A credit card company has filed a judicial counter-protest to address a marketing company's claims that it cost it over €1.5 million in lost revenue through the failure to honour an agreement between the two, insisting that it was the other company which could not honour the agreement.
In its counter-protest, Insignia Cards Ltd said that on the contrary, it was Yes Media Ltd which caused it substantial damages by signing up to commitments that it was in no position to fulfil.
Yes Media had filed a judicial protest against Insignia Cards earlier this week, holding it responsible for loss of revenue resulting from a breach of contract.
The two companies had signed a co-branding agreement through which the former was allowing Insignia to use the word "Yes" on its Visa credit cards. In return, Yes Media obliged itself to embark on an aggressive media campaign to encourage people to subscribe to these credit cards and to encourage businesses to participate in a Yes Rewards Scheme.
However, Yes Media argued that Insignia had failed to honour obligations, noting that it was informed by one of the Insignia directors that the contract would be dropped. It said that Insignia jumped the gun by dropping the contract unilaterally without prior discussion, and said that this was done with ulterior motives in mind.
But in its counter-protest, which was signed by lawyer John Refalo, Insignia said that the agreement had effectively been abandoned and rendered null by Yes Media itself, as the company "did absolutely nothing it had committed itself to do in the contract." It said that the agreement itself provided for its automatic dissolution under certain circumstances, which were met in this case.
The agreement in question, Insignia said, was a master services agreement which was concluded with a company named Lighthouse Communications Ltd, which is part of the Lighthouse Group of Companies. Yes Media itself was wholly owned by Roderick Muscat Monsigneur, who has a 75% stake in the Lighthouse Group of Companies
Furthermore, it added, Yes Media was found to lack the operative, technical and financial means to honour the contract, stating that it had not been evident until months after the agreement was reached that the company was not up to standard.
It said that Mr Muscat Monsigneur could never have done what his company agreed to do, and also insisted that it acted in good faith to ensure that the agreement was a success.
Insignia dismissed claims that Yes Media suffered the damages it claimed, and in any case said that it could not be held responsible.
But it insisted that Yes Media and Mr Muscat Monsigneur were responsible for considerable damages that it had suffered, adding that it was ready to institute legal proceedings to receive the compensation it was due.
Insignia also said that it was prepared to sue Yes Media and its owner for defamation.