Preview
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ONONDAGA COUNTY
MENIO GLOBAL, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
Index. No.
CCS Global LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company
Defendant.
Plaintiff, Menio Global, LLC, by and through its attorneys Tully Rinckey PLLC as and for its
complaint against Defendant CCS Global LLC alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION & VENUE
1. Venue is proper in Onondaga County pursuant to CPLR 503 as the county in which Plaintiff
maintains its principal place of business, and the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant
since Defendant transacts and solicits substantial business in the state
PARTIES
("Plaintiff"
2. Plaintiff, Menio Global, LLC or "Menio Global") is a New York limited liability
company located in Onondaga County with a principal place of business at 235 Harrison Street,
Syracuse, New York 13202.
3. ("Defendant"
Defendant, CCS Global, LLC or "CCS is a Florida limited
Global") liability
company with a place of business at CCS Global LLC, 6600 SW 114th Street, Ste. 1-2,
Pinecrest, FL 33156.
1 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
4. Defendant transacted business within the state of New York into several
by entering
agreements with that are the subject of this Verified Complaint and
cormsponding Plaintiff,
derived substantial revenue fmm services rendered in the state of New York.
NATURE OF CLAIMS
5. Plaintiff seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief, to redress the unlawful wrongful
monetary
acts committed against Plaintiff by Defendant in violation of Defendant's contractual and/or
common law duties owed to Plaintiff.
THE PARTIES
6. Menio Global provides credit card processing models to various merchants and other services
through their proprietary services.
7. Menio Global, aside from being referred to as the Plaintiff, may be referred to in the various
agreements with CCS Global as MG.
8. CCS Global, aside from being referred to as the Defendant, may be referred to in the various
agreements with Menio Global as CCS, or Referral Partner or abbreviated as RP.
9. Menio Global and CCS Global may be referred to collectively herein as the Parties.
A. Referral Agreement Payout Contract
10. Menio Global ("MG"), a New York LLC, and CCS Global LLC, a Florida company as the
Referral Partner ("RP"), entered into a Referral Agreement Payout Contract dated April 30, 2020
("Referral Agreement"). See Exh..A.
I I. The Referral Agreement was executed by Joshua Menio, CEO, on behalf of MG and by Robert
Larson on behalf of CCS as Referral Partner.
I2. Under the terms of the Referral Agreement, CCS Global would obtain referrals of new
merchants to MG as part of MG's credit card
processing business and receive payouts.
2
2 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
13. The Referral Agreement provided that for "each new merchant that RP refers to MG, RP will
MG"
receive 50% of the net monthly residuals made by to be paid "by the last day of each
residuals"
month, for the previous month's and that "RP will receive these monies as long as the
MG."
merchant still doing business with Exh. A.
14. The Referral Agreement provided that "All information shared between MG and RP is
confidential"
and "No information dealing with this Agreement or the happenings from this
consent."
Agreement may be shared with another party without the expressed written Exh. A.
15. Following a referral of a merchant by Defendant, Plaintiff would deal with the merchant and the
merchant would become the Plaintiff's client.
16. The referrals from Defendant of merchants that became clients of Plaintiff are Plaintiff's assets
as Plaintiff obtains substantial revenue by servicing these merchants and Plaintiff profits through
the sale of the merchant accounts.
competitors'
17. Plaintiff's proprietary services allowed Plaintiff to beat any legitimate rates or
pricing, which Plaintiff agreed to guarantee for processing services to a potential merchant as a
new client in connection with negotiating and obtaining an account.
18. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into other agreements in connection with this arrangement.
B. Addendum to Agreements, Including
General Support/Customer Services
19. Menio Global LLC and CCS Global LLC entered into an addendum dated November 2, 2022
("Addendum"), which provided that CCS "will not seek out other referral or business
relationship."
relationships that would conflict with this Ex. B, ¶ 5,
20. The Addendum ¶ 5, also provided "[t]here should be new deals coming in each month to solidify
staying on track with the same progress it has been on since your first account. If this
submitting
remedy."
drastically changes, we should discuss and Exh. B.
3
3 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
C. Referral Partnership Agreement & Guidelines
21. The Referral Agreement and signed CCS as Referral Partner of
Partnership Guidelines, by
Menio Global LLC and Joshua Menio as partner of Menio Olobal LLC ("Referral Partnership
Agreement"), provided that CCS as a Referral Partner was expected to maintain confidentiality
details of their Contract, including payout percentages to anyone
regarding "disclosing any
outside of Menio Global". Exh. C, ¶ 1.
22. The Referral Agreement, also provided that CCS, as a Referral Partner was expected
Partnership
to maintain "confidentiality as it relates to Referral Partners and their Contracts. As such Referral
Partners are restricted from inquiring into the status of any other Referral Partners and their
Global."
relationship with Menio Ex. C, ¶ 2.
23. The Referral Partnership Agreement provided, in pertinent part, that CCS as "The Referral
Partner understands that these guidelines were created and are being upheld to create order and
clients."
to protect the relationships of the Referral Partner, Menio Global, LLC and our potential
Exh. C, ¶ 13.
24. The Referral Partnership Agreement provided that in the event of "3 or more infractions, at the
discretion of Menio Global LLC the Referral program will be revoked from the Referral Partner
and no further futum payments will be distributed. Referral partner would forfeit all future
case."
payouts in this Exh. C, ¶ 13.
25. The Referral Agreement, Addendum, and Referral Partnership Agreement, herein, are sometimes
collectively referred to herein as context requires, as "Agreements". Exhs. A-C.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS INCLUDING TERMS OF AGREEMENTS AT ISSUE
26. Upon information and belief, Defendant engaged in the conduct described hereinbelow that is the
subject of each cause of action.
4
4 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
Defendant engaged in a bait and switch sales strategy
27. While acting as a Referral Partner,
were affiliated with Menio Global,
would mpmsent to potential referrals, that they
whemby they
not a separate or were the same company as Menio Global,
part of Menio Global and company,
services to mfer merchants to Plaintiff for Plaintiff's benefit.
while performing
misrepmsented that were affiliated with Menio Global, part of Menio Global and
28. Defendant they
not a separate or were the same as Menio Global, over an unknown period of
company, company
to create a pretext for Defendant to promise potential new merchants they would standby a
time,
Zero 0% buyrate, although Menio Global, not Defendant, had this ability.
only
29. Defendant, and what company and type of business they were in, and
by mispresenting feigning
omitting they were a Referral Partner of Plaintiff acting on Plaintiff's behalf, engaged in
commercial piracy to obtain Plaintiff's merchants, divert them to Defendant rather than refer
them to Plaintiff, and acquire Plaintiff's business of servicing new merchants accounts, thus
exploiting their position as Referral Partner to steal business away from Plaintiff.
30. Once the merchants would close an account, they would discover they were being serviced by
Defendant rather than Plaintiff.
31. Defendant also used false pretenses to drive Plaintiff's current accounts to Defendant, began
advising merchants of non-existent service/support issues which needed to be corrected by being
serviced by Defendant or another competitor which resulted in Plaintiff's loss of accounts.
32. Plaintiff had never had an issue in the past related to service or customer support issues.
any
33. Defendant concealed their wrongful conduct false pretenses in merchants of non-
by advising
existent service or customer support issues as a pretext to move the merchants to Defendant for
its own business, to conceal the nature of Defendant's it on
wrongdoing by blaming pricing
5
5 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
prevent Plaintiff's of the
issues, with the expectation that this would impede and discovery
to be serviced Plaintiff anymore.
reason behind lost accounts by merchants who decided not by
to cut Plaintiff out as a credit card service and
34. Defendant engaged in such conduct processing
their business and the merchants into the arms of Defendant so Defendant
drive away directly
could take over Plaintiff s business, obtain Plaintiff's merchant accounts to build up Defendant's
business accounts so Defendant could begin acting as a credit card processing service.
35. Plaintiff first discovered such activity in the last 4-6 months after noticing that the amount of
referrals for new merchants from Defendant to Plaintiff began to diminish substantially and
eventually dwindled and ceased altogether.
36. Defendant opened several offices as a credit card processing service for merchants that
acting
Defendant took over under false pretenses resulting in loss of business to Plaintiff.
37. By means of these wrongful actions, Defendant moved accounts and partnered with other
companies to take over Plaintiff s business from under Plaintiff s nose resulting in Plaintiffs
loss of referrals, business accounts, current accounts, and new accounts.
38. Defendant's ultimate goal was not only to steal the merchants that were the subject of the very
referrals Defendant was to have obtained for Plaintiff's business in connection with Defendant's
role as a Referral Partner, Defendant also cut out Plaintiff's other referral partners to compete
against and take over Plaintiff's business accounts with other referral partners.
39. By these means, Defendant sought to take over as a credit card service to obtain the
processing
profit that was Plaintiff's due to the substantial effort Plaintiff made over the years in developing
relationships with large credit card processors and its abilities as a result
building proprietary of
these relationships to offer sole-source contracts and a Zero 0% buyrate.
6
6 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
40. Plaintiff had abilities which underpriced other competitors who, incorporated a floor
pmprietary
as part of their contracts with and did not have the ability to offer sole-source
merchants,
contracts and a Zero 0% buyrate like Plaintiff could and that were crucial to Plaintiffs business.
41. Because Plaintiff had the ability to offer a sole source contract and a Zero 0% buyrate to
merchants, Plaintitibenefited because Plaintiff was able to decrease the cost of fees to merchants
yet the payout percentage would be worth more and Plaintiff's proprietary services also
benefited merchants who had accounts with Plaintiff who were able to obtain a Zero 0% buyrate,
which was attractive to merchants and increased Plaintiff's accounts and which Plaintiff used to
negotiate with other credit card processors and increase its business portfolio and revenue.
42. Interchange Fees which merchant normally collect and send to the issuing banks of a credit card
holder who purchases a product or service of the merchant is usually a pass-through, but with
Plaintiff and its proprietary abilities, merchants who were Plaintiff's clients would obtain three to
four times savings on fees then they normally would for each transaction with a credit card
holder, thus making Plaintiff's proprietary abilities especially attractive to merchants and other
agencies.
43. The amount of accounts that were moved by Defendant based upon its wrongful conduct, is
currently unknown and could have taken place over a substantial period of time.
44. Ongoing revenue was lost as a result of the loss of these accounts due to this wrongful conduct.
45. Defendant having obtained control of the referrals through false pretenses and through other
wrongful conduct, that were supposed to be made for Plaintiff's benefit and a part of or destined
to become part of Plaintiff's portfolio, were redirected to Defendant's portfolio through a change
of ownership of those merchants and Defendant now became owner of the merchant accounts.
7
7 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024
closed and for accounts Plaintiff already
46. As the owner of such accounts once a merchant account
with an
Plaintiff had the to sell the merchants under a contractual relationship
held, ability
agency.
wrongful Plaintiff lost the value of those merchants being in
47. Due to Defendant's conduct,
and Plaintiff's to sell the merchant accounts later based on a
Plaintiff s portfolio ability
calculation under and thus, Plaintiff not lost the monthly revenue that Plaintiff
contract, only
would have made prior to merchant accounts, and other beneficial value, Plaintiff lost
selling any
the resale value and profits from such sales.
48. Once these merchants were no longer part of the portfolio, Plaintiff no longer owned them and
lost profits due to its inability to sell accounts that were no longer in its portfolio.
49. Plaintiff lost the ability to profit through these later sales of merchant accounts to agencies which
utilized, as part of the calculation by contractual arrangement, the amount of monthly revenue of
a particular merchant by multiplying it by the period of years in which that merchant had been a
client and using other factors as a basis.
50. Plaintiff also lost market value due to Defendants conduct since when going to market with the
accounts, the market value was based upon the number of accounts Plaintiff had to attract large
credit card processors which would provide Plaintiff with favorable terms and other benefits, and
which Plaintiff lost as a result of losing those accounts.
51. Some of the larger credit card processors obtain most of their business from and
Plaintiff,
payments by those credit card processors are based on a sliding scale percentage so that the
number of accounts raised the value on all of the accounts.
8
8 of 19
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2
Preview
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ONONDAGA COUNTY MENIO GLOBAL, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- Index. No. CCS Global LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company Defendant. Plaintiff, Menio Global, LLC, by and through its attorneys Tully Rinckey PLLC as and for its complaint against Defendant CCS Global LLC alleges as follows: JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. Venue is proper in Onondaga County pursuant to CPLR 503 as the county in which Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business, and the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant since Defendant transacts and solicits substantial business in the state PARTIES ("Plaintiff" 2. Plaintiff, Menio Global, LLC or "Menio Global") is a New York limited liability company located in Onondaga County with a principal place of business at 235 Harrison Street, Syracuse, New York 13202. 3. ("Defendant" Defendant, CCS Global, LLC or "CCS is a Florida limited Global") liability company with a place of business at CCS Global LLC, 6600 SW 114th Street, Ste. 1-2, Pinecrest, FL 33156. 1 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 4. Defendant transacted business within the state of New York into several by entering agreements with that are the subject of this Verified Complaint and cormsponding Plaintiff, derived substantial revenue fmm services rendered in the state of New York. NATURE OF CLAIMS 5. Plaintiff seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief, to redress the unlawful wrongful monetary acts committed against Plaintiff by Defendant in violation of Defendant's contractual and/or common law duties owed to Plaintiff. THE PARTIES 6. Menio Global provides credit card processing models to various merchants and other services through their proprietary services. 7. Menio Global, aside from being referred to as the Plaintiff, may be referred to in the various agreements with CCS Global as MG. 8. CCS Global, aside from being referred to as the Defendant, may be referred to in the various agreements with Menio Global as CCS, or Referral Partner or abbreviated as RP. 9. Menio Global and CCS Global may be referred to collectively herein as the Parties. A. Referral Agreement Payout Contract 10. Menio Global ("MG"), a New York LLC, and CCS Global LLC, a Florida company as the Referral Partner ("RP"), entered into a Referral Agreement Payout Contract dated April 30, 2020 ("Referral Agreement"). See Exh..A. I I. The Referral Agreement was executed by Joshua Menio, CEO, on behalf of MG and by Robert Larson on behalf of CCS as Referral Partner. I2. Under the terms of the Referral Agreement, CCS Global would obtain referrals of new merchants to MG as part of MG's credit card processing business and receive payouts. 2 2 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 13. The Referral Agreement provided that for "each new merchant that RP refers to MG, RP will MG" receive 50% of the net monthly residuals made by to be paid "by the last day of each residuals" month, for the previous month's and that "RP will receive these monies as long as the MG." merchant still doing business with Exh. A. 14. The Referral Agreement provided that "All information shared between MG and RP is confidential" and "No information dealing with this Agreement or the happenings from this consent." Agreement may be shared with another party without the expressed written Exh. A. 15. Following a referral of a merchant by Defendant, Plaintiff would deal with the merchant and the merchant would become the Plaintiff's client. 16. The referrals from Defendant of merchants that became clients of Plaintiff are Plaintiff's assets as Plaintiff obtains substantial revenue by servicing these merchants and Plaintiff profits through the sale of the merchant accounts. competitors' 17. Plaintiff's proprietary services allowed Plaintiff to beat any legitimate rates or pricing, which Plaintiff agreed to guarantee for processing services to a potential merchant as a new client in connection with negotiating and obtaining an account. 18. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into other agreements in connection with this arrangement. B. Addendum to Agreements, Including General Support/Customer Services 19. Menio Global LLC and CCS Global LLC entered into an addendum dated November 2, 2022 ("Addendum"), which provided that CCS "will not seek out other referral or business relationship." relationships that would conflict with this Ex. B, ¶ 5, 20. The Addendum ¶ 5, also provided "[t]here should be new deals coming in each month to solidify staying on track with the same progress it has been on since your first account. If this submitting remedy." drastically changes, we should discuss and Exh. B. 3 3 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 C. Referral Partnership Agreement & Guidelines 21. The Referral Agreement and signed CCS as Referral Partner of Partnership Guidelines, by Menio Global LLC and Joshua Menio as partner of Menio Olobal LLC ("Referral Partnership Agreement"), provided that CCS as a Referral Partner was expected to maintain confidentiality details of their Contract, including payout percentages to anyone regarding "disclosing any outside of Menio Global". Exh. C, ¶ 1. 22. The Referral Agreement, also provided that CCS, as a Referral Partner was expected Partnership to maintain "confidentiality as it relates to Referral Partners and their Contracts. As such Referral Partners are restricted from inquiring into the status of any other Referral Partners and their Global." relationship with Menio Ex. C, ¶ 2. 23. The Referral Partnership Agreement provided, in pertinent part, that CCS as "The Referral Partner understands that these guidelines were created and are being upheld to create order and clients." to protect the relationships of the Referral Partner, Menio Global, LLC and our potential Exh. C, ¶ 13. 24. The Referral Partnership Agreement provided that in the event of "3 or more infractions, at the discretion of Menio Global LLC the Referral program will be revoked from the Referral Partner and no further futum payments will be distributed. Referral partner would forfeit all future case." payouts in this Exh. C, ¶ 13. 25. The Referral Agreement, Addendum, and Referral Partnership Agreement, herein, are sometimes collectively referred to herein as context requires, as "Agreements". Exhs. A-C. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS INCLUDING TERMS OF AGREEMENTS AT ISSUE 26. Upon information and belief, Defendant engaged in the conduct described hereinbelow that is the subject of each cause of action. 4 4 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 Defendant engaged in a bait and switch sales strategy 27. While acting as a Referral Partner, were affiliated with Menio Global, would mpmsent to potential referrals, that they whemby they not a separate or were the same company as Menio Global, part of Menio Global and company, services to mfer merchants to Plaintiff for Plaintiff's benefit. while performing misrepmsented that were affiliated with Menio Global, part of Menio Global and 28. Defendant they not a separate or were the same as Menio Global, over an unknown period of company, company to create a pretext for Defendant to promise potential new merchants they would standby a time, Zero 0% buyrate, although Menio Global, not Defendant, had this ability. only 29. Defendant, and what company and type of business they were in, and by mispresenting feigning omitting they were a Referral Partner of Plaintiff acting on Plaintiff's behalf, engaged in commercial piracy to obtain Plaintiff's merchants, divert them to Defendant rather than refer them to Plaintiff, and acquire Plaintiff's business of servicing new merchants accounts, thus exploiting their position as Referral Partner to steal business away from Plaintiff. 30. Once the merchants would close an account, they would discover they were being serviced by Defendant rather than Plaintiff. 31. Defendant also used false pretenses to drive Plaintiff's current accounts to Defendant, began advising merchants of non-existent service/support issues which needed to be corrected by being serviced by Defendant or another competitor which resulted in Plaintiff's loss of accounts. 32. Plaintiff had never had an issue in the past related to service or customer support issues. any 33. Defendant concealed their wrongful conduct false pretenses in merchants of non- by advising existent service or customer support issues as a pretext to move the merchants to Defendant for its own business, to conceal the nature of Defendant's it on wrongdoing by blaming pricing 5 5 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 prevent Plaintiff's of the issues, with the expectation that this would impede and discovery to be serviced Plaintiff anymore. reason behind lost accounts by merchants who decided not by to cut Plaintiff out as a credit card service and 34. Defendant engaged in such conduct processing their business and the merchants into the arms of Defendant so Defendant drive away directly could take over Plaintiff s business, obtain Plaintiff's merchant accounts to build up Defendant's business accounts so Defendant could begin acting as a credit card processing service. 35. Plaintiff first discovered such activity in the last 4-6 months after noticing that the amount of referrals for new merchants from Defendant to Plaintiff began to diminish substantially and eventually dwindled and ceased altogether. 36. Defendant opened several offices as a credit card processing service for merchants that acting Defendant took over under false pretenses resulting in loss of business to Plaintiff. 37. By means of these wrongful actions, Defendant moved accounts and partnered with other companies to take over Plaintiff s business from under Plaintiff s nose resulting in Plaintiffs loss of referrals, business accounts, current accounts, and new accounts. 38. Defendant's ultimate goal was not only to steal the merchants that were the subject of the very referrals Defendant was to have obtained for Plaintiff's business in connection with Defendant's role as a Referral Partner, Defendant also cut out Plaintiff's other referral partners to compete against and take over Plaintiff's business accounts with other referral partners. 39. By these means, Defendant sought to take over as a credit card service to obtain the processing profit that was Plaintiff's due to the substantial effort Plaintiff made over the years in developing relationships with large credit card processors and its abilities as a result building proprietary of these relationships to offer sole-source contracts and a Zero 0% buyrate. 6 6 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 40. Plaintiff had abilities which underpriced other competitors who, incorporated a floor pmprietary as part of their contracts with and did not have the ability to offer sole-source merchants, contracts and a Zero 0% buyrate like Plaintiff could and that were crucial to Plaintiffs business. 41. Because Plaintiff had the ability to offer a sole source contract and a Zero 0% buyrate to merchants, Plaintitibenefited because Plaintiff was able to decrease the cost of fees to merchants yet the payout percentage would be worth more and Plaintiff's proprietary services also benefited merchants who had accounts with Plaintiff who were able to obtain a Zero 0% buyrate, which was attractive to merchants and increased Plaintiff's accounts and which Plaintiff used to negotiate with other credit card processors and increase its business portfolio and revenue. 42. Interchange Fees which merchant normally collect and send to the issuing banks of a credit card holder who purchases a product or service of the merchant is usually a pass-through, but with Plaintiff and its proprietary abilities, merchants who were Plaintiff's clients would obtain three to four times savings on fees then they normally would for each transaction with a credit card holder, thus making Plaintiff's proprietary abilities especially attractive to merchants and other agencies. 43. The amount of accounts that were moved by Defendant based upon its wrongful conduct, is currently unknown and could have taken place over a substantial period of time. 44. Ongoing revenue was lost as a result of the loss of these accounts due to this wrongful conduct. 45. Defendant having obtained control of the referrals through false pretenses and through other wrongful conduct, that were supposed to be made for Plaintiff's benefit and a part of or destined to become part of Plaintiff's portfolio, were redirected to Defendant's portfolio through a change of ownership of those merchants and Defendant now became owner of the merchant accounts. 7 7 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024 closed and for accounts Plaintiff already 46. As the owner of such accounts once a merchant account with an Plaintiff had the to sell the merchants under a contractual relationship held, ability agency. wrongful Plaintiff lost the value of those merchants being in 47. Due to Defendant's conduct, and Plaintiff's to sell the merchant accounts later based on a Plaintiff s portfolio ability calculation under and thus, Plaintiff not lost the monthly revenue that Plaintiff contract, only would have made prior to merchant accounts, and other beneficial value, Plaintiff lost selling any the resale value and profits from such sales. 48. Once these merchants were no longer part of the portfolio, Plaintiff no longer owned them and lost profits due to its inability to sell accounts that were no longer in its portfolio. 49. Plaintiff lost the ability to profit through these later sales of merchant accounts to agencies which utilized, as part of the calculation by contractual arrangement, the amount of monthly revenue of a particular merchant by multiplying it by the period of years in which that merchant had been a client and using other factors as a basis. 50. Plaintiff also lost market value due to Defendants conduct since when going to market with the accounts, the market value was based upon the number of accounts Plaintiff had to attract large credit card processors which would provide Plaintiff with favorable terms and other benefits, and which Plaintiff lost as a result of losing those accounts. 51. Some of the larger credit card processors obtain most of their business from and Plaintiff, payments by those credit card processors are based on a sliding scale percentage so that the number of accounts raised the value on all of the accounts. 8 8 of 19 FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 01:24 PM INDEX NO. 004024/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2