UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-22901-DPG 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

THUNDERBIRD POWER CORP., 

RICHARD HINDS, ANTHONY GOLDSTEIN, 

and JOHN ALEXANDER VAN AREM, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT THUNDERBIRD POWER CORP. 

I. Introduction 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

55(b)(2), moves the Court for an order: (a) entering a default judgment imposing a permanent 

injunction against Defendant Thunderbird Power Corp. (“Thunderbird” or “the Company”); and 

(b) giving the Commission 90 days to file a motion seeking specific amounts of disgorgement, 

prejudgment interest on disgorgement, and a civil penalty against Thunderbird. As described 

below, the Commission has met the procedural requirements for entry of a default judgment, and 

the allegations of the Complaint and the additional evidence submitted with this motion warrant a 

finding that Thunderbird committed the violations of the federal securities laws alleged in the 

Complaint. The facts and the law further support the entry of a permanent injunction against future 

violations of those statutes and rules. 

II. Procedural Background 

 The Commission filed its Complaint against Thunderbird and three individual defendants 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 1 of 16
2 

on July 14, 2020, alleging they violated Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 

(“Securities Act”) (registration provisions), Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) 

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 (antifraud provisions), and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act (broker-dealer registration provisions) 

(DE 1). Thunderbird filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on October 5, 2020 (DE 21), an 

Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses on October 29, 2020 (DE 26), and a Second Amended 

Answer on April 8, 2021 (DE 50). 

 Discovery ensued, and Thunderbird refused to appear for a corporate deposition on three 

separate occasions after first agreeing to do so. DE 58, 60, 61, 68, and 71. On the third occasion, 

Thunderbird’s counsel moved to withdraw, claiming his client had terminated him because of a 

conflict of interest and could not pay its bills (DE 58). After briefing, the Magistrate granted the 

motion to withdraw on June 21, 2021 (DE 71). In the Order, the Magistrate gave Thunderbird 20 

days to find new counsel, and warned of the consequences if no new counsel appeared: 

Thunderbird has 20 days from the date of this Order to have new counsel enter an 

appearance on its behalf. As a corporation, Thunderbird is an artificial entity that can only 

act though agents; it cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel. See 

Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985). Failure to have new 

counsel appear by the prescribed date may subject Thunderbird to the entry of default. 

DE 71 at 1-2. 

 The 20 days ran on Monday, July 12, 2021, and no new counsel appeared or contacted the 

Commission. As a result, the Commission filed a motion asking the Court to direct the Clerk to 

enter a default against Thunderbird (DE 72). The Court granted the motion (DE 73), and on July 

16, 2021, the Clerk entered the default (DE 75). 

III Memorandum Of Law 

A. The Commission Is Entitled To A Default Judgment

 Upon the Clerk’s entry of a default against Thunderbird, the allegations of the 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 2 of 16
3 

Commission’s Complaint were deemed admitted against the Company, and the Commission’s 

entitlement to relief was established. Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987); 

Miller v. Paradise of Port Richey, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 1999). When a party 

fails to defend an action and a default has been entered, the propriety of the relief sought is deemed 

established. Buchanan, 820 F. 2d at 360; Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete 

Products, Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983); Miller, 75 F. Supp. 2d at 1346. Thus, the 

following allegations of the Complaint are deemed admitted against Thunderbird: 

B. The Commission’s Complaint 

1. Thunderbird’s Offering 

From no later than August 2016 through at least October 2018, Thunderbird and coDefendants Richard Hinds, Anthony Goldstein, and John Alexander van Arem defrauded at least 

60 investors out of more than $1.9 million in the unregistered offer and sale of Thunderbird stock. 

Favorably comparing Thunderbird shares to Amazon, Facebook and Google stock in their nascent 

stages in a YouTube video, Thunderbird, Hinds and Goldstein in that video and elsewhere 

misrepresented the technology Thunderbird was developing. Additionally, the Defendants 

misappropriated investor funds. Complaint, DE 1, at ¶1. 

Thunderbird claimed to be developing an energy-efficient wind turbine technology known 

as the PowerStack for use on power-producing wind farms. Hinds and Goldstein were officers in 

the Company, while van Arem was a consultant who helped set up, supervise, and pay a nationwide 

network of sales agents. Id. at ¶2. All four Defendants in various capacities were responsible for 

numerous false and misleading statements about the Company and its technology while offering 

and selling shares in the Company. Among other things, the Defendants made or contributed to 

material misrepresentations and omissions in press releases, marketing materials, offering 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 3 of 16
4 

documents, and the YouTube video about: (1) the status of the PowerStack’s development and its 

purported validation by a nationally-known scientific development firm; and (2) use of investor 

proceeds. In addition, Hinds, van Arem, and Goldstein misappropriated more than 40 percent of 

investor funds raised to enrich themselves and pay sales agents. Id. at ¶3. The shares Thunderbird 

offered and sold were not registered with the Commission. Id. at ¶5. 

Starting no later than July 2016, Hinds coordinated with Goldstein and van Arem to solicit 

investors and raise money from the sale of Thunderbird stock. Id. at ¶12. They consulted with 

each other in the summer and fall of 2016, often by email, to develop a private placement 

memorandum (“PPM”). The PPM described the PowerStack technology and detailed 

Thunderbird’s efforts to raise millions of dollars by offering to sell restricted shares of common 

stock in the company at $3 per share. The PPM listed Hinds as the Company’s Chief Executive 

Officer as well as a director, Goldstein as the Company’s President and Chairman of the Board, 

and van Arem as a consultant. Id. at ¶13. 

According to the PPM, Thunderbird was only offering shares “not registered under the 

Securities Act of 1933” under Regulation D, Rule 506(c) to U.S. residents who were “accredited 

investors.” Accredited investors are those who meet certain financial, income, or sophistication 

levels. Under Rule 506(c), to be exempt from registering the offering, a company may only sell 

shares to accredited investors and must make reasonable efforts to ensure its investors are 

accredited. Id. at ¶14. 

Along with developing the PPM, Goldstein and van Arem, with Hinds’ knowledge, hired 

sales agents around the country to solicit investors. In addition, Goldstein, van Arem, and the sales 

agents cold-called investors, told them about the investment opportunity in Thunderbird, and 

provided them with documents such as the PPM, a business plan, and a subscription agreement. 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 4 of 16
5 

Id. at ¶16. Interested investors signed and mailed their subscription agreements to the Company, 

and sent their money by wire or check to a Thunderbird bank account. Id. at ¶17. 

The subscription agreements required investors to sign a form attesting that they were 

accredited, which included checking off boxes about their income, wealth, and assets, among other 

information, to show how they were accredited. However, several investors either did not indicate 

on their subscription agreements whether they were accredited or indicated they were not. The 

Defendants did nothing to verify whether any of the investors were accredited.1

 Goldstein signed 

the subscription agreements on behalf of Thunderbird. Investors then received stock certificates 

for Thunderbird shares, signed by both Hinds as CEO and Goldstein as President. Id. at ¶¶17-18. 

Thunderbird used about one third of the investor funds it raised to pay commissions to van 

Arem and other sales agents. The commissions to van Arem were part of an agreement between 

him and Thunderbird, which Goldstein and Hinds knew about, in which van Arem was to receive 

50 percent of all investor proceeds for his services. Id. at ¶19. 

2. Material Misrepresentations And Omissions 

Through press releases, the YouTube video, Thunderbird’s website, and other on-line 

resources, including Facebook and LinkedIn, Thunderbird, Hinds, and Goldstein misrepresented 

the development of the PowerStack Technology and its alleged validation by a multi-national 

scientific development firm. For example, in press releases dated November 29, 2017 and June 

14, 2018, Thunderbird claimed that technology development company Siemens had “confirmed 

that the PowerStack extracts more kinetic energy from wind than any other wind turbine 

technology on the market.” Id. at ¶21. The 2018 press release went on to state that: 

The tasks that Siemens have performed are considered analogous to physical wind tunnel 

                                                            

1 Discovery confirmed that several investors were not accredited and Thunderbird did nothing to determine 

whether they were. See, e.g., Declaration of Ronald Strong, attached as Exhibit 1; Declaration of Quentin 

Stephen, attached as Exhibit 2. 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 5 of 16
6 

testing and the results are considered solid. This confirms that the PowerStack wind turbine 

is the most efficient and cost efficient wind turbine technology on the market and will 

produce electricity at a tiny fraction of the cost of any other method, renewable or fossil. 

Thunderbird posted both press releases on its website, and the 2017 press release was reposted on 

Facebook. Furthermore, the Company included the statements about Siemens’ work in emails to 

shareholders, some of whom later invested additional amounts. Id. at ¶23. 

The YouTube video, disseminated to prospective investors, contained similar claims about 

Siemens’ work and the status of the PowerStack development, as well as other misleading 

statements. After mentioning the returns realized by early investors in Google, Facebook, and 

Amazon, the video claimed the “PowerStack wind turbine can produce electricity for a tiny 

fraction of the cost of ANY other technology, fossil or renewable.” Id. at ¶¶24-25. The video also 

falsely claimed that “work recently performed on the PowerStack by multi-national giant Siemens 

has validated that the PowerStack is far and away the most efficient wind turbine technology in 

the world.” Id. at ¶26. 

Both the press releases and the YouTube video were blatantly false. Siemens had not 

confirmed the efficiency of the PowerStack or its production ability. Siemens only evaluated a 

conceptual model of the PowerStack, based on data provided by Thunderbird, and its work only 

involved computer simulations. Siemens did not test or evaluate any wind turbine in physical form 

and could not have because Thunderbird did not even begin to build an actual wind turbine until 

November 2018 at the earliest – well after the statements in the press releases and the YouTube 

video. In addition, at no time did Siemens ever compare the PowerStack with any other technology 

or design existing in the wind turbine industry. Id. at ¶¶27-28. See also Declaration of Ali Rozati, 

attached as Exhibit 3. 

 The statements in the YouTube video that the PowerStack wind turbine could “produce 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 6 of 16
7 

electricity for a tiny fraction of the cost of ANY other technology, fossil or renewable,” that it “is 

far and away the most efficient wind turbine technology in the world,” and that the PowerStack is 

“easy to manufacture, ship and install and requires virtually no maintenance” were likewise false. 

Without even a prototype wind turbine constructed and without any physical testing on an actual 

product, there was no basis in fact for Thunderbird to make any claims about the operation, 

production cost, and efficiency of any wind turbine. Id. at ¶30; Declaration of Peter Jenkins, 

attached as Exhibit 4. 

 Thunderbird and its officers in fact acknowledged that their public statements about 

Siemens’ work were false and misleading on the Company website in November 2018 (after 

investor solicitations ceased) when they wrote that the Company had only provided Siemens with 

data and was not making any claims about the PowerStack’s output or efficiency. Id. at ¶29. 

In their roles as CEO and President, Hinds and Goldstein consulted with one another on 

the content of the press releases. Goldstein was quoted in the November 2017 release and Hinds 

was quoted in June 2018 release with Goldstein listed as the contact person. Furthermore, 

Goldstein sent email updates to existing shareholders containing information from the press 

releases, and they were posted on the Company website. Hinds, Goldstein, and van Arem all 

collaborated along with others on creating the YouTube video. Id. at ¶31. 

Thunderbird, Hinds, and Goldstein also made material misrepresentations and omissions 

regarding the use of investor funds in Thunderbird’s offering documents, including in the 

Company’s PPM. The PPM provided that the Company would use specific amounts of investor 

proceeds for several business-related activities, including design and engineering expenses, wind 

tunnel and other testing, marketing, licensing, management, administrative, consulting, and 

lobbying expenses, and patent and other legal expenses. Thunderbird also incorporated this 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 7 of 16
8 

breakdown in a business plan the Defendants distributed to investors. Id. at ¶32. 

However, bank records and other documents show Thunderbird did not use investor funds 

as the Defendants represented. Instead, among other things, they used the money to enrich Hinds 

and his companies AZ Prep and Motivating Minds, which were unrelated to Thunderbird. They 

also paid undisclosed commissions to van Arem, Goldstein, and sales agents. Thunderbird and 

Hinds sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to various accounts controlled by Hinds for AZ Prep 

and Motivating Minds. Furthermore, Thunderbird and Hinds sent about $945,000 to van Arem, 

who used at least $570,000 of that money to pay commissions to himself, Goldstein, and sales 

agents. The Defendants did not disclose those uses of investor money and the commission 

agreements with van Arem to investors. This unauthorized use of funds constituted 

misappropriation of investor money. Id. at ¶¶33-35. 

C. Thunderbird Violated The Securities Laws

1. Thunderbird Violated Sections 5(a) And (c) Of The Securities Act 

Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act require that every offer and sale of securities 

must be either registered or validly exempted from registration. 15 U.S.C. § 77e. To establish a 

prima facie case of a Section 5 violation, the Commission must prove that the defendant, directly 

or indirectly: (a) offered or sold a security; (b) using interstate commerce; while (c) no registration 

statement was filed or in effect as to the transaction. SEC v. Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1214 (11th 

Cir. 2004). The Commission is not required to prove intent or scienter. Id. Once the Commission 

has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that an exemption or 

safe harbor from registration is available for the offer or sale of the security. SEC v. Ralston Purina 

Co., 346 U.S. 119, 126 (1953). 

Here the allegations of the Complaint deemed admitted against Thunderbird and the other 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 8 of 16
9 

supporting evidence demonstrate the Company violated Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act. 

Thunderbird offered and sold shares of its common stock to the general public. DE 1 at ¶¶12-18. 

Thunderbird and the other defendants used the telephone, mail, and email to contact investors, 

send them documents, tout the Company, and receive funds from investors. Id. Thunderbird’s 

own offering materials made clear the Company did not register its offering with the Commission. 

Id. at ¶14. 

Thunderbird claimed its offering was exempt from registration under Regulation D, Rule 

506(c) of the Securities Act, which required all U.S. investors to be accredited. Id. However, the 

Complaint and other supporting evidence show not all U.S. investors in Thunderbird were 

accredited, and that Thunderbird did not take reasonable steps to verify that all investors were 

accredited. Id. at ¶¶17-18; Exhibits 1 and 2. Thus, Thunderbird’s shares were not exempt from 

registration under Regulation D, Rule 506(c), and the Company violated Sections 5(a) and (c) of 

the Securities Act in its offer and sale of shares to investors. 

2. Thunderbird Violated Securities Act Section 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) 

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act prohibits using a fraudulent scheme or conduct, or 

making material misrepresentations or omissions, in the offer or sale of securities. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 77q(a). Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10-5 prohibit similar 

misconduct in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). Rule 10b-5 

makes it unlawful, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities: (a) to employ any device, 

scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) to make any untrue statement of material fact or to omit to state 

a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under 

which they were made, not misleading; or (c) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 9 of 16
10 

which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. See 

also SEC v. Monterosso, 756 F.3d 1326, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2014). 

To prove a violation of either statute or Rule 10b-5, the Commission must show: (1) 

misrepresentations or omissions; (2) that are material; (3) made with scienter or negligently; 2 and 

(4) use of interstate commerce. SEC v. Goble, 682 F.3d 934, 942-43 (11th Cir. 2012); Lorenzo v. 

SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019). Here the allegations of the Complaint and the other supporting 

evidence demonstrate the Commission has proved all four elements. 

First, Thunderbird and the other Defendants clearly made misrepresentations and 

omissions to investors. In the PPM, press releases, and the YouTube video, and on the Company 

website, Thunderbird misrepresented the testing that Siemens had done on the PowerStack and 

conclusions Siemens had drawn. DE 1 at ¶¶21-29. Among other things, Thunderbird 

misrepresented to investors that the PowerStack was not only the most efficient and cost-effective 

wind turbine technology in the world, but the most cost-effective energy producer of any kind. Id. 

Thunderbird further represented that these fantastic statements were not its own conclusions, but 

those of Siemens. Id. Finally, the Defendants misstated in the various documents how 

Thunderbird would use investor proceeds. Id. at ¶¶32-25. 

Clearly these statements were false. As the declarations of Ali Rozati (the lead testing 

manager for Siemens) and Peter Jenkins (the co-inventor of the PowerStack who participated in 

the testing) make clear, Siemens merely did computer simulations of the technology based on data 

provided by Thunderbird. Id. at ¶¶27-30; Exhibits 3 and 4. Siemens did not compare the 

PowerStack to any other energy technology on the market, or determine its efficiency or cost-

                                                            

2

  Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Securities Act Section 17(a)(1) require proof of scienter. Violations of 

Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) may be established by a showing of negligence. Aaron v. 

SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 697 (1980); Monterosso, 756 F.3d at 1334.

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 10 of 16
11 

effectiveness. DE 1 at ¶¶27-30; Exhibits 3 and 4. There was no factual basis for the statements 

Thunderbird made in the PPM, the press releases, the YouTube video, or on its website. DE 1 at 

¶¶27-30; Exhibits 3 and 4. Similarly, Thunderbird’s statements about its use of proceeds were 

false. The Company did not use investor proceeds as it stated it would in the PPM, and did not 

tell investors the Company was using funds to pay sales agents and its principals. Id. at 32-35. 

Second, the false statements and omissions Thunderbird made were material. A stated or 

omitted fact “is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable purchaser . . . of a security 

. . . would consider the fact important in deciding whether to buy or sell the security . . . .” Goble, 

682 F.3d at 944 (quotation omitted). Thunderbird’s statements were plainly material, as any 

reasonable investor would want to know that the technology he or she was investing in had not been 

validated through testing as the company promoting the technology represented. SEC v. Merkin, No. 

11-23585-CIV, 2012 WL 5245561 at *7 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2012) (facts were “so obviously important 

to the investor, that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality”). Likewise, 

reasonable investors would want to know the seller of securities was misrepresenting how it would 

use their money. SEC v. LottoNet Operating Corp., No. 17-21033-CIV, 2017 WL 6949289 at *13 

(S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2017) (“any reasonable investor would want to know how Defendants were 

really using investor funds and that Defendants were misappropriating investor money”). 

Third, Thunderbird, through its executives Hinds, Goldstein, and van Arem, acted with 

scienter. Scienter is “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.” Ernst & 

Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 193 n.12 (1976). Extreme recklessness also satisfies the scienter 

requirement. McDonald v. Alan Bush Brokerage Co., 863 F.2d 809, 814 (11th Cir. 1989); Southland 

Sec. Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Solutions, Inc., 365 F.3d 353, 366 (5th Cir. 2004) (scienter is an “‘intent 

to deceive, manipulate, or defraud’ or ‘that severe recklessness’ in which the ‘danger of misleading 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 11 of 16
12 

buyers or sellers is either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been 

aware of it.’”). Proof of recklessness may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Herman & 

MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390-91 n.30 (1983). 

There can be no doubt that Thunderbird, through its executives, knew it was making false 

statements or at the very least displayed extreme recklessness in the statements the Company made. 

For example, Goldstein, van Arem and Hinds all knew Thunderbird had hired sales agents to solicit 

investors and that the Company was using 50 percent of investor proceeds to pay van Arem and 

the sales agents. DE 1 at ¶¶16, 19. Furthermore, all of them participated in drafting the PPM that 

did not disclose to investors that Thunderbird was using 50 percent of investor funds to pay sales 

agents and van Arem. Id. at ¶¶12-13 and 33-35. Thus they either knew or were extremely reckless 

in not knowing that the PPMs omitted disclosing this material information to investors. 

Likewise, the three Thunderbird officers were all involved in drafting the press releases 

and creating the YouTube video that contained the false and misleading statements about Siemens’ 

testing of the PowerStack. Id. at ¶31. At a minimum, they acted extremely recklessly when they 

put out such outlandish statements as the PowerStack was the most cost-effective energy 

technology of any kind in the world when they knew Thunderbird had not even started building a 

prototype and had not done any physical wind-tunnel testing. Id. at ¶¶27-30; Exhibits 3 and 4. 

Fourth, the allegations of the Complaint conclusively establish that Thunderbird “directly 

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

in connections with the acts, practices, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint.” DE 1 

at ¶11. See also Id. at ¶¶16-17. Thus, the uncontested evidence shows Thunderbird violated 

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 12 of 16
13 

3. Thunderbird Violated Section 15(a) Of The Exchange Act 

The Complaint alleges Thunderbird acted as a broker or dealer in offering and selling its 

securities without being registered as or associated with a broker or dealer in violation of Section 

15(a) of the Exchange Act. DE 1 at Count VIII. Factors in determining whether a person or entity 

acted as a broker include “whether the person: 1) actively solicited investors; 2) advised investors 

as to the merits of an investment; 3) acted with a ‘certain regularity of participation in securities 

transactions'; and 4) received commissions or transaction-based” compensation. SEC v. Corp. 

Relations Group, Case No. 6:99-cv-1222, 2003 WL 25570113 at *17 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2003). 

Scienter is not an element of the charge. Id. 

Here Thunderbird acted as a broker or dealer in offering or selling its securities when it 

hired sales agents to solicit investments in its stock, sent potential investors numerous documents 

promoting the Company such as the PPM, business plan, and the YouTube video, answered 

investors questions, cold-called investors on its own (through Goldstein and van Arem), received 

investors’ funds, signed investors’ subscription agreements, sent investors stock certificates, and 

put out press releases touting Siemens’ testing of the PowerStack. DE 1 at ¶¶1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 

21, 23, and 26. At a minimum, these allegations of the Complaint demonstrate the first three 

factors. Furthermore, Thunderbird controlled a sales force to whom it paid transaction-based 

compensation. Id. at ¶¶32-35. Corporate Relations Group, WL 25570113 at *17-18 (company 

liable under Section 15(a)(1) for promoting securities through brokers to whom it paid transaction 

based compensation). Accordingly, Thunderbird violated Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. 

D. Relief Requested

1. The Commission Is Entitled To An Injunction Against Thunderbird 

The Commission’s Complaint seeks a judgment permanently enjoining Thunderbird from 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 13 of 16
14 

future violations of Securities Act Sections 5(a) and (c) and 17(a), and Exchange Act Sections 10(b) 

and 15(a), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission is entitled to injunctive relief when it 

establishes: (1) a violation of the federal securities laws; and (2) a reasonable likelihood of future 

violations. SEC v. Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2004). The Commission has already 

established the first prong by showing Thunderbird violated the federal securities laws. In 

determining whether a defendant is reasonably likely to continue to violate the securities laws, courts 

consider: (1) the egregiousness of the defendant’s actions; (2) the isolated or recurrent nature of the 

violations; (3) the degree of scienter involved; (4) the sincerity of the defendant’s assurances against 

future violations; (5) the defendant’s recognition of the wrongful nature of his conduct; and (6) the 

likelihood that the defendant’s occupation will present opportunities for future violations. SEC v. 

Carriba Air, Inc., 681 F.2d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1982). Not every factor must be present to warrant 

entry of an injunction. SEC v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 656 (9th Cir. 1980); SEC v. Smart, No. 

09cv00224, 2011 WL 2297659 at *20 (D. Utah June 8, 2011) (“it is not necessary that the 

Commission prove the existence of every one of these factors to establish a proper showing and obtain 

an injunction.”). 

Here, all of the factors support the issuance of a permanent injunction. As for the first three 

factors, Thunderbird engaged in egregious, repetitive behavior involving a high level of scienter. 

Over more than two years, the Company fraudulently raised almost $2 million from at least 60 

investors, repeatedly lying about the Company’s intended use of proceeds and the results of testing 

on its wind turbine technology by Siemens. Furthermore, the Company and its top officers 

misappropriated a significant portion of investor proceeds for their own use. It is hard to imagine 

conduct more egregious and engaged in with a higher level of scienter. 

As to the fourth and fifth factors, Thunderbird first defended this lawsuit, as was its right, then 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 14 of 16
15 

defaulted. In so doing, the Company has never admitted wrongdoing, and has not offered any 

assurances against future misconduct. With respect to the final factor, although the Commission does 

not have specific information regarding Thunderbird’s future plans, the Commission notes that 

Thunderbird is still an active corporation in Arizona, and was sending updates to investors as recently 

as last year. Thus, without an injunction, the Court cannot have any assurances that Thunderbird will 

avoid future misconduct. As a result, all of the factors weigh in favor of the Court entering a 

permanent injunction against the Company. 

2. Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest, And A Civil Penalty 

 With regard to the disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalty the Complaint seeks 

against Thunderbird, the Commission asks the Court to give it 90 days from the date of the Judgment 

to file a motion seeking specific amounts of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. 

The undersigned staff needs to recommend to the Commission and receive approval for the specific 

amounts we intend to seek. As the remainder of the case is ongoing against Hinds, the 90 days will 

not result in any delay of the ultimate resolution of the case. 

IV. Conclusion

 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Commission asks the Court to enter the attached proposed 

Judgment against Thunderbird. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

July ___, 2021 Robert K. Levenson 

 Senior Trial Counsel 

 Fla. Bar No. 0089771 

 Telephone: (305) 982-6341 

 E-mail: Levensonr@sec.gov

Andrew O. Schiff, Esq. 

Regional Trial Counsel 

Direct Dial: (305) 982-6390 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 15 of 16
16 

E-mail: schiffa@sec.gov 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950 

            Miami, FL 33131 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July __, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and also served it on Thunderbird Power as identified 

below. 

Thunderbird Power Corporation (via overnight mail) 

3961 E. Chandler Blvd. 

Suite 111-216 

Phoenix, Arizona 85048 

 

 Robert K. Levenson, Esq. 

Case 1:20-cv-22901-DPG Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/22/2021 Page 16 of 16