@shopperbob wrote:

Two points in NinS' posting jump out at me: If Intelli spent in excess of $150,000.00 in expenses, why only sue for $25,000.00? Secondly: If the matter extended back to 2017, why enter into an association in 2019 to both schedule work and pay for the completion thereof for a client of SS?

@NinS wrote:

I was able to access the complaint via Law360. It involves a failed merger between the two MSCs around 2017. The lawsuit only seeks $25,000 plus attorney and court costs as damages. The most recent docket entry shows the two sides are discussing a possible resolution.

Key points from Intellishop's complaint -- and keep in mind this is just one side of the story. (It has been answered, and almost surely denied, but I can't access the answer from HS.)

9. During the parties’ discussions regarding the potential merger, Defendant
made certain material representations regarding its business which included, but were not limited
to, ownership in certain international offices, existence of written agreements with the
international offices, profitability, and debt.
10. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s material representations and continued to
expend funds for expenses and costs related to the merger.
11. Plaintiff later discovered that Defendant’s material representations
regarding its ownership in certain international offices, its written agreements with the
international offices, its profitability, and its debt were false. Specifically, Plaintiff discovered
that Defendant did not own certain international offices that it had claimed to own; Defendant
did not have written agreements with any international offices that it had claimed to have;
Defendant was not profitable; and Defendant had an insurmountable amount of debt.
12. Had Plaintiff been aware of Defendant’s material misrepresentations,
Plaintiff would not have expended in excess of $150,000.00 for expenses and costs related to the
merger.
13. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant deteriorated due to
Defendant’s material misrepresentations and Plaintiff rightfully rescinded any agreement to
merge with Defendant due to Defendant’s wrongful and unlawful actions.

32. Defendant had a duty to advise Plaintiff that it did not have any ownership
in certain international offices, that it did not have written agreements with any international
offices, that it was not profitable, and that it had an insurmountable amount of debt.

@MSF wrote:

Actually, @Lorri Kern KSS, I couldn't be more RIGHT. This is what is stated in the complaint:

6. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that they would share equally in the
expenses and costs related to the merger.

7. Due to Defendant’s financial condition, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed
that Plaintiff would front the expenses and costs related to the merger and that Defendant would
reimburse Plaintiff.

8. Plaintiff spent in excess of $150,000.00 in expenses and costs related to
the merger.
|
|
|
19. Plaintiff has demanded payment from Defendant, which demand has been
refused and the just amount owing to Plaintiff remains unpaid. As such, Defendant is in breach
of the parties’ verbal agreement.

@Lorri Kern KSS wrote:

@MSF wrote:

In addition to the shopper payment problems that have persisted for more than a year, this company has legal problems. HS Brands contracted with another MSC several months ago for assistance with some of their shops. The other MSC is now suing HS Brands for breach of that contract (most likely, failure to pay): [dockets.justia.com].

You couldn't be more wrong, actually.

Things are going fine at HSB. They are not short on cash. In fact, I heard from Lisa today that they have paid all shoppers through the end of May, and paypal should hit everyone’s accounts by Monday. Yes, they were late on payments for a year or so, but as someone who’s been close with them for 20+ years, I can tell you it was for many reasons and not for being in financial trouble.

If you’ve noticed by the amount of shops we schedule for them, they have grown incredibly. They have more than tripled in size since 2015. They bought MCP in 2018 and Mystery Review in the Netherlands in 2019 plus I think some other companies in Thailand and Australia. Companies with no money don’t buy other companies.

I know they were working with IntelliShop in 2019 and the reason you saw IntelliShop doing some of their shops was because HSB took over other things for IntelliShop.

Tom Mills recently brought on some high profile entrepreneur friends of his to try to really grow the HSBrands Internationally. Not sure everyone knows this in the US, but they have 10 other offices around the world.

From my perspective it’s been better, HSB started to hire some superstar new employees. Things are so much better with the new people, but as some of you say we don’t know everything that goes on behind the curtain and I think all this expansion and growth caused a cash crunch for a while. But for 25 years they have been paying shoppers and paying me without fail. I know they are actively trying to acquire more MSC’s, so I wouldn’t worry at all about getting paid from them.

As for the lawsuit, I called Tom and he laughed saying “just wait a few months, it will look outwardly much different than it does now. Some people just like to hide behind lawyers.”

@MSF wrote:

This is not true at all. It is clearly stated in 11 different places in the complaint that the plaintiff seeks IN EXCESS of $25,000:

"As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of contract,
Plaintiff has been damaged and respectfully requests a judgment against Defendant in an amount
in excess of $25,000.00, together with interest, attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the
litigation of this action."

This is what is known as an unlimited jurisdiction case: [www.courts.ca.gov].

@NinS wrote:

The lawsuit only seeks $25,000 plus attorney and court costs as damages.

@MSF wrote:

HS Brands contracted with another MSC several months ago for assistance with some of their shops. The other MSC is now suing HS Brands for breach of that contract (most likely, failure to pay)

@MSF wrote:

It's not. As stated in the post, another MSC that HS Brands contracted to do work for them is the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

@MSF wrote:

The entire complaint is below. Someone gave a summary which was both incomplete and incorrect. As I originally suspected, HS Brands is being sued for breach of contract and failure to pay the plaintiff. Happy reading.

@MSF wrote:

So there you have it. This explains SO much. Of course the signs have been there all along for anyone who did not choose to ignore them. I'll stick with the plaintiff's version.

@MSF wrote:

@BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz, I think you missed the moderator's post about being abusive.

The full complaint of the unlimited jurisdiction civil case (case for more than 25K) for nonpayment is here for all to read.

@MSF wrote:

And you have nothing better to do than enter the conversation late and make stupid comments. Try looking again if you want to see who searched for the court record.

@MSF wrote:

This is what is known as an unlimited jurisdiction case: [www.courts.ca.gov].

@MSF wrote:

The point, legal scholar, was that the terminology, "in excess of $25,000," does not mean that the plaintiff is only suing for $25,000, as was alleged here.

@MSF wrote:

The point, legal scholar, was that the terminology, "in excess of $25,000," does not mean that the plaintiff is only suing for $25,000, as was alleged here.

@BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz wrote:

I also try not to be a hypocrite, applying one set of rules to myself and another to everyone else. This is how I conduct myself as a mystery shopper and how I live my life.

@Koukkla wrote:

This is old news now, this was 2 months ago. lol

@MSF wrote:

You offered no new information. You hurled insults. You quibbled over immaterial semantics. You did not make a positive contribution. Get over yourself. You failed.

@BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz wrote:

I also try not to be a hypocrite, applying one set of rules to myself and another to everyone else. This is how I conduct myself as a mystery shopper and how I live my life.

@Susan L. wrote:

Maybe they will settle after 3 months (90 days). Or the first month following the end of 90 days... LOL