In the heart of Manhattan, at 347 West Thirty-Sixth Street, an unassuming office building serves as the nexus for a tangled web of media entities, legal firms, and a pattern of financial distress that has left dozens of independent contractors stranded. For months, journalists, developers, and media professionals have been chasing payments for completed work, navigating a maze of shifting corporate identities, sudden website blackouts, and aggressive legal posturing.
At the center of this controversy lie Pleroma Media, Pleroma MGMT, and IBT Media (International Business Times). The investigation into these companies reveals a systemic failure to compensate workers—a situation that former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. describes as “childishly managed” yet “overly complicated,” echoing the mechanics of a high-stakes shell game.
The Anatomy of a Payment Crisis
The plight of the contractors began with a simple, yet recurring, theme: work completed, invoices submitted, and silence from management. Nine independent contractors, speaking on the condition of anonymity or representing various departments within the Pleroma umbrella, painted a picture of a company that treated its workforce as disposable, often cycling payments through different LLCs to avoid accountability.
As of December 2025, these individuals collectively claimed they were owed approximately $40,000. For many, this wasn’t merely a bookkeeping error; it was a life-altering financial blow. Luis Addor, a contract coder, found himself unable to cover rent, eventually forced into the indignity of living in a shipping container while working part-time at a pizzeria to survive. “Every time they made promises, I was counting on that money,” Addor recounted. “Today, I am facing the consequences.”
A Chronology of Corporate Confusion
The confusion regarding who exactly employs these contractors is by design. One day, a paycheck arrives from “Pleroma Media”; the next, it is issued by “Pleroma MGMT” or “IBT MGMT.” When reporters attempted to verify these operations in person, the reaction was swift and hostile.
Upon visiting the 347 West Thirty-Sixth Street offices, this reporter was met by Titus Choi, identified as the head of development for IBT Media. Rather than answering questions about the unpaid invoices, the encounter escalated into a bizarre scene involving Choi filming the reporter on his phone and escorting them out of the building. Shortly thereafter, the company filed a police report for trespassing. This was followed by a cease-and-desist letter from a law firm representing IBT Media, warning of a potential civil lawsuit for “future trespasses.”
The atmosphere surrounding these entities is heavily colored by the past. Etienne Uzac, the CEO of Pleroma Media and former chief executive of IBT, was previously implicated in a major fraud case. In 2020, Uzac pleaded guilty to money laundering and fraud charges brought by the Manhattan District Attorney. IBT Media, which at the time owned Newsweek, also pleaded guilty to a scheme to defraud and was forced to forfeit $50,000.
The “Three-Card Monte” of Corporate Governance
The strategy employed by Pleroma and its affiliates mirrors the methods that led to the 2018 criminal investigations. By segmenting operations into dozens of tiny, under-capitalized LLCs, the parent entities effectively insulate themselves from liability.
Professor Ann Lipton of the University of Colorado Law School, an expert in corporate governance, explains the logic: “You keep very few assets in each individual LLC. That way, the contractors sue the actual company that hired them, but that company doesn’t have any assets because they were all paid out through a different related LLC.”
This structure is further complicated by the intermingling of religious and corporate interests. Yen-Yi Anderson, an attorney who has represented Pleroma Media, Pleroma MGMT, and Uzac, noted that her firm’s proximity to these companies stems from a shared religious affiliation: the World Olivet Assembly. This organization, founded by Dr. David Jang, has been historically linked to IBT Media and Olivet University. The entanglement of faith-based organizations and media outlets has historically served as a shield, with the firm “denouncing” any attempts to link the professional entities as “guilt-by-association tactics.”
Official Responses and Tactical Shifts
The companies’ reactions to mounting public scrutiny have been reactive and, at times, suspicious. In June 2024, after being contacted by investigators, Pleroma Media suddenly shuttered its primary website, replacing it with a sparse page containing only contact information. Curiously, within days of this digital blackout, several long-overdue payments were released to former contractors.
Ethan Dreilinger, a former president of Pleroma Media who had been owed for over two months of work, received $15,000—the bulk of his outstanding pay—on the same day the website vanished. Similar, though partial, payments were made to other vocal contractors, including Raphael Dib and Luis Addor. When these contractors attempted to return the money, citing their ongoing legal pursuit of the full amount, they were met with silence.
When asked for comment, executives such as Michael Lee claimed that Pleroma Media and Pleroma MGMT are entirely separate entities, implying that the failures of one do not reflect upon the other. However, the internal privacy policies and shared administrative infrastructures suggest otherwise. For instance, the marketing opt-out process for International Business Times directs users to a Pleroma Management email address—a clear indicator of a shared digital architecture.
The Broader Implications for Journalism
The implications of this saga extend far beyond the unpaid invoices of a few dozen freelancers. It raises fundamental questions about the sustainability of the digital media landscape and the ethical responsibilities of media owners.
The pattern of “right-sizing” operations and citing financial difficulty while simultaneously engaging in multi-million dollar real estate transactions—such as Pleroma MGMT’s $2.3 million purchase of a former Days Inn in Montgomery, Alabama—suggests a calculated misallocation of resources. The Alabama property serves as the registered address for multiple entities, including NavConnects LLC, which now operates the Latin Times.
Former DA Cyrus Vance Jr., reflecting on the scheme, noted that even after criminal convictions, companies often return to similar patterns of behavior if the regulatory environment remains lax. “I’m not suggesting that it is a case of criminal conduct,” Vance said of the current situation. “But the truth of the matter is that even law enforcement agencies and government agencies, their memory is short.”
A Pattern of Intimidation
The final stage of this investigation involved a shift from silence to aggressive intimidation. After this reporter reached out to executives, they were contacted by Daniel Acosta, an editor at the Latin Times, who sent a list of twenty aggressive questions. These questions attempted to frame the reporter as a “Newsweek operative” engaged in a “predatory pattern of identity-based manipulation.”
When the reporter requested time to respond, the Latin Times bypassed professional courtesy, publishing an attack piece on the journalist just two hours later. This was followed by formal threats of legal action against the Columbia Journalism Review and Columbia University. Such tactics are a hallmark of an organization that fears transparency.
Conclusion
As the legal battles continue in the New York State Supreme Court, the individuals caught in the crossfire are moving on, though the emotional and financial scars remain. For the contractors, the experience was a harsh lesson in the dangers of the modern gig economy, where legal boundaries are blurred and corporations hide behind a shell of disconnected LLCs.
For the broader media industry, the Pleroma-IBT affair serves as a cautionary tale. It highlights the vulnerability of the independent workforce and the urgent need for greater oversight of media companies that operate with more complexity than transparency. While the police and courts may eventually determine the legality of these actions, the ethical verdict—rendered by the former employees, the shuttered websites, and the lingering, unpaid debts—is already clear. The “shadow network” of these media entities remains, waiting for the next cycle of business to begin, while those who actually created the content are left to pick up the pieces of their disrupted lives.
