Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 CASE NO.: 

VSB 305, LLC,

a Florida Limited Liability Company;

and JOHANNA SEGURA, an 

individual,

Plaintiffs,

v..

SKY GROUP USA, LLC., a DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Florida Limited Liability Company;

and EFRAIN BETANCOURT an

individual,

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The above-captioned Plaintiffs file this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, and sue the 

above-captioned Defendants in this matter, and in support thereof, state as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is an action that arises out of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme to promote and 

sell unregistered securities in the form of promissory notes to fund Defendants’ business of 

offering payday loans to the general public.

2. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ claims are based on Defendant Sky Group USA, 

LLC., and Defendant Efrain Betancourt’s misconduct in connection with certain promissory notes 

issued to Plaintiffs totaling Two Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars ($200,000.00) (collectively the 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 1 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 2 of 23

“Promissory Notes” or “Loan Agreements”).

3. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to §§ 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and the 

Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (the “Florida Act”)

INTRODUCTION

4. This action arises as the result of a three year long unregistered securities offering 

conducted by Defendant Sky Group USA, LLC, (“Sky Group”) and Defendant Efrain Betancourt 

(“Betancourt”). 

5. From January 2016 to the present date, Sky Group USA, LLC, a private company, 

fraudulently raised by means of an unregistered security and by use of unregistered brokers, in 

excess of 200 Million U.S. Dollars from more than 300 investors, to fund its business of offering 

payday loans, merchant cash advances, auto loans, consumer and personal instalment loans.

6. Under the direction of its Chief Executive Officer, Efrain Betancourt, Sky Group 

used a network of unregistered advisors, brokers and sales agents – which were paid 

commissions – to offer and sell unregistered securities in the form of promissory notes to 

investors in Florida.1

7. Sky Group through its marketing materials, presentations, distributed by Sky 

Group sales agents, promised investors a high-return (48% annually) at a low-risk investment in 

which Sky Group would use investment money to make short-term cash advances called payday 

loans (“Payday Loan”).2

1 Efrain Betancourt is also listed as Sky Group’s Manager with the Florida Secretary of State Division of 

Corporations.

2 A payday lender provides a short-term loan in exchange for a person’s check and a fee. The lender agrees to hold 

the check for a period of time before depositing it. 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 2 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 3 of 23

8. Sky Group touted having strict internal policies to assure compliance, top 

technology and verification software to allow for the highest underwriting standards, and a highly 

recognized legal team of experts and external auditors to make sure on a daily basis that they are 

compliant with the licensing and regulatory landscape in every state where Sky Group is 

conducting its Payday Loan transactions.

9. Sky Group also assured investors (including Plaintiffs) that the funds received by 

its investors were to be used for the sole purpose of portfolio financing of specific Payday Loans, 

and the principal balance would not be used for payment to members or any other expenses that 

are not related to Sky Group’s portfolio financing.

10. Upon information and belief, and contrary to Sky Group and Betancourt’s 

assurances, Sky Group and Betancourt used substantial investor funds for purposes other than the 

cash advances, including paying for operating expenses and compensation to Sky Group’s 

executives, including Betancourt, along with payment of commissions to its unregistered 

advisors, brokers and sales agents.

11. By Sky Group and Betancourt’s own admission, Sky Group is experiencing a 

shortfall of investor funds of approximately $65 Million U.S. Dollars that should be in Sky 

Group’s accounts and/or available for the intended Payday Loans. 

12. As a result, Sky Group has been unable to pay Plaintiffs and all other investors, 

further to the Installment Payment Scheduled.

13. Sky Group (now negative $65 Million) has implemented a damage control 

strategy, by contacting investors (including Plaintiffs) assuring them that Sky Group’s financial 

situation is salvageable. In doing so, Sky Group has circulated invitations to its investors

(including Plaintiffs) to attend a group meeting with Sky Group’s CEO and other Sky Group 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 3 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 4 of 23

executives.

14. One such investor event recently took place on February 6, 2020 at the SLS Hotel 

on Brickell Avenue, Miami. During this meeting – which was attended by more than 200 

investors including Plaintiffs – Sky Group and Betancourt delivered an elaborate presentation,

assuring its investors that Sky Group was implementing a restructuring plan and that 1% of the 

capital invested (approximately $3,000,000.00) would be returned to the investors by March of 

2020. 

15. This in turn assumes that the sum of investor funds may surpass 300 Million U.S. 

Dollars.

16. During its February 6, 2020 presentation at the SLS, Sky Group and Betancourt 

blamed much of Sky Group’s financial misfortune on certain state regulatory actions (including 

an action in the State of Washington, which apparently snowballed into fines and penalties. 

Betancourt also blamed other state administrative actions, a high incidence of customer loan 

defaults.

17. As a result of a high incidence of customer defaults and customer complaints, Sky 

Group was barred from using automated clearing house (ACH) for electronic funds transfers -

managed by the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA). 

18. Sky Group’s ability to use the ACH system is necessary to allow automatic 

electronic access to a borrower’s account in order to repay a payday loan. Without access to the 

ACH system, Sky Group is unable to get repaid from payday loans obtained online throughout 

the U.S.

19. On or about January of 2020, Sky Group also circulated presentation invitations to 

explain its current dilemma to other Sky Group investors. Said meetings took place in Caracas,

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 4 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 5 of 23

Venezuela and Lisbon, Portugal.

20. Defendant Betancourt founded Sky Group as the limited liability’s manager (and 

held himself as its majority member), and has since Sky Group’s formation and commencement 

of operations to the present day, functioned as its Chief Executive Officer. 

21. By virtue of his position as Sky Group’s highest executive position, Betancourt 

maintains sole operational control over Sky Group, makes all key management decisions, closely 

monitors raising of investor funds, and provides guidance and sales strategies to its team of 

unregistered sales agents.

SKY GROUP’S SALES AGENTS

22. Sky Group regularly provided sales material and training to its sales agents for use 

in marketing the investment opportunity to prospective investors such as Plaintiffs. This 

information included financial graphs, showing Sky Group’s historical investment returns, and 

comparing Sky Group’s high returns to investment returns in other industries. Sales agents 

referenced and used the investment materials in soliciting investors.

23. Sky Group and Betancourt actively recruited unlicensed and unregistered sales 

agents from all walks of life. One such sales agent was James Tahhan. James Tahhan, who is 

known as “Chef James” is a celebrity chef and television personality. James Tahhan is currently 

the co-host of the morning show “Un Nuevo Dia” which airs on the Telemundo Network. As a 

television personality, James Tahhan has a following on Instagram of over 449k followers, and 

access to a countless number of prospective Sky Group investors.3

24. James Tahhan first pitched the Sky Group investment opportunity to Plaintiff 

3 According to a statement dated 6/23/15 by Eric Bustillo, Director SEC’s Miami Regional Office “The brokerdealer registration requirements are critical safeguards for maintaining the integrity of our securities market...”

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 5 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 6 of 23

VSB’s manager Victor Segura in late 2018.

25. At all times material to these allegations, James Tahhan represented to Plaintiffs 

that he was a sales broker and employed by Sky Group.

26. In such capacity, James Tahhan was tasked by Sky Group to participate and 

facilitate discussion and negotiations between Sky Group and Plaintiffs.

27. In fact, Plaintiffs later discovered that James Tahhan was being compensated by 

Sky Group on a commission basis according to the sum invested by Plaintiffs. James Tahhan 

commission is 12% of the total investment during the first year, 9% the second year and 6% the 

third year.

28. In addition, Sky Group compensates its department managers with a 1% annual 

bonus of total investments generated from their respective team of sales agents.

29. James Tahhan in his capacity as a Sky Group sales agent, represented that Sky 

Group offered better returns than conventional investment instruments, and was a safe, shortterm investment alternative to more risky stock market investments and a volatile real estate 

market. 

30. James Tahhan further represented that Sky Group had advanced technology and 

verification software to allow for the highest underwriting standards, and a highly recognized 

legal team of experts and external auditors to make sure on a daily basis that they are compliant 

with the licensing and regulatory landscape in every state where Sky Group is conducting its 

Payday Loan transactions.

31. James Tahhan told Mr. Segura and that he had invested a considerable amount of 

his own money, and had been promptly paid by Sky Group. 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 6 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 7 of 23

32. Sometime in early January 2019, James Tahhan and Victor Segura exchanged text 

messages via WhatsApp discussing the Sky Group investment. In the course of this exchange, 

Mr. Tahhan stated that the Sky Group investment opportunity was limited to a certain number of 

lucky investors and a limited investment amount. 

33. James Tahhan later communicated that he had convinced Betancourt to open the 

investment opportunity to Victor Segura, with the caveat that he could only invest $90,000.00 in 

the first round. This was intended to manipulate Victor Segura’s ego by making him believe that 

only a special few could participate in this fortuitous investment opportunity. 

34. During numerous telephone conversations and written chats, James Tahhan touted 

Sky Group’s 10 year track record; and that he had personally confirmed a track record of 48% 

annual investment returns from speaking to Betancourt and other Sky Group sales agents and 

brokers.

35. During a WhatsApp chat on December 1, 2018, James Tahhan sent Victor Segura 

a real time photograph of a Sky Group sales agent meeting attended by James Tahhan – and 

referring to the investment stated: “Estoy en una conferencia de Sky. La cosa pinta muy bien” –

which in translated means, “I am at a Sky conference. Things look very good.” 

36. James Tahhan also assured Victor Segura that Sky Group much like a banking 

institution, had an extremely rigid compliance program and that its financials were audited by an 

external accounting firm which validates and validates each transaction; which is then reported to 

the State of Florida and certain federal agencies which allegedly oversee, regulate and monitor

Sky Group’s business operations.

37. James Tahhan in his capacity as a Sky Group sales agent, also assured Victor

Segura that his investments were 100% guaranteed by adequate capital reserves, and there was no 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 7 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 8 of 23

risk of losing his money.

38. These representations by James Tahhan as a sales agent for Sky Group, were

intended and did in fact serve to gain Victor Segura’s confidence in Sky Group’s investment 

abilities and expertise.

THE PARTIES

39. Plaintiff Johanna Segura (“Segura”) is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

40. Plaintiff VSB 305, LLC (“VSB”) is a Florida limited liability company with its 

principle address at 941 NW 104th Avenue, Miami, Florida.

41. Victor Segura is Plaintiff VSB’s managing member and likewise was the point of 

contact and decision maker for both VSB and his daughter, Johanna Segura. Moreover, the two 

promissory notes were funded from VSB’s account at Chase Bank.

42. Defendant Sky Group USA LLC, d/b/a Sky Cash USA (“Sky Group”) is a Florida 

limited liability company with its principle address at 11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 501, 

Miami, Florida.

43. Defendant Efrain Betancourt (“Betancourt”) is an individual and serves as Sky 

Group’s Chief Executive Officer, and Managing Member.

44. Defendant Sky Group is the maker of the underlying Promissory Notes which 

form the basis of this action.

45. Defendant Betancourt executed the underlying Loan Agreement and Promissory 

Notes which form the basis of this action. (Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “A”)

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

46. The claims asserted in this complaint arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 8 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 9 of 23

by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 

action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. 

47. Venue is proper in this District under Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 78aa, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Sky Group is headquartered and transacts business in Miami,

Florida, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to this litigation took place in this District,

including the dissemination of many of the false statements at issue

DEFENDANTS’ SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

48. From an indeterminate time to the present, the Defendants Sky Group and 

Betancourt offered and sold its investment to Plaintiffs and other investors, through the use of 

fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions of fact in connection with the sale of

securities.

49. The securities were offered and sold using an instrument entitled “Loan 

Agreement and Promissory Note” (“Loan Agreement”).

50. The Loan Agreement termed the investor a “Lender” and identified Sky Group as 

the “Borrower.” The Loan Agreement specifically stated that an investor was providing money 

to Sky Group for the sole purpose of “portfolio financing” and associated cost by Sky Group 

USA, LLC and any of its partner or affiliate corporations; and that the principal balance shall not 

be used for payment of members or any other expense that are not related to the portfolio 

financing of the corporation. (referring to Sky Group).

51. Upon information and belief, and after Sky Group received Plaintiff Segura’s 

investment, the funds were pooled and commingled together in non-segregated accounts 

controlled by Sky Group, and partially used by related companies to fund loan transactions in 

numerous other states.

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 9 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 10 of 23

52. Notwithstanding the representation that the investment would be used only for 

portfolio financing; Plaintiffs and other investors had no say in how or to whom Sky Group 

could use their funds.

53. Plaintiffs did not have management authority, nor access to specific information 

allowing them to manage the so-called portfolio financing. Defendant Sky Group and Defendant 

Betancourt as Sky Group’s Chief Executive Officer had absolute and complete discretion on 

whether and when to use the investor’s funds.

54. At no time was Plaintiff Segura and Plaintiff VSB provided a prospectus 

regarding the investment with Sky Group and much less any writing containing the type of 

information normally provided for a registered securities offering.4

55. Notwithstanding the lack of a prospectus, Plaintiff Segura and Plaintiff VSB did 

not have the requisite knowledge and experience in finance and business matters (particularly 

with regards to the highly complex and regulated business of providing Payday Loans) to be 

“sophisticated investors” and able to evaluate the risks and merits of the investment. 

MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS AND OMMISSIONS

REGARDING THE INVESTMENT

56. Upon information and belief, at the time Plaintiffs’ provided their respective 

funding, Sky Group failed to disclose that it was at that time heavily indebted and had defaulted 

with regard to other loan obligations to other undisclosed investors.

57. Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt failed to provide Plaintiffs with Sky 

Group’s financial statements, which if provided, would have evidenced Sky Group’s failed 

4

Information concerning the Payday Loan platform, statistical information regarding financial risk, general risk 

factors, questions and answers, legal matters, etc.

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 10 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 11 of 23

business model and its inability to comply with its financial obligations.

58. Sky Group failed to disclose that it was in the midst of an investigation by the 

State of Washington for unlicensed lending and predatory lending activities related to loans 

made to at least 543 Washington state consumers, and such activity could and did in fact result in 

a Consent Order in which Sky Group was required to pay restitution, and fines and investigation 

costs.

59. At the time of executing the Loan Agreements with Plaintiffs, Sky Group and its 

CEO Betancourt, were aware that they could not continue to generate sufficient income from 

Sky Group’s operations to pay the inflated interest payments as they came due and even more 

improbable the ability to pay the principle amounts due at maturity from the loan agreements 

generated to repay previous investors.

60. Sky Group’s statements by and through its sales agent Mr. Tahhan were materially 

false and/or misleading because they misrepresented that Sky Group sufficient reserves of capital 

to protect Plaintiffs’ investment. 

61. Sky Group’s promise of 4% per month are wholly unsubstantiated, unachievable 

and fraudulent. Sky Group did not have the operating history to support these wildly optimistic 

projections, and indeed no long after Sky Group’s execution of the Promissory Notes, fell behind 

in its monthly returns promised to Plaintiffs and other investors.

62. Mr. Tahhan’s statements were materially false and/or misleading because they 

misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that Payday Loans are inherently risky and have a default 

rate that is statistically ten times higher than a conventional loan.

63. Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt failed to disclose the risks associated with 

Payday Loans, which by its very nature as an unsecured obligation are inherently risky

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 11 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 12 of 23

64. Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt failed to disclose that a prospective payday 

loan borrower could, and in many cases did, reverse, cancel or revoke the payment authorization 

in favor of Sky Group and default on his/her obligation. 

65. Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt failed to disclose that Payday Loans are 

unsecured and subject to being discharged by bankruptcy and therefore expose Plaintiffs’ 

investment to loss.

66. Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt omitted to provide Plaintiffs with the 

following regarding Sky Group: (i) an executive summary; (ii) management summaries; (iii) 

current capitalization; (iv) detailed description of its business operation; and (v) risks related to 

the company, the industry and the security being sold.

67. Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt failed to disclose the broker fees and 

commissions structure paid to its sales agents, and in Plaintiffs case the commission paid to 

James Tahhan. 

68. Sky Group’s statements by and through its sales agent James Tahhan were 

materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented that Sky Group was licensed to 

conduct payday loan transaction in every state that it was providing said loans. In fact, the State 

of Washington Department of Financial Institutions Division of Consumer Services and Sky 

Group entered into Consent Order on June 18, 2019, which resulted from Sky Group’s failure to 

obtain the requisite license to transact payday loans in the State of Washington. 

69. In fact, Sky Group was also a party defendant to a lawsuit filed in the Eastern 

District Court of Virginia, alleging unlicensed and predatory lending practices in the State of 

Virginia.

70. Enticed by Defendants fabricated financial projections, and promises of a fail-safe 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 12 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 13 of 23

investment, Plaintiffs delivered the following sums of monies provided in the corresponding 

Loan Agreements.

DEFENDANT SKY GROUP’S ARBITRATION PROVISION 

DOES NOT APPLY TORTIOUS ACTS

71. The Loan Agreement provides that “If Borrower and/or Lender Shall [sic] default 

in performance of any of his obligations under this Agreement any disputes shall be settled by 

binding arbitration in Miami, Florida in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration 

Association...” (Ex. “A” Section IX).

72. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are subject to the terms of the arbitration 

provision. Plaintiffs do however dispute that the tortious acts, including violations of the 

Exchange Act and Florida Act, do not fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.

73. The language “If Borrower and/or Lender Shall [sic] default in performance of 

any of his obligations under this Agreement any disputes...” imposes a limitation on the reach of 

Sky Group’s arbitration clause.

74. The tortious acts and/or securities violations herein alleged were not immediately 

foreseeable by Plaintiff, nor resulted from a “default in performance of any if his obligations” in 

each Plaintiff’s respective Loan Agreement and Promissory Note.

75. Had Sky Group wanted a broader arbitration provision, to include the arbitrability 

of claims under state or federal securities law, it should have left the scope of it at “any and all 

disputes, claims, or controversies whatsoever” instead of “default in performance of his 

obligations under this Agreement.”

76. To broaden the scope of the arbitration provision to also include Defendants’ 

tortious conduct and/or violation of state and federal securities law; would be contrary to the 

intent of the parties. 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 13 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 14 of 23

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA SECURITIES AND INVESTOR

PROTECTION ACT

(Against all Defendants)

77. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-76 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

78. This is a claim for multiple violations against all Defendants under Florida 

Securities and Investor Protection Act (“FSIPA”), Fla.Stat. §517.011 et.seq.

79. The Promissory Notes constitute a “security” pursuant to Fla.Stat. 

§517.021(21)(a), because it is a note, an evidence of indebtedness, and/or an investment contract.

80. The Promissory Notes which constitutes an “investment contract” for the

enterprise, and was led to expect profits derived solely from the efforts of the promotor or third 

party, namely Sky Group.

81. As set forth in paragraphs 1-76 herein, Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt, 

implemented a plan and undertook unlawful acts to defraud investors, such as Plaintiffs, in 

connection with the sale securities.

82. Plaintiffs were in fact defrauded, upon investing and delivering funds to Sky 

Group, relying upon information communicated through Sky Group’s unregistered sales agent 

who used false and misleading statements and omissions of fact necessary in order to make the 

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

83. Further, Florida Statutes 517.301, declares that it is unlawful for a person to 

knowingly and willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up, by any trick, scheme, or device, a material 

fact, make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.

84. As a result, Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt, orchestrated an investment 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 14 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 15 of 23

scheme with the intent to deceive and defraud Plaintiffs, by among other acts, misrepresenting to 

Plaintiffs Sky Group’s liabilities and projected profits, which Sky Group and Betancourt knew to 

be false.

85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ untrue statements and material 

omissions and their reasonable reliance thereupon, Plaintiffs has suffered consequential damages, 

including the loss of use of the funds invested, the loss of interest thereupon, the loss of the 

principal amount invested.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants Sky Group and 

Betancourt, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla.Stat. 

§517.211(6), and costs, interest, and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA SECURITIES AND INVESTOR

PROTECTION ACT SELLING AN UNREGISTERED SECURITY

(Against all Defendants)

86. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1-76 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

87. This is a claim for violation against all Defendants under the Florida Securities 

and Investor Protection Act (FSIPA), Fla.Stat. §517.07 et.seq.

88. The Promissory Notes constitute a “security” pursuant to Fla.Stat. 

§517.021(21)(a), because it is a note, an evidence of indebtedness, and/or an investment contract.

89. It is unlawful and a violation Fla.Stat. §517.07 et.seq. for any person to sell or 

offer to sell a security unless the security is exempt from registration, is sold in an exempt 

transaction or is a federal covered security, or is registered pursuant to Fla.Stat §517.07 et.seq.

90. No securities that are required to be registered shall be sold or offered for sale 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 15 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 16 of 23

within this state unless such securities have been registered and unless prior to each sale the 

purchaser is furnished with a prospectus meeting the requirements of rules adopted by the 

Florida Office of Financial Services Commission (“Commission”).

91. Defendants offered to sell and in fact sold, the Promissory Notes to Plaintiffs in 

Florida.

92. The Promissory Notes, are not registered as required by Florida law.

93. The Promissory Notes, are not exempt from registration.

94. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with a prospectus meeting the requirements 

provided by the Commission.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for return of all monies 

delivered to Defendants, interest, attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §517.211(6) and such 

further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH

OFFERING THE PROMISSORY NOTE

(Against all Defendants)

95. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-76 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

96. This is a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation pursuant to Florida common law.

97. As fully detailed in the allegations incorporated herein, Defendants Sky Group

and Betancourt, individually and in his capacity as Sky Group’s managing members and CEO, 

made untrue statements of fact to Plaintiffs and omitted other material facts necessary to make 

their affirmative statements not misleading.

98. In so doing, Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt acted deliberately and with 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 16 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 17 of 23

the intent to deceive, manipulate and defraud Plaintiffs, and made the subject misrepresentations

and material omissions with the intent that Plaintiffs rely on said representations and material 

omissions.

99. The untrue statements of fact and material misrepresentations in question are set 

forth herein.

100. Plaintiffs reasonably relied to their detriment on the representations and 

omissions, but for which Plaintiffs would never had invested in Sky Group or agreed to enter into 

the respective Promissory Notes.

101. Defendants’ actions were intentional, wanton, malicious, and made with the intent 

to injure Plaintiffs or with reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ lawful rights.

102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ untrue statements and material 

omissions and Plaintiffs’ reasonable reliance thereupon, Plaintiffs’ suffered consequential 

damages, including the loss of use of the funds invested, the loss of interest thereupon, the loss of 

the principal amount invested.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ demand judgment against Defendants Sky Group and 

Betancourt for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorney's fees, prejudgment 

interest, post-judgment interest, and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

(Against Betancourt)

103. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-76 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

104. This is a claim for civil conspiracy to defraud pursuant to Florida common law.

105. As fully detailed in the incorporated allegations, Defendant Betancourt and Sky 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 17 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 18 of 23

Group sales agents agreed and conspired to act in concert and combination, and did in fact act in 

concert and combination to defraud Plaintiffs out of their monies.

106. In so doing, Defendant Betancourt has committed overt acts, including but not 

limited to the making of false statements and material omissions with the intent to deceive, 

manipulate and defraud Plaintiffs.

107. As a result of the conspiracy and the overt acts taken by the co-conspirators,

Plaintiff have suffered damages.

108. Defendant Betancourt’s actions were intentional, wanton, malicious, and made 

with the intent to injure Plaintiffs or with reckless disregard for their lawful rights.

109. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiffs have

suffered pecuniary damages, including the loss of use of the funds invested, the loss of interest 

thereupon, the loss of the principal amount invested.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Betancourt, for 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V

BREACH OF THE PROMMISORY NOTES

(In the Alternative)

(Against Sky Group)

110. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-76 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

111. This is an action for breach of contract against Sky Group for violating its

obligations under the Promissory Notes. 

112. The Promissory Notes constitute binding contracts pursuant to Florida law, in that 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 18 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 19 of 23

there was an offer, an acceptance, consideration given by both sides, and a definitive agreement 

as to all essential terms of the underlying bargain.

113. The Promissory Notes obligate Sky Group to pay interest bearing a rate of 48% 

per annum, payable monthly.

114. On the dates, applicable to due date for payment of interest, Sky Group was 

contractually obligated to repay said interest.

115. Despite the fact that Plaintiffs fully complied with their obligations under the 

Promissory Notes by loaning Sky Group the monies corresponding to each individual Plaintiff, 

Sky Group has materially breached its corresponding obligations by failing to the pay the interest 

payments as required by the Promissory Notes.

116. As a result of Sky Group’s breaches of the Promissory Notes, Plaintiffs have

suffered pecuniary damages.

117. Pursuant to terms of Promissory Notes, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of 

attorneys’fees and costs incurred as a result of Sky Group’s breaches of the Promissory Notes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendant Sky Group for 

compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and 

for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10b-5 

(Against all Defendants)

118. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-76 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

119. This is a claim for multiple violations against all Defendants under Section 10(b) 

of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-(5) promulgated thereunder.

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 19 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 20 of 23

120. The Promissory Notes constitute a “security” pursuant to the Exchange Act, 

because it was intended to raise money for Sky Group’s business use and an expectation on 

behalf of Plaintiffs to make a profit. 

121. As set forth in paragraphs 1-76 herein, Defendants Sky Group and Betancourt, 

individually and in concert, directly and/or indirectly, by the use, means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce, made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material 

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

they were made, not misleading.

122. All Defendants are sued either as primary participants in the wrongful and illegal 

conduct charged herein or as controlling persons as alleged below.

123. Defendant Betancourt’s primary liability, and controlling person liability, arises 

from the following facts: (i) Betancourt coached and instructed Sky Group’s team of sales agents 

and furthermore provided the proverbial road map containing the misrepresentations that the 

investment was safe, secure, risk free and guaranteed high yields of 48% returns per annum; (ii) 

Betancourt was Sky Group’s Chief Executive Officer, Manager and Member during the time and 

through the time of offering the securities (Loan Agreement) to Plaintiffs; (iii) Betancourt, by 

virtue of his responsibilities and activities as Sky Groups Chief Executive Officer was privy to 

and participated in the creation and development of marketing material and strategies to lure 

investors such as Plaintiffs; and (iv) Betancourt was aware and moreover actively participated 

with other Sky Group executives, such as its Director of Operations Carlos Pingarron.

124. Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentation and/or omissions of 

material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to 

ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available to them.

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 20 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 21 of 23

125. Such Defendants’ material misrepresentations and/or omissions were done 

knowingly or recklessly for purpose and effect of concealing from investors the fact that Payday 

Loans are high risk unsecured investments, and that Sky Group’s business model relied on 

charging excessive interest rates, which depending on the law of a specific state, may be deemed 

usurious and unenforceable. This is now evident by Sky Group’s present predicament of losses 

which exceeded 68 Million U.S. Dollars as of February of this year.

126. At the time of said misrepresentation and/or omissions, Plaintiffs were ignorant of 

their falsity and believed them to be true.

127. Had Plaintiffs known the truth regarding Sky Group’s liabilities and the high risk 

nature of Payday Loans, Plaintiffs would not have invested or otherwise acquired Sky Group’s 

promissory notes.

128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ untrue statements and material 

omissions and their reasonable reliance thereupon, Plaintiffs damages, including the loss of use 

of the funds invested, the loss of interest thereupon, the loss of the principal amount invested.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants Sky Group and 

Betancourt, jointly and severally for damages, interest, and costs of this action and such further 

relief as this Court deems just and proper pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 

10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF SECTION 20(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

(Against Betancourt)

129. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in 

paragraphs 1-76 of the Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.

130. Defendant Betancourt’s primary liability, and controlling person liability, arises 

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 21 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 22 of 23

from the following facts: (i) Betancourt coached and instructed Sky Group’s team of sales agents 

and furthermore provided the proverbial road map containing the misrepresentations that the 

investment was safe, secure, risk free and guaranteed high yields of 48% returns per annum; (ii) 

Betancourt was Sky Group’s Chief Executive Officer, Manager and Member during the time and 

through the time of offering the securities (Loan Agreement) to Plaintiffs; (iii) Betancourt, by 

virtue of his responsibilities and activities as Sky Groups Chief Executive Officer was privy to 

and participated in the creation and development of marketing material and strategies to lure 

investors such as Plaintiffs; and (iv) Betancourt was aware and moreover actively participated 

with other Sky Group executives, such as its Director of Operations Carlos Pingarron, along with 

conducting training sessions with his team of sales agents.

131. Betancourt in his capacity as the highest level executive had actual knowledge of 

the misrepresentation and/or omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless 

disregard for the truth in that he failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such 

facts were available to him.

132. As set forth above, Defendants each violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act 

and Rule 10b-(5) promulgated thereunder, buy their acts and/or omissions as alleged in this 

Complaint. By virtue of his position as a controlling person, Betancourt is liable pursuant to 

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful 

conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their investment with Sky Group.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants Sky Group and 

Betancourt, jointly and severally for damages, interest, and costs of this action and such further 

relief as this Court deems just and proper pursuant to Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the 

Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 22 of 23
Vazquez & Associates

1111 Brickell Ave Ste. 1550 Miami, FL 33131

305.371.8064

Page 23 of 23

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs seek and demands a trial by jury on all triable issues in this matter.

Respectfully submitted on this 18th of May, 2020.

Vazquez & Associates

Attorney for Plaintiffs

1111 Brickell Avenue

Suite 1550

Miami, Florida 33131

By: /s/ Gerardo Vazquez

Gerardo Vazquez, Esq.

Florida Bar No.:0006904

Email: gv@gvazquez.com

By:/s/ Steven Herzberg

Steven B. Herzberg, Esq.

Email: sh@gvazquez.com

Fla. Bar No.: 111541

Tel: 305.371.8064

Fax: 305.371.4967

Case 1:20-cv-22257-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2020 Page 23 of 23