That it is PhenixBleu.
Additional news today, Jeff actually filed his "Alter Ego" document for the court yesterday. I will give a bit of perspective below with some quotes just to give a insight to Jeff and how he handles things legally as it may impact or give insight to ACCA.
Some interesting aspects is Jeff still has money to pay for legal counsel. Michael B. Wilson of CURAT/LEX, INC. I wonder if he knows of Jeff's other troubles yet?
But here are some highlights for those interested.
1) "plaintiff’s claim against the alter ego defendant is
identical with that claimed by plaintiff against the already-named defendant."
2) So the plaintiffs are looking for a quick verdict by the judge, but Jeff is adamant about due process and forcing a trial with jury.
"Because Defendants are entitled to a trial by jury on certain of the substantive legal claims underlying Plaintiffs’ alter ego theory, a jury is required."
3)Jeff is looking to throw a wrench in how the plantiffs are trying to handle this case.Really trying to push how he is involved.
"Here, Plaintiffs entered into various agreements with the Debtor Defendants Acembly and Synrgy. Acembly and Synrgy do have common shareholder – Defendant Jeff Bearden. Defendant B&D Consulting, however, is not alleged to – nor does it – have any interest in either Acembly or Synrgy. B&D Consulting’s sole involvement in the transactions at issue here was that it forwarded the funds required by the Stock Purchase Agreement. Put simply, Plaintiffs cannot prove B&D Consulting to be the alter ego of either Acembly or Synrgy because B&D Consulting is not a shareholder of either. Plaintiffs therefore attempts to link B&D Consulting to the transaction through Jeff Bearden – which is to say Plaintiffs allege that Synrgy and Acembly are the alter egos of Jeff Bearden and, since B&D Consulting is also helmed by Mr. Bearden, B&D Consulting is linked as well. That is not the proper application of the alter ego doctrine; it is reverse-veil piercing, something which is disallowed in California."
4) Does synrgy even exist?
"effort to claim that the allegations in the Complaint are made directly against Bearden, they state the Defendant Synrgy does not exist and therefore Bearden, as agent, failed to disclose his principal. However, in an effort to pursue their alter ego theory of liability Plaintiffs state that Synrgy does indeed exist and is the alter ego of Bearden."
5)One thing that has bothered me is the spelling for "synrgy" company has been incorrect (as synergy) at multiple points of this case. How would that play into the case? And it is finally coming up.
"the name of Synrgy was misspelled as “Synergy” in the contracts (something, incidentally, which is done in Plaintiffs’ Complaint where “Synrgy” is the named Defendant but “Synergy” is used throughout)."
6) The funds are brought back into question.
"Plaintiffs allege that Bearden contributing funds for Synrgy’s operation constituted commingling. That is not the case. An owner’s contribution of funds to assist his or her company in meeting its financial obligations does not support the application of the alter ego doctrine. "
7) Jeff using Acembly as personal bank? looks like he did same thing with B&D PPP loans (buying stocks)
"Plaintiffs Have No Evidence That Bearden Diverted Funds or
Assets, Treated Corporate Assets His Own or That Either
Acembly or Synrgy Failed to Issue Stock"
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
