Last week, the Honorable Victor Marrero, United States District Court judge for the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, issued his ruling in the case of Wayne Baliga vs. Link Motion, Inc. As you may recall, after the receivership was granted and the Receiver was performing his duties to rectify the many shareholder issues related to Link Motion, Vincent Shi, after the fact, attempted to halt the receivership by contesting the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. After the Court’s ruling last week, the receivership continues and the receiver is rapidly moving forward on behalf of shareholders. Highlights of the ruling include:
- The Court rejected Shi’s contention that N.Y. is an inappropriate forum in which to bring this case. Specifically, the Court stated: “Given the resources available to Defendants, the type of evidence this case likely requires and the interest of protecting United States investors, especially in securities transactions involving shares of foreign entities, the Court finds the balance of public and private interests in this action counsel against dismissal. Therefore, the Court denies Shi’s Motion to Dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.”
- The Court kept the Preliminary Injunction Order and appointment of the Temporary Receiver in place. Shi challenged this appointment based on the representation of former LKM legal counsel, and the allegation that appointment of the Temporary Receiver violates Chinese law and “threatens to destroy all remaining value of Link Motion.” The Court dispatched these arguments by stating: “None of Shi’s arguments against the Preliminary Injunction Order and appointment of Temporary Receiver are persuasive.”
- Throughout this action, Defendant Shi has placed roadblocks to prevent the proper function of the receivership. One of these roadblocks was service of process on Mr. Shi. While the Court temporarily dismissed Mr. Shi from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, it did so without prejudice for Baliga to further endeavor to serve Shi properly. Also, the Court did not dismiss Baliga’s claims against Link Motion on personal jurisdiction grounds. We intend to quickly perfect service over Shi, and rectify this procedural issue.
- Similarly, the Court gave us leave to file an amended securities claim under Section 10 (B). We have ample evidence to support this claim, and we intend to amend our Complaint to include the necessary allegations to support this claim.
We continue to work on a number of legal initiatives in the U.S., Hong Kong and Beijing. These initiatives can now continue unabated by Shi’s after the fact challenge to our receivership activities. We are now full speed ahead on all fronts, and will update shareholders as appropriate.