Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Investor Misappropriation-Loss Calculation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Kenneth D. Courtright

Case No.: 24-1115

Officials: Easterbrook, Jackson-Akiwumi, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Investor Misappropriation-Loss Calculation

Courtright operated Today’s Growth Consultant (TGC), also known as The Income Store, which offered investors guaranteed, perpetual monthly payments purportedly derived from website advertising revenue. Investors, referred to as “site partners,” paid upfront fees under Consulting Performance Agreements (CPAs) stating that the funds would be used solely for website-related expenses and that TGC was in sound financial condition. TGC’s advertising income and business loans were insufficient to sustain the promised payments, and Courtright used new investors’ funds to pay earlier investors while misrepresenting the company’s finances and the use of their money. After investigation, Courtright was charged with seven counts of wire fraud.

The Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, presided over Courtright’s trial. The government presented evidence showing TGC’s financial instability and misuse of investor funds, including testimony from employees and financial experts. The jury convicted Courtright on all counts. At sentencing, the court adopted a total loss figure of $69.3 million, applied certain deductions, and determined a final loss amount of $52.5 million. Courtright was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release.

The Seventh Circuit considered Courtright’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court’s loss calculation. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, including that Courtright made material misrepresentations about the company’s financial condition and used investor funds inappropriately, and acted with intent to defraud. The court also concluded that Courtright had waived his causation challenge to the loss calculation and that the district court did not clearly err in denying additional deductions for operating expenses.

Affirmed.

Decided 10/17/25

Full Text