20130312 MP v Arnold, de Haan, Smyth, Wallace, Lundvall CFAA (Conformed Complaint and ALL Exhibits) – This case arises out of a series of investments by Robert M. Arnold in companies owned and operated by plaintiff Mark E. MP; namely MOD Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MOD”) and Banana, Inc. (hereinafter “Banana”). Mr. MP had developed highly sensitive and confidential technology applications used in interstate commerce, including low-level cryptography for the music and entertainment industries, as well as for the mobile payment industry. After the investment of Mr. Arnold, Mr. MP was able to further refine the technology licensed to MOD to the point that Toshiba Corporation, NCR, Inc., and Deluxe Entertainment, Inc. agreed to invest an additional $35 million in MOD. At about the same time, Banana had executed a development deal in the country of Bolivia that would license its technology to allow cell phone customers to make payments using their cell phones, a tremendous potential market where “point of payment” infrastructure was terribly underdeveloped. Defendant Jan Wallace is an accomplished con artist and fraud who has specialized in “advising” start-up companies and then uses her inside information to trump up charges against the company officers so she can assume control. Defendants Jeff Smyth and Julia De Haan are the lawyer and accountant, respectively, of Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold recently passed away, so plaintiff names his successor in interest, the Executor of the Estate of Robert M. Arnold as a defendant. All the defendants were motivated variously by personal greed, ego, an attorney’s desire to gain an unfair negotiating advantage for his client in a takeover attempt, and fraud. Defendants schemed and caused to be filed an unfounded and unsupported “Derivative Claim” against plaintiff and his companies in an attempt to enrich themselves of the MOD Series A investment. Defendants also conspired to illegally access plaintiff’s personal computers and accounts, stole confidential personal information, interfered with plaintiff’s access to his own computers and data, converted the information in the computers to their own uses, and used the stolen information and data to cause plaintiff harm, violating multiple state and federal laws. This Complaint seeks to recompense plaintiff for all of the damages suffered as a result of defendants’ actions.
This case arises out of defendant Ms. Cane’s conduct as the Trustee of a voting trust imposed upon plaintiff MP to control his majority shares in MOD Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MOD”), a company he founded and operated for over four years. Defendant was an adviser and confidant of plaintiff as he struggled to maintain control of his company against allegations of wrongdoing. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, defendant Ms. Cane is the long-time friend, lawyer and co-conspirator of plaintiff Mr. MP’ main antagonist, the long-time fraud Jan Wallace. The failure of Ms. Cane to disclose her obvious, entrenched conflicts of interest, conflicts of interest so obvious that she was removed as trustee by the Honorable John P. Erlick, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Washington. But the failure of Ms. Cane to disclose her conflicts of interest was not mere negligence, but followed a pattern of fraud that she and her co-conspirator, defendant Jan Wallace, had employed to gain control of companies in jurisdictions across the Western United States. Once designated as the trustee, Ms. Cane breached her contractual obligations, abrogated her fiduciary duty, and failed to take into account plaintiff’s interests in exercising her duties as executor of the trust. Instead, Ms. Cane took steps in pursuit of her own interests as well as the interests of her co-conspirator, Ms. Wallace. As their long and nefarious business history has proven, Ms. Cane and Ms. Wallace intended to take control of MOD at a time when it received a $35 million investment, for their own personal gain. The direct result of Ms. Cane’s fraud and deceit, MOD was destroyed and plaintiff lost not only his business, but all of his personal assets as well. This Complaint seeks to recompense plaintiff for all of the damages suffered as a result of defendants’ actions.