Investment co YA II PN gets closer to default judgement against binary options firm EZTD
The Clerk of Court has signed the Certificate of Default against EZTD, in a move that typically precedes the issuance of default judgement.
A followup to FinanceFeeds’ report on YA II PN, Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company, seeking to recover its $500,000 investment in binary options firm EZTD Inc…
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018, a Clerk of the New York Southern District Court signed a Certificate of Default against EZTD, after the binary options firm had failed to file an answer or move otherwise with respect to the complaint launched by YA II PN.
The issuance of such a certificate is considered as a necessary step before a default judgement is issued by the Court. A default judgment would be a binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff given that the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court of law. The failure to take action is the default.
The action, captioned YA II PN, Ltd. v. EZTD Inc. (1:17-cv-03455), was launched in May 2017, with a serious amount of time and effort spent on trying to serve the summons to the Defendant. After several extensions of the time to serve the summons, they finally got accepted in October 2017. No answer to the complaint has followed, however.
The complaint refers to events from November 2016, when YA and EZTD entered into a Purchase Agreement pursuant to which YA invested in a Promissory Note which it acquired thereunder. Under the Purchase Agreement, the company issued to YA a promissory note in an aggregate principal amount of $500,000.
EZTD’s first payment to YA on the Promissory Note was due on February 1, 2017. EZTD failed to make that payment and has continued to fail to make any payment on the subsequent Payment Due Dates of March 1, April 1 and May 1, 2017.
As a result of EZTD’s failure to respond or otherwise pay the outstanding amounts due, YA brought the action in order to collect the sums due to it. According to the plaintiffs, these actions have caused YA damage in the amount of $500,000 plus applicable interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
YA II PN accuses EZTD of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff requests judgement in its favor as follows: (a) $500,000 (the outstanding principal amount under the Promissory Note at the time of Defendant’s resignation); (b) Accelerated interest in the amount of $39,342.47; (c) Reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs associated with YA’s collection efforts on the Promissory Note.
