Adam R. Long, et al.; Tri-Bridge Ventures, LLC et al.; LG Capital Funding, LLC, et al.; River North Equity LLC, et al.

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 26310 / May 23, 2025

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Adam R. Long, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-14260 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 28, 2023)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tri-Bridge Ventures, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05711 (D.N.J. filed Apr. 29, 2024)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. River North Equity LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01711 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 11, 2019)

SEC Announces Dismissal of Three Civil Enforcement Actions and Claims in Fourth Civil Enforcement Action

On May 22, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed joint stipulations with the defendants in three separate cases to dismiss, with prejudice, the following ongoing civil enforcement actions against them:

• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Adam R. Long, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-14260 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 28, 2023);
• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tri-Bridge Ventures, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05711 (D.N.J. filed Apr. 29, 2024); and
• Securities and Exchange Commission v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022).

Also on May 22, 2025, the Commission filed joint stipulations with defendants River North Equity, LLC, Edward M. Liceaga, and Michael A. Chavez in a fourth ongoing civil enforcement action, Securities and Exchange Commission v. River North Equity LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01711 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 11, 2019), to dismiss, with prejudice, the Commission’s claims against them for unregistered dealer activity under Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission’s litigation in this matter otherwise remains ongoing.

The Commission’s decision to exercise its discretion and dismiss these pending enforcement actions and claims rests on its judgment that the dismissals are appropriate as a policy matter, not on any assessment of the merits of the claims alleged in the actions. Furthermore, as stated in each of the joint stipulations, the Commission’s decision to seek dismissal of the actions or claims “does not necessarily reflect the Commission’s position on any other case.”