Speaking of MTEK- You must of missed this part of the filings showing how VOIS took former BOD"s from MTEK to Court and ended up winning.. You never read this or you simply "accidentally on purpose" forget to ever put here..
On April 30, 2008 we filed a complaint against two former members of our Board of Directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The complaint, styled VOIS Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Edward Spindel and Michael Spindel, Defendants, Case No. CA012201XXXXMB, in the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, alleges that during 2002 and 2003 while the company, which at that time known as Medstrong International, was under significant financial distress the defendants caused the company to issue demand promissory notes charging excessive and/or usurious interest rates with the knowledge that the company would be unable to repay the notes upon any demand. The defendants, who are brothers, were members of the Medstrong International Board of Directors until their resignations in April 2006.
The complaint further alleges that the defendants engaged in a repeated systematic scheme to defraud our company by continuing to restructure the promissory notes while they were members of the prior Board of Directors at such excessive and usurious interest rates that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and approved debt obligations that benefited them and not the company and that their wrongful actions and omissions resulted in their unjust enrichment. We sought damages in excess of $968,000.
14
On June 18, 2009, the defendants removed the lawsuit from Palm Beach Circuit Court (State) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Federal). Thereafter, the defendants sought to have the case transferred to the United States District Court in New York. On October 27, 2009, the judge denied the defendant’s Motion to Transfer. On October 28, 2009 the defendants filed their Answer and Defenses to the Complaint. The defendants did not file a counterclaim at that time. On November 12, 2009, the Court entered a Scheduling Order and a Notice of Trial for December 2009. On December 4, 2009, the Court selected a mediator. In February 2010, the defendants changed law firms and sought leave from the Court to file a counterclaim. At that time, the defendants also served discovery in the form of interrogatories, request for production and request for admission. The defendant’s counterclaim was filed on February 17, 2010 and we filed our Answer on March 13, 2010. Over the course of the next several months we responded to the discovery requests.
On November 13, 2009, the parties attended a pretrial hearing to address legal issues related to our complaint and the defendants’ counterclaim. Based upon questions posed by the Court and the argument of counsel, the Court struck the defense of usury and additionally dismissed our complaint without prejudice, providing us 10 days to file an amended complaint. The defendants were also provided 10 days to file an Amended counterclaim. Based upon the rulings, the matter was then removed from the Court’s December 2009 trial docket. We have decided that it is not cost effective or beneficial to pursue our affirmative claims in this matter and have, accordingly, elected not to file an amended complaint.
On July 19, 2010, the counter–plaintiffs, Edward and Michael Spindel filed a motion for summary judgment. Vois Inc. filed a response in opposition on August 5, 2010. The Spindels filed a reply on September 9, 2010. The court held a hearing on September 16, 2010 and at the hearing granted summary judgment in favor of the Spindels. Final judgment was ordered on November 16, 2010 in the amount of $287,266 plus post judgment interest. Attorney’s fees of $172,304 were also awarded.
On December 6, 2010 we filed an appeal to the judgment.
On July 13, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in favor of the Company. This Opinion was made final when the Court issued the mandate on August 15, 2011.This ruling effectively reversed the Summary Judgment previously granted to the Spindels by the District Court on November 4, 2010 in the amount of $287,266.
