The case of 2770095 Ontario Inc. v. Morgan, dated March 24, 2023, involved Affinitas Medios de Pago S.A.P.I de C.V., a Mexican corporation specializing in online payment solutions, which had engaged in international operations and partnered with ZedPayments, a Philippine company, to offer payment processing services. However, a discrepancy had arisen when Affinitas had discovered that ZedPayments had not properly transferred funds to its merchants, potentially suggesting fraudulent activities involving individuals residing in Ontario. There had been a possibility for Affinitas to pursue legal action in the Superior Court of Justice, with indications of potential harm caused by the defendants, including Maxwell Dean Morgan et. al. The court's preliminary decisions had even supported the notion that Affinitas had likely fallen victim to the defendants' fraud. However, rather than pursuing litigation directly, Affinitas had taken an unconventional route. It had transferred its claims to an Ontario-based numbered company, namely plaintiff 2770095 Ontario Inc., which had been established the day before the assignment, in exchange for a 3% stake in future recoveries. This numbered company had not possessed a genuine pre-existing interest in the case. Yet, it had aggressively pursued the claims, obtaining orders for document production, executing searches at defendants' homes, freezing bank accounts, and even seeking damages and punitive charges exceeding $2.5 million. The court, however, had recognized this as an inappropriate manipulation of the legal system. Such an assignment of tort claims to a seemingly purpose-built entity had been seen as an abuse of the court's process, devoid of a genuine pursuit of justice. Consequently, the court had ruled to dismiss the action, asserting that such practices, known as "trafficking in litigation," had not been tolerated due to their detrimental impact on the integrity of the judicial system. No specific amount provided in the case regarding financial award.