SEC v. Elchonon Schwartz; and Nightingale Properties, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00716, Northern District of Georgia (Feb. 21, 2025) — Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

                            Plaintiff,
 Civil Action File No.
v.

ELCHONON SCHWARTZ and
NIGHTINGALE PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendants.
JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) alleges as
follows:
SUMMARY
1. From May 2022 through March 2023 (the “Relevant Period”),
Defendants Elchonon “Elie” Schwartz (“Schwartz”) through his company,
Nightingale Properties LLC (“Nightingale”), raised over $60 million from at least
700 retail investors in two separate offerings of commercial real estate investment
opportunities.
2. One offering related to the purchase of an office building in Atlanta (the
“Atlanta Financial Center Offering”), which raised approximately $54 million.

3. The other offering involved the recapitalization of a mixed-use building
in Miami Beach (the “Miami Beach Offering”), which raised approximately $8.8
million.
4. Defendants used a third-party provider’s internet platform to solicit
these investments.
5. The online platform offered accredited investors the opportunity to
invest in commercial real estate private placements.
6. Defendants told investors that the money raised through the online
platform from each offering would be placed in a segregated bank account.
7.  Defendants told investors that the invested funds would be used for the
benefit of the specific investment only.
8. Defendants also told investors that the invested funds would not be
moved from the segregated bank account until Nightingale closed on each of the
deals.
9. These representations were important for investors when deciding
whether to invest in both the Atlanta Financial Center Offering and the Miami Beach
Offering.
10. Contrary to these representations, Schwartz misappropriated at least $42
million of the $54 million that was raised from the Atlanta Financial Center Offering.

11. Specifically, of the misappropriated Atlanta Financial Center funds,
Schwartz used over $5 million to repay hard money lenders in unrelated borrowings.
12. Schwartz also transferred over $12 million of the misappropriated
Atlanta Financial Center funds to his brokerage accounts and used those funds to
purchase First Republic Bank shares in March 2023.
13. Schwartz also transferred over $16 million of the misappropriated
Atlanta Financial Center funds to his personal accounts.
14. Of that $16 million in misappropriated Atlanta Financial Center funds,
Schwartz used more than $7 million to pay for a luxury condo that he was building in
Miami.
15. Additionally, contrary to the representations set forth in paragraphs 6-8
above, Schwartz misappropriated virtually all the $8.8 million that was raised in the
Miami Beach Offering.
16. Schwartz used funds misappropriated from the Miami Beach Offering
to    prop up other business ventures under Schwartz’s management.
17. Schwartz transferred over $4 million of the misappropriated Miami
Beach funds to the Atlanta Financial Center accounts.
18. While Schwartz did provide some investors refunds in the Atlanta
Financial Center Offering, there are outstanding losses of $43.7 million and $8.8
million in the Atlanta and Miami Offerings, respectively.

VIOLATIONS
19. By the conduct described herein, Schwartz and Nightingale have
engaged and, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to engage in
acts and practices that constitute and will constitute violations of 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 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred
upon it by Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and
77t(d)] and Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)].
21. This Court has jurisdiction over this action 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)].
22. In connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of
business described in this Complaint, Defendants, directly and indirectly, have
made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails,
and/or of the means and instruments of transportation or communication in
interstate commerce.

23. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 78aa  (a)] and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants offered and sold securities
throughout the country, including in this district, and the Atlanta Financial Center
property is in this district.
FACTS
Defendants
24. Elchonon (“Elie”) Schwartz, age 46, is a resident of New York City,
New York.
25. Schwartz founded and controls Nightingale Properties, LLC, a
privately held commercial real estate investment firm.
26. Schwartz does not hold any licenses and is not associated with any
entity registered with the Commission.
27. Nightingale Properties, LLC (“Nightingale”) is a New York limited
liability company with its principal place of business in New York City, New
York.
28. Nightingale is a privately held commercial real estate investment firm
founded and, since November 2021, controlled entirely by Schwartz.
29. Nightingale has never been registered with the Commission in any
capacity.

Related Entities
30. The “Third-Party Provider” is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas.
31. The Third-Party Provider operates an internet-based platform (“the
Online Platform”)   that offers commercial real estate private placement investment
opportunities to accredited retail investors pursuant to the Regulation D exemption
from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act.  The Third-
Party Provider has never been registered with the Commission but does have two
subsidiaries, a broker-dealer affiliate and an investment adviser, that are currently
registered with the Commission
32. ONH AFC CS Investors LLC (the “Atlanta Financial Center
LLC”) is a Delaware limited liability company formed in 2022 for the sole
purpose of investing in a specific commercial real estate project in Atlanta,
Georgia.  This entity and its securities have never been registered with the
Commission.
33. ONH 1601 CS Investors LLC (the “Miami Beach LLC”) is a
Delaware limited liability company formed in 2022 to invest in a specific
commercial real estate project in Miami Beach, Florida.  This entity and its
securities have never been registered with the Commission.

Background
34. Schwartz, together with a partner, formed Nightingale, a privately
held commercial real estate investment firm, in 2005.
35. From 2005 until 2021, Schwartz oversaw the acquisition of properties
for the Nightingale portfolio while his partner handled the property management
side of Nightingale’s business.
36. In 2021, Schwartz’s partner left Nightingale, leaving Schwartz in
control of the entire enterprise.
37. After his partner left, Schwartz exercised complete control over nearly
every aspect of Nightingale’s business dealings.
38. Until 2023, Nightingale successfully engaged in dozens of
commercial real estate transactions, either acquiring new properties or
recapitalizing existing property investments.
39. Nightingale financed its transactions through a combination of debt
and equity.
40. Until 2015, Nightingale financed the equity portion of its investments
through a combination of its own capital and capital raised from friends and family
of Schwartz.
41. Beginning in 2015, Nightingale also began to raise capital for its deals
from institutional investors.

42. In April 2014, the Third-Party Provider launched the Online Platform
to serve as an online investing vehicle where commercial real estate sponsors could
connect with accredited retail real estate investors to raise capital via Rule 506(c)
offerings.
43. Because the Third-Party Provider did not have a registered broker-
dealer affiliate until May 2022, it took the position that it could not take custody of
investment funds.
44. As a result, for the Nightingale offerings, investor funds were
transferred directly from investors to a bank account controlled by Nightingale,
with virtually no controls on the use of funds by either the Third-Party Provider or
any other third party.
Nightingale’s Offerings on the Online Platform
A. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering
45. Schwartz was first introduced to representatives from the Third-Party
Provider in November 2021 at an industry networking conference in Miami,
Florida.
46. Nightingale conducted its first offering on the Online Platform in
January 2022, which raised $25 million for the purchase of an office building in
Chicago.

47. Shortly thereafter, in or around March 2022, Nightingale and the
Third-Party Provider began the due diligence process for a second offering.
48. The Atlanta Financial Center LLC was created as a real estate
company whose sole purpose was to contribute equity, raised through the Third-
Party Provider, to fund the purchase of the Atlanta Financial Center, a large
commercial real estate complex in Atlanta, Georgia.
49. In addition to capital raised through the Online Platform, the purchase
of Atlanta Financial Center was to be funded by: (1) equity raised from other
investors, (2) equity contributed from Nightingale or related entities, and (3) senior
secured debt.
50. At the time of the offering, the Atlanta Financial Center LLC was
managed by One Night Holdings, LLC (“One Night”), a Nightingale affiliate
controlled solely by Schwartz.
51. Initially, Nightingale planned to raise $16 million through the Atlanta
Financial Center Offering.
52. On May 26, 2022, Nightingale launched the offering on the Online
Platform where accredited investors could review offering materials, learn more
about the Atlanta Financial Center, and complete their investment documents.
53. All the Atlanta Financial Center offering materials and agreements
were approved by Schwartz.

54. Pursuant to the offering materials, individuals were offered the
opportunity to invest funds which would then be pooled by Nightingale and used to
fund the purchase of the Atlanta Financial Center.
55. In return for their funds, investors would receive distributions from
Nightingale based on the returns generated by the property.
56. The subscription agreements provided for investor funds to be sent to
Atlanta Financial Center LLC bank accounts controlled solely by Schwartz.
57. Under Nightingale’s agreement with the Third-Party Provider, the
funds raised from investors were to be held by Nightingale in a segregated account
until Nightingale closed on the Atlanta Financial Center building.
58. The private placement memorandum for the Atlanta Financial Center
Offering stated that “[t]he proceeds from this Offering will be used to purchase,
lease, reposition, and extensively renovate” the property.
59. The Subscription Agreements only allowed “[the Debtors to] use any
proceeds from this Offering, net of any organizational and offering expenses, to
fund through its direct or indirect subsidiaries [the property] ... Managed by One
Night Holdings LLC [One Night], a Delaware limited liability company.”
60. The Operating Agreements further provided that the Manager had a
fiduciary duty to safeguard the funds and prohibit commingling or use of the
money that did not benefit the Atlanta Financial Center project.

61. These written representations were false and misleading.
62. Rather than maintaining the proceeds from the offering in a
segregated account and using those proceeds only to fund the project, Defendants
knowingly misappropriated the funds.
63. Nightingale was set to close on the Atlanta Financial Center property
in the summer of 2022.
64. For a variety of reasons shared with investors through the Third-Party
Provider, the closing date kept moving further into 2022.
65. Ultimately, the Atlanta Financial Center Offering accepted investor
funds as late as February 2023.
66. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering raised approximately $54
million from over 650 investors.
B. The Miami Beach Offering
67. The Miami Beach LLC was created solely to recapitalize, with funds
raised through the Online Platform, 1601 Lincoln Place, a mixed-use building in
Miami Beach, Florida.
68. 1601 Lincoln Place was owned in part, and managed by, Nightingale
and its affiliates prior to the Miami Beach Offering.

69. It was previously fully occupied for two decades, but its major tenant
vacated in early 2022, which presented an opportunity for a renovation and new
potential major tenants.
70. In addition to capital raised through the Online Platform, the
recapitalization of 1601 Lincoln Place was to be funded by: (1) equity raised from
other investors, (2) equity contributed from Nightingale or related entities, and (3)
senior secured debt.
71. At the time of the offering, the Miami Beach LLC was managed by
One Night.
72. On November 1, 2022, Nightingale launched the Miami Beach
Offering on the Online Platform.
73. Defendants hoped to raise $15 million in the Miami Beach Offering.
74. Through the Online Platform, accredited investors could review
offering materials for 1601 Lincoln Place and complete their investment
documents.
75. The offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach Offering
were like those in the Atlanta Financial Center Offering.
76. All the offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach
Offering were approved by Schwartz.

77. The offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach Offering
stated that the funds raised from investors were to be held in a segregated bank
account controlled by Schwartz.
78. The offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach Offering
also stated that investor funds were only to be used for the purpose of
recapitalizing 1601 Lincoln Place property after closing.
79. These written representations were false and misleading.
80. Rather than maintaining the proceeds from the offering in a
segregated account and using those proceeds only to fund the project, Defendants
knowingly misappropriated the funds.
81. The Miami Beach Offering accepted investments through March
2023, and raised $8.8 million from over 150 investors.
C. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering and Miami Beach Offering
Are Securities
82. The investors in the Atlanta Financial Center and Miami Beach
Offerings entered into investment contracts with Defendants.
83. The investors provided principal investments totaling at least $62.8
million to Defendants.
84. Defendants pooled investor funds.
85. Defendants marketed their ability to successfully engage in
commercial real estate transactions.

86. Investors expected their profits to come from Defendants’ continued
ability to engage in successful commercial real estate transactions.
87. Investors had no control over how Defendants operated the
investments either under the written agreements or in actual ability,
88. Investors relied entirely on Defendants to generate returns on their
investments.
D. Schwartz and Nightingale Misappropriate Atlanta Financial Center
and Miami Beach Offerings’ Investor Funds
89. Investors solicited through the Third-Party Provider for the Atlanta
Financial Center Offering began wiring their investment funds to the dedicated
Nightingale bank account on June 6, 2022.
90. Instead of keeping the funds in this account as represented, however,
three days later, on June 9, Schwartz began to misappropriate investor funds.
91. In total, Schwartz and through the actions of Schwartz, Nightingale,
misappropriated at least $42 million of the $54 million that was raised in the
Atlanta Financial Center Offering.
92. Similarly, on November 14, 2022, investors solicited through the
Third-Party Provider for the Miami Beach Offering began wiring their investment
funds to the dedicated Nightingale bank account.
93. Instead of keeping the funds in this account as represented, however,
and while simultaneously misappropriating funds from the Atlanta Financial

Center offering, Schwartz and through the actions of Schwartz, Nightingale,
immediately began to misappropriate investor funds.
94. In total, Schwartz and Nightingale misappropriated virtually all the
$8.8 million raised in the Miami Beach Offering.
95. Schwartz and Nightingale used the misappropriated funds to prop up
various other Nightingale properties that needed capital.
96. Defendants sent $4 million from the Atlanta Financial Center Offering
to cover expenses related to the Miami Beach Offering.
97. Later, Defendants used $4 million from the Miami Beach Offering to
fund investor refunds and other misappropriation of the Atlanta Financial Center
funds.
98. Schwartz used the money he misappropriated to fund his personal
accounts with over $16 million.
99. Schwartz used the misappropriated funds in his personal accounts to
make over $7 million in payments directly toward construction of his penthouse
condo.
100. Schwartz also used the misappropriated funds in his personal accounts
to cover payroll in his multiple business ventures.

101. Additionally, Schwartz used the misappropriated funds to purchase
high end watches, to pay his credit cards, and to pay other daily expenses,
including cycling the funds back to his business accounts.
102. Schwartz transferred over $12 million of investor funds in the span of
a week in March 2023 to his brokerage accounts.
103. Schwartz used the $12 million of misappropriated funds to purchase
stock and options in various companies.
104. Schwartz used $6.4 million of misappropriated funds to purchase
stock and options in First Republic Bank, in an apparent attempt to bet on the bank
when it was on the verge of collapse.
105. Schwartz’s use of investor funds to purchase stocks and options
resulted in $10.7 million in losses before the end of April 2023.

E. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering and Miami Beach Offering
Fail to Close
106. During the Atlanta Financial Center and Miami Beach Offerings,
Nightingale’s entire portfolio was facing dire economic challenges.
107. At least five Nightingale portfolio properties were either in the
process of being foreclosed upon or up for auction, and at least two others were not
performing well.
108. By May 31, 2023, neither the Atlanta Financial Center Offering nor
the Miami Beach Offering had closed.
109. In May 2023, the Third-Party Provider sent investors communications
regarding the need to replace One Night as the manager over the Atlanta Financial
Center LLC and the Miami Beach LLC.
110. The communications explained that some investors were requesting
refunds on their investments, but that Nightingale had not processed those refunds
timely or consistently.
111. The communications also stated that the Third-Party Provider had
asked Nightingale to verify that funds were available to pay investors, but that
Nightingale would not provide the Third-Party Provider with such verification.
112. These communications stated that because Nightingale was unwilling
to provide the requested verification, the Third-Party Provider proposed, and

Nightingale agreed, to the appointment of an independent manager over both the
Atlanta Financial Center LLC and the Miami Beach LLC.
113. The   Third-Party Provider requested that the investors vote on the
appointment of this independent manager to serve as a fiduciary on behalf of the
investors and to manage the timely and orderly wind down of the entities.
114. On June 7, 2023, the investors approved the appointment of an
independent manager.
F. Bankruptcy Case and Current Status
115. On July 14, 2023, the newly elected independent manager of the
Atlanta Financial Center LLC and Miami Beach LLC entities filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
116. Approximately three months later, the independent manager filed a
Joint Plan of Liquidation that was approved.
117. The Joint Plan is, in part, premised on a settlement with Schwartz and
Nightingale that would, through the sale of substantially all their assets, pay
investors from the Atlanta Financial Center and Miami Beach Offerings back in
full.
118. To date, only $3 million in payments have been made by Schwartz
and Nightingale under this settlement.

CONCLUSION
119. As set forth above, Defendants engaged in a course of conduct
designed to deceive investors, including by misappropriating investor funds.
120. Defendants, in connection with and in the offer or sale of securities,
knowingly made and disseminated material misrepresentations and materially
misleading statements via written offering materials.
121. Indeed, Schwartz and Nightingale misrepresented the use of funds and
began to misappropriate offering proceeds as soon as they were raised, and
misappropriated funds during the raise.
122. As a result of the conduct described above, Defendants’ investors
suffered losses of $43.7 million in the Atlanta Offering and $8.8 million in the Miami
Offering during the Relevant Period.

COUNT I

Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1)]

123. The Commission realleges paragraphs 1 through 122 above.
124. Between May 2022 and March 2023, Defendants, in the offer and sale
of the securities described herein, by the use of means and instruments of
transportation and communication in interstate commerce and by use of the mails,
directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud
purchasers of such securities, all as more particularly described above.

125. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly engaged in the
aforementioned devices, schemes and artifices to defraud.
126. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly and indirectly, have
violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 17(a)(1) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1)].
COUNT II

Violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2) and (a)(3)]

127. Paragraphs 1 through 122 are hereby realleged and are incorporated
by reference.
128. Between May 2022 and March 2023, Defendants, in the offer and sale
of securities described herein, by use of means and instruments of transportation
and communication in interstate commerce and by use of the mails, directly and
indirectly:
a. obtained money and property by means of untrue statements of
material fact and omissions 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
b. engaged in transactions, practices and courses of business
which would and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon the
purchasers of such securities, all as more particularly described above.

129. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined,
will continue to violate Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15
U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3)].
COUNT III

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

130. The Commission realleges paragraphs 1 through 122 above.
131. Between May 2022 and March 2023, Defendants, in connection with
the purchase and sale of securities described herein, by the use of the means and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce and by use of the mails, directly and
indirectly:
  a. employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud;
 b. made untrue statements of material facts 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; and
 c. engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business which would
and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of such
securities,
all as more particularly described above.
132. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly engaged in the
aforementioned devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, made untrue statements of

material facts and omitted to state material facts, and engaged in fraudulent acts,
practices and courses of business.
133. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly and indirectly, have
violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully prays for:
I.
 Permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents,
servants, employees, and attorneys from violating, directly or indirectly, Section
17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
II.
 A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Schwartz from directly or
indirectly, including, but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by
him participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, provided,
however, that such injunction shall not prevent Defendant Schwartz from purchasing
or selling securities for his own personal account.

III.
 An order requiring an accounting by Defendants of the use of proceeds of the
fraudulent conduct described in this Complaint and the disgorgement by Defendants
of all ill-gotten gains or unjust enrichment with prejudgment interest, to effect the
remedial purposes of the federal securities laws.
IV.
 An order pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)]
and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)] imposing civil
penalties against Defendants.
V.
 Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, and
appropriate in connection with the enforcement of the federal securities laws and
for the protection of investors
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
 The Commission hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues that may be
so tried.
Respectfully submitted this 12th day of February, 2025,
/s/ Kristin W. Murnahan
M. Graham Loomis
Regional Trial Counsel
United States Securities & Exchange Commission
950 E. Paces Ferry Road NE, Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30326

404-842-7622
Georgia Bar No. 457868
[email protected]

Kristin W. Murnahan
Senior Trial Counsel
United States Securities & Exchange Commission
950 E. Paces Ferry Road NE, Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-842-7655
Georgia Bar No. 759054
[email protected]

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
  
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 

 

  
                            Plaintiff,  
 Civil Action File No. 

v.         
         
ELCHONON SCHWARTZ and 
NIGHTINGALE PROPERTIES, LLC, 
 

Defendants. 

JURY DEMAND 

 
COMPLAINT 

 
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) alleges as 

follows: 

SUMMARY 

1. From May 2022 through March 2023 (the “Relevant Period”), 

Defendants Elchonon “Elie” Schwartz (“Schwartz”) through his company, 

Nightingale Properties LLC (“Nightingale”), raised over $60 million from at least 

700 retail investors in two separate offerings of commercial real estate investment 

opportunities.   

2. One offering related to the purchase of an office building in Atlanta (the 

“Atlanta Financial Center Offering”), which raised approximately $54 million. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 1 of 24



 -2- 

3. The other offering involved the recapitalization of a mixed-use building 

in Miami Beach (the “Miami Beach Offering”), which raised approximately $8.8 

million.   

4. Defendants used a third-party provider’s internet platform to solicit 

these investments. 

5. The online platform offered accredited investors the opportunity to 

invest in commercial real estate private placements. 

6. Defendants told investors that the money raised through the online 

platform from each offering would be placed in a segregated bank account. 

7.  Defendants told investors that the invested funds would be used for the 

benefit of the specific investment only. 

8. Defendants also told investors that the invested funds would not be 

moved from the segregated bank account until Nightingale closed on each of the 

deals.   

9. These representations were important for investors when deciding 

whether to invest in both the Atlanta Financial Center Offering and the Miami Beach 

Offering. 

10. Contrary to these representations, Schwartz misappropriated at least $42 

million of the $54 million that was raised from the Atlanta Financial Center Offering. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 2 of 24



 -3- 

11. Specifically, of the misappropriated Atlanta Financial Center funds, 

Schwartz used over $5 million to repay hard money lenders in unrelated borrowings. 

12. Schwartz also transferred over $12 million of the misappropriated 

Atlanta Financial Center funds to his brokerage accounts and used those funds to 

purchase First Republic Bank shares in March 2023. 

13. Schwartz also transferred over $16 million of the misappropriated 

Atlanta Financial Center funds to his personal accounts. 

14. Of that $16 million in misappropriated Atlanta Financial Center funds, 

Schwartz used more than $7 million to pay for a luxury condo that he was building in 

Miami. 

15. Additionally, contrary to the representations set forth in paragraphs 6-8 

above, Schwartz misappropriated virtually all the $8.8 million that was raised in the 

Miami Beach Offering.    

16. Schwartz used funds misappropriated from the Miami Beach Offering 

to prop up other business ventures under Schwartz’s management. 

17. Schwartz transferred over $4 million of the misappropriated Miami 

Beach funds to the Atlanta Financial Center accounts.   

18. While Schwartz did provide some investors refunds in the Atlanta 

Financial Center Offering, there are outstanding losses of $43.7 million and $8.8 

million in the Atlanta and Miami Offerings, respectively. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 3 of 24



 -4- 

VIOLATIONS 

19. By the conduct described herein, Schwartz and Nightingale have 

engaged and, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, will continue to engage in 

acts and practices that constitute and will constitute violations of 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 promulgated thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

20. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred 

upon it by Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 

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

21. This Court has jurisdiction over this action 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)].   

22. In connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of 

business described in this Complaint, Defendants, directly and indirectly, have 

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

and/or of the means and instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 4 of 24



 -5- 

23. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)], Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78aa(a)] and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants offered and sold securities 

throughout the country, including in this district, and the Atlanta Financial Center 

property is in this district. 

FACTS  

Defendants 

24. Elchonon (“Elie”) Schwartz, age 46, is a resident of New York City, 

New York.   

25. Schwartz founded and controls Nightingale Properties, LLC, a 

privately held commercial real estate investment firm.   

26. Schwartz does not hold any licenses and is not associated with any 

entity registered with the Commission. 

27. Nightingale Properties, LLC (“Nightingale”) is a New York limited 

liability company with its principal place of business in New York City, New 

York.   

28. Nightingale is a privately held commercial real estate investment firm 

founded and, since November 2021, controlled entirely by Schwartz.   

29. Nightingale has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity.   

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 5 of 24



 -6- 

Related Entities 

30. The “Third-Party Provider” is a Delaware limited liability company 

with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas.   

31. The Third-Party Provider operates an internet-based platform (“the 

Online Platform”) that offers commercial real estate private placement investment 

opportunities to accredited retail investors pursuant to the Regulation D exemption 

from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act.  The Third-

Party Provider has never been registered with the Commission but does have two 

subsidiaries, a broker-dealer affiliate and an investment adviser, that are currently 

registered with the Commission 

32. ONH AFC CS Investors LLC (the “Atlanta Financial Center 

LLC”) is a Delaware limited liability company formed in 2022 for the sole 

purpose of investing in a specific commercial real estate project in Atlanta, 

Georgia.  This entity and its securities have never been registered with the 

Commission. 

33. ONH 1601 CS Investors LLC (the “Miami Beach LLC”) is a 

Delaware limited liability company formed in 2022 to invest in a specific 

commercial real estate project in Miami Beach, Florida.  This entity and its 

securities have never been registered with the Commission. 

 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 6 of 24



 -7- 

Background 

34. Schwartz, together with a partner, formed Nightingale, a privately 

held commercial real estate investment firm, in 2005.   

35. From 2005 until 2021, Schwartz oversaw the acquisition of properties 

for the Nightingale portfolio while his partner handled the property management 

side of Nightingale’s business.   

36. In 2021, Schwartz’s partner left Nightingale, leaving Schwartz in 

control of the entire enterprise.   

37. After his partner left, Schwartz exercised complete control over nearly 

every aspect of Nightingale’s business dealings.   

38. Until 2023, Nightingale successfully engaged in dozens of 

commercial real estate transactions, either acquiring new properties or 

recapitalizing existing property investments.   

39. Nightingale financed its transactions through a combination of debt 

and equity.   

40. Until 2015, Nightingale financed the equity portion of its investments 

through a combination of its own capital and capital raised from friends and family 

of Schwartz.   

41. Beginning in 2015, Nightingale also began to raise capital for its deals 

from institutional investors.   

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 7 of 24



 -8- 

42. In April 2014, the Third-Party Provider launched the Online Platform 

to serve as an online investing vehicle where commercial real estate sponsors could 

connect with accredited retail real estate investors to raise capital via Rule 506(c) 

offerings.    

43. Because the Third-Party Provider did not have a registered broker-

dealer affiliate until May 2022, it took the position that it could not take custody of 

investment funds. 

44. As a result, for the Nightingale offerings, investor funds were 

transferred directly from investors to a bank account controlled by Nightingale, 

with virtually no controls on the use of funds by either the Third-Party Provider or 

any other third party.  

Nightingale’s Offerings on the Online Platform 

A. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering 

45. Schwartz was first introduced to representatives from the Third-Party 

Provider in November 2021 at an industry networking conference in Miami, 

Florida.   

46. Nightingale conducted its first offering on the Online Platform in 

January 2022, which raised $25 million for the purchase of an office building in 

Chicago.   

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 8 of 24



 -9- 

47. Shortly thereafter, in or around March 2022, Nightingale and the 

Third-Party Provider began the due diligence process for a second offering.   

48. The Atlanta Financial Center LLC was created as a real estate 

company whose sole purpose was to contribute equity, raised through the Third-

Party Provider, to fund the purchase of the Atlanta Financial Center, a large 

commercial real estate complex in Atlanta, Georgia.   

49. In addition to capital raised through the Online Platform, the purchase 

of Atlanta Financial Center was to be funded by: (1) equity raised from other 

investors, (2) equity contributed from Nightingale or related entities, and (3) senior 

secured debt.   

50. At the time of the offering, the Atlanta Financial Center LLC was 

managed by One Night Holdings, LLC (“One Night”), a Nightingale affiliate 

controlled solely by Schwartz.  

51. Initially, Nightingale planned to raise $16 million through the Atlanta 

Financial Center Offering. 

52. On May 26, 2022, Nightingale launched the offering on the Online 

Platform where accredited investors could review offering materials, learn more 

about the Atlanta Financial Center, and complete their investment documents. 

53. All the Atlanta Financial Center offering materials and agreements 

were approved by Schwartz. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 9 of 24



 -10- 

54. Pursuant to the offering materials, individuals were offered the 

opportunity to invest funds which would then be pooled by Nightingale and used to 

fund the purchase of the Atlanta Financial Center. 

55. In return for their funds, investors would receive distributions from 

Nightingale based on the returns generated by the property. 

56. The subscription agreements provided for investor funds to be sent to 

Atlanta Financial Center LLC bank accounts controlled solely by Schwartz.   

57. Under Nightingale’s agreement with the Third-Party Provider, the 

funds raised from investors were to be held by Nightingale in a segregated account 

until Nightingale closed on the Atlanta Financial Center building.   

58. The private placement memorandum for the Atlanta Financial Center 

Offering stated that “[t]he proceeds from this Offering will be used to purchase, 

lease, reposition, and extensively renovate” the property.   

59. The Subscription Agreements only allowed “[the Debtors to] use any 

proceeds from this Offering, net of any organizational and offering expenses, to 

fund through its direct or indirect subsidiaries [the property] … Managed by One 

Night Holdings LLC [One Night], a Delaware limited liability company.”   

60. The Operating Agreements further provided that the Manager had a 

fiduciary duty to safeguard the funds and prohibit commingling or use of the 

money that did not benefit the Atlanta Financial Center project. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 10 of 24



 -11- 

61. These written representations were false and misleading. 

62. Rather than maintaining the proceeds from the offering in a 

segregated account and using those proceeds only to fund the project, Defendants 

knowingly misappropriated the funds. 

63. Nightingale was set to close on the Atlanta Financial Center property 

in the summer of 2022. 

64. For a variety of reasons shared with investors through the Third-Party 

Provider, the closing date kept moving further into 2022.   

65. Ultimately, the Atlanta Financial Center Offering accepted investor 

funds as late as February 2023. 

66. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering raised approximately $54 

million from over 650 investors. 

B. The Miami Beach Offering 

67. The Miami Beach LLC was created solely to recapitalize, with funds 

raised through the Online Platform, 1601 Lincoln Place, a mixed-use building in 

Miami Beach, Florida.   

68. 1601 Lincoln Place was owned in part, and managed by, Nightingale 

and its affiliates prior to the Miami Beach Offering.   

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 11 of 24



 -12- 

69. It was previously fully occupied for two decades, but its major tenant 

vacated in early 2022, which presented an opportunity for a renovation and new 

potential major tenants.  

70. In addition to capital raised through the Online Platform, the 

recapitalization of 1601 Lincoln Place was to be funded by: (1) equity raised from 

other investors, (2) equity contributed from Nightingale or related entities, and (3) 

senior secured debt.   

71. At the time of the offering, the Miami Beach LLC was managed by 

One Night. 

72. On November 1, 2022, Nightingale launched the Miami Beach 

Offering on the Online Platform. 

73. Defendants hoped to raise $15 million in the Miami Beach Offering. 

74. Through the Online Platform, accredited investors could review 

offering materials for 1601 Lincoln Place and complete their investment 

documents.   

75. The offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach Offering 

were like those in the Atlanta Financial Center Offering. 

76. All the offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach 

Offering were approved by Schwartz. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 12 of 24



 -13- 

77. The offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach Offering 

stated that the funds raised from investors were to be held in a segregated bank 

account controlled by Schwartz. 

78. The offering materials and agreements for the Miami Beach Offering 

also stated that investor funds were only to be used for the purpose of 

recapitalizing 1601 Lincoln Place property after closing.   

79. These written representations were false and misleading. 

80. Rather than maintaining the proceeds from the offering in a 

segregated account and using those proceeds only to fund the project, Defendants 

knowingly misappropriated the funds. 

81. The Miami Beach Offering accepted investments through March 

2023, and raised $8.8 million from over 150 investors. 

C. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering and Miami Beach Offering 
Are Securities 

82. The investors in the Atlanta Financial Center and Miami Beach 

Offerings entered into investment contracts with Defendants.  

83. The investors provided principal investments totaling at least $62.8 

million to Defendants. 

84. Defendants pooled investor funds. 

85. Defendants marketed their ability to successfully engage in 

commercial real estate transactions. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 13 of 24



 -14- 

86. Investors expected their profits to come from Defendants’ continued 

ability to engage in successful commercial real estate transactions. 

87. Investors had no control over how Defendants operated the 

investments either under the written agreements or in actual ability, 

88. Investors relied entirely on Defendants to generate returns on their 

investments. 

D. Schwartz and Nightingale Misappropriate Atlanta Financial Center 
and Miami Beach Offerings’ Investor Funds 

89. Investors solicited through the Third-Party Provider for the Atlanta 

Financial Center Offering began wiring their investment funds to the dedicated 

Nightingale bank account on June 6, 2022.   

90. Instead of keeping the funds in this account as represented, however, 

three days later, on June 9, Schwartz began to misappropriate investor funds.   

91. In total, Schwartz and through the actions of Schwartz, Nightingale, 

misappropriated at least $42 million of the $54 million that was raised in the 

Atlanta Financial Center Offering. 

92. Similarly, on November 14, 2022, investors solicited through the 

Third-Party Provider for the Miami Beach Offering began wiring their investment 

funds to the dedicated Nightingale bank account.   

93. Instead of keeping the funds in this account as represented, however, 

and while simultaneously misappropriating funds from the Atlanta Financial 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 14 of 24



 -15- 

Center offering, Schwartz and through the actions of Schwartz, Nightingale, 

immediately began to misappropriate investor funds.   

94. In total, Schwartz and Nightingale misappropriated virtually all the 

$8.8 million raised in the Miami Beach Offering.   

95. Schwartz and Nightingale used the misappropriated funds to prop up 

various other Nightingale properties that needed capital. 

96. Defendants sent $4 million from the Atlanta Financial Center Offering 

to cover expenses related to the Miami Beach Offering. 

97. Later, Defendants used $4 million from the Miami Beach Offering to 

fund investor refunds and other misappropriation of the Atlanta Financial Center 

funds. 

98. Schwartz used the money he misappropriated to fund his personal 

accounts with over $16 million. 

99. Schwartz used the misappropriated funds in his personal accounts to 

make over $7 million in payments directly toward construction of his penthouse 

condo. 

100. Schwartz also used the misappropriated funds in his personal accounts 

to cover payroll in his multiple business ventures. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 15 of 24



 -16- 

101. Additionally, Schwartz used the misappropriated funds to purchase 

high end watches, to pay his credit cards, and to pay other daily expenses, 

including cycling the funds back to his business accounts. 

102. Schwartz transferred over $12 million of investor funds in the span of 

a week in March 2023 to his brokerage accounts. 

103. Schwartz used the $12 million of misappropriated funds to purchase 

stock and options in various companies. 

104. Schwartz used $6.4 million of misappropriated funds to purchase 

stock and options in First Republic Bank, in an apparent attempt to bet on the bank 

when it was on the verge of collapse. 

105. Schwartz’s use of investor funds to purchase stocks and options 

resulted in $10.7 million in losses before the end of April 2023.  

  

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 16 of 24



 -17- 

E. The Atlanta Financial Center Offering and Miami Beach Offering 
Fail to Close 

106. During the Atlanta Financial Center and Miami Beach Offerings, 

Nightingale’s entire portfolio was facing dire economic challenges.   

107. At least five Nightingale portfolio properties were either in the 

process of being foreclosed upon or up for auction, and at least two others were not 

performing well. 

108. By May 31, 2023, neither the Atlanta Financial Center Offering nor 

the Miami Beach Offering had closed. 

109. In May 2023, the Third-Party Provider sent investors communications 

regarding the need to replace One Night as the manager over the Atlanta Financial 

Center LLC and the Miami Beach LLC.   

110. The communications explained that some investors were requesting 

refunds on their investments, but that Nightingale had not processed those refunds 

timely or consistently.   

111. The communications also stated that the Third-Party Provider had 

asked Nightingale to verify that funds were available to pay investors, but that 

Nightingale would not provide the Third-Party Provider with such verification.   

112. These communications stated that because Nightingale was unwilling 

to provide the requested verification, the Third-Party Provider proposed, and 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 17 of 24



 -18- 

Nightingale agreed, to the appointment of an independent manager over both the 

Atlanta Financial Center LLC and the Miami Beach LLC. 

113. The Third-Party Provider requested that the investors vote on the 

appointment of this independent manager to serve as a fiduciary on behalf of the 

investors and to manage the timely and orderly wind down of the entities. 

114. On June 7, 2023, the investors approved the appointment of an 

independent manager. 

F. Bankruptcy Case and Current Status 

115. On July 14, 2023, the newly elected independent manager of the 

Atlanta Financial Center LLC and Miami Beach LLC entities filed voluntary 

petitions for relief under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

116. Approximately three months later, the independent manager filed a 

Joint Plan of Liquidation that was approved. 

117. The Joint Plan is, in part, premised on a settlement with Schwartz and 

Nightingale that would, through the sale of substantially all their assets, pay 

investors from the Atlanta Financial Center and Miami Beach Offerings back in 

full.   

118. To date, only $3 million in payments have been made by Schwartz 

and Nightingale under this settlement. 

  

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 18 of 24



 -19- 

CONCLUSION 

119. As set forth above, Defendants engaged in a course of conduct 

designed to deceive investors, including by misappropriating investor funds.   

120. Defendants, in connection with and in the offer or sale of securities, 

knowingly made and disseminated material misrepresentations and materially 

misleading statements via written offering materials.   

121. Indeed, Schwartz and Nightingale misrepresented the use of funds and 

began to misappropriate offering proceeds as soon as they were raised, and 

misappropriated funds during the raise. 

122. As a result of the conduct described above, Defendants’ investors 

suffered losses of $43.7 million in the Atlanta Offering and $8.8 million in the Miami 

Offering during the Relevant Period. 

COUNT I 
 

Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act  
[15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1)] 

 
123. The Commission realleges paragraphs 1 through 122 above. 

124. Between May 2022 and March 2023, Defendants, in the offer and sale 

of the securities described herein, by the use of means and instruments of 

transportation and communication in interstate commerce and by use of the mails, 

directly and indirectly, employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud 

purchasers of such securities, all as more particularly described above. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 19 of 24



 -20- 

125. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly engaged in the 

aforementioned devices, schemes and artifices to defraud. 

126. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly and indirectly, have 

violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 17(a)(1) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1)]. 

COUNT II 
 

Violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act 
[15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2) and (a)(3)] 

 
127. Paragraphs 1 through 122 are hereby realleged and are incorporated 

by reference. 

128. Between May 2022 and March 2023, Defendants, in the offer and sale 

of securities described herein, by use of means and instruments of transportation 

and communication in interstate commerce and by use of the mails, directly and 

indirectly: 

a. obtained money and property by means of untrue statements of 

material fact and omissions 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 

b. engaged in transactions, practices and courses of business 

which would and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon the 

purchasers of such securities, all as more particularly described above. 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 20 of 24



 -21- 

129. Defendants, directly and indirectly, have violated and, unless enjoined, 

will continue to violate Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 

U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(2) and 77q(a)(3)]. 

COUNT III 
 

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

 
130. The Commission realleges paragraphs 1 through 122 above. 

131. Between May 2022 and March 2023, Defendants, in connection with 

the purchase and sale of securities described herein, by the use of the means and 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce and by use of the mails, directly and 

indirectly: 

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

 b. made untrue statements of material facts 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; and 

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

and did operate as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of such 

securities, 

all as more particularly described above. 

132. Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly engaged in the 

aforementioned devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, made untrue statements of 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 21 of 24



 -22- 

material facts and omitted to state material facts, and engaged in fraudulent acts, 

practices and courses of business.   

133. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants, directly and indirectly, have 

violated and, unless enjoined, will continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange 

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully prays for: 

I. 

 Permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, 

servants, employees, and attorneys from violating, directly or indirectly, Section 

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

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

II. 

 A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Schwartz from directly or 

indirectly, including, but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled by 

him participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, provided, 

however, that such injunction shall not prevent Defendant Schwartz from purchasing 

or selling securities for his own personal account. 

  

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 22 of 24



 -23- 

III. 

 An order requiring an accounting by Defendants of the use of proceeds of the 

fraudulent conduct described in this Complaint and the disgorgement by Defendants 

of all ill-gotten gains or unjust enrichment with prejudgment interest, to effect the 

remedial purposes of the federal securities laws. 

IV. 

 An order pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] 

and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)] imposing civil 

penalties against Defendants.  

V. 

 Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, and 

appropriate in connection with the enforcement of the federal securities laws and 

for the protection of investors 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

 The Commission hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues that may be 

so tried. 

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of February, 2025, 

/s/ Kristin W. Murnahan  
M. Graham Loomis 
Regional Trial Counsel 
United States Securities & Exchange Commission 
950 E. Paces Ferry Road NE, Suite 900 
Atlanta, GA 30326 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 23 of 24



 -24- 

404-842-7622 
Georgia Bar No. 457868 
[email protected] 
 
Kristin W. Murnahan 
Senior Trial Counsel 
United States Securities & Exchange Commission 
950 E. Paces Ferry Road NE, Suite 900 
Atlanta, GA 30326 
404-842-7655 
Georgia Bar No. 759054   
[email protected] 
 
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 1:25-cv-00716-ELR     Document 1     Filed 02/12/25     Page 24 of 24

mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]

	ELCHONON SCHWARTZ and NIGHTINGALE PROPERTIES, LLC,
	Defendants.
	Senior Trial Counsel
	Georgia Bar No. 759054