In your interest.
Online Personal Finance Magazine
No beating about the bush.
A Court in the US held Prithvi Information Solution and its associates guilty for $17 million fraud to Kyko Global Inc. On failure of payment, the Sheriff seized and auctioned personal assets of the company founder Madhavi Vuppalapati
Following directions from a US District Court to recover money, the Sheriff from King County auctioned personal assets of Madhavi Vuppalapati, founder of Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd to recover $17 million.
Canada based Kyko Global Inc had filed a fraud case against the Indian company in the Washington Court. In its petition, Kyko Global had alleged that Prithvi and its affiliates created fictitious, counterfeit customers to get an advance payment of $17 million from them.
In its Judgment on 6 September 2013, the Court said, “Judgment should be entered against Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd, Prithvi Information Solutions International LLC, Prithvi Catalytic Inc, Prithvi Solutions Inc, Madhavi Vuppalapati, DCGS Inc, Inalytix Inc, Avani Investments Inc, Ananya Capital Inc, EPP Inc, Financial Oxygen Inc, Huawei Latin American Solutions Inc and L3C Inc in the amount of $1,75,68,854 plus prejudgment interest accruing at the rate agreed to between the parties at 2.45% per month in the total amount of $7,96,776, as confessed to by the Defendants.”
However, Prithvi and its associates including Vuppalapati failed to pay $17 million along with penalty charges. This lead to the Sheriff auctioning personal assets like Lexus car, jewellery and household good belonging to Vuppalapati on 20 March 2014.
In November 2011, Kyko said it entered into an agreement with Prithvi for certain factoring services. As per their agreement, Prithvi had to identify certain of its customer account receivable for IT services and authorize direct payment to be made to Kyko. Prithvi Information Solutions offered account receivables of few major customers to Kyko. However, none of the customers Prithvi offered had any business relationship with it.
When Kyko tried to acknowledge that these clients will make payments directly to Kyko, they got verifications, but in reality, it was the associates of Prithvi that had posed as clients and created and executed the verifications. When Kyko requested Madhvi Vuppalapati to be put in touch directly with the representatives of the five clients, she turned down the request saying that it will be detrimental to their relationships with these clients.
Over a next two years, Vuppalapati and her associates continuously deceived the unsuspecting Kyko, in the process and kept them in the dark, Kyko alleged. Finally, while attempting to collect outstanding dues, Kyko came to know, through its own internal investigation that Prithvi had created fictitious customers to deceive Kyko and extract more monies from it.
In order to get money back, Kyko filed a lawsuit on 16 June 2013 against Prithvi Information Solutions at the US District Court. On 8 August 2013, Kyko moved the court for issuance of judgment in amount against defendants in pursuant to confession of judgment and the motion was granted by the court.
In September 2013, Kyko filed a Writ of Garnishment against Prithvi Information Solutions. Kyko claimed damages of $18,431,765.90 ($18.43 million) inclusive of balance of judgment, prejudgment interest and interest of judgment from 9 June 2013 to 23 September 2013.
As Madhvi Vuppalapati failed to make the payment to Kyko, on 12 February 2014, the court sent notice directing sheriff to do auction and sell her personal assets including her Lexus car, jewellery and miscellaneous household items. The Sherif auctioned her assets on 20 March 2014.
Moneylife earlier wrote about scandalous saga of Prithvi Information Solution as it was involved in all kinds of financial manoeuvrings read; Prithvi Info Solutions: Why regulators are silent over the scandalous saga?
Read more stories about Prithvi Information Solution and its frauds here,
The apex court agreed to withdraw Spigelman following contention from Indian government about his name being mentioned in the list proposed by RIL as an independent arbitrator earlier
The Supreme Court on Wednesday withdrew the name of Australian James Spigelman, former Chief Justice and LG of New South Wales, who was appointed by it as third arbitrator to resolve the dispute between Indian government and Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) on KG basin.
Justice SS Nijjar, who had appointed Spigelman, agreed to withdraw his name after the Centre contended that the name of ex-Chief Justice of New South Wales was mentioned in the list of names proposed by the Reliance group for appointment as an independent arbitrator.
The apex court had on 31st March named Spigelman as the third arbitrator who shall act as the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal, whose two other members are former Chief Justices of India, SP Bharucha and VN Khare.
While Mukesh Ambani-led RIL has nominated former Justice Bharucha as its arbitrator, the Centre chose Justice Khare as its nominee.
Justice Nijjar had said that both the Centre and RIL provided the list of eminent foreign arbitrators but he preferred to do his own survey for maintaining neutrality and chose the name of Justice Spigelman.
“Although two lists have been duly supplied by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate if an individual not named by any of the parties is appointed as the third arbitrator. I have discretely conducted a survey to find a suitable third arbitrator who is not a national of any of the parties involved in the dispute,” he had said.
The order comes after Samsung chairman moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash a criminal case and non-bailable warrants issued against him
The Supreme Court asked Lee Kun-hee, chairman of Samsung Electronics to appear before a trial court at Ghaziabad in a cheating case.
A Bench of Justices CK Prasad and PC Ghose passed the order on an appeal filed by Lee challenging Allahabad High Court’s order dismissing his plea for setting aside non-bailable arrest warrant issued against him. The court, however, made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case pending before the trial court.
“However, the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner (Lee) shall not be executed for a period of six weeks from today (31st March). In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall appear before the trial court in seisin (hearing) of the case and seek bail and/or exemption from appearance in accordance with law,” the Bench said.
JCE Consultancy, an Indian company in 2002 had filed a complaint against the South Korean consumer electronics company and its chairman for failing to pay Rs8.4 crore ($1.4 million).
Lee had then approached the High Court and the Supreme Court for quashing of first information report (FIR) against him but his plea was rejected by both the courts earlier.
The trial court, thereafter, issued arrest warrant against him for not appearing before it in the case.
With an estimated net worth of $12.6 billion, Lee Kun-hee and his family rank among the Forbes richest people in the world. He is the third son of Samsung founder Lee Byung-chull.
Lee Kun-hee had resigned in April 2008, owing to Samsung slush funds scandal, but returned on 24 March 2010. On 14 January 2008, Lee's home and office were raided by the Korean police for an ongoing probe into accusations that Samsung is responsible for a slush fund used to bribe influential prosecutors, judges, and political figures in South Korea.
The Seoul Central District Court found him guilty on charges of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion and fined him just 110 billion won (about $98 million) and sentenced him to 3 years suspended jail time.
Months later, South Korean president Lee Myung-bak gave Lee Kun-hee a second personal pardon so that he could remain on the International Olympic Committee.
According to Wikipedia, in 2010 the company's former chief legal counsel Kim Yong-chul published a book called Think Samsung. It revealed alleged shocking details of Lee Kun-hee's personal corruption, claiming that he stole up to 10 trillion won (about $8.9 billion) from Samsung subsidiaries, destroyed evidence, and bribed government officials to ensure the smooth transfer of power to his son.