April 21, 2015
Vancouver, B.C. — April 21, 2015 - I-Minerals Inc. (TSX.V: IMA; OTCQX: IMAHF) (“I-Minerals” or the “Company”)
provides the following update to its press release of September 23,
2014 wherein the Company announced that the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division in Mitchell County, North Carolina Court
through the Honorable Louis A. Bledsoe III, Special Superior Court Judge
for Complex Business Cases, denied Unimin Corporation’s (“Unimin’s”)
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against the Company and Thomas Gallo
(“Dr. Gallo”), a consultant to the Company, pursuant to Rule 65 of
the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Injunction Action”)
and found …that [Unimin] has failed to present sufficient evidence to
show that it is likely that it will succeed on the merits of its
claims…”. I-Minerals and Dr. Gallo have jointly filed a Complaint
against Unimin, Joseph C. Shapiro, Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer of Unimin and Richard C. Zielke, Vice President,
Technical Sales, Research and Analytical Services for Unimin, based in
Spruce Pine, North Carolina (individually a “Defendant”, collectively
the “Defendants”), seeking damages for Abuse of Process, Malicious
Prosecution and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices.
Prior to the 2014 Injunction Action, Unimin and I-Minerals never had any
contact until Unimin physically served notice of a lawsuit some 2,500
miles across the United States requiring I-Minerals’ participation in
“expedited discovery” in North Carolina and across the United States.
In the Injunction Action, Unimin asserted that “Unimin and I-Minerals
Inc. are competitors in the high purity quartz industry.” Unimin
sought, among other things, a preliminary injunction against I-Minerals
for seeking consulting assistance from Dr. Gallo concerning the
production of high purity quartz (HPQ) and, allegedly, ultra-high purity
quartz (UHPQ) and supposedly for seeking to obtain “trade secrets.” In
fact, as previously reported by the Company, I-Minerals is not
currently pursuing ultra-high purity quartz, and Unimin could not
provide the Court with any credible evidence of I-Minerals possessing
any “trade secrets “of Unimin.
Pursuant to the judicial results as described in a September 4, 2014
“Order and Opinion” (i) by a Court selected by Unimin, (ii) regarding
issues initially selected by Unimin, and (iii) for prosecution by Unimin
against I-Minerals on an expedited basis, the Court denied Unimin’s
Motion for a preliminary injunction against I-Minerals, and the Court
dissolved a temporary restraining order Unimin had earlier obtained from
the Court. Other relief sought by Unimin against I-Minerals had been
previously denied by the Court at an August 12, 2014 hearing.
Unimin is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SCR Sibelco NV, a European-based
privately-held multi-national corporation (“Sibelco”), that has no
public disclosure obligations. Unimin has 228 operational sites in 41
countries, and offers products including silica, clays, kaolins,
feldspars, olivine, hydrated limes, nepheline syenite, calcium carbonate
titanium minerals and other specialty minerals.(1) Unimin’s high
purity and ultra-high purity quartz is mined in Mitchell County and
Avery Counties, North Carolina (the “Spruce Pine Mining District”).
Importantly, Unimin states, and I-Minerals concurs that Unimin is the
global leader in production of HPQ and UHPQ, all of which is produced in
Mitchell or Avery counties in North Carolina. The Court’s 4
September 2014 “Order and Opinion” reported Dr. Gallo’s testimony -
never denied by Unimin - stating that “[Unimin’s] Spruce Pine mine
‘produces the highest purity quartz in the world that is produced on a
commercial scale’ and that …’[Unimin] has a monopoly on this market.’”
Further, as reported at the 2008 Carolina Geological Society
gathering, “[a]t present, no quartz in the world can match the processed
quartz purity from the Spruce Pine District. As a matter of fact,
every chip in the world uses Spruce Pine quartz in its manufacturing
process.” (2) These chips are used in all computers and all smart
phones. It is hard to imagine a mineral commodity more critical or
strategic, nor more ripe for leveraging of the consuming marketplace.
Given the extraordinary disparity in resources between I-Minerals and
Unimin, together with Unimin’s choice of timing, choice of issues and
choice of forum, it was satisfying that I-Minerals would prevail so
thoroughly. The actions of Unimin gave the appearance to I-Minerals
that Unimin’s suit was merely an anticompetitive nuisance action
designed to divert and consume I-Minerals limited resources in order to
protect Unimin’s market dominance and to send an anti-competitive
message to I-Minerals in the hopes that it would chill I-Minerals’ entry
into the HPQ markets and/or preclude it from ever doing research into
upgrading its HPQ into UHPQ.
Claims filed by I-Minerals
In its Complaint against Unimin, I-Minerals alleged three claims arising
out of the Injunction Action, for: (1)Abuse of Process; (2) Malicious
Prosecution; and (3) Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices. All three
claims are centered around I-Minerals’ contention that under the guise
of a lawsuit to protect Unimin’s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade
secret information, Unimin was actually attempting to gain information
and documents from Unimin’s competitors (including I-Minerals), to
interfere with the business relationships of Unimin’s competitors
(including I-Minerals), to stifle lawful market competition (especially
from I-Minerals), and to prevent Dr. Gallo from plying his general
skills and knowledge in manufacturing high purity quartz anywhere in the
world.
I-Minerals has alleged the following in its lawsuit with respect to its three claims:
Abuse of Process: Unimin abused the legal process by
using discovery to gather for competitive reasons information and
documents from Dr. Gallo, I-Minerals and other competitors in the
industrial minerals industry. As direct and proximate result of the
actions of the Defendants, Dr. Gallo and I-Minerals have each suffered
damages in the form of lost compensation, impairment to reputation and
business and employment prospects, harassment, and unnecessary legal
fees and expenses in defending Unimin’s litigation, which each is
entitled to recover against the Defendants, jointly and severally.
Malicious Prosecution: There was no factual foundation
supporting the Injunction Action. The Defendants commenced the lawsuit
without any reasonable factual inquiry, basing it upon Mr. Shapiro’s
false Verification and Mr. Zielke’s factually insufficient Affidavit.
The lawsuit against Dr. Gallo and I-Minerals was maliciously instituted
by Unimin with reckless and wanton disregard of Dr. Gallo’s and
I-Mineral’s rights and with ill-will and spite towards Dr. Gallo for his
decision to work for one of Unimin’s competitors, namely I-Minerals,
and towards I-Minerals for attempting to compete with Defendants in the
marketplace.
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices: The Defendants
engaged in unlawful and unfair acts and/or business practices without
privilege, justification or excuse by commencing a sham lawsuit to gain
information. The claims asserted by Unimin in its lawsuit against Dr.
Gallo and I-Minerals were not objectively reasonable, and were, in fact,
objectively meritless and utterly baseless in that the Defendants
could not realistically expect success on the merits given the
Defendants conducted no pre-filing investigation, filed suit based upon a
false Verification, had no evidence that Dr. Gallo misappropriated
confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, would not
and could not identify one single piece of information Dr. Gallo
allegedly misappropriated, and had no intention whatsoever to specify or
disclose in the course of discovery in the prior lawsuit any
information about any actual trade secret Unimin claimed was
compromised. In addition, Unimin had no evidence or a good faith belief
that Dr. Gallo or I-Minerals had tortiously interfered with a contract
of Unimin, had been unjustly enriched, or had converted any of Unimin’s
property. Indeed, at the time of Unimin’s filing, I-Minerals had
neither a quartz product for sale nor a plant to process quartz.
Unimin’s, Mr. Shapiro’s and Mr. Zielke’s subjective motivation for
filing suit was an unlawful and anticompetitive intent to interfere
directly with the business of Unimin’s competitor, I-Minerals.
“To date we have had great success in cleaning our True QTM quartz
products up to high purity levels through standard flotation processes
regularly used in one form or another by mining companies worldwide,”
stated Thomas Conway, President and CEO of I-Minerals. “We do not
believe that this action ever had anything to do with Unimin’s trade
secrets, rather Unimin’s concern about our ability to be a low cost
producer of high quality quartz, given our quartz is one of four
minerals produced from a fine clay and sand material that requires no
drilling or blasting. I guess in some ways we should be flattered that
Unimin sees I-Minerals as a substantive enough competitive threat to
warrant filing a dubious legal action.”
About I-Minerals Inc.
I-Minerals is developing multiple deposits of high purity, high value
halloysite, quartz, potassium feldspar and kaolin at its strategically
located Helmer-Bovill property in north central Idaho. A 2014
Prefeasibility Study on the Bovill Kaolin Deposit completed by SRK
Consulting (USA) Inc. highlights the potential of the Helmer-Bovill
property’s Bovill Kaolin deposit: after tax NPV6 of $212 million; 30.5%
IRR; 3 year payback and $72.7 million initial CAPEX; $84 million CAPEX
including life of mine sustaining capital over a 25 year mine life.
Ongoing development work is focused on moving the project towards
production.
I-Minerals Inc.
Per:
“Thomas M. Conway”
Thomas M. Conway,
President & CEO
The securities referred to in this news release have not been, nor
will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and may not be offered or sold within the United States or
to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent U.S.
registration or an applicable exemption from the U.S. registration
requirements. This news release does not constitute an offer for the
sale of securities, nor a solicitation for offers to buy any securities.
Any public offering of securities in the United States must be made
by mean of a prospectus containing detailed information about the
company and management, as well as financial statements.
Contact:
Barry Girling
877-303-6573 or 604-303-6573 ext. 102
Email:
info@imineralsinc.com
Or visit our website at
www.imineralsinc.com
Paul J. Searle, Investor Relations
877-303-6573 or 604-303-6573 ext. 113
Email:
psearle@imineralsinc.com
NEITHER THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES
PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE
EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS
NEWS RELEASE.
(1) [Credit Risk Monitor]
(2) Glover, 2008, “The Spruce Pine Mining District … ,”
Carolina Geological Society, 2008 … Annual Meeting …, reprinted from
the 42nd Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: Information
Circular 345, North Carolina Geological Survey, pp. 269- 272, 272.
This News Release includes certain “forward looking statements” within
the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. Without limitation, statements regarding potential
mineralization and resources, exploration results, and future plans and
objectives of the Company are forward looking statements that involve
various risks. Actual results could differ materially from those
projected as a result of the following factors, among others: changes in
the world wide price of mineral market conditions, risks inherent in
mineral exploration, risk associated with development, construction and
mining operations, the uncertainty of future profitability and
uncertainty of access to additional capital.
Back to the News page