Lawsuit: Adjourned The Exchange v. Tello [2023] FCR 17

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matthew100x

Citizen
Justice
Judge
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Matthew100x
Matthew100x
judge
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
471
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION



The Exchange (Represented by Matthew100x, Head Attorney at Prodigium | Attorneys at Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Tello Bank
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your Honor,

After exhaustively attempting to resolve issues with Tello, henceforth the defendant, we, The Exchange, henceforth the plaintiff, request for affirmative action from our legal system. Per 4.5 of the Corporate Law Act, we are allowed to delist a company for reasonable reasons (see the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Amendment Act). Since October 5th, 2022, Tello’s stock has been frozen due to suspected misinformation and misreporting of stock information. We attempted to resolve this discrepancy with first our auditing team and then followed by our legal counsel. This issue was further complicated by a public notice of bankruptcy which The Exchange holds as a contract between Tello and those whom it promised repayment. Counsel for The Exchange informed Tello CEO Xeu100 that they would be under a heightened level of scrutiny and review because of Tello’s declaration of bankruptcy. Despite still owing an obligation to their shareholders, Tello sold itself to the Meridian Group and in doing so, violated its obligations to The Exchange and its shareholders.

I. PARTIES
1. The Exchange, Plaintiff
2. Tello, Defendant
3. Meridian Group, Co-Defendant (Via ownership of Tello)
4. Tello’s Shareholders, as a named party without representation whose interests are harmed by the defendant.
5. Writ of quo warranto for the Reserve Bank and DoC (DEC's successor) on notice for its obligations as detailed in Section 8.5 of the Corporate Law Act to establish their authority to "compensate any losses by shareholders or the holders of any other security."

II. FACTS
1. The defendant was audited for misinformation of their stock following a settlement agreement between the defendant and Onyx. The plaintiff’s CEO, Nacholebraa informed the defendant of this. Their stock was frozen
2. Tello failed the audit. Despite providing information to the plaintiff, it was insufficient to clear the issue.
3. Tello made a support ticket, the issue still went unresolved.
4. Tello made a second support ticket, the issue again went unresolved.
5. Tello demanded their shareholder list be accepted in the main ticket.
6. Ongoing pursuant to facts 3, 4, and 5. Tello expanded their stock through a majority vote of their shareholders. However, they began making private deals of their public stock
7. A few days after Tello demanded their shareholder list be held as true, the company announced a notice of bankruptcy and established a contract with their customers to pay debts and asked the DoC to pay depositors.
8. Due to Tello’s demands established in fact 5, the plaintiff hired counsel to handle matters with the defendant.
9. The plaintiff’s counsel wrote a memo and recommended that Tello be delisted as a first option, however, the plaintiff requested that they work with the defendant and chose option #2 to get Tello relisted.
10. The plaintiff’s counsel worked with the defendant on setting out guidelines to try and sort issues by creating a new IPO for the Defendant.
11. The defendant sells itself to the co-defendant.
12. Due to the differences in documentation between the plaintiff and the defendant because of the trade freeze, there is a dispute to the official shareholder list. The plaintiff declares their shareholder list to be the official one.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Illegal private deals in violation of 3.3 of the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Amendment Act.
2. Due to the disputed shareholder list, it is unverified whether or not the company could be legally sold and that the defendant’s sale was in violation of 3.6 of the Corporate Law Act.
3. Due to a disputed shareholder list, it is unverified whether or not the company could legally expand the volume of their stock and that the defendant’s action to do so was in violation of 3.4(c).
4. Failure to properly comply with agreed upon terms with The Exchange

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A permanent injunction granting the plaintiff’s request to delist the defendant from their securities exchange per 4.5 of the Corporate Law Act (see the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Amendment Act).
2. A permanent injunction declaring all liability for shareholders to be held by the defendant and co-defendant of this case due to illegal private deals of a publicly traded company.
3. A permanent injunction, declaring that the shareholder list held by plaintiff is the official list for the purposes of reimbursing shareholders and determining Tello's decision making process.
4. A writ of mandamus requiring the involvement of the CRB and DoC to stabilize the security market per their obligation laid out in section 8.5 of the Corporate Law Act.

V. Evidence
TE | Terms of Service
TE | Compliance Regulation Enforcement
TE | Press Release 1.0
Tello: Notice of Bankruptcy
Act of Congress - Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act

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 17th day of January, 2023.
 
federal-court-png.12082


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Exchange v. Tello [2023] FCR 17.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Your honor, I have been summoned but am no longer a representative for Tello on new cases since resigning from the board. I have only carried out my duties on cases I was already representing due to a lack of any other Tello representative.
 
Good evening Your Honor,

The plaintiff is requesting default judgment in this matter.
 
@xeu100 you were the last known point of contact for Tello's legal matters. May I ask who is handling it now?
 
@xeu100 you were the last known point of contact for Tello's legal matters. May I ask who is handling it now?
No one, Tello has no employees or executives, only shareholders. Even then, there is no definitive list of shareholders universally agreed upon.
 
Is Tello owned by any entity whatsoever?
 
The ownership of Tello is in dispute
 
Your honor, may we request default judgment on this matter to officiate the delisting? As well as call the CRB legal representative to establish their power to stabilize the security market?
 
I will move forward on the default judgment, as any representative of Tello has failed to appear in court. I will be denying the request for a writ of quo warranto with regard to the Commonwealth Reserve Board, as its authority to perform acts in the future will be determined by the court's ruling on the relevant law, and taken into account in the verdict.
 
The verdict will be posted tomorrow.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
The Exchange v. Tello [2023] FCR 17

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant has violated the Plaintiff’s terms of service several times.
2. Under the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act § 3.3, the Plaintiff now has the right to delist the Defendant.
3. The Defendant was audited by the Plaintiff for misinformation and insisted that its own list of shareholders must be accepted by the Plaintiff as valid.
4. This was then compounded by the Defendant being sold to the Meridian Group, possibly illegally depending on the true stock ownership.
5. The shareholder list is disputed and the Plaintiff, as the securities exchange, holds the true list.
6. The Department of Commerce and Commonwealth Reserve Bank have the responsibility to restore public faith and trust in the securities exchange, and must do so in this case.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear before the court.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. Per the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act, the Plaintiff does have the right to delist a company for reasonable cause.
2. It is the opinion of the court that the recent turmoil involving the Defendant’s management and shareholders constitutes reasonable cause for delisting, especially in light of the attempts by the Plaintiff to resolve the issue through other avenues.
3. Per the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act § 4.5, the company in question “will be required to honor its investor's shares off the market”.
4. Thus, the liability to shareholders belongs to the Defendant.
5. For the purposes of record keeping, as the Defendant’s company was listed on the Plaintiff’s exchange, which is registered with the Department of Commerce per the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act, the Plaintiff’s record shall be considered official.
6. The Commonwealth of Redmont has not been named as a Defendant in this case, and as it has not had the opportunity to defend its interests, in order to grant a writ of mandamus forcing it to take action, a separate lawsuit must be filed against the Commonwealth.

IV. VERDICT
I find in favor of the Plaintiff.
I am hereby issuing the following:

  • A permanent injunction to affirm the right of the Plaintiff to delist the Defendant from its securities exchange as provided for in the Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act;
  • A permanent injunction to establish that the liability to shareholders is held by the Defendant and co-Defendant as the Defendant’s owner;
  • A permanent injunction to establish that the shareholder list held by the Plaintiff is the official list of shareholders of the Defendant’s company for the purposes of shareholder reimbursement and disputed share ownership.

The court thanks both parties for their time. This case is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top