1 month ago
48
iFLIP Chicago owner has been accused in other lawsuits filed of running a Ponzi scheme using real estate contracts to transfer his debt to investors.
A lawsuit is accusing the New York-based lender behind the real estate coaching company iFLIP Chicago of taking advantage of inexperienced Black investors in order to seize land near the expected future home of the Obama Presidential Center on the South Side of Chicago.
According to NBC 5, they have heard several complaints from Chicago homeowners who say that the company has turned their lives inside out. iFLIP Chicago recruited at least 20 amateur investors, or would-be house flippers, many of whom say they were sold a false bill of goods by the company.
According to Ameera Haamid, the company left her and others with a significant risk. “We are at risk of losing over $200,000,” Haamid told the outlet. She also briefly described how the program was supposed to work to NBC 5. “[iFLIP] had a team that’s already built to assist you through the process. So they will locate the property for you. They will put you in touch with the with the lending company provide financing.”
However, according to the lawsuit, once the investors got the loans, they were hit by hefty default interest fees even after making their payments on time. According to Tatianna Barnett, a Chicago realtor, several investors went into foreclosure and are now in limbo.
“We’re just stuck in a limbo with properties that we bought, that were unable to finish. We have no idea where the money is. I have lost $169,000. I have a lender that’s saying ‘I’m not going to give you this money…your money’s gone,” Barnett told the outlet.
According to several investors, they had to apply for commercial loans with Roc360 Capital, and their loan agreement authorized the lenders to take money from the borrowers accounts to cover any late fees or any defaults on other loans.
Ramo Bey, the man who owned iFLIP Chicago, is accused in other lawsuits filed earlier in 2024 of running a Ponzi scheme using the real estate contracts to transfer his debt to the investors, which a lawyer says should never have been allowed to happen.
Alex Loftus, an attorney who is now representing nearly 20 iFLIP investors in the lawsuit, told NBC 5 the implications of the case.
“[The investors’] impression was that Mr. Bey was the bad guy who took their money and they were in a deal with him and he took advantage of them. The reality is that the contracts do not allow for this. They didn’t sign anything that allowed for their money to be used for someone else.”
Loftus continued, “This is a big venture firm in New York taking advantage of the little guys in Chicago. I think from the perspective of the folks in New York, if you have this group of African Americans doing business on the South Side of Chicago, that’s an easy group to take some risks with.”
According to Loftus, Bey is potentially just as much of a victim as his clients.
“The investors] go to Mr. Bey and they talk to each other and they’re like, ‘Oh geez, we must be stuck because the big guys in New York, the money men in New York all say that we agreed to this’. It’s not true,” Loftus said. “No one materially benefits from this whole fiasco besides the lender.”
Loftus continued, “They were targeted based on who they are and where they come from, that this was someone that that we could get away with this a while longer.
For their part in the lawsuits, Roc 360 gave a lengthy statement to NBC 5 defending its policies.
“Roc 360 will respond to the lawsuit in due course and vigorously defend its position. To the extent Plaintiffs have grounds for complaints, it appears to relate to the other named defendants. Roc 360 has, at all times, acted in good faith and fully complied with the terms of the commercial loan documents signed by the borrowers. Roc 360 does not and has never funded consumer loans – all its loans are to companies. Each borrower signs a business purpose affidavit.”
Roc 360 continued, “The plaintiffs in the instant action were represented by counsel and should have been aware of the terms of the loans they were agreeing to. Roc 360’s fees were fully disclosed on the closing statement, and the plaintiffs were under no obligation to proceed with the loan. Roc 360’s fees are fully in line with industry norms. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion in paragraphs 53 and 54 and elsewhere in the complaint, the loan documents (the note and the guarantee) explicitly permitted the cross-collateralization and cross-default of loans.”
RELATED CONTENT: Condo Deal Falls Through Because Owner Didn’t Want To Sell To A Black Woman
