Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Thermo Tech Technologies (TTRIF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (3920)	4/9/1998 12:50:00 PM
From: David Alon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6467

THIS COURT ORDERS that Application of the Plaintiffs, Trooper Technologies Inc. and International Eco-Waste Systems S.A., for summary judgment and an Order for specific performance under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court be and is hereby allowed in part against the Defendants, Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc., as follows: THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that all standard certified engineering specifications, including drawings, regarding thermophilic plants in the possession or control of the Defendants, Thermo Tech Technologies Inc. and Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc., be delivered to the Plaintiffs forthwith; I hope this clarifies the situation, and again: After losing in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Thermo Tech Technologies and Thermo Tech Waste Systems Inc. applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay (i.e. suspension) of the Order of Mr. Justice Cohen which required those two companies to deliver up all standard certified engineering specifications, including drawings, in their possession and control to the Company and its subsidiary, International Eco-Waste Systems Inc. Thermo Tech's application was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In the course of granting judgment in favour of the Company, the Honourable Mr. Justice Macfarlane of the British Columbia Court of Appeal noted that the Thermo Tech companies had not complied with the Order of Mr. Justice Cohen and have continued to refuse to comply. His Lordship observed that, if the Thermo Tech companies had any concerns with respect to confidentiality, those issues could have been dealt with by an application before Mr. Justice Cohen, but no such application had been made. His Lordship found that the Thermo Tech companies were in contempt of Mr. Justice Cohen's Order.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (3920)	4/9/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: Casey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6467

<<Still, it would be important to find the exact language defining the technology licensed to determine where this case might go.>> In 1993, TT had set themselves up to license their Thermophilic Technology - the process. The deal with Trooper was to provide them with this license. As TT developed, they evolved the TMP. There is a difference betwixt the 2. There are four main process systems in a TMP: 1. raw material receiving and preparation, 2. Thermophilic process, 3. dewatering/drying, evaporation and pelletizing, and 4. ventilation and odour control. The agreement with Trooper was for # 2 only. That was and is the deal. Trooper got all the engineering information to satisfy that deal and now, IMO, Trooper doesn't have a leg to stand on. They are going after processes for which they never struck a deal - they didn't exist in 1993!

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (3920)	4/9/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: Ted B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6467

Thermaster plants is a trade mark which encompasses the thermophilic technology as improved plus three new technologies. TPP has rights with respect to improvements to the then existing technology which form the basis of the thermophilic plants. If the lawsuit was only about this, there would not have been a lawsuit. I believe the lawsuit had to do with the fact that TPP said their rights extended to the new technologies which have nothing to do with improvements to the original technology but in fact are for entirely different processes. The summary judgment merely said TPP is entitled to the improvements to the original technology. Whether TPP is entitled to more will in my opinion be a triable issue and won't be decided by a summary judgment. The engineer's affidavit is to buttress Rene's contention in this regard. It may be that this issue can be determined by affidavit evidence in a summary way because it involves the interpretation of a contract. We'll see. I believe the detractors make a mistake in thinking that Rene is a cowboy as opposed to a sound businessman. They assume he is running off half cocked. In my dealings with him, I find him to be a sound businessman. He does nothing without proper legal advice. In the case of the law suit, he not only didn't fly in the face of legal advice received but went so far as to have three different law firms advise him on his rights and he acted accordingly. He also further sought engineering advice as to the meaning of the relevant terms. Under these circumstances, not to take the advice he receives would be to not act in the best interests of the Company. IMHO