To All,
In case it was not sufficiently clear, I did not write the last two posts that I put up (and hence the words "repost from Yahoo!" -- and Sheldon, I can assure you that I am quite relaxed). I think Sheldon's and Zeev's comments were best answered by what was reposted by Mike. The following post is my own:
FYI -- a newsrelease of IBR's was forwarded to me. It should be noted that while the injunction has been dismissed the lawsuit is still pending. At the same time, it should be noted that it is unusual for a judge to award costs in an injunction application.
Should TTRIF pursue this (as I am sure they will) I would suspect that they would have a higher hurdle to overcome given that Justice Rommily noted that TT had failed to establish a fair question to be tried.
There are rumours that I have been unable to confirm yet (that I will try to do so earlier on in the day Monday) that make this lawsuit of particular interest to those who have faith in Thermo Tech's technology (of all denominations). I have heard that a past legal dispute (another licensing agreement with Thermo Tech gone sour) allowed IBR rights to the undeveloped technology.
IBR developed that technology and has one plant operational (and is already working with GRVD with full contracts as well as other government agencies receiving funding through research grants and cooperation) and as I understand it intends on going public onto the Vancouver Stock Exchange, subsequently listing on the TSE. There is speculation that the IBR technology is a superior one because of the heat that the microbes produce in the process, the ability of it to thermophillically digest through and process materials (including toxins such as PCB's), and it has been able to operate at high levels of acidity -- using a true and complete thermophillic process. Thus the natural extension, of one who is suspicious of Thermo Tech (such as myself), is that Thermo Tech is using legal tactics to stall IBR from coming to market -- competing with TTRIF head to head -- for both waste and money. IBR in comparison to TTRIF has an untainted past and should it have a superior process, is a serious threat to Thermo Tech. If true, Thermo Tech has much to lose -- and by extension Trooper as a holder of the license agreement.
I also talked to TTRIF IR today talking only of this particular matter. I was forwarded an "internal memorandum" (I highly doubt that it was ever meant to be "internal"). Take out the rhetoric and you get basically that TTRIF intends to pursue this lawsuit to its fullest despite its initial setbacks. The "internal" memorandum is as follows (after the IBR Newsrelease):
***************************************
According to a recent IBR Newsrelease:
Thermo Tech unsucessfully attempted to obtain an ex-parte injunction against International Bio-Recovery Corporation and Mr. Fehr. Subsequently on an application heard on June 10, 1998, the Honourable Mr. Justice Romilly of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the Thermo Tech injunction application in all respects and awarded costs to IBR, Mr. Fehr, Essex Group Consulting Inc.
Mr. Justice Rommily held that TT had failed to establish a fair question to be tried.
***************************************
Thermo TechTM Technologies, Inc.
Office of the General Counsel
Internal Memorandum
To: Rene J. Branconnier
From: L. B. Liebowitz
Re: IBR/Fehr Litigation
Date: June 11, 1998
As you know, we filed suit yesterday for damages against IBR & Dale Fehr for breach by them of Fehr's confidentiality agreement with Thermo TechTM. Our whole point, of course, has been to demonstrate to the world that we do not take lightly the proprietary nature of our processes, technology, and plants; nor do we take lightly the commitment of our people to protect that proprietary know-how, which really constitutes the principle asset of the Company.
Our lawsuit seeks damages for loss of our confidential information, and recovery of any profits that IBR may realize from using our know-how or data. That lawsuit is alive and well, now only 3 days old. In addition to filing our lawsuit, however, we made a special, and rarely granted, application for an injunction from the start of the case, even before we had brought any pretrial evidence to the court. This application, but not any part of the regular lawsuit was denied yesterday by the Court, with the comment that an injunction here on only the second day of the lawsuit was "premature." We will bring an application for an interim injunction back to the court later, after pretrial discovery, particularly the testimony under oath of Fehr and his new employers, has been taken and the details of the breach and our damages are developed. then our application for injunctive relief will not be premature and can be considered on its merits.
Meanwhile, of course, our main lawsuit for damages and a post-trial injunction remain, having only just been filed. We intend to pursue this pending lawsuit vigorously to conclusion after trial. We will continue to make it known that our agenda of protecting our intellectual property rights -- and this lawsuit is of course only one item on that agenda -- will proceed full speed ahead. |
