Lawsuit: Pending Mezimoří Union Bancorporation v. Aesyr_ [2025] FCR 108

[BrownBerry]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

I represent Mezimoří Union Bancorporation for my firm Mezimoří Legal Department.

In this case, Mezimoří Union Bancorporation (MZ Bank) is suing Aesyr_ (trading as Tape Capital) for breaches of a Loan Agreement between the two parties. In short, MZ Bank loaned Tape Capital $143,000 to be paid back over 16 weeks. The loan is secured by plot r112 and Tape Capital's securities holdings on the National Exchange of Redmont. Tape Capital made its first payment on the loan late. MZ Bank has not received the second payment.

Further, Aesyr_ has disposed of loan collateral on the National Exchange of Redmont and continues to do so. The Court must take immediate action to protect Plaintiff's rights. Approximately an hour ago, Tape Capital disposed of over $10,000 of securities. On information and belief, Tape Capital is attempting to sell further securities as this Motion is filed. They continue to dispose of collateral in contravention of the Loan Agreement. That necessitates an Emergency Injunction.

Plot r112 has been evicted by the Commonwealth. The Court should also freeze that plot until the proceedings can be determined.

Therefore, Plaintiff asks the Court for an Emergency Injunction protecting any remaining collateral, particularly:

1. That plot r112 be frozen and the Department of Construction and Transportation must not take any further action on the eviction and auction proceedings; and
2. That Tape Capital’s holdings of securities, commodities, or other financial instruments on the National Exchange of Redmont be frozen and must not be traded for the duration of the proceedings, or until the Court otherwise orders.

 

[BrownBerry]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Mezimoří Union Bancorporation (represented by MZLD)
Plaintiff

v.

Aesyr_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Mezimoří Bank entered into a Loan Agreement with Aesyr_ (doing business as Tape Capital). The case is simple: Aesyr_ did not pay the first installment on time and they have not paid any further installment at all. Aesyr_ has also sold loan collateral in contravention of the Loan Agreement.

---

I. PARTIES​

1. Mezimoří Union Bancorporation (doing business as Mezimoří Bank or MZ Bank)
2. Aesyr_ (doing business as Tape Capital)

---

II. FACTS​

1. On 29 September 2025, Tape Capital entered into a Loan Agreement with Mezimoří Union Bancorporation (see P-001 for the Loan Agreement; see P-002 for Tape Capital's acceptance).
2. Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, Mezimoří Bank paid $143,000 to Tape Capital.
3. In return, Tape Capital agreed to pay $11,440 each Friday for 16 weeks to Mezimoří Bank.
4. Each payment is composed of a $2502.5 interest payment, and $8937.5 principal payment (totalling $11,440).
5. Tape Capital did not make the first payment on 3 October, as required by the Loan Agreement.
6. Mezimoří Bank received the first payment in full on 8 October.
7. Tape Capital did not make the second payment on 10 October.
8. Mezimoří Bank has not received the second payment as at the date of filing.
9. Mezimoří Bank sent Tape Capital a Notice of Default on 12 October and has attempted to engage with Tape Capital to (1) receive payment; and (2) mediate the dispute.
10. On 15 October, after having not received due payment, Mezimoří Bank declared the outstanding loan balance immediately payable (see §3.3 of the Loan Agreement).
11. Further, under §2.4 of the Loan Agreement, Tape Capital agreed to retain, as collateral for the loan, a residential plot (r112) and Tape Capital shareholdings: 474 CGF securities, 515 RNC-B securities, and 597 SFP002 securities.
12. As at the date of filing, Tape Capital holds no CGF securities, 387 RNC-B securities, and 396 SFP002 securities.
13. Tape Capital has disposed of securities in contravention of the Loan Agreement.
14. Tape Capital is not incorporated under the Legal Entity Act.
15. Therefore, Aesyr_ is personally liable for the Loan Agreement.

---

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1 – Breach of Contract (First Payment)​

Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the $11,440 due on 3 October 2025 (the first payment). Defendant paid on 8 October. Under §3.3 of the Loan Agreement, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $1,000 for each day that payment is not received (totalling $5,000) (see Prayer for Relief §3).

2 – Breach of Contract (Second Payment and Loan Principal)​

Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the $11,440 due on 10 October 2025 (the second payment). Defendant paid on 8 October. Under §3.3 of the Loan Agreement, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $1,000 for each day that payment is not received (totalling $6,000 as at the date of filing) (see Prayer for Relief §4).

Plaintiff has still not received this payment. Therefore, Plaintiff claims the interest payable as compensatory damages (see Prayer for Relief §2). Plaintiff makes the remainder of the outstanding loan balance payable immediately. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to collect that balance as compensatory damages (see Prayer for Relief §1).

3 – Breach of Contract (Failure to Retain Collateral)​

Under §2.4 of the Loan Agreement, Defendant was required to retain collateral assets. The Loan Agreement was clear. But Defendant has disposed of the assets they agreed to retain. Defendant sold their shareholdings on the NER, and the residential plot has been evicted by the DCT.

It is an example of outrageous conduct to sell loan collateral in clear violation of an agreement. There can be no excuse for that behaviour, and Plaintiff therefore seeks punitive damages (see Prayer for Relief §5).

---

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory damages of $134,062.5, being the principal outstanding on the loan.
2. Compensatory damages of $2502.5, being the outstanding interest as at the date of filing.
3. Liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000, for 5-day-late receipt of the first payment.
4. Liquidated damages in the amount of $6,000, for 6-day-late receipt of the second payment, as at the date of filing.
5. Punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 for disposing of loan collateral.
6. Legal fees at the standard 30% rate (totalling $59,269.5).

---

V. EVIDENCE​

P-001 attached.

Spoiler: P-002

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

Dated this 16th day of October 2025

 

[Aesyr_]

Tape Capital Asset Management acknowledges receipt of the motion of payment acceleration filed MZB and the lawsuits filed in the name of the Mezimoří Union Bancorporation (MUB).

We recognize that the triggering of the acceleration clause was contractually valid under the current loan agreement. However, at present, the repayment cannot be completed without liquidating certain assets that are themselves part of the collateral securing the facility. Proceeding with such liquidation without proper coordination would expose both parties to unnecessary legal and financial risk.

Tape Capital AM is acting in good faith and intends to honor its obligations in full. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Court:

1. Grant a temporary stay on enforcement of the acceleration clause, or
2. Authorize a supervised partial liquidation of specific assets currently held as collateral, to permit repayment of the outstanding balance without breaching the collateral covenant.

Our objective is not to evade liability, but to ensure repayment occurs in a structured, transparent, and mutually safe manner. We remain open to immediate dialogue with MUB to establish a repayment schedule or liquidation protocol acceptable to all parties.


Respectfully submitted,
Tape Capital Asset Management
Managing Partner

 

[BrownBerry]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Defendant has not yet been summoned to the Court, and therefore cannot make in-court statements. Further, Defendant has not been allowed by the Court to respond to my Motion.

If Your Honor wants to consider Defendant's request further, then Plaintiff would oppose and ask to make a substantive response.

 

[Aesyr_]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Defendant has not yet been summoned to the Court, and therefore cannot make in-court statements. Further, Defendant has not been allowed by the Court to respond to my Motion.

If Your Honor wants to consider Defendant's request further, then Plaintiff would oppose and ask to make a substantive response.

My bad