At a Glance
- $30M loan facility in default — Chicago Atlantic extended the credit facility to PowerCoin (d/b/a Margo) in December 2023; PowerCoin defaulted in May 2024
- 4,000+ Bitcoin ATMs at issue — collateral includes physical kiosks, merchant agreements, transaction revenues, and digital currency proceeds
- 9-count complaint filed January 16, 2026 — conversion, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, fraudulent transfer, and breach of fiduciary duty in Miami-Dade Circuit Court
- 310 Royal Farms ATMs allegedly converted — Bitstop announced an exclusive Royal Farms partnership in November 2025 using machines Chicago Atlantic claims it legally owns
- Receivership and injunction sought — Chicago Atlantic asks the court to strip Bitstop of operational control and halt all revenue collection
- Defendants: ATM Ops Inc. (d/b/a Bitstop), Andrew Barnard, Douglas Carrillo — personal liability alleged via civil conspiracy and alter-ego theories
Case: Chicago Atlantic Admin, LLC v. ATM Ops, Inc. d/b/a Bitstop, et al.
Court: Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Complex Business Division)
Filed: January 16, 2026
Parties: Chicago Atlantic Admin, LLC (Plaintiff/Lender); ATM Ops, Inc. d/b/a Bitstop, Andrew Barnard, Douglas Carrillo (Defendants)
The PowerCoin Loan: $30 Million Facility Secured by 4,000+ Bitcoin ATMs
Deal Structure (December 2023):
- Loan Amount: $30,000,000 credit facility
- Borrower: PowerCoin, LLC (Pennsylvania-based Bitcoin ATM operator, d/b/a "Margo")
- Collateral: 4,000+ Bitcoin Teller Machines (BTMs), equipment, inventory, payment intangibles, digital assets, merchant agreements
- Security Interest: Perfected first-priority lien (UCC-1 filed December 20, 2023)
- Default Date: May 2024
The PowerCoin-Bitstop Relationship: Who Operated the ATMs?
At the time of the loan, PowerCoin owned more than 4,000 Bitcoin ATM kiosks deployed across the United States, including many in Florida. However, PowerCoin did not operate these machines directly. Instead, it had a business relationship with **ATM Ops, Inc. d/b/a Bitstop**, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Miami-Dade County. Under that arrangement—the terms of which Chicago Atlantic says it does not possess—Bitstop served as the **operating and servicing entity** for PowerCoin's BTMs. Bitstop: - Operated and/or managed the PowerCoin-owned BTMs - Controlled the associated rights to fees, transaction revenues, and payment intangibles arising from BTM operations - Managed merchant-location agreements - Collected and processed cash from the kiosks In other words, Bitstop had operational control, but PowerCoin (and, after default, Chicago Atlantic as secured creditor) owned the machines and held the legal and economic interest in the revenue.The Alleged Conversion: "Bitstop Refused to Recognize Chicago Atlantic's Rights"
After PowerCoin's May 2024 default, the complaint alleges, Bitstop did not honor Chicago Atlantic's superior lien or surrender possession of the collateral. Instead, Bitstop: 1. **Refused to return the BTMs and equipment** despite demand 2. **Continued operating the BTMs and appropriating all fees, revenues, and payment intangibles** without accounting to Chicago Atlantic or PowerCoin 3. **Refused to provide basic information** about: - Location of BTMs - Serial numbers and identifiers - Merchant leases - Transaction histories - Cash and digital currency collected or removed - Disposition of revenues and payment intangibles 4. **Improperly siphoned proceeds** generated by the BTMs for its own use 5. **Interfered with merchant relationships**, including by attempting to assume, transfer, or exploit those relationships and assets The complaint alleges that "Bitstop has continued to operate the BTMs and to appropriate, divert, and/or retain all fees, revenues, and other proceeds and Payment Intangibles generated by BTM transactions, without accounting to or paying Chicago Atlantic or PowerCoin."Key Allegation:
"Despite demand, Bitstop has failed and/or refused to provide Chicago Atlantic with basic information concerning the location of BTMs, the serial numbers and identifiers, the merchant leases, the transaction histories, the cash and digital currency collected or removed, and the disposition of the associated revenues and Payment Intangibles, despite Chicago Atlantic's perfected security interest, matured remedies, and attorney-in-fact authority and demand that this information be provided."
The Royal Farms Deal: A "Shell Game" Allegation
The complaint includes a section titled **"The Bitstop Defendants' Shell Game"** that alleges Bitstop unlawfully converted PowerCoin's business relationship with Royal Farms, a national convenience store and gas station chain.Royal Farms Transaction (November 2025):
- On or about November 12, 2025, Defendants announced that Bitstop entered into an exclusive partnership with Royal Farms
- 310 Bitcoin ATMs installed at Royal Farms locations—all "live" as of November 12, 2025
- Prior to the default, PowerCoin had a direct relationship with Royal Farms
- Prior to the default, many of PowerCoin's ATMs pledged as collateral were located at Royal Farms stores
- Bitstop co-founder Douglas Carrillo repeated the announcement at least 10 times between November 12 and November 19, 2025
Who Is Bitstop? The Fictitious Name Issue
The complaint highlights a corporate identity issue that may become relevant to piercing arguments: - **ATM Ops, Inc.** is the legal entity (Delaware corporation) that trades as "Bitstop" - However, according to filings with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, **the term "BitStop" is a fictitious name or trade name owned personally by defendants Andrew Barnard and Douglas Carrillo** - Barnard and Carrillo are both directors of ATM Ops, Inc.—Barnard serves as President, Carrillo as Vice-President - They operate the website https://bitstop.co and hold themselves out as "Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer" (Carrillo) and President (Barnard) This structure may support alter-ego or veil-piercing theories if Chicago Atlantic seeks to hold Barnard and Carrillo personally liable.The Nine Counts: Conversion, Fraud, Conspiracy, and Receivership
Counts Filed Against Defendants
I
Conversion (Against Bitstop)
Chicago Atlantic holds a perfected first-priority security interest and superior right to immediate possession of the BTMs, equipment, cash, digital currency proceeds, fees, and payment intangibles. Bitstop wrongfully exercised dominion and control over these assets in denial of Chicago Atlantic's rights.
II
Tortious Interference with Contractual and Business Relationships (Against All Defendants)
Defendants knew of Chicago Atlantic's contracts and business relationships with merchant locations (including Royal Farms) and of Chicago Atlantic's perfected security interest. Defendants intentionally interfered with those relationships, causing termination, modification, impairment, and/or diversion of proceeds and revenues.
III
Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Against Bitstop)
By agreeing to operate and maintain PowerCoin's BTMs and take custody of revenues and payment intangibles, Bitstop assumed fiduciary duties as bailee. Bitstop breached those duties by failing to restore the BTMs, failing to preserve operations, failing to account for proceeds, and improperly siphoning revenues.
IV
Civil Conspiracy (Against All Defendants)
Defendants Barnard, Carrillo, and Bitstop agreed to commit unlawful acts of conversion, breach of fiduciary duties, and tortious interference by wrongfully diverting revenues and fees owed to Chicago Atlantic. Barnard and Carrillo acted in their personal interests and/or as agents of other entities from which they would personally benefit.
V
Unjust Enrichment (Alternative Claim) (Against All Defendants)
Defendants knowingly received, retained, and used collateral, proceeds, and payment intangibles to which Chicago Atlantic has superior rights, including fees and transaction revenues. It would be inequitable for Defendants to retain these benefits without paying their value to Chicago Atlantic.
VI
Avoidance and Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers (Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act) (Against Bitstop)
Bitstop siphoned BTM funds to sources other than Chicago Atlantic with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Chicago Atlantic. Badges of fraud include: transfers to insiders, Bitstop retaining control of funds, concealment of assets, and removal of assets. Chicago Atlantic seeks to avoid the transfers and recover the funds.
VII
Constructive Trust (Against All Defendants)
Defendants hold property and proceeds (cash, digital currency, fees, payment intangibles, and the BTMs) that in equity and good conscience belong to Chicago Atlantic. A constructive trust should be imposed over all such property to prevent unjust enrichment and dissipation.
VIII
Injunction (Against All Defendants)
Chicago Atlantic will suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief because Defendants' ongoing diversion and dissipation of cash, digital currency, and payment intangibles will continue to erode collateral value. Chicago Atlantic seeks temporary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants from operating, moving, or disposing of the BTMs; receiving or transferring any cash, digital currency, or fees; and compelling Defendants to deliver keys, credentials, wallet information, and records.
IX
Accounting (Against Bitstop)
Bitstop has exclusive control over material information and records. Chicago Atlantic seeks a full and complete accounting of all collateral, BTM locations, serial numbers, wallets, transactions, fees, proceeds, and payment intangibles, with production of books and records.
Remedies Sought: Receivership, Turnover, and Damages
Chicago Atlantic's complaint seeks the following relief: 1. **Compensatory Damages** for conversion, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy 2. **Special Damages** for lost profits and payment intangibles 3. **Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers** and recovery of transferred funds 4. **Attachment or Provisional Remedy** against assets transferred 5. **Injunction** prohibiting Defendants from operating, moving, or disposing of BTMs; receiving or transferring cash, digital currency, or fees; and compelling turnover of keys, credentials, and records 6. **Appointment of a Receiver** to take charge of the BTMs and other property 7. **Imposition of a Constructive Trust** over all cash, digital currency, payment intangibles, and proceeds traceable to BTM operations 8. **Full and Complete Accounting** of all collateral, BTM locations, serial numbers, wallets, transactions, fees, proceeds, and payment intangibles 9. **Unjust Enrichment Restitution** for the value of the benefits Defendants retained 10. **Interest, Costs, and Attorney's Fees** The complaint also references Chicago Atlantic's power-of-attorney and attorney-in-fact authority under the loan agreement, which authorized Chicago Atlantic to "do all things necessary or advisable to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement or the other Loan Documents," including taking possession of collateral and exercising remedies upon default.What This Case Reveals About Bitcoin ATM Secured Lending
The Chicago Atlantic v. Bitstop case exposes critical vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin ATM financing ecosystem—and illustrates what happens when a borrower defaults and the operator refuses to surrender collateral. **For secured lenders financing Bitcoin ATM operators:** - **Physical possession matters.** A perfected security interest is only as good as the lender's ability to take possession of the collateral. If a third-party operator controls the machines, obtaining collateral can require litigation. - **Operating agreements should be reviewed.** Lenders should demand copies of operating agreements with third-party service providers and require provisions explicitly subordinating the operator's rights to the lender's security interest. - **Merchant relationships are collateral.** The complaint treats merchant-location agreements (like the Royal Farms relationship) as collateral. Lenders should perfect their interests in these contracts and require merchant-level acknowledgments of the lender's lien. - **Digital wallets are collateral.** The loan agreement covered "digital-currency-related collateral" and required PowerCoin to provide wallet keys and credentials. Lenders should obtain these keys at closing (not after default) and store them securely. - **Payment intangibles are collateral.** The revenue streams from BTM operations are "payment intangibles" under the UCC. Lenders should perfect their interests in these intangibles (which may require notice to account debtors or control agreements). **For Bitcoin ATM operators considering third-party service arrangements:** - **Define ownership clearly.** Operating agreements should explicitly state that the operator has no ownership interest in the machines, only a service relationship. - **Subordination provisions.** Operating agreements should include provisions requiring the operator to surrender possession to the lender upon notice of default. - **Lender consent for operator agreements.** Loan agreements may require lender consent before entering operating agreements that grant third-party control over collateral. **For Bitcoin ATM operators that service machines owned by others:** - **Beware of conversion liability.** If you continue operating machines and collecting revenue after a default (and after notice from a secured creditor), you risk conversion liability—even if you believe you have a contractual right to the revenue. - **Document your rights.** If you have a claim to the revenue (e.g., for unpaid service fees), document it and assert it properly. Don't simply "appropriate, divert, and/or retain" revenue without notice. - **Respond to lender demands.** If a secured creditor demands information about machine locations, revenues, and transaction histories, respond (even if you dispute the lender's rights). The complaint alleges Bitstop refused to provide "basic information" despite repeated demand.What's Next
The case is now pending in the Complex Business Division of the Miami-Dade Circuit Court. Key issues to watch: - **Will the court appoint a receiver?** Chicago Atlantic seeks immediate appointment of a receiver to take charge of the BTMs and revenue streams. If granted, this would strip Bitstop of operational control. - **Will the court issue a temporary injunction?** Chicago Atlantic seeks an injunction prohibiting Bitstop from operating the machines or collecting revenue. This would immediately halt Bitstop's operations with respect to the PowerCoin collateral. - **Will Barnard and Carrillo face personal liability?** The conspiracy and alter-ego allegations (and the fictitious name issue) may support piercing the corporate veil. - **What will Bitstop's defense be?** Bitstop has not yet filed an answer. Possible defenses: (1) disputing the validity or priority of Chicago Atlantic's lien, (2) asserting a contractual right to the revenue superior to Chicago Atlantic's lien, (3) arguing that Chicago Atlantic failed to properly perfect its interest, or (4) asserting that PowerCoin (not Bitstop) breached the operating agreement. - **Will this case settle?** If Bitstop faces a receiver appointment and injunction, it may have strong incentives to negotiate a turnover or settlement. This case will be one to watch for anyone financing Bitcoin ATM operators—or for any secured lender whose borrower relies on a third-party operator to service the collateral. It illustrates that a perfected security interest is only the beginning. Enforcement requires physical possession, cooperation from third parties, and—when those fail—litigation.Continue your location research
Use the directory and source-backed state guides connected to this reporting.