Filing # 21850642 Electronically Filed 12/22/2014...

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVELIGHT, INC. f/k/a ACTIVISION TV, INC., a Delaware corporation, DAVID GOTHARD, an individual, AD MEDIA DISPLAYS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, ACTIVISION DISPLAYS, INC., a Nevada corporation, LOCKE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., a Nevada corporation, CONNECT HDTV, INC., a Florida corporation, ADCO FINANCIAL CORP., a Nevada corporation, ACTIVELIGHT TV, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and DENICE HETKOWSKI, an individual, Defendants. _______________________________________/

Case No. __________________

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff, STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, brings this civil action under the Florida RICO

(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act, Chapter 895, Florida Statutes; the Florida

Securities and Investor Protection Act, Chapter 517, Florida Statutes; the Florida Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes; and the Florida Anti-Fencing

Act, Sections 812.012-812.037, Florida Statutes, against Defendants as set more fully below, and

alleges:

Complaint of 85

Filing # 21850642 Electronically Filed 12/22/2014 09:58:30 AM

I. INTRODUCTION

2. The Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering and other illegal activity in Florida

from at least 2003 until the present, stealing millions of dollars from people across the country.

The Defendants transferred patents between themselves, solicited investors based upon

numerous false representations about these patents, the companies, and the Defendants’ products

(which to date have produced no sales or revenues), then stole investors’ money, and repeated

their scheme. Defendants then created fraudulent documents in order to operate what is known

as a “patent assertion entity” operation, collecting millions in illegally-obtained monies from

third parties based upon false pretenses and fraudulent documents.

3. The Department brings this civil action to impose all available civil remedies against the

Defendants, subject to the rights of innocent persons, including Defendants’ victims.

II. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL

AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA (“DEPARTMENT”), is authorized to bring this action by

Section 895.05(5), Florida Statutes; Section 517.191, Florida Statutes; Section 501.207, Florida

Statutes; and Section 812.035(5), Florida Statutes.

5. Defendant DAVID GOTHARD is a natural person that has resided in Florida since at

least 2002. GOTHARD is sued individually because he was a direct participant in the improper

dealings alleged herein and committed unlawful acts. GOTHARD is also sued as the alter ego of

the business-entity Defendants (ACTIVELIGHT, INC., LOCKE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

AD MEDIA DISPLAYS, INC., CONNECT HDTV, INC., ACTIVISION DISPLAYS, INC.,

ADCO FINANCIAL CORP., and ACTIVELIGHT TV, LLC) (hereafter the “Alter Ego

Defendants”):

Complaint of 85

a. GOTHARD held himself out to be a director and officer of the Alter Ego

Defendants, and unilaterally controlled the formation, day-to-day operations, assets,

liabilities, and lifespan of the Alter Ego Defendants;

b. GOTHARD commingled the funds and assets of the Alter Ego Defendants, as well

as his personal funds. For example, GOTHARD solicited and received funds from

investors. These investors believed they were investing in companies that sold products

and had an intellectual property portfolio. GOTHARD would receive these monies,

deposit them in his personal account, and use them for his own purposes. None of these

investments were recorded on any corporate books or records;

c. The Alter Ego Defendants were used by GOTHARD to unlawfully solicit and usurp

investors’ funds;

d. Defendants CONNECT HDTV, INC. and ADCO FINANCIAL CORP., and

ACTIVELIGHT TV, LLC do not have any liquid assets;

e. Defendants AD MEDIA DISPLAYS, INC. and ACTIVISION DISPLAYS, INC. do

not have any assets because GOTHARD ultimately diverted the assets to Defendant

ACTIVELIGHT, INC. to defraud investors of AD MEDIA DISPLAYS, INC. and

ACTIVISION DISPLAYS, INC. of their equity investments, and to defraud creditors of

these companies, depriving creditors of their interest and/or principal;

f. ACTIVELIGHT, INC. is severely under-capitalized. It has faced multiple lawsuits

from employees and/or independent contractors, vendors, and its agents for unpaid bills.

The few assets of Defendant ACTIVELIGHT, INC. (the Patents as described more fully

below) are so severely encumbered by a 24% interest-rate loan (providing an income

Complaint of 85

stream that benefits GOTHARD and not investors), that the assets are essentially

worthless;

g. GOTHARD admitted in the course of the DEPARTMENT’s investigation that

Defendant LOCKE CONSULTING GROUP, INC. is his “doing business as” name;

h. GOTHARD transferred the few assets of the Alter Ego Defendants (the Patents as

described more fully below) among the Alter Ego Defendants he controlled to steal from

investors and hide his wrongdoing;

i. GOTHARD used the Alter Ego Defendants as a shell, instrumentality or conduit for

the concealment of personal business activities and for the business of another

corporation as set forth more fully below;

j. GOTHARD manipulated the assets and liabilities between the Alter Ego Defendants

so as to concentrate the assets in ACTIVELIGHT, INC. and the liabilities in AD MEDIA

DISPLAY, INC. and ACTIVISION DISPLAYS, INC;

k. GOTHARD used the Alter Ego Defendants as a subterfuge of illegal transactions, as

set for more fully herein;

l. GOTHARD used the Alter Ego Defendants to attract and deceive investors by

inflating the size of the operations, which has never produced any revenue;

m. The Alter Ego Defendants operating in Florida all used the same address for business

operations; and

n. The Alter Ego Defendants shared the same officers and directors.

6. Defendant HETKOWSKI is a natural person that has resided in Florida since at least

January, 2012. HETKOWSKI is sued individually because she was a direct participant in the

improper dealings alleged herein, and conspired with other principals to commit unlawful acts.

Complaint of 85

HETKOWSKI was a director and officer of the Alter Ego Defendants. She has continuously

been employed with one or more of the Alter Ego Defendants since at least January 1, 2003.

7. Defendant ACTIVELIGHT, INC. (f/k/a Activision TV, Inc.) (hereafter ACTIVISION

DELAWARE), a foreign corporation, was incorporated in Delaware on or about October 10,

2006. It was authorized to transact business in the State of Florida on or about September 7,

2007. Its headquarters and principal place of business is located at 5400 Yahl Street, Suite C

and/or D, Naples, Florida 34109. ACTIVISION DELAWARE is also vicariously liable for the

intentional actions of GOTHARD alleged in this Complaint because ACTIVISION

DELAWARE represented to investors that GOTHARD was its agent; investors relied on that

representation; and investors acted upon representations by ACTIVISION DELAWARE and

suffered detriment. ACTIVISION DELAWARE approved GOTHARD’s actions alleged in this

Complaint or ratified the actions of GOTHARD. ACTIVISION DELAWARE is also

vicariously liable for the intentional actions of GOTHARD alleged in this Complaint because

ACTIVISION DELAWARE acknowledged that GOTHARD would act for ACTIVISION

DELAWARE; GOTHARD accepted the undertaking of acting for ACTIVISION DELAWARE,

and ACTIVISION DELAWARE controlled or approved of GOTHARD’s actions.

8. Defendant AD MEDIA DISPLAYS, INC. (hereafter “AMD”), a foreign corporation, was

incorporated in Wyoming on or about July 6, 1999. AMD was registered to transact business in

Florida since on or about February 13, 2004. On or about January 11, 2008, AMD withdrew its

authority to transact business or conduct affairs in Florida. On or about August 1, 2013, AMD

filed another application to transact business in Florida, falsely stating that the date it first

transacted business in Florida was “none.” Its headquarters and principal place of business is

Complaint of 85

located at 5400 Yahl Street, Suite G, Naples, Florida 34109. ACTIVISION DELAWARE held

out AMD to be a subsidiary of ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

9. Defendant ACTIVISION DISPLAYS, INC. (f/n/a Activision TV, Inc.) (hereafter

“ACTIVISION NEVADA”), a foreign corporation, was incorporated in Nevada on or about

October 23, 2000. ACTIVISION NEVADA had facilities in Naples, Florida, and conducted its

marketing activities from Florida, but does not appear to have registered to transact business in

Florida. Its status as a Nevada corporation is “revoked.” Defendant ACTIVELIGHT, INC. held

out ACTIVISION NEVADA to be a subsidiary of ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

10. Defendant CONNECT HDTV, INC. (f/n/a Activision Systems, Inc. and f/n/a Activision

TV Inc.) (hereafter ACTIVISION FLORIDA), a domestic Florida corporation, was incorporated

on or about August 31, 2006. It was administratively dissolved on or about September 28, 2012

for failure to file its annual report. Its headquarters and principal place of business was located at

5400 Yahl Street, Suite C, Naples, Florida 34109. Defendant ACTIVISION DELAWARE held

out ACTIVISION FLORIDA as a subsidiary of ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

11. Defendant ACTIVELIGHT TV, LLC (hereafter ACTIVELIGHT TV), a foreign limited

liability company, was organized under Delaware law on or about November 16, 2007. It was

authorized to transact business in the State of Florida on or about April 11, 2011. Its authority to

transact business in Florida was administratively dissolved on or about September 27, 2013 for

failure to file its annual report. Its headquarters and principal place of business was located at

5400 Yahl Street, Suite C, Naples, Florida 34109, and 2089 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida

34109. Defendant ACTIVISION DELAWARE held out ACTIVELIGHT TV to be a subsidiary

of ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

Complaint of 85

12. Defendant ADCO FINANCIAL CORP (hereafter ADCO FINANCIAL), a foreign

corporation, was incorporated in Nevada on or about February 7, 2005. ACTIVISION

DELAWARE held out ADCO FINANCIAL to be a subsidiary of ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

Its status as a Nevada corporation is “revoked.”

13. Defendant LOCKE CONSULTING GROUP, INC. (hereafter “LCG”), a foreign

corporation, was incorporated in Nevada on or about December 22, 1998. It was registered to

transact business in Florida on or about December 5, 2002. Its registration to transact business in

Florida was revoked on or about September 16, 2005 for failure to file its annual report. It filed

another application to transact business in Florida on or about March 24, 2011, and falsely stated

that the first date it transacted business in Florida was March 1, 2011. It was reinstated to

transact business in Florida on or about March 24, 2011. Its headquarters and principal place of

business is located at 5400 Yahl Street, Suite C, Naples, Florida 34109. Its status as a Nevada

corporation is “revoked.” GOTHARD transacts business under LCG’s name, and LCG transacts

corporate business under GOTHARD’s name.

14. Unless otherwise noted in this Complaint, generic reference to “Defendants” in this

Complaint does not include reference to Defendant HETKOWSKI. Defendant HETKOWSKI is

being sued individually, but for a conspiracy to violate the Florida RICO Act, detailed below.

III. CO-CONSPIRATORS

15. The DEPARTMENT’s investigation is continuing. The Defendants are affiliated with

numerous business entities that may have participated in a pattern of racketeering conduct. The

DEPARTMENT conducted a pre-suit investigation after receiving tips from investors, but many

of the Defendants’ tactics are still unknown to the DEPARTMENT due to the large number of

documents that were not produced, are no longer available, or produced in a state of disarray.

Complaint of 85

Defendants’ conduct was also conducted over many U.S. states. The undersigned deposed

GOTHARD before filing suit pursuant to the DEPARTMENT’s pre-suit investigatory powers;

however, GOTHARD invoked his right against self-incrimination. The DEPARTMENT reserves

the right to name some or all of these persons as defendants at a later date.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Court has general jurisdiction pursuant to Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes, over

Defendant GOTHARD and HETKOWSKI because they reside in Florida.

17. This Court has general jurisdiction pursuant to Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes, over

Defendants AMD, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, ACTIVISION

FLORIDA, ACTIVELIGHT TV, ADCO FINANCIAL, and LCG because they are either

headquartered in Florida and/or operated all or a substantial portion of their business out of

Florida. Alternatively, this Court has specific jurisdiction pursuant to Section 48.193(1), Florida

Statutes, over Defendants GOTHARD, HETKOWSKI, AMD, ACTIVISION NEVADA,

ACTIVISION DELAWARE, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, ACTIVELIGHT TV, ADCO

FINANCIAL and LCG because they committed tortious acts within Florida, and caused injury to

persons in Florida, as set forth more fully in this Complaint.

18. Venue is proper as to all Defendants pursuant to Section 47.011, Florida Statutes, and

Section 47.021, Florida Statutes, because one or more of them reside or are headquartered in

Collier County, Florida, and because the cause of action accrued in Collier County as set forth

throughout this Complaint.

19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 895.05, Florida Statutes;

Section 812.035, Florida Statutes; Section 26.012, Florida Statutes; and Section 517.191, Florida

Statutes.

Complaint of 85

V. ACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

A. The AMD Scheme

1. GOTHARD Obtains Intellectual Property

20. Shortly before incorporating AMD, GOTHARD filed a utility patent application

(09/132,456) on August 11, 1998 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office entitled

“Remote Control Electronic Display System.” While this application was later abandoned, it is

the parent application for the following patents used by the Defendants to entice and defraud

investors:

a. U.S. Patent number 6,215,411, entitled “Remote Control Electronic Display System”

(patent application filed February 8, 2000; patent awarded April 10, 2001) (hereafter the

“’411 Patent”).

b. U.S. Patent number 6,384,736, entitled “Remote Control Electronic Display System”

(patent application filed April 21, 1999; patent awarded May 7, 2002) (hereafter the “’736

Patent”).

c. U.S. Patent number 7,369,058 entitled “Remote Control Electronic Display System”

(patent application filed June 21, 2004; patent awarded May 6, 2008) (hereafter the “’058

Patent”).

d. U.S. Patent number 8,330,613 entitled “Remote Control Electronic Display System”

(patent application filed May 6, 2008; patent awarded December 11, 2012) (hereafter the

“’613 Patent”).

21. The ’411 Patent, the ’736 Patent, the ’058 Patent, and the ’613 Patent are hereafter

referred to as the “Remote Control Electronic Display System Patents.”

22. The Remote Control Electronic Display System Patents relate to common, ubiquitous

business practices described by agents of the Defendants as “generally relate[d] to remote control Complaint

of 85

digital signage technology.” Defendants have used these patents to demand the payment of

monies from businesses across industries, from restaurants, theaters, banks, hotels, even a

motorcycle manufacturer. In one demand letter to a restaurant, agents of the Defendants

described the restaurant’s infringement of the Remote Control Electronic Display System Patents

as follows:

Activision has learned that [you] … are infringing one or more claims of the Activision Patents by using remotely controlled digital signage products and services that practice the patented solution (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). The Accused Instrumentalities include but are not limited to [your] digital display network digital signs. The Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least claim 1 of the '058 Patent by virtue of a combination of features. In particular, for example, the Accused Instrumentalities consist of multiple components which together comprise a display system covered generally by the Activision Patents and specifically, the '058 Patent. In particular, the Accused Instrumentalities consist of generally flat display panels with an outer housing. Further, the Accused Instrumentalities are operated and controlled by a computer running software which controls the content and scheduling of the images via Content Manager software. The computer also runs the Content Player software which displays the images on the Accused Instrumentalities display. Together, these components comprise the patented Remote Control Electronic Display System found in at least claim 1 of the '058 Patent. (emphasis added).

23. While the Remote Control Electronic Display System Patents are presumed to be valid

under federal patent law, and the validity of these patents is not in question in this proceeding,

there is evidence to suggest that GOTHARD based these patents on widely available products in

existence before GOTHARD applied for the patents (and as observed by GOTHARD at

technology trade shows), and that GOTHARD did not disclose relevant prior art to the patent

examiner when he prosecuted the ‘411, ‘736, and ‘058 Patents.

24. On or about November 10, 2003, GOTHARD filed a patent application relating to a high

resolution digital display system with recording capability. On or about June 20, 2006, the

Complaint of 85

United States Patent and Trademark Office granted the application, and issued U.S. Patent

number 7,064,672 entitled “High Resolution Digital Display System with Recording Capability”

(hereafter the “‘672 Patent”).

25. On or about February 2, 2011, GOTHARD filed a patent application relating to an

interactive media display. On or about May 6, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark

Office granted the application, and issued U.S. Patent number 8,717,316 entitled “Interactive

Media Display” (hereafter the “‘316 Patent”).

2. Defendants Begin “The AMD Scheme”

26. GOTHARD incorporated AMD on or about July 6, 1999. GOTHARD and AMD held

AMD out to be a corporation that was incorporated to further the research, development and

marketing of the flat panel plasma display technology developed and patented by GOTHARD,

and that could bring into production and market a “multiple ad” Digital Plasma Display and

Digital Plasma HDTV System. According to GOTHARD and AMD, AMD would manufacture

and market the displays, and arrange lease/rental agreements with supermarkets, drug stores, and

trade shows display companies in addition to pursuing licensing and royalties agreements using

the Remote Control Electronic Display System Patents. In reality, AMD has never had any

revenues or facilities capable of manufacturing these products on any profitable scale.

27. Shortly after incorporating AMD, on August 1, 1999, LCG purportedly entered into an

exclusive license agreement with AMD, whereby LCG “as the owner of certain patents and

know-how pertaining to remote control electronic display systems” would license to AMD on a

worldwide, exclusive basis the ability to produce and market certain licensed products and

components of such products.

Complaint of 85

28. Beginning at a time unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants,

but no later than September, 2003, AMD began to target investors. Many of these investors were

elderly and had little understanding of the technology involved, if any.

29. AMD referred to itself as “AMD” to investors. Upon information and belief, this

initialism was used by Defendants to confuse investors by conflating itself with a well-known

(and successful) technology company named Advanced Micro Devices, which is also commonly

referred to as “AMD” and trades under the New York Stock Exchange symbol “AMD.”

30. Beginning on or about September, 2003, AMD misrepresented to potential investors that

the company was soon preparing to become a publicly-traded company.

31. Beginning on or about September, 2003, AMD misrepresented the potential investment

returns of AMD, telling potential investors it was a six-month slam dunk.

32. Beginning on or about September, 2003, AMD misrepresented the safety of investing in

AMD, telling potential investors it was “no risk” and a “9 out of 10,” with “10” being the least

risky.

33. Beginning on or about September, 2003, AMD misrepresented the timing of investment

returns, telling potential investors they would receive their money back in 90 days.

34. In 2003, AMD and GOTHARD used GOTHARD’s past familial connections with

religious organizations to solicit investors, misrepresented to potential investors that AMD was

going to spread “the gospel.”

35. As a debtor, AMD and GOTHARD executed unsecured loans with investors in the form

of “convertible debentures,” but have not recorded many of these investments in its corporate

books, and have not kept track of investors’ identities or interest owed on their corporate books.

Under the terms of the debenture, the holder of the debenture (the creditor, many of whom were

Complaint of 85

individuals) could “electric [sic] to convert Debenture” by converting the debt into shares

through the issuance of “multiple trenches [sic]” of various principal amounts.

36. AMD and GOTHARD would unilaterally decide the form of investors’ investments. In

at least one instance, an investor transferred additional monies in 2004 to AMD under the same

terms as a previous investment (a convertible debenture). AMD and GOTHARD unilaterally

made the decision to send stock certificates to the investor, telling the investor that stock would

give the investor the “best of both worlds.”

37. Defendants commingled their debts. When investors of AMD would demand their

investments back, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, AMD, and GOTHARD would acknowledge the

debt, and referred to purchases of AMD stock as “deposits,” and falsely stated that investors

could get a “refund” if they sent a certified letter requesting same. ACTIVISION DELAWARE

and AMD would then ignore such requests.


but no later than September, 2003, AMD and GOTHARD solicited investors in AMD, but did

not reveal GOTHARD’s criminal past involving securities violations to investors of AMD.

39. Defendants created multiple private placement memoranda to distribute to investors.

These memoranda contained false statements, and were created by impunity by Defendants to

stimulate investors’ interest and to try to give the impression that the Defendants’ operations

were legitimate. Upon information and belief, the memoranda were created (detailing a bogus

“offering” of shares) whenever the Defendants felt they could lure a large investor. This

allegation is supported by the sheer number of memoranda that were created, detailed more fully

below.

Complaint of 85

40. Beginning at a time unknown to the DEPARTMENT, but no later than March 1, 2004,

GOTHARD and AMD created and subsequently distributed a document entitled “Private

Placement Memorandum” to potential investors, which purported to offer 500,000 shares of

preferred stock at $1.50 per unit (1 share), with a $10,000 minimum investment (hereafter “2004

Memorandum”).

41. A true and accurate copy of the 2004 Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 1 to this

Complaint.

42. The 2004 Memorandum was prepared for investors interested in purchasing shares of

AMD.

43. The 2004 Memorandum made the following representations to investors:

a. AMD was incorporated in July 1999 “to further the research, development and

marketing of the flat panel plasma display technology developed and patented by the

Company’s founder [GOTHARD].”

b. GOTHARD licensed his patents to AMD, including the ‘411 Patent and the ‘736

Patent. AMD had also “just received word from legal council [sic] that the third patent

has been allowed . . . .”

c. According to AMD’s “Descripiton [sic] of Business,” AMD’s principal product line

was the “Activision ™ Systems,” which are the advertising display system and Digital

HDTV. The Activision Systems “has been extensively tested in the Marketplace [sic] . . .

.” The “Activision Systems consist of two main computer-controlled, gas plasma, flat

panel display systems, that are patented, and contain proprietary software.” The

Activision Systems “have the ability to be connected by modem to the Company offices,

allowing remote control for the displays without involvement of client personnel.”

Complaint of 85

d. AMD’s Research and Development Department was bringing to market its new

Digital HDTV product in the fall of 2004.

e. AMD had a favorable long-term competitive outlook “due to the lack of intellectual

property held by competitors,” and AMD would extend patent licensing rights into

Europe, Japan and Canada. AMD’s licensing and royalty fees were “expected to be in

excess of 50% of the Company’s gross revenue in the next three to four years.”

f. AMD’s target market included large retailers such as supermarkets and chain stores,

drug stores, trade shows, and exhibit halls.

44. Beginning at a time unknown to the DEPARTMENT, but no later than March 1, 2005,

AMD created and subsequently distributed a similar document entitled “Private Placement

Memorandum” to potential investors, which purported to offer 500,000 shares of common stock

at $1.00 per unit (1 share), with a $5,000 minimum investment (hereafter “2005 Memorandum”).


Complaint.

46. The 2005 Memorandum was prepared for investors interested in purchasing shares of

AMD.

47. The 2005 Memorandum made the following representations to investors, many of which

were similar to the 2004 Memorandum:

a. AMD was incorporated in July 1999 “to further the research, development and

marketing of the flat panel plasma display technology developed and patented by the

Company’s founder [GOTHARD].”

Complaint of 85

b. GOTHARD licensed his patents to AMD, including the ‘411 Patent and the ‘736

Patent. AMD had also “just received word from legal council [sic] that the third patent

has been allowed . . . .”

c. According to AMD’s “Descripiton [sic] of Business,” AMD’s principal product line

was the “Activision ™ Systems,” which are the advertising display system and Digital

HDTV. The Activision Systems “has been extensively tested in the Marketplace [sic] . . .

.” AMD’s product line “consists of two main computer-controlled, gas Plasma/LCD flat

panel display systems that are patented, and contain proprietary software.” AMD’s

display systems “have the ability to be connected by modem to the Company offices,

allowing remote control for the displays without involvement of client personnel.”

d. AMD’s Research and Development Department was bringing to market its new

Digital HDTV product in the fall of 2005.

e. AMD had a favorable long-term competitive outlook “due to the lack of intellectual

property held by the competition.” AMD’s licensing and royalty fees were “expected to

be in excess of 50% of the Company’s gross revenue in the next three to five years.”

f. AMD’s target market included large retailers such as supermarkets and chain stores,

drug stores, trade shows, and exhibit halls.

48. The 2004 and 2005 Memoranda were replete with material misrepresentations:

a. The purported reason for incorporating AMD was also used by other Defendants,

including ACTIVISION NEVADA, as set forth more fully below.

b. The licensing arrangement between GOTHARD and AMD was subject to the whim

of GOTHARD, who repeatedly transferred the patents, and created licensing agreements,

Complaint of 85

with different entities to maximize investments for his personal benefit, but to the

detriment of investors.

c. AMD had no intention of sharing any licensing profits with its investors.

d. AMD’s “product line,” to the extent it existed, was not functional, and had not been

“extensively tested in the Marketplace [sic]” or elsewhere.

e. AMD did not have the capability to bring to market a Digital HDTV product in the

fall of 2004 (per the 2004 Memorandum), or the fall of 2005 (per the 2005

Memorandum).

f. AMD did not have the capability to extend patent licensing rights into Asia and

Europe, and AMD was not going to realize any such licensing and royalty fees.

49. To date, AMD has received no revenue from its patent licensing; has not licensed its

intellectual property to unrelated third parties; has not sold any products in the marketplace,

much less tested them in the marketplace; and has not received any revenue from any of its

products.

50. Defendants made false representations about AMD’s business relationships to investors,

falsely telling investors that AMD was working with Fujitsu on a new generation of flat panel

technology, that the new glass plasma displays would be brighter, last longer, and consume less

energy, and that it was having ongoing discussions with Fujitsu to incorporate the Companies

[sic] technology into their [sic] displays at the factory. In the (March) 2004 Memorandum,

AMD told investors that this technology first appeared in the summer of 2004 [sic]. In the 2005

Memorandum, AMD told investors that this technology first appeared in the “summer of2002

[sic].”

Complaint of 85

51. Beginning on a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants,

but no later than 2005, Defendants made false representations about interest by other companies

in acquiring AMD. When investors made inquiries about the status of their investments in

AMD, Defendants made false representations, including false statements that Cisco, Microsoft,

Intel and/or Dell Computer were interested in acquiring AMD.

52. Defendants misrepresented to investors the number of products AMD was producing and

its production capabilities, falsely stating to investors that it was producing 100 units a week at a

production plant in Ohio. When an investor visited the so-called “production plant” in 2006, he

found a nearly vacant airport hangar with two men working on a “prototype,” and was told that

production was not ready. In the course of the DEPARTMENT’s investigation, AMD denied

having any facility in Ohio.

53. Unbeknownst to investors of AMD, Defendants then transferred the ‘411 and ‘736

Patents on or about April 28, 2006, out of Defendant LCG (the purported licensor of the patents

to AMD) and into ACTIVISION NEVADA. Despite the alleged transfer of intellectual property

outside the exclusive license purportedly granted to AMD, Defendants continued to disburse

stock certificates in AMD, and received monies from AMD investors. The transfer of

intellectual property outside of the exclusive license purportedly given to AMD robbed AMD of

any value, especially since it had no customers or working installations of its products, or any

revenues of any kind.

54. Beginning on a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants,

but no later than June, 2006, Defendants ran the ACTIVISION NEVADA scheme (detailed in

the next section of this Complaint) in conjunction with the AMD scheme to increase the amount

of money it was fraudulently taking from investors. After collecting monies from AMD

Complaint of 85

investors, on a date unknown but no later than December, 2006, Defendants decided to terminate

AMD’s operations and switch to the ACTIVISION DELAWARE scheme. AMD, however,

continued to receive investor funds while they also ran the ACTIVISION NEVADA scheme

until a date unknown, but no earlier than March, 2007.

55. Since AMD knew its stock was worthless, it would disburse its worthless stock

certificates with impunity, including handing them out to unsuspecting investors, employees,

officers, board members and/or consultants.

56. It is not possible to quantify the number of AMD investors or the extent of their

investments at this time due to the lack of records produced by AMD in response to the

DEPARTMENT’s subpoenas, and the state of disarray in which they were produced, in addition

to AMD’s practice of commingling funds. However, AMD’s own records suggest that over $1

million was received from the AMD Scheme.

57. Upon information and belief, switching to the ACTIVISION NEVADA scheme avoided

the scrutiny of federal and state regulators, and helped the Defendants avoid detection.

Employees of AMD automatically assumed the status of ACTIVISION DELAWARE

employees.

58. In a sworn deposition given by GOTHARD on July 23, 2012, GOTHARD gave sworn

testimony that AMD is “dormant, yes, but I kept it alive,” and that “we’ll keep that one [AMD]

for the digital signs, and license people through that, which we’re doing now.” This sworn

statement was false. AMD did not have any employees from May 17, 2007 to the present,

withdrew from transacting business in Florida from January 11, 2008 until August 12, 2013, and

has not licensed anything to anyone.

Complaint of 85

B. The “ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme”

59. Defendants began looking at using the name “Activision” in 1999. Upon information and

belief, Defendants chose the “Activision” name because it contains the name of an unrelated

(and successful) company named Activision Publishing, Inc., which has developed, marketed,

and distributed hundreds of popular video and computer game products since 1979, including

Call of Duty ® and Guitar Hero ®. Defendants used the “Activision” name to capitalize on the

brand recognition of Activision Publishing, Inc., using internet keywords and metatags on

ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s website. For example, the Defendants advertised the use of their

products to play games such as World of Warcraft ®, a game produced and distributed by an

affiliate of Activision Publishing, Inc.

60. ACTIVISION NEVADA was incorporated in October 2000. It was the first of no fewer

than three domestic corporations in various U.S. states with the name “Activision TV, Inc.” that

co-existed at the same time (the others being defendants ACTIVISION DELAWARE and

ACTIVISION FLORIDA). These three “Activision TV, Inc.” companies commingled funds,

used their tax identification numbers interchangeably for corporate filings, and were controlled

by GOTHARD. Upon information and belief, the Defendants repeatedly used “Activision” in

their corporate names to confuse investors, to hide monies and assets from investors, and to

evade detection.

61. Unbeknownst to the AMD investors, while the AMD Scheme was running Defendants

were also running the same scheme under the name ACTIVISION NEVADA.

62. LCG’s transfer of the ‘411 and ‘736 Patents to ACTIVISION NEVADA on or about

April 28, 2006, without the knowledge of AMD investors, gave credence to the ACTIVISION

Complaint of 85

NEVADA Scheme, which in turn treated and marketed the intellectual property as a valuable

asset.

63. Beginning at a time unknown to the DEPARTMENT, but no later than June 15, 2006,

ACTIVISION NEVADA created and subsequently distributed a document to potential investors

entitled “Private Placement Memorandum,” which purported to offer “securities” in the form of

“Convertible Debenture [sic] with Warrants,” with a $30,000 minimum investment (hereafter

“2006 Memorandum”).


Complaint.

65. The 2006 Memorandum was prepared by ACTIVISION NEVADA to lure investors.

66. The 2006 Memorandum was not produced to the DEPARTMENT in its investigation,

despite the fact that the DEPARTMENT subpoenaed documents that would have included the

2006 Memorandum. The DEPARTMENT has a copy of the document because it obtained it

from an investor in ACTIVISION NEVADA.

67. The 2006 Memorandum made the following representations to investors of ACTIVISION

NEVADA, copying many passages from AMD’s 2004 and 2005 Memoranda verbatim

(including typographical errors):

a. ACTIVISION NEVADA was incorporated in October 2000 “to further the research,

development and marketing of the flat panel plasma display technology developed and

patented by the Company’s founder [GOTHARD].”

b. ACTIVISION NEVADA has patents, including the ‘411 Patent and the ‘736 Patent.

The ‘411 Patent and the ‘736 Patent are described as “the company’s patents.” Also,

“[s]even additional patents including four foreign patents are in various stages of being

Complaint of 85

issued,” and ACTIVISION NEVADA anticipates that these patents will issue “within the

next six to eighteen months.” ACTIVISION NEVADA plans “to extend license rights

for its products world wide [sic].”

c. According to ACTIVISION NEVADA’s “Descripiton [sic] of Business,”

ACTIVISION NEVADA has a standard flat panel display system with “it’s [sic] patented

‘Works in a Drawer’ that has been extensively tested in the marketplace, known as

Activision ™ Systems.” The Activision™ Systems, which are the digital advertising

display system and Digital HDTV, are the principal product lines.

d. ACTIVISION NEVADA’s product line “consists of two main computer-controlled

devices, the gas plasma, flat panel display system and the LCD system.” The

Activision™ System is “digitally controlled.”

e. ACTIVISION NEVADA’s HDTV product line was being introduced the summer of

2006.

f. ACTIVISION NEVADA had a favorable long-term competitive outlook “due to the

lack of intellectual property held by competitors and the high cost of entry into this

market.” ACTIVISION NEVADA’s business plan was based on obtaining funds through

licensing and royalties.

g. ACTIVISION NEVADA’s target market included large retailers such as

supermarkets and chain stores, hotels, lodging, drug stores, malls and restaurants.

h. ACTIVISION NEVADA was going public “this year [in 2006],” at which point

additional funds would be raised through a secondary offering.

68. The 2006 Memorandum from ACTIVISION NEVADA, just like the 2004 and 2005

Memoranda from AMD that preceded it, was replete with material misrepresentations:

Complaint of 85

a. The purported reason for incorporating ACTIVISION NEVADA was the same reason

also used by other Defendants in the AMD Scheme.

b. The licensing arrangement between GOTHARD and ACTIVISION NEVADA was

subject to the whim of GOTHARD, who repeatedly transferred the patents, and created

licensing agreements, with different entities to maximize investments for his personal

benefit, but to the detriment of investors.

c. ACTIVISION NEVADA’s “product line,” to the extent it even existed, was not

functional, and had not been extensively tested in the marketplace or elsewhere.

d. ACTIVISION NEVADA did not have the capability to bring to market a Digital

HDTV product in the summer of 2006.

e. ACTIVISION NEVADA had no intention of sharing any licensing profits with its

investors.

f. ACTIVISION NEVADA did not have the capability to extend patent licensing rights

worldwide.

69. ACTIVISION NEVADA sold at least 10 debentures for $30,000 each by June 2006.

ACTIVISION NEVADA falsely promised to pay interest at grossly, above-market interest rates

of 20% per annum, compounded annually, when it knew it could not pay such interest rates.

ACTIVISION NEVADA has not kept track of the interest accruing on these debentures in its

corporate books or financial records, and has no intention of repaying it.

70. Due to the lack of production of any records of ACTIVISION NEVADA by Defendants,

it is not possible to quantify the number of investors or the extent of their investments at this

time. However, records obtained by the DEPARTMENT indicate that ACTIVISION NEVADA

received over $300,000 from the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme.

Complaint of 85

71. Unbeknownst to investors of AMD or ACTIVISION NEVADA, shortly after

ACTIVISION NEVADA obtained investor monies, Defendants then transferred the ‘411 and

‘736 Patents out of ACTIVISION NEVADA on or about October 6, 2006, and into

GOTHARD’s name to begin the ACTIVISION DELAWARE scheme. Upon information and

belief, switching to the ACTIVISION DELAWARE scheme avoided the scrutiny of federal and

state regulators, and helped the Defendants avoid further detection.

C. The “ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme”

72. ACTIVISION DELAWARE executed articles of incorporation on or about October 6,

2006, and filed the articles with the Delaware Department of State on October 10, 2006, listing

5400 Yahl Street, Suite D, Naples, Florida as the mailing address of the incorporator.

ACTIVISION DELAWARE would later take various positions on the date of its incorporation,

telling investors orally and in presentations to them that it had incorporated in 2005. When

GOTHARD was deposed on July 23, 2012 in a trademark dispute (brought by Activision

Publishing, Inc.), he falsely stated under oath that ACTIVISION DELAWARE was incorporated

in 2005.

73. In filings with the Florida Department of State, ACTIVISION DELAWARE falsely

stated that the first date it transacted business in Florida was September 1, 2007. ACTIVISION

DELAWARE applied in Florida to transact business in Florida as a foreign corporation on

September 7, 2007.


but no later than December 2006, Defendants created and subsequently distributed a document to

potential investors entitled “Private Placement Memorandum,” which purported to offer units of

Complaint of 85

common stock at $1/unit (where each unit consists of one share of common stock), with a $5,000

minimum investment (hereafter “December 2006 Memorandum”).

75. A true and accurate copy of the first page of the December 2006 Memorandum is

attached as Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.

76. A complete copy of this document was not produced to the DEPARTMENT by the

Defendants. The first page of the December 2006 Memorandum purports to offer 2,000,000

shares of common stock of ACTIVISION DELAWARE for $1.00 per share.


but no later than January 1, 2007, Defendants created and subsequently distributed a document

entitled “Private Placement Memorandum” to potential investors, which purported to offer

2,000,000 units of common stock at $1/unit (where each unit consists of one share of common

stock), with a $5,000 minimum investment (hereafter “January 2007 Memorandum”).

78. A true and accurate copy of the January 2007 Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 5 to

this Complaint.


but no later than July 15, 2007, Defendants created and subsequently distributed a document

entitled “Private Placement Memorandum,” which purported to offer 2,000,000 units for $1/unit

(where each unit consists of one share of common stock), with a $10,000 minimum investment

(hereafter “July 2007 Memorandum”).

80. A true and accurate copy of the July 2007 Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 6 to this

Complaint.

81. Each unit consisted of one share of common stock and one warrant to purchase one share

of common stock at any time until July 15, 2012 at an exercise price of $1.25, “subject to

Complaint of 85

adjustment.” The warrants are redeemable by ACTIVISION DELAWARE at $.05 per warrant if

the average of the closing bid price of the common stock, as reported by NASDAQ exceeds

$2.00 per share (subject to adjustment) for a certain period of time.

82. The January 2007 Memorandum and July 2007 Memorandum (collectively “2007

Memoranda”) were prepared by ACTIVISION DELAWARE to lure investors.

83. The 2007 Memoranda made the following representations to investors:

a. “AMD was formed to [sic] for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing the flat

panel display technology for the remote control electronic display systems developed by

Mr. Gothard,” but since “AMD was unable to raise the necessary operating capital with

which to pay its obligations to Mr. Gothard or to market the technology or devices

created using the patent rights licensed to it” GOTHARD formed ACTIVISION

DELAWARE on October 10, 2006 “for the purpose of raising funds to market the

technology represented by the patents.”

b. ACTIVISION DELAWARE holds several patents, and the patents are “valuable

assets.” The patents include the ‘411 Patent, the ‘736 Patent, and the ‘672 Patent, which

covers the “Works in a Box™” product. ACTIVISION DELAWARE relies on licensing

revenues.

c. ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s target markets are the retail (supermarkets, chain drug

stores, department stores), hospitality and government.

d. ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s primary products and services (currently in its third

generation of design) are: 1) its digital ready Computer Integrated Television (CIT); 2)

its patented Works-In-A-Box™ computer; and 3) its Digital Media Delivery Systems.

Complaint of 85

i. The CIT is a plasma or LCD television with a small format computer (the

patented “Works-in-a-Box™”);

ii. The “Works-in-a-Box™” (WIB) is a component of the CIT which is being

marketed as a separate product that can be combined with customers’ existing flat

panel display to permit delivery of advertising, information, programming, and

entertainment to retail and individual consumers. The WIB was formerly known as

the “Works-In-a-Drawer” product.

iii. The Digital Media Delivery System (DMDS) products are a complete turn-key

solution combining hardware, software, content, content management and

connectivity for narrowcast applications. It can be combined with CIT’s and

communications systems to offer a one-stop package for creating, managing and

delivery advertising content and information.

e. Demand for ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s products and services are “varied and

immense.”

84. The 2007 Memoranda were replete with misrepresentations:

a. The formation of ACTIVISION DELAWARE presented no advantage over AMD in

raising operating capital, other than fraudulently “reselling” the value of the same

property (here, intellectual property and products that did not work) repeatedly to

investors.

b. The licensing arrangement between GOTHARD and ACTIVISION DELAWARE

was subject to the whim of GOTHARD, who repeatedly transferred the patents, and

created licensing agreements, with different entities to maximize investments for his

personal benefit, but to the detriment of investors.

Complaint of 85

c. ACTIVISION DELAWARE had no intention of repaying any investors’ principal

through its licensing efforts.

d. ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s products, to the extent they even existed, were not

functional and have not produced any revenue. Any marketplace “demand” was due to

GOTHARD’s misrepresentations about the products’ capabilities.

85. Defendants made false representations to investors about the nature of ACTIVISION

DELAWARE’s facilities and its manufacturing capabilities. For example, in a letter addressed

to “Stockholders” dated August 24, 2007, GOTHARD falsely told investors that it had expanded

its production capabilities in its Toledo (OH) facility, and that it “opened an office in the

Washington DC area for Government [sic] contracts and patent work.” During the course of the

DEPARTMENT’s investigation, ACTIVISION DELAWARE denied having any Washington,

D.C.-area facility, and it does not appear to have had any government contracts.

86. A true and accurate copy of the August 24, 2007 letter is attached as Exhibit 7 to this

Complaint. Exhibit 7 was not produced to the DEPARTMENT in its investigation, despite the

fact that the DEPARTMENT subpoenaed documents, which included correspondence, sent to

investors. In fact, Defendants did not produce any correspondence to or from investors. The

DEPARTMENT has a copy of the document because it obtained it from an investor.

87. The August 24, 2007 letter made the following false representations about ACTIVISION

DELAWARE and the extent of its partnerships to investors, none of which were true:

a. ACTIVISION DELAWARE had entered into contracts with two software companies

for content creation and delivery as well as content management;

Complaint of 85

b. ACTIVISION DELAWARE had teamed up with Kerner/Lucas to develop 3-D TV

and advertising displays (without glasses). Upon information and belief, ACTIVISION

DELAWARE was referring to Kerner 3D Technologies and Lucasfilm;

c. ACTIVISION DELAWARE has a new manufacturing partner in Silicon Valley,

California, and they have the capability of producing ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s

“Works in a Drawer” in large volumes at competitive prices.

d. ACTIVISION DELAWARE had a glass panel company in China that it will be

buying its monitors from to meet the demand for ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s products

at competitive prices.

88. Shortly after disseminating the August 24, 2007 letter, internal documents of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE reference yet another 2007 private placement memorandum

(purportedly from September 18, 2007), not produced to the DEPARTMENT in its investigation.

Upon information, the placement offered 3,000,000 Units at $1.00 per Unit, where each Unit is

one share of ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s “common and one Class A Warrant to purchase one

share of common stock at $1.25 per share.”

89. The DEPARTMENT has obtained another private placement memorandum dated March

1, 2009 (hereafter “2009 Memorandum”).

90. A true and accurate copy of the 2009 Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8

was not produced to the DEPARTMENT in its investigation, despite the fact that the

DEPARTMENT subpoenaed all documents sent to investors of ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

91. The 2009 Memorandum purports to offer 80 “bridge-to-market” Units. Each unit was

$25,000 per unit, and the minimum investment was one unit. Each unit “consists of a

Promissory Note bearing interest at eight percent (8%) per annum and a Royalty Right returning

Complaint of 85

an additional $37,500 per unit [for a total of $2,000,000] and redeemable Warrants to purchase

25,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Warrants”)” of ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

92. The 2009 Memorandum made the following representations to at least one investor on a

date unknown to the DEPARTMENT:

a. ACTIVISION DELAWARE is “now set to reap a rich harvest of licensing

arrangements with major partners in digital Broadcast and Narrowcast (POP) on LCD

and plasma screens, advertising over the internet, and the emerging markets worldwide in

the HD and 3-D arenas.”

b. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “provides a competitively priced digital media delivery

system (DMDS) for use in a wide variety of applications in both the Narrowcasting Point

of Purchase (POP) and Broadcasting (HDTV/IPTV) markets.”

c. “Together with the DMDS, [ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s] patented Computer

Integrated Television (CIT) and ‘Works-in-a-Box’ (tm) (WIB) provide the basis for its

In-Room Convergence System solutions for the hospitality industry (more than 2 million

rooms in the US alone), its Digital Signage solutions for stores, malls, and convention

centers, and its home TV solutions.”

d. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “is currently negotiating a strategic relationship with the

leading developer of 3-D technology for digital displays. Together, this team will develop

the technology to display 3-D video content using [ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s]

patented Computer Integrated Television (CIT) system.”

e. “The Activision strategic initiative expects to achieve the ‘Holy Grail’ for 3-D

viewing (i.e. superior quality with no glasses needed) in the fourth quarter 2009, with

production units available in 2010.”

Complaint of 85

f. ACTIVISION DELAWARE is deploying its In-Room Convergence System solution

with the Miramar at Waikiki Hotel, “followed by other Oahu hotels accessible via line-

of-sight.”

g. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “is involved in licensing discussions with a satellite and

cable TV providers to provide the set-top-box [sic] which [sic] enables digital broadcast

as well as 3-D viewing of TV content to millions of home consumers who subscribe to

the satellite and cable TV networks.”

h. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “expects significant revenue from the licensing of IDTV

technology.”

i. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “expects to show positive cash flow within six to eight

months, and several millions of dollars of annual revenues (at 30%-40% margins) within

eighteen months from hotel revenue combined with advance license payments received

from satellite and cable TV providers and Narrowcast revenue. In supporting both the

TV providers as well as the hospitality industry, [ACTIVISION DELAWARE] will

become a major set-top box and IDTV provider.”

j. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “will complete installations in Hawaii in early second

quarter 2009. In the second and third quarters 2009, [ACTIVISION DELAWARE] will

expand on its success in Hawaii and expand installations in the Caribbean and in Europe

under contracts that are currently being negotiated. During the second half 2009 and into

2010, [ACTIVISION DELAWARE] will continue with new installations in Hawaii,

mainland U.S., the Caribbean, and Europe. In the second quarter 2009, [ACTIVISION

DELAWARE] expects to complete licensing agreements with at least one satellite and/or

cable TV provider. In 2010, [ACTIVISION DELAWARE] expects to complete licensing

Complaint of 85

agreements with several more satellite and cable TV providers and to expand its

installation operations. [ACTIVISION DELAWARE] expects to see significant returns

on its 3-D technology in 2010 and following years. In 2011 and 2012, [ACTIVISION

DELAWARE] will continue expanding its presence in the hospitality, Narrowcasting,

and home TV markets.”

k. “Recognizing that the market for digital TV is so large that [ACTIVISION

DELAWARE] cannot possibly grow fast enough to be a major player in the critical

transition period just ahead, [ACTIVISION DELAWARE] has identified two strategies

to proceed . . . .”

l. “After the first two patents had issued which focused primarily on digital advertising

and delivery systems [upon information and belief, the ‘411 Patent and the ‘736 Patent],

the Company engaged Synergy Management Group, Inc. of British Columbia, Canada to

complete an extensive appraisal of these patents. This was done to establish a value on

the technology in order to raise money. The valuations ranged from a low of $43,005,000

to a high of $57,031,000, averaging out at $49,048,000. Since that time, two additional

patents have issued which are focused heavily on IPTV/IDTV for the hotel and home

markets. The Company feels these patents are more than double the valuation of the first

two patents.”

93. None of these statements in the 2009 Memorandum were true:

a. ACTIVISION DELAWARE did not have any licensing arrangements with major

partners, nor did it have the ability to realize revenue through sales, advertising over the

internet, or any emerging markets worldwide in the HD and 3-D arenas.

Complaint of 85

b. ACTIVISION DELAWARE could not have a functional digital media delivery

system (DMDS).

c. ACTIVISION DELAWARE did not have a working CIT or WIB, nor did it have any

solutions for the hospitality industry, digital signage solutions (which, according to

GOTHARD’s prior sworn testimony in a trademark dispute, was supposed to be revenue

realized by AMD), or the home.

d. ACTIVISION DELAWARE was not negotiating a strategic relationship with the

leading developer of 3-D technology for digital displays.

e. ACTIVISION DELAWARE was not going to achieve the “Holy Grail” for 3-D

viewing, nor would it have, or produce, any such units the following year (2010).

f. ACTIVISION DELAWARE was not deploying its In-Room Convergence System

solution at the Miramar at Waikiki Hotel, “followed by other Oahu hotels accessible via

line-of-sight.”

g. ACTIVISION DELAWARE was not involved in licensing discussions with a satellite

and cable TV providers to provide any set-top box for digital broadcast to millions of

home consumers who subscribe to the satellite and cable TV networks.

h. ACTIVISION DELAWARE did not expect significant revenue from the licensing of

IDTV technology.

i. ACTIVISION DELAWARE did not expect to show positive cash flow within six to

eight months, and several millions of dollars of annual revenues (at 30%-40% margins)

within eighteen months from any source, much less hotels.

j. ACTIVISION DELAWARE was not going to expand on its success in Hawaii or

expand installations in the Caribbean and in Europe, nor were any contracts currently

Complaint of 85

being negotiated. It was not going to “continue” with new installations in Hawaii,

mainland U.S., the Caribbean, or Europe.

k. ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s valuation was grossly overstated and had no

reasonable basis in fact.

94. On or about October 13, 2009, HETKOWSKI invited several investors to a stockholder

meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the performance of “Activision.”

HETKOWSKI told investors that new developments were taking place in the company “in this

economic downturn.” Upon information and belief, by “Activision” HETKOWSKI was

referring to ACTIVISION DELAWARE. At the meeting, at least one investor was told that

ACTIVISION DELAWARE was in excellent position, expanding its facilities, moving into new

markets, and expected to provide investors with excellent returns in the near future. None of

these statements were true, and HETKOWSKI, GOTHARD, and ACTIVISION DELAWARE

knew they were not true.

95. The balance sheets and profit and loss statements provided by ACTIVISION

DELAWARE to the DEPARTMENT in its investigation are in such a state of disarray as to

make the true financial condition of the company incomprehensible. Upon information and

belief, the balance sheets and profit and loss statements do not accurately reflect the financial

condition of the company.

96. Defendants continued to make false representations about ACTIVISION DELAWARE

and the extent of its partnerships to investors in 2011 and 2012:

a. On or about July 2012, Sysco [sic] was going to partner with ACTIVISION

DELAWARE.

Complaint of 85

b. ACTIVISION DELAWARE had “teamed up” with Microsoft and “AMD” to create a

set top box of the future. Upon information and belief, ACTIVISION DELAWARE was

referring to Advanced Micro Devices, not Defendant AD MEDIA DISPLAYS, INC, and

there were/are no such partnerships.

97. Defendants continued to make the following false representations that ACTIVISION

DELAWARE’s products and services worked in 2012:

a. Beginning at a time unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the

Defendants, but no later than January 2012, the Defendants represented that

Fountainstone [sic] Theater [sic] was ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s “first Narrowcasting

solution for the Goodrich chain of twenty-seven (27) theaters” and that ACTIVISION

DELAWARE’s “digital signage in the lobby of the theater will display local and national

advertisements and upcoming movie trailers.” The equipment was not supplied by

GOTHARD until approximately the summer of 2009 and never worked properly.

Fountain Stone Theaters, Inc. returned all of the money for the pre-paid advertising to the

local businesses.

b. Beginning at a time unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the

Defendants, but no later than March 12, 2012, Defendants represented that ACTIVISION

DELAWARE was installing its interactive “In-Room System” in four Anna Maria Island

Resorts. According to ACTIVISION DELWARE, the In-Room System was supposed to

provide guests a personal on-screen menu offering “a new level of service – from

selecting movies to finding restaurants and local events – to surfing the internet – all from

the privacy and convenience of an in-room 40 inch HDTV with a built-in computer.”

While ACTIVISION DELAWARE installed televisions and “Activision ™ System”

Complaint of 85

boxes in rooms at two resorts, the system did not work and was never operational. To

promote this bogus, non-working installation of ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s products,

Defendants created a press release with a digitally-altered photograph featuring the

principal of the Anna Maria Island Resorts standing in front of what appears to be a

working installation of an ACTIVISION DELAWARE product. The press release also

attributes quotations to the principal of the Anna Maria Island Resorts touting the success

of the installation by ACTIVISION DELAWARE. However, the picture and quotations

were false and created by the Defendants, and the principal of the Anna Maria Island

Resorts did not participate in the creation of the fake press release or authorize its

dissemination.

c. Beginning at a time unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the

Defendants, but no later than January 2012, Defendants represented that ACTIVISION

DELAWARE was installing its products and services in the Queen Kapiolani Hotel in

Honolulu, Hawaii. Upon information and belief, this system did not work and was never

operational.

98. ACTIVISION DELAWARE made false representations that its public offering was

imminent since 2007, and that it was having discussions with its underwriter to “find the right

vehicle and set a date.” On or about January 2012, ACTIVISION DELAWARE again made

false representations that it was exploring the viability and timing to potentially list on the

“Frankfurt Exchange [sic], followed later by a listing on the New York Stock Exchange.”

99. Defendants made the following false representations about ACTIVISION

DELAWARE’s product sales or potential sales to investors:

Complaint of 85

a. On or about August 24, 2007, GOTHARD told investors that it entered the medical

display business.

b. On or about January 2012, Defendants represented that Fountainstone [sic] Theater

[sic] was ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s “first Narrowcasting solution for the Goodrich

chain of twenty-seven (27) theaters” and that ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s “digital

signage in the lobby of the theater will display local and national advertisements and

upcoming movie trailers.”

c. On or about January 2012, Defendants represented that ACTIVISION DELAWARE

was planning to implement its system in the Peacock Hotel in San Francisco.

100. Defendants made the following false, unrealistic and inflated financial predictions about

ACTIVISION DELAWARE to investors that had no reasonable basis in fact:

a. On or about September 2010, ACTIVISION DELAWARE stated to investors that it

would be worth between $253 million and $319 million in “year 2 after roll out” of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s products and services, and between $2.446 and $2.899

billion in year four after roll out.

b. It utilized the services of Synergy Management Group Ltd., a company purportedly

operating out of Beijing, Hong Kong, and Vancouver, to generate a Business Valuation

Report in January 2012. Upon information and belief, ACTIVISION DELAWARE

circulated this business valuation report to the public, including potential investors,

repeating the unrealistic projections it made in its September 2010 business plan.

ACTIVISION DELAWARE was initiating its rollout phase, and estimated that it would

have total revenues of over $12 million in year one after “roll out,” rising to over $392

million in year four. As of January, 2012, the valuation of ACTIVISION DELAWARE

Complaint of 85

“for the USA and Canada . . . has been quantified at a range of $193 million to $238

million.”

101. Defendants made false reports to ACTIVISION DELAWARE investors about the

performance of ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s stock. For example, investor B.B. believed she

was purchasing $2,500.00 of ACTIVISION DELAWARE stock in 2011 for $.50/share. Her

check to GOTHARD cleared on or about September 2011. GOTHARD gave her false reports

about the performance of the stock, telling her in 2012 that the stock was worth more than

$7.00/share. In reality, the stock, which was not even recorded in the corporate records, was

worthless.

102. Defendants made false representations about ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s corporate

structure to investors beginning on a date unknown and continuing until at least 2012.

ACTIVISION DELAWARE held out Activelight, LLC (upon information and belief, it was

referring to ACTIVELIGHT TV), ADCO Financial, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ACTIVISION

FLORIDA, and AMD to be subsidiaries to artificially inflate the size and sophistication of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE. Upon review of the corporate records of AMD and ACTIVISION

FLORIDA, these statements are false.

103. ACTIVISION DELAWARE attempted to solicit investors in 2011 at an investors’

conference, making the following false representations to investors:

a. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “leads the hospitality industry in the delivery of Real

interactive in-room solutions that fuse the computer, Internet and TV . . . .”

b. ACTIVISION DELAWARE is a “technology and services company, which designs,

manufactures, licenses and markets its products, has ten patents and patents pending with

over 200 claims that cover the new technology.”

Complaint of 85

c. “Activision Systems™ is a registered trademark.”

d. ACTIVISION DELAWARE can produce the CIT, DMDS products, and electronic

kiosk systems.

e. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “offers a turn-key solution and one-stop-shop for both

its products and services.”

f. ACTIVISION DELAWARE “has a 24-hour help desk which is staffed seven days a

week and a service representative available to fix unexpected problems within hours

and without hassle to its customers.”

g. ACTIVISION DELAWARE has “signed a commercial agreement with hotel Queen

Kapiolani in Hawaii with 315 rooms and is in process of deploying the ATV solution

(hotel guest rooms and the digital signage).”

104. ACTIVISION DELAWARE continued to solicit investors through 2013.

105. The DEPARTMENT subpoenaed documents that identify investors of ACTIVISION

DELAWARE. According to the corporate records of ACTIVISION DELAWARE, the last stock

transaction shown on the corporate books of ACTIVISION DELAWARE was made no later

than 2009. These records are false. The DEPARTMENT is conducting a manual review of the

bank accounts of the Defendants. In direct conflict to the corporate records of ACTIVISION

DELAWARE, Defendants received monies from investors in 2010 and 2011 to purchase stock.

For example, investor B.B.’s check to GOTHARD cleared on or about September 2011.

GOTHARD deposited the check into his personal account and never transferred the funds.

GOTHARD used B.B.’s funds for his own personal benefit. Her investment was never recorded

in any corporate records, and Defendants did not produce any details about the transaction to the

DEPARTMENT.

Complaint of 85

106. After Activision Publishing, Inc. brought a lawsuit that accused ACTIVISION

DELAWARE of trademark infringement and fraudulently registering a trademark for

“Activision,” ACTIVISION DELAWARE changed its name to ACTIVELIGHT, INC. on or

about January 31, 2014.

107. Due to the disarray of ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s subpoenaed financial records and

ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s practice of commingling funds, it is not possible to quantify the

number of investors or the extent of their investments at this time. This is especially true given

that many ACTIVISION DELAWARE records were not produced to the DEPARTMENT in

response to its subpoenas. However, ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s own records suggest that

over $2 million was received from the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme.

D. The “Fraudulent Document Scheme”

108. GOTHARD was a “Limited Trustee” of a trust instrument dated April 26, 2007 and titled

the “Locke International Trust.” As Limited Trustee, GOTHARD had limited powers under the

Locke International Trust. GOTHARD was also the settlor of the Locke International Trust.

109. Beginning on a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT, but no later than May 18, 2007,

Rosanna Corallo (CORALLO) was the Individual Trustee of the Locke International Trust.

110. From on or about April 26, 2007 until July 26, 2012, the Locke International Trust

purportedly owned the title to the ‘411 Patent and the ‘736 Patent. It also purportedly owned the

‘058 Patent from at least the time it was granted (May 6, 2008) until July 26, 2012. It also

purportedly owned the patent application of what would become the ‘613 Patent until July 26,

2012. The transfer of these patents into the Locke International Trust had occurred without the

knowledge of AMD investors or ACTIVISION NEVADA investors.

Complaint of 85

111. On or about August 25, 2011, ACTIVISION DELAWARE entered into a Loan and

Security Agreement (hereafter “Loan”) with Hamilton Capital LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company (hereafter “Hamilton Capital”).

112. A partial, true and correct copy of the executed Loan is attached as Exhibit 9 to this

Complaint. The DEPARTMENT subpoenaed a copy of the Loan from ACTIVISION

DELAWARE, but ACTIVISION DELAWARE did not produce copies of the schedules that

were a key part of the Loan, which identified more investors than shown by the inaccurate

corporate records produced by ACTIVISION DELAWARE to the DEPARTMENT.

113. The Loan was not to exceed $5,000,000, and the first initial advance was $3,200,000.

The promissory note, executed by ACTIVISION DELAWARE and Hamilton Capital on or

about the same day (hereafter “Note”), required interest on the principal amount of the Loan at a

rate equal to 24% per annum.

114. A true and correct copy of the executed Note is attached as Exhibit 10 to this Complaint.

115. Many of the existing investors of AMD, ACTIVISION NEVADA, and ACTIVISION

DELAWARE were not apprised of the Loan and Note. Investors in ACTIVISION DELAWARE

that invested after the execution date of the Loan and Note were not told of the Loan and Note,

which rendered their investments worthless given the Note’s 24% interest rate.

116. ACTIVISION DELAWARE received proceeds under the Note and Loan. Of the

$3,200,000 disbursed, the initial net proceeds to ACTIVISION DELAWARE were over

$1,200,000.00.

117. As a condition of the Loan, ACTIVISION DELAWARE had to grant Hamilton Capital a

first priority security interest in all of its property.

Complaint of 85

118. As a condition of the Loan, the Locke International Trust (which purportedly owned the

Patents) had to grant Hamilton Capital a first priority security agreement granting Hamilton

Capital a first priority perfected security interest in all of the Locke International Trust’s assets.

The assets of the Locke International Trust included multiple shares of ACTIVISION

DELAWARE, the Remote Control Electronic Display System Patents, the ‘672 Patent, and the

‘316 Patent.

119. Under the Loan, ACTIVISION DELAWARE had to commit to prosecute and defend

patent infringement cases relating to the Remote Control Electronic Display System Patents, the

‘672 Patent, and the ‘316 Patent (collectively “Patents”).

120. Proceeds from this licensing effort were to go into accounts. Disbursement of the

proceeds from licensing of the Patents went first to Hamilton Capital, who received 15%, then to

Hamilton Capital for the reimbursement of all sums owing to it, then to Hamilton Capital for

unpaid interest, then to Hamilton Capital for the reduction of the principal balance of the Loan.

ACTIVISION DELAWARE was to receive any amounts remaining. To date, of these proceeds,

ACTIVISION DELAWARE has received nothing, AMD has received nothing, and

ACTIVISION NEVADA has received nothing.

121. The first advance was deposited into a controlled account and was subject to a budget.

122. The Loan and Note has been profitable to defendants GOTHARD and HETKOWSKI,

who received wages and/or cash advances.

123. The effect of the Loan and Note was to provide the individual Defendants with monies in

the form of cash, salaries and travel money, but deprived the shareholders of AMD,

ACTIVISION NEVADA, and ACTIVISION DELAWARE of any benefits. While a few

Complaint of 85

creditors have been paid a small fraction of their principal investment, none of them have been

made whole.

124. The Loan and Note would not have closed without the use of the corpus of the Locke

International Trust, which purportedly owned the Patents (or predecessor applications) from on

or about April 26, 2007 until July 26, 2012.

125. In order to secure the benefits of the Loan and Note, Shari Boyer (BOYER), GOTHARD,

and HETKOWSKI executed a second trust instrument dated April 26, 2007 (but executed years

later on or about July 5, 2011), which was also titled the “Locke International Trust” (hereafter

“Second Locke International Trust”). GOTHARD, HETKOWSKI, and BOYER tried to pass off

the Second Locke International Trust as the original (April 26, 2007) Locke International Trust.

126. BOYER also holds herself out as Chief Operating Officer of “Locke Consulting

Company, Inc.” Upon information and belief, by “Locke Consulting Company, Inc.” BOYER is

referring to Defendant LOCKE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., which is the fictitious name of

the business GOTHARD uses to conduct his personal business.

127. A true and correct copy of the Second Locke International Trust is attached as Exhibit A

to Exhibit 11 (Trustee’s Certificate).

128. The document purporting to be the Second Locke International Trust was a document

created on or after July 5, 2011, could not retroactively create a trust on April 26, 2007, and was

invalid to create a trust since it did not have any corpus (which was in the original Locke

International Trust).

129. In order to secure the benefits of the Loan and Note, BOYER, GOTHARD, and

HETKOWSKI executed a Trustee’s Certificate on or about August 25, 2011.

130. A true and accurate copy of the Trustee’s Certificate is attached as Exhibit 11.

Complaint of 85

131. In the Trustee’s Certificate, Defendants GOTHARD and HETKOWSKI falsely certified

to the following:

a. They were the sole trustees of the Locke International Trust;

b. The document they attached to the Trustee’s Certificate was a true, correct, and

complete copy of the (April 26, 2007) Locke International Trust;

c. There were no amendments to or alterations or modifications to the Locke

International Trust; and

d. They can lawfully execute documents on behalf of the Locke International Trust.

132. BOYER, GOTHARD, and HETKOWSKI were not the sole trustees of the Locke

International Trust.

a. Beginning on a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT, but no later than May 18,

2007, CORALLO was the Individual Trustee of the Locke International Trust.

b. The Locke International Trust did not provide for the removal of the Individual

Trustee CORALLO. Additionally, CORALLO did not resign as trustee, nor was she

removed pursuant to any provision of the Florida Trust Code (specifically, Sections

736.0705 and 736.0706, Florida Statutes).

c. As a result, the First Amendment to Locke International Trust (described in paragraph

134, below) did not remove and replace CORALLO as trustee under Florida trust law.

CORALLO is the Individual Trustee of the Locke International Trust from April 26,

2007 to the present.

d. In the alternative to subparagraph (c), if CORALLO was removed as Individual

Trustee by the First Amendment to Locke International Trust, HETKOWSKI would be

the sole Individual Trustee from December 16, 2009 to the present.

Complaint of 85

133. Contrary to the representations by GOTHARD and HETKOWSKI in the Trustee’s

Certificate, the document they attached to the Trustee’s Certificate was the Second Locke

International Trust, and was not a true, correct, and complete copy of the (April 26, 2007) Locke



Certificate that there were no amendments to the Locke International Trust, GOTHARD had

indeed attempted to amend the Locke International Trust on or about December, 2009 (hereafter

“First Amendment to Locke International Trust”) as settlor. HETKOWSKI knew of this

attempted amendment as well, as she accepted the purported appointment as Individual Trustee.

135. A true and correct copy of the First Amendment to Locke International Trust is attached

as Exhibit 12, which the DEPARTMENT obtained independently of its pre-suit subpoenas to the

Defendants.


Certificate, they could not execute documents on behalf of the Locke International Trust.

a. They were not the trustees under the Locke International Trust.

b. The Second Locke International Trust did not confer any authority to BOYER,

GOTHARD, and HETKOWSKI since the patents were corpus of the original Locke


137. As a condition of the Loan, GOTHARD alone executed the Security Agreement as

“Trustee/Settelor” [sic] of the Locke International Trust on or about August 25, 2011 (hereafter

“Security Agreement”). GOTHARD falsely represented that as the Debtor under the Security

Agreement, the Second Locke International Trust was the “sole and exclusive owner of the entire

and unencumbered right, title and interest in and to all Intellectual Property [which included the

Complaint of 85

Patents] purported to be owned by Debtor, free and clear of any Liens, including without

limitation licenses and covenants by Debtor not to sue third persons.”

138. A true and correct copy of the Second Locke International Trust Security Agreement is

attached as Exhibit 13.

139. GOTHARD and the Second Locke International Trust did not solely own the Patents, nor

was any such ownership unencumbered. On the contrary, the Patents were encumbered by the

interests of the innocent victims of the AMD Scheme, the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, and

the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme.

140. As a condition of the Loan, GOTHARD, by himself as the trustee of the Locke

International Trust executed a Patent Security Agreement on or about August 25, 2011 (hereafter

“Patent Security Agreement”). GOTHARD falsely represented that as the Grantor under the

Patent Security Agreement, he could grant a security interest in the Patents.

141. A true and correct copy of the Patent Security Agreement is attached as Exhibit 14.

142. To meet its commitments ACTIVISION DELAWARE tried to sell licenses to these

Patents to a wide range of businesses including restaurants, banks, hotels, and a motorcycle

manufacturer.

143. When ACTIVISION DELAWARE made its sales pitches to businesses in order to extract

payments for patent licenses, ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s agents told businesses that

“Activision’s founder, Mr. David Gothard, is an inventor and businessman long applauded and

honored for his history of innovation and for his successful career. Mr. Gothard’s ingenuity is

the driving force behind the creation of systems and products for delivery of dynamic digital

display solutions provided by Activision.” Casting aside the opinions contained in these

statements, the factual content of these statements were false, as GOTHARD has a criminal

Complaint of 85

history and has not created any systems or products that were installed in working order. In

addition, these letters misrepresented that “Activision is the owner, by assignment, of all right,

title, and interest in the Activision Patents.” These statements were also false since the victims

of the Defendants had the right, title, and interest in the Patents.

144. While the Defendants did not reveal the amounts of the licensing agreements with third

parties relating to the Patents to the DEPARTMENT, according to one public source the

Defendants have obtained over $3.1 million in settlements, in the following amounts:

a. $100,000 from Richardson Electronics in 2010;

b. $75,000 from Tek Panel, Inc. in 2010;

c. $750,000 from NEC Display Solutions of America in 2011;

d. $400,000 from AdSpace Networks, Inc. in 2012;

e. $72,170 from Waste Management in 2013;

f. $24,375 from Tedeshi Food Shops, Inc. in 2013;

g. $9,000 from Colbea Enterprises in 2013;

h. $250,000 from AdFlow Networks in 2013;

i. $15,000 from Cianbro in 2013;

j. $10,500 from Tri Star Energy LLC in 2014;

k. $20,000 from Drake Petroleum Company in 2014;

l. $190,000 from Carmike Cinemas Inc. in 2014;

m. $250,000 from SoloHealth Inc. in 2014;

n. $375,000 from NanoNation in 2014;

o. $80,000 from Cinemark in 2014;

p. $340,000 from Four Winds Interactive in 2014;

Complaint of 85

q. $120,000 from YesCo in 2014; and

r. $25,000 from Nevada Property 1 in 2014.

145. All conditions precedent necessary to the filing of this action have been fulfilled.

146. The DEPARTMENT took sworn oral testimony of GOTHARD regarding the allegations

in this Complaint on October 23, 2014. GOTHARD refused to answer a single substantive

question, invoking his right against self-incrimination.

VI. Fraudulent Concealment/Equitable Estoppel

147. Fraudulent concealment, a species of equitable estoppel in Florida, precludes Defendants

from asserting a statute of limitations defense in this matter.

148. To the extent that Defendants claim that the DEPARTMENT’s filing is late, Defendants

bear responsibility for the late filing.

149. Defendants affirmatively and fraudulently concealed the AMD Scheme, the

ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, and the Fraudulent

Documents Scheme.

150. The DEPARTMENT served pre-suit investigative subpoenas to Defendants

ACTIVISION DELAWARE, AMD, and ACTIVISION FLORIDA on or about December 6,

2013. It was not until the DEPARTMENT received responsive documents on or about February

11, 2014 (after granting GOTHARD’s requests for extensions), and compared and contrasted

them to other investors’ documents, that it could have learned of its cause of action against the

Defendants. The DEPARTMENT exercised due diligence in pursuit of its legal rights and,

despite such diligence, failed to uncover the possible existence of the violations alleged in this

Complaint until at least on or about February 11, 2014.

Complaint of 85

151. Defendants effectively, affirmatively, and fraudulently concealed the existence of the

violations alleged in this Complaint through the following actions, among others:

a. misrepresenting to investors their sales,

b. misrepresenting to investors their operations,

c. misrepresenting to investors that their products worked,

d. misrepresenting to investors who their customers were,

e. misrepresenting to investors their manufacturing capabilities,

f. misrepresenting to investors their locations,

g. misrepresenting to investors their business partnerships or relationships,

h. misrepresenting to investors their rates of return,

i. misrepresenting to investors the stock price,

j. misrepresenting to investors their intellectual property portfolio,

k. misrepresenting to investors their bogus initial public offerings,

l. misrepresenting to investors the safety of their investments,

m. misrepresenting to investors the timing of returns and payoff dates,

n. misrepresenting to investors that they had a religious mission,

o. misrepresenting to investors customer demand for their (non-working) products,

p. misrepresenting to investors interest by foreign investors,

q. misrepresenting to investors the extent to which they performed product testing,

r. misrepresenting to investors other companies’ interest in acquiring them,

s. creating false documents,

t. creating multiple companies, many with the same name,

u. moving assets secretly across entities,

Complaint of 85

v. giving pretextual reasons for overdue loan or note payments,

w. hiding GOTHARD’s criminal past relating to securities, and

x. comingling assets and debts in a misleading manner.

152. By taking affirmative steps to conceal from investors the omissions and

misrepresentations, Defendants prevented and deterred any meaningful inquiry or investigation

by investors that would have disclosed Defendants’ fraudulent common course of conduct.

153. Defendants did not produce all responsive documents to the DEPARTMENT’s

investigative subpoenas. Many documents that were produced were missing key portions.

Defendant GOTHARD also did not answer questions in response to a subpoena for oral

testimony.

154. Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity, securities fraud, and theft was by its nature

inherently self-concealing.

155. The affirmative acts of Defendants alleged in this Complaint were wrongfully concealed

and were carried out in a manner that precluded detection.

156. The DEPARTMENT could not have discovered the pattern of conduct at an earlier date

by the exercise of reasonable diligence because of the practices and techniques of secrecy

employed by Defendants to fraudulently conceal and to avoid detection of their activity.

157. Upon having reasonable suspicion of the existence of Defendants’ alleged pattern of

racketeering activity, the DEPARTMENT exercised due diligence by promptly investigating, to

the extent permitted by law, the facts giving rise to the claims asserted herein.

158. None of the facts or information available to the DEPARTMENT prior to February 11,

2014, if investigated with reasonable diligence, could or would have led to the discovery of the

pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein. It was not until the DEPARTMENT received

Complaint of 85

multiple complaints with supporting documentation that it was revealed, for example, that

multiple domestic corporations named “Activision TV, Inc.” were running parallel investment

schemes, repeatedly selling the same property. As a result of Defendants’ and their co-

conspirators’ fraudulent concealment of their alleged pattern of racketeering activity, the running

of any statute of limitations has been tolled, suspended, or otherwise rendered unavailable with

respect to any claims the DEPARTMENT has as a result of the conduct alleged in this

Complaint.

VII. ADDITIONAL TOLLING UNDER A TOLLING AGREEMENT

159. All claims in this Complaint brought by the DEPARTMENT against ACTIVISION

DELAWARE, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, AMD, ACTIVELIGHT TV,

ADCO FINANCIAL, LCG, GOTHARD, and the Locke International Trust have been further

tolled from April 23, 2014 to the date of the filing of this Complaint pursuant to an executed

tolling agreement with these parties.

COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA RICO ACT (Section 895.03(1), Florida Statutes)

(Use of Proceeds from a Pattern of Racketeering) (Defendants GOTHARD, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, AMD, LCG, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ADCO FINANCIAL, and ACTIVELIGHT TV)

160. This is a claim for civil relief for violations of Section 895.03(1), Florida Statutes, against

Defendants GOTHARD, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, AMD, LCG, ACTIVISION FLORIDA,

ACTIVISION NEVADA, ADCO FINANCIAL, and ACTIVELIGHT TV (hereafter for purposes

of Count I the “Count I Defendants”).

161. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 159, above.

162. At least two of the following incidents occurred, creating a pattern of racketeering:

Complaint of 85

a. In connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with the offer,

sale, or purchase of any investment or security in AMD as defined by Chapter 517,

Florida Statutes, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD employed devices, schemes, or

artifices to defraud, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes.

GOTHARD operated the AMD Scheme beginning on a date unknown and known only

by the Defendants, but no later than September 2003, and continuing until the present.

The AMD Scheme, set forth more fully above in Section V.A., was structured so as to

give the appearance to potential/existing investors that AMD was positioned to reap

profits from the value of the Patents and other products using the Patents. Based on these

representations, investors invested monies in the AMD Scheme until a date unknown to

the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than March, 2007.

While operating the AMD Scheme, GOTHARD then operated other schemes designed to

reap the same alleged profits from the same Patents, and transferred Patents outside of

any licenses AMD had. GOTHARD continues to employ this scheme to the present. By

continuing to perpetuate the AMD Scheme, GOTHARD gives investment advice to

existing investors that creates the appearance to AMD investors that their investment

has/had value, which it does not. GOTHARD’s scheme perpetuates the AMD Scheme,

leading investors to retain their investments.

b. In connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with the offer,

sale, or purchase of any investment or security of AMD as defined by Chapter 517,

directly or indirectly, GOTHARD obtained money or property by means of untrue

statements of a material fact or omitted material facts necessary in order to make the

statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not

Complaint of 85

misleading, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. Beginning on a

date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than September 2003, and

continuing until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the

Defendants, but no later than March, 2007, GOTHARD obtained monies for AMD from

investors by misrepresenting to investors the extent of AMD’s sales, its operation, that its

products worked, the identities of its customers, its manufacturing capabilities, its

locations, its business partnerships or relationships, its investors’ rates of return, its

intellectual property portfolio, that it had a pending initial public offering, the safety of

investing in AMD, the timing of returns and payoff dates, that AMD had a religious

mission, customer demand for their (non-working) products, interest in AMD by foreign

investors, the extent to which they performed product testing, and other companies’

interest in acquiring AMD.

c. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than

September 2003, and continuing until the present, GOTHARD knowingly and willfully

concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that AMD was worthless, and

that GOTHARD was operating multiple schemes in violation of Section 517.301(1)(c),

Florida Statutes. GOTHARD created false writings and documents and used them, such

as Exhibits 1 and 2, and also made false statements or representations during the

execution of the AMD Scheme that concealed the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme and

the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme. GOTHARD knew these writings and

documents and statements were false.

d. In connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with the offer,

sale, or purchase of any investment or security in ACTIVISION NEVADA as defined by

Complaint of 85

Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD employed devices,

schemes, or artifices to defraud, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes.

GOTHARD operated the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme beginning on a date unknown

and known only by the Defendants, but no later than May, 2006, and continuing until the

present. The ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, set forth more fully above in Section

V.B., was structured so as to give the appearance to potential investors that ACTIVISION

NEVADA was positioned to reap profits from the value of the Patents and other products

using the Patents. Based on these representations, investors invested monies in the AMD

Scheme until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants,

but no later than June, 2006. While operating the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme,

GOTHARD then operated other schemes designed to reap the same alleged profits from

the same Patents, and transferred Patents outside of any licenses ACTIVISION

NEVADA had. GOTHARD continues to employ this scheme to the present. By

continuing to perpetuate the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, GOTHARD gives

investment advice to existing investors that creates the appearance to ACTIVISION

NEVADA investors that their investment has/had value, which it does not. GOTHARD’s

scheme perpetuates the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, leading investors to retain

their investments.

e. In connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with the offer,

sale, or purchase of any investment or security of ACTIVISION NEVADA as defined by

Chapter 517, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD obtained money or property by means of

untrue statements of a material fact or omitted material facts necessary in order to make

the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not

Complaint of 85

misleading, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. Beginning on a

date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than June, 2006, and


Defendants , GOTHARD obtained monies for AMD from investors by misrepresenting to

investors the extent of ACTIVISION NEVADA’s sales, its operation, that its products

worked, its manufacturing capabilities, its locations, its business partnerships or

relationships, its investors’ rates of return, its stock price, that it had a pending initial

public offering, and customer demand for their (non-working) products.

f. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than


concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that ACTIVISION NEVADA

was worthless, and that GOTHARD was operating multiple schemes in violation of

Section 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD created false writings and

documents and used them, such as Exhibit 3, which was a copy of the same false

documents used in the AMD Scheme. GOTHARD also made false statements or

representations during the execution of the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme that

concealed the AMD Scheme and the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme. GOTHARD

knew these writings and documents and statements were false. GOTHARD also created

multiple domestic companies with the name “Activision TV, Inc.” that served to confuse

investors and hide his schemes, and secretly moved assets across these entities.

g. In connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with the offer,

sale, or purchase of any investment or security in ACTIVISION DELAWARE as defined

by Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD employed devices,

Complaint of 85

schemes, or artifices to defraud, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes.

GOTHARD operated the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme beginning on a date

unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than

January, 2006, and continuing until the present. The ACTIVISION DELAWARE

Scheme, set forth more fully above in Section V.C., was structured so as to give the

appearance to potential/existing investors that ACTIVISION DELAWARE was

positioned to reap profits from the value of the Patents and other products using the

Patents. Based on these representations, investors invested monies in the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by

the Defendants, but no later than August, 2011. While operating the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme, GOTHARD then operated the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme,

which was designed to reap the same alleged profits from the same Patents. GOTHARD

continues to employ this scheme to the present. By continuing to perpetuate the

ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, GOTHARD gives investment advice to existing

investors that creates the appearance to AMD investors that their investment has/had

value, which it does not. GOTHARD’s scheme perpetuates the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme, leading investors to retain their investments. GOTHARD also

solicited funds on behalf of ACTIVISION DELAWARE (including investors B.B., D.T.,

K.M.) in 2010 and 2011. GOTHARD told these investors they were buying stock in

ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD then deposited these funds from the investors

of ACTIVISION DELAWARE (including the funds of investors B.B., D.T., K.M.) into

his personal banking account, and did not record any of these investments in the

Complaint of 85

corporate records of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He then spent these monies for his

own personal use.

h. In connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with the offer,

sale, or purchase of any investment or security of ACTIVISION DELAWARE as defined

by Chapter 517, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD obtained money or property by means

of untrue statements of a material fact or omitted material facts necessary in order to

make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made,

not misleading, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. Beginning on a

date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than May, 2007, and


Defendants, but no later than August, 2011, GOTHARD obtained monies for

ACTIVISION DELAWARE from investors by misrepresenting to investors the extent of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s sales, its operation, that its products worked, the identities

of its customers, its manufacturing capabilities, its locations, its business partnerships or

relationships, its investors’ rates of return, its intellectual property portfolio, that it had a

pending initial public offering, the timing of returns and payoff dates, customer demand

for their (non-working) products, interest in ACTIVISION DELAWARE by foreign


interest in acquiring ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD also deposited investors’

funds (including the funds of investor B.B., D.T., K.M.) and into his personal banking

account, and did not record any of these investments in the corporate records of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He then spent these monies for his own personal use.

Complaint of 85

i. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than

January 2006, and continuing until the present, GOTHARD knowingly and willfully

concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that GOTHARD was operating

multiple schemes in violation of Section 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD

created false writings and documents and used them, such as Exhibits 4-8, and also made

false statements or representations during the execution of the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme that concealed the AMD Scheme and the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme. GOTHARD knew these writings and documents and statements

were false.

j. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than

August, 2011, and continuing until January, 2012, GOTHARD knowingly and willfully

concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that ACTIVISION

DELAWARE was not a viable investment in violation of Section 517.301(1)(c), Florida

Statutes, and that AMD and ACTIVISION NEVADA had interests in the Patents.

GOTHARD created false writings and documents and used them, and also made false

statements or representations during the execution of the ACTIVISION DELAWARE

Scheme, holding out Activelight, LLC (upon information and belief, ACTIVELIGHT

TV), ADCO Financial, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, and AMD

to be subsidiaries of the ACTIVISION DELAWARE and to artificially inflate the size

and sophistication of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD knew these writings and


k. GOTHARD received cash or cash equivalents from investors in ACTIVISION

DELAWARE (including the funds of investor B.B., D.T., K.M.) in 2010 and 2011.

Complaint of 85

These investors were buying stock in ACTIVISION DELAWARE. It was GOTHARD’s

duty to make in the books of ACTIVISION DELAWARE an accurate record of this stock

transaction. GOTHARD omitted from the corporate records a true record of this

transaction. Furthermore, he failed to make entries of these transactions with the intent to

defraud: he transferred these funds into his personal banking account, and did not record

any of these investments in the corporate records of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He

then spent these monies for his own personal use. These actions violated Section 817.15,

Florida Statutes (making false entries, etc., on books of corporation).

l. The AMD Scheme, the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, and the ACTIVISION

DELWARE Scheme were systematic ongoing courses of conduct from 2003 to the

present, with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from

one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or

willful misrepresentations of a future act. The AMD Scheme, the ACTIVISION

NEVADA Scheme, and the ACTIVISION DELWARE Scheme operated by GOTHARD

defrauded and obtained cash or cash equivalents from investors in each of these

companies in excess of $50,000, in violation of Section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes.

m. The AMD Scheme, the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, and the ACTIVISION

DELWARE Scheme were systematic ongoing courses of conduct beginning on 2003

until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT but no later than April, 2013, with intent to

defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property from one or more persons

by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises or willful

misrepresentations of a future act. In furtherance of GOTHARD’s fraudulent conduct

and deception to obtain and appropriate investors’ property in the AMD Scheme, the

Complaint of 85

ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, and the ACTIVISION DELWARE Scheme,

GOTHARD communicated with investors using the telephone and the U.S. Mails. The

value obtained by GOTHARD from investors using these communications was $300 or

more, in violation of Section 817.034(4)(b), Florida Statutes.

n. GOTHARD obtained a promissory note for ACTIVISION DELAWARE from

Hamilton Capital using the Fraudulent Documents Scheme, detailed more fully above.

GOTHARD’s intent was not just to defraud Hamilton Capital, but also defraud investors

in AMD, ACTIVISION NEVADA, and ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD made

false or fraudulent representations or pretenses on or about August, 2011 to Hamilton

Capital, that GOTHARD, BOYER, and HETKOWSKI were the sole trustees of the

Locke International Trust; that the document they attached to the Trustee’s Certificate

was a true, correct, and complete copy of the original Locke International Trust; that

there were no amendments to or alterations or modifications to the Locke International

Trust; that they can lawfully execute documents on behalf of the Locke International

Trust; that the Second Locke International Trust was the “sole and exclusive owner of the

entire and unencumbered right, title and interest in and to all Intellectual Property [which

included the Patents] purported to be owned by Debtor, free and clear of any Liens,

including without limitation licenses and covenants by Debtor not to sue third persons;”

that the Patents were unencumbered by any other interests; and that GOTHARD, by

himself as the trustee of the Locke International Trust, could grant a security interest in

the Patents. Each of these false pretenses constituted a separate violation of Section

817.54, Florida Statutes (obtaining promissory note by false representation).

Complaint of 85

163. Of those incidents that did occur, at least two of them had the same or similar intents

(repeatedly selling the value of the Patents), results (obtaining the value of the Patents from

multiple investors across multiple companies), accomplices (GOTHARD and HETKOWSKI),

methods of commission (by using the same, false investor memoranda) or were interrelated by

distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated incidents.

164. Count I Defendants, with criminal intent received proceeds derived, directly or indirectly,

from the pattern of racketeering activity, from investors.

165. Count I Defendants used or invested, directly or indirectly, such proceeds or the proceeds

derived from the investment or use thereof, in the establishment and operation of the enterprise

in violation of Section 895.03(1), Florida Statutes, including but not limited to creating accounts

with financial institutions, paying salaries, creating investor documents, creating business plans,

travelling, etc., the further descriptions of which cannot be ascertained by Plaintiff at the time of

filing this Complaint.

166. Count I Defendants, at the time they received the proceeds, knew the source of the

proceeds or had their suspicions aroused but deliberately failed to make further inquiry as to the

source of the proceeds.

167. The enterprise was an ongoing organization, formal or informal, of AMD, ACTIVISION

NEVADA, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, and the Locke International Trusts, and functioned

both as a continuing unit and has a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct:

unlawfully soliciting investors, obtaining their monies, and hiding their conduct.

168. Due to the extensive predicate acts committed by the Count I Defendants, none of whom

have been currently charged criminally, there is nothing to prevent them from continuing to

execute their schemes.

Complaint of 85

169. The board of directors and/or GOTHARD, acting on behalf of the business-entity Count I

Defendants, in conducting the affairs of the businesses, have authorized or engaged in conduct in

violation of Section 895.03, Florida Statutes. To prevent future criminal activity, the public

interest requires the charter of the business entities in Florida forfeited, the dissolution of the

business, and the certificate authorizing a foreign corporation to conduct business within the state

permanently revoked.

WHEREFORE, the DEPARTMENT requests the following relief:

A. Order divestiture of Count I Defendants of any interest in any enterprise;

B. Permanently enjoin the Count I Defendants from engaging in any activities involving or

connected with the solicitation and collection of investments or securities;

C. Permanently enjoin the Count I Defendants from violating, aiding or abetting the

violation of, and conspiring to violate any provisions of the Florida RICO Act.

D. Impose reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of the Count I

Defendants, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any Count I Defendant from engaging in

the same type of endeavor as the enterprise in which the Count I Defendants was engaged in;

E. Order the dissolution of the enterprise;

F. Order the forfeiture of the charter of a corporation organized under the laws of Florida,

and the revocation of the certificates authorizing a foreign corporation to conduct business within

Florida;

G. Order forfeiture of all property, including the Patents and cash, used in the course of,

derived from, or realized through the conduct of the Count I Defendants, subject to the rights of

any innocent persons duly established in this cause, pursuant to Section 895.05(2), Florida

Statutes;

Complaint of 85

H. Order the Count I Defendants to divest or disgorge any ill-gotten proceeds;

I. Retain jurisdiction to direct the proper distribution of the proceeds of forfeiture pursuant

to Section 895.09, Florida Statutes;

J. Award Plaintiff costs of investigation and litigation, including attorney fees, as may be

taxable by law; and

K. Award other relief the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA RICO ACT (Section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes)

(Conduct of or Participation in an Enterprise) (Defendant GOTHARD)


Defendant GOTHARD.



172. GOTHARD was employed by and/or associated with Defendants AMD, ACTIVISION

NEVADA, and ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

173. GOTHARD conducted, participated in, directly or indirectly, such enterprise by engaging

in at least two of the incidents described in paragraph 162 above, which is hereby incorporated

by reference.

174. Of those incidents that did occur, at least two of them had the same or similar intents

(repeatedly selling the value of the Patents), results (obtaining the value of the Patents from

multiple investors across multiple companies), accomplices, methods of commission (by using

the same, false investor memoranda) or were interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and

were not isolated incidents.

Complaint of 85

175. The enterprise was an ongoing organization, formal or informal, of AMD, ACTIVISION

NEVADA, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, and the Locke International Trusts, and functioned

both as a continuing unit and has a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct:

unlawfully soliciting investors, obtaining their monies, and hiding it.

176. Due to the extensive predicate acts committed by GOTHARD, who is not currently

charged with any criminal wrongdoing, there is nothing to prevent him from continuing to

execute his schemes.


A. Order divestiture of GOTHARD of any interest in any enterprise;

B. Permanently enjoin GOTHARD from engaging in any activities involving or connected

with the solicitation and collection of investments or securities;

C. Permanently enjoin GOTHARD from violating, aiding or abetting the violation of, and

conspiring to violate any provisions of the Florida RICO Act.

D. Impose reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of GOTHARD,

including, but not limited to, prohibiting GOTHARD from engaging in the same type of

endeavor as the enterprise in which GOTHARD was engaged in;




Florida;


derived from, or realized through the conduct of GOTHARD, subject to the rights of any

innocent persons duly established in this cause, pursuant to Section 895.05(2), Florida Statutes;

Complaint of 85

H. Order GOTHARD to divest or disgorge any ill-gotten proceeds;



J. Award Plaintiff costs of investigation and litigation, including attorney fees; and


COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA RICO ACT (Section 895.03(4), Florida Statutes)

(Defendant HETKOWSKI)


Defendant HETKOWSKI.



179. HETKOWSKI, with GOTHARD, in some way or manner, came to a mutual

understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, namely to engage in a pattern

of racketeering activity described in paragraph 162, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

180. HETKOWSKI knowingly and willfully became a member of such conspiracy.

181. At the time HETKOWSKI joined such conspiracy, she did so with the specific intent to

participate in the affairs of the enterprise with the knowledge and intent that GOTHARD or his

agents would engage in at least two incidents of racketeering described in paragraph 162, as part

of a pattern of racketeering activity:

a. HETKOWSKI participated in the affairs of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. On about

October 13, 2009, HETKOWSKI invited several investors to a stockholder meeting. The

purpose of the meeting was to discuss the performance of “Activision.” HETKOWSKI

told investors that new developments were taking place in the company “in this economic

downturn.” Upon information and belief, by “Activision” HETKOWSKI was referring Complaint

of 85

to ACTIVISION DELAWARE. At the meeting, investors were told that ACTIVISION

DELAWARE was in excellent position, expanding its facilities, moving into new

markets, and expected to provide investors with excellent returns in the near future.

None of these statements were true, and HETKOWSKI knew they were not true.

b. HETKOWSKI participated in the Fraudulent Documents Scheme, executing

documents on or about August, 2011, she knew to be false, including the Trustee’s

Certificate and the Second Locke International Trust.


A. Order divestiture of HETKOWSKI of any interest in any enterprise;

B. Permanently enjoin HETKOWSKI from engaging in any activities involving or

connected with the solicitation and collection of investments or securities;

C. Permanently enjoin HETKOWSKI from violating, aiding or abetting the violation of, and

conspiring to violate any provisions of the Florida RICO Act.

D. Impose reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of

HETKOWSKI, including, but not limited to, prohibiting HETKOWSKI from engaging in the

same type of endeavor as the enterprise in which HETKOWSKI was engaged in;




Florida;


derived from, or realized through the conduct of HETKOWSKI, subject to the rights of any


Complaint of 85

H. Order HETKOWSKI to divest or disgorge any ill-gotten proceeds;



J. Award Plaintiff costs of investigation and litigation, including attorney fees; and


COUNT IV: VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA SECURITIES AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT

(Section 517.301, Florida Statutes) (Defendants GOTHARD, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, AMD, LCG, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ADCO FINANCIAL, and ACTIVELIGHT

TV)

182. This is an action for multiple violations of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection

Act, Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, against Defendants GOTHARD, ACTIVISION

DELAWARE, AMD, LCG, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ADCO

FINANCIAL, and ACTIVELIGHT TV (hereafter for purposes of Count IV the “Count IV

Defendants”).



184. In connection with the rendering of investment advice or in connection with the offer,

sale, or purchase of any investment or security in AMD as defined by Chapter 517, Florida

Statutes, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud,

in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD operated the AMD

Scheme beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than

September 2003, and continuing until the present. The AMD Scheme, set forth more fully above

in Section V.A., was structured so as to give the appearance to potential/existing investors that

AMD was positioned to reap profits from the value of the Patents and other products using the

Complaint of 85

Patents. Based on these representations, investors invested monies in the AMD Scheme until a

date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than

March, 2007. While operating the AMD Scheme, GOTHARD then operated other schemes

designed to reap the same alleged profits from the same Patents, and transferred Patents outside

of any licenses AMD had. GOTHARD continues to employ this scheme to the present. By

continuing to perpetuate the AMD Scheme, GOTHARD gives investment advice to existing

investors that creates the appearance to AMD investors that their investment has/had value,

which it does not. GOTHARD’s scheme perpetuates the AMD Scheme, leading investors to

retain their investments.


sale, or purchase of any investment or security of AMD as defined by Chapter 517, directly or

indirectly, GOTHARD obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material

fact or omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of Section

517.301(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the

Defendants, but no later than September 2003, and continuing until a date unknown to the

DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than March, 2007, GOTHARD

obtained monies for AMD from investors by misrepresenting to investors the extent of AMD’s

sales, its operation, that its products worked, the identities of its customers, its manufacturing

capabilities, its locations, its business partnerships or relationships, its investors’ rates of return,

its intellectual property portfolio, that it had a pending initial public offering, the safety of

investing in AMD, the timing of returns and payoff dates, that AMD had a religious mission,

Complaint of 85

customer demand for their (non-working) products, interest in AMD by foreign investors, the

extent to which they performed product testing, and other companies’ interest in acquiring AMD.

186. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than


concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that AMD was worthless, and that

GOTHARD was operating multiple schemes in violation of Section 517.301(1)(c), Florida

Statutes. GOTHARD created false writings and documents and used them, such as Exhibits 1

and 2, and also made false statements or representations during the execution of the AMD

Scheme that concealed the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme and the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme. GOTHARD knew these writings and documents and statements were

false.


sale, or purchase of any investment or security in ACTIVISION NEVADA as defined by

Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD employed devices, schemes, or

artifices to defraud, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD

operated the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme beginning on a date unknown and known only by

the Defendants, but no later than May, 2006, and continuing until the present. The

ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, set forth more fully above in Section V.B., was structured so

as to give the appearance to potential investors that ACTIVISION NEVADA was positioned to

reap profits from the value of the Patents and other products using the Patents. Based on these

representations, investors invested monies in the AMD Scheme until a date unknown to the

DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than June, 2006. While

operating the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, GOTHARD then operated other schemes

Complaint of 85

designed to reap the same alleged profits from the same Patents, and transferred Patents outside

of any licenses ACTIVISION NEVADA had. GOTHARD continues to employ this scheme to

the present. By continuing to perpetuate the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, GOTHARD

gives investment advice to existing investors that creates the appearance to ACTIVISION


scheme perpetuates the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, leading investors to retain their

investments.


sale, or purchase of any investment or security of ACTIVISION NEVADA as defined by

Chapter 517, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD obtained money or property by means of untrue

statements of a material fact or omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements

made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation

of Section 517.301(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by

the Defendants, but no later than June, 2006, and continuing until a date unknown to the

DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants , GOTHARD obtained monies for AMD

from investors by misrepresenting to investors the extent of ACTIVISION NEVADA’s sales, its

operation, that its products worked, its manufacturing capabilities, its locations, its business

partnerships or relationships, its investors’ rates of return, its stock price, that it had a pending

initial public offering, and customer demand for their (non-working) products.



concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that ACTIVISION NEVADA was

worthless, and that GOTHARD was operating multiple schemes in violation of Section

Complaint of 85

517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD created false writings and documents and used

them, such as Exhibit 3, which was a copy of the same false documents used in the AMD

Scheme. GOTHARD also made false statements or representations during the execution of the

ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme that concealed the AMD Scheme and the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme. GOTHARD knew these writings and documents and statements were

false. GOTHARD also created multiple domestic companies with the name “Activision TV,

Inc.” that served to confuse investors and hide his schemes, and secretly moved assets across

these entities.


sale, or purchase of any investment or security in ACTIVISION DELAWARE as defined by

Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD employed devices, schemes, or

artifices to defraud, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD

operated the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme beginning on a date unknown to the

DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than January, 2006, and

continuing until the present. The ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, set forth more fully

above in Section V.C., was structured so as to give the appearance to potential/existing investors

that ACTIVISION DELAWARE was positioned to reap profits from the value of the Patents and

other products using the Patents. Based on these representations, investors invested monies in

the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and

known only by the Defendants, but no later than August, 2011. While operating the

ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, GOTHARD then operated the ACTIVISION NEVADA

Scheme, which was designed to reap the same alleged profits from the same Patents.

GOTHARD continues to employ this scheme to the present. By continuing to perpetuate the

Complaint of 85

ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, GOTHARD gives investment advice to existing investors

that creates the appearance to AMD investors that their investment has/had value, which it does

not. GOTHARD’s scheme perpetuates the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, leading

investors to retain their investments. GOTHARD also solicited funds on behalf of ACTIVISION

DELAWARE (including investors B.B., D.T., K.M.) in 2010 and 2011. GOTHARD told these

investors they were buying stock in ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD then deposited

these funds from the investors of ACTIVISION DELAWARE (including the funds of investors

B.B., D.T., K.M.) into his personal banking account, and did not record any of these investments

in the corporate records of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He then spent these monies for his own

personal use.


sale, or purchase of any investment or security of ACTIVISION DELAWARE as defined by

Chapter 517, directly or indirectly, GOTHARD obtained money or property by means of untrue

statements of a material fact or omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements

made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation

of Section 517.301(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by

the Defendants, but no later than May, 2007, and continuing until a date unknown to the

DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than August, 2011, GOTHARD

obtained monies for ACTIVISION DELAWARE from investors by misrepresenting to investors

the extent of ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s sales, its operation, that its products worked, the

identities of its customers, its manufacturing capabilities, its locations, its business partnerships

or relationships, its investors’ rates of return, its intellectual property portfolio, that it had a

pending initial public offering, the timing of returns and payoff dates, customer demand for their

Complaint of 85

(non-working) products, interest in ACTIVISION DELAWARE by foreign investors, the extent

to which they performed product testing, and other companies’ interest in acquiring

ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD also deposited investors’ funds (including the funds

of investor B.B., D.T., K.M.) and into his personal banking account, and did not record any of

these investments in the corporate records of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He then spent these

monies for his own personal use.


January 2006, and continuing until the present, GOTHARD knowingly and willfully concealed

or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that GOTHARD was operating multiple schemes

in violation of Section 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD created false writings and

documents and used them, such as Exhibits 4-8, and also made false statements or

representations during the execution of the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme that concealed

the AMD Scheme and the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme. GOTHARD knew these

writings and documents and statements were false.



concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that ACTIVISION DELAWARE was

not a viable investment in violation of Section 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and that AMD

and ACTIVISION NEVADA had interests in the Patents. GOTHARD created false writings and

documents and used them, and also made false statements or representations during the

execution of the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, holding out “Activelight, LLC” (upon

information and belief, ACTIVELIGHT TV), ADCO Financial, ACTIVISION NEVADA,

ACTIVISION FLORIDA, and AMD to be subsidiaries of the ACTIVISION DELAWARE and

Complaint of 85

to artificially inflate the size and sophistication of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD

knew these writings and documents and statements were false.

194. Unless the Count IV Defendants are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the

acts and practices alleged herein, the continued activities of the Count IV Defendants will result

in irreparable injury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The public

interest also favors the entry of injunctive relief to protect the public and investors from the

Count IV Defendants’ fraudulent scheme.


A. Entry of judgment in its favor against the Count IV Defendants;

B. Permanently enjoin current and future violations of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, by the

Count IV Defendants, freezing the bank accounts of the Count IV Defendants;

C. Entering other injunctive relief, including restitution and disgorgement of any ill-gotten

gain by the Count IV Defendants;

D. Assess the maximum civil penalties against the Count IV Defendants under Section

517.191(4), Florida Statutes;

E. Order the dissolution of the Count IV Defendants;

F. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff;

G. Order such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V: VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(Section 501.201 et seq., Florida Statutes) (Defendants GOTHARD, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, AMD, LCG, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ADCO FINANCIAL, and ACTIVELIGHT

TV)

195. This is an alternative count to Count IV for multiple violations of the Florida Deceptive

and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201 et seq., Florida Statutes, against Defendants

Complaint of 85

GOTHARD, ACTIVISION DELAWARE, AMD, LCG, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, ACTIVISION

NEVADA, ADCO FINANCIAL, and ACTIVELIGHT TV (hereafter for purposes of Count V the

“Count V Defendants”). This action is in excess of $15,000, exclusive of attorneys’ fees and

costs. Should the investments or securities described in paragraphs 184 through 193 not qualify

as an “investment” under Section 517.301(2), Florida Statutes, or a “security” under Section

517.021(21), Florida Statutes, then the conduct described in Count IV is a violation of the

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.



197. Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes, declares that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in

the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.

198. The Count V Defendants have committed the following acts or practices that are unfair,

deceptive, or unconscionable in willful violation of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes:

a. GOTHARD employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, in violation of

Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD operated the AMD Scheme beginning

on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than September 2003,

and continuing until the present. The AMD Scheme, set forth more fully above in

Section V.A., was structured so as to give the appearance to potential/existing investors

that AMD was positioned to reap profits from the value of the Patents and other products



but no later than March, 2007. While operating the AMD Scheme, GOTHARD then

operated other schemes designed to reap the same alleged profits from the same Patents,

Complaint of 85

and transferred Patents outside of any licenses AMD had. GOTHARD continues to

employ this scheme to the present. By continuing to perpetuate the AMD Scheme,

GOTHARD gives investment advice to existing investors that creates the appearance to

AMD investors that their investment has/had value, which it does not. GOTHARD’s

scheme perpetuates the AMD Scheme, leading investors to retain their investments.

b. GOTHARD obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a material

fact or omitted material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light

of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of Section

501.204(1), Florida Statutes. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the

Defendants, but no later than September 2003, and continuing until a date unknown to the

DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no later than March, 2007,

GOTHARD obtained monies for AMD from investors by misrepresenting to investors

the extent of AMD’s sales, its operation, that its products worked, the identities of its

customers, its manufacturing capabilities, its locations, its business partnerships or


pending initial public offering, the safety of investing in AMD, the timing of returns and

payoff dates, that AMD had a religious mission, customer demand for their (non-

working) products, interest in AMD by foreign investors, the extent to which they

performed product testing, and other companies’ interest in acquiring AMD.

c. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than


concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that AMD was worthless, and

that GOTHARD was operating multiple schemes in violation of Section 501.204(1),

Complaint of 85

Florida Statutes. GOTHARD created false writings and documents and used them, such

as Exhibits 1 and 2, and also made false statements or representations during the

execution of the AMD Scheme that concealed the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme and



d. GOTHARD employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, in violation of

Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes, with respect to ACTIVISION NEVADA investors.

GOTHARD operated the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme beginning on a date unknown

and known only by the Defendants, but no later than May, 2006, and continuing until the

present. The ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, set forth more fully above in Section

V.B., was structured so as to give the appearance to potential investors that ACTIVISION

NEVADA was positioned to reap profits from the value of the Patents and other products



but no later than June, 2006. While operating the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme,

GOTHARD then operated other schemes designed to reap the same alleged profits from

the same Patents, and transferred Patents outside of any licenses ACTIVISION

NEVADA had. GOTHARD continues to employ this scheme to the present. By

continuing to perpetuate the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, GOTHARD gives

investment advice to existing investors that creates the appearance to ACTIVISION


scheme perpetuates the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme, leading investors to retain

their investments.

Complaint of 85

e. GOTHARD obtained money or property from ACTIVISION NEVADA investors by

means of untrue statements of a material fact or omitted material facts necessary in order

to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were

made, not misleading, in violation of Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes. Beginning on

a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than June, 2006, and


Defendants , GOTHARD obtained monies for AMD from investors by misrepresenting to

investors the extent of ACTIVISION NEVADA’s sales, its operation, that its products

worked, its manufacturing capabilities, its locations, its business partnerships or

relationships, its investors’ rates of return, its stock price, that it had a pending initial

public offering, and customer demand for their (non-working) products.

f. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than


concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that ACTIVISION NEVADA

was worthless, and that GOTHARD was operating multiple schemes in violation of

Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD created false writings and documents

and used them, such as Exhibit 3, which was a copy of the same false documents used in

the AMD Scheme. GOTHARD also made false statements or representations during the

execution of the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme that concealed the AMD Scheme and


documents and statements were false. GOTHARD also created multiple domestic

companies with the name “Activision TV, Inc.” that served to confuse investors and hide

his schemes, and secretly moved assets across these entities.

Complaint of 85

g. GOTHARD employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud in violation of

Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes, with respect to investors in ACTIVISION

DELAWARE. GOTHARD operated the ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme beginning

on a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the Defendants, but no

later than January, 2006, and continuing until the present. The ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme, set forth more fully above in Section V.C., was structured so as to

give the appearance to potential/existing investors that ACTIVISION DELAWARE was

positioned to reap profits from the value of the Patents and other products using the

Patents. Based on these representations, investors invested monies in the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by

the Defendants, but no later than August, 2011. While operating the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme, GOTHARD then operated the ACTIVISION NEVADA Scheme,

which was designed to reap the same alleged profits from the same Patents. GOTHARD

continues to employ this scheme to the present. By continuing to perpetuate the

ACTIVISION DELAWARE Scheme, GOTHARD gives investment advice to existing

investors that creates the appearance to AMD investors that their investment has/had

value, which it does not. GOTHARD’s scheme perpetuates the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme, leading investors to retain their investments. GOTHARD also

solicited funds on behalf of ACTIVISION DELAWARE (including investors B.B., D.T.,

K.M.) in 2010 and 2011. GOTHARD told these investors they were buying stock in

ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD then deposited these funds from the investors

of ACTIVISION DELAWARE (including the funds of investors B.B., D.T., K.M.) into

his personal banking account, and did not record any of these investments in the

Complaint of 85

corporate records of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He then spent these monies for his

own personal use.

h. GOTHARD obtained money or property from ACTIVISION DELAWARE investors

by means of untrue statements of a material fact or omitted material facts necessary in

order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they

were made, not misleading, in violation of Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes.

Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than May,

2007, and continuing until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by

the Defendants, but no later than August, 2011, GOTHARD obtained monies for

ACTIVISION DELAWARE from investors by misrepresenting to investors the extent of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE’s sales, its operation, that its products worked, the identities

of its customers, its manufacturing capabilities, its locations, its business partnerships or


pending initial public offering, the timing of returns and payoff dates, customer demand

for their (non-working) products, interest in ACTIVISION DELAWARE by foreign


interest in acquiring ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD also deposited investors’

funds (including the funds of investor B.B., D.T., K.M.) and into his personal banking

account, and did not record any of these investments in the corporate records of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He then spent these monies for his own personal use.

i. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than

January 2006, and continuing until the present, GOTHARD knowingly and willfully

concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that GOTHARD was operating

Complaint of 85

multiple schemes in violation of Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes. GOTHARD

created false writings and documents and used them, such as Exhibits 4-8, and also made

false statements or representations during the execution of the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme that concealed the AMD Scheme and the ACTIVISION

DELAWARE Scheme. GOTHARD knew these writings and documents and statements

were false.

j. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than


concealed or covered up, by his schemes, a material fact that ACTIVISION

DELAWARE was not a viable investment in violation of Section 501.204(1), Florida

Statutes, and that AMD and ACTIVISION NEVADA had interests in the Patents.

GOTHARD created false writings and documents and used them, and also made false

statements or representations during the execution of the ACTIVISION DELAWARE

Scheme, holding out Activelight, LLC (upon information and belief, ACTIVELIGHT

TV), ADCO Financial, ACTIVISION NEVADA, ACTIVISION FLORIDA, and AMD

to be subsidiaries of the ACTIVISION DELAWARE and to artificially inflate the size

and sophistication of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. GOTHARD knew these writings and


k. GOTHARD committed theft of investor funds pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1) by

knowingly obtaining money from investors with the intent to either temporarily or

permanently deprive the persons of the money and appropriate the money to his own use

or the use of others not entitled to the use of the money.

Complaint of 85

199. The acts and practices of the Count V Defendants have caused injury, damages, and

prejudice to consumers and the public and constitute unconscionable acts or practices or unfair or

deceptive acts and trade practices within the intent and meaning of Section 501, Part II, Florida

Statutes.

200. Defendant GOTHARD is a direct participant in the activities of the Count V Defendants.

201. Unless the Count V Defendants are temporarily and permanently enjoined from engaging

further in the acts and practices alleged herein, the continued activities of Defendants will result

in irreparable injury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The public

interest also favors the entry of injunctive relief to protect the public and investors from the

Defendants’ fraudulent scheme.


A. Entering judgment in its favor and against the Count V Defendants;

B. Entering temporary and permanent injunctions enjoining current and future violations of

Chapter 501, freezing Defendants’ bank accounts;

C. Appointing a receiver;

D. Entering other injunctive relief;

E. Assessing civil penalties against Defendants;

F. Ordering disgorgement of the proceeds received by the Count V Defendants;

G. Ordering divestment or forfeiture of assets;

H. Ordering restitution;

I. Awarding damages;

J. Dissolving the Count V business-entity Defendants;

K. Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiff, and

Complaint of 85

L. Such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VI: VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA ANTI-FENCING ACT (Section 812.014, Florida Statutes)

(Defendant GOTHARD)

202. This is a claim for civil relief for violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, against

Defendant GOTHARD.



204. Beginning on a date unknown and known only by the Defendants, but no later than April,

2011, and continuing until a date unknown to the DEPARTMENT and known only by the

Defendants, but no earlier than August, 2011, GOTHARD solicited funds on behalf of

ACTIVISION DELAWARE (including investors B.B., D.T., K.M.). GOTHARD told these

investors they were buying stock in ACTIVISION DELAWARE. Investors B.B., D.T., and

K.M. believed they were buying stock in ACTIVISION DELAWARE.

205. GOTHARD then knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, the

property of investors B.B., D.T., and K.M. with intent to, either temporarily or permanently,

deprive these investors of a right to his property or a benefit therefrom, or appropriate the

property to GOTHARD’s own use or to the use of a person not entitled thereto, in violation of

Section 812.014, Florida Statutes.

206. GOTHARD deposited these funds from the investors of ACTIVISION DELAWARE

(including the funds of investors B.B., D.T., K.M.) into his personal banking account, and did

not record any of these investments in the corporate records of ACTIVISION DELAWARE. He

then spent these monies for his own personal use.


A. Order divestiture of GOTHARD of any interest in any enterprise; Complaint

of 85

B. Permanently enjoin GOTHARD from engaging in any activities involving or connected

with the solicitation and collection of investments or securities;

C. Permanently enjoin GOTHARD from violating, aiding or abetting the violation of, and

conspiring to violate any provisions of the Florida Anti-Fencing Act;

D. Impose reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of GOTHARD,

including, but not limited to, prohibiting GOTHARD from engaging in the same type of

endeavor as the enterprise in which GOTHARD was engaged in;


F. Order forfeiture of all property, including the Patents and cash, used in the course of,

derived from, or realized through the conduct of GOTHARD, subject to the rights of any


G. Order GOTHARD to divest or disgorge any ill-gotten proceeds;

H. Retain jurisdiction to direct the proper distribution of the proceeds of forfeiture pursuant


I. Award other relief the Court deems appropriate.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

///

Complaint of 85

PAMELA JO BONDI Attorney General s/ Nicholas J. Weilhammer Nicholas J. Weilhammer Assistant Attorney General FBN 479322 R. Scott Palmer Chief of Complex Enforcement FBN 220353 Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Telephone: (850)414-3300 Facsimile: (850) 488-9134 Primary: [email protected] Secondary: [email protected]

Complaint of 85

Filing # 21850642 Electronically Filed 12/22/2014...

Documents

Transcript of Filing # 21850642 Electronically Filed 12/22/2014...