RE:Utah Court Docs over on CEO.CALigthningmillz, thanks for much for these documents. I have only read a couple. Found Izatt's Pre Dec 4, court appearance to be enlightening.
https://cdn.ceo.ca/1ev03io-IBC_Advanced_Technologies_v_6th_Wave_Innovations_et_al__utdce-19-00826__0071.1.pdf IBC tries to convince the court to end the injunction stating among other things that:
1) Ucore would not suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted and
2) does the balance of convenience favor an injunction?
IBC also tried to pressure the court to NOT grant the injunction by citing this statement from another Canadian case: "An injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted by the court only in the clearest cases and in accordance with what are now well established principles."
And then proposed that this is far from a "clear case" in which injunctive relief should issue.
IBC then endeavors to substantiate their position related to the above.
Obviously the NS Court found that one or both of these tests were in Ucore's favor AND it appears to be a "clear case" to the NS Court!
Other interesting information in this affidavit:
Statement 70 "Mr. Izatt has the relevant subject matter and industry experience required to continue IBC's upward trajectory" and "IBC's business is anticipated to continue to grow, and Mr. Izatt is the best person to maximize the value of IBC." If this were true why was IBC in debt to the tune of $1,776,000 when Ucore came along and this after Izatt was leading IBC for 25+ years? It seems that Izatt's past performance isn't indicative that his future performance would maximize IBC's value.
Statement 74 ".. there is no evidence that his 30-year mission will somehow change for the period this litigation is pending." That's got to be worrisome to Ucore since Izatt's track record indicates deception, falsifying financial transactions, and growing IBC debt to the point Izatt himself had to finance the company.
Statement 81 "If the injunctive relief is granted, IBC's ability to innovate and grow will be stifled... The Non-Competition Covenant at Article 9a of the Cooperating Agreement limits the customers with whom IBC can deal in its ongoing business."
Aricle 9a states "IBC ... that they will not, except as approved in writing by Ucore offer any products or services to any person or company that carries on business that is in any way substantially similar to or expected to be competitive with the Business contemplated by the Joint Operating Enterprise ..."
The Joint Operating Enterprise is focused on Rare Earths processing and tailings processing. IBC's business before Ucore was focused on PGM and other non Rare Earth metals processing.
How does the injunction then limit IBC's ability to grow its business in ways that it was accustomed to doing unless of course IBC believes that the real growth of its business is in the Rare Earth and tailings sphere?
Statement 82 "The Option Agreement precludes IBC from selling shares." IBC can issue IBC shares it just needs Ucore's approval. IBC can also issue stock options to its existing shareholders.
Statements 88-93 Izatt also tries to convince the court that the injunctive relief shouldn't be granted because of IBC's claims of how Ucore has had misrepresentations, acted in bad faith, continued violation of IBC's intellectual property etc. In other words Izatt is asking the court to make a decision on items that are currently before other courts supporting IBC's accusations. What?