In order to avoid publishing multiple articles with respect to changing GSB & Apertum Texas fraud case scheduling, this article will be updated with the latest on both proceedings.

For reference, the parties involved in each case are:

Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) v. GSB

TSSB (Petitioner)
GSB Gold Standard Bank LTD, dba GS Smart Finance, Gold Standard Partners, GSPartners, GS Partners and GSP (Respondent)
GSP Gold Standard Banking Corporation PLC (Respondent)
GSB Gold Standard Corporation AG (Respondent)
GSB Gold Standard Pay Kommanditbolag, aka GSB Gold Standard Pay (Respondent)
Gold Standard Pay LTD, aka GSDEFI (Respondent)
GSB Gold Standard Trade (Respondent)
Josip Heit (Respondent)

TSSB v. Apertum Foundation

TSSB (Petitioner)
Apertum Foundation (Respondent)
Josip Heit (Respondent)
Dirc Zahlmann (Respondent)
Bruce Innes Wylde Hughes (Respondent)
Dennis Christopher Loos (Respondent)

With respect to the GSB fraud hearing scheduling;

on April 1st a hearing across August 11th to 14th was scheduled
on May 7th GSB requested a second continuance, citing a “continued unavoidable scheduling conflict” and “now-overlapping deadlines relating to the Apertum Matter”
on May 16th GSB’s motion for a second continuance was granted, rescheduling the GSB hearing for October 20th to 24th

With respect to the Apertum fraud hearing scheduling;

on April 14th the court granted a previously filed GSB motion for continuance, scheduling the GSB fraud case across June 2nd to 4th
on April 23rd GSB filed a Motion for Special Exception, citing alleged deficiencies with the Texas State Securities Boards’ Apertum Foundation emergency cease and desist order
on April 30th the Texas State Securities Board filed its response to Apertum’s Special Exception filing, requesting it be denied or a hearing on the motion be set
on May 3rd Apertum filed a motion requesting a prehearing conference between May 27th and 29th
on May 5th Apertum filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, seeking to dismiss the case on the basis “TSSB lacks jurisdiction” and TSSB “has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted”
on May 16th Apertum filed a motion requesting a prehearing conference be scheduled for May 19th or 20th, to discuss TSSB’s plans to introduce “approximately 1500 exhibits”
on May 20th the TSSB filed a motion requesting a continuance of the June 2nd scheduled hearing, “due to the need to lengthen the hearing time” (Apertum objected to the motion claiming “no legal authority”)
on May 20th the TSSB filed its response to Apertum’s Motion for Summary Disposition, arguing that under Texas law it had “no affirmative duty to produce evidence prior to the hearing on the merits”
on May 28th TSSB’s motion for a hearing continuance was granted, citing earlier requests from Apertum and Josip Heit to schedule a hearing between October 27th to 31st or November 3rd to 7th (the court scheduled the Apertum hearing for November 3rd to 7th, or alternatively August 11th to 15th)
on May 28th Apertum filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the November 3rd to 7th hearing, requesting the hearing take place as scheduled on June 2nd to 4th with a two-day extension, if required, scheduled at a later date
on May 29th the court denied Apertum’s motion for reconsideration, stating the Apertum Respondents’ “current stance is at odds with [earlier] arguments” and prior agreement “to a later hearing date”

As it stands the Apertum Texas fraud hearing remains scheduled for November 3rd to 7th, 2025. An order on Apertum’s “special exception” filing remains pending.

It should be noted that both the GSB and Apertum Texas fraud hearing are “in person”. This means all GSB and Apertum Respondents are required to attend the hearings in person.

TSSB has confirmed it intends to question all individual Respondents during the Apertum fraud hearing for one to two hours.

Of note to GSB GSPartners victims, in one of its filings GSB stated it “reasonably estimate[s] that the Claims Process will be completed in approximately July 2025.”

To date there has been no official communication from AlixPartners with respect to timelines.

Any further case developments will be published below as updates.

This Article References Material Originally Reported By Behindmlm.com