In 2013, at age 20, Constantine Antonas of Akron opened the Epitome Investment Fund. Antonas began to sell investment opportunities in his new hedge fund.

Antonas was able to attract the interest of fellow members of the northeast Ohio Greek Orthodox community. A Private Placement Memorandum, which is customarily used to create hedge funds, was presented to investors and listed Interactive Brokers, the nation’s third-largest online brokerage firm, as the hedge fund's brokerage.

Between 2015 and 2021, investors gave Antonas $25 million to grow the Epitome fund. Antonas assured investors that the funds were earning excellent returns, giving them monthly updates. In April 2021, he reported the funds had grown to $78 million in value. In reality, there was $600 in the account. Antonas has lost all the money in risky investments and trades, mostly through trades on the Interactive Brokers platform.

Suspicious investors requested a meeting with Antonas, which was scheduled for a Monday in October 2021. In a court filing, Antonas’ parents reported that Antonas didn’t meet with investors and took his own life that day.

Lawsuit Targets Brokerage
After discovering the losses, Constantine Bitounis and 20 other individuals and businesses who had invested with Antonas filed a lawsuit against Interactive Brokers in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. The investors claimed the brokerage was liable for the losses under the Ohio Securities Act. The investors argued that Interactive Brokers violated R.C. 1707.43 by participating in and aiding Antonas in the illegal sale of securities.

The investors maintained that Interactive Brokers agreed to set up Epitome’s account without thoroughly vetting Antonas’ application and allowed the brokerage name to be used in Antonas’ investment memorandum, giving the fund legitimacy. They also claimed the brokerage firm missed numerous red flags as the account was collapsing, and by the time the firm investigated Antonas, there was less than $10,000 remaining.

Interactive Brokers requested summary judgment, arguing it did nothing but process trades in the ordinary course of business as it did with all of its 3 million customers. The firm argued it didn’t violate the law because it had no role in Antonas’ sale of the securities to the Epitome Fund investors. It may have made mistakes handling the Epitome fund, but all of that occurred after the sale of shares of the hedge fund, which means the firm can’t be held liable by state law because it wasn’t involved at all in the sale, Interactive Brokers asserted.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Interactive Brokers. But in a 2-1 decision, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, remanding the case to the trial court, ordering further proceedings. Interactive Brokers appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which will hear the dispute during oral arguments on Sept. 16.

Watch Oral Arguments Online
Along with Bitounis v. Interactive Brokers, the Supreme Court will hear three other cases on Sept. 16. The Court will hear four more cases on Sept. 17. Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. They will be streamed live online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, where they are archived.

Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking on the case names throughout the article or in the list of cases in the sidebar.

Tuesday, Sept. 16
Rape Offenses
A University of Dayton college student reported to police that she was sexually assaulted in 2023 while sleeping on her living room couch. The suspect was convicted of aggravated robbery, rape, and sexual battery. He challenged the rape conviction, asserting that the rape statute he was charged under required the state to prove that he engaged in sexual conduct by purposely compelling the student “to submit by force or threat of force.” In State v. Simmons, the prosecutor argues the offender compelled the student to submit to sexual conduct by moving her blanket and her clothes while she slept. The offender maintains that another rape statute applies to sleeping victims. The appeal involves a conflict among Ohio appeals courts.

Zoning Decisions
In 2022, a township zoning officer emailed the owners of a Medina County tavern about their property. The tavern had operated as an approved non-conforming use in the residential district. The email stated that the tavern was no longer permitted to operate on the property. The tavern hadn’t been used for that purpose for more than two years, constituting voluntary abandonment under local and state law, the email stated. In 729 West 130th Street v. Hinckley Township Board of Zoning Appeals, the township zoning board contends that, despite the appellate court’s ruling to the contrary, the email qualified as a decision and could be appealed. The owners counter that the zoning inspector had no authority to decide that the property no longer qualified as a non-conforming use, and the email wasn’t an official zoning decision that could be appealed.

Attorney Discipline
A Kettering attorney objects to a proposed one-year suspension, with six months stayed, recommended by the Board of Professional Conduct. The complaint centers on the attorney’s actions following a misdirected mobile payment to a man with the same name as her husband. The attorney sent $550 through two Zelle transactions to a man in Illinois with the same name as her husband. The attorney contacted the man and indicated she would use all available recovery methods to regain the funds, including filing a civil lawsuit. The money was refunded 13 days later, and the man filed a grievance against the lawyer. In Dayton Bar Association v. Baker, the Court will consider whether the lawyer committed the ethics violations and should be sanctioned.

Wednesday, Sept. 17.
Firearms Restrictions
An Allen County man was convicted of a felony offense of domestic violence in 2006. Because of the felony offense, state law and federal both prohibited the man from having a firearm. In 2023, he applied in state court to have the restriction, or “disability,” lifted. In State v. Heffley, the prosecutor notes that Ohio law prevents a firearms restriction from being removed if the applicant is “otherwise prohibited by law” from having firearms. The prosecutor argues a state court cannot restore the applicant’s firearms rights while he is still prohibited by federal law from having firearms. The applicant contends that because the restriction stems from the same conviction, the federal prohibition is removed if the state court lifts the state restriction.

Jury Selection
During voir dire in a medical malpractice lawsuit in Montgomery County, the estate of a man who died asked the trial court to remove four potential jurors for cause. The estate argued the jurors said they wouldn’t be able to follow the law regarding the burden of proof required for the case. The trial court denied the requests. In Estate of Price v. Kidney Care Specialists, the estate maintains that a prospective juror must be removed under state law if the person’s answers disclose that the person “cannot be a fair and impartial juror or will not follow the law as given to the person by the court.” The doctors respond that the statute gives trial courts discretion to determine whether a potential juror won’t follow the law by considering all of the person’s answers.

Energy Marketing
A company that sells electric generation service is contesting a $1.44 million forfeiture and issuance of refunds to customers who were encouraged by telemarketers and door-to-door solicitors to switch suppliers. The company asserts it was told by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio staff of 30 violations, and as it was preparing for a hearing, the staff alleged 129 additional violations. The commission agreed with most of the staff findings and imposed the maximum $10,000 sanction for 144 infractions. When the Court hears In re RPA Energy Inc., the justices will consider the company’s challenges to the commission’s order to pay penalties and to revoke the company’s license to do business in Ohio and payment of penalties.

Lawsuit Damages
In 2018, a pipeline company employee was injured when he was engulfed in jet fuel at a Lima Refinery accident. He sued the refinery, and the refinery insisted the pipeline company be added to the case. The man didn’t sue his employer because it paid him workers’ compensation. A jury’s $5.3 million in damages verdict included $2 million in noneconomic damage. The jury also found the refinery was 35% responsible for the injuries, while the employer was 50% responsible. In Coykendall v. Lima Refinery, the company argues that noneconomic damages are capped by state law at $500,000 and it should only have to pay $175,000, or 35% of the damages. The man argues Lima Refinery has to pay the full $500,000 it was the only defendant in the case.