In response to
clawback litigation being filed against them
, several of Zeek’s top net-winner investors
filed counter-claims against the Receiver
.

In total around a million dollars was requested, mostly by way of unpaid Ponzi ROI earnings. This was done via claiming that Zeek Rewards had contracts with the net-winners, and that unpaid ROI earnings should be paid out. Funds seized from Zeek’s payment processors were also requested.

And as ridiculously trollish as it all sounds, I kid you not that’s what was filed.

Not surprisingly, an order issued on the 14th of January has seen every one of these counter-claims rejected.

First up we have Trudy Gilmond, Jerry Napier and Darren Miller’s “breach of contract” counter-claim.

(Gilmond, Napier and Miller’s) breach of contract claims allege that they had enforceable contracts with RVG pursuant to which they performed services for RVG.

They claim that RVG owed them money when the Receiver was appointed, and that the Receiver is liable for RVG’s failure to pay them under the purported contracts.

By “performed services”, Gilmond, Napier and Miller of course mean nothing more than “we invested money in Zeek”.

(Gilmond, Napier and Miller’s) breach of contract claims fall squarely within the definition of a Claim pursuant to the Claims Order.

The Claims Order set a Bar Date of September 5, 2013, after which the holders of any

None of the Defendants filed a Claim with the Receiver requesting any money owed under any alleged contract with RVG.

Any breach of contract claim is therefore barred.

The reason no claims were filed of course was that at that stage, clawback litigation hadn’t been filed and the top investors still thought they had a shot at keeping the millions the collectively stole.

Moreover, some or all of these claims concern funds that the Court has already determined are Receivership Property, not the property of any Defendant.

Denied!

The second batch of counter-claims were filed by Aaron and Shara Andrews, Durant Brockett and Rhonda Gates.

All allege: “The Receiver, acting as RVG, and by confiscating the funds in [Defendants’] RVG NxPay account, has failed and refused to pay [Defendants] for the services that [Defendants] performed.”

Whereas the first counter-claims pertain to funds not paid, in this second batch the net-winners are demanding they be paid funds seized from their NxPay accounts.

The problem?

In the SEC Action this Court ruled that “NxPay® properly froze the accounts and the funds determined to be RVG funds must be returned to the Receiver pursuant to the Agreed Order.

Gotta love troll lawsuits based on emotion instead of facts…

Instead of intimidating the Receiver, which was obviously the intention behind the counter-claims, this happened:

Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Innovation Marketing, Brockett, and Gates all assert identical counterclaims for tortious interference (with contract).

Defendants allege that they each had a contract with NxPay, and that

🤖 Quick Answer

What were the counter-claims filed by Zeek Rewards' top net-winner investors?
Several top net-winner investors filed counter-claims against the Receiver, requesting approximately one million dollars. Their claims primarily sought unpaid Ponzi ROI earnings and funds seized from payment processors, arguing that Zeek Rewards had contracts guaranteeing these payments to net-winners.

What was the outcome of these counter-claims?
On January 14th, a court order dismissed all counter-claims filed by the net-winner investors. This included breach of contract claims from investors such as Trudy Gilmond, Jerry Napier, and Darren Miller, among others involved in the litigation.

🔗 Related Articles

- Zeek’s top Ponzi pimps “delaying” victim payouts
- Zeek Ponzi pimp clawback motions to dismiss denied
- Zeek Receiver files for summary judgement against net-winners
- Zeek Rewards top Ponzi winners named & shamed
- Final judgement granted against all Zeek top net-winners