In an interesting twist one alternate investment scheme(AIS) or Un-regulated Financial Organisation(UFO) has sued another. This occurred when F1 investments had enough of May Daisy’s failure to pay over sums it had requested. Here are more details on that lawsuit. There are five(5) points of contention
- Breach of contract
- Civil theft
- Unjust enrichment
- Demand Accounting
Based on the information at hand, F1 investments contracted May Daisy to trade Foreign Exchange with specific contractual conditions. The account with May Daisy operated from August/September – December 31, 2007. A request for full encashment was made on January 13, 2008. That request has yet to be honoured. This effectively forms the basis of the lawsuit.
The time-lime will further explain what appears to have happened.
- August 16, 2007 – US $2,500,000 given to May Daisy
- September 6, 2007 – Contract finalised
- Sometime after September 6, 2007 – A further US $9,330,278 handed over to May Daisy
- By December 31, 2007 – F1 account with May Daisy valued at US $20,191,858.16
- January 13, 2008 – Request made for funds, i.e full encashment, no funds forthcoming
- April 2008 – Ingrid Loiten arrested in Zambia and US $7,000,000 seized.
- June 13, 2008 – Court documents signed
- June 26, 2008 - Documents filed in Florida court.
- July 25, 2008 – Letter sent out to clients
The contract between F1 investments and May Daisy appeared to have some specific terms. The following are highlighted as they are mentioned specifically in the lawsuit.
- Only May Daisy and Ingrid Loiten should trade the F1 investment funds.
- Trading should not be sub contracted.
- May Daisy and Ingrid Loiten allegedly used I-Trade FX which was a breach of contract
- May Daisy allegedly sub-contracted actually trading to I-Trade FX which was also a breach of contract.