Josip Heit, a key figure in GSB Gold Standard Bank LTD and Apertum Foundation, faces continued legal action from the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) in two separate fraud proceedings. The state regulator has outlined allegations of unregistered securities offerings and deceptive practices by entities tied to Heit. Both cases have seen multiple hearing postponements and procedural filings.

The GSB case, involving GSB Gold Standard Bank LTD, operating under names like GS Smart Finance and GSPartners, along with several affiliated corporate entities and Heit himself, has had its hearing dates shifted. Initially, on April 1, a hearing was set for August 11 through August 14. GSB sought a second continuance on May 7, citing an "unavoidable scheduling conflict" and "now-overlapping deadlines relating to the Apertum Matter." The TSSB granted this request on May 16, moving the GSB hearing to October 20 through October 24.

Separately, the Apertum Foundation case, which names Heit, Dirc Zahlmann, Bruce Innes Wylde Hughes, and Dennis Christopher Loos as respondents, has experienced a more complex series of motions and schedule changes. The court granted a GSB motion for continuance on April 14, setting the Apertum fraud case hearing for June 2 to June 4. However, this date would not hold.

On April 23, GSB filed a Motion for Special Exception, challenging what it called deficiencies in the TSSB's emergency cease and desist order against Apertum Foundation. The TSSB filed its response on April 30, asking the court to deny the motion or schedule a hearing on the matter. Apertum Foundation then requested a prehearing conference, first on May 3 for a meeting between May 27 and 29.

Apertum intensified its defense on May 5, filing a Motion for Summary Disposition. This motion sought to dismiss the entire case, arguing the TSSB "lacks jurisdiction" and "has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted." The foundation later requested another prehearing conference on May 16, this time specifically for May 19 or 20, to discuss the TSSB's stated intention to introduce approximately 1500 exhibits.

On May 20, the TSSB filed its own motion to continue the June 2 hearing, explaining it needed more time for the proceeding. Apertum objected to this, claiming the TSSB lacked "legal authority" for the continuance. That same day, the TSSB filed its response to Apertum's Motion for Summary Disposition, asserting that Texas law imposed "no affirmative duty to produce evidence prior to the hearing on the merits." The TSSB's request for a hearing continuance was granted on May 28. The court cited earlier requests from Apertum and Josip Heit to schedule a hearing between October 27-31 or November 3-7. The court ultimately set the Apertum hearing for November 3 through November 7.