1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

RCG ADVANCES, LLC, a limited liability 

company, f/k/a Richmond Capital Group, LLC, 

also d/b/a Viceroy Capital Funding and Ram

Capital Funding, 

RAM CAPITAL FUNDING LLC, a limited 

liability company,

ROBERT L. GIARDINA, individually and as an 

owner and officer of RCG ADVANCES, LLC,

JONATHAN BRAUN, individually and as a de 

facto owner and an officer or manager of RCG 

ADVANCES, LLC, and

TZVI REICH, a/k/a Steven Reich, individually 

and as an owner and officer of RAM CAPITAL 

FUNDING LLC, and as a manager of RCG 

ADVANCES, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-CV-4432

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), for its Complaint alleges:

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission

Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) to obtain permanent injunctive relief, rescission or 

reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten 

monies, and other equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) in connection with their business financing activities.

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 14
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), 

and 1345.

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), and (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).

PLAINTIFF

4. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 

statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 

5. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 

attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such equitable relief as may be 

appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 

of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).

DEFENDANTS

6. Defendant RCG Advances, LLC (“RCG”), formerly known as Richmond 

Capital Group LLC, and also doing business as Viceroy Capital Funding and Ram Capital 

Funding, is a New York limited liability company. RCG lists its address as 111 John Street 

Suite 1210, New York, NY 10038. RCG transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, RCG has advertised, marketed, offered, or distributed financing to businesses 

throughout the United States.

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 14
3

7. Defendant Ram Capital Funding LLC (“Ram”), is a New Jersey limited liability 

company. Ram lists its address as 111 John Street Suite 1210, New York, NY 10038. Ram 

transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. At times 

material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, Ram has advertised, marketed, 

offered, or distributed financing to businesses throughout the United States.

8. Defendant Robert L. Giardina (“Giardina”) is the owner, officer, managing 

member, and partner of RCG. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert 

with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated 

in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Giardina resides in this District 

and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this 

District and throughout the United States.

9. Defendant Jonathan Braun (“Braun”) is a de facto owner and an officer or

manager of RCG. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he 

has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and 

practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Braun resides in this District and, in connection 

with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

throughout the United States.

10. Defendant Tzvi Reich, also known as Steve Reich (“Reich”), is president and 

manager of Ram, and a manager of RCG. At times material to this Complaint, acting alone or 

in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Defendant Reich resides in this 

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 14
4

District and, in connection with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in 

this District and throughout the United States.

COMMON ENTERPRISE

11. Defendants RCG and Ram (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) have operated 

as a common enterprise while engaging in the unlawful acts and practices alleged below. 

Corporate Defendants have conducted the business practices described below using common 

officers, managers, business functions, employees, and office locations, and have commingled 

funds. Because these Corporate Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each of 

them is jointly and severally liable for the acts and practices alleged below. Defendants 

Giardina, Braun, and Reich have formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or 

participated in the acts and practices of the Corporate Defendants that constitute the common 

enterprise.

COMMERCE

12. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

Overview

13. Since at least 2015, Defendants have engaged in a number of deceptive and unfair 

practices while providing small business financing. Proposed Defendants’ victims include small 

businesses, medical offices, non-profit organizations, and religious organizations (hereinafter, 

“consumers”). 

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 4 of 14
5

14. Defendants purport to provide immediate funds in a specific amount in exchange 

for consumers’ agreement to repay a higher amount from future business revenues. The 

repayment amount is remitted over time through daily debits from consumers’ bank accounts. 

15. In advertising their financing products to consumers, Defendants falsely claim 

that their financing products do not feature a personal guaranty or upfront costs. In addition, 

Defendants promise consumers a specific amount of financing, but provide a much smaller 

amount. Defendants also engage in unfair collection practices, including, in some instances, by 

filing confessions of judgment against consumers in circumstances not permitted by their

financing agreements and threatening physical violence, and make unauthorized debits from 

consumers’ accounts. 

Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Their Financing Products

16. Defendants advertise their financing products on the Internet. On their website, 

Defendants claim that their financing product requires “no personal guaranty of collateral from 

business owners.” 

17. In reality, Defendants’ financing contracts do include a “personal guaranty” that 

consumers must agree to:

Personal Guaranty of Performance. The undersigned Guarantor(s) hereby guarantees 

to RCG, Merchant’s good faith, truthfulness and performance of all of the 

representations, warranties, covenants made by Merchant in the Merchant Agreement in 

Sections thereof 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14, as each agreement may 

be renewed, amended, extended or otherwise modified (the “Guaranteed Obligations”). 

Guarantor’s obligations are due at the time of any breach by Merchant of any 

representation, warranty, or covenant made by Merchant in the Agreement.

18. In previous versions of their contracts, Defendants included the following 

provision:

Personal Guaranty. In the event of a Default under Sections 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.10, 

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 5 of 14
6

2.11, 2.12, 2.13, and 2.14 hereof, should RCG determine that the Purchase Amount 

cannot be obtained from the Merchant’s business, RCG will enforce its rights against the 

Guarantors of this transaction. Said Guarantors will be jointly and severally liable to 

RCG for all of RCG’s losses and damages, in additional [sic] to all costs and expenses 

and legal fees associated with such enforcement.

19. Also on their website, Defendants claim that their financing requires “no upfront 

costs.” In fact, Defendants withhold various fees upfront, prior to disbursing the funding to 

consumers. Some of these fees appear buried in Defendants’ contracts, without any language 

alerting consumers that they are withdrawn upfront. Other withheld amounts are not disclosed 

anywhere in the contract.

20. Defendants promise consumers a specific amount of financing. For example, the 

first page of Defendants’ contracts prominently sets forth the financing amount as the “Total 

Purchase Price.” In reality, however, Defendants provide consumers with substantially less than 

the total amount promised by withholding various fees ranging from several hundreds to tens of 

thousands of dollars prior to disbursement. As discussed above, these fees appear several pages 

into Defendants’ contracts and without any indication that they reduce the amount of funds 

consumers were promised. In addition, Defendants sometimes withdraw fees that are in excess 

of amounts listed near the end of the agreements. Specifically, in internal emails, Defendants 

have directed that higher fees be charged and smaller amounts transferred to consumers than 

those promised. As a result, consumers in numerous instances have complained that they 

received significantly less funding than they were promised.

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 6 of 14
7

Defendants’ Collections Practices

21. In order to obtain funding, Defendants require businesses and their owners to 

confess judgment to the full amount owed under the contract, so that Defendants can 

immediately proceed to court to collect on a purportedly owed judgement. At the same time, 

Defendants’ contracts provide that Defendants will not hold consumers in breach if payments are 

remitted more slowly than anticipated because business revenues slowed down and that 

consumers do not owe anything if the business shuts down entirely: 

If Future Receipts are remitted more slowly than RCG may have anticipated or projected 

because Merchant’s business has slowed own, or if the full Purchased Amount is never 

remitted because Merchant’s business went bankrupt or otherwise ceased operations in 

the ordinary course of business, and Merchant has not breached this Agreement, 

Merchant would not owe anything to RCG and would not be in breach or default under 

this Agreement.

22. In practice, however, Defendants in many instances file confessions of judgment 

against consumers for missing payments due to a slowdown in business revenues or due to a 

business shutdown, a violation of the terms of the financial agreement. 

23. In addition, Defendants have also filed confessions of judgment against 

consumers who were still making required payments but payments temporarily could not be 

processed due to technical issues outside of the consumers’ their control. For example, in some 

instances, consumers’ banks unexpectedly and temporarily locked their bank accounts due to 

fraud or security alerts, thus preventing Defendants from effectuating the daily withdrawals. 

Despite consumers’ attempts to explain and resolve the situation, Defendants held them in 

default and filed confessions of judgment against them. 

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 7 of 14
8

24. In other instances, Defendants filed confessions of judgment against consumers 

who did not breach relevant provisions of Defendants’ financing agreements, including one 

consumer who was still continuing to make daily payments to Defendants. 

25. Because Defendants’ confessions of judgment require both the business entity and 

the individual owner to confess judgment to the entire repayment amount, upon filing the 

confession of judgment in court, Defendants in many instances are able to seize consumers’ 

business and personal assets. Consumers do not expect to face a confession of judgment filing 

because, in a number of instances, consumers have not breached the relevant provisions in the

financing agreement, or were promised that they would not be held in breach if they could not 

pay due to a slowdown in business revenues. Numerous consumers report being financially 

devastated by Defendants’ confession of judgment filings.

26. Defendants also make threatening collection calls to consumers, frequently using 

obscene or profane language, to induce them to continue making payments. For example, 

Defendants have threatened violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, 

reputation, or property of the consumer or third parties if they do not continue making their daily

payments. Defendants’ representatives told one consumer they were going to “break his jaw” if 

he did not make the required payments, and told another consumer they would “come down there 

and beat the s**t out of you.” Defendants threatened another consumer that if he did not pay, 

they would ruin his reputation by falsely accusing him of being a child molester. 

27. Defendants’ threats caused or likely caused consumers to fear for their physical 

safety and forego important contractual and legal rights, including the right to have their 

payments reduced or reconciled, and induced the payment of a disputed payment obligation.

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 8 of 14
9

Defendants’ Unauthorized Withdrawals

28. Defendants make unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. For 

example, although Defendants’ contracts state that they will debit the specific daily amount once 

on each business day, Defendants in many instances make two withdrawals from consumers’ 

accounts on a single day following a bank holiday. Consumers do not authorize these additional

payments, do not expect to have their accounts debited twice in one day, and often face financial 

hardships and overdrawn accounts as a result. When consumers complain about the 

unauthorized debits, Defendants in many instances do not refund the additional amounts 

withdrawn.

29. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has 

reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws enforced by the 

Commission.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT

30. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices in or affecting commerce.”

31. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive 

acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

32. Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act if they cause or are 

likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid 

themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 

15 U.S.C. § 45(n).

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 9 of 14
10

Count I

Misrepresentations Regarding Financing Products

33. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing or offering of 

business financing, Defendants represent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that:

a. Defendants require no personal guaranty from business owners;

b. Defendants charge no upfront costs; and

c. Consumers will receive a specific amount of financing. 

34. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made the 

representations set forth in Paragraph 33, such representations were false or misleading at the 

time Defendants made them.

35. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 33 are false or 

misleading and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

Count II

Unfair Use of Confessions of Judgment

36. In numerous instances, Defendants use confessions of judgment unfairly, 

including by filing confessions of judgment against consumers who (a) are current in their 

payments or did not breach the Defendants’ contract; (b) miss payments due to a slowdown in 

business revenues or business cessation, despite contractual representations that consumers will 

not be in breach or default under those circumstances, or (c) whose payments cannot be 

processed due to temporary technical difficulties outside the consumers’ control.

37. Defendants’ actions cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 10 of 14
11

that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits to consumers or competition.

38. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 36 constitute 

unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), (n).

Count III

Unfair Collection Threats

39. In numerous instances, Defendants unfairly seek to induce consumers to make

payments, including by threatening to use violence or other unlawful or criminal means to harm 

the physical person, reputation, or property of the consumer or third parties or to ruin consumers’ 

businesses.

40. Defendants’ actions cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers 

that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits to consumers or competition.

41. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 39 constitute 

unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), (n).

Count IV

Unauthorized Withdrawals

42. In numerous instances, Defendants withdraw funds from consumers’ bank 

accounts without the express informed consent of those consumers.

43. Defendants’ actions cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers 

that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing 

benefits to consumers or competition.

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 11 of 14
12

44. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 42 constitute 

unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), (n).

CONSUMER INJURY

45. Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial 

injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act. In addition, Defendants have been 

unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this 

Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm 

the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

46. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant 

injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations

of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable 

jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and 

remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)

and the Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act by 

Defendants;

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 12 of 14
13

B. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers 

resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, including rescission or reformation of 

contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and

C. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

ALDEN F. ABBOTT

General Counsel

Dated: June 10, 2020 /s/ Ioana Gorecki____________________________

IOANA R. GORECKI

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Mail Stop CC-10232

Washington, DC 20580

Tel: (202) 326-2077

Facsimile: (202) 326-2752

Email: igorecki@ftc.gov

MARGUERITE L. MOELLER

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Mail Stop CC-10232

Washington, DC 20580

Tel: (202) 326-2905

Facsimile: (202) 326-2752

Email: mmoeller@ftc.gov

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 13 of 14
14

MICHAEL D. WHITE

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Mail Stop CC-10232

Washington, DC 20580

Tel: (202) 326-3196

Facsimile: (202) 326-2752

Email: mwhite1@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Case 1:20-cv-04432 Document 1 Filed 06/10/20 Page 14 of 14