SEC v. Archer Capital Management Group; Archer Growth Fund; HDR Management LLC; and Silvermoon Group LLC, No. 0:22-cv-61632, Southern District of Florida (Sept. 1, 2022) — Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-cv-61632

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

                                             Plaintiff,

                        v.

ARCHER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP,
ARCHER GROWTH FUND, HDR
MANAGEMENT LLC, AND SILVERMOON
GROUP LLC,

                                             Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) al leges as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. From December 2019 through December 2020, Archer Capital Management
Group (“Archer Capital”), together with two related entities, HDR Management LLC (“HDR”)
and Silvermoon Group LLC (“Silvermoon”) acting through unidentified agents using fraudulent
identities to control the Defendants, engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which they raised
approximately $2.6 million from at least 20 investors by selling interests in a purported private
equity fund, the Archer Growth Fund (“the Archer Fund”), using misrepresentations
disseminated via Archer Capital’s website and other internet outlets.
2. The names and addresses of the individuals purportedly running Archer Capital
and the Archer Fund are all fictitious, as were the individual names and identities used to open

2

HDR’s and Silvermoon’s bank accounts. These individuals, whose true identities are unknown,
fraudulently created Archer Capital, the Archer Fund, HDR, and Silvermoon as their alter egos
as part of their overall scheme to deceive investors.
3. To induce investment in the Archer Fund, the Defendants falsely claimed on their
website, among other misrepresentations, that the Archer Fund had an annual rate of return of
47%, that it had beaten the Russell Growth Index for five straight years, and that it was one of
the only High-Watermark Funds available on the market.
4. Defendants also published false and misleading news articles that falsely claimed
that the Archer Fund was one of four best performing mutual funds with a cumulative return of
48.41% in 2019 and an annual expense ratio of 0.0%.  Defendants also claimed that the Archer
Fund was “one of the best-performing, privately-held mutual funds.”
5. Investor funds were never used to purchase interests in the Archer Fund but,
instead, were misappropriated by the individuals who orchestrated the scheme for their personal
use and to perpetuate the fraud.  Indeed, there was no Archer Fund.  All remaining investor funds
have been transferred to foreign accounts.  The Defendants are no longer operating.
6. Through their conduct, the Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined will
continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and (c) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
(“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5
thereunder [ 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]  .
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Sections 21(d) and 21(e) of the Exchange

3

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78u(e)] to enjoin such acts, transactions, practices, and courses of
business, and to obtain disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil money penalties, and such other
and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
8. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d)(1), and 22(a) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1), and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(d) and 27 of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78aa].
9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and venue is proper in this
judicial district, because many of the Defendants’ acts and transaction constituting violations of
the Securities Act and the Exchange Act occurred in this district.  In addition, HDR and
Silvermoon were registered limited liability companies in this district and several investors
reside in this district.
10. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly
and indirectly, singly or in concert with others, have made use of the means and instrumentalities
of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and
courses of business alleged herein.
III. DEFENDANTS
11. Archer Capital Management Group is a fraudulent company with an address in
Wilmington, Delaware that previously maintained the website: www.archerfund.com.  Archer
Capital claimed to be a privately owned company and the sole manager of the Archer Growth
Fund, purportedly a mutual fund.  Archer Capital is not registered with the Commission in any
capacity.
12. Archer Growth Fund is a fraudulent entity that Archer Capital claimed was a
private equity fund that it managed, purportedly with approximately $78.94 million in net assets

4

as of the year-ended October 31, 2019.  Neither the Archer Fund nor any interest in it has ever
been registered with the Commission in any capacity.
13. HDR Management LLC is a Florida limited liability company based in
Hollywood, Florida and formed in March 2020 and administratively dissolved September 2021
by the Florida Secretary of State.  Investor funds were deposited in HDR bank accounts located
at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo for investment in the Archer Fund.
14. Silvermoon Group LLC is a North Carolina limited liability company based in
Cary, North Carolina and formed in December 2019 and administratively dissolved by the North
Carolina Secretary of State in June 2021.  Silvermoon is also a Florida limited liability company
based in Pompano Beach, Florida and formed in June 2020 and administratively dissolved in
September 2021 by the Florida Secretary of State.  Investor funds were deposited in Silvermoon
bank accounts located at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo for investment in
the Archer Fund.
15. At all times, Defendants acted in concert with each other as part of the common
scheme to defraud investors in the fictitious Archer Fund.
 FACTS
IV. DEFENDANTS FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED INVESTORS TO BUY
MORE THAN $2.6 MILLION OF INTERESTS IN THE ARCHER FUND
A. Defendants’ Fraudulent Scheme
16. In February 2020, Defendants opened an online bank account at Wells Fargo in
the name of Silvermoon using the name of a fictitious individual and a falsified Lithuanian
passport (“Silvermoon account”).    In June 2020, Defendants opened two additional online bank

5

accounts at Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase in the name of Silvermoon using the same
name of a fictitious individual.
17. Similarly, in June and July 2020, Defendants opened online bank accounts at
Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo in the name of HDR also using the name of
a fictitious individual and a falsified Lithuanian passport.
18. In March 2020, Defendants began using the Silvermoon account to purchase
online advertising services from Google Ads, Microsoft Advertising, and a subscription to
Medium.com, an online platform for publishing and promoting articles, to begin promoting
Archer Capital and the Archer Fund online.  Among other services, Defendants purchased a toll-
free call-in number and a Live Chat feature for use on their website.
19. During the relevant period, the Defendants maintained a website,
www.archerfund.com, to promote Archer Capital as the purported manager of the Archer Fund.
The website boasted that Archer Capital’s management team was comprised of individuals with
over 30 years of experience with an investment philosophy that “focuses on those investments
that have a proven track record including strong management teams and a solid business model.”
20. The Archer Capital team purportedly invested in “[o]nly those businesses that
support the best investment ideas we generate and that also display the exceptional
characteristics needed to make to offer [sic] valuations that are persuasive when evaluated
against both the potential upsides and downsides are chosen as investments.”
21. The website featured stock images of six purported senior executives with links to
their respective fictitious LinkedIn profiles.

6

22. Defendants claimed on the website that the Archer Fund had an average annual
return of 47%, a “Win rate” of 54%, a “Reward Risk” ratio of 1.5 to 1 and that it had beaten the
“Russell 1000 Growth® Index” [sic] for five straight years.
23. Defendants included a bogus “Annual Report” for the year-ended October 31,
2019 and a “Prospectus” dated November 30, 2019.
24. The Annual Report alleged that the Archer Fund was created on October 1, 2015,
with current net assets of $78.94 million, and at year-end its value had increased by 43.79%
while its benchmark, the Russell 1000® Growth Index (“Russell Index”) increased by 11.90%
during the same period.  The prospectus contained similar information with an updated fund
performance summary for year-to-date growth as of November 30, 2019 of 44.97% compared to
the benchmark index of 25.47%.

25. Defendants also stated on the website that the Archer Fund was “one of the only
High-Watermark Funds available on the market” where investors did not pay any fees for poor
performance.  The performance fee purportedly varied from 3% to 9% based on the amount of
funds invested.  In addition, the website claimed there were no redemption fees, sales charges or
any other hidden fees.
26. On March 17, 2020, Defendants published an article on Medium.com titled, “Top
Performing US funds for 2020.”  The article cited the Archer Fund as one of four best-
performing mutual funds with a cumulative return of 48.41% in 2019 and an annual expense
ratio of 0.0%.  The article provided a link to the Archer Capital website and its LinkedIn
company profile.
27. In an effort to generate more interest on the internet, on May 11, 2020, at 12:15
ET, Defendants issued a press release purportedly from the Archer Fund.  The press release

7

stated that the “Archer Fund, one of the best-performing, privately-held mutual funds” was
offering a generous performance fee reduction and had “an average of 47% annual percentage
yield.”  This article was republished by Yahoo! Finance and Business Insider, and possibly other
news services.
28. In reality, there was never an operating Archer Fund.  All statements made by the
Defendants on the website, on LinkedIn, in the Annual Report and Prospectus, in the articles,
and in the press release were false.
B. The Fraudulent Sale of Interests in the Archer Fund
29. Investors searching online for opportunities to invest in high performing mutual
funds were directed to articles related to the Archer Fund, including those found on
Medium.com, Yahoo! Finance, and Business Insider.
30. Lured by the promising press, investors visited the Archer Capital website and
believed it be legitimate and promising, with links to an annual report and prospectus.
31. Investors were also impressed with images on Archer’s website of its purported
principals and their respective LinkedIn profiles.
32. Archer’s website required investors to make a minimum $5000 initial investment
and claimed there would be a performance fee between 3% and 9% depending on the amount
invested.  Some investors used the Live Chat function to converse with people through the
website to ask how to fund their Archer Fund account, how to select whether to reinvest or
withdraw the dividends or how to evaluate the performance of the Archer Fund.
33. Investors opened their Archer Fund accounts online by entering basic personal
information.  Investors were not asked to include information regarding their financial
background or sophistication.  Shortly thereafter, they received an email from

8

[email protected] requesting a copy of a current government identification and a utility
bill to complete their application.
34. Investors then received a second email with the subject line “Your Archer Growth
Fund has been approved!” containing a hyperlink to access their Archer Fund account.  Once
investors logged in via the www.archerfund.com investor portal, they could fund their account.
Investors were instructed to wire funds or make their checks payable to HDR or Silvermoon,
with the understanding that their funds would be invested in the Archer Fund.
35. Once their account was funded, Investors selected to reinvest or withdraw the
accrued dividends.  Purported dividends were posted to the accounts on the 5th of every month.
Investors never received a document confirming their purchase of interests in the Archer Fund.
36. Investors could only access their accounts via the investor portal.
37. Defendants emailed the Archer Fund investors periodic market commentary
newsletters that included the Archer Fund’s purported performance contrasted with the Russell
Index.  None of the purported performance information was true.
38. On July 30, 2020, Defendants emailed Archer Fund investors an email with the
subject, “Second Quarter 2020 – Quarterly Market Review.”  The email claimed that as of June
2020, the Archer Fund’s performance had grown 3.03% while the Russell Index’s performance
only increased 2.06%.
39. On October 8, 2020, the Defendants emailed more than 300 current and
prospective investors the “Archer Fund September Market Commentary.”  This email stated that
the Archer Fund’s performance for September was 3.73% contrasted with the Russell Index of -
4.6%.  The October email failed to blind copy the recipients of the email, thereby exposing the
email addresses of each recipient to all others on the mailing list.

9

C. Collapse of Archer Fund Scheme, and the Misappropriation of Investor Funds
40. Between December 2019 and December 2020, at least 20 people, from multiple
states invested approximately $2.6 million with the Defendants.
41. Shortly after the October 8, 2020 market commentary email inadvertently
disclosed the email addresses of the more than 300 current and prospective investors, the Archer
Fund website and all related email addresses were no longer operational.
42. Emails to [email protected] simply bounced back.  All related phone
numbers were also disconnected.  In addition, the LinkedIn profiles for the company and the
company’s management team were deleted and the Archer Capital and Archer Fund related news
releases were no longer available online.
43. As a result, investors lost all ability to access their Archer Fund accounts or
contact the Defendants.
44. Although the investors’ online Archer Fund accounts had reflected their
investments, bogus dividends and purportedly growing balances, the Defendants never used any
of the investor funds as promised.
45. Rather, investor funds were deposited in HDR and Silvermoon bank accounts and
were initially used primarily to perpetuate the fraudulent scheme by paying expenses related to
maintaining the Archer Capital website and on advertising costs. A small portion of investor
funds was used for personal expenses such as Uber Eats and grocery store bills.
46.  By October 14, 2020, all remaining funds were transferred out of the country.
V. DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
47. The Archer Fund interests offered and sold by the Defendants were securities
within the meaning of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.

10

48. Archer Fund investors provided the Defendants with an investment of money.
From May 2020 through October 2020 at least 20 investors gave the Defendants approximately
$2.6 million.
49. The Defendants pooled investors’ money into the Defendants’ accounts and
represented that they would invest those funds in the Archer Fund and return a profit.
50. Investors considered the interests in the Archer Fund to be investments and were
interested in the profits the interests in the Archer Fund were expected to generate.
51. Defendants engaged in the conduct described herein, including the offer and sale
of the interests in the Archer Fund, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and/or by
use of the mails.
52. Defendants solicited investments from investors via the internet and secured
investments from investors in at least fifteen states through the instrumentalities of interstate
commerce.
53. Defendants did not register their sale of Archer Fund interests with the
Commission.
54. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, the Defendants engaged in
a long-running course of conduct designed to deceive investors in the offer and sale, in
connection with the purchase and sale, of interests in the Archer Fund.
55. The Defendants initiated the fraud by creating a false website, fabricated news
releases for the fictitious entity and fund, and opened bank accounts with the sole purpose of
misappropriating investor funds.

11

56. The Defendants employed several deceptive acts to make the transactions appear
as legitimate investments by posting bogus dividend returns on individual Archer Fund accounts,
providing some investors with “returns” purportedly reflecting profits in the Archer Fund, and by
sending false periodic market commentary emails falsely claiming that the Archer Fund’s
purported performance continued to surpass the Russell Index.
57. The Defendants knowingly made material untrue statements designed to deceive
investors.  For instance, Defendants falsely represented the identities of the executives
purportedly behind Archer Capital and the Archer Fund, the business operations and
performance of the entities, and the use of investor funds.
58. A reasonable investor would consider the misrepresented facts and omitted
information described herein—including, among other things, misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the high rate of returns on investments and the use of investors’ money to pay for
Defendants’ personal expenses—important in deciding whether or not to purchase interests in the
Archer Fund.
59. In connection with the conduct described herein, Defendants acted knowingly or
recklessly.  Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they were making material
misrepresentations.
60. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that investor funds were not
being used as promised.
61. Defendants used devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud investors, and engaged
in acts, transactions, practices, or courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the
investors.

12

62. In addition to the numerous misrepresentations discussed herein, among other
things, Defendants misled investors and misappropriated investors’ funds for their personal use
and benefit.
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act
63. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 62, as if they were fully set forth herein.
64. No registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission pursuant to
the Securities Act with respect to the securities issued by the Archer Fund as described in this
Complaint, and no exemption from registration existed with respect to those securities.
65. From December 2019 through December 2020, the Defendants directly and
indirectly:
a. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in
interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or
medium of a prospectus or otherwise;
b. carried or caused to be carried securities through the mails or in interstate
commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of
sale or delivery after sale; or
c. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in
interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the
use of medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security,

13

without a registration statement having been filed or being in effect with the Commission as to
such securities.
66. With regard to the sale of Archer Fund securities described herein, no exemption
validly applied to the registration requirements described above.
67. By reason of the foregoing the Defendants violated, and unless enjoined, are
reasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5 (c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §
§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
COUNT II
Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act
68. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 62, as if they were fully set forth herein.
69. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, the Defendants, in the
offer and sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, knowingly or recklessly, directly
or indirectly, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud.
70. By reason of the forgoing, Defendants have violated and, unless enjoined, are
reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §
77q(a)(1)].
COUNT III
Fraud in Violation of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
71. The Commission repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint.
72.
From December 2019 through at least December 2020, Defendants, in the offer or
sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate
commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly, negligently engaged in transactions,

14

practices, or courses of business which operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon the
purchasers.

73. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined, are
reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3)].

COUNT IV
Fraud in Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act
74. The Commission repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this
Complaint.
75. From December  2019 through  at  least  December  2020,  Defendants,  directly  and
indirectly,  by  use  of  any  means  or  instrumentality  of  interstate  commerce,  or  of  the  mails,
knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in connection with the
purchase or sale of any security.
76. By  reason  of  the  foregoing,  Defendants  have  violated  and,  unless  enjoined,  are
reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b),
and Rule 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)].
COUNT V
Fraud in Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act
77. The Commission repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this
Complaint.
78. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, Defendants, directly or
indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails,
knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated,
are now operating and will operate as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or
sale of any security.

15

79. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined, are
reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b),
and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c)].
VII. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court find the
Defendants committed the violations alleged, and:
I.
Permanent Injunction
Issue a Permanent Injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from violating
the federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint.
II.
Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest
Issue an order directing Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received within the
applicable statute of limitations, including prejudgment interest, resulting from the acts and/or
courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint.
III.
Civil Penalty
Issue an order directing Defendants to pay civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section
20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and 21(d) of the Exchange Act [ 15 U.S.C. § 78u-
(d)].

16

IV.
Further Relief
Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just, equitable, or necessary in
connection with the enforcement of the federal securities laws.
V.
Retention of Jurisdiction
Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this
action and Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees
that it may enter, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Commission for
additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court.

17

VI.
Demand for Jury Trial
The Commission hereby demands a trial by jury on any and all issues in this action so
triable.

September 1, 2022    Respectfully submitted,

/s/Gregory R. Bockin
Gregory R. Bockin (FL Special Bar Number A5501158)
Kingdon Kase
Paulina L. Jerez
Attorneys for Plaintiff
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
     Philadelphia Regional Office
     1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 520
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-597-3192
     Fax: 215-597-2740
     Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 
CASE NO. 22-cv-61632 

 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 
                                             Plaintiff, 
 
                        v. 
 
ARCHER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, 
ARCHER GROWTH FUND, HDR 
MANAGEMENT LLC, AND SILVERMOON 
GROUP LLC,    
  
                                             Defendants.  
 
 

 
 

  
 

   
  

           
          

 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) alleges as follows:  

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. From December 2019 through December 2020, Archer Capital Management 

Group (“Archer Capital”), together with two related entities, HDR Management LLC (“HDR”) 

and Silvermoon Group LLC (“Silvermoon”) acting through unidentified agents using fraudulent 

identities to control the Defendants, engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which they raised 

approximately $2.6 million from at least 20 investors by selling interests in a purported private 

equity fund, the Archer Growth Fund (“the Archer Fund”), using misrepresentations 

disseminated via Archer Capital’s website and other internet outlets. 

2. The names and addresses of the individuals purportedly running Archer Capital 

and the Archer Fund are all fictitious, as were the individual names and identities used to open 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 1 of 17



2 
 

HDR’s and Silvermoon’s bank accounts. These individuals, whose true identities are unknown, 

fraudulently created Archer Capital, the Archer Fund, HDR, and Silvermoon as their alter egos 

as part of their overall scheme to deceive investors.   

3. To induce investment in the Archer Fund, the Defendants falsely claimed on their 

website, among other misrepresentations, that the Archer Fund had an annual rate of return of 

47%, that it had beaten the Russell Growth Index for five straight years, and that it was one of 

the only High-Watermark Funds available on the market. 

4. Defendants also published false and misleading news articles that falsely claimed 

that the Archer Fund was one of four best performing mutual funds with a cumulative return of 

48.41% in 2019 and an annual expense ratio of 0.0%.  Defendants also claimed that the Archer 

Fund was “one of the best-performing, privately-held mutual funds.” 

5. Investor funds were never used to purchase interests in the Archer Fund but, 

instead, were misappropriated by the individuals who orchestrated the scheme for their personal 

use and to perpetuate the fraud.  Indeed, there was no Archer Fund.  All remaining investor funds 

have been transferred to foreign accounts.  The Defendants are no longer operating.  

6. Through their conduct, the Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined will 

continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and (c) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 

(“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)] and Section 10(b) of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].   

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)] and Sections 21(d) and 21(e) of the Exchange 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 2 of 17



3 
 

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78u(e)] to enjoin such acts, transactions, practices, and courses of 

business, and to obtain disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil money penalties, and such other 

and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate. 

8. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d)(1), and 22(a) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d)(1), and 77v(a)] and Sections 21(d) and 27 of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78aa].   

9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and venue is proper in this 

judicial district, because many of the Defendants’ acts and transaction constituting violations of 

the Securities Act and the Exchange Act occurred in this district.  In addition, HDR and 

Silvermoon were registered limited liability companies in this district and several investors 

reside in this district. 

10. In connection with the conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, directly 

and indirectly, singly or in concert with others, have made use of the means and instrumentalities 

of interstate commerce or of the mails in connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and 

courses of business alleged herein. 

III. DEFENDANTS 

11. Archer Capital Management Group is a fraudulent company with an address in 

Wilmington, Delaware that previously maintained the website: www.archerfund.com.  Archer 

Capital claimed to be a privately owned company and the sole manager of the Archer Growth 

Fund, purportedly a mutual fund.  Archer Capital is not registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

12. Archer Growth Fund is a fraudulent entity that Archer Capital claimed was a 

private equity fund that it managed, purportedly with approximately $78.94 million in net assets 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 3 of 17

http://www.archerfund.com/


4 
 

as of the year-ended October 31, 2019.  Neither the Archer Fund nor any interest in it has ever 

been registered with the Commission in any capacity.   

13. HDR Management LLC is a Florida limited liability company based in 

Hollywood, Florida and formed in March 2020 and administratively dissolved September 2021 

by the Florida Secretary of State.  Investor funds were deposited in HDR bank accounts located 

at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo for investment in the Archer Fund. 

14. Silvermoon Group LLC is a North Carolina limited liability company based in 

Cary, North Carolina and formed in December 2019 and administratively dissolved by the North 

Carolina Secretary of State in June 2021.  Silvermoon is also a Florida limited liability company 

based in Pompano Beach, Florida and formed in June 2020 and administratively dissolved in 

September 2021 by the Florida Secretary of State.  Investor funds were deposited in Silvermoon 

bank accounts located at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo for investment in 

the Archer Fund. 

15. At all times, Defendants acted in concert with each other as part of the common 

scheme to defraud investors in the fictitious Archer Fund. 

 FACTS 

IV. DEFENDANTS FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED INVESTORS TO BUY  
MORE THAN $2.6 MILLION OF INTERESTS IN THE ARCHER FUND 

A. Defendants’ Fraudulent Scheme 

16. In February 2020, Defendants opened an online bank account at Wells Fargo in 

the name of Silvermoon using the name of a fictitious individual and a falsified Lithuanian 

passport (“Silvermoon account”).  In June 2020, Defendants opened two additional online bank 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 4 of 17



5 
 

accounts at Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase in the name of Silvermoon using the same 

name of a fictitious individual.   

17. Similarly, in June and July 2020, Defendants opened online bank accounts at 

Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo in the name of HDR also using the name of 

a fictitious individual and a falsified Lithuanian passport.   

18. In March 2020, Defendants began using the Silvermoon account to purchase 

online advertising services from Google Ads, Microsoft Advertising, and a subscription to 

Medium.com, an online platform for publishing and promoting articles, to begin promoting 

Archer Capital and the Archer Fund online.  Among other services, Defendants purchased a toll-

free call-in number and a Live Chat feature for use on their website. 

19. During the relevant period, the Defendants maintained a website, 

www.archerfund.com, to promote Archer Capital as the purported manager of the Archer Fund.  

The website boasted that Archer Capital’s management team was comprised of individuals with 

over 30 years of experience with an investment philosophy that “focuses on those investments 

that have a proven track record including strong management teams and a solid business model.” 

20. The Archer Capital team purportedly invested in “[o]nly those businesses that 

support the best investment ideas we generate and that also display the exceptional 

characteristics needed to make to offer [sic] valuations that are persuasive when evaluated 

against both the potential upsides and downsides are chosen as investments.”   

21. The website featured stock images of six purported senior executives with links to 

their respective fictitious LinkedIn profiles. 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 5 of 17

http://www.archerfund.com/


6 
 

22. Defendants claimed on the website that the Archer Fund had an average annual 

return of 47%, a “Win rate” of 54%, a “Reward Risk” ratio of 1.5 to 1 and that it had beaten the 

“Russell 1000 Growth® Index” [sic] for five straight years.   

23. Defendants included a bogus “Annual Report” for the year-ended October 31, 

2019 and a “Prospectus” dated November 30, 2019.   

24. The Annual Report alleged that the Archer Fund was created on October 1, 2015, 

with current net assets of $78.94 million, and at year-end its value had increased by 43.79% 

while its benchmark, the Russell 1000® Growth Index (“Russell Index”) increased by 11.90% 

during the same period.  The prospectus contained similar information with an updated fund 

performance summary for year-to-date growth as of November 30, 2019 of 44.97% compared to 

the benchmark index of 25.47%. 

25. Defendants also stated on the website that the Archer Fund was “one of the only 

High-Watermark Funds available on the market” where investors did not pay any fees for poor 

performance.  The performance fee purportedly varied from 3% to 9% based on the amount of 

funds invested.  In addition, the website claimed there were no redemption fees, sales charges or 

any other hidden fees. 

26. On March 17, 2020, Defendants published an article on Medium.com titled, “Top 

Performing US funds for 2020.”  The article cited the Archer Fund as one of four best-

performing mutual funds with a cumulative return of 48.41% in 2019 and an annual expense 

ratio of 0.0%.  The article provided a link to the Archer Capital website and its LinkedIn 

company profile.   

27. In an effort to generate more interest on the internet, on May 11, 2020, at 12:15 

ET, Defendants issued a press release purportedly from the Archer Fund.  The press release 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 6 of 17



7 
 

stated that the “Archer Fund, one of the best-performing, privately-held mutual funds” was 

offering a generous performance fee reduction and had “an average of 47% annual percentage 

yield.”  This article was republished by Yahoo! Finance and Business Insider, and possibly other 

news services. 

28. In reality, there was never an operating Archer Fund.  All statements made by the 

Defendants on the website, on LinkedIn, in the Annual Report and Prospectus, in the articles, 

and in the press release were false.   

B. The Fraudulent Sale of Interests in the Archer Fund 

29. Investors searching online for opportunities to invest in high performing mutual 

funds were directed to articles related to the Archer Fund, including those found on 

Medium.com, Yahoo! Finance, and Business Insider.   

30. Lured by the promising press, investors visited the Archer Capital website and 

believed it be legitimate and promising, with links to an annual report and prospectus.   

31. Investors were also impressed with images on Archer’s website of its purported 

principals and their respective LinkedIn profiles.   

32. Archer’s website required investors to make a minimum $5000 initial investment 

and claimed there would be a performance fee between 3% and 9% depending on the amount 

invested.  Some investors used the Live Chat function to converse with people through the 

website to ask how to fund their Archer Fund account, how to select whether to reinvest or 

withdraw the dividends or how to evaluate the performance of the Archer Fund. 

33. Investors opened their Archer Fund accounts online by entering basic personal 

information.  Investors were not asked to include information regarding their financial 

background or sophistication.  Shortly thereafter, they received an email from 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 7 of 17



8 
 

[email protected] requesting a copy of a current government identification and a utility 

bill to complete their application.   

34. Investors then received a second email with the subject line “Your Archer Growth 

Fund has been approved!” containing a hyperlink to access their Archer Fund account.  Once 

investors logged in via the www.archerfund.com investor portal, they could fund their account.  

Investors were instructed to wire funds or make their checks payable to HDR or Silvermoon, 

with the understanding that their funds would be invested in the Archer Fund.   

35. Once their account was funded, Investors selected to reinvest or withdraw the 

accrued dividends.  Purported dividends were posted to the accounts on the 5th of every month.    

Investors never received a document confirming their purchase of interests in the Archer Fund.  

36. Investors could only access their accounts via the investor portal.   

37. Defendants emailed the Archer Fund investors periodic market commentary 

newsletters that included the Archer Fund’s purported performance contrasted with the Russell 

Index.  None of the purported performance information was true.   

38. On July 30, 2020, Defendants emailed Archer Fund investors an email with the 

subject, “Second Quarter 2020 – Quarterly Market Review.”  The email claimed that as of June 

2020, the Archer Fund’s performance had grown 3.03% while the Russell Index’s performance 

only increased 2.06%.   

39. On October 8, 2020, the Defendants emailed more than 300 current and 

prospective investors the “Archer Fund September Market Commentary.”  This email stated that 

the Archer Fund’s performance for September was 3.73% contrasted with the Russell Index of -

4.6%.  The October email failed to blind copy the recipients of the email, thereby exposing the 

email addresses of each recipient to all others on the mailing list. 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 8 of 17



9 
 

C. Collapse of Archer Fund Scheme, and the Misappropriation of Investor Funds  

40. Between December 2019 and December 2020, at least 20 people, from multiple 

states invested approximately $2.6 million with the Defendants.   

41. Shortly after the October 8, 2020 market commentary email inadvertently 

disclosed the email addresses of the more than 300 current and prospective investors, the Archer 

Fund website and all related email addresses were no longer operational.   

42. Emails to [email protected] simply bounced back.  All related phone 

numbers were also disconnected.  In addition, the LinkedIn profiles for the company and the 

company’s management team were deleted and the Archer Capital and Archer Fund related news 

releases were no longer available online. 

43. As a result, investors lost all ability to access their Archer Fund accounts or 

contact the Defendants.       

44. Although the investors’ online Archer Fund accounts had reflected their 

investments, bogus dividends and purportedly growing balances, the Defendants never used any 

of the investor funds as promised.   

45. Rather, investor funds were deposited in HDR and Silvermoon bank accounts and 

were initially used primarily to perpetuate the fraudulent scheme by paying expenses related to 

maintaining the Archer Capital website and on advertising costs. A small portion of investor 

funds was used for personal expenses such as Uber Eats and grocery store bills.  

46.  By October 14, 2020, all remaining funds were transferred out of the country. 

V. DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS 

47. The Archer Fund interests offered and sold by the Defendants were securities 

within the meaning of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 9 of 17



10 
 

48. Archer Fund investors provided the Defendants with an investment of money. 

From May 2020 through October 2020 at least 20 investors gave the Defendants approximately 

$2.6 million. 

49. The Defendants pooled investors’ money into the Defendants’ accounts and 

represented that they would invest those funds in the Archer Fund and return a profit. 

50. Investors considered the interests in the Archer Fund to be investments and were 

interested in the profits the interests in the Archer Fund were expected to generate. 

51. Defendants engaged in the conduct described herein, including the offer and sale 

of the interests in the Archer Fund, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and/or by 

use of the mails.  

52. Defendants solicited investments from investors via the internet and secured 

investments from investors in at least fifteen states through the instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce.    

53. Defendants did not register their sale of Archer Fund interests with the 

Commission. 

54. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, the Defendants engaged in 

a long-running course of conduct designed to deceive investors in the offer and sale, in 

connection with the purchase and sale, of interests in the Archer Fund. 

55. The Defendants initiated the fraud by creating a false website, fabricated news 

releases for the fictitious entity and fund, and opened bank accounts with the sole purpose of 

misappropriating investor funds. 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 10 of 17



11 
 

56. The Defendants employed several deceptive acts to make the transactions appear 

as legitimate investments by posting bogus dividend returns on individual Archer Fund accounts, 

providing some investors with “returns” purportedly reflecting profits in the Archer Fund, and by 

sending false periodic market commentary emails falsely claiming that the Archer Fund’s 

purported performance continued to surpass the Russell Index. 

57. The Defendants knowingly made material untrue statements designed to deceive 

investors.  For instance, Defendants falsely represented the identities of the executives 

purportedly behind Archer Capital and the Archer Fund, the business operations and 

performance of the entities, and the use of investor funds. 

58. A reasonable investor would consider the misrepresented facts and omitted 

information described herein—including, among other things, misrepresentations and omissions 

regarding the high rate of returns on investments and the use of investors’ money to pay for 

Defendants’ personal expenses—important in deciding whether or not to purchase interests in the 

Archer Fund. 

59. In connection with the conduct described herein, Defendants acted knowingly or 

recklessly.  Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that they were making material 

misrepresentations. 

60. Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that investor funds were not 

being used as promised. 

61. Defendants used devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud investors, and engaged 

in acts, transactions, practices, or courses of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the 

investors.   

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 11 of 17



12 
 

62. In addition to the numerous misrepresentations discussed herein, among other 

things, Defendants misled investors and misappropriated investors’ funds for their personal use 

and benefit. 

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act 

63. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 62, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

64. No registration statement was filed or in effect with the Commission pursuant to 

the Securities Act with respect to the securities issued by the Archer Fund as described in this 

Complaint, and no exemption from registration existed with respect to those securities. 

65. From December 2019 through December 2020, the Defendants directly and 

indirectly: 

a. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or of the mails to sell securities, through the use or 

medium of a prospectus or otherwise; 

b. carried or caused to be carried securities through the mails or in interstate 

commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, for the purpose of 

sale or delivery after sale; or 

c. made use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy through the 

use of medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 12 of 17



13 
 

without a registration statement having been filed or being in effect with the Commission as to 

such securities. 

66. With regard to the sale of Archer Fund securities described herein, no exemption 

validly applied to the registration requirements described above. 

67. By reason of the foregoing the Defendants violated, and unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5 (c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

§ 77e(a) and 77e(c)]. 

COUNT II 

Violations of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act 

68. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference here the allegations in 

paragraphs 1 through 62, as if they were fully set forth herein.  

69. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, the Defendants, in the 

offer and sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, knowingly or recklessly, directly 

or indirectly, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud. 

70. By reason of the forgoing, Defendants have violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)(1)]. 

COUNT III 

Fraud in Violation of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act 

71. The Commission repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this Complaint. 

72. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, Defendants, in the offer or 

sale of securities by use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate 

commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly, negligently engaged in transactions, 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 13 of 17



14 
 

practices, or courses of business which operated or would have operated as a fraud or deceit upon the 

purchasers. 

73. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3)].  

COUNT IV 

Fraud in Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) of the Exchange Act 

74. The Commission repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this 

Complaint. 

75. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, Defendants, directly and 

indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, 

knowingly or recklessly employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud in connection with the 

purchase or sale of any security. 

76. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated and, unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 

and Rule 10b-5(a) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a)].  

COUNT V 

Fraud in Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(c) of the Exchange Act 

77. The Commission repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 62 of this 

Complaint. 

78. From December 2019 through at least December 2020, Defendants, directly or 

indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, 

knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business which have operated, 

are now operating and will operate as a fraud upon any person in connection with the purchase or 

sale of any security. 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 14 of 17



15 
 

79. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined, are 

reasonably likely to continue to violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), 

and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(c) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(c)]. 

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court find the 

Defendants committed the violations alleged, and:  

I. 

Permanent Injunction 

Issue a Permanent Injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from violating 

the federal securities laws alleged in this Complaint.  

II. 

Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest 

Issue an order directing Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains received within the 

applicable statute of limitations, including prejudgment interest, resulting from the acts and/or 

courses of conduct alleged in this Complaint. 

III. 

Civil Penalty 

Issue an order directing Defendants to pay civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section 

20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and 21(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u-

(d)]. 

 

 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 15 of 17



16 
 

IV.  

Further Relief 

Granting any other and further relief this Court may deem just, equitable, or necessary in 

connection with the enforcement of the federal securities laws. 

V. 

Retention of Jurisdiction 

Further, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over this 

action and Defendants in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and decrees 

that it may enter, or to entertain any suitable application or motion by the Commission for 

additional relief within the jurisdiction of this Court. 

  

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 16 of 17



17 
 

VI. 

Demand for Jury Trial 

The Commission hereby demands a trial by jury on any and all issues in this action so 

triable. 

 
      
 
September 1, 2022    Respectfully submitted, 

 
 
/s/Gregory R. Bockin  
Gregory R. Bockin (FL Special Bar Number A5501158) 
Kingdon Kase 
Paulina L. Jerez 
Attorneys for Plaintiff  
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

     Philadelphia Regional Office 
     1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 520 
     Philadelphia, PA 19103 
     Phone: 215-597-3192 
     Fax: 215-597-2740 
     Email: [email protected] 
 

 
 

Case 0:22-cv-61632-XXXX   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022   Page 17 of 17

mailto:[email protected]