telexfree-logoThe emergence of a new Temporary Restraining Order in the TelexFree civil case has left me stumped.

I’m still trying to suss out what’s going on, but for now here’s a breakdown of what we know.

On the 15th of January Judge Hillman published orders in a number of TelexFree civil cases.

These orders see Hillman

withdraw reference of this adversary proceeding to the United Stats Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts.

“I hereby refer this adversary proceeding to Unites States Bankruptcy Judge Melvin S. Hoffman to rule on any preliminary or pre-trial matters, hear any dispositive motions, conduct a trial if necessary, and submit to me proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to any dispositive motions or trial.”

Now this much I understand. Judge Hillman is punting some of the civil TelexFree cases over to Judge Hoffman in the bankruptcy court.

What I don’t get is that the above order appeared in the SEC’s civil case against TelexFree as Document 377, published January 15th.

Document 375, also published January 15th, is a peculiar order granting a new TRO against Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos, Santiago De La Rosa, Randy Crosby, Faith Sloan, Daniil Shoyfer and Scott Miller.

Before we get into the new TRO, how is Judge Hillman grating a TRO on a case he’s punted off to the bankruptcy court?

All but two of the named defendants already have already had a TRO entered against them back in April 2014, when the SEC shut TelexFree down.

Hillman’s new order is confusing, in that parties listed stipulates the order applies to “all actions” in the TelexFree securities litigation.

As far as I can see, the only difference between this TRO and the existing preliminary injunction is the addition of Shoyfer and Miller, both of whom were top TelexFree investors.

Which begs the question of why wasn’t a separate TRO filed against them individually?

The other top investors already have preliminary injunctions against them, with a new TRO seemingly redundant (unless I’m missing something?).

The case docket reveals Shoyfer sought immediate clarification on the TRO, regarding funds ‘for ordinary living expenses necessary to house, clothe, transport and feed himself and his family‘.

He’s been directed to provide a full accounting at a hearing on January 25th. This hearing will decide whether or not a preliminary injunction will be granted (against all defendants).

Anyone want to have a crack at explaining what this Hillman’s new TRO is all about?


Update 26th January 2016 – A hearing for a preliminary injunction was held yesterday on the 25th, with the court taking the matter under advisement.

Daniil Shoyfer has filed an objection against the granting of a preliminary injunction, which largely relies on his having a family to feed and that his assets were allegedly purchased prior to his involvement in TelexFree.


Update 20th June 2021 – Daniil Shoyfer has been dismissed from the TelexFree class-action.