WORLD WIDE AND NUCLEAR FUEL RESOURCES FILE APPEAL BRIEF
WITH FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS IN $1.0 BILLION LAWSUIT
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 2, 2001 - World Wide Minerals Ltd. and its subsidiary, Nuclear Fuel Resources
Corporation, announced today that they had filed the Appellants Brief with the Federal Court of Appeals in
Washington, D.C. This filing complies with the mandatory schedule set by the Court; the three defendants have
30 days to respond to the Brief. The judicial panel selected to hear the appeal consists of Judges Ginsburg,
Rogers and Garland of the D.C. Circuit and they will review the briefs and hear oral argument on November 8.
2001.
World Wide and Nuclear Fuel Resources filed the appeal against a lower Court decision dismissing their action
against Kazakhstan, its uranium company and an American company, Nukem, Inc., itself a subsidiary of the
German energy conglomerate, RWE AG. The lawsuit claims repayment of loans made to Kazakhstan
amounting to over $25 million and for damages of over $1.0 billion for breach of contract, theft of property,
tortious interference with contractual rights and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices
Act (RICO) and other anti-trust statutes, all arising out of the commercial activities of Kazakhstan.
After the appeal was filed in October, 2000, the defendants attempted to have the Court of Appeals rule that
the appeal was not well founded in law and should be dismissed. In March 2001, the Court of Appeals rejected
that assertion on the basis that it was "not so clear" to the Court that the defendants would win the appeal.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals set the fixed hearing date and ordered the parties to prepare formal briefs
and to proceed with the appeal.
Paul Carroll, Chairman of World Wide, stated "what happened to us with our good faith investment and
operations in Kazakhstan should be a warning to all international investors. The ruling of the lower Court was to
the effect that a sovereign state can refuse to repay its debts and cancel commercial contracts, without
compensation. To sustain this lower Court ruling would invite "international highjacking" with impunity. It is not
the law. It is not common sense. It would be terrible public policy that would shut down world trade and
investment. We are very confident that the Court of Appeals will reverse this ruling" |
