11.  E.  The DeLeon Foreclosure   25.  The Estates Defendants solicit investments from individuals and businesses  across North Carolina to take part in a “system” that coordinates bidding on foreclosures  in North Carolina.     27.  Upon information and belief, the Estates Database provides a broad range  of real estate and related information that is compiled from public information.  The  Estates Database includes real estate data along with the Estates Defendants’ opinions on  the properties, such as the potential equity in the property and potential profits from a  purchase at a foreclosure sale.   28.  Pursuant to the Timbra Agreement, the Estates Defendants receive the  following different types of fees or compensation involved with the acquisition of any  property through the Estates Database:  a. Monthly User Fee – a monthly user fee of $99.97 for the first county and  $50.00 per month for each additional county;  b. Acquisition Fee to Timbra – Timbra receives an acquisition fee for any  properties acquired from the Estates Database;  c. Profit Splits – There are several profit-sharing arrangements between the  Estates Defendants and the members, with “simple” transactions – defined  as a simple bid with no strategy and simple offer – having a profit split of  2/3 to the Member and 1/3 to the Estates Defendants.   29.  Persons who have contracted with the Estates to obtain information about  properties being sold at foreclosure and who agree to bid on those properties through the  Estates are referred to in this Complaint as “Members” of the Estates.   31.  Upon information and belief, Members are required to use real estate agents  and/or brokers who are selected by the Estates. If Members want to use outside agents  and/or brokers, then the Estates must approve them.    32.  Upon information and belief, Members are required to use closing attorneys  selected by the Estates.    33.  Members of the Estates are required to establish separate companies to  participate in each foreclosure sale.   34.  In some cases there are companies established for the sole purpose of  placing a bid and a second company to actually purchase the property.   35.  Upon information and belief this fragmented structure is designed both to  mask the involvement of the Estates in the transaction and to make it difficult to  discovery the coordinated nature of the bidding at numerous foreclosures.   36.  Carolyn Souther, a Member, has testified under oath in another proceeding  that all Members enter into a non-compete agreement.  A copy of relevant portions of  Souther’s testimony quoted in this Complaint at Paragraphs 39 to 44 is attached as  Exhibit 2.   37.  Under the terms of the Timbra Agreement, the Members are given access to  multiple properties facing foreclosure.     39.  Souther, in testimony given under oath in another proceeding, described the  bid-rigging process in some detail:  Q.  Does The Estates coordinate which properties get bidded on, is  that done through the database?  A.  No, the database simply gives us properties.  Q. What happens if three investors want to bid on a property?  A. I don't know. If I want to bid on something, and someone else  says, I want to bid, one of us needs to back down.  Q. What do you mean back down?  A. I don't want to bid -- if I know somebody -- even way back, if I  knew that someone wanted to buy a property and I did as well, I'll  say no, you take this one, I'll go work on another one. So, we're  not bidding against, again, my friend.1  …  Through The Estates -- I know what you're asking. You're saying  through The Estates is it -- So, we know if one us is bidding on a  property, then the others go back for another, or we find a  different property.  Souther Deposition 57:6-22, 58:7-11.   42.  She also testified:  Q. Do[es] [The Estates] have to approve, saying yes, no, you can go  bid on this property because they cleared it in terms of the other  investors?  A.   Again, we don't cross bids.  If someone is interested in a  property, I'm not going to bid against them, or will they bid against  me.  That's probably within the organization.  Souther Deposition at 99:16-23.   43.  Information regarding who is bidding can be entered into the Estates  Database so that other members can track who has and has not bid.   45.  For example, on October 4, 2017, Souther sent an email to Newell in which  she expressed concern that she might not have properly indicated in the Estates database  that she intended to purchase a 20307 Southshore Dr., Cornelius, NC:   I have been working this property over a week, and just realized that  I may not have hit BUY as I could not find my BUY IT email.  So, I  hit BUY to make sure I was in position, and it came up 2nd position.   Am I in 1st AND 2nd, or is someone else ahead of me?  A copy of Souther’s email is attached as Exhibit 3.   46.  Newell responded:  I looked on Huchens [a foreclosure law firm] website.  They post  there [sic] sales for 2 months out.  It is not listed as active sale or  coming up through end of NOV at this time.  (emphasis added).   47.  Souther’s email demonstrates that the Estates, through its database, permits  members to indicate their desire to bid, and it ranks potential bidders.   49.  After she investigated the sale, Souther emailed Newell to tell her “I bid  10K on jasmine thinking it was a tax sale, but will bid higher.”  Souther’s email is  attached as Exhibit 5.   50.  Once it is determined which Member of the Estates will be the winning  bidder on a particular piece of property, the bid deposit is paid to the Estates.   51.  Defendant Tonya Newell is, upon information and belief, one of several   “Acquisition Assistants.”  Newell’s job is to attend foreclosure sales and place the sole  bid for the Member who was chosen as the bidder for that particular property.     52.  Upon information and belief, North and South Carolina are split between  three “Acquisition Assistants” – Newell, Sharon Pompey and Lynn Pinder.   53.  By having Newell and the other Acquisition Assistants place bids, the  Estates ensures that its bid-rigging arrangement will be successful.   54.  Upon information and belief, both Newell and the Estates receive  commissions if the bid placed by Newell is successful.  B.  The Nature of the Conspiracy   55.  All of the Defendants, including Does 1 – 100, have participated as co- conspirators of the Estates Defendants and have performed acts in furtherance of the  conspiracy.  All Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts of their co- conspirators whether or not they have been named in this Complaint.   57.  Plaintiff Williams is the owner of a Townhome located at 344 Red Elm  Drive, Durham, NC 27713, North Carolina (the “Williams Property”).    58.  On or about August 8, 2015, the Elm Grove Townhome Association, Inc.  (“Elm Grove”) filed a claim of lien in Durham County District Court at 15 M 1124.   59.  On or about July 19, 2016, the substitute trustee, filed a Notice of Hearing  to Foreclose Elm Grove’s Claim of Lien, in Durham County Case No. 16 SP 712.   60.  After several continuances, Elm Grove sold the property in foreclosure on  May 23, 2019.   61.  Defendant Versa, which was formed on May 22, 2019, the day before the  foreclosure sale, was the highest bidder at the sale.  A copy of the bid is attached as  Exhibit 6.   62.  Upon information and belief, Versa is either a Member of the Estates or  was formed by a Member at the direction of the Estates for the purpose of purchasing the  Williams Property at foreclosure.   63.  Upon information and belief, the Williams Property was listed in the  Estates Database.    65.  Upon information and belief, Versa or the members of that LLC entered  into an agreement with the Estates and its other Members that only one Member could  bid on the Williams Property.   66.  Upon information and belief, Versa or the members of that LLC were  determined to be the Member of the Estates who was permitted to bid on the Williams  Property.     67.  Upon information and belief, Versa or the members of that LLC paid the  deposit for the purchase of the Williams Property to the Estates.   68.  As is indicated on Exhibit 6, Defendant Newell placed the bid and paid the  deposit on behalf of Versa.   69.  On or about August 2, 2019 Versa purported to assign its bid to Red Tree.   A copy of the assignment is attached as Exhibit 7.   70.  Upon information and belief, the purchase of the Williams Property by  Versa, the bid placed by Newell, and the assignment to Red Tree were all acts taken  pursuant to a bid-rigging scheme propounded by the Estates.   71.  Upon information and belief, Versa, Red Tree or the members of that LLC  were required to pay money to Newell and the Estates for their role in the foreclosure.  D.  Effort to extort money from Williams.   73.  Souther added a hand-written note to the bottom: “I represent the investor  who recently won your home in the HOA foreclosure action. I may be able to help you  stay in your home. Please call me ASAP to avoid legal proceedings.”    74.  In her deposition, Souther testified that she had presented similar notices to  other owners of homes that Estates Members had bid on, and that she had written  “something similar” on each notice.  A copy of the relevant portion of Souther’s  deposition is attached as Exhibit 9.   75.  Although she claims to “represent” the “investor,” Carolyn Souther is  neither a North Carolina licensed real estate broker nor a North Carolina licensed  attorney. From June 26, 2019 until August 2, 2019, Carolyn Souther made several  attempts by both phone calls and text messages to Williams and his family demanding  $50,000 in exchange for Versa walking away from its foresclosure bid.   76.  On August 2, 2019, Red Tree Holdings LLC attached a similar document to  Plaintiff Williams’ door called a “Notice to Vacate Property.” A copy of the Notice to  Vacate is attached as Exhibit 10.   77.   At the time this “Notice” was sent to Williams, Williams was the owner  of the property and had every right to live there. The notice falsely claimed that  Williams was required to vacate his own house within ten (10) days.    79.  Upon information and belief, the purpose of this notice was to increase the  pressure on Mr. Williams to pay Souther’s demands by falsely making him believe that  he faced immanent eviction.    8.   80.  Souther used this false notice to increase the pressure on Williams.  She  ultimately negotiated her “demand” to $35,000, which she would accept in exchange for  Red Tree walking away from its bid.   81.  Souther’s negotiations were done in coordination with the Estates and  required Defendant Estates UT Manager Craig Brooksby’s approval.  In the Williams  negotiation, she contacted Craig Brooksby to get approval for accepting a counteroffer on  $30,000.  A copy of a text to Mbeja Lomotey, a principal of Defendant Maldives,  discussing the negotiation and the need for the Estates’ approval is attached as Exhibit   82.  Plaintiffs De Leon and Da Costa are the owners of a Townhome located at  3435 Archdale Dr. Raleigh, North Carolina (the “DeLeon Property”).    83.  On or about January 31, 2017 the Edgewood Townhomes Association, Inc.  (“Edgewood”) filed a claim of lien in Wake County District Court at 17 M 43.   85.  Edgewood sold the property in foreclosure May 30, 2019.   86.  Defendant Maldives was the high bidder at the sale.  A copy of Maldives’  bid is attached as Exhibit 12.    87.  Upon information and belief, Maldives is either a Member of the Estates or  was formed by a Member at the Estates’ direction for the purpose of purchasing the Leon  Property at foreclosure.   88.  Upon information and belief, Maldives or the members of that LLC entered  into an agreement with the Estates and its other Members that only one Member could  bid on the De Leon Property.   89.  Upon information and belief, Maldives or the members of that LLC were  determined to be the Member of the Estates who was permitted to bid on the De Leon  Property.     90.  Upon information and belief, Maldives or the members of that LLC paid  the deposit for the purchase of the De Leon Property to the Estates.   91.  As is shown in Exhibit 12, Defendant Newell placed the bid and paid the  deposit on behalf of Maldives.   92.  Upon information and belief, the purchase of the De Leon Property by  Maldives and the bid placed by Newell were all acts taken pursuant to a bid-rigging  scheme propounded by the Estates.  F.  Effort to extort money from De Leon and Da Costa.   94.  Souther added a hand-written note to the bottom: “I represent the investor  who recently won your home in the HOA foreclosure action. I may be able to help you  stay in your home.  Please call me to avoid further legal proceedings.”    95.  The language on the De Leon Notice to Respond is nearly identical to the  language on the Williams Notice to Respond.  And, as noted earlier, Souther admitted  that she had presented similar notices to other owners of homes that Estates Members had  bid on.   96.  Souther made several attempts by both phone calls and text messages to De  Leon and Da Costa.  In a text to their daughter, Souther demanded $80,000 in exchange  for which: “My investor will then walk away giving you clear rights to the home.”  A  copy of the text message is attached as Exhibit 14.   98.  Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if fully set forth  herein.   A.  The Estates and Bid-Rigging  