Below an excerpt from the lawsuit against Andrew Chung of 1955 Capital, who got sued for breach of fiduciary duty in scheme to steal $80 million from Global Industrial Investment Limited.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT LIMITED,
ANDREW CHUNG, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Get Our Activist Investing Case Study!
Get the entire 10-part series on our in-depth study on activist investing in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or print it out to read anywhere! Sign up below!
Q3 2019 hedge fund letters, conferences and more
CASE NO. 19CV358712
COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, (2) AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND (3) TORT OF ANOTHER
Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiff Global Industrial Investment Limited (“GIIL”) hereby complains against defendants Andrew Chung (“Chung”) and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”), upon personal knowledge as to itself and its own acts and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
1. This is an action based upon Andrew Chung’s having breached fiduciary duties to GIIL and/or aided and abetted several non-party general partnership fiduciaries of GIIL in breaching fiduciary duties owed by those fiduciaries to GIIL. GIIL brings this action to put an end to Chung’s and the fiduciaries’ scheme to rob GIIL of its $80 million investment and to hold Chung accountable for his wrongdoing.
2. Plaintiff GIIL is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong, with a principal place of business at Heng Shan Centre, 5/F, 145 Queen’s Road East, Wanchai, Hong Kong.
3. GIIL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of non-party China Fortune Land Development Co., Ltd. (“CFLD”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China. CFLD is a large, publicly-traded real estate development company listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. It is a leading developer and operator of industrial parks and mixeduse planned communities in Mainland China.
4. Defendant Andrew Chung is a resident and citizen of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Chung is a former partner and/or former principal of two venture capital firms, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Khosla Ventures. Chung’s departure from Khosla Ventures was publicly announced in January 2016.
5. Non-party 1955 Capital China Fund GP LLC (“China Fund GP”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and a general partner of a Delaware partnership, 1955 Capital China Fund LP (“China Fund”).
6. Non-party 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC (“Fund I GP”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and a general partner of a Delaware partnership, 1955 Capital Fund I LP (“Fund I”).
7. Defendants Does 1 through 10 are as-yet unknown companies, entities, and/or individuals who are affiliated or associated with Andrew Chung and who are legally responsible for GIIL’s losses. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, of Does 1 through 10 are unknown to GIIL at the present time, and these defendants are therefore sued by such fictitious names. GIIL will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara pursuant to Section 410.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure because such Court has general subject matter jurisdiction and no statutory exceptions to such jurisdiction exist. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court.
9. Venue is proper in the County of Santa Clara pursuant to Section 395 of the California Code of Civil Procedure because Defendants are residents of Santa Clara County and transactions, activities, and misconduct giving rise to this action occurred in Santa Clara County.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Partnerships
10. In or around late October 2015, two Delaware partnerships, China Fund and Fund I (collectively, the “Funds”), were formed by certain limited partnership agreements (the “Partnership Agreements”), with China Fund GP and Fund I GP (collectively, the “GPs”) as general partners.
11. At all times relevant to this Action, China Fund GP was the general partner of China Fund and Fund I GP was the general partner of Fund I.
12. At all times relevant to this Action, Chung was the sole managing member of China Fund GP and Fund I GP.
See the full lawsuit below.