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
Contact:
I-Minerals Inc.
Barry Girling
877-303-6573 or 604-303-6573
Email:
info@imineralsinc.com
Or visit our website at
www.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.
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