Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01386/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01386-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN V. BIVONA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01386-EMC 

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO 

SUBMIT ADDITIONAL 

INFORMATION AND REQUIRING 

JOSHUA CILANO TO RESPOND

Docket No. 196, 197

The Court requires additional information prior to the September 28, 2017 hearing 

concerning the competing proposed distribution plans. 

 Mr. Joshua Cilano/Investor Rights LLC is ordered to respond to the SEC and Receiver’s 

response to his proposed role as a manager by 10a.m. PDT on Wednesday, September 27, 2017. 

By the same time, Mr. Cilano should also submit a declaration stating whether members of the 

SRA Fund Investor Group have been given notice of the information in the SEC and Receiver’s 

reply briefs (e.g., Mr. Cilano’s role in Defendants’ business and the outstanding tax liens). Mr. 

Cilano should also clarify the nature of the “written commitments” for $5 million in new capital. 

In addition, the SEC, Receiver, SRA Fund Investor Group, and any other objectors or 

interested parties shall file, to the extent currently available to them, the following information no 

later than 10 a.m. PDT on September 27, 2017: 

1. The projected value of the SRA Funds investment portfolio if it matures as 

originally intended versus the liquidation value under the Receiver and SEC’s proposed plan. The 

Court appreciates that such projections cannot be made with guarantees or exactness, but the 

parties should advise the Court to the extent they have information or reasoned expectations. If 

available, such information may be shared on a company-by-company basis. 

Case 3:16-cv-01386-EMC Document 247 Filed 09/22/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

2. Which three companies in the SRA Fund portfolio have folded and thus no longer 

have stock value? How many investors had an interest in those companies and what was the 

magnitude of each such interest? 

3. Is the nature of every investor’s claim currently known (i.e., is there a list of the 

number of shares claimed by each investor and in which companies)? 

4. Is a notice and claims process necessary to determine whether there are any 

unknown claims (including both claims to an interest in securities and creditor claims) against the 

Receivership Entities? 

5. Whether, other than the claimed shortfall of Square and Palantir shares, there are 

any other known shortfalls in securities interests at this time. 

6. The Receiver’s efforts, if any, to recover the mis-distributed Square shares; the 

feasibility and cost of re-acquiring the mis-distributed shares; and whether the investors to whom 

Square shares were over-distributed have an interest in the pre-IPO securities of other companies. 

7. What is the profile of members of the SRA Fund Investor Group? Are they 

experienced investors? In which companies are these members believed to have invested? 

8. What is the total number of investors who are not part of the SRA Fund Investor 

Group? Are they experienced investors? In which companies do they believe they have invested? 

Have they received notice of the plans proposed by the SEC, the Receiver, and the SRA Fund 

Investor Group? 

9. If the funds are not liquidated, are there alternative investment managers other than 

Mr. Cilano? What process would the parties propose for choosing a manager? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-01386-EMC Document 247 Filed 09/22/17 Page 2 of 2