of
a
patent
already
in
suitor
an
y
earlier
Yes
q
No
q
n
umbered
case
pending
or
within
one
year
previously
terminated
action
of
this
court?
4
.
Is
th
is
case
a
second
or
successive
habeas
corpus,
social
security
appeal,
or
pro
se
civil
ri
ghts
Yes
q
No
q
c
ase
filed
by
the
same
individual?
I

certify
that,
to
my
knowledge,
the
within
case
t
his
court
except
as
noted
above.
D
A.r~:
01
/29/2020
Q
is
/
q
is
n
ted
to
any
case
now
pending
or
within
one
year
previously
terminated
action
in
B
AR
ID:
72961
A
tto
ey-at-
/
muff
Attorney
I.D.
#
(if
applicable)
C
IVIL:
(Place
a
~
in
one
category
only)
A
.
Federal
Question
Cnses:
B.
Diversity
Jurisdiction
Cnses:
q
1.
Indemnity
Contract,
Marine
Contract,
an
d
All
Other
Contracts
q
1.
Insurance
Contract
an
d
Other
Contracts
q
2.
FELA
q
2.
Airplane
Personal
Injury
q
3.
Jones
Act
-Personal
Injury
q
3.
Assault,
Defamation
q
4.
Antitrust
~
4.
Marine
Personal
Injury
5
.
Patent
q
5.
Motor
Vehicle
Personal
Injury
6
.
Labor
-Management
Relations
q
6.
Other
Personal
Injury
(Please
specify):
q
7.
Civil
Rights
q
7.
Products
Liability
8
.
Habeas
Corpus
~
8.
Products
Liability
—Asbestos
S
ecurities
Acts)
Cases
~
9.
All
other
Diversity
Cases
B
9.
1
0.
Social
Security
Review
Cases
(Please
specify):
1
1.
All
other
Federal
Question
Cases
(
Please
spec):
ARBITRATION
CERTIFICATION
(
The
e,JJect
of
this
certifrcaJion
is
to
remove
the
case
from
eligibility
for
arbitration.)
~

Jennifer
Chun
Barry
counsel
of
record
or
pro
se
plaintiff,
do
hereby
certify:
q
Pursuant
to
Local
Civil
Rule
53.2,
§
3(c)
(2),
that
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
an
d
belief,
the
damages
recoverable
in
this
civil
action
case
e
xceed
the
sum
of
$150,000.00
exclusive
of
interest
and
costs:
R
elief
other
than
monetary
damages
is
sought.
„
ATE:

01
/29/2020
BAR
I
D:
72961
A
tto
ey-at-
aw
o
-
Attorney
I.D.
#
(ifapplicab/e)
N
OTE:
A
trial
de
novo
will
be
a
trial
by
jury
only
ifthere
has
been
compliance
with
F.R.C.P.
38.
C
le
609
(5/20/8)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
CMLACTION
v.
NO.
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve  a copy on all defendants. (See § 1  :03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.)  In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be   assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a)Habeas Corpus -Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through§ 2255.
(  )
(b)Social Security -Cases
requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
(  )
( c) Arbitration -Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53 .2.
(  )
( d) Asbestos -Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos.
(  )
( e)Special Management -Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through ( d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
(  )
(f) Standard Management-Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.
(  )
Date
Attorney-at-law
Telephone
FAX Number
(Civ. 660) 10/02
Securities and Exchange Commission
Philip E. Riehl
X
Jennifer C. Barry
Plaintiff
215-597-2740215-597-3192
Attorney for
[email protected]
E-Mail Address
1/29/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILIP E. RIEHL,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Civil Action No.

Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") files this Complaint against

defendant Philip E. Riehl ("Riehl") and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This matter involves fraudulent securities offerings conducted by defendant Riehl.

2. From at least 2010 through late 2018, Riehl offered promissory notes to members

of a close-knit religious community with which he was affiliated. Riehl sold the promissory

notes to hundreds of investors throughout the country and abroad, taking in approximately $60

million.

3. Riehl promised investors that he would repay their principal investment with

interest, usually at a rate higher than that offered by traditional banks. Riehl told investors that

he personally guaranteed repayment of their notes.

4. Riehl told investors that he would use their money to make loans to other

members of the religious community who wanted to borrow money, typically to finance the

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 1 of 11



borrowers' businesses or real estate purchases. Riehl maintained that he would be able to make

these payments of principal and interest by charging his borrowers a higher interest rate than he

paid his investors.

5. Kiehl told investors that, to mitigate risk associated with borrowers' inability to

repay their loans, he required two co-signers for each loan. This statement was false. Kiehl has

now admitted that he made loans without requiring any co-signers.

6. Kiehl also offered and sold many of his investors new notes issued by a struggling

dairy business called Trickling Springs Creamery, LLC ("TSC"). Kiehl was the majority owner

of TSC when he offered and sold the TSC notes.

7. Kiehl promised to pay 4.5-5%returns on TSC notes, while failing to disclose to

investors that TSC was suffering financial difficulties, which he exacerbated by increasing

TSC's debt load without a corresponding infusion of money into TSC.

8. Kiehl also failed to disclose to TSC investors that their notes would be

subordinate to existing bank debt, and that he did not personally guarantee repayment of the TSC

notes.

9. In later years, as TSC was in dire financial straits, Kiehl misappropriated certain

investor funds to finance TSC despite instructions not to use investor money in that manner.

10. TSC ultimately failed, and Kiehl was unable to pay back investors, who are owed

millions of dollars in unpaid principal.

1 1. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint, Kiehl violated, and

unless enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the

"Securities Act") [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(the "Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule lOb-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R § 240.1Ob-5].

2

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 2 of 11



JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Sections 21(d) and (e) of the Exchange Act

[15 U.S.C. § 78u(d) and 78u(e)], to enjoin acts, transactions, practices, and courses of business,

and to obtain disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and such other and further

relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

13. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and

22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(d), 21(e),

and 27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa(a)]. Riehl has, directly or

indirectly, made use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or

of the facilities of a national securities exchange in connection with the acts, practices, and

courses of business alleged in this Complaint.

14. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities Act

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

things, certain of the acts, practices, and courses of business constituting the violations of the

federal securities laws alleged herein occurred within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

including that Riehl made misrepresentations to investors residing within this district.

DEFENDANT

15. Philip E. Riehl, age 68, is a resident of Myerstown, Pennsylvania. Since

approximately 1992, Riehl provided accounting services to members of his religious community

through his sole proprietorship, Riehl Accounting. Riehl is not a licensed CPA.

OTHER ENTITIES

16. Riehl Accounting is an accounting business solely owned and operated by Riehl.

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 3 of 11



17. Trickling Springs Creamery, LLC ("TSC") is a defunct private business. TSC

was formerly engaged in the business of processing and selling dairy products, with its principal

place of business in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Riehl initially loaned money to TSC. In

2007, his loan was converted to equity, making Riehl the majority owner of TSC. TSC operated

from approximately 2001 to September 2019. TSC filed for bankruptcy in December 2019.

FACTS

I. Riehl's Background and Creation of Riehl's Investment Program

18. Starting in about 1992, Riehl began working primarily as an accountant through

his solely owned business, Riehl Accounting. Riehl chiefly provided tax accounting services to

other members of a close-knit religious community to which he belonged.

19. In or around 1995, Riehl sought to purchase a farm in Berks County,

Pennsylvania. After reviewing possible financing options with traditional banks, Riehl instead

asked several of his accounting clients to loan him the money to finance his purchase, promising

them repayment at an interest rate greater than that offered on deposits by local banks.

20. Riehl's accounting clients agreed to lend Riehl the money at the promised interest

rate, and thereafter word spread within Riehl's religious community that Riehl was accepting

investments and promising higher rates of return than those typically offered by banks.

21. From this beginning, Riehl developed his own investment program, in which he

raised money by issuing promissory notes to investors ("Riehl Notes"). He then pooled investor

money and used it to make loans to other members of his religious community.

22. Riehl typically made loans to farmers and other types of commercial businesses,

such as barn builders, trucking companies, and construction companies, who were unable to, or

chose not to, obtain loans from traditional banks. These loans were documented by simple

promissory notes to Riehl, signed by the borrowers.

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 4 of 11



23. Riehl knew that members of his religious community had a high level of trust and

respect for one another, and he relied on this trust to secure investments.

24. Riehl provided each investor with a promissory note, signed by him, and

personally promised to repay the investors with interest.

25. Around 2015, the SEC began an investigation of Riehl and his investment

program.

26. Riehl told the SEC staff he was not accepting new investments, was in the process

of winding down his investment program, and always required two co-signers for loans made

from his investment program. These statements were not true.

II. Riehl Acquires Majority Ownership of TSC and Offers and Sells TSC Notes

27. TSC opened in 2001 and was in the business of processing and selling dairy

products.

28. Riehl initially loaned money to TSC, and in 2007, his loan was converted to

equity, making Riehl a majority owner of TSC.

29. TSC struggled financially. To address these financial issues, Riehl decided to

raise money for TSC by offering and selling notes issued by TSC ("TSC Notes"), which were

structured almost identically to the Riehl Notes, but with TSC as the sole obligor.

30. The TSC Notes reflected the amount of the investment, the rate of interest, which

varied between 4.5%and 5%, the investors' names and addresses, and the redemption

provisions.

III. Riehl Sells TSC Notes Without Disclosing TSC's Deteriorating Financial Condition

and Eliminates His Personal Guarantee to Repay Many Investors

31. Riehl actively solicited investments in TSC from his existing Riehl Note

investors.

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 5 of 11



32. For many of the TSC Notes that Riehl sold, rather than raising additional capital

for TSC, Riehl merely issued new TSC Notes to his existing investors, replacing himself with

TSC as the note's payor and effectively eliminating his personal guarantee to repay the investors.

33. In so doing, Riehl burdened TSC with millions of dollars of additional debt

without any corresponding infusion of capital, and TSC was insolvent for all or most of the time

that Riehl sold TSC Notes.

34. Riehl did not disclose to the TSC Note investors that he was imposing this debt

burden on TSC while eliminating his personal guarantee to previous Riehl Note investors.

35. Riehl also did not disclose to TSC Note investors that TSC had existing bank debt

to which the TSC Notes were subordinate, failing to tell investors that if TSC defaulted they

would not be repaid until TSC's bank lenders were repaid first.

36. Riehl did not require that TSC have two co-signers to repay its debts, contrary to

his promise that he would require two co-signers for any loan issued using investor money.

37. From at least 2015 to December 2018, Riehl offered and sold to approximately

110 investors at least 175 TSC Notes worth approximately $7.8 million.

38. In late 2018, Riehl received his last investment of $150,000. Riehl told this

investor that Riehl would repay him in a few days. Riehl knew that this investor did not want to

invest in TSC, however, TSC was struggling financially and needed an immediate infusion of

cash for operations. Against the investor's instruction, Riehl transferred the $150,000 to TSC.

TSC continued to struggle financially, and Riehl never repaid the investor.

IV. Collapse of Riehl's Investment Program and TSC

39. On September 10, 2018, Riehl sent a letter to his investors stating that he was

going to wind down his investment program, he was no longer accepting new investment funds,

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 6 of 11



and that his religious community was assisting with the closing of his business and the

repayment of his outstanding loans.

40. On January 18, 2019, Riehl sent another letter to his investors, apologizing for his

misconduct, and stating: "I am sorry for any form of dishonesty I am guilty of, and for my part

in any false impressions. This includes stating repeatedly that I require two signatures for each

loan. This gave a false sense of security, in that such a considerable percentage of funds invested

were channeled into my personal projects."

41. TSC ultimately closed its operations on September 27, 2019, and its remaining

assets are subject to liquidation.

42. Investors in Riehl and TSC Notes are currently owed millions of dollars, with

little chance of full repayment.

V. Riehl Violated the Securities Laws

43. The promissory notes that Riehl offered and sold to investors are securities within

the meaning of the Securities Act and Exchange Act.

44. Riehl sold the Riehl Notes and TSC Notes as investments, and the purchasers of

these instruments invested with the expectation of profit.

45. Riehl sold the Riehl Notes and TSC Notes to individual members of the general

public, not to commercial investors, and these instruments are not subject to a regulatory scheme

that significantly reduced the risks inherent in their purchase.

46. Riehl engaged in the conduct described herein, including the sales and offers to

sell the promissory notes, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication

in interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and/or by use of the mails.

7

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 7 of 11



47. Riehl made material untrue statements and omitted to state material facts

necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they

were made, not misleading.

48. A reasonable investor would consider the misrepresented facts and omitted

information—among other things, misrepresentations and omissions regarding Riehl's

requirement of two co-signers to each loan, Riehl's personal guarantee, and the use of investor

money important in deciding whether to purchase the promissory notes.

49. Riehl made the untrue statements and omissions to state a material fact described

herein in the offer of, and in connection with the purchase or sale of, securities.

50. In connection with the conduct described herein, Riehl acted knowingly and

recklessly. Riehl knew or was reckless in not knowing that he was making material

misrepresentations and omitting to state material facts necessary to make certain statements not

misleading under the circumstances.

51. Riehl was the maker of the false and misleading statements because he made the

misstatements directly to investors.

52. Riehl obtained money or property from investors through his material untrue

statements and omissions to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,

in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Riehl obtained

approximately $60 million in principal investments from investors.

53. Riehl used devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud investors, and engaged in

acts, transactions, practices, or courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon

investors.

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 8 of 11



FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act

54. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation in paragraphs 1 through 53, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.

55. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Defendant Riehl in the offer or sale of

securities, directly or indirectly, by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or

communication in interstate commerce, or the mails:

a. knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes, or artifices to

defraud;

b. knowingly, recklessly, or negligently obtained money or property by

means of any untrue statements of material fact, or omitted to state

material facts 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 the purchasers of securities.

56. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Riehl violated, and unless enjoined will

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

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule lOb-5 Thereunder

57. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation in paragraphs 1 through 53, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.

58. As a result of the conduct alleged herein, Defendant Riehl knowingly or

recklessly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, directly or indirectly, by use of

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 9 of 11



the means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of a facility of a national

securities exchange:

a. employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;

b. made untrue statements of material fact, or omitted to state material facts

necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or

c. engaged in acts, practices or courses of business which operated or would

operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with the

purchase or sale of any security.

59. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Riehl violated, and unless enjoined will

continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule lOb-5

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.1Ob-5].

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a final

judgment:

A. Permanently restraining and enjoining Riehl from violating Section 17(a) of the

Securities Act [15 U.S.0 § 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]

and Rule lOb-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R § 240.1Ob-5];

B. Ordering Riehl to disgorge any and all ill-gotten gains derived from his unlawful

conduct, together with prejudgment interest thereon;

C. Ordering Riehl to pay a civil penalty pursuant to Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange

Act [15 U.S.C. ~ 78u-1] and Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. ~ 77t];

D. Retaining jurisdiction of this action for purposes of enforcing any final judgment

and orders; and

10

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 10 of 11



E. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Commission hereby

requests a trial by jury.

Dated: January 29, 2020 Res lly submitted,

Jennifer un Barry
Mark R. Sylvester
Kingdon Kase
Paulina L. Jerez
Securities and Exchange Commission
1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 520
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 597-3100 (telephone)
(215) 597-2740 (facsimile)
Barry)@sec.gov
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission

11

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 11 of 11



JS 44 (Rev. 02/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as

provided by local rules of couR. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the

purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEC INSTRUCT/ONSON NEXT PAGE OFTH/S FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

Securities and Exchange Commission

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

(EXCEPT IN U. S PLAINT/FF CASESf

~C~, Attome S (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Jenrnfer C. Byarry
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
1617 JFK Bivd, Suite 520, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

DEFENDANTS

Philip E. Kiehl
1830 Camp Swatara Road, Myerstown, PA 17067

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant LebdnOn

(!N U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (IfKnotivnJ
Christopher A. Sarno, Esq.
Clymer Musser &Sarno, PC
408 West Chestnut St., Lancaster, PA 17603

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an 'x" in one soz only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PJa~e an 'x" in One eoxror Plaintiff
(For Dii~ersiry Cases Only) and One Box far Defendant)

C~ 1 U.S. Government O 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Parry) Citizen of This State O 1 O 1 Incorporated or Principal Place O 4 O 4
of Business In This State

O 2 U.S. Government O 4 Diversity Citizen of Mother State O 2 O 2 Incorporated and Principal Place O 5 O 5

Defendant (/ndicale Citizenship oj'Par[ies in Item /II) of Business In Monier State

Citizen or Subject of a O 3 O 3 Foreign Nation O 6 O 6

Forei n Coun

iV NA TiTRR. (1F CI i1T iw,.,.,. ,,,, ~~v^ :.. nom,, u,,. n.d.~i ('lick here fnr Nnhir~~ of knit ('nrle I)ecrrinti~inc

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY THERSTATUTES

O 110Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY O 625 Drug Related Seizure O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 O 375 False Claims Act

O l20 Mazine O 310 Airplane O 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 O 423 Withdrawal O 376 Qui Tam (31 USC

O 130 Miller Act O 315 Airplane Product Product Liability O 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))

O 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability O 367 Health Care) O 400 State Reapportionment
PR PE ' ' RIGH'['SO 150 Recovery of Overpayment O 320 Assault, Libel & PhazmaceuNcal O 410 Mtitrust

O 820 Copyrights& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury O 430 Banks and Banking

O 15 ] Medicaze Act O 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability O 830 Patent O 450 Commerce

D 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability O 368 Asbestos Personal O 835 Patent -Abbreviated O 460 Deportation

Student Loans O 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application O 470 Racketeer Influenced and

(Excludes Veterans) O 345 Mazine Product Liability O 840 Trademmk Corcupt Organizafions
YO 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY O 480 Consumer Credit

O 710 Fair Labor Standards O 861 HIA (1395f~of Veteran's Benefits O 350 Motor Vehicle O 370 Other Fraud O 485 Telephone Consumer

O 160 Stockholders' Suits O 355 Motor Vehicle O 371 Truth in Lending Act O 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act

❑ 190 Other Contract Product Liability O 380 Other Personal O 720 LabodManagement O 863 DI WC/DIW W (405(g)) O 490 CablelSat TV

O 195 Contract Product Liability O 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations O 864 SSID Title XVI 2L 850 Securities/Commodities/

O 196 Franchise Injury O 385 Prope~iy Damage O 740 Railway Labor Act O 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange

O 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability O 751 Family and Medical O 890 Other Statutory Actions

Medical Mal ractice Leave Act
O 790 Other Labor Litigation

O 791 Employee Retirement

O 891 Agriculhual Acts
O 893 Environmental Matters

D 895 Freedom oflnformafion
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITS

O 210 Land Condemnation O 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: O 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

O 220 Foreclosure O 441 Voting O 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act

O 230 Rent Lease &Ejectment O 442 Employment O 510 Motions to Vacate O 871 IRS—Third Party O 896 Arbitration

O 240 Torts to Land O 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 O 899 Administrative Procedure

O 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations O 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of

ANMIGILITIOIYO 290 All Other Real Property O 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - O 535 Death Penalty Agency Decision

O 462 Naturalization ApplicationEmployment Other: O 950 Constitutionality of

O 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - O 540 Mandamus &Other O 465 Other Immigration State Statutes

Other O 550 Civil Rights Actions
O 448 Education O 555 Prison Condition

O 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an 'X" in One Box Only)

~' 1 Original O 2 Removed from O 3 Remanded from O 4 Reinstated or O 5 Transferred from Q 6 Multidistrict O 8 Multidisuict

Proceeding State CouR Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
specify) Transfer Direct File

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which ou are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 
15 U.S.C. 77 a), 15 U.S.C. §y78' b),17 C.F.R § 240.10b-5
Brief description of cause:
Securities Fraud

VII. REQUESTED IN L7 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

COMPLAINT: iJNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. NRY DEMAND: ~ Yes ONo

VIII. RELATED CASES)
(See instructions): 

NDGE _ ~~ DOCKET NUMBER _ _IF ANY Hon. Edward G. Smith Cr. No. 20-048

DATE

01 /29/2020

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYINGIFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1-1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 1 of 2



JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 02/19)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as

required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is

required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of

Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and

then the official, giving both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the

time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land

condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting

in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"

in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies apd officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment

to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes

precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the

citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity

cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this

section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code

that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature crf Suit Code Descriptions.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing

date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or

multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation —Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.

Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation —Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in

statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional

statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollaz amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket

numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sig► the civil cover sheet.

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1-1   Filed 01/29/20   Page 2 of 2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DESIGNATION FORM
(to be used by counsel or pro se plainti„~j"to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to the appropriate calendar)

Address of Plaintiff: 1617 JFK Blvd, Suite 520, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Address of Defendant:
1830 Camp Swatara Road, Myerstown, PA 17067

Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:
Eastern District of Pennsylvania

RELATED CASE, IFANY.•

Case Number: CC. No. 20-048 J„age: Hon. Edward G. Smith Date Terminated:

Civil cases are deemed related when Yes is answered to any of the following questions:

1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year Yes ❑ No ❑

previously terminated action in this court?

2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit Yes ~ No ❑

pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suitor any earlier Yes ❑ No ❑

numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action of this court?

4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights Yes ❑ No ❑

case filed by the same individual?

I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case
this court except as noted above.

DA.r~: 01 /29/2020

Q is / ❑ is n ted to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in

BAR ID: 72961

Atto ey-at- / muff Attorney I.D. # (if applicable)

CIVIL: (Place a ~ in one category only)

A. Federal Question Cnses: B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cnses:

❑ 1. Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts ❑ 1. Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

❑ 2. FELA ❑ 2. Airplane Personal Injury

❑ 3. Jones Act-Personal Injury ❑ 3. Assault, Defamation

❑ 4. Antitrust ~ 4. Marine Personal Injury

5. Patent ❑ 5. Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

6. Labor-Management Relations ❑ 6. Other Personal Injury (Please specify):

❑ 7. Civil Rights ❑ 7. Products Liability

8. Habeas Corpus ~ 8. Products Liability —Asbestos

Securities Acts) Cases ~ 9. All other Diversity Cases

B 9.
10. Social Security Review Cases (Please specify):

11. All other Federal Question Cases
(Please spec):

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION

(The e,JJect of this certifrcaJion is to remove the case from eligibility for arbitration.)

~ Jennifer Chun Barry counsel of record or pro se plaintiff, do hereby certify:

❑ Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, § 3(c) (2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this 
civil action case

exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs:

Relief other than monetary damages is sought.

„ATE: 01 /29/2020 
BAR I D: 72961

Atto ey-at- aw o - Attorney I.D. # (ifapplicab/e)

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only ifthere has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.

Cle 609 (5/20/8)

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1-2   Filed 01/29/20   Page 1 of 1



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM 

CMLACTION 

v. 

NO.  

In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for 
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of 
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1 :03 of the plan set forth on the reverse 
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said 
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on 
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track 
to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. 

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: 

(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through§ 2255. ( ) 

(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. ( ) 

( c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53 .2. ( )

( d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos. ( ) 

( e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through ( d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.) ( ) 

(f) Standard Management- Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. ( ) 

Date Attorney-at-law 

Telephone FAX Number

(Civ. 660) 10/02 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Philip E. Riehl

X

Jennifer C. Barry Plaintiff

215-597-2740215-597-3192

Attorney for 

[email protected]

E-Mail Address

1/29/2020

Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1-3   Filed 01/29/20   Page 1 of 2



Case 2:20-cv-00510-EGS   Document 1-3   Filed 01/29/20   Page 2 of 2