Retail Ecommerce Ventures (REV), the company that once promised to revive brands like RadioShack and Pier 1 Imports, now faces serious fraud allegations after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused it of operating a Ponzi-like scheme. The SEC claims that REV raised over $112 million from hundreds of investors by promoting deceptive offerings centered on distressed retail brands — and that a portion of these funds were used to pay earlier investors, a defining hallmark of a Ponzi scheme.
For investors who believed in REV’s e-commerce revival story, the allegations suggest a devastating betrayal of trust. If you’ve been pressured into making an investment you didn’t fully understand or suspect might have been fraudulent such as a Ponzi scheme, you’re not alone—the securities fraud lawyers at Meyer Wilson Werning can help. Reach out today to discuss your next steps with us.
How the Retail Ecommerce Ventures Scheme Worked
The SEC alleges that Retail Ecommerce Ventures positioned itself as a modern investment platform that would breathe new life into struggling retail icons by relaunching them online. Its portfolio of acquired brands included:
- RadioShack
- Pier 1 Imports
- Dress Barn
- Modell’s Sporting Goods
- Stein Mart
According to the SEC, these acquisitions failed to generate meaningful revenue or profits. Instead, REV’s co-founders Tai Lopez and Alexander Mehr, along with Chief Operating Officer Maya Burkenroad, allegedly kept investors in the dark about mounting losses. The firm began using outside loans, cash advances, and money from new investors to cover earlier financial shortfalls — behavior consistent with a Ponzi scheme structure.
Key Allegations from the SEC
The SEC’s lawsuit, filed in September 2025 in the Southern District of Florida, details several critical allegations against Retail Ecommerce Ventures and its executives:
- $112 million raised from hundreds of investors through misleading private offerings.
- $5.9 million in Ponzi-like payments distributed to early investors using funds from new participants.
- $16.1 million diverted for personal use by Lopez and Mehr.
- False marketing materials and promotional videos claiming REV’s brands were “on fire,” despite none producing profits.
- Misrepresentation of executives’ qualifications — the SEC noted that COO Maya Burkenroad, presented as a seasoned executive, had prior experience as a substitute preschool teacher and radio station promoter.
These details show that REV’s promises of high returns were not supported by legitimate business operations, but rather by circular funding and self-enrichment by its leadership.
We Have Recovered Over
$350 Million for Our Clients Nationwide.
The Ponzi Scheme Pattern
The SEC’s complaint against Retail Ecommerce Ventures mirrors many of the same warning signs seen in other Ponzi scheme cases. When legitimate profits fail to materialize, fraudulent operators often resort to using new investor money to pay old investors — creating the illusion of success while deepening financial collapse.
The following red flags are common indicators of Ponzi schemes:
- Unrealistic or guaranteed returns despite volatile market conditions.
- Dependence on continuous new investments to maintain operations or pay distributions.
- A lack of audited financial statements or independent verification of performance.
- Opaque management structures that hide how funds are being used.
In REV’s case, the alleged use of new investor funds to repay existing ones, combined with false marketing about profitability, fits this model almost exactly.
Investor Impact and Losses From Retail Ecommerce Ventures
The SEC’s complaint indicates that hundreds of investors participated in REV’s fundraising efforts, many attracted by the company’s familiar brand portfolio and claims of e-commerce growth. But according to the regulator, none of the ventures turned a profit, leaving investors exposed to massive losses when the company’s financial instability became impossible to hide.
The total investor damages are expected to reach into the tens of millions, and the SEC is seeking civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, and a permanent officer-and-director bar against Lopez, Mehr, and Burkenroad.
The fallout from these allegations emphasizes how Ponzi-like behavior can take root even in seemingly legitimate companies with high-profile brands.
Our lawyers are nationwide leaders in investment fraud cases.
Lessons for Investors and Recognizing Red Flags
The Retail Ecommerce Ventures case is a clear reminder of the risks posed by investment programs that promise exceptional returns without transparency. Investors should remain vigilant for early warning signs, especially when presented with opportunities that seem too good to be true.
Investors can help protect themselves by:
- Requesting written financials and independent audits before investing.
- Researching company leadership and confirming registration status with the SEC or FINRA.
- Avoiding unregistered private offerings that lack detailed disclosures.
- Monitoring how investment returns are funded, especially when payouts depend on new investor money rather than business income.
These practices are essential to avoiding the pitfalls that have plagued investors in both this and similar Ponzi-style schemes, including Horizon Private Equity and other fraudulent offerings that promised consistent, high-yield returns.
We Are The firm other lawyers
call for support.
How Meyer Wilson Werning Helps Victims of Ponzi Schemes
For investors harmed by the alleged Retail Ecommerce Ventures Ponzi scheme, recovery may be possible — but it requires quick and strategic legal action. At Meyer Wilson Werning, we represent victims of investment fraud and Ponzi schemes nationwide. Our team investigates misconduct, traces investor funds, and helps clients pursue compensation through arbitration, litigation, and other recovery channels.
If you or someone you know has lost money through Retail Ecommerce Ventures or has been impacted by a securities or investment scam, the experienced attorneys at Meyer Wilson Werning are here to help. With more than 20 years in the industry and over $350 million recovered for our clients, our focus on investment fraud and securities litigation has helped many investors recover their losses. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case and learn how we can assist you in protecting your financial interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Retail Ecommerce Ventures (REV) accused of by the SEC?
The SEC alleges that Retail Ecommerce Ventures operated a Ponzi-like scheme, raising over $112 million from investors using false claims about reviving retail brands. Instead of funding real business growth, funds were allegedly used to pay earlier investors and enrich executives.
How did Retail Ecommerce Ventures attract investors?
REV promoted itself as an e-commerce platform that would relaunch brands like RadioShack and Pier 1 Imports online. The company’s marketing promised high returns and exaggerated its success, misleading investors about the health of its operations.
Who are the executives accused in the Retail Ecommerce Ventures case?
The SEC named co-founders Tai Lopez and Alexander Mehr, along with COO Maya Burkenroad, as defendants. They allegedly diverted millions for personal use while hiding losses and misrepresenting Burkenroad’s qualifications.
How can investors recognize the warning signs of a Ponzi scheme?
Common red flags include guaranteed or unrealistic returns, vague financial reporting, reliance on new investors to pay old ones, and a lack of audited statements. REV’s alleged use of investor money to cover past debts mirrors these classic Ponzi indicators.
Can victims of the Retail Ecommerce Ventures scheme recover their losses?
Yes. Investors may pursue recovery through arbitration, litigation, or SEC restitution if funds are recovered from the defendants. Law firms like Meyer Wilson Werning can help victims trace funds and file claims for compensation.
Recovering Losses Caused by Investment Misconduct.