Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

Kyko Global, Inc. et al v. Prithvi Information Solutions, Ltd et al

Court:
Western District of Washington
Subject Matter:
Fraud
Procedural Posture:
Motion to Dismiss
Last Updated:
  • Kyko Global, Inc et al v. Prithvi Information Solutions, Ltd et al.
    Kyko Global, Inc et al v. Prithvi Information Solutions, Ltd et al.
    Kyko Global, Inc et al v. Prithvi Information Solutions, Ltd et al., Case number 13-cv-01034, Oral argument on motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, 01/21/2014, 2:00 PM (PST), Seattle Courthouse, Seattle, WA, Chief Judge Marsha J. Pechman presiding,

    Kyko Global, Inc et al v. Prithvi Information Solutions, Ltd et al., Case number 13-cv-01034, Oral argument on motion to...

Case Summary: 13-cv-01034

Plaintiff Kyko Global provides a financial service called factoring, in which it fronts money to businesses as advances on customer account receivables. According to Plaintiff, Defendants created fictitious entities to create the appearance of legitimate business transactions and companies to obtain factoring services for which no real account receivable existed. By early 2013, Defendants had stopped paying their invoices, leaving more than $17 million owing by Plaintiff’s estimates. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges eight causes of action as a result.

Twelve of the named Defendants settled after the court issued an order finding the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their fraud claims. The remaining six Defendants moved for dismissal based on two theories: the Complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements under the court’s procedural rules, and spouses of several defendants were improperly named under state law. This video shows the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The court denied the motion on February 3, 2014, allowing the case to continue. Defendants subsequently filed bankruptcy and the court stayed the case pending resolution of those proceedings.

Case Highlights

  • Complaint filed 6/17/2013 (Doc #1)
  • Motion to Dismiss 10/28/2013 (Doc #99)
  • Hearing Defendants’ Motion 1/21/2014 (Doc #120)
  • Court denied Defendants’ motion 2/03/2014 (Doc #121)
  • Stayed pending resolution of bankruptcy proceedings 6/19/2014 (Doc #226)

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.