Federal Judge Rules I B M Must Defend Paycom

12-23-2002

The lawsuit makes interesting reading:

"....For example, when Mastercard fined Mintola for chargebacks received in March 2001, Mintola and PRI began electronically debiting Paycom's checking account (via wire transfer) on a regular basis for additional "fines" purportedly assessed by Mastercard for chargebacks received in April, May, June and July 2001. When Paycom inquired about the "fines", PRI represented to Paycom that such additional "fines" had actually been levied by Mastercard against Mintola. Paycom subsequently learned however that these funds which Mintola and PRI were debiting from its account did not represent actual fines which had been levied by Mastercard but, instead, represented "projected fines."

We had exactly the same experience when we used PRI.

"....Moreover, Paycom has alleged that Phillips and Blaugrund made repeated representations to Paycom to induce Paycom to turn over all of its VISA transactions to PRI, including:
(1) Phillips representation shortly after processing began, and then in April and May of 2001, that Banco Uno had placed "volume restrictions" under the Banco Uno merchant account.
(2)Phillips repeated representations, between December 2000 and May 2001, orally and via email, that "more volume" was "coming" or actually available, and that more transactions could be settled through an account PRI called "Centaurus";
(3) Blaugrund's repeated representations, orally and via email, that PRI would hold the VISA transactions sent to PRI by Paycom until Banco Uno would allow them to be settled, and would settle as many of Paycom's transactions that it could at any given time.

Paycom has come to understand however, that the "volume restrictions" to which Banco Uno subjected Paycom over the period between November 2000 and June 2001, were nothing more than limitations artificially created and manipulated by PRI and Banco Uno to allow PRI to settle its other clients transactions through Banco Uno at the same time that PRI was settling Paycom's transactions through Banco Uno."

This all seems very familiar too.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-23-2002	#1
Technick Guest Posts: n/a	The lawsuit makes interesting reading: "....For example, when Mastercard fined Mintola for chargebacks received in March 2001, Mintola and PRI began electronically debiting Paycom's checking account (via wire transfer) on a regular basis for additional "fines" purportedly assessed by Mastercard for chargebacks received in April, May, June and July 2001. When Paycom inquired about the "fines", PRI represented to Paycom that such additional "fines" had actually been levied by Mastercard against Mintola. Paycom subsequently learned however that these funds which Mintola and PRI were debiting from its account did not represent actual fines which had been levied by Mastercard but, instead, represented "projected fines." We had exactly the same experience when we used PRI. "....Moreover, Paycom has alleged that Phillips and Blaugrund made repeated representations to Paycom to induce Paycom to turn over all of its VISA transactions to PRI, including: (1) Phillips representation shortly after processing began, and then in April and May of 2001, that Banco Uno had placed "volume restrictions" under the Banco Uno merchant account. (2)Phillips repeated representations, between December 2000 and May 2001, orally and via email, that "more volume" was "coming" or actually available, and that more transactions could be settled through an account PRI called "Centaurus"; (3) Blaugrund's repeated representations, orally and via email, that PRI would hold the VISA transactions sent to PRI by Paycom until Banco Uno would allow them to be settled, and would settle as many of Paycom's transactions that it could at any given time. Paycom has come to understand however, that the "volume restrictions" to which Banco Uno subjected Paycom over the period between November 2000 and June 2001, were nothing more than limitations artificially created and manipulated by PRI and Banco Uno to allow PRI to settle its other clients transactions through Banco Uno at the same time that PRI was settling Paycom's transactions through Banco Uno." This all seems very familiar too.