MP v Arnold, Smyth, de Haan, Wallace, and Lundvall Case No 13-CV-0044.

20130312-phillips-v-arnold-de-haan-smyth-wallace-lundvall-cfaa-conformed-complaint-and-all-exhibits

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.