UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

CHUNHONG JIA; NAIHAN LI; NAIRUO 

LI; SHULEI WANG; LIZHONG YAO; 

WEIWEI ZHANG; CHONG ZHAO, 

 Plaintiffs; 

v. 

GARY CHAN; TERRY CHAN; 

JACQUELYN CHAN; BOARDWALK 

FRIES OPPORTUNITIES, L.P.; BWF 

MGMT, LLC; BOARDWALK FRIES, LLC; 

JARDIN HILL, LLC; ARCHWAY 

PARTNERS, LLC; CLEARWATER 

HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 1:18cv85 

: 

: 

: Judge: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

 

COMPLAINT 

Now comes Plaintiffs Chunhong Jia, Naihan Li, Nairuo Li, Shulei Wang, Lizhong Yao, 

Weiwei Zhang, and Chong Zhao (“Plaintiffs”), and for their complaint against Defendants, Gary 

Chan, Terry Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, Boardwalk Fries Opportunities, L.P. (“BWF OPP”), BWF 

MGMT, LLC (“BWF MGMT”), Boardwalk Fries, LLC (“BWF LLC”), Jardin Hill, LLC 

(“Jardin”), Archway Partners, LLC (“Archway”), and Clearwater Hospitality Group, LLC 

(“Clearwater”) (collectively, “Defendants”), states as follows: 

THE PARTIES 

1. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the People’s Republic of China, and are 

limited partners of BWF OPP. In 2014, Plaintiffs joined BWF OPP, an Ohio limited partnership 

organized to allow foreign investors to utilize the EB-5 Visa program. 

2. Defendant Gary Chan is a citizen of the State of Florida, and a resident of 
 2

Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Gary Chan is an officer, partner and/or principal in BWF 

OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, Jardin, Archway, and Clearwater (collectively, the “Chan 

Entities”). Gary Chan was integral in the formation of BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, and other Chan 

Entities, and has actively managed, directed and controlled their activities such that they have no 

separate mind or will of their own. 

3. Defendant Terry Chan is a citizen of the State of Florida, and a resident of 

Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Terry Chan is an officer, partner and/or principal in the Chan 

Entities, and was key to their formation. Terry Chan was integral in the formation of BWF OPP, 

BWF MGMT, and other Chan Entities, and has actively managed, directed and controlled their 

activities such that they have no separate mind or will of their own. 

4. Defendant Jacquelyn Chan is a citizen of the State of Florida, and a resident of 

Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Jacquelyn Chan is an officer, partner and/or principal in, and 

was integral in the formation of, the Chan Entities. Jacquelyn Chan actively managed, directed 

and controlled the activities of all or some of the Chan Entities such that they have no separate 

mind or will of their own. 

5. Defendant BWF OPP is an Ohio limited partnership with its principal place of 

business located in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio. BWF OPP is controlled by its General 

Partner, BWF MGMT, and Terry Chan, Gary Chan and Jacquelyn Chan (collectively, the 

“Chans”), all of whom are officers and/or partners of BWF OPP and active in its management 

and control. 

6. BWF MGMT is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of 

business in Ohio. BWF MGMT is the General Partner of BWF OPP. BWF MGMT is managed 

by BWF LLC, but Archway is also a member of BWF MGMT. BWF MGMT is actively 
 3

controlled by the Chans. 

7. BWF LLC is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of 

business located in Ohio. BWF LLC was formed on November 5, 2015, and the Chans actively 

manage, control and direct its activities such that it has no separate mind, will, or existence of its 

own. Gary Chan incorporated BWF LLC. 

8. Defendant Jardin is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of 

business located in Ohio. The Chans are members, officers, and/or principals of Jardin, and they 

actively manage, control and direct its activities such that it has no separate mind, will or 

existence of its own. 

9. Archway is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of business 

located in Ohio. The Chans are members, officers, and/or principals of Archway, and they 

actively manage, control and direct its activities such that it has no separate mind, will or 

existence of its own. 

10. Clearwater is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business located in 

Ohio. Jacquelyn Chan is the sole owner of Clearwater. Clearwater is actively managed, 

controlled, and directed by the Chans such that it has no separate mind, will or existence of its 

own. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because 

this civil action involves claims arising under the laws of the United States. Specifically, a 

number of the Defendants have violated federal securities laws. 
 4

12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this Court because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, and because 

Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

13. This is an action that Plaintiffs assert against Defendants for, among other things, 

breach of contract, unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary 

duty, conversion, fraud, conspiracy, piercing the corporate veil, and punitive damages to remedy 

Defendants’ unlawful actions, which include gross mismanagement, embezzlement, and selfdealing of Plaintiffs’ investment proceeds in BWF OPP. 

14. The Chans have orchestrated a complex enterprise, run through the Chan Entities, 

to convert Plaintiffs’ funds. The Chans have utilized this enterprise to enrich themselves and 

inappropriately finance the operation of entities they control. This enterprise is ongoing and the 

Chans are still continuing to misappropriate the funds of investors, corporate entities, and/or 

businesses through the Chan Entities to carry on their fraudulent scheme. 

THE EB-5 PROGRAM 

15. Plaintiffs re-state paragraphs 1-14 as if fully rewritten. 

16. In 1990, Congress established the EB-5 Program in order to bring new investment 

capital into the United States and create new jobs for U.S. workers. 

17. Under the EB-5 Program, immigrants who invest their capital in job-creating 

business enterprises in the U.S. receive “conditional” permanent resident status in the U.S. for 

two years after their I-526 application is approved. If, after the two-year period, the immigrants 

satisfy the EB-5 Program conditions and other Program criteria, USCIS removes the conditions 
 5

and the immigrant investors become lawful permanent residents. In other words, the immigrant 

investors obtain their “Green Cards.” 

18. In essence, the EB-5 Program has three key components: (a) immigrant 

investment of capital; (b) in a new commercial enterprise; that (c) creates jobs. 

19. To avail oneself of the EB-5 Program, the immigrant investor must invest at least 

$1,000,000 of capital in new commercial enterprise that creates at least 10 jobs, unless the 

immigrant invests his or her capital in what is called a “targeted employment area.” In that case, 

the immigrant must invest $500,000. 

20. Defendants used the EB-5 Program to lure Plaintiffs into investing a combined 

$3,500,000 in BWF OPP, a purported redevelopment project in Ohio. As will be discussed more 

fully below, all or part of Plaintiffs’ combined $3,500,000 investment has been unlawfully 

converted by the Chans without Plaintiffs’ consent. 

BWF OPP’S STRUCTURE 

21. In or before 2013, all or some of the Chans began marketing BWF OPP to foreign 

investors eager to use the EB-5 visa process. 

22. In connection with the solicitation of prospective investors and Plaintiffs, all or 

some of the Chans, for themselves and for many of the Chan Entities, provided Plaintiffs with 

BWF OPP’s Business Plan (“Business Plan”). This Business Plan detailed the scope of BWF 

OPP, how it would operate, and how it would be managed. 

23. The Chans created, directed, and/or otherwise approved the content and 

statements contained in the Business Plan, and were integrally involved in the marketing, 

distribution, and publication of these materials to Plaintiffs. A true and accurate copy of the 

Business Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 
 6

24. The Business Plan outlined BWF OPP’s general structure, and explained that 

BWF MGMT would act as BWF OPP’s General Partner. Additionally, the Business Plan said 

that 12 foreign investors, such as Plaintiffs, would invest $500,000 each into BWF OPP, for a 

combined $6,000,000 investment. After this investment, each Plaintiff would be admitted as a 

limited partner of BWF OPP. 

25. In addition to this $6,000,000 foreign investment, the Business Plan said that 

BWF MGMT would contribute $3,000,000 to BWF OPP. BWF OPP was therefore supposed to 

be financed with a combined $9,000,000. 

26. In addition to these representations, the Business Plan informed potential 

investors that: 

• BWF OPP would seek to build ten Boardwalk Fresh Burgers and Fries, Inc. 

(“Boardwalk Fries”) restaurants in ten “target locations” in and around Cincinnati, 

Ohio and Dayton, Ohio; 

 

• Archway was retained to administer the EB-5 aspects of BWF OPP; 

• BWF LLC, the “managing member” of BWF MGMT, was founded in 1981 in 

Maryland, and operated Boardwalk Fries restaurants in eight states; 

• BWF LLC was supposed to manage the “start-up and stabilization” of each 

Boardwalk Fries restaurant; 

• Boardwalk Fries’ CEO, David DiFerdinando, was a part of BWF OPP’s 

Management Team, along with Terry and Jacquelyn Chan; 

• BWF OPP intended to return EB-5 investors’ capital “at the latter” of the threeyear anniversary of each investors’ I-526 approval, or once each investors’ I-829 

application was approved by USCIS; 

• Ten Boardwalk Fries restaurants would be constructed in a two-year time period, 

with five restaurants being constructed in the first year, and five in the second 

year; 

• The ten Boardwalk Fries restaurants would all be constructed by May 2016, and, 

 

• Investors would receive their I-829 approvals in 2016. 
 7

The involvement of both Boardwalk Fries and DiFerdinando was consistently highlighted in 

BWF OPP’s Business Plan to make it appear like they were integrally involved in the project. 

27. The Chans also provided interested investors, such as Plaintiffs, with BWF OPP’s 

“Agreement of Limited Partnership” (“Partnership Agreement”) that states a number of terms. A 

true and correct copy of the Partnership Agreement provided to Plaintiffs is attached hereto as 

Exhibit B. 

28. The Partnership Agreement explains that BWF OPP is controlled by BWF 

MGMT, its general partner. The Partnership Agreement also explained BWF OPP’s purpose: 

The purpose and business of [BWF OPP] shall be to invest in 

and/or loan money to various entities in Targeted Employment 

Areas that are operating a business for the purposes of stimulating 

economic development and job creation through organizing and 

owning wholly owed [sic] subsidiaries to: (i) open and operate 10 

Boardwalk Fries restaurant franchises in Ohio and (ii) own and 

lease real estate to such franchises[.] 

This purpose was in accord with the terms of the BWF OPP’s Business Plan, which is attached 

as an exhibit to the Partnership Agreement.

29. The Partnership Agreement defines a “Targeted Employment Area” as an area 

that “has been designed by parties acceptable to the USCIS ... [and] that has experienced 

unemployment of at least 150% of the national average rate at the time a Limited Partner made 

his or her Capital Contribution.” 

30. The Partnership Agreement states that investors, such as Plaintiffs, will be 

admitted as a limited partner in BWF OPP if they decided to invest. 

31. However, because BWF OPP was designed to comply with EB-5 regulations as a 

vehicle for Plaintiffs to obtain U.S. resident status, Plaintiffs could not be admitted into BWF 

OPP if their I-526 petitions were ultimately not approved. 
 8

32. Importantly, no limited partner has “any right or power to take part in the 

management or control of the Partnership” under the Partnership Agreement. Instead, BWF 

MGMT controlled the Partnership as its general partner. 

33. BWF MGMT had a number of responsibilities under the Partnership Agreement. 

The “Management” section of the Partnership Agreement explains that BWF MGMT “shall have 

the sole and exclusive right and responsibility to manage the business of the Partnership.” 

34. BWF MGMT must care for BWF OPP’s funds, including Plaintiffs’ funds, 

pursuant to the Partnership Agreement. 

35. Further, the “Duties and Obligations of [the] General Partner” section of the 

Partnership Agreement states that BWF MGMT “shall cause the Partnership to conduct its 

business and operations separate and apart from that of the General Partner and its affiliates.” 

This includes BWF MGMT’s responsibility to “segregat[e] Partnership assets” and to “not 

allow[] funds or other assets of the Partnership to be commingled with the funds or other assets 

of, held by, or registered in the name of [BWF MGMT] or any of its affiliates.” 

36. This provision prohibits BWF MGMT from engaging in self-dealing and bars 

BWF MGMT from co-mingling BWF OPP’s assets with the assets of other affiliated companies. 

This section also explains that: 

The General Partner shall take all actions that may be necessary or 

appropriate (i) for the continuation of the Partnership’s valid 

existence as a limited partnership under the laws of the State of 

Ohio . . . to protect the limited liability of the Limited Partners or 

to enable the Partnership to conduct the business in which it is 

engaged and (ii) for the accomplishment of the Partnership’s 

purposes, including the acquisition, development, maintenance, 

preservation and operation of Partnership’s property in accordance 

with the provisions of [the Partnership Agreement] and applicable 

laws and regulations. 

 

BWF MGMT is accordingly required to take all actions necessary to ensure that BWF OPP 
 9

remains a valid entity and to accomplish BWF OPP’s purpose. 

37. BWF MGMT must also ensure that “[a]ll property in the form of cash not 

otherwise invested” is deposited “for the benefit of the Partnership” in accounts belonging to the 

Partnership or its affiliates, in short-term liquid securities, or left in escrow. 

38. The Partnership Agreement binds BWF MGMT to specific performance of the 

contract, and explains that every partner, including Plaintiffs, “would be irreparably damaged if 

any of the provisions of this [Partnership] Agreement are not performed in their specific terms.” 

39. Finally, the Partnership Agreement contains a Schedule of Partners (“Schedule”). 

This Schedule shows that BWF MGMT will make a $3,000,000 capital contribution to BWF 

OPP. 

40. This contribution was an essential and material representation to investors such as 

Plaintiffs, as it indicated that EB-5 investments would not be the only basis of funding for BWF 

OPP. Further, this contribution reduced Plaintiffs’ concerns that BWF MGMT may breach the 

contract or abscond with investor funds, as BWF MGMT would lose a substantial amount of 

funds if BWF OPP failed. 

41. This schedule also says that 12 total EB-5 investors will be investing in the 

project, and that their combined investments will total $6,000,000. 

42. Overall, the Partnership Agreement says that $9,000,000 would be invested in 

BWF OPP. 

43. The Partnership Agreement was signed by Gary Chan on behalf of Archway. It 

was also purportedly signed twice by DiFerdinando as the president of BWF LLC. 

44. Plaintiffs signed a “Counterpart Signature Page and Attestation” in 2014, making 

them BWF OPP investors and limited partners. 
 10

45. As Plaintiffs would later find out, the Business Plan and Partnership Agreement 

provided to them were false in significant and material ways. 

46. For example, DiFerdinando and Boardwalk Fries were not involved with BWF 

OPP, BWF MGMT, and BWF LLC to the extent represented in the Business Plan and 

Partnership Agreement. 

47. BWF LLC also did not exist at the time Plaintiffs invested in BWF OPP. Gary 

Chan did not organize this entity in Ohio until November 5, 2015. 

48. Further, DiFerdinando claims that his signatures on an operative BWF OPP 

document, BWF OPP’s Management Agreement, are not his. He therefore may not have signed 

the Partnership Agreement. 

49. The Partnership Agreements provided to and executed by Plaintiffs therefore 

contained numerous misrepresentations fraudulently designed to entice their investments. 

50. Plaintiffs were also provided with BWF OPP’s Subscription Agreement and 

Private Placement Memorandum (“PPM”) before they invested in BWF OPP. The PPM 

included many of the same misrepresentations contained in BWF OPP’s Business Plan and 

Partnership Agreement. Plaintiffs each had to sign BWF OPP’s Subscription Agreement to 

invest in BWF OPP. 

51. On February 26, 2014, plaintiff Chunhong Jia entered into a Subscription 

Agreement offering to purchase one Unit in BWF OPP for $500,000. A copy of Chunhong Jia’s 

signed Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

52. On May 29, 2014, plaintiff Naihan Li entered into a Subscription Agreement 

offering to purchase one Unit in BWF OPP for $500,000. A copy of Naihan Li’s signed 

Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 
 11

53. On May 22, 2014, plaintiff Nairuo Li entered into a Subscription Agreement 

offering to purchase one Unit in BWF OPP for $500,000. A copy of Nairuo Li’s signed 

Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 

54. On December 12, 2014, plaintiff Shulei Wang entered into a Subscription 

Agreement offering to purchase one Unit in BWF OPP for $500,000. A copy of Shulei Wang’s 

signed Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 

55. On May 22, 2015, plaintiff Lizhong Yao entered into a Subscription Agreement 

offering to purchase one Unit in BWF OPP for $500,000. A copy of Lizhong Yao’s signed 

Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 

56. On March 5, 2014, plaintiff Weiwei Zhang entered into a Subscription Agreement 

offering to purchase one Unit in BWF OPP for $500,000. A copy of Weiwei Zhang’s signed 

Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 

57. On January 27, 2014, plaintiff Chong Zhao entered into a Subscription Agreement 

offering to purchase one Unit in BWF OPP for $500,000. A copy of Chong Zhao’s signed 

Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 

58. This subscription agreement and PPM required Plaintiffs to direct their $500,000 

to an escrow account after they decided to invest in BWF OPP. Plaintiffs’ funds were then held 

in individual escrow accounts until their I-526 petitions were approved. 

59. Plaintiffs each directed $500,000 to individual escrow accounts maintained at 

U.S. Bank, National Association. 

60. Plaintiffs’ 1-526 petitions were approved in 2015. After this approval, the Chans 

caused 90% of Plaintiffs’ funds to be released from their respective escrow accounts. 10% of 

Plaintiffs’ funds were held back in their respective escrow accounts. 
 12

61. Plaintiffs’ funds that were released from escrow were then deposited into a bank 

account in BWF OPP’s name at General Electric Credit Union (“GE Credit”). 

THE CHANS CONTINUE LYING TO INVESTORS AND THIRD PARTIES, AND BWF 

OPP MOVES TO FLORIDA 

62. The Chans promised to update Plaintiffs on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis 

to provide them with information about their investments, and to inform them about progress 

being made in the construction and operation of Boardwalk Fries restaurants. 

63. However, the Chans repeatedly failed to provide these updates, and when they 

did, these updates were riddled with errors and misrepresentations. 

64. For example, on February 23, 2016, Gary Chan provided an update to Lili Wang, 

a consultant Plaintiffs retained to assist them in the EB-5 process. A true and correct copy of 

this update is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 

65. This update informed investors that, in the last quarter of 2015, BWF OPP had 

purportedly: (1) identified sites for restaurant development and were in a leasing/preconstruction stage on those sites; (2) retained ML Barnard, Inc. (“ML Barnard”) to construct 

Boardwalk Fries restaurants, and (3) had selected local and national vendors. 

66. The Chans also represented to investors that they had been “in constant contact 

with Boardwalk Fries Corporate,” and that the projected opening date for Boardwalk Fries 

restaurants located in three parts of Cincinnati “will be in Q2 of 2016.” The Chans also 

represented that they planned on opening six Boardwalk Fries restaurants in 2016. 

67. This update additionally told investors that their capital had been used to place 

deposits with contractors and vendors to facilitate the construction of Boardwalk Fries 

restaurants. 

68. Included with this update was a letter that appeared to have been drafted and 
 13

prepared by an employee of ML Barnard. This letter, dated October 16, 2015, said, “[p]lease 

note that we are in receipt of a deposit in the amount of $500,000, which we have required to 

secure priority placement of construction services for multiple upcoming Boardwalk Fries 

restaurants.” 

69. This letter was not written by ML Barnard. It was instead drafted by one or all of 

the Chans. 

70. ML Barnard was never retained by the Chans to perform construction work for 

Boardwalk Fries restaurants. ML Barnard was instead retained by the Chans to construct 

Rodizio Grill restaurants. 

71. These Rodizio Grill restaurants belonged to RG Opportunities I, L.P., and RG 

MGMT, LLC, entities controlled by the Chans. 

72. In or before October 2015, ML Barnard had billed the Chans $600,000 for 

construction work related to Rodizio Grill restaurants. The Chans initially tried to pay ML 

Barnard via a check paid by Clearwater. This check bounced. The Chans then prepared a 

$500,000 check to ML Bernard to be paid from BWF OPP’s GE Credit bank account. 

73. The Chans’ intentional mischaracterization of the $500,000 payment in the update 

was designed to not only hide the fact that the Chans had misappropriated BWF OPP’s funds, 

but to also mislead Plaintiffs into believing that BWF OPP was actively working to open and 

operate Boardwalk Fries restaurants. 

74. Despite the “progress” being made in developing Boardwalk Fries restaurants in 

Ohio, the Chans decided to abandon the Ohio focus of this project later in 2016. The Chans did 

not want to develop restaurants in Ohio because they wanted to move to Orlando, Florida. 

75. Later in 2016, the Chans sent Plaintiffs a second quarter construction update for 
 14

BWF OPP. This update informed Plaintiffs that BWF OPP planned to open Boardwalk Fries 

restaurants in Bradenton, Florida; Buena Vista, Florida; Tampa, Florida; Middletown, New 

York; Poughkeepsie, New York; and, Holyoke, Massachusetts. A true and correct copy of the 

Boardwalk Fries Q2 2016 Construction Update is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 

76. This representation, and these materials, were false. The Chans have only signed 

two franchise agreements with Boardwalk Fries to develop restaurants, and only one of these 

franchises is located in one of the six locations detailed in the construction update. These 

agreements call for the development of Boardwalk Fries restaurants on 451 E. Altamonte Drive 

in Altamonte Springs, Florida, and in the Vista Center Shoppes in Buena Vista, Florida. 

77. The Chans have, unfortunately, defrauded the landlords at both of these locations. 

The Chans lied to these landlords to obtain tenant allowances to update these properties. 

78. For example, Terry Chan secured a $100,000 tenant improvement allowance at 

the Vista Centers location through fraud. To secure this allowance, Gary Chan sent the landlord 

a letter purportedly written by DCH Custom Builder, Inc. 

79. This letter, like the ML Barnard letter discussed above, was fake. Dave Hewitt, 

the owner of DCH Custom Builder, says his company did not write it. 

80. A Boardwalk Fries restaurant will not be built at this location. The landlord of 

this location moved to evict the Chans and Clearwater from this property, and a were put in 

possession of the property on January 25, 2018. The landlord moved for default because, among 

other things, the Chans did not pay rent and failed to demonstrate that they had used the 

allowance in appropriate ways. 

81. Terry Chan also negotiated for a $900,000 tenant allowance at the Altamonte 

Springs location. The landlord has distributed $300,000 to the Chans pursuant to this allowance, 
 15

and this distribution was contingent on demolition work being performed at the property. The 

Chans, however, have not performed this work. 

82. Further, it appears that no Boardwalk Fries restaurant will be built at this 

Altamonte Springs location because the landlord has not allowed for the development of this 

restaurant. The landlord has only allowed a Rodizio Grill to be built at this location. 

83. The Chans have failed to develop a single Boardwalk Fries restaurant in the 

approximately four years since Plaintiffs invested in BWF OPP. That Chans’ failure to develop 

a single restaurant is startling given that they received $3,500,000 from Plaintiffs. 

THE CHANS HAVE MISAPPROPRIATED PLAINTIFFS’ FUNDS 

84. On top of the Chans deceit and outright forgery, the Chans have misappropriated 

all or some of Plaintiffs’ funds. 

85. As is discussed above, the Chans paid ML Barnard $500,000 of BWF OPP’s 

funds to pay for the construction of Rodizio Grill restaurants. BWF MGMT has not made a 

$3,000,000 contribution to BWF OPP, so this $500,000 was paid using Plaintiffs’ funds. 

86. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, BWF OPP only possesses less than 

$1,900,000 of the $3,500,000 that Plaintiffs invested. As of June 2017, BWF OPP’s General 

Electric Credit Union bank account only held approximately $1,500,000 of Plaintiffs’ funds. 

Further, escrow accounts at U.S. Bank only hold about $350,000 of Plaintiffs’ funds. The Chans 

have therefore spent at least $1,600,000 of Plaintiffs’ funds for purposes unrelated to the 

construction of Boardwalk Fries restaurants. 

87. Plaintiffs can only account for the $500,000 that was sent to ML Barnard. 

Plaintiffs cannot account for the remaining assets spent by the Chans. 

88. Bank records, however, demonstrate that the Chans have comingled BWF OPP’s 
 16

funds with assets belonging to other Chan Entities. 

89. For example, these records show that the Chans caused BWF OPP’s funds to be 

deposited into a BWF OPP account at First Financial Bank. From there, these funds were routed 

to and through accounts belonging to BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, Jardin, Clearwater, and other 

entities owned and controlled by the Chans. 

90. Plaintiffs’ funds were routed to and through these accounts to conceal their 

source, nature, and identity. After these funds were laundered through these accounts, they were 

paid directly to the Chans, were used to pay Rodizio Grill employees, and were used to finance 

the operation of Rodizio Grill restaurants. 

91. The Chans have laundered and converted, at the very least, hundreds of thousands 

of dollars of Plaintiffs’ funds through bank accounts belonging to the Chan Entities. 

92. At this point, Plaintiffs have collectively lost at least $1,600,000 in this project, 

and no Boardwalk Fries restaurant have been constructed. Plaintiffs also do not know the status 

of the project, or how much of their funds remain, because the Chans have refused to update 

them about BWF OPP. The Defendants have placed Plaintiffs in a disastrous position as a result 

of the numerous acts of malfeasance discussed above. 

Count I – Federal Securities Law Violations 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

93. Plaintiffs restate paragraphs 1 through 92 above as if fully rewritten. 

94. Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

and Archway (collectively, the “Management Defendants”) violated federal securities laws in 

connection with the actions discussed herein. 
 17

95. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), as well as Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, prohibits any 

person from making any untrue statement of material fact, or from omitting certain material 

facts, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. 

96. The Management Defendants were all involved in the creation of materials 

provided to Plaintiffs before they invested in BWF OPP, including BWF OPP’s Business Plan 

and Partnership Agreement. These materials were sent to Plaintiffs using means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails. 

97. These materials each contained a number of misrepresentations about BWF OPP 

that were designed to entice Plaintiffs’ investment. 

98. For example, the Management Defendants misrepresented that BWF LLC was 

Boardwalk Fries, and that BWF LLC existed in 2013 or 2014, the time Plaintiffs were 

considering an investment in BWF OPP. BWF LLC, however, is not Boardwalk Fries, and was 

not created until 2015. 

99. The Management Defendants also misrepresented that Boardwalk Fries and 

DiFerdinando would be extensively involved in the operation of BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, and 

BWF LLC. However, neither DiFerdinando nor Boardwalk Fries agreed to extensively 

participate in the management or operation of these entities. 

100. DiFerdinando claims that his signatures on an operative BWF OPP document are 

not actually his. This shows that the Management Defendants may have forged this signature on 

documents, or were aware that his signatures were forged. 

101. The Management Defendants also represented to Plaintiffs that BWF MGMT 

would invest $3,000,000 into BWF OPP. BWF MGMT, however, has not invested these funds. 

Defendants, by virtue of the fact that they control BWF MGMT, knew that BWF MGMT would 
 18

not invest these funds at the time the Management Defendants solicited Plaintiffs’ investments. 

102. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on these false statements and/or omissions when 

deciding to invest in BWF OPP. These were material representations about the viability, 

structure, and financing of BWF OPP, and about the risk of loss Plaintiffs faced in this 

investment. 

103. Plaintiffs are a purchaser of securities and the Management Defendants are sellers 

of securities. The Management Defendants not only held title of the security before it passed to 

Plaintiffs, but they also played a substantial role in persuading Plaintiffs to buy the securities. 

104. The Management Defendants’ misrepresentations proximately caused Plaintiffs’ 

injuries and loss because Plaintiffs would not have invested in BWF OPP but for these 

misrepresentations. 

105. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ conduct, 

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, 

and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count II – Fraud 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

106. Plaintiffs restate paragraphs 1 through 92 above as if fully rewritten. 

107. The Management Defendants provided Plaintiffs, or caused Plaintiffs to be 

provided, with a Business Plan and Partnership Agreement that contained a number of material 

misrepresentations or omissions about BWF OPP. 

108. For example, these materials misrepresented the number of EB-5 investors who 

would invest in BWF OPP, the amount of BWF OPP’s capital, the amount BWF MGMT would 
 19

contribute to BWF OPP, that DiFerdinando and Boardwalk Fries were extensively involved in 

the management of BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, and BWF LLC, and that BWF LLC existed at the 

time Plaintiffs executed the Partnership Agreement. 

109. The Management Defendants also made a number of false statements or 

omissions to Plaintiffs after they decided to invest in BWF OPP. All or some of these 

Management Defendants, for example, told Plaintiffs that they were actively developing 

Boardwalk Fries restaurants in Ohio and that they had deposited $500,000 with ML Barnard to 

facilitate the construction of Boardwalk Fries restaurants. 

110. Each of these false statements was made with knowledge, or with such disregard 

and recklessness as to whether they were true or false that knowledge may be inferred. 

111. These statements were made with the intent of misleading Plaintiffs to rely on 

these statements. 

112. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on these false statements and/or omissions when 

deciding to invest in BWF OPP, and when deciding to remain invested in BWF OPP. These 

were material representations about the size, scope, and financing of BWF OPP, and about the 

risk of loss Plaintiffs faced in this investment. 

113. The Management Defendants’ misrepresentations proximately caused Plaintiffs’ 

injuries and loss because Plaintiffs would not have invested in BWF OPP, and would not have 

remained invested in BWF OPP, but for these misrepresentations. 

114. These material misrepresentations also cut to the very core of BWF OPP’s 

feasibility as stated in the Partnership Agreement and Business Plan. 

115. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiffs 

have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and 
 20

costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count III – Breach of Contract 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

116. Plaintiffs restate paragraphs 1 through 92 above as if fully rewritten. 

117. BWF MGMT, which is and was controlled by BWF LLC, Archway, and the 

remaining Management Defendants during all relevant times, entered into the Partnership 

Agreement with Plaintiffs. 

118. BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, and Archway were each controlled by the Chans such 

that they had no independent mind or will or its own. Instead, they acted as instruments of the 

Chans. 

119. The Partnership Agreement explicitly states that the purpose of BWF OPP is to 

open and operate ten Boardwalk Fries restaurants in Ohio. 

120. The Partnership Agreement further notes, in a section titled “Duties and 

Obligations of General Partner,” that BWF MGMT “shall cause the Partnership to conduct its 

business and operations separate and apart from that of the [BWF MGMT] and affiliates.” 

Further, BWF MGMT had to “segregat[e] Partnership assets” under the Partnership Agreement, 

and had to ensure the “funds or other assets of the Partnership to be commingled with the funds 

or other assets of, held by, or registered in the name of [BWF OPP] or any of its affiliates.” 

121. BWF MGMT further had an obligation to care for Plaintiffs’ funds, and could 

only maintain partnership funds “not otherwise invested” in accounts belonging to the 

partnership or its affiliates, in short-term liquid securities, or in escrow accounts. 

122. As detailed in the foregoing paragraphs, the Management Defendants have failed 
 21

to conduct themselves in the best interests of the partnership. In doing so, the Management 

Defendants have breached the Partnership Agreement by, among other things: (1) failing to 

ensure the partnership conducted its business and operations separate and apart from BWF 

MGMT or its affiliates; (2) failing to segregate Plaintiffs’ funds from the funds of BWF MGMT 

or any of its affiliates; (3) engaging in self-dealing; (4) failing to care for Plaintiffs’ funds and 

allowing these funds to be converted; and, (5) failing to maintain Plaintiffs’ funds in accounts 

belonging to BWF OPP or its affiliates, in short-term liquid securities, or in escrow accounts. 

123. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ numerous 

breaches of contract, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus 

interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count IV – Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

124. Plaintiffs restate paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

125. The Management Defendants owe Plaintiffs a statutory, contractual, and common 

law duty of the utmost good faith and loyalty in the handling of the project and their investment 

funds. 

126. This fiduciary relationship is confirmed by the Partnership Agreement, which 

granted BWF MGMT “the sole and exclusive right and responsibility to manage the business” of 

BWF OPP. Limited partners, such as Plaintiffs, did not “have any right or power to take part in 

the management or control of the Partnership or its business and affairs or to act for or bind the 

Partnership in any way.” Plaintiffs therefore relied on the Management Defendants to act for 

their benefit and protect the partnership. 
 22

127. Given the fundamental nature of this partnership and specific references to 

immigration processes in the Partnership Agreement, the Management Defendants were under a 

duty to use their best efforts to run BWF OPP in a manner that would result in the creation of 

jobs and to secure Plaintiffs’ EB-5 visas. The Management Defendants have breached this duty 

to Plaintiffs by failing to open even a single restaurant and by embezzling Plaintiffs’ funds. 

128. The Management Defendants each owe or owed a fiduciary duty towards 

Plaintiffs. 

129. The Management Defendants breached this fiduciary duty by, among other things, 

converting Plaintiffs’ funds and failing to ensure that BWF OPP carried out the purposes defined 

in the Partnership Agreement. 

130. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ numerous 

breaches of their fiduciary duties toward Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in 

excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, punitive damages, and any other 

relief as provided by law. 

Count V – Gross Negligence 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

131. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

132. The Management Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to properly manage 

BWF OPP and Plaintiffs’ investment funds consistent with the Partnership Agreement, EB-5 

rules and regulations, and the representations made to Plaintiffs as described above. 

133. This standard of care of a general partner in an Ohio limited partnership is 

detailed in O.R.C. § 1782.241(A), which says that a general partner “shall perform the duties of a 
 23

general partner in good faith, in a manner the general partner reasonably believes to be in or not 

opposed to the best interests of the limited partnership, and with the care that an ordinarily 

prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.” 

134. The Management Defendants have violated their standard of care to Plaintiffs by, 

among other things: (1) engaging in self-dealing transactions; (2) failing to ensure the 

partnership conducted its business and operations separate and apart from BWF OPP or its 

affiliates; (3) failing to segregate Plaintiffs’ funds from the funds of BWF MGMT or any of its 

affiliates; (4) failing to invest funds according to the stated purposes and intent of the 

partnership; (5) failing to maintain Plaintiffs’ funds in accounts belonging to BWF OPP or its 

affiliates, in short-term liquid securities, or in escrow accounts; and, (6) failing to care for 

Plaintiffs’ funds. 

135. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ gross 

negligence, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, 

attorney’s fees, and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count VI - Conversion 

(All Defendants) 

136. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

137. Defendants have, without authorization, knowingly asserted dominion and control 

over Plaintiffs’ specific and identifiable property, the investment funds, that are owned and/or 

properly payable to Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conversion is inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ rights and 

ownership of said property. 

138. Defendants have transferred Plaintiffs’ funds directly to themselves for their own 

benefit, and have used Plaintiffs’ funds to benefit Chan Entities that are in no way related to 
 24

BWF OPP’s business purpose. 

139. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conversion of Plaintiffs’ funds, 

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, 

and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count VII – Breach of O.R.C. § 1782.242 and Rescission of the BWR Investment 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

140. Plaintiffs restate paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

141. Partners in a partnership are generally prohibited from engaging in self-dealing 

transactions without the approval of other partners. 

142. Under Ohio law, “[n]o contract, action, or transaction shall be void or voidable 

with respect to a limited partnership” because of self-dealing if one of three exceptions applies. 

O.R.C. § 1782.242. These exceptions apply when: (1) the material facts of the transaction are 

disclosed in writing to every partner before the partner is admitted in the partnership; (2) the 

material facts of the transaction are disclosed in writing to all partners, the transaction is fair to 

the limited partnership, and a majority of disinterested partners authorize the transaction; or, (3) 

the transaction is fair, and is authorized and approved by a majority of the disinterested limited 

partners. O.R.C. § 1782.242(A)-(C). 

143. As is detailed above, the Management Defendants have engaged in a pattern of 

self-dealing to the detriment of Plaintiffs. The Management Defendants have directed all of 

Plaintiffs’ investments to entities controlled by the Chans for the exclusive benefit of the Chans. 

144. These acts of self-dealing are prohibited because: (1) these transactions were not 

disclosed to Plaintiffs before they joined the partnership; (2) the material facts of the transactions 
 25

were never disclosed in writing to all partners, nor approved by a disinterested general partner; 

and, (3) these transactions were never approved by a majority of disinterested limited partners. 

145. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ pattern of selfdealing, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, 

attorney’s fees, and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. Plaintiffs 

also sees to rescind the investment that BWF OPP made in any entities affiliated with the 

Management Defendants. 

Count VIII – Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit 

(All Defendants) 

146. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

147. Plaintiffs conferred a substantial benefit on Defendants by investing $3,500,000 in 

BWF OPP. 

148. Defendants have misappropriated and wasted Plaintiffs’ investment funds as 

alleged above. 

149. Under the circumstances, it would be unjust to Plaintiffs to allow Defendants to 

retain the benefits conferred upon them by Plaintiffs. 

150. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants’ conduct in excess of $3,500,000, 

plus interest, attorney’s fees, costs, punitive damages and other relief as provided by law. 

Count IX – Violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

151. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

152. O.R.C. § 4165.02(A) provides that a person engages in a deceptive trade practice 
 26

when, in the course of a person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person engages in certain 

conduct. Prohibited conduct under the statute occurs when a person, “[c]auses likelihood of 

confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods 

or services,” “[c]auses likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the affiliation, 

connection, or association with, or certification by, another,” “[u]ses deceptive representations or 

designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services,” or “represents that 

goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, [or] benefits ... 

that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or 

connection that the person does not have.” 

153. Each Management Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of O.R.C. § 

4165.01(D). 

154. Each Management Defendant engaged in trade and/or commerce. 

155. As is stated above, the Management Defendants made false or misleading 

statements of fact and omissions of fact that caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the 

source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services. Defendants also made false 

or misleading statements of fact and omissions of fact concerning BWF OPP's affiliations, 

connections, and associations with certain entities. 

156. For example, Defendants stated that DiFerdinando and Boardwalk Fries were 

extensively involved in the management and operations of BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, and BWF 

LLC. All or one of the Chans may have forged DiFerdinando’s signature on the Partnership 

Agreement to make it appear like BWF OPP had the sponsorship, approval, and affiliation of 

DiFerdinando and Boardwalk Fries. These representations were not true. 

157. The Management Defendants’ statements and/or omissions materially impacted 
 27

Plaintiffs’ decision to invest with BWF OPP. But for these statements and/or omissions, 

Plaintiffs would not have purchased any interest in BWF OPP. 

158. The Management Defendants’ unfair acts or practices were likely to, and did in 

fact, deceive reasonable customers about the true quality, characteristics, and benefits of BWF 

OPP. 

159. Even after Plaintiffs invested with BWF OPP, the Management Defendants 

continued to lie about, or failed to update Plaintiffs about, among other things, the status of 

DiFerdinando and Boardwalk Fries’ involvement in BWF OPP, the construction of Boardwalk 

Fries restaurants, and the operation of BWF OPP. 

160. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ conduct, 

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, 

and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count X – Violation of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

161. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

162. The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”), O.R.C. § 1345.01, et seq., 

prohibits suppliers from committing unfair and deceptive acts or practices in connection with a 

consumer transaction. The CSPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices whether they 

occur before, during, or after the transaction. 

163. Among other things, unfair or deceptive acts prohibited under the CSPA include 

stating that “the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance 

characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have,” and that “the supplier has a 
 28

sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that the supplier does not have.” O.R.C. § 1345.02(B)(1), 

(9). 

164. The Management Defendants are each a “supplier” as that term is defined in the 

CSPA. O.R.C. § 1345.01(C). 

165. Plaintiffs are each a “consumer” as that term is defined in the CSPA. O.R.C. § 

1345.01(D). 

166. Plaintiffs purchased the interest in BWF OPP for personal, family, or household 

purposes. 

167. The Management Defendants’ conduct as detailed herein violated the CSPA 

because, among other things, the Management Defendants represented that BWF OPP has the 

sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, or uses that BWF OPP did not have, and 

Defendants represented that they had a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that they did not 

have. 

168. As is detailed above, the Management Defendants made false or misleading 

representations and statements of fact concerning BWF OPP, and these various representations 

and statements, combined with the selective and intentional silence of the Management 

Defendants at certain times, damaged Plaintiffs. 

169. The Management Defendants’ unfair conduct and failure to disclose information 

as described above materially influenced Plaintiffs’ decision to purchase an interest in BWF OPP 

and to stay in BWF OPP. But for the Management Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts and 

practices, Plaintiffs would not have invested with BWF OPP or remained in BWF OPP. 

170. The Management Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts or practices were likely 

to and did in fact deceive reasonable customers, including Plaintiffs, about the true nature, 
 29

quality, characteristics, affiliation, sponsorship, and benefits of BWF OPP. 

171. The Management Defendants’ conduct were, and are, unfair and deceptive acts 

and/or practices in violation of the CSPA. 

172. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ conduct, 

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, 

and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count XI – Ohio Securities Law Violations 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

173. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

174. Ohio law has many requirements that govern the sale of securities. See O.R.C. 

1707.01, et seq.

175. Among other things, Ohio law requires that “the sale of securities representing an 

interest in a partnership ... [or] limited partnership” may be carried out only upon compliance 

with certain registration requirements. O.R.C. § 1707.06(3). 

176. Upon information and belief, the Management Defendants did not ensure that the 

sale of BWF OPP limited partner interests were properly registered with Ohio Division of 

Securities. See O.R.C. § 1707.08. 

177. As is discussed herein, Plaintiff also received a Business Plan and Partnership 

Agreement from the Management Defendants touting the structure, organization, and purpose of 

BWF OPP. As is also discussed herein, many of the statements contained in these materials are 

false, as BWF OPP does not remotely resemble what was discussed in these materials. 

178. Under O.R.C. § 1707.41(A), the Management Defendants are liable for the “loss 
 30

or damage” sustained by Plaintiffs, who relied on these materials, the false material statements 

contained therein, and the Management Defendants’ omissions of materials facts, to invest in 

BWF OPP. 

179. Further, under O.R.C. § 1707.43(A), “every sale or contract for sale made in 

violation of Chapter 1707 of the Revised Code is voidable at the election of the purchaser.” 

Each person that participated in or aided the seller of these securities is jointly and severally 

liable to Plaintiffs “for the full amount paid by [Plaintiffs] and for all taxable court costs.” 

180. As a direct and proximate result of the Management Defendants’ conduct, 

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s 

fees, and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

Count XII – Accounting 

(Terry Chan, Gary Chan, Jacquelyn Chan, BWF OPP, BWF MGMT, BWF LLC, 

Archway) 

181. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

182. The Management Defendants had a fiduciary duty to care for Plaintiffs’ funds and 

to use BWF OPP’s funds for appropriate purposes. 

183. The Management Defendants failed to properly care for Plaintiffs’ funds, and 

have used these funds to, among other things, enrich themselves and finance the operation of 

unaffiliated businesses. 

184. Plaintiffs request a judgment ordering the Management Defendants to provide a 

detailed and comprehensive accounting for BWF OPP to this Court and to the Plaintiffs for the 

period commencing January 1, 2014 to today. 
 31

Count XIII – Conspiracy 

(All Defendants) 

185. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 92 of the Complaint as if fully rewritten. 

186. Defendants, individually and on behalf of the entities they control, entered into a 

malicious combination to injure Plaintiffs by fraudulently misrepresenting material facts to 

Plaintiffs. These misrepresentations were made to obtain Plaintiffs’ investment and convert it for 

Defendants’ own personal gain rather than for the purpose of securing Plaintiffs’ EB-5 visas and 

fulfilling the purposes of BWF OPP. 

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ civil conspiracy, Plaintiffs have been 

damaged in an amount in excess of $3,500,000, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, punitive 

damages, and any other relief as provided by law. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment against the Defendants for the following relief: 

a. Compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount in excess of 

$3,500,000, the exact amount to be proven at trial, and statutory damages; 

b. An accounting of BWF OPP’s assets from January 1, 2014 to today; 

c. Forfeiture of any fees paid to Defendants; 

d. Punitive damages, the exact amount to be determined at trial; and, 

e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. 

 
 32

DMS/10814902v.1 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Christopher D. Cathey 

 Christopher D. Cathey (0071231) 

 Justin J. Joyce (0090683) 

PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 

250 E. Fifth Street, Suite 2200 

Cincinnati, OH 45202-5118 

Telephone: (513) 369-4214 

Facsimile: (513) 421-0991 

Email: ccathey@porterwright.com

Email: jjoyce@porterwright.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

JURY DEMAND 

 Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Christopher D. Cathey 

 Christopher D. Cathey (0071231) 

 Justin J. Joyce (0090683) 

PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 

250 E. Fifth Street, Suite 2200 

Cincinnati, OH 45202-5118 

Telephone: (513) 369-4214 

Facsimile: (513) 421-0991 

Email: ccathey@porterwright.com

Email: jjoyce@porterwright.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs