court report
Court Report
1. The name of the case is “Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad Vs. Mobifusion, Inc” and case number is 112CV236774.
2. Date and time of the session I attended is February 20th, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
3. Number of department is Dept. 2, and the name of the judge is Patricia M. Lucas.
4. John V. Komar is the attorney for the plaintiff (Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad) and Chris Kao is the attorney for the defendant (Mobifusion, Inc)
5. Nature of dispute:
a) The plaintiff, MavCap, filed the case against Mobifusion, Inc. In exchange for a securing three million dollar investment from MavCap; in 2010, Mobifusion agreed in the Note Purchase Agreement that MavCap could have a seat on the board of directors of Mobifuson and that the MavCap, through the Board, would be allowed to approve any expenditures of its investment over RM 100,000 (about $32,790). However, in Sep 2012, Mobifusion decided to end run its contractual obligations and cut MavCap out of the approval process by making daily funs transfer just RM 1,000 (about $299.32) under the threshold for which MavCap’s approval was required, but in combination such daily transfer greatly excced the RM 100,000 approval threshold.
b) This case is based upon the breach of contract.
c) This case is related to the operation of the business because the action of Mobifusion that proceeding to take funds without MavCap’s approval could probably cause damages for the business of MavCap.
d) The Court is asked to issue a writ of possession, order Mobifusion to turn over collateral up to the value of MavCap’s interest, order that MavCap need post no undertaking, and order the Mobifusion post an undertaking should it desire to stop MavCap from taking possession of property up to the value of its collateral.
6. The decision at this hearing was not reached. Based on the evidence provided by MavCap, however, if proven to be valid, it is likely that the court will require Mobifusion to either pay a
1. The name of the case is “Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad Vs. Mobifusion, Inc” and case number is 112CV236774.
2. Date and time of the session I attended is February 20th, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
3. Number of department is Dept. 2, and the name of the judge is Patricia M. Lucas.
4. John V. Komar is the attorney for the plaintiff (Malaysia Venture Capital Management Berhad) and Chris Kao is the attorney for the defendant (Mobifusion, Inc)
5. Nature of dispute:
a) The plaintiff, MavCap, filed the case against Mobifusion, Inc. In exchange for a securing three million dollar investment from MavCap; in 2010, Mobifusion agreed in the Note Purchase Agreement that MavCap could have a seat on the board of directors of Mobifuson and that the MavCap, through the Board, would be allowed to approve any expenditures of its investment over RM 100,000 (about $32,790). However, in Sep 2012, Mobifusion decided to end run its contractual obligations and cut MavCap out of the approval process by making daily funs transfer just RM 1,000 (about $299.32) under the threshold for which MavCap’s approval was required, but in combination such daily transfer greatly excced the RM 100,000 approval threshold.
b) This case is based upon the breach of contract.
c) This case is related to the operation of the business because the action of Mobifusion that proceeding to take funds without MavCap’s approval could probably cause damages for the business of MavCap.
d) The Court is asked to issue a writ of possession, order Mobifusion to turn over collateral up to the value of MavCap’s interest, order that MavCap need post no undertaking, and order the Mobifusion post an undertaking should it desire to stop MavCap from taking possession of property up to the value of its collateral.
6. The decision at this hearing was not reached. Based on the evidence provided by MavCap, however, if proven to be valid, it is likely that the court will require Mobifusion to either pay a