RE: Press: LA Times - Federal jury decides Middle East bank did not defraud Orange County
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
Cc: #L&W BD PR (US); Wine, Jamie (NY); Bruno, Nicole (NY); Harris, Nicole (CH); Greenberg, Jeffrey
(LA-NY); Bauer, Steve (SF-BR); Moore, Wendy (OC); Jennings, Alex (LA); Robins, Greg (LA)
Subject: RE: Press: LA Times - Federal jury decides Middle East bank did not defraud Orange County
entrepreneur
OC Business Journal article with a nice shout out to Dean:
http://www.ocbj.com/news/2016/aug/12/jury-decides-against-sjc-firm/
Date: Thursday, Aug 11, 2016, 7:41 PM
To: Dunlavey, Dean (©) <i
Schecter, Danicl (CC) <>, Viohcbbi,
Ni >, Ruemmler, Kathy (DC)
< >>
Cc: #L&W BD PR (US) <_< mailto:# >, Wine, Jamie
OY) <>. euro, Nicole (NY)
a >>, Harris, Nicole (CH)
| oo cies waa
E>, Bauer, Steve (SF-BR)
<->. M0072, Wendy (OC)
a >, Jennings, Alex (LA)
< >, Robins, Greg (LA)
a
Subject: Press: LA Times - Federal jury decides Middle East bank did not defraud Orange County entrepreneur
The LA Times appears to be the first media to report on the verdict. Latham references are highlighted:
BUSINESS
Federal jury decides Middle East bank did not defraud Orange County entrepreneur<http://fw.to/aXv1QHI>
[Farooq Bajwa]
Farooq Bajwa
By Andrew Khouri
August 11, 2016
A federal jury decided Thursday that one of the Middle East’s most prominent banks did not commit fraud and
steal technology from an Irvine firm that sued it for half a billion dollars in damages after their partnership
collapsed.
Orange County company InfoSpan had alleged that Emirates NBD ended a partnership for a mobile payment
system because it didn’t want to share revenue and stole InfoSpan’s technology to launch its own service.
The Dubai-based bank, in turn, denied it stole or ever used InfoSpan’s technology. It argued that it cancelled
the partnership because InfoSpan couldn’t produce a working product and misled it into thinking it was an
established company, not one with little to no track record.
After deliberating for a day, the jury unanimously decided that InfoSpan did not prove its case of fraud and
theft of trade secrets.
InfoSpan had asked for $540 million in damages. An attorney for InfoSpan declined to comment on the
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012041
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents