Recently reviewed legal documents indicate a pattern of alleged unethical behavior on the part of “activist” investor Jason Aintabi. As Aintabi seeks to inject himself into activist disputes way above his past experience level such as with Disney Inc., fellow investors may question his capabilities and ethics in such a high-stakes endeavor.
Aintabi and his father, Elliot Aintabi, were given an opportunity to invest in a potentially lucrative business deal before they allegedly violated their legal agreement and cut out the man who had trusted them with what was at the time seemed to be a confidential matter.
In 2009, Fox News’ parent company was looking to sell off its Fox Mobile division, which had plans to develop a video streaming operation. Entertainment industry executive Aidan Foley was invited to make a bid on Fox Mobile, and he went to work trying to secure investors together.
According to the lawsuit Foley eventually filed against Jason and Elliot Aintabi, Foley offered the pair the opportunity to come in with him on the bid. Foley entered into non-circumvention agreements with all his potential investors, including the Aintabi’s.
In the case of the Aintabis, the agreement was made with Jesta Group. However, per the lawsuit, “on information and belief, ‘Jesta Group’ was not a legally-formed or legally-existing entity at the time the contract was entered into. … ‘Jesta Group’ is defined in the Non-Circumvention Agreement as including any ‘subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, or related entities’ of any of the parties to that agreement. As such, this includes Elliot Aintabi, Jason Aintabi, and Jesta Digital, the Defendants named herein.”
Foley claimed that over the course of a year, the Aintabis obtained the contacts and specifics necessary to make an independent bid for Fox Mobile without him.
“Defendants lied to Foley about making him CEO of the business while they schemed to buy Fox Mobile on their own. Defendants strung Plaintiffs along for months to buy time for them to collect the confidential information they needed — i.e., the due diligence, the business plan, and contacts — to close the deal without Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit reads.
Foley claimed that the Aintabi’s needled him for information about the deal, offering false representations that Foley claimed amounted to fraud.
“Defendants lied to Foley about their true intent for engaging Fox Mobile in direct talks. They told Foley that the ability to directly communicate with Fox Mobile would facilitate closing the acquisition of the company. In truth, Defendants wanted direct contact with Fox Mobile so they could purchase Fox Mobile on their own and without Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit reads.
Foley went on to claim that the Aintabis waited until the non-circumvention agreement expired before making their move, believing the father and son thought waiting until then would shield them legally from their alleged deception.
He sued them for breach of contract, promissory fraud, concealment, intentional misrepresentation, constructive fraud, and aiding and abetting fraud.
The disposition of the case could not immediately be discerned, but online court records in Los Angeles County, where the lawsuit was filed, indicate that the case was moved to federal court.
As previously reported by The Dallas Express, Aintabi has also seemingly demonstrated a pattern of retaliatory behavior, filing lawsuits against individuals for what appear to be minor issues. He has recently threatened litigation against The Dallas Express as well. He once sued a business associate for defamation after the man quipped that Aintabi and Jesta Group “don’t close.” He also once claimed his personal and professional reputation suffered after a hotel employee allegedly witnessed him consuming a shot of alcohol from a woman’s cleavage.
“His back was to me and I was walking with a large tray full of empty glasses and such and I couldn’t really look away from where I was going on. I think he may have been doing a shot from her cleavage. I dropped off my tray and went back out to the patio area and watched what was going on for a while, but did not see anything else like that,” read an email written by the employee. The email was allegedly sent to some of the employee’s colleagues.
Judges halted both defamation lawsuits. The former was dismissed, and the latter discontinued with prejudice.
