Izatt counterclaim will include Suncor for us !!
Post# of 280
(Total Views: 208)
Posted On: 10/17/2019 11:19:21 PM
Izatt counterclaim will include Suncor for us !!
From Utah case we're waiting for them to close out once and for all because he lost in NS
Case Case 2:19-cv-00222-PMW ......; 10. In the Canadian Lawsuit, Ucore asserts that the Option Agreement is valid and binding and it asserts its rights to enforce that agreement. See Ucore Amended Notice of Action at page 1. In this Second Utah Lawsuit, IBC alleges that Ucore can no longer enforce its rights under the Option Agreement.
12. Finally, it is IBCs position that it was defrauded into entering the Option Agreement and it has asserted numerous claims based on this core allegation. This position will be fully litigated in the Canadian proceeding as either a defense or counterclaim to Ucores claim that the Option Agreement is valid and enforceable.
In this, the Second Utah Lawsuit, IBC and Mr. Izatt assert 7 causes of action. The first and second causes of action are for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. IBC and Mr. Izatts complaint goes on for pages, but the actual conduct that allegedly amounts to the various alleged breaches of contract and breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing all occurred outside of Utah, mostly in Canada. Specifically, IBC and Mr. Izatt allege that Ucore breached the contracts by: ---- the allegations are deleted, yes, missing. ----skip to g & h
G; Ucore is a Canadian company and at the time these disputed agreements were developed, its officers resided in Canada, so it would presumably have drafted the agreements from its office in Canada. ...... H; Suncor is a Canadian company just like Ucore. See Suncor Articles of Amalgamation attached hereto as Exhibit F.
16. The third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action are various fraud and tort claims. They all stem from the same breaches outlined above and/or Ucores alleged fraudulent statements, fraudulent intent, and/or alleged failure to provide to information. IBC conclusorily alleges that these representations allegedly occurred both in Utah and Canada (see id. generally). IBC, of course, disputes that it made any misrepresentations and that any representations made about the contracts at issue were made in Canada. 17. More fundamentally, IBC contends that these mispresentations induced it into entering into an Option Extension Agreement. A copy of the Option Extension Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The Option Extension Agreement is an amendment to the Option Agreement that the parties previously entered into. A copy of the Option Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit H. Exhibit H ........ 20. There is no allegation in the Complaint that IBC was induced to enter into the Option Extension Agreement on the basis of a misrepresentation as to the terms that the Option Extension Agreement contains. See Complaint generally. 21. But even if the alleged misrepresentations of which Ucore complains would survive the integration clause, proving that those representations were false will require examination of (1) what a Canadian company and its employees knew or did not know; (2)
( that right there is the "Suncor is a canadian company just like Ucore" reference made above & i.d.'s Suncor as Ucore's partner in crime acquisition from Izatt )
whether that Canadian company had the requisite fraudulent intent; and (3) whether the Canadian company had facts or information in its possession that should have alerted it to the alleged falsity of its disclosures and non-disclosures. All of this evidence comes predominantly from Canadian witnesses and evidence. 22. The sixth cause of action is for unjust enrichment. IBC asks the Court to order Ucore to disgorge the value of the benefit it allegedly received".............there it is, this knuckle head is about to name Suncor as a conspiracy with Ucore and it will blast this partnership ALL over the news!!! --- Remember 3 days after Ucore pr'd the OTP, he complained. But even still he never issued a Termination Notice until that incorrect one in Feb. 2019!! All things Suncor now make sense, 100%. I was thinking, why have we not seeing anything related to "Suncor"....because it's the Counterclaim he has to file and knows he doesn't stand a chance!!
Suncor being accused of conspiring to steal a Ntl Defence related technology......that has pilot plant proven to separate and process HREE's, is going to be huge!! And this explains the busting out with news from Ucore in advance and when people flock to the website........all their going to see is professional, patriotic looking information. WOOooo!!
not preferred, but also NOT going anywhere near the way Iazz envisioned either. : )))))
From Utah case we're waiting for them to close out once and for all because he lost in NS
Case Case 2:19-cv-00222-PMW ......; 10. In the Canadian Lawsuit, Ucore asserts that the Option Agreement is valid and binding and it asserts its rights to enforce that agreement. See Ucore Amended Notice of Action at page 1. In this Second Utah Lawsuit, IBC alleges that Ucore can no longer enforce its rights under the Option Agreement.
12. Finally, it is IBCs position that it was defrauded into entering the Option Agreement and it has asserted numerous claims based on this core allegation. This position will be fully litigated in the Canadian proceeding as either a defense or counterclaim to Ucores claim that the Option Agreement is valid and enforceable.
In this, the Second Utah Lawsuit, IBC and Mr. Izatt assert 7 causes of action. The first and second causes of action are for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. IBC and Mr. Izatts complaint goes on for pages, but the actual conduct that allegedly amounts to the various alleged breaches of contract and breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing all occurred outside of Utah, mostly in Canada. Specifically, IBC and Mr. Izatt allege that Ucore breached the contracts by: ---- the allegations are deleted, yes, missing. ----skip to g & h
G; Ucore is a Canadian company and at the time these disputed agreements were developed, its officers resided in Canada, so it would presumably have drafted the agreements from its office in Canada. ...... H; Suncor is a Canadian company just like Ucore. See Suncor Articles of Amalgamation attached hereto as Exhibit F.
16. The third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action are various fraud and tort claims. They all stem from the same breaches outlined above and/or Ucores alleged fraudulent statements, fraudulent intent, and/or alleged failure to provide to information. IBC conclusorily alleges that these representations allegedly occurred both in Utah and Canada (see id. generally). IBC, of course, disputes that it made any misrepresentations and that any representations made about the contracts at issue were made in Canada. 17. More fundamentally, IBC contends that these mispresentations induced it into entering into an Option Extension Agreement. A copy of the Option Extension Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The Option Extension Agreement is an amendment to the Option Agreement that the parties previously entered into. A copy of the Option Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit H. Exhibit H ........ 20. There is no allegation in the Complaint that IBC was induced to enter into the Option Extension Agreement on the basis of a misrepresentation as to the terms that the Option Extension Agreement contains. See Complaint generally. 21. But even if the alleged misrepresentations of which Ucore complains would survive the integration clause, proving that those representations were false will require examination of (1) what a Canadian company and its employees knew or did not know; (2)
( that right there is the "Suncor is a canadian company just like Ucore" reference made above & i.d.'s Suncor as Ucore's partner in crime acquisition from Izatt )
whether that Canadian company had the requisite fraudulent intent; and (3) whether the Canadian company had facts or information in its possession that should have alerted it to the alleged falsity of its disclosures and non-disclosures. All of this evidence comes predominantly from Canadian witnesses and evidence. 22. The sixth cause of action is for unjust enrichment. IBC asks the Court to order Ucore to disgorge the value of the benefit it allegedly received".............there it is, this knuckle head is about to name Suncor as a conspiracy with Ucore and it will blast this partnership ALL over the news!!! --- Remember 3 days after Ucore pr'd the OTP, he complained. But even still he never issued a Termination Notice until that incorrect one in Feb. 2019!! All things Suncor now make sense, 100%. I was thinking, why have we not seeing anything related to "Suncor"....because it's the Counterclaim he has to file and knows he doesn't stand a chance!!
Suncor being accused of conspiring to steal a Ntl Defence related technology......that has pilot plant proven to separate and process HREE's, is going to be huge!! And this explains the busting out with news from Ucore in advance and when people flock to the website........all their going to see is professional, patriotic looking information. WOOooo!!
not preferred, but also NOT going anywhere near the way Iazz envisioned either. : )))))
(0)
(0)