Lawyer says Wickline’s claim on UMDA stock is ‘astonishing’

The United Micronesia Development Association Inc. describes as “astonishing” the claim of its former president and chief executive officer David L. Wickline that, if granted, would make him by far the biggest shareholder of the company.

The dispute between UMDA and Wickline arose when the company sought to remove him as CEO, according to UMDA counsel Robert T. Torres.

Wickline is reportedly now based in Occidental, California.

In UMDA’s motion to dismiss Wickline’s claims for conversion and claims under the California Labor Code, Torres said Wickline suddenly claimed that he was entitled to, among other things, options to purchase 150,000 shares of UMDA stock.

Torres said it is an extraordinary amount reflecting ownership of approximately 25 percent of UMDA, which, if granted would make Wickline the biggest shareholder of the company.

Attorney Colin Thompson, counsel for Wickline, previously stated that his client is entitled to $5,437,500 worth of stock options for shares of stocks in UMDA, which the latter granted to him in October 2010.

Yet Wickline is unable to cite any corporate resolution or formal vote of the directors to support his claim that he had actually been granted such options, Torres said.

“In UMDA’s 40-year history, no officer or director had ever received anywhere near this number of options, even after many long and successful years of service—and yet, according to Wickline, he was granted the options after only a matter of months as an employee,” he said.

Torres said that when UMDA investigated Wickline’s claims, it discovered that they were not only meritless but the product of a fraudulent scheme involving numerous breaches of fiduciary duty and self-dealing transactions going back several years.

He said UMDA also discovered that Wickline had secretly abused his position with UMDA to undermine shareholder confidence in UMDA’s board, including meeting with certain shareholders in an attempt to convince them to bring a shareholders’ lawsuit against UMDA’s existing directors and/or to change UMDA’s board of directors to facilitate Wickline’s control over UMDA.

Torres said that UMDA filed its lawsuit against Wickline to protect its shareholders from dilution of their interests in the company, to recover substantial damages that UMDA discovered during the course of its investigation, and to stop Wickline from working behind the scenes to undermine shareholder confidence. That lawsuit is currently pending at the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

He said that on Jan. 13, 2014, some 24 hours after UMDA filed its original lawsuit, Wickline filed his original complaint against UMDA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Torres said all of the claims in Wickline’s original complaint seek to recover stock options, use of an airline travel pass, and wages that Wickline claims he is owed by UMDA.

The court later dismissed Wickline’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction and transferred it to the District Court for the NMI.

Torre said UMDA now seeks dismissal of two of Wickline’s claims for relief in his complaint: conversion-United Airlines Pass and violation of California Labor Code.

UMDA hired Wickline in October 2009 and named him president and CEO on Nov. 17, 2009. He reportedly resigned at UMDA’s request on July 27, 2012.

On Aug. 10, 2013, Wickline was designated as business development officer of UMDA, an unsalaried position that he occupied until the company terminated him on Jan. 13, 2014, according to Torres.

Wickline also served as a member of UMDA’s board of directors from late 2007 until Aug. 10, 2013.

UMDA board chair Jose Lifoifoi stated in a previous statement that the board was dissatisfied with Wickline’s performance as CEO so he was fired and the shareholders decided not to re-elect him to the board.