Cramer v. WithumSmith+Brown Moves Forward as Court Approves Alternative Service on Fund Founders
A federal securities class action over the collapse of the Wildermuth Fund, an interval fund whose reported net asset value fell from roughly $10 per share to under $2 after a successor manager took over its books, has cleared a procedural hurdle that had stalled it for months. On April 21, 2026, Magistrate Judge Rukhsanah L. Singh of the District of New Jersey granted the lead plaintiff leave to serve the fund's founders, Daniel Wildermuth and Carol Wildermuth, by alternative means, after months of unsuccessful attempts at personal service. Cramer v. WithumSmith+Brown, PC, No. 3:25-cv-17032 (D.N.J.).
The Underlying Allegations
The complaint, filed October 29, 2025, describes the Wildermuth Fund as a closed-end fund that "reportedly provided long-term capital appreciation to investors by investing in a diversified portfolio of early-stage private equity positions." Plaintiff Rochelle Cramer, individually and on behalf of a putative class of investors in the fund's Class A, C, and I shares between November 1, 2020 and June 29, 2023, alleges that the defendants misled investors by purchasing interests in portfolio companies to their own benefit and overstating the fund's net asset value. According to the complaint, the fund had information regarding the portfolio companies' declining condition but continued to materially misstate its NAV.
The complaint alleges that the adviser, Wildermuth Advisory, LLC, earned an annual advisory fee of 1.5 percent of the fund's NAV, so that, in the complaint's words, the greater the NAV, the higher the advisory fee. It further alleges that Daniel Wildermuth served on the boards of the fund's portfolio companies, earning additional director compensation, and that Carol Wildermuth was the founder and chief executive of Kalos Capital, a broker-dealer that earned commissions on sales of the fund. Several of the fund's largest investments, the complaint alleges, were in companies with questionable going-concern value that depended on continued monthly cash infusions from the fund itself.
The fund announced on June 29, 2023 that it would liquidate, while, as the court's opinion recounts, disclaiming any issues with its investments. The Wildermuths subsequently resigned from the fund's board, and BW Asset Management Ltd. replaced Wildermuth Advisory as manager. According to the opinion, BWAM then reported that the portfolio companies had underperformed from November 2020 through June 2023, and that between December 31, 2023 and October 31, 2024 the value of the fund's private equity investments "plummeted by nearly $26 million."
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and under Sections 36(b) and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act, against the fund, the adviser, the Wildermuths, trustees Gerard Scarpati, Anthony Lewis, R. Martel Dey, Randall Fretz, and Donald R. Henry, and the fund's auditor, WithumSmith+Brown, PC.
Months of Attempted Service
The April 21 opinion sets out, in detail drawn from the affidavit of plaintiff's counsel, the efforts made to serve the Wildermuths personally. Process servers attempted service at addresses in Alpharetta, Georgia and St. Augustine, Florida in November 2025; the process server reported that the Wildermuths did not reside at either address. An attempt at a Sarasota, Florida address found a post box service store. At a former office address of Wildermuth Advisory in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, another company was located there and an individual reported being unfamiliar with Mr. Wildermuth and the firm. At a second Ponte Vedra Beach address, the current residents reported having purchased the home from the Wildermuths two years earlier. A Washington, D.C. apartment associated with Mr. Wildermuth was reported by building staff to be used as an office, and no one answered.
Following an internet search, the opinion recounts, plaintiff's counsel found a website identifying the Wildermuths as being associated with Quartz Partners Investment Management in Saratoga Springs, New York. A process server attempted service there in November 2025; an individual at the office reported having no knowledge of the Wildermuths. On two later calls, the opinion states, the person answering reported that the company "had a vendor-client relationship" with the Wildermuths but did not provide contact information. The website, the opinion notes, identified email addresses for both Wildermuths, and Mr. Wildermuth published a post on the website on December 2, 2025.
Counsel also located a separate civil action pending against Mr. Wildermuth in the Middle District of Florida, Brown v. Wildermuth, No. 22-cv-1301, and spoke with his attorney in that action, who declined to accept service, declined to reach out to Mr. Wildermuth regarding the matter, and did not provide contact information.
The Ruling
Judge Singh found that the plaintiff had "demonstrated due diligence in attempting to serve the Wildermuths," cataloging the skip traces, public records searches, and service attempts at every located address. Applying New Jersey Court Rule 4:4-4 and the due process standard of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., the court authorized substituted service on Mr. Wildermuth through the Quartz Partners address, his email address at that firm, and his counsel in the Brown litigation, and on Mrs. Wildermuth through the Quartz Partners address and her email addresses, and extended the time for service. No party opposed the motion.
The opinion also notes that the plaintiffs were expected to file a consolidated amended complaint by May 11, 2026. The docket reflects continued activity through early June 2026.
Why the Case Is Being Watched
The case is part of a wave of federal litigation over funds whose managers valued the illiquid assets on which their own fees were calculated. Its combination of claims is notable: alongside securities fraud counts, the complaint invokes Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, the provision imposing a fiduciary duty on fund advisers with respect to their compensation, the same statute at the center of the pending suits against BDC advisers in the Blue Owl and Ares fund families. The presence of the fund's auditor as a defendant parallels other pending valuation cases in which gatekeepers have been named alongside managers.
Key Filings
- Class action complaint (ECF 1, October 29, 2025)
- Memorandum opinion and order granting alternative service (ECF 48, April 21, 2026)
- Docket on CourtListener
David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.
From the Complaint Public Court Record
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Rochelle Cramer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WithumSmith+Brown, PC; Wildermuth Fund; Wildermuth Advisory, LLC; Daniel Wildermuth; Gerard Scarpati, Carol Wildermuth, Anthony Lewis, R. Martel Dey, Randall Fretz, and Donald R. Henry, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : NO. ______________________ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff Rochelle Cramer (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through Plaintiff’s undersigned attorneys, for Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants (defined below), alleges the following based upon personal knowledge as to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s own acts, and information and belief as to all other matters, based upon, among other things, the investigation conducted by and through its attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of public documents, public filings, shareholder communications, and information readily available on the Internet. Plaintiff believes that substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. I. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 1. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class (the “Class”) consisting of all persons and entities (other than the Defendants, defined herein, and certain related persons and entities) that purchased Class A (WESFX), Class C (WEFCX), and/or Class I (WEIFX) shares in the Wildermuth Fund from November 1, 2020 through June 29, 2023, inclusive (the “Class PageID: 1
2 Period”) seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and/or Sections 36(b) and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”). 2. The Wildermuth Fund (a.k.
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com