Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:44:51 EST
From: Chris Jenks <infinity@sj.bigger.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ibogaine@ibogaine.org>
Subject: Mash+UM vs. Lotsof+NDA


United States District Court
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA

DEBORAH MASH
V.
NDA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

CASE NUMBER: 96-3712
CIV-MORENO

TO: (Name and address of defendant)
NDA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
a dissolved New York corporation
c/o Department of State, State of New York
41 State Street, Second Floor
Albany, New York 12231

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY
(name and address)
JOSEPH S. GELLER
GELLER, GELLER & GARFINKEL
1815 GRIFFIN ROAD
SUITE 403
DANIA, FL 33004

In answer to the amended complaint which is herewith served upon you,
within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be
taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You must also
file your answer with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of
time after service.

CLERK  Carlos Juenke
DATE  APR 29 1997
(BY) DEPUTY CLERK  Joseph Pinkelo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 96-3712-CIV-MORENO

Magistrate: Johnson

DEBORAH MASH,
Plaintiff,

vs.

NDA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a New York corporation, and
HOWARD S. LOTSOF,

Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

  Plaintiff, DEBORAH MASH ("MASH"), sues the Defendants, NDA INTERNATIONAL,
INC. ("NDA") and HOWARD S. LOTSOF ("LOTSOF"), and alleges as follows:

The Parties

  1. Plaintiff , DEBORAH MASH, is an individual who is a citizen and
resident of the State of Florida.

  2. Defendant, NDA INTERNATIONAL, INC., is a corporation organized and
existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, with its principal
place of business in New York. Defendant HOWARD LOTSOF is an individual who
is a citizen and resident of the state of New York.

Jurisdiction and Venue

  3. This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States,
Title 35, United States Code. This action also is brought pursuant to Title
28, United States Code 1332, as Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00,
exclusive of interest, costs and attorney's fees.

  4. Jurisdiction and venue are based on 28 U. S. C. 1331, 1332, 1338(a),
1391(b) and (c) and 35 U. S. C. 256.

General Allegations

  5. Plaintiff, DEBORAH MASH, is a world renowned scientist in the field of
neurology, specializing in brain research. Plaintiff holds a doctoral
degree in the field of pharmacology and is a full tenured associate
professor of neurology at the University of Miami School of Medicine,
Miami, Florida. DR. MASH, for many years, has been involved in, and
continues to be involved in, research concerning drug and alcohol
addiction. She is widely published and is an acknowledged expert in the field.

  6. Defendant, NDA INTERNATIONAL, INC., is a corporation that was formed
and is controlled by Defendant, HOWARD S. LOTSOF, as individual with no
scientific background. NDA owns a patent for a drug known as Ibogaine,
which is believed to be effective in treating drug addiction. Ibogaine does
not have United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval and is
classified as a Class I scheduled substance.

  7. In order for a drug like Ibogaine to obtain FDA approval for use in
the United States, it must first be subjected to a series of pre-clinical
studies involving both primates and, ultimately, humans under a carefully
controlled and prescribed protocol set and monitored by the FDA.

  8. Without the aforedescribed studies and accumulation and presentation
to the FDA of reliable data as to the safety and effectiveness of Ibogaine
for its intended use, Ibogaine cannot be used in the United States. In
order to take the steps necessary to obtain FDA approval of Ibogaine, in
June 1992, NDA entered into a contract with the University of Miami ("the
Agreement") so DR. MASH could conduct a Phase I clinical study under a
physician-initiated Investigative New Drug application ("IND") to the FDA.
A copy of the contract between the University of Miami and NDA is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.

  9. The agreement provides, inter alia, that each party is to contribute
various information, material and services to facilitate the clinical
trials of Ibogaine.

  10. In the course of certain experimental studies performed by DR. MASH
and her colleagues, they discovered a new metabolite of Ibogaine that is
not the subject of NDA's ibogaine patent. The new discovery was named
Noribogaine. Noribogaine was claimed to have greater specificity and longer
lasting activity in mammals than Ibogaine in treating chemical dependency.
DR. MASH provided to NDA and its principal, Howard Lotsof, all of her
research and clinical data regarding Noribogaine.

  11. Thereafter, a new patent application for Noribogaine was filed by
NDA, which application named NDA as owner and disclosed DR. MASH and her
colleagues as inventors. The patent application number is 08/280,187.
Subsequent to this discovery by DR. MASH and her colleagues, a series of
amendments to the Agreement were entered into by the parties which provide,
inter alia, that the rights to Noribogaine would be assigned by the
University of Miami to NDA (the "Assignment") and the University of Miami
would receive 12% of all income derived from the commercialization of
Noribogaine or the granting of the right to commercialize Noribogaine to
any third party. Pursuant to DR. MASH's contractual relationship with the
University of Miami, DR. MASH (along with her colleagues) has a direct and
immediate interest in 1/3 of the University's interest in the Noribogaine
income stream. In addition, as part of these amendments and in exchange for
its interest in the Noribogaine patent, the University agreed to waive
certain payments that were then due and owing by NDA under the Agreement.

  12. By entering into the aforesaid agreements and by filing the
Noribogaine patent application and an application to perfect certain
international rights, NDA obligated itself to act in good faith, to take
all reasonable and necessary steps to prosecute the Noribogaine patent
application and the international application, and to protect and preserve
the interests of the University and DR. MASH in the Noribogaine invention.

  13. In violation of its duties and obligations under the Agreement, as
amended, and in violation of its duty of good faith and fair dealing, NDA
has failed to prosecute the Noribogaine patent application and/or the
international application and has advised Plaintiff that said applications
are in immediate danger of abandonment.

  14. Separate and apart from the work that DR. MASH performed under the
Agreement, DR. MASH discovered and disclosed to NDA and to its principal,
HOWARD S. LOTSOF, information regarding the use of Noribogaine in
conjunction with Betacarbolines ("Noribogaine Plus"). DR. MASH first
disclosed to NDA and LOTSOF the similarity between the effects of
Noribogaine and Betacarbolines in the original invention disclosure
relating to the Noribogaine patent. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, and without
Plaintiff's authority, NDA filed a patent application for Noribogaine Plus,
which listed HOWARD LOTSOF, despite his lack of scientific background, as
the "inventor". In fact, LOTSOF did not invent this patent, but acquired
the information from DR. MASH. The application for Noribogaine Plus was
filed on October 14, 1994, less than three (3) months after the filing of
the Noribogaine patent application referenced above in paragraph 11, which
was filed on July 25, 1994. The basis for the Noribogaine Plus patent
application is the information supplied by DR. MASH to LOTSOF with respect
to Noribogaine and Betacarbolines. NDA and LOTSOF knowingly and
fraudulently failed to disclose DR. MASH and her colleagues as the
inventors in the patent application for Noribogaine Plus. While the
Noribogaine application has never issued and is still subject to challenge,
the Noribogaine Plus application was diligently prosecuted by NDA, LOTSOF
and their counsel, and the patent for Noribogaine Plus issued on January 7,
1997, under patent number 5,591,738.

Count I

  Cancellation or Correction of Patent Application

  15. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 above.

  16. Defendant's knowing and fraudulent failure to disclose Plaintiff as
an inventor in the Noribogaine Plus patent application (possibly in an
attempt to circumvent the assignment of royalties to Plaintiff, her
colleagues, and the University of Miami) renders the issued patent subject
to cancellation under 35 U. S. C. 256, or, alternatively, the issued patent
is subject to correction, to name Plaintiff as an inventor of the invention
disclosed therein.

Count II

  Breach of Contract

  17. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 above.

  18. Plaintiff is a direct and intended third party beneficiary of the
Agreement and the assignment between Defendant, NDA, and the University of
Miami.

  19. By failing to prosecute the Noribogaine patent application (while at
the same time diligently prosecuting and receiving a patent for Noribogaine
Plus), Defendants have breached the Agreement and their duty of good faith
and fair dealing thereunder. As a result of the Defendants' failures,
Plaintiff, who has a direct stake in the income stream to be derived from
the commercialization of Noribogaine, has been damaged in an amount in
excess of $50,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

Count III

  Rescission

  20. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 above.

  21. Plaintiff is a direct and intended third party beneficiary of the
Agreement and the Assignment between Defendant, NDA, and the University of
Miami.

  22. The aforedescribed conduct of Defendants has caused, and will
continue to cause, irreparable harm to Plaintiff for which there is no
adequate remedy by law.

  23. Defendant's failure to diligently prosecute the Noribogaine patent,
and to otherwise perform his obligations under the Agreement, as amended,
and the Assignment, all of which should be read in pari materia, are so
material to the transaction that the Agreement, as amended, and the
Assignment, should be rescinded, and the parties restored to their prior
positions.

Count IV

  Fraud

  24. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 above.

  25. The actions of Defendants, in claiming to be diligently prosecuting
the Noribogaine application, while they were in fact not prosecuting said
application diligently, and in failing to disclose to Plaintiff the
existence of the Noribogaine Plus application, and in failing to disclose
Plaintiff as an inventor of the Noribogaine Plus invention, were material
misrepresentations knowingly made by the Defendants, with the intent that
the Plaintiff rely upon them to her detriment.

  26. Plaintiff did in fact rely on said knowing misrepresentations to her
detriment, and as a consequence thereof, was damaged both in the loss of
income from the Noribogaine application and in the loss of potential income
from the Noribogaine Plus application.

  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:
  (a) Cancellation and/or correction of the Noribogaine Plus issued patent;
  (b) An award of damages for Defendants' breach of the Phase I clinical
trial Agreement, as amended, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00,
exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys' fees;
  (c) An order rescinding the Agreement, as amended, and the Assignment and
restoring the parties to the positions they were in before said Agreement
and Assignment were entered into;
  (d) An award of compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiff for
Defendant's fraudulent conduct, as herein described; and
  (e) Awarding Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs herein.

  Dated this 28 day of April, 1997.

GELLER, GELLER AND GARFINKEL
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1815 Griffin Road, Suite 403
Dania, Florida 33004
(954) 920-2300/(305) 949-6600

By: Joseph S. Geller
Joseph S. Geller
Florida Bar No. 292771


State of New York - Department of State
Division of Corporations

Entity served:
NDA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Plaintiff/Petitioner:
MASH, DEBORAH

PINES & KESSLER
10 EAST 59TH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10022

Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed herewith is a copy of SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT which was
served upon the Secretary of State on 04/30/1997 pursuant to SECTION 306 OF
THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW. This copy is being transmitted pursuant to
such statute to the address provided for such purpose.

Very truly yours,
Division of Corporations