Defendants’ Defenses Dismissed

In Easyship v. Tea Culture Inc., Zhi E. Zeng, Sau Yeung, Ming Li, and V Express PA, Inc., we represent logistics platform Easyship, Inc. in an action seeking to recover nearly $800,000 from defendants for underreporting the weight of more than 200 shipments originating from Hong Kong and traveling to the US. By underreporting the true weight of the shipments, Defendants paid $40,000 for nearly $800,000 in shipping costs. 

After tracing various IP addresses, piecing together disparate email addresses and dummy accounts, we uncovered a deed transfer and pending contract of sale, including 25 different litigations in where Defendant Zeng is a named defendant. Moving quickly to secure the Brooklyn property from being sold, the discovery of the deed waas timely given the property was about to close and transfer title. I quickly filed a notice of pendency to preserve Easyship’s rights and block the sale. Zeng moved to dismiss the case against him and after full briefing and oral argument, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety, struck all affirmative defenses, and preserved the lis pendens — locking down the Brooklyn property as a collection asset and giving Easyship maximum leverage heading into discovery and settlement negotiations. 

Equity Dispute

A senior engineer at a fast-growing AI startup found himself targeted just as the company entered acquisition talks with a multi-billion-dollar public company. Management invoked their repurchase rights to claw back vested shares (valued at $233K at the time) for pennies on the dollar. 

Th governing equity agreements, however, provided no such authority. MGMT’s repurchase rights were exercisable if (1) the client was terminated for cause or (2) if he missed deliverables. Neither occured. Nevertheless, MGMT claimed to have terminated the client (yet continued assigning work and praised his work during investor meetings, including the pitch to the acquiring company). Among other tactics, MGMT attempted to retroactively alter a certified stock purchase agreement by changing vesting cliffs, conditioning equity on an unattached Statement of Work that they then insisted precluded any grant of equity.

With the merger closing in two days, the parties held numerous Zoom conferences with both the company and its board of directors resulting in a revised offer of over half a million for the client’s equity. We responded with a drafts of a Section 220 Demand, Motion for Declaratory Judgment, and standstill agreement indicating our willingness to table the dispute until after the merger but we would first require board recognition of our rights. Preferring to start anew, the company eventually offered 1 million shares to resolve the matter netting the client $1.14M.