FEI LIU, an individual; GANGJIAN LI, an individual, vs Golden State Regional Center

Filing Date:January 07, 2021

Case:FEI LIU, an individual; GANGJIAN LI, an individual, Vs. KAI HAO ROBINSON, an individual; GOLDEN STATE REGIONAL CENTER, a California Limited Liability Company; BAY AREA INVESTMENT FUND II, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Jurisdiction:California State Court

Status:Pending

Civil / Criminal:Civil

Breach of Contract

Breach of fiduciary duty

Fraud

Obstruction of Justice

Plaintiffs are part of a group of Chinese nationals who, in or around 2015, each paid $550,000 to Defendants Robinson and Golden State Regional Center to obtain membership interests in Defendant Bay Area Investment Fund—the total amount of funds invested is $12.5 million.1 Such payments were part of the EB-5 Program, and Plaintiffs sought green cards through their investments. 5. Plaintiffs’ capital contributions were then transferred to property developer Kawana Meadows Development Corporation (“Kawana Meadows”) starting in August 2015. Plaintiffs’ funds were transferred to facilitate the construction and development of a residential construction project (the “Project”), pursuant to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa program requirements.2 6. Pursuant to that transfer, Kawana Meadows began paying interest to Defendant Bay Area Investment Fund at a rate of 5.5% per annum. That money was supposed to go to the Plaintiffs after operating expenses. It did not. 7. Between 2015 and the present, Defendants Robinson, Golden State Regional Center, and Bay Area Investment Fund misappropriated Plaintiffs’ money in bad faith and concealed their wrongdoing from Plaintiffs as part of a scheme to unjustly enrich themselves at Plaintiffs’ expense. This included failing to pay Plaintiffs at all for the interest received from Kawana Meadows. 8. In or around January 2019, Defendant Robinson shockingly indicated during an FBI investigation that she did not sign or did not authorize electronic signatures on Plaintiffs’ I-924 applications and supporting documents, which she was required to do as the manager of Golden State Regional Center. She further misrepresented she was “unaware” she had signed or authorized electronic signatures on the OA or a Subscription Agreement, and alternatively, that the electronic signature on those documents was not her own or not authorized by her. 9. As a result of Defendant Robinson’s misrepresentations to FBI investigators, Plaintiffs were investigated for visa fraud by USCIS, which impermissibly hindered their chances of eventually receiving green cards. 10. Despite receiving notice that Plaintiffs then withdrew their I-526 applications from USCIS, Defendants refused requests from Plaintiffs for a refund of the $500,000 paid by each Plaintiff. But, Defendants intentionally refused to return the principal fund to Plaintiffs. In addition, Defendants provided various inconsistent and fraudulent statements trying to cover their real intentions of refusing to return the fund. 11. Instead, Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs’ requests for a return of their funds with a variety of excuses. First, Defendant Robinson indicated that Plaintiffs needed to wait until August 9, 2020, when the OA term would expire. However, once the OA term expired, Defendants still refused to refund Plaintiffs’ monies. Second, Defendant Robinson told Plaintiffs to wait for Defendants to amend the OA and PPM. However, Defendants have failed to amend either agreement as indicated, and have refused to provide Plaintiffs with any indication as to when the amendments can be expected, if at all. And, after August 9, 2020, Defendants simply (and falsely) indicated that the principal fund cannot be refunded because all funds needed to be renewed on a new agreement with Kawana Meadows. 12. The Plaintiffs hold 99.9% of the membership interests of Bay Area Investment Fund. 3 Pursuant to the OA and the PPM, Plaintiffs have the ability to amend the OA when an amendment would materially affect their rights or obligations.4 Plaintiffs also have the right to petition the court to remove Defendant Bay Area Investment Fund’s manager for breaching the OA, or for engaging in gross negligence or willful misconduct.5 13. In addition to the reasons above, Plaintiffs are entitled to a return of their funds upon notifying Defendants Robinson and Golden State Regional Funds they have withdrawn their I-526 Petitions. However, Defendants still refused to return Plaintiffs’ investment funds despite receiving notice of this withdrawal and despite the fact that the five-year term of the fund expired on August 9, 2020, entitling Plaintiffs to received their funds back from Defendants. 14. The evasive actions of Defendants toward Plaintiffs have confirmed Plaintiffs’ worse fears: Defendants continue to fraudulently conceal their conduct to Plaintiffs’ detriment.