Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuit Latest Data

Industrial Leading companies like Phoenix Capital Group sometimes has to get involved in many litigations du to clients’ agreements. Below article will provide a collective information of some of the Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuits.

Phoenix Capital Group

Phoenix Capital Group, LLC operates as a leading company in oil and gas mineral rights acquisition and investment. The company is located in Denver, CO and has offices in Irvine, CA, Casper, WY, Dallas, TX, and Fort Lauderdale, FL with a mission to identify and maximize value for landowners nationally. Phoenix Capital is a family-operated firm that targets projects potentially supporting both land owners and investors while using expertise, innovation, and financial proficiency to facilitate the company’s clients.

Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuit

Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuit

Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuit

Phoenix Capital Group has also been involved in a litigation issue regarding its operations at the moment. It may be surprising that the litigation is based on allegations regarding some of its acquisitions of oil and gas mineral rights. Below are some Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuits:

Phoenix Capital Investments LLC v. Ellington Management Group (2008)

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Plaintiff: Phoenix Capital Investments LLC

Defendant: Ellington Management Group, L.L.C.

Decision Date: May 22, 2008


In 2000, Phoenix Capital Investments LLC and Ellington Management Group create an agreement, that revised in 2003, which specified that Phoenix capital would earn a particular amount of fee by introducing Ellington management group to different potential investors, to provide the investment occurred within one year of their last contact or the agreement.

Phoenix filled a lawsuit against Ellington management claimed that the company introduced Ellington to Norges Bank, which is a potential investor. Phoenix capital work hard to persuade the Norges Bank to invest in Ellington management. Ellington terminated the agreement, few weeks after they introduce Ellington to Norges Bank. Although the bank had invested in Ellington two years later.

During court hearings, many negotiations and renegotiations occurred, which stated that the Phoenix would only to receive a fee in the investment occurred within one year of the last contract date. While Phoenix argued that the 2003 amendment removed the clause of one-year, but that the revised agreement actually described the original fee schedule not to expand the one-year provision.

Court Decided that the dealing in good faith and fair, and cannot override the terms of contract. The Phoenix claim that Ellington intentionally delayed the investment from Norges Bank to avoid the fee. The court found that the Ellington acted within the contract terms, allowing Phoenix’s claim would unjustly disrupt the contract’s explicit expectations.

Under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b[a]), the claim was dismissed as Ellington followed to the negotiated contract terms and did not act wrongfully. The court dismissed all of Phoenix’s claims, reaffirming that Ellington’s actions were consistent with the contractual agreement and did not constitute wrongful conduct.

Phoenix Capital inc. v. Dowell (2007)

Court: Colorado Court of Appeals, Division V

Plaintiffs: Phoenix Capital, Inc. (PCI) and Phoenix Analytic Services, Inc. (PAS)

Defendant: Robert M. Dowell

Case Number: 05CA2712

Decision Date: July 26, 2007

Phoenix Capital, Inc. (PCI) and Phoenix Analytic Services, Inc. (PAS) appealed the trial court’s decision that denied their request to prevent Robert M. Dowell from violating a noncompetition agreement and denied an injunction against Dowell beyond the one-year limit specified in a nonsolicitation agreement

Phoenix Capital Inc is an investment bank that provides analytic and brokerage assistance to financial institutions and investors who buy, sell, and manage certain servicing rights associated with managing mortgages servicing rights. 

Dowell joined Phoenix Capital as a senior portfolio analyst and signed an agreement in 2000 prohibiting him from competing with Phoenix Capital or soliciting its customers or employees for one year after leaving. The agreement provided that it was binding and would “inure to the benefit of the parties, and successors and assigns.”

By 2002, Dowell was heading PCI’s analytics division. Phoenix Capital inc. then created Phoenix Analytic Services, Inc. (PAS) to handle its analytics and transferred Dowell to manage this division. In forming Phoenix Analytic Services, Phoenix Capital transferred all assets related to the analytic services division to Phoenix Analytic Services, but the employment agreements were not listed among these assets.

In March 2005, Dowell left Phoenix Analytic Services to join a competitor of Phoenix Capital and allegedly began soliciting Phoenix Capital Inc’s clients, assisting the competitor in brokerage activities, and trying to recruit two of PAS’s key employees.

Phoenix instituted the present action, fill a lawsuit against Robert M. Dowell for damages of violation of Dowell’s employment provisions situated noncompetition and nonsolicitation. The trial court granted preliminary injunctive relief only for the nonsolicitation provisions.

The court found that the Dowell was not “professional staff to executive or management personnel” under Colorado law (§ 8-2-113(2)(d)) when he signed the agreement. Thus, this provision could not become valid when Dowell was promoted a higher managerial position. The Court of Appeals partially affirmed, partially vacated, and remanded the decision for further action.

Phoenix Capital LLC v. Nsiah (2023)

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Plaintiff-Appellee: PHOENIX CAPITAL, LLC, as Assignee of Streamline Capital Partners LLC

Defendant-Appellant: Kwabena NSIAH

Case Number: 1-22-0067

Decision Date: September 29, 2023

On the 15th of September of the year 2004 Streamline sought legal proceedings against Kwabena Nsiah to recover on a defaulted Citibank credit card balance in the amount of $2,550. 06. Streamline produced administrative requirements proving that it had obtained all necessary rights to the Citibank account. In October 2004, efforts to pass summons to Nsiah at an address in East 103rd Street, Chicago, did not succeed. There was then provided a special process in which Nsiah mother Annie Nsiah was served to send court summons to Nsiah at the same address.

In response, Nsiah duly filled the ‘Appearance and Jury Demand’ form on December, 14 2004. The court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution on December 28, 2004 but later reinstated the case and set the date for status hearing on March 22, 2005. Nsiah failed to attend the hearing and an ex-part default judgment entered against her.

The court issued a citation to Nsiah in December 2005 seeking her to disclose her assets. After Nsiah had not shown up in court, the court in the month of April 2007 made a ruling that she was in contempt of court. Nsiah was later found and the court mandated that she make monthly payments to Streamline in the amount of $200 beginning from September 2008. Against this, Nsiah did not cooperate and the respondent had to obtain contempt orders and continued efforts were made to cease her Bank of America account.

Then, in February 2017, the rights to the judgment were transferred to Phoenix Capital. In January 2018, the PHOENIX CAPITAL attempted to enforce the judgment and issued a wage deduction summons. Nsiah also asked the court to consider reducing their wage deduction and the court agreed to do so. The judgment was satisfied by the court on March 17, 2021.

However, on May 12, 2021, Nsiah moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that she was never served personally. The scheduled hearing was conducted on 11 august 2021 in which both the parties got an opportunity to put up their case. The court had taken into consideration things like regularly involvement in court hearings of Nsiah. The court also dismissed Nsiah’s motion to quash service of process, opining that the defendant’s active involvement and the passage of time lowered her defenses. Even when Nsiah filed a motion to reconsider, it was also dismissed.

Nsiah filed a notice to appeal the denial of her motion to quash on the same date, on 12th January 2022. The present jurisdiction to hear the appeal lies with the appellate court under the Illinois Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 303.


In conclusion, Phoenix Capital Group worked as a leading oil and gas mineral rights accusation company. Such a huge industry also found in court hearings, due to agreements with clients as well as employees. Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuits provide a deep-down review of company that how it gets involved in many litigations over the time.


What services does Phoenix Capital Group offer?

Phoenix Capital Group provides investment banking, wealth management, and financial consulting services, asset management, and portfolio management services

Who are the typical clients of Phoenix Capital Group?

Phoenix Capital Group caters to a wide range of clients, including corporations, institutions, and wealthy individuals.

What was the outcome of Phoenix Capital Investments LLC v. Ellington Management Group?

The court dismissed Phoenix Capital’s claims, ruling that Ellington Management Group acted within the terms of the contract and did not engage in wrongful conduct.

What was the issue in the Phoenix Capital Inc. v. Dowell case?

The issue involved a noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreement that Robert M. Dowell allegedly violated. The court granted preliminary injunctive relief only for the nonsolicitation provisions.

How did the court rule in Phoenix Capital LLC v. Nsiah?

The court dismissed Nsiah’s motion to quash service of process, citing her active involvement in court proceedings and the significant passage of time as reasons to lower her defenses. Her appeal was denied.

How does Phoenix Capital Group approach wealth management?

Phoenix Capital Group focuses on providing portfolio management services that include alternative investment strategies designed to enhance portfolio performance for high-net-worth individuals and institutions.

What is the minimum investment in Phoenix Capital Group?

With a 3-year term and a minimum investment of just $5,000, investors nationwide can earn annual yields of 9%, receiving regular monthly interest payments.

I am Sher A, the person behind this idea. With education in Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) degree from the University of Karachi, Pakistan,, like 5 years of experience as a lawyer.

2 thoughts on “Phoenix Capital Group Lawsuit Latest Data”

Leave a Comment