I-Minerals Provides Update on Hoodoo Resources and Brent Thomson Family Trust Complaint

October 8, 2014

Vancouver, B.C. (October 8, 2014) — I-Minerals Inc. (TSX.V: IMA; OTCQX: IMAHF) (“the Company” or “I-Minerals”) announces that further to the Company’s press releases of March 20, 2014 and July 3, 2014, I-Minerals wishes to provide the following update with respect to the complaint filed against the Company by W. Robert Lemke (carrying on business as HooDoo Resources) and Brent Thomson Family Trust, each minority members with a 12.5% interest in Idaho Industrial Minerals, LLC (“IIM”) collectively “the Plaintiffs”. In the initial complaint filed June 6, 2014 in the Idaho State Court (“the Plaintiffs Complaint”) it appeared Thomson and Lemke were attempting to exercise derivative rights without the consent of the majority of the members of IIM to reject consideration paid to IIM with respect to I-Mineral’s Helmer-Bovill property in January 2013 pursuant to an August 10, 2002 agreement, as amended, between the Company and IIM (the “IIM Agreement”). Counsel for the Company can find no precedent or basis in law that minority members of a company have a derivative right to take action for or on behalf of a company in an attempt to return the shares of I-Minerals paid to IIM as consideration for the Helmer-Bovill property.

Subsequent to the filing of the case on June 6, 2014 I-Minerals filed a motion to dismiss based upon the inadequacies in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. While that motion was pending, counsel for the Plaintiffs sought, and the Court allowed, Hoodoo and Thomson to file an Amended Complaint to correct certain inadequacies; however, the Amended Complaint has not yet been filed or served on I-Minerals. Also while the motion to dismiss was pending, I-Minerals filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against I-Minerals. The hearing on I-Minerals’ Motion for Summary Judgment was scheduled for August 25, 2014, but the hearing was subsequently continued for 30 days to allow the parties to review allegedly new information with respect to the Fourth Amendment of the IIM Agreement. Information entered into evidence during this 30 day continuance has done nothing to erode management and its counsel’s belief that the contract between the Company and IIM was duly completed in accordance with the terms of the IIM Agreement and that the Plaintiffs did not possess any derivative right and were therefore not empowered to bring the action. Nor is there any evidence of deceit that in the opinion of the Company and its counsel is even remotely credible.

The hearing on I-Minerals’ Motion for Summary Judgment took place on September 25. At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiffs acknowledged potential problems with their claim for right of reverter of the Mineral Leases but insisted that they still had a claim for damages.

The Court has taken I-Minerals’ Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement. I-Minerals submits that the IIM Agreement has been completed and that all of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims should be dismissed based upon several theories, including the fact that IIM never rejected the tender of shares and that the statute of limitations had expired on a number of Plaintiffs’ claims. Included in the Motion is a request for a Court Order that the Leases are rightfully owned by I-Minerals.

At this point discovery has not yet begun in this case, and I-Minerals is diligently litigating the claims based upon counsel and management’s strong belief that the claims are not well-grounded in fact or law. To date the Plaintiffs have amended the complaint multiple times. The Plaintiffs have dropped all charges against the Company’s current President, Thomas Conway, and dismissed all charges with prejudice against the Company’s former President and CEO Roger Kauffman, who was the senior executive ultimately in charge of the Company at the time the alleged breach of contract and deceitful inducement to sign the Fourth Amendment took place.

Given that no substantive evidence has been presented throughout the proceedings to cause I-Minerals management to waiver from its initial position that there is no basis for a derivative rights action, no basis for any claim of deceitful inducement to enter into the IIM Agreement and no basis for a breach of contract, it is evaluating different means to recover not only the legal costs associated with this dubious legal action, but also costs associated with the related delays in advancing the project through feasibility and ultimately into production. Accordingly I-Minerals is analyzing whether it should file a counterclaim against Plaintiffs based upon several legal theories.

“It is our steadfast belief that this case is entirely without merit,” stated Thomas Conway, President and CEO of I-Minerals Inc. “The Plaintiffs are simply using time and delays as a weapon to try and negotiate a settlement, and on several occasions have already sought such settlement. We believe there is no credible basis in law for Thomson and Lemke’s actions and accordingly look forward to the opportunity to hold them fully accountable.”

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 project towards production.

I-Minerals Inc.

per: “Thomas M. Conway”

Thomas M. Conway,
President & CEO


I-Minerals Inc.
Barry Girling
877-303-6573 or 604-303-6573
Or visit our website at


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