ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing services to TelexFree. Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. The court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss on November 2, 2015.
On January 29, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part ProPay’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that ProPay was unjustly enriched by the alleged TelexFree fraud, but denied ProPay’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim that ProPay allegedly aided and abetted TelexFree’s purported scheme. The court’s ruling does not reflect any determination of the merits of the plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting claim against ProPay, but instead is merely a ruling that the plaintiffs have alleged facts that could potentially entitle them to relief from ProPay if those facts were true. ProPay denies that it had any knowledge of TelexFree’s alleged fraud or that it aided and abetted that fraud in any way.
After deciding the motions to dismiss filed by ProPay and some of the other defendants in the litigation, the court lifted the stay on discovery that had been in place since the outset of the Consolidated Action. Approximately 50 defendants remain in the litigation. The Court held a scheduling conference on March 20, 2019, but has not yet entered an order setting the case schedule.
ProPay has also received various subpoenas, a seizure warrant and other inquiries requesting information regarding TelexFree from (i) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Securities Division, (ii) United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (iii) US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and (iv) the bankruptcy Trustee of the Chapter 11 entities of TelexFree, Inc., TelexFree, LLC and TelexFree Financial, Inc. Pursuant to the seizure warrant served by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, ProPay delivered all funds associated with TelexFree held for chargeback and other purposes by ProPay to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, ProPay received a notice of potential claim from the bankruptcy Trustee as a result of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and its affiliates.
While the Company and ProPay intend to vigorously defend the Consolidated Action and other matters arising out of the relationship of ProPay with TelexFree and believe ProPay has substantial defenses related to these purported claims, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate losses attributable to these matters.
TSYS and Global Payments Merger Litigation
As of the date of this report, three putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed. Two of these lawsuits, captionedPeters v. Total System Services, Inc. et al. (Case No.4:19-cv-00114) andWolf v. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No.4:19-cv-00115), were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 18, 2019. The third lawsuit, captionedDrulias v. Global Payments Inc., et. al (Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019.
In addition, a lawsuit challenging the Merger on behalf of an individual plaintiff captionedHickeyv. Total System Services, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No.1:19-cv-03337-LMM) was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on July 23, 2019.
ThePeters lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, the current members of the TSYS board of directors and certain former members of the TSYS board of directors. TheWolf lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, members of the TSYS board of directors and Global Payments. TheDrulias lawsuit names as defendants Global Payments and members of its board. TheHickey lawsuit names as defendants TSYS and the members of the TSYS board of directors. The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among other things, claims for filing a materially incomplete registration statement with the SEC. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages, and an award of damages and attorney’s fees. TSYS believes that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit.
-19-