Post by
aucu on Oct 27, 2011 4:47pm
Lawsuit
Yankee Hat denies wrongdoing in Fran suit2011-10-26 14:06 ET - Street Wireby Mike CaswellYankee Hat Minerals Ltd. denies that it did anything wrong when it acquired its flagship Fran gold project in 2004. The company, responding to a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia from privately held Manto Resources Ltd., says that it properly purchased the ground from the people it discovered were the actual owners. These were B.C. prospector Richard S. Haslinger and his son.The company is answering a lawsuit in which Manto claims that it had a deal to acquire the ground as part of a plan to go public. It says that Yankee Hat learned about the property and "maliciously procured" Mr. Haslinger to breach his agreement with Manto. The suit also named Union Securities Ltd., claiming that the firm shared confidential property information with Yankee Hat.In its response, Yankee Hat denies any wrongdoing and says that it offered Manto's president, Wayne Tyner, a 10-per-cent finder's fee on the deal. It says that Mr. Tyner refused the fee. He had previously offered to sell Yankee Hat the property for three million shares, but the company discovered he did not have any interest in it, according to the response.Manto's statement of claimManto's allegations are contained in an amended notice of claim filed at the Vancouver courthouse on Jan. 14, 2011. It named Yankee Hat, Union Securities, and Mr. Haslinger and his son as defendants. According to the suit, Manto was planning to go public in 2003 and had negotiated an agreement to acquire Fran as part of that plan. It had also hired Union to act as the agent for its initial public offering.That plan started to go awry in January, 2004, when Mr. Tyner was summoned to Union's office, ostensibly to discuss financing, the suit stated. At that meeting, he was unexpectedly introduced to Yankee Hat president Donald Gee, who told him that Yankee Hat would like to acquire the Fran claims. According to the suit, there was also a follow-up meeting, at which Mr. Gee repeated his offer and added a finder's fee for Mr. Tyner to the deal. Mr. Tyner declined the offer.Around the time of those meetings, Yankee Hat directly approached the property's owner, Mr. Haslinger, and negotiated a deal for the ground, the suit claimed. It finalized that agreement on March 31, 2004, and used Fran to reactivate its listing on the TSX Venture Exchange.Manto contended that in going directly to Mr. Haslinger, Yankee Hat "wrongfully and maliciously procured and induced Haslinger to breach the Option Agreement." Manto also complained that Yankee Hat must have received a confidential technical report on the property from Union. It said that it delivered a copy of the report to the firm in December, 2003, and Yankee Hat had received it by January, 2004.The suit sought damages for interference, breach of confidentiality and breach of the option agreement, plus costs and interest. It also sought a declaration that Yankee Hat holds the Fran property in trust for Manto. Vancouver lawyer Robert King filed the suit on Manto's behalf.Yankee Hat's responseIn its response, filed on Oct. 12, 2011, Yankee Hat generally denies any wrongdoing and says that it only acquired Fran from Mr. Haslinger after learning that Manto had no interest in the ground. The company agrees that it initially offered Manto three million shares for the property, but says it was unable to verify that Manto actually had title to the property. Its initial inquiries, which it made after first meeting with Mr. Tyner, revealed that Manto did not own any mineral claims in B.C., and that it was about to be struck from the corporate registry. Corporate records also showed that Mr. Tyner was not the company's president.At that point, Mr. Gee approached Mr. Haslinger to discuss title to the ground, the response states. Mr. Haslinger and his son told him that neither Manto nor Mr. Tyner had any interest in the Fran claims. Relying on those assurances, the company entered into an option agreement with the Haslingers. At the second meeting with Mr. Tyner, the company offered him a 10-per-cent finder's fee on the deal, according to the response.Yankee Hat denies that it received any confidential property data from Union prior to signing the deal. It admits that it did receive a few pages from Union, but says the information on those pages was already in the public domain. A technical report prepared for Navasota Resources Ltd. in July, 2002, contained the same data and was available from the Ministry of Energy and Mines. The information was also available through Navasota's public filings.The company asks that the claim be dismissed, with costs. Vancouver lawyer Christine Duhaime filed the response on the company's behalf.Responses of Haslingers and UnionMr. Haslinger and his son also deny any wrongdoing. In a response filed on Oct 6, 2011, they said that they had no binding agreement with Manto for the ground. They agreed that they and Manto had negotiated an outline of a deal, but said that Manto was still not a public company so it could not agree to the share and cash payments that they required. In January, 2004, after six months of minimal contact, they decided that they were no longer interested in an agreement with Manto.Elsa Adamick of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP filed the response on behalf of the Haslingers.Union, for its part, also denied any wrongdoing. It presented a version of events that substantially agreed with those of Yankee Hat and the Haslingers. It said that it had told Mr. Tyner, prior to the meeting with Yankee Hat, that it would not be able to take Manto public. It instead suggested that he explore a reverse takeover with a public company, and introduced him to Mr. Gee for that purpose. It did not have any role in the subsequent negotiations between the parties, although it said it did later learn from Yankee Hat that Manto did not have title to Fran.Patrick Sullivan of Taylor Veinotte Sullivan filed Union's response.No trial date has yet been set in the case.