Green Lava and Jason Singh are suing Sportsmax Ltd, Rayad Emrit, George Sylvester Davis, and Mariah Ramharack.
This was made public in a claim filed in the High Court of Justice in Trinidad and Tobago on 7 November, 2022 between:
Green Lava (Canada) Inc (first claimant)
Green Lava (SVG) Inc (second claimant)
Jason Singh (third claimant)
and:
Rayad Emrit (first defendant)
Sportsmax Ltd (second defendant)
George Sylvester Davis (third defendant)
Mariah Ramharack (fourth defendant)
The lawsuit stems from claims made by Rayad Emrit on a SportsMax interview in which he claimed he invested US$45.000 in Green Lava among other allegations. In the court document filed today, Green Lava said Emrit did not invest the said amount.
According to the court document, statements made by Emrit on Sportsmax were defamatory of the claimants as, in their natural and ordinary meaning, the said statements signified and would have caused any reasonable viewer/listener to conclude that Emrit was entitled to receive a payment of principal and dividends from the claimants or one or some of them, after two (2) years and that the claimants or one or some of them have wrongfully failed or refused to pay Emrit.
Further, the said statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, signified that the claimants were avoiding contact with Emrit in a dishonest attempt to misappropriate his monies or that the claimants had, in fact, misappropriated his monies and/or that the claimants operated their trade and business in an unprincipled and dishonest manner.
Green Lava in their claim states that Emrit did not invest the sum of $45,000USD with the first Claimant but only invested the sum of $45,000CAD, which amounts to approximately $33,000USD. Further, no payment of principal or dividends was due to the first Defendant until December 3rd, 2022.
BACKGROUND TO THESE PROCEEDINGS ACCORDING TO COURT DOCUMENTS
By a contract in writing dated December 3rd 2019 the First Defendant agreed to invest the principal sum of $45,000CAD, the equivalent of approximately $33,000USD, in the First Claimant for a period of three (3) years, ending on December 3rd, 2022. In consideration of the said investment, the First Defendant was issued 450,000 common shares in the First Claimant, which the First Defendant owns absolutely and outright. The First Defendant also had the option to purchase up to 11,250 shares in the First Defendant at $0.14 per share, for a period of up to 24 months after the initial investment.
At the end of the said three (3) year period, the First Defendant is to be repaid the said principal sum in full, would continue to hold the said shares at a substantially increased share value and would receive dividends as determined by the First Claimant’s board of directors.
In breach of the said contract, the First Defendant, in multiple WhatsApp voice calls, voice notes and messages during the period November 2021 to June 2022, demanded repayment of his said investment. The said demand was made orally and in writing to the Third Claimant, the Executive Chairman of the First and Second Claimants and to another director of the First and Second Claimants, who is known to the First Defendant.
The First Defendant exchanged multiple text and voice messages with the Third Claimant and the other director of the First and Second Claimants via WhatsApp regarding the early liquidation of his investment in the First Claimant. The Third Claimant and the other director of the First and Second Claimants repeatedly assured the First Defendant that his investment was secure.
The First Defendant also received dozens of email updates from the First Claimant regarding his investment during the period December 2019 to October 2022. The First Claimant utilizes software by the name of MailChimp to track, click, and open and interact with all email messages sent from its official email account. The First Defendant’s profile history in the First Claimant’s MailChimp account reflects that he had opened and/or interacted with emails from the First Claimant on 110 occasions during the said period.
Although the First Defendant has, at no material time, been legally entitled to the repayment of his said investment, the First Claimant has made multiple offers to the First Defendant of a share redemption as a mechanism for the First Defendant liquidating his position prior to the maturity date and recovering his investment. Further, other investors in the First Claimant have made multiple offers to the First Defendant to purchase his shares in the First Claimant as a mechanism for the First Defendant recovering his said investment.
These offers were made during multiple WhatsApp messages, voice notes and voice calls between the Third Claimant, the other director of the First and Second Claimants and the First Defendant during the period March to October 2022. The First Defendant has, however, repeatedly refused to exercise any of these options.
PARTICULARS OF AGGRAVATED DAMAGES
The court document showed that by letter dated April 14th 2022, the First Defendant was put in receipt of a Pre-Action protocol letter complaining about the defamatory nature of his utterances on Instagram. In disregard of the said pre-action protocol letter, the First Defendant chose to escalate his attacks upon the reputations and trade and business of the Claimants by maliciously giving the interview on SportsMax about which the Claimants complain in these proceedings, knowing full well that his utterances and the claims which he was making were false and untrue.
By letter dated October 28th 2022 the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants received written correspondence from the Claimants’ lawyers. Both letters called upon the Defendants to comply with the following:
To immediately and forthwith issue an apology and retraction of the defamatory statements identified in this correspondence;
To immediately and forthwith cease and desist from publishing and/or repeating these damaging, malicious and slanderous statements about our clients;
To immediately and forthwith remove from circulation the video published on YouTube containing these defamatory remarks;
To immediately and forthwith remove from circulation in any form whatsoever, all of the defamatory comments identified in this correspondence; (and)
To Within 48 hours issue an apology to our clients for all defamatory comments identified in this correspondence in a manner and by such means so as to make it equivalent and/or proportionate to the circulation of the defamatory statements identified herein.
The Defendants have however, refused to acknowledge, or respond to the said Pre-Action Protocol Letters.
PARTICULARS OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
The Claimants contend that the Second Defendant, after receiving written notice from the Claimants’ Attorneys indicating that his words and statements were defamatory, continued to publish the defamatory feature story on its YouTube channel thereby facilitating the spread the of the defamatory comments and creating a regional scandal where there exists none. This was calculated to either negligently, willfully or recklessly injure the reputation of the Claimants, whilst generating increased income, views and clicks for the Second Defendant, at the expense of the reputation of the Claimants.
The Claimants therefore contend that the Defendants’ conduct was calculated by them to make a profit at the expense of the Claimant’s reputation.
The Defendants having ignored the Claimants’ pre action letters and refused to issue a response continue to publish comments related to the Claimants which further exacerbates the damage suffered by the Claimants. The Claimants will rely on the said Pre Action protocol letters for their full terms, purport, true meaning and effect.
The Defendant’s publications set out in the above paragraphs have significantly injured the character of the Claimants, their reputations, trade and business and have lowered them in the estimation of right-thinking persons generally and in the estimation of potential investors.
The Defendants publications set out in the above paragraphs have brought the Claimants into public scandal, hatred odium, contempt and disrepute.
The Claimants aver that it is obvious that the Defendants and or their subjects/ agents have taken a personal interest in vilifying the Claimants and besmirching their good names, and unless restrained by this Honourable Court, it is the intention of the Defendants to further publish similar and or related words and innuendos about the Claimants.
Claimants Claim
An injunction restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves and/or their servants and/or agents and/or howsoever otherwise, from speaking, writing, printing, publishing, broadcasting, circulating, causing to be circulated and/or otherwise distributing whether written, printed, or via any medium whatsoever, the defamatory words or any similar words to those alleged by the Claimants;
Damages including aggravated and exemplary damages for defamation;
Interest thereon as the Court may deem fit;
Costs; and
Such further and/or other relief as the Honourable Court may deem just and expedient.
All defendants in the matter have 8 days to respond to the claim.
