DriversRecommendedOutdated drivers can make a good PC feel brokenScan driver issues before chasing fixes manually.Scan NowOctober DealsAmazon USOctober deal check: compare before you payAmazon US: current deals, useful picks and tech finds.Check DealsPC HealthRecommendedCrashes, freezes, slowdowns? Check your PC nowSpot repairable issues before they interrupt work.Check PC×
Skip to content
The Finance Base
The Money Desk · Blog
Re:

How RadioShack, Dress Barn and Pier 1 Imports Became Part of an Alleged Ponzi Scheme

The SEC’s 2025 civil complaint alleges that REV used offerings involving RadioShack, Dress Barn, Pier 1 and five other brands to raise about $112 million, move funds across companies and pay some earlier investors with later money.
From TheFinanceBase Team3 min to read

What’s actually slowing this PC down?

Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

RadioShack, Dress Barn and Pier 1 Imports were three of eight retail-brand companies managed by Retail Ecommerce Ventures (REV). In a civil complaint filed in September 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleges that REV raised about $112 million from hundreds of investors, moved money raised for one brand to other companies, used new investor funds to pay some earlier investors, and diverted money for executives’ personal use. These are allegations, not findings that a court has established.

Why these three retail brands were involved

Retail Ecommerce Ventures LLC, co-founded by Taino Adrian Lopez and Alexander Farhang Mehr, served as the holding company and manager for a portfolio of eight companies. The SEC complaint describes REV’s stated strategy as acquiring distressed retailers with recognizable names and turning them into e-commerce-only businesses.

RadioShack Online, LLC, Dress Barn Online, Inc., and Pier 1 Imports Online, Inc. were among the portfolio companies whose offerings are described in the complaint. The brands represented different online retail businesses: electronics, women’s clothing and accessories, and home furnishings and imported decor. Their names and retail histories helped explain the investment pitch; the SEC’s allegations concern the companies’ fundraising and use of investor money.

What investors were offered

The SEC alleges that, from approximately April 2020 through November 2022, offerings by eight REV portfolio companies raised about $112 million from hundreds of investors. The complaint says investors were offered unsecured notes with annualized returns of up to 25%, or equity membership units with monthly preferential dividends of up to 2.083%.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

Those figures describe advertised offering terms in the SEC’s allegations, not returns shown to have been paid to every investor. The stated purpose of the offerings was to acquire predecessor businesses and provide operating capital to the particular company raising the money. The complaint quotes Lopez describing REV’s approach as “one of the best strategies you can invest in,” and says investors were told portfolio companies were “on fire” and that “cash flow is strong.”

How the alleged movement of money worked

Company-specific funds allegedly crossed between brands

The SEC alleges that proceeds raised for particular portfolio companies were transferred elsewhere, despite representations that the money would be used for the relevant company. One example in the complaint is dated February 4, 2022: $1.41 million moved from RadioShack’s account to REV. That day, REV transferred just over $1 million across five brands, including $615,000 to Pier 1 and $225,000 to Dress Barn.

The complaint also cites a $1.7 million direct transfer from RadioShack to Stein Mart in November 2020 and alleges at least $5.9 million in direct transfers between portfolio companies. That figure concerns intercompany transfers; it is separate from the SEC’s alleged $5.9 million in payments to investors using new or other-brand investor money.

Some earlier investors were allegedly paid with later investor money

The SEC separately alleges that at least $5.9 million in returns paid to earlier investors from July through October 2022 came from new investor funds or money associated with other REV brands, rather than company profits. The complaint says the portfolio companies generated some revenue but none generated profits. It describes this use of later funds to make earlier investor payments as Ponzi-like and alleges the defendants began operating a Ponzi scheme.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

These are related but distinct allegations: money moving between portfolio companies is not the same transaction as using new investor funds to pay earlier investors. The complaint says late payments began by August 2022 and missed payments occurred en masse by at least September 2022.

Executives allegedly diverted money for personal use

The SEC alleges that Lopez and Mehr misappropriated approximately $16.1 million in investor funds for personal use: about $12.5 million attributed to Lopez and $3.6 million to Mehr. The SEC’s September 2025 summary describes the agency’s claims and requested relief; it does not establish that a court has found the allegations true.

Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Support on Ko-Fi

What the SEC asked the court to do

The SEC says it filed the civil case on September 25, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It sought permanent injunctions, civil penalties, officer-and-director bars, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest from Lopez and Mehr. The complaint and the agency’s release report the filing and requested relief; they do not establish a later case outcome.

The primary filings are the SEC complaint, Case No. 1:25-cv-24356, filed September 23, 2025, and the agency’s Litigation Release 26413, dated September 25, 2025. The SEC’s characterization should therefore be read as an allegation in a civil enforcement case, not as a final adjudicated conclusion.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free tools Windows power users keep installed

One-click scans. No signup required.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

More post from the Money Desk

  1. The Money DeskBlogTheFinanceBase09 OCT 267 minMortgage Escrow FAQs: Taxes, Insurance, Shortages, and Refunds
  2. The Money DeskBlogTheFinanceBase09 OCT 265 minHow Mortgage Escrow Accounts Work and What Homeowners Pay For
  3. The Money DeskBlogTheFinanceBase09 OCT 265 minHow to Read a Stock Chart, Volume and Market-Cap Data
Recommended PC Tool
Recommended PC Tool
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?Free driver scan
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They SpreadFree repair scan

Two free Windows tools

One Free Minute Could Fix That PC

Before you go - each of these free tools takes about a minute and tackles what quietly slows a Windows PC down.

Special offer. View Outbyte info, uninstall instructions, EULA, and Privacy Policy.