Allegations of fraud and unlawful export activities have been raised by investors who claim they were deceived into financing the development of advanced microchip technology that was later targeted for sale to foreign entities. The complaint was filed by Boris Davidoff and Anna Vishev in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 14, 2026, naming Prerna Abrol, Anil Kant, Dmitri Pescianschi, Anastassia Boudichevskaia, Ilya Sorokin, LMPU Holding UG, LMPU Research GmbH, and Manus Technology Limited as defendants.
According to the filing, plaintiffs allege that they were victims of statutory fraud, breach of contract (both actual and implied), misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, unfair business practices, conspiracy, common law fraud, and violations related to U.S. national security interests. The plaintiffs state that after being induced to invest $370,000 in a project aimed at developing a prototype based on a patented computer microchip known as the LMPU Chip—purportedly with revolutionary advances—the defendants conspired to exclude them from any benefits while attempting to sell the technology abroad.
The complaint outlines that Boris Davidoff provided substantial funding between January 2024 and March 2024 for equipment such as a 3-D printer needed for prototype development. These investments were made under promises that included permanent assignment of patents to a newly formed Delaware corporation (LMPU Holding Corp), returns on investment through shares in the company, and participation as an integral part of the long-term team. Plaintiffs assert these representations were false or misleading: "The strategy of the Defendants was to elicit the formation of a new corporation...and then pull the plug on the new corporation and/or substantially weaken the investor’s position in the corporation."
The filing further alleges that after receiving investment funds from Davidoff and others—including non-parties Kevin Ferguson and Sina Fattahi—the defendants orchestrated board meetings without proper notice or adherence to corporate bylaws. At these meetings in December 2025 and January 2026 resolutions were passed which diluted existing shareholders' stakes and removed certain directors without due process: "There is no evidence non-party Fattahi and non-party Fergusson received proper notice...pursuant to the corporate ByLaws." Plaintiffs argue these actions breached Delaware corporate law as well as fiduciary duties owed by directors.
Central to their claims are accusations that defendants Dmitri Pescianschi and Anastassia Boudichevskaia traveled to China in August 2025 seeking buyers for the LMPU Chip technology without regard for U.S. export control laws or potential military applications: "PESCIANSCHI stated...he would be attempting to sell the patent...to interested buyers in China...didn’t care about his corporate responsibility or compliance with U.S. export laws." The complaint references multiple U.S. statutes including Title 50 United States Code Section 1705(a) & (c), Export Control Reform Act of 2018, International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Arms Export Control Act, among others.
Additionally detailed are allegations that intellectual property assignments were falsely registered with federal authorities; specifically on January 26, 2026 when patent rights were transferred first back from LMPU Holding Corp to individual inventors Pescianschi & Sorokin before being assigned onward to Manus Technology Limited—a UK entity—despite knowledge that plaintiff investors retained ownership interests: "These representations were false...Defendants made these misrepresentations with intent to deceive USPTO." Plaintiffs contend this conduct constitutes wire fraud under federal law.
Anna Vishev’s role is described both as an investor harmed by similar alleged fraudulent schemes involving another company (Intelligent Construction Safety LLC) created by Sorokin & Pescianschi—where promised A.I.-based software was never delivered—and as attorney prosecuting patents central to this dispute whose invoices remain unpaid.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for lost investments; declaratory relief regarding their rights under corporate agreements; restitution for unjust enrichment; recognition of breaches under Delaware law including duty of good faith; enforcement against misappropriation under federal trade secret statutes; acknowledgment of securities violations under Rule 10b-5; injunctive relief preventing further transfers or sales; payment for legal services rendered; plus any other relief deemed just by the court.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs are not named explicitly within this excerpted document text. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-02903.
Source: 126cv02903_Davidoff_v_Abrol_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf