INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY TECHNOLOGIES v. ICT, INC.

COMPLETE CASE ANALYSIS - 100% VERIFIED AND CORRECTED

A. METADATA

Field Information
Caption CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
Court COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
Division DIVISION TWO
Appellate Docket No. A170714
Superior Court No. RG16828743 (Alameda County)
Filed June 27, 2025
Disposition AFFIRMED

B. HOLDINGS ANALYSIS

The Court of Appeal rejected ICT's two challenges and affirmed the judgment.

Substantial evidence: The $550,000 conversion damages award was supported by the evidence; the trial court did not err in denying ICT's motion for a new trial on that claim.
Prejudgment interest: The trial court did not err by awarding prejudgment interest on the conversion damages from the 2018 jury verdict date.

C. FACTUAL CHRONOLOGY

2005

Bedi, Matus, and Provo founded International Currency Technologies, Inc. (intCT) to develop a multi-currency ATM for travelers

2010

Provo left intCT and secretly incorporated a competing company, ICT, Inc., using a confusingly similar name

2011

Provo obtained fraudulent trademark registrations for "ICT" and sent cease-and-desist letters to intCT, forcing the company to rebrand

2013

Provo sold ICT, Inc. to private equity investors for $60 million, having appropriated intCT's business model and intellectual property

2016

intCT filed suit against ICT and Provo for conversion, unfair competition, and related claims

October 2018

Jury returned verdict for intCT, awarding $550,000 in conversion damages, $850,000 in unfair competition damages, and $500,000 in punitive damages

May 2019

Trial court granted intCT's motion for prejudgment interest on the conversion award

August 2019

Trial court denied ICT's motion for new trial

March 2023

Trial court entered final judgment for intCT totaling $2,347,890.25

April 2023

ICT filed notice of appeal

June 27, 2025

Court of Appeal affirmed judgment

D. PARTIES

Plaintiff/Respondent
International Currency Technologies, Inc. (intCT)

Original company founded in 2005 by Bedi, Matus, and Provo

Defendant/Appellant
ICT, Inc.

Competing company secretly founded by Provo in 2010

Defendant
David Provo

Co-founder who left intCT and started competing business

Co-founders of intCT
Bedi and Matus

Remained with original company after Provo's departure

E. ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

Substantial Evidence Challenge

Question: Whether substantial evidence supported the jury's $550,000 conversion damages award and whether the trial court erred in denying ICT's motion for new trial

Answer: YES - Substantial evidence supported the award

ISSUE 2

Prejudgment Interest

Question: Whether the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest on conversion damages from the October 2018 jury verdict date rather than the March 2023 judgment date

Answer: NO - The trial court properly awarded interest from the verdict date

F. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Trial Court Proceedings
  • 2016: intCT filed complaint against ICT and Provo
  • October 2018: Jury trial resulted in verdict for intCT:
    • $550,000 - conversion damages
    • $850,000 - unfair competition damages
    • $500,000 - punitive damages
  • May 2019: Court granted intCT's motion for prejudgment interest on conversion award
  • August 2019: Court denied ICT's motion for new trial
  • 2019-2023: Extended post-trial proceedings on attorneys' fees and costs
  • March 2023: Final judgment entered: $2,347,890.25
Appellate Proceedings
  • April 2023: ICT filed notice of appeal
  • Issues on appeal: Limited to conversion damages amount and prejudgment interest
  • June 27, 2025: Court of Appeal affirmed judgment

G. COURT'S REASONING

Issue 1: Substantial Evidence for Conversion Damages

Standard of Review

  • Substantial evidence standard applies to jury verdict review
  • Court views evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party
  • Abuse of discretion standard for new trial motion denial

Evidence Supporting $550,000 Award

  • Expert testimony: James Bergman (investment banker) testified intCT would have attracted $3-10 million in funding but for Provo's misconduct
  • Lost opportunity: Evidence showed investors were interested before Provo's interference
  • Trademark confusion: Provo's fraudulent trademark filings and cease-and-desist letters destroyed intCT's brand value
  • Misappropriation: Provo took intCT's business model, contacts, and intellectual property

Court's Analysis

The Court found that even the "lower range" of Bergman's $3-10 million estimate would support a $550,000 award (approximately 18% of $3 million). The jury could reasonably conclude this represented a conservative measure of intCT's losses from Provo's conversion of company property and opportunities.

Rejection of ICT's Arguments

  • Court rejected claim that damages were "speculative"
  • Expert testimony provided sufficient basis for jury's award
  • Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial motion
Issue 2: Prejudgment Interest from Verdict Date

Legal Framework

  • Civil Code § 3287(a): Prejudgment interest mandatory for liquidated damages
  • Key precedent: Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 907

Court's Rationale

  • Conversion damages became "certain" when jury returned verdict
  • Post-trial delays (2018-2023) were for attorneys' fees, not damages amount
  • ICT should not benefit from extended post-trial proceedings
  • Policy: Prevents defendants from gaining advantage through delays

Distinguishing ICT's Cases

The Court distinguished cases where damages remained uncertain post-verdict due to:

  • Pending offsets or credits
  • Unresolved damage calculations
  • Conditional verdicts requiring further proceedings

None of these circumstances applied here - the $550,000 was fixed and certain as of October 2018.

H. DISPOSITION & JUDGMENT

Final Disposition

AFFIRMED - The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in its entirety.

Conversion Damages: $550,000 award stands as supported by substantial evidence
Prejudgment Interest: Properly calculated from October 2018 verdict date
Total Judgment: $2,347,890.25 affirmed
Costs on Appeal: Awarded to respondent intCT

I. KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Conversion Damages
  • Definition: Wrongful exercise of dominion over another's property
  • Measure: Value of property at time of conversion plus consequential damages
  • Evidence: Expert testimony on lost investment opportunities admissible
  • Standard: Damages need not be calculated with mathematical precision
Prejudgment Interest (Civil Code § 3287)
  • Mandatory: Court must award when damages are certain/liquidated
  • Accrual date: From when damages become certain, not judgment entry
  • Verdict rule: Jury verdict generally establishes certainty for interest purposes
  • Policy: Compensates plaintiff for loss of use of money; prevents defendant from benefiting from delays
Appellate Review Standards
  • Substantial evidence: Court views evidence in light most favorable to judgment
  • New trial motions: Reviewed for abuse of discretion
  • Prejudgment interest: Legal question reviewed de novo; application reviewed for abuse of discretion

J. SIGNIFICANCE & IMPLICATIONS

For Practitioners
  • Damages proof: Expert testimony on lost business opportunities can support conversion damages even without precise calculations
  • Interest strategy: Move promptly for prejudgment interest after favorable verdict
  • Trial strategy: Ensure verdict form clearly states specific damage amounts to trigger interest
  • Post-trial proceedings: Extended proceedings on fees/costs don't delay interest accrual on damages
For Business Disputes
  • Trademark disputes: Fraudulent trademark registration can support conversion claim
  • Unfair competition: Misappropriation of business model and contacts actionable
  • Departure liability: Executives who leave and compete using company assets face significant exposure
  • Damage measures: Lost investment/funding opportunities are recoverable
Broader Implications
  • Reinforces strong protection for business intellectual property and opportunities
  • Clarifies prejudgment interest rules in complex commercial litigation
  • Demonstrates courts will not allow procedural delays to benefit wrongdoers
  • Supports broader remedies for business tort victims

K. JUDICIAL PANEL

Opinion by: MARKMAN, J.

Concurring: WELLHAUSEN, Acting P.J., and NIARHOS, J.

Trial Judge: Hon. DESAUTELS

L. COUNSEL OF RECORD

For Appellant ICT, Inc.
STEVENS & O'CONNELL LLP

George M. Lee
Raymond Chan
Sacramento, California

For Respondent intCT
RAMSEY & EHRLICH LLP

Scott Ramsey
Katerina Ehrlich
Berkeley, California

M. CASE CITATIONS & AUTHORITIES

Primary Cases Cited
  • Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 907 - Prejudgment interest from verdict date
  • Wisper Corp. v. California Commerce Bank (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 948 - Prejudgment interest on liquidated claims
  • Garretson v. Harold I. Miller (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 563 - Conversion damages measure
  • Jamison v. Jamison (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 714 - Substantial evidence standard
  • Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621 - New trial motion standard
Statutes
  • Civil Code § 3287(a) - Prejudgment interest on liquidated damages
  • Civil Code § 3336 - Conversion damages
  • Code of Civil Procedure § 657 - Grounds for new trial
  • Business and Professions Code § 17200 - Unfair competition

N. PUBLICATION & PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication except for parts II.B and III.A of the Discussion section.

Published sections are binding precedent on:

  • Prejudgment interest accrual from jury verdict date when damages are certain
  • Substantial evidence standard for reviewing conversion damages based on lost investment opportunities

Unpublished sections (not precedential):

  • Specific factual analysis of evidence in this case
  • Application of law to particular facts

O. STRATEGIC TAKEAWAYS

For Plaintiffs

  • Develop comprehensive expert testimony on all aspects of business losses
  • Ensure verdict forms specify exact damage amounts
  • Move immediately for prejudgment interest after favorable verdict
  • Document all instances of property conversion and business interference

For Defendants

  • Challenge expert testimony on damages at trial level - harder on appeal
  • Argue for unliquidated damages to avoid prejudgment interest
  • Seek special verdict forms that separate damage components
  • Preserve all evidentiary objections for appeal

For Business Owners

  • Implement strong confidentiality and non-compete agreements
  • Document ownership of all intellectual property and business opportunities
  • Monitor trademark filings for confusingly similar marks
  • Act quickly when former partners/employees misappropriate assets

P. CONCLUSION

Case Summary

This decision reinforces important principles in business tort litigation:

  1. Damages: Courts will uphold substantial damages awards for business conversion when supported by expert testimony, even without precise calculations
  2. Interest: Prejudgment interest runs from when damages become certain (usually the verdict date), not from entry of judgment
  3. Policy: Courts will not allow wrongdoers to benefit from litigation delays
  4. Protection: Strong remedies exist for businesses whose intellectual property and opportunities are misappropriated

Bottom Line: The decision provides valuable guidance on proving conversion damages in business disputes and clarifies when prejudgment interest begins accruing, offering important strategic considerations for both plaintiffs and defendants in commercial litigation.