Card company replies to Yes Media Ltd's allegations

In the original protest, which was filed earlier this week by lawyers Charlon Gouder and Joseph Gerada, Yes Media Limited claimed that Insignia Cards Limited had not fulfilled its contractual obligations vis-a-vis a 2013 co-branding agreement on Visa credit cards.

The plaintiff had said that it had allowed Insignia to use the word “Yes” on its Visa cards, whilst Insignia would market the cards heavily to encourage their use, as well as binding it to generate interest amongst businesses in the Yes Reward Scheme. But, it alleged, Insignia failed to keep its side of the bargain, adding that none of the agreed promotion happened leading to the company suffering losses in excess of €1.5 million.

But in today’s counter protest, Insignia Cards forcefully rebutted all of the allegations. Contrary to what had been alleged, said the company, Yes Media had abandoned the contract, performing “absolutely nothing of its established duties.”In addition, an automatic termination clause had been triggered by the particular circumstances of the case, said the defendant company.

The protest goes on to inform the court that the contract is part of a series of contracts under a master services agreement between the two companies. Yes Media belongs entirely to Roderick Muscat Monsingeur, who also owns 75% of Lighthouse Group of companies.

It alleges that the plaintiff company did not fulfil its contractual obligations because it lacked the operational, technical and financial means to do so and not because of a shortcoming by the defendant.

These weaknesses had not been evident when the contract was signed, but after a few months, “Yes Media turned out to be a company without substance.”

Far from having caused millions of euros worth of damages to Yes Media, said the defendant, the misrepresentation by Muscat Monsigneur had led Insignia to suffer losses.

Lawyer John Refalo signed the counter protest.