throbber
Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`KATHRYN C. WANNER (Cal. Bar No. 269310)
`Email: wannerk@sec.gov
`M. LANCE JASPER (Cal. Bar No. 244516)
`Email: jasperml@sec.gov
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Securities and Exchange Commission
`Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director
`Alka N. Patel, Associate Regional Director
`Jennifer Barry, Regional Trial Counsel
`444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (323) 965-3998
`Facsimile: (213) 443-1904
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
`COMMISSION,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`DAVID J. BUNEVACZ, MARY
`HAYCA BUNEVACZ,
`CAESARBRUTUS LLC, CB
`HOLDING GROUP CORP., AND
`BRUTUS CALIFORNIA VENTURES
`CORP.,
`
` Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) alleges:
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b),
`1.
`20(d)(1), and 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§
`77t(b), 77t(d)(1), and 77v(a); and Sections 21(d)(1), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e), and 27(a) of
`the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1),
`78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e), and 78aa.
`Defendants have, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or
`2.
`instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national
`securities exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices and courses of
`business alleged in this complaint.
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities
`3.
`Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), and Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a),
`because certain of the transactions, acts, practices and courses of conduct constituting
`violations of the federal securities laws occurred within this district. In addition,
`venue is proper in this district because all of the individual Defendants reside in this
`district, and all of the corporate Defendants have their principal places of business in
`this district.
`
`SUMMARY
`This is an enforcement action brought against defendant David J.
`4.
`Bunevacz (“Bunevacz”), a securities fraud recidivist, and two entities under his control:
`defendants Caesarbrutus LLC (“Caesarbrutus”) and CB Holding Group Corp. (“CB
`Holding”). Bunevacz, Caesarbrutus, and CB Holding violated the federal securities
`laws by conducting an offering fraud and Ponzi scheme, and by engaging in the
`unregistered offer and sale of securities. Bunevacz’s step-daughter, defendant Mary
`Hayca Bunevacz (“Mary Hayca”), also violated the federal securities laws by
`participating in the unregistered offer and sale of securities issued by Caesarbrutus, CB
`Holding and Brutus California Ventures Corp. Defendant Brutus California Ventures
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`Corp. (“Brutus California”) was a co-issuer of promissory notes issued by CB Holding
`and violated the federal securities laws by participating in the unregistered offer and
`sale of those notes.
`From at least April 2017 until at least September 2019, Bunevacz,
`5.
`Caesarbrutus and CB Holding raised over $32 million from at least 40 investors.
`Bunevacz told investors he was engaged in the production and sale of cannabis
`products, particularly “vape” pens containing oils infused with Cannabidiol (CBD), and
`promised to use their funds to generate profits from these activities. In some instances,
`he claimed to have binding purchase orders for large quantities of vape pens and
`provided investors with fake purchase orders and other fabricated documents to support
`these claims.
`In reality, Caesarbrutus and CB Holding were sham businesses, and the
`6.
`purported transactions did not exist. Instead of using investor funds for business
`purposes, Bunevacz misappropriated the vast majority of those funds for personal
`expenses, including millions of dollars spent gambling and on credit card payments,
`leaving investors with substantial losses.
`Bunevacz also lied to investors about his professional experience and
`7.
`connections in the cannabis industry and, in most instances, failed to disclose his March
`2017 conviction of two felony securities violations under California law. In at least one
`instance, he falsely told an investor he had no criminal history.
`Brutus California was a co-issuer of securities issued by CB Holding,
`8.
`and Mary Hayca participated in the offer and sale of securities issued by
`Caesarbrutus, CB Holding and Brutus California, none of which registered any
`offering of securities with the SEC.
`As a result of the conduct alleged in this Complaint, defendants
`9.
`Bunevacz, Caesarbrutus and CB Holding violated Sections 17(a), 5(a), and 5(c) of the
`Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), (“Securities Act”), Section 10(b) of the
`Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 17j(b), (“Exchange Act”), and
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and defendants Mary Hayca and
`Brutus California violated Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act.
`DEFENDANTS
`10. David J. Bunevacz (“Bunevacz”), age 53, is a resident of Calabasas,
`California. Bunevacz was the president of CB Holding and the manager of
`Caesarbrutus. He controlled those entities and their bank accounts and was the
`person in charge of those entities and responsible for their day-to-day operations at all
`relevant times. In August 2016, the State of California charged Bunevacz with grand
`theft, selling securities without qualification, and using false statements in the sale of
`a security. On March 22, 2017, Bunevacz pleaded guilty to two felony counts of
`selling securities without qualification. The court entered a suspended sentence
`contingent on Bunevacz paying a total of $273,000 in restitution to two victims,
`which Bunevacz paid, at least in part, using investor funds.
`11. Caesarbrutus LLC (“Caesarbrutus”) is a Wyoming limited liability
`company formed on January 11, 2017 with its principal place of business in Valencia,
`California. Caesarbrutus and its securities offerings are not registered with the SEC.
`12. CB Holding Group Corp. (“CB Holding”) is a Nevada corporation
`registered on June 29, 2018 with its principal place of business in Calabasas,
`California. CB Holding and its securities offerings are not registered with the SEC.
`13. Mary H. Bunevacz (“Mary Hayca”), age 33, is Bunevacz’s step-
`daughter and a resident of Calabasas, California, where she lives with her parents.
`Mary Hayca has a bachelor’s degree in Global Studies. She is currently unemployed
`and has previously worked in the vaporizer pen and e-cigarette industries. Mary
`Hayca held executive-level titles with Caesarbrutus and CB Holding, although
`Bunevacz was the person in charge of those entities. She administered bank accounts
`and participated in meetings and communications for Caesarbrutus and CB Holding
`at Bunevacz’s direction.
`14. Brutus California Ventures Corp. (“Brutus California”) is a California
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`Corporation registered by Mary Hayca on July 13, 2018 with its principal place of
`business in Valencia, California. Mary Hayca opened and controlled Brutus
`California’s bank account. Brutus California and the offerings for which it was a co-
`issuer with CB Holding were not registered with the SEC.
`FACTS
`A. The Promissory Notes, Stock Certificates, and Profit Sharing
`Agreements Were Securities
`Promissory Notes
`1.
`15. Bunevacz primarily raised investor funds through promissory notes
`issued by Caesarbrutus and CB Holding (collectively, the “Promissory Notes”).
`16. Brutus California was listed as a co-issuer of the notes issued by CB
`Holding.
`17. Bunevacz represented to investors that the proceeds of the Promissory
`Notes would be used for business purposes, and often represented that investor funds
`would be used to complete profitable sales of vape pens.
`18. The Promissory Notes were similar, except that notes issued by CB
`Holding came with warrants that permitted lenders to convert them to shares of CB
`Holding common stock at the lender’s option.
`19. The Promissory Notes typically matured in six or twelve months and
`provided for repayment of principal with interest at maturity. Principal amounts for
`the Promissory Notes ranged from $10,000 to $3.5 million, with many notes falling in
`the $50,000 to $300,000 range, and with interest ranging from 10% to 15% per year.
`20. Caesarbrutus raised at least $19 million from the sale of Promissory
`Notes between April 2017 and June 2019, and CB Holding raised at least $8 million
`from the sale of Promissory Notes between July 2018 and September 2019.
`21. The Promissory Notes constitute investment contracts subject to the
`federal securities laws.
`22. Purchasers of the Promissory Notes invested money in exchange for the
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`notes.
`23. As Bunevacz described the Promissory Notes to investors, both the
`investors’ profits and the issuer’s profits would come from the issuer’s successful use
`of investor funds in the operation of its cannabis business, and often through the
`profitable sale of vape pens.
`In at least some instances, investors expected their funds to be pooled
`24.
`with other investor funds.
`25. Bunevacz pooled investor funds and used some of those funds to make
`payments to investors for previously issued securities, also known as Ponzi payments.
`Investors in the Promissory Notes expected the profits from their
`26.
`investments to be derived solely from the issuer’s efforts to make money through its
`cannabis-related business. In many instances, investors in the Promissory Notes
`expected their profits to derive from Bunevacz’s efforts to buy and sell vape pens.
`27. The Promissory Notes also constitute notes subject to the federal
`securities laws.
`Investors purchased the Promissory Notes for investment purposes and
`28.
`not for commercial or consumer purposes.
`29. The Promissory Notes were sold to a broad segment of the public,
`including to at least 30 investors located in multiple states.
`2.
`Stock Certificates
`30. Bunevacz also raised investor funds through the sale of stock certificates
`issued by CB Holding (the “Stock Certificates”).
`31. Bunevacz represented to investors that CB Holding was engaged in the
`business of selling cannabis-related products and planned to use investor funds to
`grow that business.
`32. Bunevacz raised at least $1.2 million through the sale of at least 13
`million shares of CB Holding stock.
`In at least some instances, Bunevacz sold the stock to investors at less
`33.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`than $0.10 per share.
`Investors acquired the Stock Certificates for investment purposes.
`34.
`35. Both investors and CB Holding described the Stock Certificates as
`shares of common stock in CB Holding.
`3.
`Profit Sharing Agreements
`In some instances, Bunevacz raised funds through profit sharing
`36.
`agreements issued by Caesarbrutus (the “Profit Sharing Agreements”) which entitled
`investors to various percentages of Caesarbrutus’s profits from certain of Bunevacz’s
`business activities. For example, one of those agreements entitled the investor to
`80% of the profits generated from Bunevacz’s sales of vaporizer pens in exchange for
`a $4 million investment.
`37. Caesarbrutus raised at least $4.4 million through Profit Sharing
`Agreements.
`38. The Profit Sharing Agreements constitute profit-sharing agreements
`subject to the federal securities laws.
`Identification and Solicitation of Investors
`B.
`39. Bunevacz typically solicited investors through in-person meetings,
`telephone calls, text messages, and emails.
`40. Bunevacz raised investor funds from people he knew personally, such as
`his dentist, and people he met through his teenage daughter’s participation in
`equestrian events.
`In some instances, investors who knew Bunevacz introduced him to
`41.
`potential investors with whom he had no pre-existing relationship, some of whom
`later invested with Caesarbrutus or CB Holding.
`42. Caesarbrutus and CB Holding raised funds from investors in multiple
`states and from investors outside the United States.
`43. Mary Hayca joined Bunevacz in some meetings with prospective
`investors. During those meetings, Bunevacz and Mary Hayca discussed Mary
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`Hayca’s background in the vaporizer pen industry.
`C. Mary Hayca’s Role with CB Holding and Caesarbrutus
`44. Mary Hayca signed Stock Certificates for CB Holding and Promissory
`Notes issued by Caesarbrutus and CB Holding.
` Mary Hayca granted her father, Bunevacz, general authority to sign
`45.
`business documents for CB Holding and Caesarbrutus in her name, which Bunevacz
`used to sign at least some of the securities issued by those entities.
`46. Mary Hayca had signatory authority on CB Holding bank accounts that
`received investor funds and transferred those funds at Bunevacz’s direction to entities
`that Bunevacz claimed were legitimate third-party suppliers.
`47. Mary Hayca received at least $39,000 from CB Holding that originated
`with investors. She received other benefits from investor funds, including car
`payments made for her benefit.
`D. The Fraud
`1.
`Bunevacz’s Misrepresentations and Omissions to Investors
`about the Business
`48. Bunevacz raised money from investors by lying to them about
`Caesarbrutus’s and CB Holding’s business activities, and promising to use their funds
`for those entities’ profitable business ventures – in particular, the sale of vape pens.
`49. Bunevacz told investors he had valuable relationships with reputable
`companies that Caesarbrutus and CB Holding could leverage to buy and sell products
`for profit, including a China-based manufacturer called Blue Ox Industrial Co. Ltd.
`(“Blue Ox”), an oil producer called Greenfield Organix (“Greenfield Organix”), a
`Cannabis products supplier called Claremont Capital Partners (“Claremont Capital”),
`and a Cannabis products distributor called Saveur Vape LLC (“Saveur Vape”).
`In reality, Bunevacz did not have the claimed business relationships, and
`50.
`instead created bank accounts under like-sounding names to those actual companies
`in order to mislead investors into believing the legitimacy of the investments.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`51. Similarly, Bunevacz told some investors he had binding purchase orders
`for large numbers of vape pens – including from Saveur Vape – and agreements from
`suppliers – including Blue Ox, Greenfield Organix, and Claremont Capital – to
`provide the pens and oils needed to fulfill those orders on profitable terms.
`52. For example, in late 2018 and early 2019, Bunevacz represented to a
`Canada-based investor in telephone conversations and in person that Bunevacz was
`seeking to raise funds to complete vape pen transactions with business partners on
`profitable terms. He provided that investor with purported purchase orders from
`Saveur Vape and purported invoices from Blue Ox, Greenfield Organix and
`Claremont Capital concerning the claimed business transactions. The investor
`subsequently made substantial investments with CB Holding.
`53. These representations were false and misleading, and the purchase
`orders and invoices were fabricated. Bunevacz and his companies did not have the
`claimed relationships with suppliers and customers in the cannabis industry, and the
`purported vape pen transactions did not exist.
`54. Bunevacz relied on other misrepresentations, omissions, and misleading
`documents to induce investments in Caesarbrutus and CB Holding.
`In approximately October 2018, for example, Bunevacz met with two
`55.
`prospective investors for an extended meeting, in person, in Lexington, Kentucky.
`During that meeting, Bunevacz represented to the investors that Caesarbrutus had
`over $17 million in revenue from product sales in 2017. At the same meeting, he
`showed the investors what he represented were audited financial statements for
`Caesarbrutus that reflected over $17 million in revenue from product sales. These
`representations – and the purported audited financials – were false and misleading
`because Caesarbrutus did not have any significant revenue or product sales in 2017.
`In the same meeting, Bunevacz represented to the investors that he was a
`56.
`founder of Grenco Science, a vaporizer pen company associated with celebrity rapper
`Snoop Dogg that sells a well-known product called the G Pen. This representation
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`was false and misleading because Bunevacz was not a founder of Grenco Science.
`Instead, he controlled an unrelated entity called Grenco Science Inc. that he used to
`misappropriate investor funds. Those investors and a related entity subsequently
`invested over $4 million with CB Holding.
`57. Bunevacz falsely and misleadingly represented to other investors that he
`was a founder of Grenco Science, including an Anaheim, California-based individual
`who invested a total of approximately $2 million with Caesarbrutus in December
`2017 and January 2018 for the purpose of funding vape pen transactions to be
`completed by Bunevacz and Caesarbrutus.
`In approximately August 2019, Bunevacz provided another prospective
`58.
`investor, whom Bunevacz knew from his teenage daughter’s participation in
`equestrian activities, with CB Holding investor materials that described Bunevacz as
`a founder of Grenco Science. Bunevacz provided the materials to the prospective
`investor via email. That investor subsequently invested $10,000 with CB Holding.
`59. Bunevacz also told investors he was a significant investor in a cannabis
`wellness company called Papa & Barkley. This representation was false because
`Bunevacz never invested in Papa & Barkley. In approximately January 2019, for
`instance, Bunevacz gave a prospective investor Papa & Barkley products to aid the
`investor’s ailing father and falsely represented that his business connections in the
`cannabis industry included being a significant shareholder in Papa & Barkley. That
`individual subsequently invested $400,000 with CB Holding, and a friend and
`business associate of that investor, whom Bunevacz also personally solicited,
`invested a total of $1.1 million with CB Holding.
`60. Bunevacz also misled some current and prospective investors by
`providing them with bank statements that appeared to reflect CB Holding’s use of
`investor funds for legitimate business activities, including payments to suppliers and
`from customers.
`In early 2019, for example, Bunevacz provided a prospective investor
`61.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`with bank statements that purported to reflect CB Holding’s use of investor funds for
`payments to suppliers, including a payment to “Blue Ox Industrial” of $820,000 on
`December 20, 2018, and its subsequent receipt of payments from customers.
`Bunevacz represented to the investor that the transactions reflected in the bank
`statements concerned arm’s-length business dealings with third party customers and
`suppliers. The investor had previously recommended a substantial investment by an
`affiliated entity, which the entity made, and subsequently made a substantial personal
`investment with CB Holding, including because of the information contained in the
`bank statements.
`62. The bank statements were false and misleading because they did not
`reflect transactions with third-party suppliers and customers. Instead, they reflected
`transfers of funds to and from accounts controlled by Bunevacz through entities that
`had similar names to those third-party companies, but that were instead used by
`Bunevacz to misappropriate investor funds and create the false appearance of
`legitimate business activity. Payments in the bank statements to “Blue Ox Industrial”
`for example, did not go to the China-based Blue Ox Industrial Co. Ltd. that Bunevacz
`claimed to do business with; they went to an account held by an unrelated Wyoming
`entity named Blue Ox Industrial Inc. that Bunevacz controlled and used to
`misappropriate investor funds.
`63. Bunevacz’s representations and the documents he provided investors
`were important to investors who subsequently purchased the Promissory Notes and
`Stock Certificates, and who entered into the Profit Sharing Agreements. Investors
`believed Bunevacz, Caesarbrutus, and CB Holding had the business connections they
`claimed to have and could complete the promised business transactions with the
`investors’ funds. Bunevacz’s claims to be a founder of Grenco Science and an
`investor in Papa & Barkley, for example, were important to investors because they
`led investors to believe that Bunevacz was a successful and connected business
`person in the cannabis industry.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Bunevacz’s Misrepresentations and Omissions to Investors
`about the Use of Funds
`64. Bunevacz promised to use investor funds to complete profitable vape
`pen transactions and for other business purposes. For example:
`In November 2017, Bunevacz represented to a group of investors
`(a)
`led by an individual in Florida that he would use their funds to acquire vape pens to
`sell to a retailer called Boston Smoke Shop at a significant profit. He represented that
`Boston Smoke Shop had agreed to purchase millions of dollars in pens from
`Caesarbrutus. The investment group subsequently invested $4 million with
`Caesarbrutus through a Profit Sharing Agreement that entitled them to a portion of
`the profits generated from those sales.
`In late 2017 and early 2018, Bunevacz represented to an
`(b)
`individual investor located in Anaheim, California that he would use the investor’s
`funds to purchase vape pens from China and sell them at a significant profit to a
`retailer in New York. Bunevacz’s representations about his planned use of the
`investor’s fund induced a total of approximately $2 million in investments by the
`individual with Caesarbrutus in late 2017 and early 2018.
`In approximately September and October 2018, Bunevacz told the
`(c)
`representative of a prospective entity investor based in Canada that he would use the
`investor’s funds to acquire supplies needed to complete pre-existing purchase orders
`for vape pens, including an order for 525,000 pens infused with CBD oil. On or
`about November 20, 2018, CB Holding entered into a loan agreement with the same
`prospective investor, which provided that CB Holding would use funds borrowed
`from the investor to process orders for vaporizer pens, including for payments to
`suppliers. The prospective investor subsequently loaned CB Holding at least
`$3 million pursuant to that loan agreement and a promissory note issued by CB
`Holding and Brutus California.
`In approximately June 2019, Bunevacz represented to a
`(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`prospective investor that CB Holding needed funds to fulfill an order for 1.2 million
`vape pens that would generate significant profits for CB Holding and the investor.
`He discussed the proposed investment with the prospective investor via telephone.
`The investor and his wife subsequently invested $500,000 with CB Holding.
`65. Bunevacz’s promises to use investor funds for business purposes,
`including to complete vape pen transactions, were important to these and other
`investors.
`66. Bunevacz, Caesarbrutus and CB Holding did not use the funds provided
`by these and other investors as promised, and never intended to use those funds as
`promised. Instead, Bunevacz pooled investor funds and misappropriated the vast
`majority of those funds for personal expenses, including:
`(a) Over $8 million transferred to casinos;
`(b) Over $10 million in credit card expenses;
`(c) Over $300,000 spent on a horse in November 2018;
`(d) Over $200,000 spent on a birthday party with circus-style
`entertainment in June 2019;
`(e) Over $200,000 spent on rent for a five-bedroom mansion in
`Calabasas, California; and
`(f) Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on jewelry.
`67. Bunevacz also used investor funds to pay criminal restitution that he was
`ordered by a California court to pay in connection with his March 2017 conviction for
`felony securities violations.
`68. Bunevacz also used investor funds to pay purported returns on
`previously issued securities, inducing some investors to purchase additional
`securities.
`Investors would not have provided funds to Caesarbrutus or CB Holding
`69.
`for Bunevacz’s personal use or payments to earlier investors.
`///
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Bunevacz’s Misrepresentations and Omissions about His
`Criminal History and Lawsuits Filed Against Him
`70. When soliciting investors for Caesarbrutus and CB Holding, Bunevacz
`consistently held himself out as a successful businessperson and investor, and
`consistently failed to disclose his March 2017 conviction for two felony securities
`violations under California law. When soliciting an Anaheim, California-based
`investor who invested a total of approximately $2 million with Caesarbrutus in late
`2017 and early 2018, for example, Bunevacz held himself out as successful and
`experienced, but did not disclose either his felony securities conviction or the fact that
`California had charged him with felony securities violations.
`In late 2018, a Canada-based investor specifically asked Bunevacz if he
`71.
`had any criminal history, and Bunevacz falsely replied that he did not.
`Investors would not have invested with Caesarbrutus or CB Holding had
`72.
`they known either that California had charged Bunevacz with securities violations or
`that Bunevacz had been convicted of felony securities violations. This includes the
`Canada-based investor and the Anaheim-based investor, each of whom learned about
`Bunevacz’s criminal history only after investing with his companies.
`73. When soliciting investors for Caesarbrutus and CB Holding, and
`describing himself as a successful businesspersons and investor, Bunevacz also failed
`to disclose a number of lawsuits filed against him by past investors and business
`partners alleging that Bunevacz had taken their money and failed to deliver on
`promises made in business deals similar to the transactions he proposed with CB
`Holding and Caesarbrutus. This included a 2010 lawsuit accusing Bunevacz of
`fraudulently promising to provide nearly $3 million in event tickets for the
`Vancouver Olympics; a 2017 lawsuit accusing Bunevacz of failing to repay funds
`owed based on promises to buy vape pens and electronic vaporizers from a
`manufacturer in China; and a December 2018 lawsuit accusing Bunevacz of failing to
`return funds provided for the purchase of vape pens.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`Investors would not have invested with either Caesarbrutus or CB
`74.
`Holding had they known that Bunevacz’s previous investors and business
`counterparts had accused him of taking their money in similar deals.
`In late 2018, a Canada-based investor learned about the lawsuit against
`75.
`Bunevacz concerning the Vancouver Olympics and asked Bunevacz to explain what
`happened. Bunevacz falsely explained to the investor that the lawsuit was resolved in
`his favor and provided the investor with a settlement agreement that purported to
`require Bunevacz’s former counterparty to pay Bunevacz $325,000. In reality, the
`opposite was true – Bunevacz had agreed to pay his former counterparty $325,000 to
`resolve the lawsuit – and the settlement agreement Bunevacz provided to the investor
`was fabricated. Bunevacz’s explanation and the purported settlement agreement
`contributed to the investor’s decision to invest with CB Holding.
`4.
`Ponzi Payments and Lulling Conduct
`76. Bunevacz also used at least some investor funds to pay purported returns
`on previously issued securities. For example, in February 2019, Bunevacz used
`investor funds to make two payments totaling $150,000 to an earlier investor.
`77. When Bunevacz failed to make payments to investors as promised, he
`generally provided excuses such as that the proposed business transaction or
`transactions had been delayed, but would soon be completed.
`In at least one instance, he persuaded an investor to contribute additional
`78.
`funds to complete the alleged business transactions.
`79. Bunevacz repeatedly promised some investors that he would return their
`funds, but never made the payments.
`80. Bunevacz’s lulling statements were false and misleading because
`defendants never had any contractual or other business relationship with the alleged
`third-party business contacts which would have justified repayment of investor funds,
`and because Bunevacz and his companies’ true business activity was
`misappropriating investor funds through false and misleading claims about their
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02284 Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`business activities, connections, experience, and intended use of funds.
`E. Defendants Acted with a High Level of Scienter, or in the
`Alternative, Were Negligent
`81. Bunevacz acted with a high degree of scienter.
`82. As the principal of Caesarbrutus and CB Holding, the person controlling
`their bank accounts, and the person who claimed to have the operative relationships
`in the cannabis industry, Bunevacz knew, or acted recklessly in not knowing that:
`(1) he and his companies did not have the claimed business relationships; (2) the
`vaporizer pen transactions were not real; (3) the invoices and purchase orders were
`fabricated; (4) the bank statements were misleading; (5) he did not have the business
`experience he claimed to have; and (6) he was routinely misappropriating investor
`funds instead of using them to buy and sell vape pens and other cannabis products for
`profit.
`83. Bunevacz also knew about his felony securities convictions and the
`lawsuits against him when he described his purported business experience, and knew
`that his af

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket