Lawsuit Targets Lottery.com, Alleges Fraudulent Misrepresentation

The plaintiff that filed the legal claim with the Florida District Court alleges it was due to receive Lottery.com shares at special rates below market priceImage Source: Shutterstock.com

Over the last few years, Lottery.comhas been involved in a number of scandals, some of which resulted in legal action. Now, the company is once again in hot water over accusations of fraudulent misrepresentationdescribed in a lawsuit filed by a supply chain business in Florida.

Sharon A. McTurk, Astra Supply Chain’s president is listed as a plaintiff in the legal claim filed against Lottery.comand its CEO, Matthew McGahan, as announced by a report released by NEXT.io.

In its lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that an individual named Ronald Farah, of Boca Raton, Florida, presented the supply chain business with a unique investment opportunityin exchange for financing. It is currently unclear how Farah was related to Lottery.com and whether or not he officially held a role with the lottery ticket management service.

It’s important to note that Farah reportedly passed away last year in September. Still, the plaintiff alleges that Farah’s action and proposal to receive Lottery.com shares below the market price played a key role in the process.

Initially, Astra Supply Chain completed an investment transfer of $500,000last September. The transfer reached a company owned by then Lottery.com’s CEO, Sohail Quraeshi, called SAS Management. However, the overall sum invested by the Florida supply chain business was a whopping $1.9 million.

Per the letter, allegedly signed by McGahan, McTurk was asked to establish a company called SMRF Holdings. Moreover, she was promised the company would receive some 3,000,000in common stock shares, “in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions to your work or services to Lottery.com,” the plaintiff claimed.

Lottery.com Moves to Dismiss the Legal Claim

Responding to the allegations, Lottery.com filed a Motion to Dismiss. The company and its boss, McGahan, argued that the plaintiff didn’t rely solely on the aforementioned letter for the investment. Moreover, attorneys representing Lottery.com explained: “First, the Letter is not a complete contract, because the Letter is ‘in accordance with’ separate ‘agreed terms and conditions’.”

Additionally, they argued: “Plaintiffs could not be reasonably relying on terms they did not know. The Letter was at most the equivalent of a piece of a Map and could not be material by itself.”

What’s more, Lottery.com argued that while it was the recipient of the funds, the aforementioned fraudulent promise and misrepresentation were completed solely by Farah.

Currently, the legal claim is with the Florida District Court.