McQueen v. Camp et al

On September 29, 2025, lead plaintiff James McQueen filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Richard Camp, Sarah Camp, and their investment advisory firm Apex Capital Partners LLC. The complaint alleges that the defendants orchestrated a multi-year Ponzi scheme targeting retail investors through false promises of high-yield returns in a fictitious algorithmic trading platform. The scheme purportedly defrauded over 2,000 investors of approximately $450 million. The SEC simultaneously filed parallel civil enforcement proceedings, and the Department of Justice is conducting a criminal investigation into potential wire fraud and money laundering offenses.

The case is currently in active litigation as of mid-2026. The court has granted preliminary class certification and issued a temporary asset freeze order preserving approximately $120 million in identified assets. A preliminary settlement framework has been proposed involving the liquidation of Apex Capital Partners and the appointment of a special master to oversee restitution. Criminal proceedings remain under sealed grand jury review pending further investigation.

The central dispute revolves around whether the defendants knowingly misrepresented the nature and performance of the investment fund to induce investments, thereby violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Additional contested issues include the extent of the defendants' fiduciary duty breaches, the applicability of the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege claims invoked during discovery, and the proper method for calculating damages across multiple investor classes.

The McQueen case has intensified public scrutiny on private investment firms and fueled Congressional hearings on strengthening fiduciary duty standards under the Investment Advisers Act. It has prompted multiple state securities regulators to propose enhanced third-party auditing requirements for alternative investment vehicles. Investor advocacy groups have cited the case as a catalyst for new legislation requiring real-time blockchain-based asset verification to prevent future Ponzi schemes, while legal scholars debate its implications for white-collar sentencing guidelines and asset forfeiture procedures.