Recommended: System Errors? Click here to Fix your PC »
MSI COMPUTER CORP. AND PARENT COMPANY MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD AMONGSTOTHERS, SUED FOR FRAUD, CONVERSION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT BY FORMER DEALER ANDGLOBAL BUSINESS PARTNER.
ORANGE COUNTY, December 5, 2005 -- Dates for deposition of defendantsMSI Computer Corp, and others are set to take place over the nextseveral weeks by lawyers for plaintiff Integration Dynamics Corp. (IDC). The suit (# 04CC12623) filed in Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia for the County of Orange almost a year ago, names MSIComputer Corp., and parent company Micro-Star International Co., Ltd.,(MSI) (Taiwan Stock Exchange:Ticker Symbol 2377) amongst others, asco-Defendants, and claims defendants have perpetrated fraud, conversion,breach of contract, and intentional interference with prospectivebusiness.
The pending trial date of January 26, 2006, was set earlier this year by JudgeThompson of the Orange County Court.  Earlier this year, our lawyers successfullyargued against and defended our position to sue, as challenges in the form of demursby a number of defendants, were thrown out by the court. said IDC spokesman andPlaintiff Ren Condotta,  this case, which is before the courts, stands completely onitÂ's own and has absolutely nothing to do with the previously filed Class Actionsuit brought against MSI for leaky capacitors or malfunctioning motherboards, alsoin 2004.Â
In April of this year, IDC filed an amendment to the claim. The amendment, in part,was to include two additional corporations as defendants; one of which was MSIComputer Corp., the Los Angeles based U.S. subsidiary of motherboard manufacturerMicro-Star International Co. Ltd. (MSI). The change brought the total number ofnamed defendants in the suit to six, which includes four corporations and twoindividuals, with provisions for 1000 additional DOE defendants.
IDC first formed a relationship with MSI Computer Corp. in early 2002.  As anextension of that relationship, IDC and MSI Taiwan had also formed a relationship,having exclusive contractual agreements negotiated and signed in early 2003providing for a global sub-distribution of IDC products through MSI and itssubsidiaries, says Condotta.
During an internal audit of IDC finances, Condotta, IDCÂ's largest creditor and onlyshareholder, had discovered that MSI Computer Corp. was found to be at the heart ofa disconcerting matter involving fraud and conversion. Just prior to the audit,Condotta was approached by co-Defendant LuTran acting at the time as categoryManager for MSI Computer Corp. newly formed Consumer Electronics Division. LuTranengaged Condotta in negotiations to have Condotta represent MSI in Canada throughCondottaÂ's Toronto-based manufacturer rep company, REPTIDE, also a Plaintiff in thecase.
Upon discovery of the business improprieties, Condotta, a 22-year veteran of thecomputer industry, immediately severed all business relationships with MSI ComputerCorp and MSI, and then notified MSI of the conflict of interest which requiredimmediate resolution.
Condotta alleges that he had uncovered documents concerning transactions involvingthe sale of MSI goods by MSI Computer Corp. to customers established and held by IDCthereby circumventing IDC in the process. The sale of these goods, as alleged byCondotta, flowed through MSI Computer and co-Defendant Xcel Micro Inc. allegedlyformed by then IDC Sales Manager (co-Defendant Borcsok) in conjunction with the MSIComputer Corp Sales Manager at the time (co-Defendant LuTran), for what Condottaalleges to have been for the express purpose to defraud IDC.
Further to this, Condotta alleges that since MSI entered into contractual agreementswith IDC during the same time period in which MSI subsidiary MSI Computer Corp. wasperpetrating fraud and conversion on IDC, and since MSI entered into suchnegotiations and agreements with IDC initiated by MSI Computer Corp manager(co-defendant LuTran), IDC therefore claims damages against MSI formisrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and both negligent and intentionalinterference with prospective business. As negotiations concerning MSI Computer Corpand REPTIDE took place under similar circumstances as previously mentioned, REPTIDEclaims damages for same.
Condotta said,  as an ISO9000 registered company since 1994, MSI and itÂ's whollyowned subsidiaries, have virtually guaranteed, to any and all of their current andprospective business partners, that they have the necessary processes and mechanismsin place, which would not only prevent such fraudulent activities from beingperpetrated within and throughout the company, but that any breach of such processeswould be attended to in an expedient manner, and remedied to the satisfaction ofboth the victimized parties and to the ISO governing body. Condotta goes on tosay, as a publicly traded company, it stands that, MSI would be required by itsboard of directors, and more importantly, owes it to its shareholders, to haveremedied the situation, once recognized, to the satisfaction of all concernedparties and avoid the cost of litigation and seven figure damages, as they haveelected to do in their Class Action suit. (Refer to http://www.msisettlement.comh osted by MSI Computer C orp)
 Since having been served with our lawsuit, MSI Computer Corp. has, in a manner,openly admitted to having such a breach in its business practices. Such admissioncame in the form of a marketing campaign launched by only one MSI subsidiary: MSIComputer Corp. said Condotta.  The campaign in reference, continues Condotta, was targeted to all current and future MSI resellers and dealers only in theAmericas, coincidently, the same territory believed to have been previously servicedby the MSI Sales Manager (co-Defendant LuTran). Documents concerning the web-basedcampaign, can be found at the following websitehttp://www.msi_sued_fo r_fraud.irocx.com
Condotta further alleges, Â these are undoubtedly, the blatantly obvious anddesperate reactions made by a corporation having such size, stature, and stockvalue, with the purpose to obfuscate the reasons for the necessary actions andexpenditures that are required by the corporation in order to remedy its inadequatebusiness and accounting practices, so as to not only retain ISO registration in goodstanding, but to deliberately ensure stockholder unawareness of the corporationÂ'sdeficiency and lack of control of itÂ's processes and employees.Â
 In the interest of negotiating a good faith settlement with MSI, no previous pressreleases were issued on behalf of the Plaintiffs, but since MSI has made no effortto date to acknowledge our damages, I believe, that at minimum, the unsuspecting MSIStock holders, should at least be made aware of the situation says Condotta.
ABOUT IDC
Integration Dynamics Corporation is a specialty audio products development company.The company, the brands, and the products are the brainchild of Ren Condotta. IDCcontinues its legacy of developing and producing 3D audio based specialty productsfor the gaming and virtual reality markets, and offers new and exciting improvementson previously released products and formulation of new and exciting wired, wirelessand personal listening devices. Brands developed and/or OEMed by IDC includeGameÂ'Ware, RumbleFX, IROCX, and IVOCX. Since the aforementioned MSI incident, IDChas focused on its new audio core having proprietary core technologies and refinedaudio sub-systems are being produced in stealth mode and currently consideringoffers to partner. For more information please visit our websites
 .
