The showdown over Apertum: what awaits Josip Heit & Co in the Texas proceedings

When the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) published an emergency order against Josip Heit, the Apertum Foundation and several other individuals associated with him on March 20, 2025, it was clear that the Texas authorities saw an urgent need for action. According to the TSSB, the measure was intended to protect potentially affected investors from a scheme that the authorities believed could be misleading and cause considerable damage.

Those who had hoped that the proceedings would be concluded quickly were disappointed. Subsequently, a complex legal struggle developed, characterized by applications, postponements and a defence strategy aimed at portraying the clients as legally uninvolved parties.

Our research is based, among other things, on publicly accessible documents from the TSSB and the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). They provide an insight into ongoing administrative proceedings that are characterized by considerable delays and formal disputes.

Authority assessment: urgency to protect the public

Under Texas law, an emergency order automatically takes effect unless a hearing is requested or an appeal is filed. The TSSB stated in its reasoning that it believed the offending system continued and posed a risk to the Texas public. An initial hearing should therefore be held within ten days.

A date for April 8 and 9, 2025 was set via Zoom. The basis for this was the “Notice of Hearing ” submitted on March 28 – a central document that lists the allegations in detail, names evidence and announces witness statements.

A few days before the hearing, the defense lawyers requested a postponement to August 2025, citing personnel changes in the legal team and insufficient preparation time.

Position of the TSSB: rejection and urgency

The TSSB clearly opposed a postponement – with the following arguments:

The parties involved had been informed of the proceedings at an early stage.
The late appointment of new lawyers was a separate decision – not a legitimate reason for a delay.
The protection of Texan investors had priority.
There had been no communication from the defense until April 3.
The authority had already submitted comprehensive documents (168 pages).

Despite these objections, the request for a postponement was partially granted: The new hearing was to take place from May 28 to 30, 2025 – still virtually via Zoom.

New applications: Hybrid format and further postponement

Shortly afterwards, the defense requested a further delay and also a change in the hearing format: instead of a purely virtual one, a hybrid model should apply, with physical presence in the courtroom and digital connection of individual witnesses.

The background to this was the statement that key arguments should be presented in person and witnesses should be questioned more directly. The defense also argued that the lead attorney, Avi Perry, was involved in parallel proceedings in Florida; another attorney, John Bash, had family obligations.

Result: The TSSB accepted a further postponement – to June 2025.

Defense strategy: motions to strike and dismiss

In the next step, the defense requested that individual points in the “Notice of Hearing” be deleted or reworded. According to the defense, the allegations were based on an incorrect interpretation of Texas securities law. In a statement, the lawyers declared that all allegations were rejected.

They also filed a motion for “summary disposition ” – i.e. a dismissal of the case without a hearing. The reasoning: even if all the allegations were assumed, no legal basis for action could be identified.

Compulsory attendance? Court decides

A key detail was the question of whether the accused had to appear in person. An earlier document initially stated that the parties involved “are to attend in person” – which appeared open to interpretation.

A court order dated May 12, 2025 brought clarity: the hearing from June 2 to 4, 2025 is to take place in person. Accordingly:

all parties and their lawyers must appear in person;
Witnesses may be connected via video.

However, the defense argued that traveling from abroad would be unreasonable – citing visa hurdles, flight times of over 18 hours and time differences.

Whether and how the order can be enforced remains to be seen. An explicit sanction for non-appearance is not apparent from the documents.

In the next article, we will report on how the proceedings have developed since then – including new applications, further delays and the question of why November of all months could be the decisive month for Josip Heit.

Stay tuned.

Notice:

All persons named are presumed innocent until a final decision is made. The information in this article is based on publicly available sources and documents the status at the time of publication.

The article serves the purpose of journalistic information and opinion-forming in accordance with Article 5 of the German Constitution and Section 51 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG). Despite careful research, we assume no liability for completeness, accuracy or timeliness.

Mention of persons, companies or projects is based on verifiable facts and clearly identified expressions of opinion. Sources are subject to the protection of editorial confidentiality and journalistic standards.

Source: