Richardson et al. v. Jawahar et al - Securities Fraud Case Ruling

D. Delaware Opinions

Filed February 17th, 2026

Detected February 18th, 2026

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion to stay a securities fraud case filed by Kathryn A. Richardson, Trustee, against Siddharth Jawahar. The court found that the defendant's arguments for a stay, based on potential Fifth Amendment self-incrimination during ongoing criminal proceedings, were not sufficiently supported.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in a Memorandum Order dated February 17, 2026, denied defendant Siddharth Jawahar's motion to stay Civil Action No. 25-1135-CFC-SRF. The underlying case involves allegations of securities fraud, with plaintiffs contending they were victims of an investment fraud scheme and seeking damages and asset freezes. Jawahar, who is also facing criminal proceedings for wire fraud, sought the stay citing potential prejudice to his Fifth Amendment rights. The court found his motion lacked sufficient support regarding the standard factors for granting a stay pending resolution of criminal matters.

This ruling means the civil case will proceed, and regulated entities or individuals involved in similar investment schemes should anticipate continued litigation. While this specific order denies a stay, it highlights the court's consideration of the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings. Parties involved should ensure their legal strategies account for potential Fifth Amendment implications and the court's balancing of expeditious proceedings against prejudice and burden. No specific compliance actions are mandated by this order, but it underscores the importance of robust legal defense in complex fraud cases.

Source document (simplified)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

KATHRYN A. RICHARDSON, )
TRUSTEE FOR THE KATHRYN A. )
BILSKI REVOCABLE TRUST, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-1135-CFC-SRF
)
SIDDHARTII JAWAHAR, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this 17th day of February, 2026, the court having considered pro se defendant Siddharth Jawahar's ("Jawahar") motion to stay, (D.I. 106), and the briefing associated therewith (D.I. 111), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jawahar's motion to stay is DENIED without prejudice for the following reasons.

Background. Plaintiffs brought this action for securities fraud in the Northern District of Ohio on June 7, 2024 against Jawahar and other participants in an alleged investment fraud scheme.[^1] Plaintiffs contend that they are the victims of the scheme and seek relief in

the form of compensatory, consequential, punitive, and statutory damages; disgorgement of profits and proceeds; and an order freezing Defendants' assets and preventing their spoliation of evidence, among other things. (D.I. 84 at 68). The case was transferred to this district on September 11, 2025. (D.I. 62) Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint ("FAC") on November 14, 2025, alleging that Jawahar and his co-defendants encouraged Plaintiffs to invest in the Swiftare Entities[^4] to fulfill their Ponzi scheme. (D.I. 84 at ¶ 1)

Jawahar has been subject to criminal proceedings in the Eastern District of Missouri for the duration of this civil action. He was criminally indicted on December 20, 2023, and he recently entered a guilty plea to three counts of wire fraud on January 21, 2026, less than two weeks after he filed the pending motion to stay in the instant action. (D.I. 106; D.I. 111, Ex. A)
Legal Standard. The district court has broad discretion in considering a motion to stay. See Dentsply Int'l Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 734 F. Supp. 656, 658 (D. Del. 1990). In deciding whether to stay a civil case pending the resolution of a criminal matter, courts generally consider: "(1) the extent to which the issues in the civil and criminal cases overlap; (2) the status of the criminal proceedings, including whether any defendants have been indicted; (3) the plaintiff's interest in expeditious civil proceedings weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiff

[^1]: Per the District of Delaware Local Rules, Jawahar's reply brief was due on or before February 3, 2026. To date, no reply brief has been filed. Accordingly, the court issues this ruling based on the papers submitted.
[^4]: Swiftare Ventures Lab Fund LP, Swiftare Ventures Lab GP, LLC, Beauty Generations Fund I, LP f/k/a Swiftare Beauty Fund LP, Swiftare Beauty Fund GP, LLC; SJ Investment, LLC; SV SPV, LP; and SV Labs SPV II, LP (collectively, "Defendants"). (D.I. 84 at ¶¶ 29-42)
The Swiftare Entities are comprised of Swiftare Ventures, LLC; Swiftare Telehealth Labs Fund LP; Swiftare Telehealth Labs Fund GP, LLC; Swiftare Ventures Lab Fund LP; Swiftare Ventures Lab GP, LLC; Beauty Generations Fund I, LP f/k/a Swiftare Beauty Fund LP; Swiftare Beauty Fund GP, LLC; SJ Investment, LLC; SV SPV, LP; and SV Labs SPV II, LP. (D.I. 84 at ¶ 43) The Swiftare Entities operated as investment funds that solicited funds from investors, offered limited partnership interests to those investors, and invested that capital with third party companies. (Id. at ¶¶ 59, 80-88)

caused by the delay; (4) the burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the court; and (6) the public interest." Maloney v. Gordon, 328 F. Supp. 2d 508, 511 (D. Del. 2004).

Analysis. Jawahar requests a twelve-month stay of this action, arguing that he would be prejudiced in asserting his Fifth Amendment rights in his criminal proceeding if the civil action proceeds. (D.I. 106) Jawahar's motion does not address the remaining stay factors. (Id.) As Plaintiffs note, Jawahar's subsequent agreement to a guilty plea moots the asserted basis for the requested stay. (D.I. 111 at 8) Consequently, Jawahar's motion to stay is DENIED as moot.
Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, Jawahar's motion to stay is DENIED without prejudice. (D.I. 106)
This Memorandum Order is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), and D. Del. LR 72.1(a)(2). The parties may serve and file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Memorandum Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The objections and responses to the objections are limited to ten (10) pages each.
The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated March 7, 2022, a copy of which is available on the court's website, www.ded.uscourts.gov.

Sherry R. Fallon
United States Magistrate Judge