First Fidelity Bank vs Temanos.pdf

{00033336. }
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
FIRST FIDELITY BANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEMENOS U.S.A., INC. and TEMENOS
CLOUD AMERICAS, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. _____________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff First Fidelity Bank (“First Fidelity”), by and through undersigned counsel, files
this complaint against Defendants Temenos U.S.A., Inc. and Temenos Cloud Americas, LLC,
alleging as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff First Fidelity is a domestic bank organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Oklahoma with its principal place of business located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Temenos U.S.A., Inc. (“Temenos USA”)
is a business corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Delaware. Upon
information and belief, Temenos USA’s principal place of business is in Florida.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Temenos Cloud Americas, LLC
(“Temenos Americas,” and, collectively with Temenos USA, “Temenos”) is a limited liability
company organized and operating under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place
of business in Florida. Upon information and belief, none of the members of Temenos Americas
are residents of Oklahoma for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Among other reasons supporting
Case 1:22-cv-00685-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

{00033336. } 2
this belief, an internet search reveals that Temenos Americas is likely a direct or indirect subsidiary
of Temenos AG, a public company headquartered in Switzerland and traded on the Swiss stock
exchange.
4. Upon information and belief, there is complete diversity between the parties. First
Fidelity is treated as a resident of Oklahoma for diversity purposes. Upon information and belief,
Temenos USA is a resident of Delaware and Florida for diversity purposes. Upon information and
belief, Temenos Americas is not a resident of Oklahoma or treated as a resident of Oklahoma for
diversity purposes.
5. The amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and
costs.
6. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
7. Effective December 31, 2019 and as described in more detail below, First Fidelity
and Temenos entered into a Master Software and Services Agreement (the “MSA”) and a Hosting
Services Agreement (the “HSA” and, with the MSA, the “Agreements”). True copies of the MSA
and HSA are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.
8. Both the MSA and the HSA contain a choice of forum clause, providing that “all
disputes, claims, or causes of action arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought
exclusively in the federal or state courts for Wilmington, Delaware.” MSA ¶ 12.1; HSA ¶ 15(c).
9. Because of the choice of forum clauses, this Court has personal jurisdiction over
the parties and venue is proper in this Court by consent.

{00033336. } 3
I. Temenos represents to First Fidelity the capacities of its software modules and their
ability to integrate with First Fidelity’s core processing system.
10. First Fidelity operates on the Jack Henry SilverLake core processing system
(“SilverLake”). The core processing system is the backend system that processes the daily banking
transactions and posts updates to accounts and other financial records.
11. On March 13, 2019, First Fidelity issued a request for proposal (the “RFP”) seeking
offers to move First Fidelity to new loan origination and account origination platforms.
Considering that First Fidelity uses SilverLake for its core processing, the new loan origination
and account origination platforms had to integrate with SilverLake.
12. Temenos responded with, among other things, a draft project plan with a seven-
month timeline from a “kick off meeting” to “going live.” A true copy of Temenos’ response to
the RFP is attached as Exhibit C.
13. From Temenos’ response, First Fidelity was concerned about Temenos’ lack of
experience in integrating its modules with SilverLake.
14. At its onsite visit and to address First Fidelity’s concerns, the Temenos sales team
made a presentation to First Fidelity on or about November 21, 2019 (the “Presentation”). A true
copy of Temenos’ Presentation is attached as Exhibit D.
15. In the Presentation, Temenos’ sales team represented that Temenos had “4 new
Account Origination core interfaces built in the last 2 releases” and that Temenos had “[d]edicated
analysis, architects, and developers for build out.” Presentation at 35.
16. Temenos also represented its capabilities to First Fidelity regarding its “shorter
implementation duration,” “reduced implementation fees,” and “reduced risk in project delays due
to Temenos owning more.” Presentation at 3.

{00033336. } 4
17. Temenos concluded its presentation by stating that Temenos would integrate with
SilverLake by the end of “Q3 2020” in the “20.05 Release” if First Fidelity committed by “EOY
2019.” Presentation at 38.
18. Reasonably relying on Temenos’ representations, First Fidelity executed the MSA
and HSA on December 31, 2019.
19. Although the Agreements provide for a waiver of representations and warranties,
neither the MSA nor the HSA includes an anti-reliance provision. See MSA ¶ 7.4; HSA ¶ 7(g).
20. Both the MSA and the HSA provide that “[i]n the event of any litigation . . . the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in such
litigation.” MSA ¶ 12.1; HSA ¶ 15(d).
21. Simultaneous with the execution of the Agreements, First Fidelity executed certain
Statements of Work for “Core Processing Customer Integration,” “Loan Origination,” and
“Account Origination” (the “Integration SOW,” “Loan SOW,” and “Account SOW,” respectively,
and collectively, the “SOWs”). True copies of the Integration SOW, Loan SOW, and Account
SOW are attached as Exhibit E, Exhibit F, and Exhibit G, respectively.
22. In the Integration SOW, Temenos USA promised that it would “build the software
interface to the Jack Henry Silverlake Core.” Integration SOW ¶ 1(b).
23. Consistent with the Presentation, the Integration SOW also promised that the core
integration work would be included in the 20.05 update. Integration SOW ¶ 1(d).
24. In both the Loan SOW and Account SOW, Temenos USA agreed to “(i) develop a
[mutually agreed upon] project plan within twenty one (21) days” and “(ii) meet the target dates
set forth in the mutually agreed project plan.” Loan SOW ¶ 3; Account SOW ¶ 3.

{00033336. } 5
25. The Loan SOW and Account SOW both explicitly require—under the section titled
“Temenos Responsibilities”—that Temenos USA “provide[] status reports, hold[] status meetings,
and develop[] and manage[] the project plan and its associated tasks.” Loan SOW ¶ 1; Account
SOW ¶ 1.
26. The Loan SOW and the Account SOW both explicitly require—under the section
titled “Temenos Responsibilities”—that Temenos USA provide “configuration of the items
outlined in the implementation utility.” Loan SOW ¶ 1(e); Account SOW ¶ 1(e). The SOWs
continued that “prior to the first date on which [First Fidelity] uses the Software in a live production
environment, Temenos will perform configuration services with respect to all configurations
requested by [First Fidelity], including without limitation the configurations requested in the
implementation utility.” Loan SOW ¶ 1(e); Account SOW ¶ 1(e). The “implementation utility” is
a series of workbooks that define the flow of the software that Temenos was supposed to provide
under its contracts with First Fidelity.
27. Simultaneous with the execution of the Agreements, First Fidelity executed certain
Order Forms for the “Loan Origination Module” and the “Account Origination Module” (the
“Loan Order” and the “Account Order,” respectively, and collectively, the “Orders”). True copies
of the Loan Order and the Account Order are attached as Exhibit H and Exhibit I.
28. The Loan Order and the Account Order both explicitly require—under the
subsection entitled “Interfaces to Third Party Applications”—that Temenos USA provide for
“Core Interface [with] Silverlake.” Loan Order ¶ I; Account Order ¶ I.
29. Under the HSA, First Fidelity and Temenos Cloud agreed that the “Billing Term”
would not commence until the “[s]oftware has been deployed to the hosted environment.” HSA
¶ 4(b).

{00033336. } 6
30. Under the HSA, First Fidelity should not pay hosting fees unless Temenos’
software could interface with SilverLake.
31. Such core processing integration is essential for functional software. Without
integration with SilverLake, First Fidelity would not have any user data to host and therefore,
would have no reason to pay Temenos any fee for hosting.
32. During the sales cycle, Temenos represented that that the “go live” date for the
platform would be early 2021.
II. Temenos fails to integrate its software with First Fidelity’s core processing system and
otherwise fails to perform as promised under the Agreements, SOWs, and Orders.
33. In February 2020, Temenos proposed twenty (20) days to integrate with First
Fidelity’s core processing system, SilverLake. However, COVID delayed commencement of the
project.
34. Regardless and consistent with the SOWs and Orders, First Fidelity paid Temenos
$286,531.00 in various fees in March 2020.
35. Additionally and further consistent with the SOWs and Orders, the parties agreed
to conduct a pre-kickoff meeting on April 10, 2020.
36. During the April 10, 2020 pre-kickoff meeting, Temenos stated that the project
would not begin until October 2020 with an anticipated “go live” date of July 2021.
37. First Fidelity raised concerns over having to pay in advance for services that were
being delayed six months.
38. In May 2020, an officer of Temenos acknowledged that the payment schedule was
based on implementation in the first quarter of 2021. Subsequently, in June 2020, additional
officers of Temenos assured First Fidelity that the billing period would be changed. However,
Temenos did not complete the associated documentation for such change.

{00033336. } 7
39. Despite any real progress on Temenos’ deliverables and in expectation of
integration of Temenos’ software with SilverLake, First Fidelity continued to pay Temenos’ fees.
40. On September 24, 2020, the parties held a kick-off meeting and a project plan was
finalized in October 2020.
41. By the time the project plan was agreed upon in October 2020, First Fidelity had
paid Temenos $571,803.23 in project and “support” fees.
42. Yet, as of October 2020, Temenos had not completed construction of any processes
or software attributable to such “support.”
43. In December 2020, First Fidelity completed the implementation utilities (the flow
and rule spreadsheets) called for in the Account and Loan SOW that Temenos was supposed to
use to implement and configure the software in accordance with its responsibilities under the
SOWs. The implementation utilities are detailed spreadsheets. First Fidelity had to devote dozens
of hours of employee time to complete the same.
44. In January 2021, Temenos released version 20.05 of its software, but no integration
efforts with SilverLake began.
45. In February 2021, First Fidelity began expressing serious concerns about Temenos’
delays and lack of any perceived progress.
46. In response, Temenos conveyed their intent to commit the necessary resources to
initiate the build out in May 2021, in direct contravention with Temenos’ precontract
representations regarding “[d]edicated analysis, architects, and developers for build out.”
Presentation at 35.

{00033336. } 8
47. In March 2021, Temenos unilaterally set forth a new project plan—pushing the “go
live” date to October 2021 (the “March 2021 Plan”). A true copy of the March 2021 Plan is
attached as Exhibit J.
48. This March 2021 project plan continued to state that Temenos would be able to
integrate with SilverLake within twenty (20) days of work. March 2021 Plan at 2.
49. In July 2021, Temenos granted First Fidelity access to the system. Temenos had
not completed any substantial work. In particular, and contrary to the terms of the Account SOW
and Loan SOW, Temenos had not configured the software based on the implementation utility
worksheets that First Fidelity provided seven months prior thereto in December 2021. Indeed,
Temenos had not even looked at the First Fidelity implementation utility worksheets.
50. Shortly thereafter, First Fidelity reminded Temenos of its obligations under the
SOWs to configure the software. Temenos originally refused, claiming that configuration was not
its responsibility. Temenos then acknowledged its obligations, but it still did not do the work.
51. Fed up with Temenos’s excuses and delays in breach of the SOWs, First Fidelity
directed its own employee, Taylor Nichols, to configure and buildout the software, starting with
an end-to-end process for direct auto loans. Ms. Nichols then tested the results and configured the
deposit account software. In total, Ms. Nichols devoted over 800 hours to this project.
52. Including Ms. Nichols’ time, First Fidelity employees devoted 2,120.33 hours to
the project. All of that time is a complete loss. At the employees’ hourly rate of pay, that equates
to $124,464.00 in wasted bank resources.
53. Also during the second half of 2021 (and reasonably believing that Temenos would
honor its obligations and complete the project), First Fidelity entered into numerous contracts with
third party vendors, such as OakTree, Experian, and others, that were necessary to provide

{00033336. } 9
functionality to the Temenos software. In total, First Fidelity paid, or is obligated to pay,
$163,021.14 in amounts owed to third-party providers for services that First Fidelity can only use
with functional Temenos software.
54. The project has been a failure for two reasons. As explained above, Temenos would
not and did not devote sufficient resources (or for large periods of time, any resources) to the
project.
55. Second, and perhaps as a result of the lack of Temenos resources devoted to the
project, Temenos was unable to integrate its software with SilverLake.
56. Temenos began its efforts to integrate with SilverLake in mid-2021. However, such
efforts failed; version 20.05 of its software could not connect with SilverLake.
57. When First Fidelity became aware of this issue in July 2021, Temenos unilaterally
delayed the “go live” date to December 2021.
58. In September 2021, Temenos released version 21.0 of its software, claiming that
version 21.0 would integrate with SilverLake. However, this effort failed as well; version 21.0 of
its software could not connect with SilverLake.
59. In October 2021, Temenos informed First Fidelity that the project would not “go
live” in December as promised.
60. By November 2021, Temenos admitted that its pre-contract representations as to
“[d]edicated analysis, architects, and developers for build out” were false.
61. Rather, Temenos stated that it needed to pause the project until January 2022 and
then “pick back up with a full team.”
62. Temenos acknowledged that “they had made some poor decisions,” and that they
did not have sufficient resources to meet the needs of their customers in the pipeline.

{00033336. } 10
63. Temenos also acknowledged that they had missed all of their applicable deadlines
with First Fidelity and that First Fidelity “needed to be made financially whole.”
64. On or about December 3, 2021, First Fidelity wrote Temenos regarding its breaches
(the “Demand Letter”). A true copy of the Demand Letter is attached as Exhibit K.
65. In its Demand Letter, First Fidelity reiterated its request for a definitive project
timeline and a proposal to compensate First Fidelity for the $900,000 expended on the project
without any results.
66. By email, Temenos responded to the Demand Letter proposing $172,454 in credit
in addition to extensions to certain project deadlines.
67. On or about December 21, 2021, First Fidelity noticed Temenos of its rejection of
this offer (the “Notice Letter”). A true copy of the Notice Letter is attached as Exhibit L.
68. In its Notice Letter, First Fidelity advised Temenos of an additional $194,864 First
Fidelity had to pay as an extension with its current service provider due to Temenos’ failures and
delays.
69. Subsequently, Temenos proposed a new project plan with another full year before
full implementation.
70. On or about February 25, 2022 and by and through counsel, First Fidelity rejected
this offer and advised Temenos of its termination of the MSA and HSA due to Temenos’ material
breaches (the “Termination Letter”). A true copy of the Termination Letter is attached as
Exhibit M.
71. In its Termination Letter, First Fidelity required immediate payment of nine-
hundred thirty-three thousand and forty dollars and 44/100 ($933,040.44), representing an estimate
of the amount First Fidelity paid Temenos directly, plus consequential damages.

{00033336. } 11
72. The Termination Letter further notified Temenos that absent payment on or before
March 14, 2022, First Fidelity intended to seek legal and equitable relief, including treble damages
and attorneys’ fees.
73. As of the filing of this Complaint, no payment has been made.
74. Through various agreements with Temenos, Temenos agreed to extend all
contractual limitations period to seek damages to and including May 31, 2022.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST TEMENOS USA
75. First Fidelity repeats, realleges, and hereby incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 74 as if fully set forth herein.
76. Each of the Integration SOW, the Loan SOW, and the Account SOW incorporates
and “supplements” the MSA.
77. The Integration SOW, the Loan SOW, the Account SOW and the MSA are valid
and enforceable contracts entered into between Temenos USA and First Fidelity.
78. Under the MSA as supplemented by the Integration SOW, Temenos USA promised
that the 20.05 version of its software would interface with SilverLake.
79. Under the MSA as supplemented by the Loan and Account SOWs, Temenos USA
promised that a mutually agreed upon project plan would be developed within three weeks and
that such target dates would be met.
also promised regular reports and meetings with ongoing development and management by
Temenos.
promised that it would configure the items set forth in the implementation utilities.

{00033336. } 12
82. First Fidelity fully performed its obligations under the MSA as supplemented by
the SOWs.
83. Temenos USA breached the MSA as supplemented by the SOWs by failing to
(a) integrate its software with SilverLake, (b) develop mutually agreed upon project plans,
(c) adhere to target dates, (d) provide regular reports and meetings with ongoing development and
management, and (e) configure the items set forth in the implementation utilities.
84. As a direct and proximate result of Temenos USA’s breaches of the MSA as
supplemented by SOWs, First Fidelity suffered all damages described above.
85. However, Section 9.2 of the MSA limits First Fidelity’s contractual damages to
only those payments made to Temenos USA under the MSA as supplemented by the SOWs. First
Fidelity paid Temenos USA $634,522.00 under the MSA as supplemented by the SOWs, all of
which is recoverable under the contracts.
86. As a direct and proximate result of Temenos USA’s breaches of contract, First
Fidelity suffered the damages described above and is entitled to judgment in the principal amount
of $634,522.00, plus interest as allowed by law and costs.
87. Additionally, the MSA allow attorney’s fees to be awarded to the prevailing party.
To that end, First Fidelity is entitled to an award of attorneys with its judgment for breach of
contract.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST TEMENOS
AMERICAS
89. Under the HSA, Temenos Americas promised that its Hosting Services would cover
three environments: (i) production; (ii) disaster recovery; and (iii) test.

{00033336. } 13
90. The parties’ clear intent was for the Temonos software to integrate with SilverLake.
Without integration to SilverLake, there would be no production software and no useable software
for Temenos Americas to host.
91. In fact, due to the failure to integrate with SilverLake, Temenos Americas failed to
host any software in a production environment and thus breached the HSA.
92. Additionally, Temenos Americas breached the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing by charging First Fidelity hosting fees for software that would never be usable by First
Fidelity.
93. First Fidelity fully performed its obligations under the HSA.
94. Temenos Americas breached the HSA and the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, by billing First Fidelity without first deploying any software that was capable of reaching
a production environment or providing any functionality to First Fidelity.
95. As a direct and proximate result of Temenos Americas’ breaches of the HSA, First
Fidelity suffered all damages described above. However, Section 9(a) of the HSA limits
recoverable damages to only those payments First Fidelity made to Temenos Americas. First
Fidelity paid Temenos Americas $103,654.44 under the HSA.
96. As a direct and proximate result of Temenos Americas’ breaches of contract, First
Fidelity suffered the damages described above and is entitled to judgment in the principal amount
of $103,654.44, plus interest as allowed by law and costs.
97. Additionally, the HSA allow attorney’s fees to be awarded to the prevailing party.
To that end, First Fidelity is entitled to an award of attorneys with its judgment for breach of
contract.

{00033336. } 14
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: FRAUD
99. In making representations to First Fidelity, opposing representatives did not
distinguish as to whether he/she was a representative of Temenos USA or Tememos Americas.
Rather, opposing representatives identified themselves as representatives of “Temenos.” To that
end, First Fidelity brings its fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Temenos
collectively because the representatives held themselves out as representatives of both companies.
100. In response to First Fidelity’s request for proposal, Temenos responded with a
project plan setting forth a seven-month timeline from a “kick off meeting” to “going live.” During
the sales process, Temenos also presented its capabilities as “shorter implementation duration”,
“reduced implementation fees,” and “reduced risk in project delays due to Temenos owning more.”
As to the SilverLake integration, Temenos represented in November 2019 it had “dedicated
analysis, architects, and developers for build out” such that it could complete integration with
SilverLake by the end of “Q3 2020” in the “20.05 Release” if First Fidelity committed by “EOY
2019.” Collectively, these misrepresentations as discussed in further detail above are referred to
as the “Representations.”
101. Upon information and belief, the Representations were false.
102. Temenos knew or should have known that the Representations were false, or
Temenos made the Representations with reckless indifference to the truth.
103. Temenos intended to induce First Fidelity to hire Temenos with the
Representations.

{00033336. } 15
104. First Fidelity justifiably relied on the Representations by, among other acts,
executing the Agreements, SOWs, and Orders, paying Temenos, dedicating its own staff and
resources to provide thousands of hours to the project, and paying third-parties for connectors to
support the Temenos software.
105. First Fidelity suffered damages as a result of Temenos’s fraud over and above the
damages recoverable for breach of contract. Specifically, under the contracts, First Fidelity can
only recover $738,176.44 it paid to Temenos. The contracts further limit First Fidelity’s right to
recover consequential damages.
106. First Fidelity’s consequential damages have been substantial.
107. Specifically, First Fidelity suffered the following consequential damages over and
above what is recoverable under the contracts:
a. First Fidelity employees devoted 2,120.33 hours to the project. All of that
time is a complete loss. At the employees’ hourly rate of pay, that equates to $124,464.00 in wasted
bank resources.
b. First Fidelity paid, or is obligated to pay, $163,021.14 in amounts owed to
third-party providers for services that First Fidelity can only use with functional Temenos
software.
c. First Fidelity had to pay $194,864 in extension fees with current service
providers due to Temenos’ failures and delays.
108. As a direct and proximate result of Temenos’ Representations, First Fidelity
suffered the damages described above and is entitled to judgment in an amount to be proven at
trial.

{00033336. } 16
109. First Fidelity further seeks punitive damages for Temenos’ fraudulent
Representations under Delaware and Oklahoma law.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF IN THE ALTERNATIVE:
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
111. Temenos owed First Fidelity a pecuniary duty to provide accurate information
about its abilities and capacities.
112. Temenos owed this pecuniary duty because Temenos provided First Fidelity with
business information while Temenos intended to influence First Fidelity’s business decisions
under circumstances where Temenos reasonable should have expected First Fidelity to rely on the
business information.
113. As explained above, Temenos represented its ability and capacity to (a) integrate
its software with SilverLake, (b) develop mutually agreed upon project plans, (c) adhere to target
dates, (d) provide regular reports and meetings with ongoing development and management; and
(e) withhold from billing First Fidelity until after Temenos’ software was deployed (the
“Representations”).
114. Upon information and belief, the Representations were false.
115. Temenos intended to induce First Fidelity to hire Temenos with the
Representations.
116. First Fidelity justifiably relied on the Representations by, among other acts,
executing the Agreements, SOWs, and Orders, and by paying Temenos, dedicating its own staff
and resources to provide thousands of hours to the project, and paying third-parties for connectors
to support the Temenos software.

{00033336. } 17
117. First Fidelity suffered damages as a result of Temenos’s negligent
misrepresentations, over and above the damages recoverable for breach of contract. Specifically,
the contracts limit First Fidelity’s right to recover consequential damages. First Fidelity’s
consequential damages have been substantial.
118. Specifically, First Fidelity suffered the following consequential damages over and
above what is recoverable under the contracts:
a. First Fidelity employees devoted 2,120.33 hours to the project. All of that
time is a complete loss. At the employees’ hourly rate of pay, that equates to $124,464.00 in wasted
bank resources.
b. First Fidelity paid, or is obligated to pay, $163,021.14 in amounts owed to
third-party providers for services that First Fidelity can only use with functional Temenos
software.
c. First Fidelity had to pay $194,864 in extension fees with current service
providers due to Temenos’ failures and delays.
119. As a direct and proximate result of Temenos’ Representations, First Fidelity
suffered the damages described above and is entitled to judgment in an amount to be proven at
trial.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: RESCISSION
121. Temenos fraudulently used the Representations to induce the formation and
execution of the Agreements, SOWs, and Orders with and by First Fidelity.

{00033336. } 18
122. As a direct and proximate result of Temenos’ Representations and before Temenos’
fraud had been established, First Fidelity suffered the damages described above in an amount to
be proven at trial.
123. Consequently, the Agreements, SOWs, and Orders should be rescinded and held
invalid, and First Fidelity restored to its original condition.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

{00033336. } 19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff First Fidelity respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Enter a judgment against Temenos on each and every of the aforementioned causes
of action and award First Fidelity actual, consequential, incidental, and punitive damages;
2. Enter a judgment declaring that the Agreements, SOWs, and Orders have been
terminated and that First Fidelity owes no further obligations to Temenos;
3. Enter an award against Temenos for prejudgment and post judgment interest at the
highest rate permitted by law as well as costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Agreements, and
other applicable law; and
4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: May 26, 2022
Wilmington, Delaware THE ROSNER LAW GROUP LLC
/s/ Scott J. Leonhardt
Scott J. Leonhardt (DE No. 4885)
Jason A. Gibson (DE No. 6091)
824 N. Market St., Suite 810
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Tel.: (302) 777-1111
Email: leonhardt@teamrosner.com
gibson@teamrosner.com
and
BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON,
HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP
Clint S. Morse (Pro hac vice forthcoming)
Jamey M. Lowdermilk (Pro hac vice forthcoming)
PO Box 26000
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
Tel.: (336) 271-3167
Email: cmorse@brookspierce.com
jlowdermilk@brookspierce.com
Counsel for First Fidelity Bank

First Fidelity Bank vs Temanos.pdf

More Related Content

First Fidelity Bank vs Temanos.pdf