For
Immediate Release
MSI COMPUTER CORP. AND
PARENT COMPANY MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD AMOUNGST OTHERS, SUED FOR FRAUD,
CONVERSION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT BY FORMER DEALER AND GLOBAL BUSINESS PARTNER.
ORANGE COUNTY, December 5, 2005 -- Dates for deposition of defendants MSI
Computer Corp, and others are set to take place over the next several weeks by lawyers
for plaintiff Integration Dynamics Corp. (IDC).
The suit (# 04CC12623) filed in Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange almost a year ago, names MSI Computer
Corp., and parent company Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., (MSI) (Taiwan
Stock Exchange:Ticker Symbol 2377) amongst others, as co-Defendants, and claims
defendants have perpetrated fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and
intentional interference with prospective business.
The
pending trial date of January 26, 2006, was set earlier this year by Judge
Thompson of the Orange County Court. “Earlier
this year, our lawyers successfully argued against and defended our position to
sue, as challenges in the form of demurs by a number of defendants, were thrown
out by the court.” said IDC spokesman and Plaintiff Ren Condotta, “this case,
which is before the courts, stands completely on it’s own and has absolutely
nothing to do with the previously filed Class Action suit brought against MSI
for leaky capacitors or malfunctioning motherboards, also in 2004.”
In April
of this year, IDC filed an amendment to the claim. The amendment, in part, was to
include two additional corporations as defendants; one of which was MSI
Computer Corp., the Los Angeles based U.S. subsidiary of motherboard
manufacturer Micro-Star International Co. Ltd. (MSI). The change brought the total
number of named defendants in the suit to six, which includes four corporations
and two individuals, with provisions for 1000 additional DOE defendants.
IDC first
formed a relationship with MSI Computer Corp. in early 2002. “As an extension
of that relationship, IDC and MSI Taiwan had also formed a relationship, having
exclusive contractual agreements negotiated and signed in early 2003 providing
for a global sub-distribution of IDC products through MSI and its subsidiaries,”
says Condotta.
During an
internal audit of IDC finances, Condotta, IDC’s largest creditor and only
shareholder, had discovered that MSI Computer Corp. was found to be at the
heart of a disconcerting matter involving fraud and conversion. Just prior to the
audit, Condotta was approached by co-Defendant LuTran acting at the time as category
Manager for MSI Computer Corp. newly formed Consumer Electronics Division. LuTran
engaged Condotta in negotiations to have Condotta represent MSI in Canada
through Condotta’s Toronto-based manufacturer rep company, REPTIDE, also a
Plaintiff in the case.
Upon discovery
of the business improprieties, Condotta, a 22-year veteran of the computer
industry, immediately severed all business relationships with MSI Computer Corp
and MSI, and then notified MSI of the conflict of interest which required
immediate resolution.
Condotta alleges
that he had uncovered documents concerning transactions involving the sale of MSI
goods by MSI Computer Corp. to customers established and held by IDC thereby
circumventing IDC in the process. The sale of these goods, as alleged by
Condotta, flowed through MSI Computer and co-Defendant Xcel Micro Inc.
allegedly formed by then IDC Sales Manager (co-Defendant Borcsok) in
conjunction with the MSI Computer Corp Sales Manager at the time (co-Defendant
LuTran), for what Condotta alleges to
have been for the express purpose to defraud IDC.
Further
to this, Condotta alleges that since MSI entered into contractual agreements
with IDC during the same time period in which MSI subsidiary MSI Computer Corp.
was perpetrating fraud and conversion on IDC, and since MSI entered into such
negotiations and agreements with IDC initiated by MSI Computer Corp manager
(co-defendant LuTran), IDC therefore claims damages against MSI for
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and both negligent and
intentional interference with prospective business. As negotiations concerning
MSI Computer Corp and REPTIDE took place under similar circumstances as
previously mentioned, REPTIDE claims damages for same.
Condotta
said, “as an ISO9000 registered company since 1994, MSI and it’s wholly owned
subsidiaries, have virtually guaranteed, to any and all of their current and prospective
business partners, that they have the necessary processes and mechanisms in
place, which would not only prevent such fraudulent activities from being
perpetrated within and throughout the company, but that any breach of such
processes would be attended to in an expedient manner, and remedied to the
satisfaction of both the victimized parties and to the ISO governing body.” Condotta goes on to say,” as a publicly
traded company, it stands that, MSI would be required by its board of
directors, and more importantly, owes it to its shareholders, to have remedied
the situation, once recognized, to the satisfaction of all concerned parties
and avoid the cost of litigation and seven figure damages, as they have elected
to do in their Class Action suit.” (Refer to http://www.msisettlement.com hosted by
MSI Computer Corp)
“Since having
been served with our lawsuit, MSI Computer Corp. has, in a manner, openly
admitted to having such a breach in its business practices. Such admission came
in the form of a marketing campaign launched by only one MSI subsidiary: MSI
Computer Corp.” said Condotta. “The campaign in reference,” continues
Condotta, “was targeted to all current and future MSI resellers and dealers
only in the Americas, coincidently, the same territory believed to have been previously
serviced by the MSI Sales Manager (co-Defendant LuTran).” Documents concerning
the web-based campaign, can be found at the following website http://www.msi_sued_for_fraud.irocx.com
Condotta
further alleges, ”these are undoubtedly, the blatantly obvious and desperate reactions
made by a corporation having such size, stature, and stock value, with the
purpose to obfuscate the reasons for the necessary actions and expenditures
that are required by the corporation in order to remedy its inadequate business
and accounting practices, so as to not only retain ISO registration in good standing,
but to deliberately ensure stockholder unawareness of the corporation’s
deficiency and lack of control of it’s processes and employees.”
“In the
interest of negotiating a good faith settlement with MSI, no previous press
releases were issued on behalf of the Plaintiffs, but since MSI has made no
effort to date to acknowledge our damages, I believe, that at minimum, the
unsuspecting MSI Stock holders, should at least be made aware of the situation”
says Condotta.
ABOUT IDC
Integration
Dynamics Corporation is a specialty audio products development company. The
company, the brands, and the products are the brainchild of Ren Condotta. IDC continues
its legacy of developing and producing 3D audio based specialty products for
the gaming and virtual reality markets, and offers new and exciting improvements
on previously released products and formulation of new and exciting wired,
wireless and personal listening devices.
Brands developed and/or OEMed by IDC include Game’Ware, RumbleFX, IROCX,
and IVOCX. Since the aforementioned MSI incident, IDC has focused on its new
audio core having proprietary core technologies and refined audio sub-systems
are being produced in stealth mode and currently considering offers to partner.
For more information please visit our websites
….