|
Cryptologic Inc. The Mafia Of Online Gaming Sued Again For US $ 293 Million This Time! For Breach Of Contract, Misrepresentation, Punitive…
Cryptologic Inc., better known as the MAFIA of online gaming is sued for breach of contract, misrepresentation, exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages, conspiracy, collusion, misrepresentation, deceit, sabotage, inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations and economic interests of their partner.
Cryptologic Inc. also owns the organized crime Intercasino.com and many fake licensees’ casinos owned by the insiders, the Mafia. They are currently under police investigation in Toronto. A reliable source told us that the Mafia, Cryptologic Inc. is trying to arrange to take their rotten company private before they get de-listed from Nasdaq and the Toronto stock exchange.
You can also expect that all the honest land-based licensees will cancel their agreements with Cryptologic Inc, otherwise they should lose their land-based licenses for using widely known rigged software, produced by the Mafia. The shareholders will get screwed once again, and will end up with worthless shares.
They rightly deserve the name of MAFIA of online gaming, and every time you play at one of their rigged casinos, you are feeding the Mafia.
You should read the latest lawsuit reproduced below to get a better idea of how rotten these crooks really are.
Court File No. 02 CV 240094 CM 1
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WEBSPORTS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
plaintiff
- and -
CRYPTOLOGIC INC.,
Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANT
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario Lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.
Date:_______ Issued by __________
Local registrar
Address of court office: 393 University Ave.
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E6
TO: CRYPTOLOGIC INC.
1867 Yonge Street
7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4S 1Y5
Attention: Lewis Rose, Bob Stikeman and Dennis Wing
CLAIM
1. THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, CRYPTOLOGIC INC. (“CRYPTOLOGIC”), FOR:
(a) damages in the amount of One Hundred and fifty Three Million Five Hundred Thousand US Dollars ($153,500,000.00 USD) for breach of contract and for misrepresentation, in the alternative the Plaintiff claims as against the Defendant Cryptologic, the equivalent sum of money damages in Canadian Dollars;
(b) exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages in the amount of Fifteen Million US Dollars ($15,000,000.00 USD) as compensation for the manner in which Cryptologic has dealt with the Plaintiff and for intentionally interfering with the economic interests and contractual relations of the Plaintiff, in the alternative the Plaintiff claims as against the Defendant Cryptologic, the equivalent sum of money damages in Canadian Dollars;
(c) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43, as amended;
(d) GST on all amounts in respect of which GST is applicable;
(e) costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis or on such other basis as this Honourable Court may deem fit; and
(f) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.
2. THE PLAINTIFF FURHTER CLAIMS AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT:
(a) for conspiracy, collusion, misrepresentation, deceit, sabotage, inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations and economic interests of the Plaintiff, damages in the sum of One Hundred Million US Dollars ($100,000,000.00 USD), in the alternative the Plaintiffs claim as against the Plaintiff the equivalent sum of money damages in Canadian Dollars;
(b) exemplary, punitive and aggravated damages in the amount of Twenty Five Million US Dollars ($25,000,000.00 USD), in the alternative the Plaintiffs claim as against the Plaintiff the equivalent sum of money damages in Canadian Dollars;
(c) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43, as amended;
(d) GST on all amounts in respect of which GST is applicable;
(e) costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis or on such other basis as this Honourable Court may deem fit;
The Parties
3. The Plaintiff, Websports Technologies Inc. (“Websports”), is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario with its registered office in the City of Toronto, Ontario. Websports operates as a computer software developer with its primary focus on a product called ProSports Trade Exchange, which is described below in greater detail.
4. The Defendant, Cryptologic, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario with its registered office in City of Toronto, Ontario. Cryptologic is a public corporation and its shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq National Market. In its Annual Information Form, Cryptologic describes itself as “a leading Internet software development and licensing company operating in the Internet transaction processing market”. Cryptologic’s software development is focused on the casino and gaming industry. According to its Annual Report, more than 640,000 players have registered and played at online casinos that use Cryptologic’s software and Cryptologic has processed secure electronic transactions worth $5.1 billion.
5. Jean Noelting (“Noelting”), is an individual resident in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario and was at all material times the Chief Executive Officer and a Director of the Defendant Cryptologic.
6. Luc Sevingny (“Sevingny”) is an individual resident in the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario and was at all material times employed by Cryptologic in the capacity of Project Manager of the Defendant Cryptologic and was at all material times intimately involved with the development and refinement of the game and product herein described.
The Sportsbook Product
7. In 2000, Nicholas Murphy (“Murphy”), the current CEO and President of Websports, developed a game concept called “ProSports Trade Exchange”. This game concept envisioned that a virtual stock market of sports teams would be created among a series of brokerages, and participants would invest in and trade these sports teams among and between themselves. The game included but was not limited to teams in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and English Premier League (U.K. Football) and was capable of being expanded into other sports applications. Each team’s value would vary according to its performance, perceived value and other dynamic variables resulting in a higher valuation and trading price with an increase in that team’s status and/or prospects with the opposite result in the event of negative prospects and/or performance. Revenue would be generated through the licensing of the software to brokerages who would solicit participation of their clients in the barter for the sports teams. Revenues were also to be generated through, among other things, an initial ticket offering of teams and from the sale and or purchase of various team tickets much in the same way as a broker would charge a fee for the sale and or purchase of shares in any public stock market exchange. As well, it was also expected that information would be offered to participants in exchange for a cost through the vehicle of an online newsletter or similar publication.
8. In or around October 2000, Websports was formed to further develop and market the ProSports Trade Exchange game concept. During the development of the game and the concept, the Plaintiff was represented by Bob Stikeman who engineered the corporate structure and negotiated various contractual arrangements from time to time. From and after that time, Websports further developed the ProSports Trade Exchange game concept into a prototype (the “Product”) and the supporting product and financial models were developed. Between October 2000 and January 2001, Websports raised capital and used the initial capital to complete the initial development of the Product and establish its base operational infrastructure. Websports states and the fact is that it incurred costs and expenses in excess of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand US Dollars ($1,800,000.00 USD) in the development of the software and the prototype of the game and that the Defendant was at all material times aware of the amount of money and time that was invested by Websports in the software and prototype of the game.
Cryptologic’s Initial Interest in the Product
9. Murphy began his investigation into companies that might be interested in cooperating with WebSports to form a joint venture for the development and marketing of the Product. Discussions and negotiations ensued with several companies in the gaming business. In or around January of 2001, after having being urged by Bob Stikeman, Murphy met with the then Chief Operating Officer of Cryptologic, David Outhwaite and with their Vice President Business Development, Paul Gragtmans and presented the ProSports Trade Exchange game concept to them. This game concept was well received and discussions between the parties took place from time to time thereafter.
10. In or around January 2001, Cryptologic signed a confidentiality agreement with Websports and shortly thereafter a meeting was held with and among the new Chief Executive Officer Jean Noelting and Chief Operating Officer David Outhwaite and other representatives of Cryptologic to discuss Cryptologic’s potential interest and investment in the Product and Game developed by Websports. Cryptologic was made privy to all of the critical information with respect to the operation of Websports and the Product including but not limited to the financial model, the business plan and the code and software platform being used by the game. Cryptologic conducted their own summary due diligence, reviewed all aspects of the business plan and the assumptions of the financial models and projections including the matrices and software of the Product and after due analysis expressed to the plaintiff and Murphy significant interest in the Product.
11. In or around May 2001, Websports entered into an agreement with Sandbox-inc. (“Sandbox”), a Corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Virginia carrying on business as a fantasy sports and marketing database company for the purposes of soliciting its Seven Million (7,000,000) user database as potential players for the Product and Game developed by Websports. Cryptologic was made aware of the agreement between Websports and Sandbox-inc. This agreement further garnered the interest of Cryptologic and led to additional discussions with Cryptologic. Cryptologic represented that it was extremely interested in entering into an agreement with respect to the Product and Game developed by Websports and that Cryptologics’ involvement with Websports would certainly ensure the Games commercial viability and success and that the Plaintiff needed the Defendant know-how, technical prowess, business acumen skill and experience and that without them the Plaintiff was doomed to failure or mediocre success. It further represented that, assuming a deal could be completed between it and Websports, it would itself enter into an agreement with Sandbox towards the same objective as the one entered into between Sandbox and Websports. On or about June 3, 2001, Websports introduced the President of Sandbox to Cryptologics’ Licensees at a meeting at the offices of Cryptologic. The Plaintiff states and the fact is that Cryptologic represented that their database of users exceeded Four Hundred Thousand users and that Websports would have full and unlimited access to the database and by extension the users. Cryptologic asserted to the Plaintiff and to Murphy that the Product and the Game would most certainly be a success and that Cryptologics’ involvement would ensure that the Product and Game would be catapulted into the market and was assured of great and unparalleled success fortune and that the Plaintiff would be the leader in the Sports Gaming world for years to follow.
The Letter of Intent
12. A Letter of Intent was entered into between Websports and Cryptologic on or about July 9, 2001 (the “First Letter of Intent”). Pursuant to the First Letter of Intent, the parties agreed, among other things, that Cryptologic would make certain investments in Websports in return for a 10% equity stake and a share of all revenues generated by the Product. The First Letter of Intent also provided that, as part of Cryptologic’s due diligence, it would retain an independent accredited test and review organization at Cryptologic’s sole expense to conduct an “independent test and review” of the Product and Game to ensure that it met acceptable industry standards.
13. Shortly thereafter, on or around July 19, 2001, Cryptologic indicated that it did not wish to proceed with the transaction contemplated by the First Letter of Intent. Websports expressed its disappointment with Cryptologic’s decision and advised Cryptologic that it had made certain expenditures on the strength of Cryptologic’s commitment and had foregone other opportunities in order to pursue the transaction contemplated by the First Letter of Intent. Negotiation, however, continued between the parties during the interim.
http://cryptologicmafia.com/Cryptologic/showthread.php?t=146
|
