Lawsuit: Adjourned Onyx Industries v. Tello [2023] FCR 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord_Donuticus

Lord_Donuticus

Citizen
Supporter
Grave Digger 3rd Anniversary Legal Eagle Change Maker 1st Anniversary Statesman Popular in the Polls
The_Donuticus
The_Donuticus
Attorney
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
248
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Onyx Industries (Prodigium: Dusty_3 & Donut Law Firm: The_Donuticus Representing)
Plaintiff
v.
Tello
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your Honor,

When you make an agreement you need to stick to it, especially when that agreement is made because you have failed the person. Tello failed Onyx Industries, one of their largest shareholders, when their stock prices were affected by criminal actions at the top of the bank. They owe Onyx, they have obligations, they have failed in those obligations.

I. PARTIES
1. Onyx Industries
2. Tello

II. FACTS
1. On the 14th of October 2022 Tello & Onyx Industries came to an agreement by which Tello would buy out Onyx’s shares over the course of four months for the price of $404,074.34
2. Tello has missed the third payment on the 15th of December for $103,359.38.
3. This is a violation of the agreed upon terms of the contract.
4. After communication that the payment was missed Tello have since closed the ticket they had open with Dusty_3, representing Onyx industries, presumably in an attempt to conceal the evidence - however luckily this had already been screenshotted.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The agreed upon terms of the contract have been violated.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Asset seizure for the amount of $211,886.72 - The remainder to be paid to Onyx Industries.
2. $40,000 in legal fees to handle the 2 months of work put into this agreement by two law firms.
3. $20,000 in damages for the stress that this ongoing situation has caused the Plaintiff, especially due to the attempt by Tello to cheat the Plaintiff by closing the ticket.

IV. EVIDENCE
1672449244422.png
1672449272044.png
1672449288302.png

Screen Shot 2022-12-31 at 01.27.21.png

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 31st day of December 2022
 
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 Onyx Industries v. Tello [2023] FCR 3.

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,

As the Chairman of the Board of the Tello Corporation, I am representing the company in this case. The defense is present.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor,
The defendant motions to compel the plaintiff for the following information as it is relevant to the case:

The number of shares that the plaintiff held of the corporation Tello, at the signage of the agreement.
The dollar amount per share of the corporation Tello, at the signage of the agreement.
 
OBJECTION: RELEVANCE

This information is not relevant to the matter at hand. This is an issue of a broken contract, the Defendant agreed to this contract. The conditions around the signage of the agreement do not matter as it was signed by the Plaintiff.
 
Your Honor, may I reply to the objection?
 
You may respond.
 
Your honor,

Fraud is defined, per 10.1 of the Rules and Laws, as "an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission." The defense has reason to believe the plaintiff has misrepresented their ownership stake in the Tello Corporation per our own internal records and the records of the Exchange. This may amount to, per the White-Collar Crack Down Act, either securities fraud, in that they fraudulently attempted a share buyback, knowing they did not possess such shares, or possibly even identity fraud if the plaintiff pretended to own the Exchange's holdings in Tello in addition to their own.

We can provide such evidence if the court finds it appropriate. We are asking that our motion is granted to ascertain the true ownership of Tello that the plaintiff may possess and to rectify the concerns above.
 
OBJECTION

This is a trial on a broken contract which was agreed between Tello and Onyx Industries regarding the buyback of the mutually understood shares held by Onyx. The Defendant is attempting to muddy the waters with slanderous claims of fraud in order to weasel out of paying their obligations.
 
Your honor, the basis for this latest objection is the same reasoning as the objection to the motion to compel and does not address the arguments made in my reasoning for overruling the objection. What is important in this case is not the contract itself, which the defendant does not argue the existence of the contract, but if the contract's signing was fraudulent or misrepresentation. Under the Foundation of Contract Law, an Act of Congress, this could also be a case of misrepresentation, being that "the statements made where they believe it to be true and had reasonable ground to do so but didn’t turn out to be true" per innocent misrepresentation. The remedy to all forms of misrepresentation, if it's innocent or not, is rescission or voiding of the contract.
 
In light of one counsel's recent ban, the Plaintiff may seek new representation.

With regard to the objections:
1. The objection for relevance is overruled, as misrepresentation is a defense in contract law.
2. The second objection by the Plaintiff is stricken from the record, as there is no grounds listed, and is just used to further argue the initial point.

Before I grant a motion to compel, I would request that the Defense provide any evidence that leads them to believe they have been the victim of misrepresentation.
 
The plaintiff misrepresented the number of shares, thus the valuation for which the contract was issued. The per-share dollar amount was, per the Exchange issued valuation on 10/01/2022, ~$610 (valuation/total shares issued per our books). Our records reflect that the plaintiff possessed 219.324 which brings the total value, at the valuation during the creation of the contract, to $133,852.34. Records of this are reflected below.

Additionally, we have looked into the Exchange's records on share ownership, even though they are currently non-operational, and have delisted the Tello Corporation. While their records are currently askew from what the Tello Corporation has listed and is currently under dispute, their records align with ours with the Plaintiff holding 206 shares at ~$648.39 (valuation/total shares issued per the exchange’s books) per share, which equals a valuation of $133,568.34
1673802533673.png

1673802605644.png


While the defense's executives did not conduct proper due diligence, they believed the false number of shares that led to the costly amount for repayment. This is misrepresentation, and the defense asks that the case be dismissed with these facts, seeing as the defense has already paid the plaintiff more than the value of their shares, per the plaintiff's facts (with half the payments have being made)
 
Does the Plaintiff wish to respond to this request for dismissal?
 
Your honor,
We are in the process of finding someone else to represent us. Could we please get an extension so we can have some more time to find representation?
 
You honor, I will be taking over for The_Donuticus after his recent ban in representing Onyx Industries in this case.

We would like to respond to the motion for dismissal by presenting evidence against the accusation of misrepresentation.

The Defence claims that the Plaintiff has purposefully misrepresented how many shares of Tello is owned by Onyx Industries. However, the question isn’t purely the number of shares but rather the value of shares.

The Plaintiff has only ever claimed to own 206 shares, as can later be testified by the Exchange, on audits. Additionally, the above evidence provided by the Defence contradicts itself, as the Exchange bot lists Onyx as owning 206 shares while the screenshot of the spreadsheets show a little more than 219 shares.

Tello has also publicly stated that paperwork was lost and unaccounted for before xeu100 returned back to being the CEO of Tello. Below, there is attached evidence showing that the Plaintiff verified with Hong_Kong101, the previous CEO of Tello, that Onyx Industries owned 819, not 206, not 219 of the shares for Tello.

This was due to the splitting of shares done by Tello to go from 1,000 total shares to 5,000 total shares and then an additional 208 shares added for employees.

As can be seen from the screenshots from both our evidence and the Defence’s evidence, the same spreadsheet was screenshotted as there was the same number of shareholders in both and all other share numbers besides the Onyx Industries remained the same. Zooming into the one that Fmr. CEO Hong_Kong101 confirmed as accurate, there were a total of 5208 shares. However, adding up the total number of shares in the evidence presented by the Defence’s screenshot adds up to a very unfriendly amount of 5227.324 shares. Therefore, we believe that it is in fact the Defence who is misrepresenting the number of shares Onyx has in Tello.

Linked below is a spreadsheet with two separate pages. The first contains the recreation of the screenshot shown in the attached screenshot of the exchange between the Plaintiff and Fmr. CEO Hong_Kong101. The second page contains the recreation of the screenshot shown in the evidence above.

We can arrive at the second screenshot by doing the following steps to the first one:
1: Combining xeu100 and Belmont Financial Group’s total shares to get to the account that is now holding 60.80% of the total shares.
2: Duplicating the Onyx Ind. line.
3: Changing the 8 to a 2 in the original Onyx Ind. line and the 8 to a 6 in the second Onyx Ind. line.
However, after doing this, the Plaintiff has realized that the Defence’s math is no longer adding up. No matter how you calculate the percentage of votes, which needs to be spread equally amongst shares, the new Onyx Ind. count at 619.324 shares only holds 11.85% of the total votes as opposed to the Defence’s math at 15.73%.
Coincidentally or not is up to you, your honor, but the original screenshot show in the evidence below and recreated in the sheets shows Onyx Ind.’s 819.324 shares holding 15.73% of the total votes as well.

Therefore, we would like to charge xeu100 for 1 count of Perjury for purposefully lying and (poorly) trying to cover up the true number of shares that Onyx Industries owns in Tello in order to further their own agenda.

Additionally, we hope this proves the true number of shares owned by Onyx Ind. is truly 819.324 with a total value of $417,987.14 moving forward with this case.

Spreadsheet Recreation
 

Attachments

  • HKE Screenie.png
    HKE Screenie.png
    422.1 KB · Views: 106
May the defense reply to the objection your honor?
 
There is no objection, so no. I will consider the response and then make a decision.
 
Your honor, just making sure, we're currently just waiting on the ruling for the request for dismissal, right?
 
Yes, I will post that shortly. I apologize to all parties for the delay.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss on the following grounds:
  • The issue of whether or not misrepresentation was present in the contract is an issue of argumentation, not one of the legality of this case in the first place. The Defense has presented no errors that would allege frivolity or any reason that the case cannot be heard, and has thus far only presented legal arguments. Thus, we will continue the case.
With that said, the Plaintiff may provide their opening statement.
 
Onyx Industries (RandomIntruder Representing)
Plaintiff
v.
Tello
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Today we present to you a clear breach of contract plain and simple. Tello promised to buy back the shares over 4 payments, Tello clearly agreed to the contract and the payment plan as shown by the evidence, and Tello has not honored the contract.

The Plaintiff has given them multiple chances and much leeway in the payments for the buyback, yet they continue to miss payment after payment.

The math for the contract works out and is easily provable. The contract itself was clear, concise, and leaves no room for misinterpretation. The only things missing in this situation are the payments and the Defence’s willingness to make those payments.

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 31st day of January 2023
 
Thank you. The Defense may now make their opening statements.
 
It has been >48 hours, your honor.
 
Yes, it has. We will now be moving on to witness testimony. If either party has witnesses to call, they may present a list of witnesses within 48 hours, or declare that they have none.
 
The Plaintiff would like to call HKE101 as our witness, your honor.
 
federal-court-png.12082


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

@HKE101 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Onyx Industries v. Tello as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act​
 
Hi
 
Questions for the witness:

1. Was it true that Tello split the shares from 1000 to 5000?

2. If so, was it true that OnyxInd previously held 206 shares out of 1000?

3. If so, was it true that OnyxInd's 206 shares got converted to 819 shares after the split?

4. If so, were the monetary values of the shares the same before and after the split?
 
1. It's possible that there was a share split that split each share into 5. I can't recall clearly and can't check to see if that's correct or not. I do recall that there was some plan to split shares because at the time, the exchange did not allow fractional shares anymore. One of the plans was to multiply each share by 1000 or something. Maybe what you're referring to was the merger of HCB and RPT shares which resulted in some indeterminate number of Tello shares, since that merger in terms of shares, as far as I can remember, was fairly delayed due to Tello staff being busy in real life. At this point, I think that's what you're referring to. In that case, it wouldn't have been a share split, but the reorganization of the two companies into one company with 5000 shares, with the exact number of shares each shareholder gets determined by the value of their pre-merger shares in each company.

2. I don't memorize the exact number of shares people hold. If you need evidence, use a screenshot or something.

3. Same answer as above.

4. I don't believe it was a split, but the value of shares before and after in either case would have been calculated to be the same.
 
There is a screenshot between you and Elaina above in the thread. Can you confirm the validity of such screenshot?
 
Thank you. The prosecution has no more questions for the witness.
 
Does the Defense have any questions for the witness?
 
Your honor, it has been over 48 hours. May we move onto closing statements please?
 
Yes. The Plaintiff may present their closing statements.
 
As the Plaintiff has failed to respond in time, we will be moving on. The Defense may now present their closing statements.
 
Both parties have now missed the deadline for their closing statements. The court is now in recess for a verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Onyx Industries v. Tello [2023] FCR 3

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant agreed to buy the Plaintiff’s shares of Tello.
2. The Defendant then failed to meet the agreed-upon terms of the sale.
3. This constitutes a violation of contract and provides a foundation for relief.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff misrepresented the true number of shares held, leading to the Defendant’s agreeing to purchase the shares.
2. This misrepresentation would void the contract, making the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff null and void.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. In order to verify whether or not there was a breach in contract in this case, the Court will examine the terms of the contract and establish whether or not they were violated.
2. The first and only term in the contract is that the Defendant would “make a series of payments” in exchange for the shares held by Onyx Industries. Nowhere in this contract is established a number of shares, or a per-share price. Given that this is a private sale of stock, there is no requirement that the rules of supply and demand determine the price, and so the number of stocks being sold, as well as the price per share, is irrelevant.
3. To address the claims that the Plaintiff misrepresented their shares, the Plaintiff verified their numbers with the CEO of Tello a week prior to the sale. This is the complete opposite of attempting to misrepresent. Furthermore, the final number in the contract is not equal to the valuation provided by the CEO of Tello. This is clearly a private stock deal wherein one entity agrees to sell shares to another entity in exchange for an agreed upon price, regardless of the market price. This is entirely allowable in an open economy.
4. Thus, the Defendant agreed to the contract knowing its terms, and not having been the victim of willful misrepresentation. They are liable for the payment specified.

IV. VERDICT
I find in favor of the Plaintiff.
I hereby order that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff $211,886.72 in order to fulfill the contract. If they do not have the funds to do so, I order that assets be seized and fines issued in order to recover the full sum by the DOJ. I will also be granting $5,000 in legal fees. This brings the total amount owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to $216,886.72.

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

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top