Rvk, Inc..

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Item 11.H. of Part 1A or Item 2.F. of
Part 1B of Form ADV.

Civil Judicial
Check Part 1A item(s) being responded to:
11.H(1)(a)
11.H(1)(b)
11.H(1)(c)
11.H(2)
Check Part 1B item(s) being responded to:
2.F(1)
2.F(2)
2.F(3)
2.F(4)
2.F(5)
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File with a completed
Execution Page.
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Item 11.H. of Part 1A or Item 2.F. of Part 1B. Use only one DRP to report details related to the same event.
Unrelated civil judicial actions must be reported on separate DRPs.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
CRD Number: 1013827
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
VOYTKO, JAMES, MICHAEL
(For individuals, Last, First, Middle)
CRD Number: 4652105
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
GRATSINGER, REBECCA, A
(For individuals, Last, First, Middle)
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is registered or applying
for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item 11.H.(1)(a), and only if
that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any event listed in Item 11 that occurred
more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to the IARD or CRD for
the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Court Action initiated by: (Name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, SRO, commodities exchange, agency, firm, private plaintiff, etc.) 
MAYBERRY, ET AL. AND THE KY. ATTORNEY GENERAL (ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KY.); "TIER 3" MEMBERS OF KY. RETIREMENT SYSTEM
2.
Principal Relief Sought:
Money Damages (Private/Civil Complaint)
Other Relief Sought: 
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
3.
Filing Date of Court Action (MM/DD/YYYY):
12/27/2017
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
MAYBERRY, ET AL FILED 12/27/17 AND KY. ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENING COMPLAINT 12/28/20 AND AMENDED INTERVENING COMPLAINT 5/24/21; COMMONWEALTH

OF KENTUCKY AG SEPARATE COMPLAINT 7/21/20; "TIER 3" COMPLAINT 1/6/21; SEPARATE TIER 3 COMPLAINT , 21-CI-645 8/19/21
4.
Principal Product Type:
No Product
Other Product Types: 
5.
Formal Action was brought in (include name of Federal, State or Foreign Court, Location of Court - City or County and State or Country, Docket/Case Number): 
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; CASE NO. CI-17-1348 (MAYBERRY & AG INTERVENING); CASE NO. 20-CI-00590 AND CASE NO. 20-
CI-00590 (KENTUCKY AG SEPARATE COMPLAINTS); CASE NO. 21-CI-00020 ("TIER 3" COMPLAINT) (REMOVED BY DEFENDANTS TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KY, 3:21-CV-29); CASE NO. 21-CI-645 (SEPARATE "TIER 3" COMPLAINT)
6.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the civil judicial action (if applicable): 
RVK, INC.
7.
Describe the allegations related to this civil action (your response must fit within the space provided): 
IN DECEMBER 2017, OUR FIRM-ALONG WITH 31 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS-WAS NAMED IN A COMPLAINT FILED, NOT BY A CLIENT, BUT BY EIGHT
INDIVIDUAL PLAN PARTICIPANTS OF KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS (KRS, NOW KNOWN AS KPPA) (CASE 1348). THIS CASE EVENTUALLY LED TO OTHER, VERY SIMILAR
CASES (DISCUSSED BELOW). THE CLAIMS AGAINST RVK WERE COMPLETELY MERITLESS. IN RVK'S 40-YEAR HISTORY, THE FIRM HAS NEVER BEEN NAMED IN A COMPLAINT
FILED BY A CLIENT. AND HERE, RVK'S FORMER CLIENT-KRS-HAS OPTED NOT TO ASSERT ANY CLAIMS. AS DESCRIBED BELOW, RVK HAS BEEN A PARTY TO FIVE NEARLY
IDENTICAL CASES IN KENTUCKY. TWO OF THEM WERE DISMISSED AND ARE FINAL; TWO WERE DISMISSED AND ARE ON APPEAL; ONE IS CURRENTLY STAYED. IN THE
ORIGINAL CASE (1348), THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT ORDERED IN JULY 2020 THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, A
GROUP OF PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS WHO PARTICIPATE IN KRS'S HYBRID CASH BALANCE PLAN (THE "TIER 3" PLAINTIFFS) AND WHO WERE REPRESENTED BY SOME OF THE
SAME ATTORNEYS SOUGHT TO REVIVE THE SUIT. THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL (AG) ALSO SOUGHT TO INTERVENE, AND FILED A DUPLICATE CASE (CASE 590). THE
TIER 3 PLAINTIFFS FILED TWO ADDITIONAL SUITS (CASE 645 AND CASE 20) THAT WERE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL SUIT AND THE AG'S SUIT. NONE OF THE
COMPLAINTS ALLEGED ANY NEW CLAIMS AGAINST RVK. ON DECEMBER 28, 2020, THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE (1348)
BUT ALLOWED THE AG TO INTERVENE. IN APRIL 2023, THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT CASE 1348 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. THE DISMISSAL OF
CASE 1348 IS NOW FINAL. ON APRIL 8, 2024, THE OAG FILED ANOTHER NEAR-DUPLICATE NEW CASE (CASE 354), WHICH WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE 590. ON MAY 1,
2024, THE COURT GRANTED RVK'S MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE AG'S CASE 590 AND DISMISSED RVK. ON JULY 3, THE COURT DISMISSED RVK FROM THE AG'S OTHER CASE
(354). THE AG APPEALED THE DISMISSALS AND AGAIN SOUGHT TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT. THE APPEAL IS ONGOING. ALSO ON MAY 1, 2024, THE COURT GRANTED RVK'S
MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE TIER 3 SUIT (CASE 645). THESE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT APPEAL, AND THIS DISMISSAL IS FINAL. THE TIER 3 PLAINTIFFS' OTHER SUIT WAS FILED
IN 2021, AND IS (RELEVANT TO RVK) MATERIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE OTHER SUITS EXCEPT IT WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION. THIS ACTION WAS REMOVED TO
FEDERAL COURT, AND HAS BEEN STAYED PENDING THE STATE LITIGATION. FOR ITS PART, KPPA RETAINED AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM (CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP) IN
NOVEMBER 2020 TO INVESTIGATE AND ISSUE A REPORT. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE REPORT, KPPA'S BOARD VOTED ON MAY 26, 2021, NOT TO "INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF IN
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AMENDED COMPLAINT" OR "FILE ANY LITIGATION AGAINST ANY PARTY . . . AT THIS TIME." THE REPORT STATED THAT AFTER EXAMINING 192,000
DOCUMENTS, REVIEWING BOARD MEETING MATERIALS AND RECORDINGS, AND CONDUCTING SEVERAL INTERVIEWS, THE FIRM CONCLUDED THAT RVK "MET [ITS]
CONTRACTUAL AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES," "HONESTLY DISCLOS[ED] THE INVESTMENT CHALLENGES KRS FACED," AND "SERVED AS A VALUABLE CONSULTANT." THE FIRM
FOUND NO "INDICIA OF COLLUSIONS, COVER UP, OR FIDUCIARY FAILURE" BY RVK, AND FOUND NO "VIOLATIONS OF FIDUCIARY DUTY OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY" BY RVK. THE
FULL REPORT IS AVAILABLE AT HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/4YNKAH6F. FROM THE FILING OF THE FIRST SUIT TO NOW, RVK HAS MAINTAINED THAT OUR FIRM'S YEARS OF
SERVICE TO KRS WERE THOROUGHLY PROFESSIONAL, HIGHLY TRANSPARENT, AND ALWAYS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONTRACTUAL AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES.
8.
Current Status? 
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, action appealed to (provide name of court) and Date Appeal Filed (MM/DD/YYYY): 
KY COURT OF APPEALS, NOTICE OF APPEAL IN CASES 590 AND 354 FILED JULY 26, 2024. CASES 1348 AND 645 ARE DISMISSED AND FINAL. CASE 20 IS STAYED.
10. If pending, date notice/process was served (MM/DD/YYYY):
07/20/2020
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
CONDENSED SUMMARY: ORIGINAL SUIT (CASE NO. CI-17-1348) SERVED ON OR ABOUT 1/24/18. AG'S SEPARATE COMPLAINT (CASE NO. CI-20-0598) SERVED ON VOYTKO
ON 8/7/20. SERVICE ATTEMPTED ON RVK ON 8/3/20. SERVICE ACCEPTED ON MS. GRATSINGER AND RVK BY AGREEMENT WITH THE AG SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. CASE NO.
21-CI-00020 ('TIER 3' COMPLAINT) SERVED ON VOYTKO 1/26/21 AND ON GRATSINGER ON OR ABOUT 2/3/21; SERVICE WAS ATTEMPTED ON RVK ON OR ABOUT 2/10/21.
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 14 only.
11. How was matter resolved:
Other
12. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 
01/10/2024
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL LAWSUIT (1348) BECAME FINAL ON 1/10/2024. DISMISSAL OF CASE 645 BECAME FINAL ON MAY 31, 2024. CASES 590 AND 354 ARE ON APPEAL;
CASE 20 IS STAYED.
13. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered or Relief Granted(check appropriate items)?
Monetary/Fine Amount: $
Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
Disgorgement/Restitution

Censure
Cease and Desist/Injunction
Bar
Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions:
NO SANCTIONS ORDERED OR RELIEF GRANTED IN RESOLVED CASES - OTHER CASES ARE ONGOING, SEE ABOVE.
C.
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal, Financial Operations
Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to requalify/retrain, type of exam required and
whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution, disgorgement, or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion
levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion of penalty was waived:
N/A
14. Provide a brief summary of circumstances related to the action(s), allegation(s), disposition(s) and/or finding(s) disclosed above (your response must fit within the space
provided). 
IN DECEMBER 2017, OUR FIRM-ALONG WITH 31 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS-WAS NAMED IN A COMPLAINT FILED, NOT BY A CLIENT, BUT BY EIGHT
INDIVIDUAL PLAN PARTICIPANTS OF KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS (KRS, NOW KNOWN AS KPPA) (CASE 1348). THIS CASE EVENTUALLY LED TO OTHER, VERY SIMILAR
CASES (DISCUSSED BELOW). THE CLAIMS AGAINST RVK WERE COMPLETELY MERITLESS. IN RVK'S 40-YEAR HISTORY, THE FIRM HAS NEVER BEEN NAMED IN A COMPLAINT
FILED BY A CLIENT. AND HERE, RVK'S FORMER CLIENT-KRS-HAS OPTED NOT TO ASSERT ANY CLAIMS. AS DESCRIBED BELOW, RVK HAS BEEN A PARTY TO FIVE NEARLY
IDENTICAL CASES IN KENTUCKY. TWO OF THEM WERE DISMISSED AND ARE FINAL; TWO WERE DISMISSED AND ARE ON APPEAL; ONE IS CURRENTLY STAYED. IN THE
ORIGINAL CASE (1348), THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT ORDERED IN JULY 2020 THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, A
GROUP OF PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS WHO PARTICIPATE IN KRS'S HYBRID CASH BALANCE PLAN (THE "TIER 3" PLAINTIFFS) AND WHO WERE REPRESENTED BY SOME OF THE
SAME ATTORNEYS SOUGHT TO REVIVE THE SUIT. THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL (AG) ALSO SOUGHT TO INTERVENE, AND FILED A DUPLICATE CASE (CASE 590). THE
TIER 3 PLAINTIFFS FILED TWO ADDITIONAL SUITS (CASE 645 AND CASE 20) THAT WERE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL SUIT AND THE AG'S SUIT. NONE OF THE
COMPLAINTS ALLEGED ANY NEW CLAIMS AGAINST RVK. ON DECEMBER 28, 2020, THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE (1348)
BUT ALLOWED THE AG TO INTERVENE. IN APRIL 2023, THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT CASE 1348 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. THE DISMISSAL OF
CASE 1348 IS NOW FINAL. ON APRIL 8, 2024, THE OAG FILED ANOTHER NEAR-DUPLICATE NEW CASE (CASE 354), WHICH WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE 590. ON MAY 1,
2024, THE COURT GRANTED RVK'S MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE AG'S CASE 590 AND DISMISSED RVK. ON JULY 3, THE COURT DISMISSED RVK FROM THE AG'S OTHER CASE
(354). THE AG APPEALED THE DISMISSALS AND AGAIN SOUGHT TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT. THE APPEAL IS ONGOING. ALSO ON MAY 1, 2024, THE COURT GRANTED RVK'S
MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE TIER 3 SUIT (CASE 645). THESE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT APPEAL, AND THIS DISMISSAL IS FINAL. THE TIER 3 PLAINTIFFS' OTHER SUIT WAS FILED
IN 2021, AND IS (RELEVANT TO RVK) MATERIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE OTHER SUITS EXCEPT IT WAS FILED AS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION. THIS ACTION WAS REMOVED TO
FEDERAL COURT, AND HAS BEEN STAYED PENDING THE STATE LITIGATION. FOR ITS PART, KPPA RETAINED AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM (CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP) IN
NOVEMBER 2020 TO INVESTIGATE AND ISSUE A REPORT. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE REPORT, KPPA S BOARD VOTED ON MAY 26, 2021, NOT TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF IN
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AMENDED COMPLAINT" OR "FILE ANY LITIGATION AGAINST ANY PARTY . . . AT THIS TIME." THE REPORT STATED THAT AFTER EXAMINING 192,000
DOCUMENTS, REVIEWING BOARD MEETING MATERIALS AND RECORDINGS, AND CONDUCTING SEVERAL INTERVIEWS, THE FIRM CONCLUDED THAT RVK "MET [ITS]
CONTRACTUAL AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES," "HONESTLY DISCLOS[ED] THE INVESTMENT CHALLENGES KRS FACED," AND "SERVED AS A VALUABLE CONSULTANT." THE FIRM
FOUND NO "INDICIA OF COLLUSIONS, COVER UP, OR FIDUCIARY FAILURE" BY RVK, AND FOUND NO "VIOLATIONS OF FIDUCIARY DUTY OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY" BY RVK. THE
FULL REPORT IS AVAILABLE AT HTTPS://TINYURL.COM/4YNKAH6F. FROM THE FILING OF THE FIRST SUIT TO NOW, RVK HAS MAINTAINED THAT OUR FIRM'S YEARS OF
SERVICE TO KRS WERE THOROUGHLY PROFESSIONAL, HIGHLY TRANSPARENT, AND ALWAYS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONTRACTUAL AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES.