Looks like the IMR/AQI problem is heating up...
Also looks like I got another grub - yummy!
-----------------------------------------------------------
2004-05-17 close: $2.15
IMA Exploration rejects virtually all the substantive legal allegations made by the Argentinian exploration subsidiary of Aquiline Resources, stemming from a staking dispute over the Navidad claims in Argentina's Chubut province. In an 11-page statement of defence filed April 7 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, IMA denies the allegations made by Minera Aquiline Argentina SA in a suit filed March 5.
Neither the allegations in Aquiline's suit nor the responses in IMA's defence have yet been heard or proven in court.
AQUILINE'S SUIT
In its suit, Aquiline claims IMA wrongfully used confidential regional exploration data to stake a 10-square-kilometre block of claims in December, 2002. Minera Aquiline claims that at all material times, it was the owner of staked mineral claims in the Rio Negro and Chubut provinces, confidential information relating to them and confidential regional exploration information on unstaked claims in the provinces. (Readers wishing a more detailed account of the suit may refer to a Street Wire dated March 15.)
IMA'S DEFENCE
IMA breaks its defence into five parts, dealing first with the Calcatreu project in Argentina, second with Aquiline's practice regarding confidential information, third with the bulk leach extractable gold, or BLEG, data, fourth with IMA's Navidad property and finally with Aquiline's conduct.
(Aquiline Resources, the public company, acquired the Calcatreu project in mid-2003 from Newmont Mining, by acquiring the latter's subsidiary, Minera Normandy Argentina SA, later renamed Minera Aquiline.)
In the first part, IMA denies that Aquiline was the owner of the Calcatreu project claims, related confidential information, or other confidential information regarding unstaked claims at any material time. IMA also denies Aquiline was the owner of the alleged regional exploration data, so it should have no standing or right to launch the B.C. lawsuit.
In the second part, IMA claims it was the practice of Aquiline and parent Newmont Mining Corp. to use written confidentiality agreements where they intended to show confidential information to outsiders, with the area of interest and the restrictions spelled out, and to give outsiders express notice that this information was indeed confidential.
IMA admits it signed a confidentiality agreement with Newmont on Sept. 6, 2002, and that it was provided with certain purportedly confidential information relating to the Calcatreu project.
IMA also confirms that between Sept. 19 and 23, 2002, its representative Dr. Paul Lhotka visited Newmont's main field office in Ingeniero Jacobaci, Rio Negro, with two IMA contract geologists, to, view the Calcatreu site and related information. IMA says they met with and were supervised by Carlos Cuburu, Newmont's Calcatreu project manager.
In the third part, regarding the BLEG data, IMA denies seeking or receiving any regional exploration data on a confidential basis. IMA claims Mr. Cuburu, on a non-confidential basis, provided it with silver and lead data derived from BLEG, or bulk leach extractable gold, sampling methods. IMA claims these silver and lead data related to regions outside the Calcatreu project, which Normandy, Newmont and Minera had previously investigated and determined to be of no interest.
The statement of defence denies Aquiline's allegation that after this visit, IMA president Joe Grosso made any representation to Minera that IMA wanted to review the regional exploration data to evaluate a potential bid for the Calcatreu project.
In its defence, IMA spends six pages detailing its response on the BLEG data issue, basically denying any of the information supplied was confidential. IMA also asserts that neither Dr. Lhotka nor Keith Patterson, another company representative, would have accepted the silver and lead data from Aquiline's Mr. Cuburu if they believed it was either confidential or covered by the confidentiality agreement.
In the fourth part of its defence, IMA notes its Navidad property is 40 kilometres away from the closest boundary of Aquiline's Calcatreu project, and it was entitled to use the silver/lead BLEG data as part of its exploration activities.
The fifth and final part of IMA's defence relates to Aquiline's conduct.
IMA claims it was the victim of its own success.
The defence claims that Aquiline altered its acquisition strategy as a direct result of IMA's positive results on its Navidad property in the spring of 2003. In January, 2003, the public company Aquiline Resources executed a letter of intent to acquire the Calcatreu project from Newmont. This deal did not complete. Instead, Aquiline Resources restructured the deal and acquired all the resources of Minera Aquiline on July 10, 2003.
This was part of a strategy to attack IMA, according to the defence.
"At all material times, Aquiline has caused Minera to assert claims against IMA relating to IMA's Navidad property and commence this action (lawsuit) as a pretext to publicly attack IMA's title to its Navidad claims and thereby adversely affect IMA's business activities and reputation and the price of its shares, all in an attempt to, extract an unreasonable payment or settlement from IMA," states the defence.
IMA claims the conduct of Aquiline and Minera Aquiline has been "high-handed, unreasonable and prejudicial," and it seeks an award of special costs in court. |
