Thank you for your summation.I have no problem holding this stock .I would like to see it weaken to buy back the half I sold to maintain a strong cash position in my portfolio. Will monitor and see how things develop.Any increase in the price of copper would be a big boost for the company.IMHO..Take note of the upgrade at the bottom of statement?????Also the Judge had no problem with disclosure by Inmet.Morning Comment January 17, 2002
2
INMET MINING IMN.T (Source) Undisclosed
.
•At the time, the proposed sale of Troilus was an integral part of a much larger initiative of asset
sales to raise funds for Inmet’s 50% share of the development costs of the Antamina project.
•Inmet initiated legal action against Homestake Canada Inc. and Prime Resources Group Inc. in
connection with their purported termination of their October 29, 1997 Troilus purchase
agreement.
•On May 11, 1998 Inmet announced it had agreed to sell it’s 50% interest in Antamina to Noranda
Inc. and Teck for $70 million in cash and a 3.33% Net Proceeds Royalty citing its limited
financial capacity as a reason for the requirement to sell its interest in the project.
•Trial against Homestake and Prime commenced February 5, 2001.
•Trial ends in June 2001 and court decision is expected by the fall of 2001.
•January 15, 2002 Inmet receives positive judgment and is awarded $88.2 million in damages.
A decision has been anticipated since the conclusion of the court case in mid-Q3/01. In advance of a
judgment, however we had not attributed any value to Inmet’s lawsuit against Homestake although we
have highlighted in previous morning comments that a ruling in favour of Inmet could add considerably
to its cash balance, potentially enhancing the Company’s ability to make further strategic acquisitions.
IMPLICATION
The award may be subject to an appeal, this judgment strongly
affirms Inmet’s position that Homestake wrongfully repudiated the original purchase agreement. In
addition, in the event that this award is subject to tax it is our understating that Inmet has more than
sufficient credits to fully shelter the $88.2 million due to Inmet. As a result, by increasing the NAV
by the $88.2 million or $2.25 per share to $9.00 per share from $6.75 per share.
Also, Check this out.
> To: <eblast@stockwatch.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:40 PM
> > Subject: Stockwatch Street Wire: Inmet wins vindication in lengthy court
> > battle
> >
> >
> > > Inmet Mining Corp - Street Wire
> > >
> > > Inmet wins vindication in lengthy court battle
> > >
> > > Inmet Mining Corp
> > IMN
> > > Shares issued 35,661,558 Jan 16 close
> > $4.48
> > > Wed 16 Jan 2002 Street
> > Wire
> > > Also Homestake Canada Inc (HCX)
> > >
> > > by Brent Mudry
> > >
> > > Inmet Mining's $88.2-million judgment against Homestake Canada,
> > stemming
> > > from Homestake's last-minute 1997 cancellation of its $178-million deal
> > to
> > > buy Inmet's Troilus mine in Quebec, marks the end of one of the
> > biggest
> > > Canadian mining industry suits in recent years.
> > > The decision, released to counsel Tuesday afternoon and to the media
> > and
> > > public Wednesday morning, comes five and a half months after a 67-day
> > trial
> > > ended June 21, 2001, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
> > Madam
> > > Justice Deborah Satanove strongly dismissed all of Homestake's
> > serious
> > > allegations of impropriety by Inmet.
> > > Inmet shares rose 88 cents to $4.48, after peaking at $4.74, on
> > heavy
> > > volume of 1.56 million shares Wednesday on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
> > The
> > > stock hit a 52-week low of $1.60 last March and has moved steadily up
> > from
> > > the $2.40 level in early December on light volume.
> > > While Tuesday's volume of 546,000 shares was the heaviest in at least
> > three
> > > months, no leakage was apparent, as court registry staff confirmed
> > to
> > > Stockwatch that counsel were notified of the decision at least one
> > hour
> > > after the close of trading. Inmet shares fell five cents to $3.60
> > on
> > > Tuesday, dominated by two crosses by Griffiths McBurney, of 250,000
> > and
> > > 200,000 shares, both at $3.70.
> > > The decision marks a win for Vancouver lawyers Irwin Nathanson,
> > Stephen
> > > Schachter and Murray Clemens of Nathanson Schachter, representing
> > plaintiff
> > > Inmet, and a loss for Toronto lawyer Allan Lenczner, and
> > Vancouver
> > > co-counsel Ross Hayley and Lisa Peters, both of Lawson
> > Lundell,
> > > representing defendant Homestake.
> > > While the decision was a major vindication for Inmet, counsel Mr.
> > Schachter
> > > told Stockwatch the judgment spoke for itself. "This is one of those
> > cases
> > > where the trial judge has expressed herself so clearly, I couldn't say
> > it
> > > better myself."
> > > Judge Satanove began her 143-page judgment with a rare literary
> > preface.
> > > "Troilus was the son of the King of Troy. In Shakespeare's tragedy of
> > that
> > > name he wrote 'one touch of nature makes the whole world kin And gives
> > to
> > > dust that is a little gilt ' Troilus was an apt name for the
> > plaintiff's
> > > open pit gold and copper mine," states Judge Satanove.
> > > While Homestake claimed it terminated its Troilus acquisition on Dec.
> > 5,
> > > 1997, two weeks before closing, on valid grounds of misrepresentation,
> > the
> > > judge rejected this. Homestake claimed that during it discovered a
> > number
> > > of misrepresentations and non-disclosures of adverse material facts
> > by
> > > Inmet during its due diligence phase.
> > > "It alleged that the plaintiff's lack of disclosure was deliberate and
> > for
> > > the purpose of concealing serious problems with the quantity of gold in
> > the
> > > deposit, thus rendering the defendant's evaluation of Troilus
> > inaccurate
> > > and inflated," stated Judge Satanove.
> > > This serious attack on the credibility of Inmet and its executives
> > was
> > > thrown out.
> > > "In conclusion I find that each of the defendant's allegations of breach
of
contract and misrepresentation by the plaintiff is unfounded. I find
that
the plaintiff did not breach its obligations," ruled the judge.
"I find that many of the alleged misrepresentations were
not
misrepresentations at all in that they were factual and true.
Furthermore,
I find many of the alleged non-disclosed facts were disclosed to
the
defendant prior to signing the contract. Most importantly, however, I
find
that the defendant did not rely on any of these statements allegedly
made
or omitted by the plaintiff, in determining whether to buy the mine and
at
what price."
> > > (c) Copyright 2002 Canjex Publishing Ltd. stockwatch.com |
