Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 1
LARA S. MEHRABAN
ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SHELDON L. POLLOCK
SANDEEP SATWALEKAR
REBECCA REILLY
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
New York, New York 10004-2616
(212) 336-0051 (Reilly)
Reillyre@sec.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, 22 Civ. 2661 ( )
-against-
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MARK MARCHI,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), located at 100 Pearl
Street, Suite 20-100, New York, New York 10004 (New York Regional Office) for its Complaint
against Defendant Mark Marchi (“Marchi” or the “Defendant”), residing at 19 Morford Place,
Apartment 4I, Red Bank, New Jersey 07701, alleges as follows:
SUMMARY
1. Between February 2016 and September 2020 (the “Relevant Period”), Marchi,
through his pooled investment vehicle Precipio Capital, LLC (“Precipio”), defrauded investors
by lying about Precipio’s trading and investment performance and by misappropriating investor
funds.
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID: 2
2. Marchi, a securities fraud recidivist, solicited over $2.8 million of investments in
Precipio from at least 22 investors by falsely telling them he was profitably trading securities in
Precipio’s accounts. In fact, Marchi’s trading never generated the returns he promised, and for
significant portions of the Relevant Period, Marchi placed no trades at all.
3. To conceal his fraud, Marchi falsified investment documentation, including
entering thousands of fake trades into an electronic portal accessed by investors. Marchi
misappropriated the vast majority of investor funds by secretly using Precipio investor money to
pay over $1.4 million in disbursements to earlier-in-time investors and by diverting cash from
Precipio’s bank accounts to his own bank accounts which he subsequently used to pay, among
other things, his personal expenses, including rent, credit card bills, and monthly automobile
payments to Mercedes-Benz Financial Services.
VIOLATIONS
4. By virtue of the foregoing conduct and as alleged further herein, Defendant has
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)];
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C.
§§ 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5]; and Sections 206(1), 206(2), and
206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(1), (2)
and (4)] and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8].
5. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined, he will engage in the acts, practices,
transactions, and courses of business set forth in this Complaint or in acts, practices, transactions,
and courses of business of similar type and object.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF SOUGHT
6. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by
2
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID: 3
Securities Act Section 20(b) and 20(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)]; Exchange Act Section
21(d) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)]; and Advisers Act Sections 209(d) and 209(e) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-
9(d), 80b-9(e)].
7. The Commission seeks a final judgment: (a) permanently enjoining Defendant
from violating the federal securities laws and rules this Complaint alleges he has violated;
(b) ordering Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains he received as a result of the violations
alleged here and to pay prejudgment interest thereon; (c) ordering Defendant to pay civil money
penalties pursuant to Securities Act Section 20(d) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], Exchange Act Section
21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)], and Advisers Act Section 209(e) [15 U.S.C §§ 80b-9(e)]; (d)
permanently prohibiting Defendant from serving as an officer or director of any company that
has a class of securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is
required to file reports under Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to
Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; and (e) ordering any other and further
relief the Court may deem just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action, and venue lies in this District,
pursuant to Securities Act Sections 20(b), 20(d), and 22 [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b), 77t(d), 77t(d), 77v];
Exchange Act Sections 21 and 27 [15 U.S.C. § 78u and 78aa]; and Advisers Act Section 209(d)
[15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d)]. Defendant, directly and indirectly, has made use of the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts,
practices, and courses of business alleged herein. Defendant may be found in, is an inhabitant of,
or transacts business in the District of New Jersey, and certain of the acts, practices, transactions,
and courses of business alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District, including the
3
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID: 4
offer and sale of securities through broker-dealers located within the District.
DEFENDANT
9. Marchi, is an unregistered investment adviser and the founder of Precipio. At all
relevant times, Marchi maintained de facto control over Precipio, including its bank and
brokerage accounts. In September 1998, Marchi pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiracy
to violate the federal securities laws before the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. See United States v. Mark Marchi, No. 98-cr-00275 (S.D.N.Y.) (LAP).
Subsequently, in June 1999, Marchi was barred by New York Stock Exchange following a
hearing in which Marchi was found guilty of having engaged in acts detrimental to the interest or
welfare of the Exchange in violation of Exchange Rule 476(a)(7). See New York Stock
Exchange Hearing Panel Decision No. 99-35 (April 15, 1999). In October 2015, Marchi was
subject to an Administrative Consent Order (“Consent Order”) with the New Jersey Bureau of
Securities in connection with his operation of investment company Global Alliance Capital, LLC
(“GAC”). See In the Matter of: Global Alliance Capital, LLC and Mark Marchi (CRD #
1677447) (October 19, 2015).
OTHER RELEVANT ENTITY
10. Precipio is a Wyoming limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey.
FACTS
I. Marchi’s Solicitation of Investments in Precipio
11. Marchi solicited investments in Precipio from a network of known acquaintances,
including investors in his predecessor company GAC.
12. Precipio’s marketing materials stated that Precipio employed a disciplined trading
4
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID: 5
methodology with a particular focus on risk management that strived to earn investors net
monthly returns of 1% to 2%.
13. These materials, as well as Precipio’s investor agreements, explained that Precipio
investors would be charged a quarterly management fee of 25%, calculated as a percentage of net
profits with reference to an investor-specific performance-based high water mark, only if new
quarterly trading profits exceeded the previous quarter’s net trading losses.
14. In addition, Marchi routinely orally communicated with investors and prospective
investors and reiterated the aforementioned representations regarding Precipio’s business model.
15. Based on Precipio’s marketing materials and Marchi’s communications, Precipio
investors understood that their money would be pooled in Precipio and traded by Marchi.
II. Marchi’s Trading in Precipio Brokerage Accounts
16. Precipio maintained at least four brokerage accounts across the Relevant Period.
17. Marchi had unrestricted access to, and was the sole trader in, each of the
brokerage accounts.
18. Marchi used only a small portion of investor money for trading (i.e., only
approximately $451,000 of the over $2.8 million collected).
19. In addition, Marchi’s trading was generally not profitable. Specifically, Marchi’s
trading in the Relevant Period yielded a net loss of approximately $161,022, and only $275,500
was ever transferred from Precipio’s brokerage accounts back to Precipio’s bank accounts for
potential distribution to investors.
20. With the exception of four trades executed in 2019, Marchi’s trading in all
Precipio brokerage accounts stopped in December 2018; however, as discussed below, Marchi
never informed investors that he had ceased trading.
5
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID: 6
III. Marchi’s Representations to Investors Regarding Precipio’s Performance
21. Marchi falsely represented to investors in person, over the phone, by email, and
via text chats, that he was actively trading in Precipio’s accounts and that his trading was
profitable. Marchi invited certain investors out to dinner, told them their investments were
performing well, and solicited follow-on investments.
22. For example, throughout the Relevant Period, one investor (“Investor A”) had
periodic dinners with Marchi at which the two would discuss, among other things, Investor A’s
investments. Based on these conversations with Marchi, Investor A understood that Precipio
was performing well and agreed to make follow-on investments. In fact, Investor A sometimes
handed Marchi investment checks at the dinners.
23. In addition, a March 9, 2020 email to multiple investors stated, “Therefore, we are
being optimistic and have covered our short trade in MCHP for a four-point gain. We have also
covered our long VXX trade for another four-point gain.” On March 12, 2020, one investor
(“Investor B”) who had previously received the March 9, 2020 email asked Marchi whether
Precipio was still long VXX. Marchi responded, “I took it off on the big push up. We emailed
you the market update. We made great money on VXX and MCHP. Still short SPY with a
hedge.” In fact, there had been no trades in VXX since February 2018 and, since September
2019, the total combined balance in all of Precipio’s brokerage accounts was a mere $320.
24. To hide the lack of profitable trading, to justify the continued collection of
management fees, and to perpetuate follow-on investments, Marchi falsified investment
documentation and caused false performance reports and Schedule K-1s to be distributed to
investors.
25. Specifically, using a master account, Marchi doctored investor-specific
6
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID: 7
information (e.g., trading profit and loss (“P&L”), trading fees, etc.) visible to each investor via a
third-party hosted electronic portal (the “Portal”).
26. To make it appear to investors that he was trading when, in fact, he was not,
Marchi manually entered thousands of fake trades into the Portal.
27. Investors accessing the Portal believed these trades to be real and profitable when,
in truth, they were completely fictitious.
28. For example, as of August 25, 2020, the year-to-date account summary of
Investor B indicated that Precipio had executed a total of 44 trades resulting in a net profit of
$18,621 attributable to Investor B. In fact, during this time period, Marchi executed no trades
and earned no profits in any of Precipio’s brokerage accounts.
29. Marchi also prepared bogus market updates and performance reports and directed
one investor (“Investor C”), who introduced some of his friends to the Precipio investment
opportunity, to distribute these updates to Investor C’s friends.
30. In addition to market commentary, the reports provided false information
regarding investors’ opening cash balances, income earned, and expenses. The reports also
calculated management fees based off these fabricated numbers.
31. For example, on May 14, 2018, Investor C sent Investor B a performance update
stating that Investor B had earned a net profit of $19,827 in Q1 2018 which, according to the
email, was purportedly a net return of 10.40% (versus an S&P 500 return of -1.17% for the same
time period). The email set out that Investor B owed Precipio fees in the amount of $6,609 in
connection with these earnings. In fact, during this time period, Marchi placed no trades and
earned no profits.
32. Finally, Marchi provided false information to Precipio’s accountant such that
7
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID: 8
Schedule K-1s provided to investors matched the fake P&L numbers he had provided to
investors via the Portal.
33. In reliance on Marchi’s false representations regarding Precipio’s trading activity
and investment performance, investors agreed to pay unjustified management fees and also
added capital to their existing Precipio investments.
IV. Marchi’s Misappropriation of Investor Funds
34. Throughout the Relevant Period, Marchi told investors that he would use their
money to trade securities.
35. Contrary to these representations, Marchi used substantial portions of investor
money to pay disbursements to investors and for non-Precipio related expenses. Specifically,
Marchi utilized over $1.4 million of investor money to fund disbursements to Precipio investors
and investors in GAC, Marchi’s prior investment company.
36. For example, as of July 21, 2020, Precipio maintained an account balance of $93
in its primary bank account. Shortly thereafter, on July 27, 2020, the same Precipio account
received investment proceeds from one investor (“Investor D”) totaling $50,000. Rather than
use these funds to trade, Marchi used Investor D’s investment to pay disbursements to two other
Precipio investors as follows: Precipio made one $45,000 investor disbursement on July 28,
2020, and one $5,000 investor disbursement on August 27, 2020.
37. In September 2020, Marchi solicited additional funds from Investor D and again
used these funds to pay redemptions to other Precipio investors.
38. Specifically, on September 15, 2020, the balance in Precipio’s primary account
was -$16. On September 22, 2020, Precipio received an additional $75,000 investment from
Investor D. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020 and October 9, 2020 respectively, Marchi
8
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID: 9
utilized Investor D’s investment to pay a total of $10,000 in disbursements to two other Precipio
investors.
39. Marchi also diverted large amounts of cash from Precipio’s accounts for his
personal use. Over the Relevant Period, cash deposits into Marchi’s personal bank accounts
totaled $407,389, compared with cash withdrawals from Precipio’s accounts totaling $476,790.
40. In addition, Marchi spent over $18,000 of investor money at various high-end
eateries.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)
41. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 40.
42. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged above, Defendant directly or
indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer or sale of securities and by the use of the means or
instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or the mails, (1)
knowingly or recklessly employed one or more devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, (2)
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently obtained money or property by means of one or more
untrue statements of a material fact or omissions of a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading,
and/or (3) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently engaged in one or more transactions, practices,
or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
43. Defendant violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act by, among other things,
knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material misrepresentations to Precipio investors
about his trading in Precipio accounts and his misappropriation of investor funds.
44. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
9
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID: 10
violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C.
§ 77q(a)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder
45. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 40.
46. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged above, Defendant, directly or
indirectly, singly or in concert, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and by the
use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a
national securities exchange, knowingly or recklessly (1) employed one or more devices,
schemes or artifices to defraud, (2) made one or more untrue statements of a material fact or
omitted to state one or more material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and/or (3) engaged in
one or more acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or
deceit upon other persons.
47. Defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
by, among other things, knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material misrepresentations
to Precipio investors about his trading in Precipio’s accounts and his misappropriation of
investor funds.
48. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)]
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].
10
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID: 11
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act
49. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 40.
50. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged above, Defendant, directly or
indirectly, knowingly or recklessly, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of
interstate commerce, while acting as an investment adviser within the meaning of 202(11) of the
Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(11)]: (1) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud a
client or prospective client; and/or (2) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business
which operate as a fraud or deceit upon a client or prospective client.
51. Defendant knew or was reckless in not knowing of the activities described herein.
52. Defendant violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act by, among
other things, knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material misrepresentations to Precipio
investors about his trading in Precipio’s accounts and his misappropriation of investor funds.
53. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant has violated, and unless enjoined will
likely again violate, Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and
(2)].
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act
and Rule 206(4)-8 Promulgated Thereunder
54. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 40.
55. Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(4)] provides that it is
unlawful for an investment adviser to engage in an act, practice, or course of business which is
fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative, and that the Commission shall issue rules to define and
11
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID: 12
prescribe measures to prevent such misconduct. Rule 206(4)-8 issued under the Advisers Act
[17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8] provides that it is unlawful for an investment adviser to a pooled
investment vehicle: (1) to make any untrue statement of material fact or to omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading, to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment
vehicle; or (2) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business that is fraudulent, deceptive,
or manipulative with respect to any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment
vehicle. Rule 206(4)-8 defines a “pooled investment vehicle” to include “any investment
company as defined in Section 3(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 … or any company
that would be an investment company under section 3(a) of that Act but for the exclusion
provided from that definition by either section 3(c)(1) or section 3(c)(7) of that Act ….”
(citations omitted). Section 3(a) in turn includes any “issuer which . . . is or holds itself out as
being engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing,
reinvesting, or trading in securities.”
56. As an investment adviser to pooled investment vehicle Precipio, Defendant
violated Sections 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder by, among other
things, knowingly, recklessly or negligently making material misrepresentations to Precipio
investors about his trading in Precipio’s accounts and his misappropriation of investor funds.
57. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant has violated, and unless enjoined will
likely again violate, Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(4)], and Rule
206(4)-8 thereunder [17 C.F.R § 275.206(4)-8].
12
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID: 13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a Final
Judgment:
I.
Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendant and his agents, servants, employees and
attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of
the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, from committing future
violations of Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15
U.S.C. § 78j(b)], and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], and Advisers Act Sections
206(1), 206(2), and 204(4) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2), and (4)] and Rule 206(4)-8 [17 C.F.R. §
275.206(4)-8] thereunder;
II.
Ordering Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received directly or indirectly, with
pre-judgment interest thereon, as a result of the alleged violations;
III.
Ordering Defendant to pay civil monetary penalties under Securities Act Section 20(d)
[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)], and Section 209(e)
of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)];
IV.
Permanently prohibiting Defendant from serving as an officer or director of any company
that has a class of securities registered under Exchange Act Section 12 [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that
is required to file reports under Exchange Act Section 15(d) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)], pursuant to
Securities Act Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Exchange Act Section 21(d)(2) [15 U.S.C.
13
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID: 14
§ 78u(d)(2)]; and
V.
Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
May 5, 2022
__________________________
LARA S. MEHRABAN
ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Sheldon L. Pollock
Sandeep Satwalekar
Rebecca Reilly
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
New York, New York 10004-2616
(212) 336-0051 (Reilly)
Reillyre@sec.gov
14
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID: 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
22 Civ. 2661 ( )
Plaintiff,
-against- DESIGNATION OF AGENT
FOR SERVICE
MARK MARCHI,
Defendant,
Pursuant to Local Rule 101.1(f), because the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Commission”) does not have an office in this District, the United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey is hereby designated as eligible as an alternative to the Commission to
receive service of all notices or papers in the captioned action. Therefore, service upon the Chief
of the Economic Crimes Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New
Jersey, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, shall constitute service upon the
Commission for purposes of this action.
Dated: May 5, 2022
New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,
LARA S. MEHRABAN
ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
100 Pearl Street, Suite 20-100
New York, New York 10004
(212) 336-0591
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID: 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
22 Civ. 2661 ( )
Plaintiff,
-against-
MARK MARCHI,
Defendant.
LOCAL CIVIL RULE 11.2 CERTIFICATION
I, Rebecca Reilly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as follows:
1. I am Counsel in Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s New York
Regional Office and am the principal investigative attorney working on this matter.
2. I make this Declaration because I am the counsel on this matter with the most
knowledge of the matters reflected in this Declaration.
3. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2, I certify that the matter in controversy alleged
in the foregoing Complaint is not the subject of a civil complaint by private plaintiffs.
4. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2, I certify that the matter in controversy alleged
in the foregoing Complaint is the subject of a criminal action pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned United States v. Mark Marchi, 22-CR-
327 (CCC). The parties to that matter are Plaintiff United States and Defendant Mark Marchi.
5. The matter in controversy in the foregoing Complaint is not the subject of any
other action pending in any court, or of any pending arbitration or administrative proceeding, to
my knowledge.
Case 3:22-cv-02661 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID: 17
6. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 5, 2022
New York, New York
_/s/ Rebecca Reilly_______________________
REBECCA REILLY
