New Lawsuit Accuses Matthew McClafferty of Operating Ponzi Scheme

Matthew McClafferty, the founder of Mac Private Equity Inc., faces fresh legal challenges as a second lawsuit has been lodged against him in the V.I. District Court. This recent filing by a father-daughter pair claims that McClafferty is orchestrating a Ponzi scheme. This adds to his legal woes, which began earlier this month when the Consortium first reported on similar allegations. McClafferty has staunchly denied all accusations, suggesting that the claims are an attempt at extortion by his accusers.

Earlier in the month, a lawsuit was filed against McClafferty and his firm, accusing them of not repaying borrowed funds despite promising high interest rates. McClafferty dismissed these allegations as a mere contractual dispute and labeled the lawsuit a shakedown. He specifically refuted claims labeling his business operations as a Ponzi scheme, arguing that his firm deals in loans rather than investments.

However, the new lawsuit introduced by Glenn and Victoria Blandford, who first encountered McClafferty when Victoria was stationed at the Coast Guard Marine Safety Detachment in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, parallels the earlier allegations. The complaint details that Victoria Blandford engaged in transactions with McClafferty, beginning with a $25,000 investment that promised a 25.5% interest rate and a 15% profit-share, due within 90 days. Before the first payment’s due date, an additional $30,000 was invested with even higher financial stakes.

According to the lawsuit, the payments were never made; instead, McClafferty allegedly engaged in evasive maneuvers including issuing a check to an incorrect address and then stopping payment. The Blandfords also accuse McClafferty of intimidation, claiming he threatened Victoria’s Coast Guard position due to her financial dealings.

The Blandfords’ lawsuit, handled by the same attorney as the earlier case, also challenges the legitimacy of McClafferty’s business structures, suggesting that his companies are mere facades for funneling funds to himself. They seek legal action to pierce these corporate veils and gain reparations for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Amidst these allegations, an amended complaint from the earlier case has introduced a defamation charge against McClafferty, spurred by his public denials and accusations against the initial plaintiff, which were reportedly contradicted by text message evidence.

In his defense, McClafferty dismissed the lawsuits as opportunistic attempts by the attorney to secure large settlements, despite his claims of having offered full payments to every complainant. He disclosed a recent settlement offer made to Ms. Blandford on the day her lawsuit was filed, attempting to resolve the dispute with a payment and a non-disparagement agreement.

Despite not yet being officially served, McClafferty has expressed his intention to contest the allegations vigorously in court and is considering legal action against the plaintiffs’ attorney for professional misconduct.