We asked LT to respond: Yes, I did record, legally, all conversations regarding this matter. I do not deny or confirm all that is in the question but the CASH investor was emphatic that his money/investment was presented to elements of HPIL specifically and exclusively to be used for Apogee Dynamic's technology. I ask you: if we had received $1.5 Million - and this supposed payment of $50,000 on the side, do you feel we would be having a crowdfunding campaign right now? We still have our banking activity report, and access to business management people we relied upon at the time. The press releases at the time, May - June 2022, I feel were misleading and in the future are issues that may require punitive legal suits to settle and get both sides of the story heard by legal authorities. Right now, we are focused on moving as swiftly as possible to first show one aspect of our technology, raising interest and funding to quickly manufacture the fully integrated system that is a Hybrid of a Hybrid bearing truly limitless range. In my professional lifetime including the years I spent working with brilliant Alvin Snaper and my friend David Anthony over at Two-Lions Investments and all the motion picture projects where creativity was required and licensed, I have seen so many technologies crushed and abandoned due to both criminality and venal misconduct. I and my team, well, we cannot believe that we cannot believe!
[ Stephen Brown is a Canadian citizen who was appointed as the CEO of HPIL Holding (OTC: HPIL) in April 2021. Since his appointment, his tenure has been marked by extensive and ongoing corporate litigation, internal leadership disputes, and federal court cases in Michigan and California. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Leadership & Litigation Disputes:
- 2021 Appointment: Brown was appointed by Angela Collette after a Michigan state court instituted receivership for the company.
- Disputed Termination: Other factions of the company have disputed his leadership, with announcements in 2022 claiming his termination.
- Federal Lawsuits: Brown and various entities (such as Crank Media and Brown Family Investments) have been embroiled in prolonged federal court battles regarding control of the corporation, including HPIL Holding, Inc. v. Brown et al in Michigan and Butter v. Stephen Brown et al in California. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Would you like to know more about the recent 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings regarding HPIL, or are you looking for details on the status of the California lawsuit?AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

8 sites
- Case 1:23-cv-12050-TLL-PTM ECF No. 55, PageID ... - GovInfo In April 2021, Collette entered into an agreement with Defendant Stephen Brown—a. Canadian citizen—appointing him to serve as HPIL...
GovInfo (.gov)
- Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Stephen Brown et al - Justia Dockets: Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Stephen Brown et al 5:2025cv03402 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California | Justia.
Justia
- HPIL Holding Announces Termination of Stephen Brown as ...On June 2, 2022, the Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Stephen Brown, presented a letter of termina...

www.marketscreener.com
: more about the recent 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings regarding HPIL, and details on the status of the California lawsuit.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals completely reversed the lower court's dismissal of HPIL Holding's fraud lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward. Meanwhile, the California federal lawsuit—Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Stephen Brown et al.—remains active with recent extensions granted for serving the remaining defendants. [1, 2, 3]
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling.
On March 6, 2026, the 6th Circuit issued a significant, published opinion in HPIL Holding, Inc. v. Zhang, et al. (authored by Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton). [1, 2, 3]
- The Background: HPIL filed a federal lawsuit alleging that minority shareholder Haining ("Harry") Zhang, receiver Angela Collette, Stephen Brown, Crank Media, and others used a defective Michigan state-court receivership to loot the corporation, dilute shares, and engage in a "pump and dump" stock scheme. [1]
- The Lower Court's Action: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan had thrown out the suit sua sponte (on its own accord). It cited the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, claiming federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review decisions arising from state-court receiverships. [1, 2]
- The Appeal Ruling: The 6th Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The panel ruled that Rooker-Feldman did not apply because HPIL was not seeking an appeal of the state court's order. Instead, HPIL was asserting independent claims of fiduciary breach, civil conspiracy, and RICO violations regarding misconduct that took place during those proceedings. This effectively revives the massive civil fraud litigation against Brown and his associates in Michigan federal court. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Status of the California Lawsuit
The case Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Stephen Brown et al. (Case No. 5:25-cv-03402), handled by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. in the Central District of California, centers on contract enforcement and judgments. [1, 2]
- Default Applications: In late March 2026, the plaintiff filed an application for the court clerk to enter a default judgment against HPIL Holding Inc. due to a lack of timely response. [1]
- Active Status & Extensions: Judge Blumenfeld discharged an Order to Show Cause (OSC) for lack of prosecution after the plaintiff showed active efforts to move the case forward. The court officially extended the deadline to June 26, 2026, for the plaintiff to file finalized proofs of service against the remaining defendants in the case. [1, 2]
Would you like to review the specific RICO and fraud allegations detailed in the revived Michigan case, or do you need tracking details for upcoming hearing dates in California?
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

7 sites
- Section 1257(a) Bars Only De Facto Appeals: Rooker ...8 Mar 2026 — Harry Zhang (6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026), the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court's sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject-matter...
CaseMine
- 25-1595 - HPIL Holding, Incorporated v. Harry Zhang, et al 6 Mar 2026 — HPIL Holding, Incorporated v. Harry Zhang, et al, (6th Cir. 2026) (OPINION and JUDGMENT filed : REVERSED and REMANDED. Mandate to ...
GovInfo (.gov)
- Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Stephen Brown et al - PacerMonitor 16 Dec 2025 — Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Stephen Brown et al. California Central District Court. Judge: Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. Referred: Pedro V...
PacerMonitor
review the specific RICO and fraud allegations detailed in the revived Michigan case, and the tracking details for upcoming hearing dates in California.
The specific RICO and fraud allegations revived in Michigan focus on a corporate looting and stock dilution scheme. Meanwhile, the California case tracking reveals a focus on service compliance and default entries rather than a trial date. [1, 2, 3]
Revived Michigan Case: RICO & Fraud Allegations
The civil complaint in HPIL Holding, Inc. v. Zhang, et al. alleges that the defendants weaponized a defunct state-court receivership to orchestrate an illegal takeover. [1]
- The Core Fraud Scheme: Minority shareholder Haining ("Harry") Zhang allegedly obtained a defective default judgment in Michigan state court to install Angela Collette as a corporate receiver. [1]
- Corporate Looting: Once in power, the receiver and appointed CEO Stephen Brown allegedly stripped HPIL Holding of valuable intellectual property, transferring key assets over to their side entities, including Crank Media. [1, 2]
- RICO & Stock Dilution: The complaint outlines an ongoing racketeering enterprise designed to enrich insiders through toxic stock structures. The defendants allegedly flooded the market by massively diluting HPIL’s outstanding shares and executing a "pump and dump" operation. [1, 2]
- Fiduciary Breach: The revived suit targets Brown and his associates for violating basic fiduciary duties of loyalty, using their disputed positions to shield themselves from corporate oversight while siphoning funds. [1, 2]
California Tracking Details In Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Stephen Brown et al. (Case No. 5:25-cv-03402), there are no upcoming oral arguments or trial dates scheduled on the immediate horizon. Instead, the case is moving through strict procedural markers overseen by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. [1, 2]
- June 26, 2026 Proof of Service Deadline: The primary tracking focus is the expiration of the court-ordered deadline for the plaintiff to turn in finalized proof that all remaining defendants (including David Postula, Crank Media, and Brown Family Investments) were properly served. [1]
- Next Status Assessment: Judge Blumenfeld will evaluate the filed proofs of service. If any defendants failed to respond despite being successfully served by the deadline, the plaintiff will advance the Default Judgment applications filed earlier.
- Pending Motion to Dismiss (Related Matter): In the sister case Gurvinder Singh Butter v. Mohammad Shibli (dealing with the same underlying HPIL corporate dispute in the Central District of California), a Motion to Dismiss remains under review, which will heavily influence how Judge Blumenfeld handles Stephen Brown's scheduling. [1]