Casper Benteler Using Legal Technicalities to Evade Justice in $30 million Beep Dispute

As the legal dispute between Beep and Benteler family princeling Casper Benteler escalates, Benteler's companies are using legal technicalities in Liechtenstein in an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out - despite Beep acting in line with the Guarantee Agreement that Benteler previously signed.

The current flashpoint is part of a New York lawsuit that American autonomous vehicle software company Beep has brought against two companies controlled by Casper Benteler, Benteler Trading International AG and CAB Holding GmbH. Beep claims that Benteler took a $30 million investment to set up an autonomous vehicle manufacturing program in the U.S. and then failed to honour core contractual obligations and a written guarantee.

According to Beep, Benteler missed key manufacturing and timing commitments, pursued U.S. deals with competitors such as Lyft independently, and refused to repay the $30 million despite a guarantee to do so if Benteler's side did not meet certain contractual obligations.

But before that can be hashed out in court, CAB Holding GmbH's lawyers are trying to get the entire case thrown out over the mechanics of serving the lawsuit in Liechtenstein. In the Guarantee Agreement that CAB signed with Beep, CAB accepted New York jurisdiction, "irrevocably" waived personal service, and agreed they could be served in U.S. proceedings "by any means permitted by applicable laws", including mailing to its Liechtenstein address and sending notices to a specified email.

In line with that Guarantee Agreement, Beep sent the summons and complaint to CAB Holding's Liechtenstein address and emailed the same documents to the agreed email account - but CAB is now denying that this service was legitimate.

CAB does not dispute receiving the documents but has nevertheless moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process by claiming that in Liechtenstein, service of court documents is a sovereign act that only Liechtenstein authorities may perform - regardless of the text of the guarantee they signed or whether they actually received the documents or not.

CAB's legal claims are at odds with the views of Liechtenstein legal expert Dr. Josef Bergt, who has said that Liechtenstein law "does not purport to criminalize or nullify private contractual notice between litigants in foreign proceedings." At least two U.S. courts examining the same Liechtenstein provisions have found no express prohibition on mail service to Liechtenstein defendants. And those cases did not include an agreement to be served by mail, which CAB explicitly provided in its Guarantee.

Experts have raised concerns that this could hurt Liechtenstein's international reputation, if US companies grow concerned it is no longer a place where they can trust the enforcement of contracts with companies registered there – raising concerns that businesses could withdraw from the jurisdiction.

Beep is now pushing the New York court to recognise that CAB's claim that only a Liechtenstein court or ministry may hand a Liechtenstein company a U.S. summons is simply an attempt to evade justice. They claim it is part of a broader effort by Casper Benteler-affiliated entities to delay and complicate enforcement so that Beep's claims never get a full hearing on the facts - or see their $30 million investment returned.

Benteler's aggressive legal tactics may serve for short-term delay, but in the longer-term they may do more harm than good if they raise concerns by other companies such as Lyft entering into legal contracts with him about his reliability as a business partner.