June 9, 2026  ·  Updated July 14, 2026

By David Brunk, civil litigation attorney

Read the complaint

Cox v. Leisey fiduciary duty lawsuit alleges self-dealing schemes harmed Aventus profits and shareholder interests. Seeks Damages Over $75,000

Craig Cox and Greg Bristol, both shareholders and directors of Aventus NV, Inc., initiated a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Jason Leisey in the United States District Court under Case No. 2:26-cv-01737, filed on June 9, 2026. The complaint accuses Leisey, the majority shareholder and executive leader of Aventus, of self-dealing and misuse of corporate assets. According to the filing, Leisey allegedly diverted company resources for personal gain, particularly benefitting his cannabis-related business ventures.

The plaintiffs claim that such actions have harmed Aventus' financial health and violated fiduciary duties that Leisey owed to the corporation, which is involved in federal construction contracting. They seek his removal from decision-making positions within the company, access to Aventus' financial records, and restitution for the allegedly misappropriated funds. The suit also highlights Aventus' compliance risk due to Leisey's activities, despite the company's obligations as a federal contractor.

The claims and associated figures stated in the complaint remain allegations at this stage and have yet to be proven in court.

Parties and Their Roles

The lawsuit involves two primary plaintiffs, Craig Cox and Greg Bristol, who are described as shareholders, directors, and owners of Aventus NV, Inc., and are residents of Nevada. Aventus NV, Inc., the nominal plaintiff in this case and a Nevada corporation, operates as a federal construction contractor. The defendant, Jason Leisey, holds the positions of majority shareholder, Chairman, President, and CEO of Aventus. He resides in New Jersey, where he is accused of using his substantial influence within Aventus for personal benefit.

The complaint also lists additional defendants as Does I through X and Roe Corporations I through X, representing unnamed individuals and corporations alleged to be involved in the disputed activities, although their specific identities remain unknown at this stage. Beyond these parties, the filing references the Emerald Tea Supply Company, identified as a non-party but implicated as a cannabis business associated with Leisey, and JAGGR Management, another non-party entity tied to financial transactions mentioned in the complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that Leisey used his leadership roles within Aventus to favor himself and related entities such as the Emerald Tea Supply Company, detracting from the corporate responsibility to other shareholders. This derivative action seeks to address allegations of fiduciary breaches, misuse of resources, and a lack of transparency in corporate governance.

Alleged Mechanism of Control and Resource Diversion

The complaint alleges that Jason Leisey solidified his control over Aventus NV, Inc. by acquiring a majority ownership interest in January 2020. Subsequently, the company adopted revised bylaws between 2021 and 2022 that substantially increased his power over corporate decisions, including granting him veto authority and control over quorum for meetings.

According to the filing, Leisey used this expanded authority to leverage Aventus as a vehicle for personal enrichment. Specifically, funds and personnel of Aventus were purportedly diverted to support Emerald Tea Supply Company, a business affiliated with Leisey.

The plaintiffs, Craig Cox and Greg Bristol, assert that Leisey maintained exclusive control over Aventus' financial records, which allowed him to withhold significant material information from them. This control reportedly enabled him to conceal transactions and restrict access to corporate records, thus preventing Cox and Bristol from fully understanding the financial impact of his decisions on Aventus.

The diversion of Aventus resources allegedly included utilizing personnel, vendors, and credit lines for projects unrelated to the corporation, all driven by Leisey's interests. This led to the loss of Aventus' credit facility, hampering the company's ability to pursue business goals (Compl. ¶79). These actions are illustrated in the filing through several instances wherein Aventus assets were reportedly employed to support non-corporate activities linked to Leisey, to the detriment of Aventus’ business and its shareholders.

The allegations against Leisey, as stipulated in the lawsuit, point to a pattern of alleged self-dealing and manipulation of corporate resources, which plaintiffs contend have harmed Aventus and undermined their financial expectations as stakeholders of the company.

Financial Transactions and Amounts Involved

The complaint filed by Craig Cox and Greg Bristol against Jason Leisey details several financial transactions and costs allegedly accrued by Aventus NV, Inc. due to Leisey's actions. Key transactions highlight potential misuse of corporate funds and self-dealing. Initially, Leisey acquired the majority ownership interest in Aventus with an agreed purchase price of approximately $1,000,000.00, as set forth in the complaint (Compl. ¶57).

Aventus incurred approximately $90,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and expenses arising from prior litigation involving Leisey and a dispute with Robert Campozano (Compl. ¶77). This prior litigation stemming from disputes about Aventus’ financial management further indicates ongoing issues under Leisey's control (Compl. ¶73-74).

Moreover, the complaint alleges Aventus made payments amounting to $28,000.00 for charges associated with JAGGR Management and the Emerald Tea Supply Company, both connected to Leisey’s other business interests. This payment, as claimed in the filing, provided no discernible benefit to Aventus and exemplifies the improper diversion of corporate resources (Compl. ¶123-134).

Additionally, the complaint outlines over $100,000.00 in consulting and advisory expenses that Aventus allegedly covered to benefit Emerald Tea Supply Company. These expenses were incurred without transparency or proper documentation, according to the plaintiffs (Compl. ¶148).

Overall, the lawsuit claims damages in excess of $75,000.00 pertaining to conversion and other claims related to these financial dealings (Compl. ¶319).

Specific Claims Under Nevada Law

The complaint filed in the case contains several specific claims under Nevada law pertaining to alleged misconduct by Jason Leisey, the majority shareholder and executive at Aventus NV, Inc. The plaintiffs, Craig Cox and Greg Bristol, on behalf of Aventus, have raised multiple derivative claims against Leisey, focusing on his management and control over the corporation.

The First Cause of Action involves a derivative claim for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs request that the court issue an injunction to prevent Leisey from further actions detrimental to Aventus, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and misuse of corporate resources.

The Second Cause of Action is a claim for breach of the company's bylaws and corporate governance documents. Plaintiffs argue that Leisey exceeded his authority as outlined in the bylaws adopted between 2021 and 2022, which provided him with extensive control over corporate decisions but required adherence to specific governance protocols that he allegedly violated (Compl. ¶67).

The Third Cause of Action claims a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This Nevada legal doctrine imposes a duty on parties to act in good faith and fair dealings in the execution of their responsibilities. Plaintiffs contend that Leisey violated this covenant by prioritizing his personal interests over his duties to Aventus and its shareholders.

The Fourth Cause of Action centers around a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges that Leisey violated his fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, candor, and good faith, creating a conflict of interest by diverting company assets and opportunities for personal gain, thus betraying the trust of the shareholders and the corporation.

Finally, the Fifth Cause of Action invokes NRS 41.580. Plaintiffs allege that Leisey's conduct falls squarely within the scope of misconduct that this statute is designed to address, and seek judicial redress for the purported harm caused to Aventus through self-dealing and breach of corporate duties.

The complaint further alleges Leisey engaged in self-dealing transactions and refused to provide corporate books/records, with these acts forming the basis of additional statutory claims under Nevada law (Compl. ¶9, ¶40). The allegations in the complaint have not yet been proven, and no responses from the defendants have been filed at this stage.

Additional Claims and Statutory References

The complaint includes a derivative claim for conversion against Jason Leisey, alleging he wrongfully exercised control over company property inconsistent with Aventus NV, Inc.'s rights (Compl. ¶314). The filing asserts that Leisey used corporate resources for personal gain and affiliated ventures, diverting funds and assets in a manner that did not serve the company’s interests (Compl. ¶306).

Another significant claim is the failure to provide access to books and records. The plaintiffs contend that Leisey refused and failed to give complete access to Aventus’ financial records despite repeated requests, violating principles of corporate transparency and shareholder rights (Compl. ¶296, ¶327). The complaint details this refusal as part of broader conduct that concealed financial dealings from other directors and shareholders.

In tandem with these allegations, the suit demands a derivative claim for accounting. The plaintiffs assert that due to Leisey's control over Aventus’ finances and his alleged non-disclosure of material transactions, a formal accounting is necessary to assess the extent of damages and the true financial state of the company. The accounting claim underscores the necessity for transparency and financial clarity in corporate governance (Compl. ¶334).

Finally, the ninth cause of action seeks declaratory relief, requesting the court to formally acknowledge Leisey's breaches of fiduciary duty and misconduct, which the plaintiffs argue have significantly harmed Aventus and its shareholders. This claim aims to establish a legal baseline of accountability and rectify alleged mismanagement under Leisey's control (Compl. ¶343).

Distinctive Pleas for Equitable Relief

The plaintiffs in the derivative action against Jason Leisey seek immediate and permanent injunctive relief to remove Leisey from all control positions within Aventus NV, Inc. According to the complaint, this includes positions such as CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board, which enable Leisey to exert significant influence over Aventus’ operations and financial management. The complaint contends that such measures are necessary to prevent further alleged misuse of corporate assets and to restore the financial stability and integrity of the corporation (Compl. ¶235-236).

Additionally, the plaintiffs request an order compelling Leisey to relinquish access to Aventus' bank accounts, company books, records, and decision-making platforms. This move is aimed at ensuring transparency and preventing the continuation of practices that the plaintiffs claim have been damaging to the company’s interests (Compl. ¶207, ¶296).

The plaintiffs also seek the disgorgement of benefits that Leisey allegedly obtained improperly at the expense of Aventus. According to the complaint, this involves recuperating funds and assets that Leisey is alleged to have diverted for personal use and that of affiliated entities, thus remedying the financial harm purportedly caused to Aventus (Compl. ¶302).

These requests underscore the plaintiffs’ position that immediate and significant judicial intervention is required to safeguard Aventus' assets from ongoing mismanagement and to halt practices they argue have resulted in substantial financial detriment. The suit emphasizes the need for equitable relief in restoring fiduciary integrity to the corporation under the current circumstances alleged in the complaint.

These allegations remain unproven, and no defendant has yet responded to the complaint. David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

The complaint in the case of Cox v. Leisey was filed on June 9, 2026, bringing forth a shareholder derivative action against Jason Leisey. The plaintiffs, Craig Cox and Greg Bristol, request a jury trial on all issues that are triable as a matter of right, asserting claims primarily in the nature of breaches of fiduciary duties and self-dealing activities.

The relief sought includes a comprehensive accounting of funds and assets allegedly diverted by Leisey for personal use. This accounting is intended to quantify the extent of resource misuse and to facilitate the restitution process. The plaintiffs demand monetary damages exceeding $75,000, as they believe this amount reflects Aventus' damages from acts like conversion. Additionally, the complaint seeks restoration of property that has been allegedly misappropriated and any further legal remedies deemed appropriate under the law.

The plaintiffs emphasize that monetary remedies alone may not suffice in protecting Aventus from ongoing harm. Consequently, they have requested immediate and permanent injunctive relief aimed at removing Leisey from any positions of control within the company, thereby preventing further potential for abuse and ensuring corporate governance aligns with shareholder interests. This underscores the plaintiffs' belief that both financial and governance structures at Aventus require substantial reformation to prevent ongoing misconduct.

The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.