Tom.
Have any ideas what this means?????????
Have you had a chance to look this over??
----------------
biz.yahoo.com
[ Business | US Market | Industry | IPO | S&P | International | RNews |BizWire | Finance Home ] Monday March 16, 4:34 pm Eastern Time
Company Press Release
Trooper Technolgies Inc. - Court of Appeal of British Columbia dismisses Thermo Tech application to Stay Order Granted by the Honourable Mr. Justice Cohen
VANCOUVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 16, 1998--Trooper Technologies Inc. (OTC-BB:TROXF - news; ''The Company'') is pleased to announce that on February 27th, 1998, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia dismissed Thermo Tech's application to stay the Order granted by the Honourable Mr. Justice Cohen. The following is the full text of the Reasons for Judgement of Mr. Justice Macfarlane: COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MACFARLANE IN CHAMBERS February 27, 1998 Vancouver, B.C.
Between: Trooper Technologies Inc., and International Eco-Waste Systems S.A. Plaintiffs(Respondents)
And: Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. [Nasdaq:TTRIF - news], THERMO TECH WASTE SYSTEMS INC., LOCKERBIE & HOLE LTD. AND LOCKERBIE THERMO TECH INC.
DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS)
E. Bowes appearing for the Appellant D. Lunny appearing for the Respondent (application for a stay)
[1] Macfarlane, J.A.: This is an application by the defendants to stay the order made by Mr. Justice Cohen on 20 January 1998 expressed in his reasons for judgment in this way: In the result, I find that there is not a triable issue with regard to the plaintiff's entitlement to delivery by Thermo Tech of the ''standardcertified engineering specifications.'' I also find that the plaintiff is entitled to an order, pursuant to Rule 18, that Thermo Tech deliver to the plaintiff all ''standard certified engineering specifications'', including design drawings, regarding thermophilic plants in the possession or control of Thermo Tech. However, I do not think the plaintiff has brought itself under Rule 18 with respect to the claim for an order requiring delivery by Thermo Tech to the
plaintiff of environmental assessment reports, cost assessment reports or reports regarding the sourcing of the equipment used in the construction of the thermophilic plants.
[2] The formal order was settled and entered 18 February 1998. It orders that the plaintiffs have summary judgment and an order for specific performance and that the defendants deliver to the plaintiffs standard certified engineering specifications including drawings regarding thermophilic plants in the possession or control of the defendants.
[3] The order also dismissed the application of the defendants for a stay pending the appeal. It also provides that the parties are at liberty to apply for directions with respect to any issues as to confidentiality. Mr. Justice Cohen said in his reasons:
Mr. Bowes, I do not know whether the confidentiality agreement that Mr. Lunny refers to is going to completely cover any concerns you might have. You and Mr. Lunny should discuss this point. While I do not think that a stay is appropriate, I recognize your request to protect confidentiality pending the appeal of my ruling. So if the confidentiality agreement that is already in place is not sufficient, counsel should either reach an agreement on this point by crossing letters, or apply to the court for directions.
[4] I am told today that the parties have not yet applied to Mr. Justice Cohen with respect to the confidentiality issue. I am surprised that has not been done because confidentiality appears to be a matter which concerns the defendants.
[5] The defendants have not complied with the order of Mr. Justice Cohen and continue to refuse to comply with it.
[6] The issue before Mr. Justice Cohen was whether the defendants had a bona fide defence to the claim by the plaintiffs for delivery of:
''the standard certified engineering specifications in the possession of the Company at that time reasonably necessary to enable the licensee to utilize the Process and construct Plants''.
[7] A principal of the defendant companies had sworn that the standard
certified engineering specifications had been delivered in 1992. Mr. Justice Cohen rejected that proposition. He held it was in conflict with other evidence and with the statement of defence. In particular it appears to be in conflict with paragraph 19 of the statement of defence, which indicates that the specifications have not been delivered.
[8] Counsel for the defendants submits that the order of Mr. Justice Cohen is overbroad in that it requires delivery of standard certified engineering specifications. It is submitted that a proper interpretation of paragraphs 2 and 3.02 of the agreement is that what is to be delivered is a technical manual, which was delivered in 1992. As I have said, that seems to be in conflict with paragraph 19 of the statement of defence, which reads:
In further answer to the whole of the Statement of Claim herein, the
Defendants, and each of them, state that certified engineering
specifications and drawings will be provided to the Plaintiffs as soon as the engineering drawings and specifications have been completed and as soon as the Plaintiffs can satisfy the Defendants as to the economic viability of the proposed Plants in Poland and that the Plaintiffs will in fact comply with all of the Licensee's covenants given in the Licensing Agreement.
[9] In the defendant's outline of argument the point in issue on the appeal is described in this way by the defendants:
4. The simple point in issue in the Appeal and in this application for a Stay of Execution, it is interpretation of paragraph 3.02 of the Eastern European License Agreement, that is, what Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc. must provide to the Licensee to satisfy its requirement to deliver ''the standard certified engineering specifications in the possession of the company at that time reasonably necessary to enable the Licensee to utilize
the Process and construct Plants.''
5. To the extent the Order of Mr. Justice Cohen goes beyond the standard certified engineering specifications for the Process and the Equipment ''reasonably necessary to enable the Licensee to utilize the Process and construct Plants'', the Defendants seek a Stay of Execution of such Order.
6. The Defendant, Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc. does not and never has contested its obligation to deliver to the Licensee under the Eastern European License Agreement standard certified engineering specifications reasonably necessary to enable the Licensee to utilize the Process and construct Plants. This Defendant says that obligation was fulfilled November 24, 1992 upon delivery of 3 copies of the Design Criteria Manual to Acumen Waste Service of Canada Inc.
7. The Defendant, Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc. also does not contest its obligation to disclose Improvements to the Process as the term is restrictively defined in paragraph 7.03 of the License Agreement, that is, in regard to the applications of the Process or Equipment specifically licensed pursuant to the Eastern European License Agreement.
[10] In short that position is that Mr. Justice Cohen misinterpreted the agreement and therefore there is a serious question to be tried. I have read the material including the outline of argument of each of the parties. I have read the pleadings and the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Cohen. I have also read the agreement in question. The distinction which the defendants now draw and to which I have just referred is a fine one and it does not appear to me that distinction was drawn in the statement of the defence filed in this case. It is not a distinction which was referred to by Mr. Justice Cohen although I am told an attempt was made to argue that point before him.
[11] After reading the material to which I have referred I am quite unable to identify any bona fide defence to the claim made by the plaintiffs. There may be some issue with respect to the interpretation of the agreement which I do not grasp but I have grave doubts that there is a serious question to be tried by this Court.
[12] In any event, a stay of execution like an injunction is a discretionary remedy. I would exercise my discretion against granting a stay. The defendants are in contempt of the order below. When Mr. Justice Cohen refused the stay an application to this Court for an interim stay could have been made. It was not. The defendants apparently said they would appeal within a few days. It took them 29 days. Counsel for the defendants now explains that there were a number of other applications before Mr. Justice Cohen which delayed the matter going forward. In any event, the order of Mr. Justice Cohen was not complied with.
[13] I have referred earlier to the question of confidentiality. That is a question which Mr. Justice Cohen said he would entertain. It would be proper for the parties to appear before him again, if they regard that as an important issue.
[14] I am not persuaded that the defendant will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. In my view, damages will provide the defendants with a suitable remedy if they suffer harm by reason of complying with Mr. Justice Cohen's order. In my view, the balance of convenience favours the plaintiffs who must proceed expeditiously with their plans to construct plants in Poland or have their venture fail. I do not think it is a case where it is fair to say that damages would by and adequate remedy for them in all of the circumstances.
[15] Accordingly, I am not prepared to grant a stay of the order of Mr. Justice Cohen.
signed: The Honourable Mr. Justice Macfarlane
As the reader can see, Honourable Mr. Justice Macfarlane has found Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc. in contempt of the Court Order, granted on January 20th, 1998.
On March 13, 1998, the Company appeared before Mr. Justice Mackenzie in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking fines against the Thermo Tech companies in the view of the continued disobedience of the Court Order. Mr. Justice Mackenzie has referred this application to Mr. Justice Cohen who made the Ruling on January 20th, 1998, and who would be in the best position to impose appropriate punishment and penalties regarding Contempt. The date of the hearing seeking punishment for the Contempt will be announced shortly.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Trooper Technologies Inc. Per:
(signed) Stan Lis, President and a Director
NOTE TO EDITORS: THIS NEWS RELEASE HAS BEEN PREPARED BY MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY WHO TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS. THE VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE NEITHER APPROVES NOR DISAPPROVES OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS NEWS RELEASE.
Listed VSE Trading Symbol: TPP U.S. 12G3-2(b) Exemption #82-4265 NASD OTC
BB: TROX.F trooper.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Contact:
ÿÿÿÿ Trooper Technologies
ÿÿÿÿ Stan Lis, 604/669-2826
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
More Quotes
and News: Thermo Tech Technologies Inc (Nasdaq:TTRIF - news)
Trooper Technologies Inc (OTC BB:TROXF - news; Vancouver:TPP.V - news)
Related News Categories: environmental, oil/energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ÿ Help
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Copyright c 1998 Business Wire. All rights reserved. All the news releases
provided by Business Wire are copyrighted. Any forms of copying other than
an individual user's personal reference without express written permission
is prohibited. Further distribution of these materials is strictly
forbidden, including but not limited to, posting, emailing, faxing,
archiving ina public database, redistributing via a computer network or in a
printed form.
See our Important Disclaimers and Legal Information.
Questions or Comments?
---------- |
