Bona Law Files Ninth Circuit Appeal on Behalf of Texas-based Specialized Blood Plasma Clinic and its Principal Against SEC
May 20, 2026
Bona Law has filed an appeal on behalf of Golden Genesis and Thomas F. Casey in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in their dispute with the SEC.
The appeal argues that the district court committed several reversible errors in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Casey, No. 3:22-cv-00483-RSH (S.D. Cal.), appeal docketed, No. 25-7107—including improper evidentiary rulings and an erroneous summary judgment determination—that prevented Casey from presenting a complete defense and substantially influenced the outcome.
Golden Genesis (now operating as Spectrum Plasma) is a specialized blood plasma clinic in San Marcos, Texas , founded and operated by Casey. Spectrum Plasma has been recognized with a 2026 Global Recognition Award “for developing age- and sex-specific plasma collection that addresses one of healthcare’s most pressing challenges: the rising costs and prevalence of chronic diseases in aging populations. The company operates as the only fully accredited blood bank worldwide to collect plasma exclusively from donors aged 18-25. This achievement reflects exceptional innovation in a field where the infrastructure exists, but the differentiation strategy represents a fundamental paradigm shift in regenerative medicine.”
In the lawsuit, the SEC alleged that Golden Genesis, Casey, and others raised money from retail investors to fund the plasma clinic and, when the clinic was unable to repay the notes, the SEC alleged that the defendants raised additional funds to meet repayment obligations on the original notes as they came due. Casey’s defense argued he was a blood bank operator—not a financial services professional—who was brought into a pre-existing financial infrastructure built and controlled by his co-defendants and various retirement and investment entities, all of whom were far more sophisticated in securities and financial dealings than he was. Following a five-day jury trial, Casey was found liable for violating Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act for allegedly making material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the notes. At the center of the case was a single disputed issue — scienter, or whether Casey acted with fraudulent intent or knowledge of wrongdoing—though the district court resolved the threshold question of whether the notes constituted securities as a matter of law on summary judgment, over the defendants’ objection.
The appeal contends that several evidentiary rulings made during trial were prejudicial to Casey and prevented him from fully presenting a good-faith defense. Representing himself pro se, Casey maintained that he believed, based on the structure of the transactions, that the notes were commercial obligations rather than investment securities. He also argued that discrepancies in the security arrangement reflected genuine confusion surrounding a complex financing structure arranged by a third party, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead note holders.
On appeal, Casey argues that the district court made two evidentiary rulings that directly affected the jury’s determination of scienter. First, the district court admitted evidence of a prior SEC enforcement action against Casey, ostensibly to show an absence of mistake, even though that action resulted in a settlement in which Casey made no admission of guilt and no monetary penalty was imposed. Yet the SEC then used that evidence in the closing argument to argue consciousness of guilt, which was a purpose the court’s limiting instruction did not authorize.
Second, the district court excluded evidence sought to introduce—including Nevada court orders dismissing related investor claims—to show his good-faith belief that the notes were not securities. The appeal contends the court improperly treated Casey’s subjective understanding of the transactions as legally irrelevant, when in fact it bore directly on whether he acted with fraudulent intent.
The appeal further argues that the district court erred in imposing a civil penalty of more than $3.5 million against Golden Genesis and erred in resolving on summary judgment the question of whether the notes were securities as a matter of law. The appeal asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse or vacate the judgment and remand the matter for a new trial.
Luke Hasskamp and Ruth Glaeser led Bona Law’s team representing Golden Genesis and Casey. You can read more about Bona Law’s appellate litigation practice here.