IMA - Das Urteil

So wie es ausschaut versucht nun Joe Grosso Schmerzensgeld aus AQI rausholen aber ist sich bewusst das Navidad bei AQI bleibt.
Wer weiss vielleicht geht sein appeal in den Muelleimer und wird gar nicht verhandelt. Mal schaun ob sein Antrag genehmigt wird.
Anscheinend versucht nun Grosso sein Geld im Gerichtssaal zu verdienen anstatt im Gelaende.
Sein team muss wohl auf Urlaub sein, der Geologist von IMA sucht nun Silber am Strand bei voller Bezahlung waerend Joseph Grosso weiter rumstreitet mit Marc Henderson der im Gerichtssaal geboren ist.

September 7, 2007

Dear Shareholder:

I hope that by now you have reviewed our News Release confirming that we have filed our Application with the Supreme Court of Canada asking that the Court hear an Appeal from the decision of the British Columbia courts.

You can see at our website (http://www.imaexploration.com) a copy of the Memorandum of Argument that our counsel filed in support of our application for leave.
I hope you will agree that we have identified two important issues of law that arise from the facts in this case that are worthy of being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Lest you think the argument is unduly short, you should be aware that the Supreme Court of Canada has a strict 20-page limit on such arguments.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your support during this litigation. Notwithstanding the decision of the British Columbia Courts, we know that with IMA's current cash position, and management's proven track record as seasoned explorers, that we can build a very strong future for this company.

Once again, Management appreciates your continued confidence and support.

IMA EXPLORATION INC.

er sagte mir letztes Jahr auf der Goldmesse ....er weis sein Passwort nicht mehr und kommt an den Account nicht ran.

Mehr weis ich nicht.

cu DL...was ihr draus macht....keine Ahnung

IMA Files Reply to Supreme Court of Canada on Navidad Judgment

Wednesday October 17, 2:53 pm ET

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Oct 17, 2007 -- IMA Exploration Inc. (CDNX:IMR.V - News)(AMEX:IMR - News)(Frankfurt:IMT.F - News)(Berlin:IMT.BE - News)(WKN: 884971) filed its reply to Aquiline's Response to IMA's application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on October 15, 2007. IMA's reply is reproduced below and will be posted on the Company's web site (http://www.imaexploration.com) and filed with SEDAR.
The Supreme Court of Canada will review the submissions of IMA and Minera Aquiline Argentina S.A. The Court's decision as to whether they will grant leave to hear IMA's appeal is expected in the first quarter of 2008.

Final Reply (for a complete copy visit http://www.imaexploration.com)

IMA Exploration Inc.(Applicants) and Aquiline Resources (Respondent)

1. In its argument the Respondent avoids the central legal and factual issues presented by this case. In doing so, the Respondent demonstrates why this case raises issues of public importance warranting the attention of this Court.

What is the juridical basis of the action: property rights or detriment to the person confiding information?

2. First, the Respondent's case-at trial, on appeal, and before this Court-is driven by a fundamentally flawed legal theory: that actions for breach of confidence are based on property rights. As contended by the Respondent, the law of breach of confidence protects the "owner's" right to exploit its "property": the confidential information. Based on this theory, the Respondent contends that the remedy for breach of confidence must necessarily be disgorgement of any property acquired by the defendant arising from the misuse of the "owner's property". This is so, in the Respondent's view, whether the action is based on equitable or contractual grounds.

3. The Respondent is wrong and its theory hobbles the court when it comes to remedy. An action for breach of confidence is properly based on a defendant's breach of an obligation of confidence that causes detriment to the person confiding the information. The remedy for breaching an obligation of confidence must therefore be driven by the need to compensate for the detriment actually suffered by the person to whom the obligation of confidence was owed by the defendant. The courts may then calibrate the remedy based on the severity of the breach and the nature of the detriment suffered.

4. In this litigation, however, the British Columbia courts adopted the Respondent's property rights theory and, accordingly, granted a draconian remedy. Significantly, the Respondent makes no effort to support the reasoning adopted by the British Columbia courts in this case by reference to any controlling authority. Instead, the Respondent asserts like a mantra that it was the "owner" of the confidential information in issue in this case, and therefore that the remedy imposed by the British Columbia courts was just.

5. In some cases the difference between these two approaches (and the difference between the courts of British Columbia and Ontario identified in the Applicants' Memorandum of Argument) would not make any difference to the outcome of the action. But in this case the difference is all important. This is so because: (i) the confider of the confidential information (Newmont) suffered no detriment from IMA's use of it; and (ii) the person who claimed to have suffered detriment from IMA's acts (Aquiline) never confided the information. In the result, a stranger to the confidential relationship was awarded IMA's discovery (Navidad) by way of a constructive trust.

6. Because breach of confidence actions are properly based on the relationship of confidence between confider and confidee, the focus of the analysis in the courts below should have been on Newmont's relationship with IMA and any detriment suffered directly or indirectly by Newmont as a result of IMA's use of the data. But the courts below ignored the Newmont/IMA relationship. Instead, the courts considered only the interests of the entity (Aquiline) that claims to have suffered detriment after it acquired ownership of the information that Newmont gave IMA.

7. Contrary to the Respondent's assertion that the trial judgment (and hence the Court of Appeal's judgment) "lacks precision" about the identity of the parties, these judgments are quite precise. The problem with the judgments is that in determining the case the lower courts assessed neither the relationship between Newmont and IMA, nor Newmont's lack of detriment. Instead, the courts below fixed on Aquiline's desire, after it came on the scene, to use the information that Newmont gave IMA to locate Navidad.

8. The trial judgment makes this clear from the outset. In paragraph 3 of her reasons, the trial judge says: "the plaintiff obtained ownership of the data used by IMA to make the discovery (Navidad) as a result of being the successful purchaser of Calcatreu."(1) Of course Aquiline-not the Respondent Minera-was the purchaser. Minera did not purchase itself. Thus the courts below incorrectly focussed on Aquiline rather than on the Newmont/IMA relationship and whether Newmont suffered any detriment from IMA's acts.

The Applicants' issues were central to its case in the courts below

9. This leads to the Respondent's second fallacious point: that the issues raised on this leave application are newly raised in this Court. On the contrary, the focus of the Applicants' case at trial and on appeal was the relationship between Newmont and IMA and the fact that Newmont never wanted to stake Navidad and thus suffered no detriment from IMA's acts. The problem, once again, is that the courts below did not regard this relationship, or Newmont's lack of detriment, relevant to the outcome of the action.

IMA did discover Navidad

10. The Respondent's third fallacious point is that the relationship between Newmont and IMA did not matter because IMA acted dishonestly by claiming that it discovered Navidad. First, IMA did discover Navidad. True, IMA was helped in knowing where to look because it had seen the BLEG A data Newmont had given it. But this does not alter the fact that IMA was the first to look for and find the silver resource at Navidad. Second, the Respondent's allegation of dishonesty, even if true, is irrelevant to the Newmont/IMA relationship because Newmont (and accordingly Minera when it was owned by Newmont) was never going to stake Navidad-a point not in dispute.

The contract was construed contrary to the intentions of the parties to it

11. Finally, the Respondent's property rights analysis infuses its argument on the contract point. The Respondent treats the purpose of the confidentiality agreement in this case-and by extension all such contracts-as being only to protect the confider's property rights in the information that is subject to the contract. Accordingly, the Respondent's argument requires that confidentiality contracts not be interpreted (as all other contracts are) by reference to the parties' mutual intentions at the time the agreement was made. Rather, the Respondent's argument depends on these contracts being interpreted only by reference to general equitable principles governing confidential information, as if the information were property.

12. The courts below adopted the Respondent's approach. In doing so they ignored the fact that, at the time the contract was made, neither Newmont nor IMA was interested in preventing IMA from staking the Navidad area based on any information IMA might obtain from Newmont. The only person who claims that the contract has this effect is the subsequent purchaser of the Respondent, Aquiline.

13. Thus, the courts below gave to the contract as a matter of law a meaning contrary to that which the parties to the contract reasonably intended at the time the contract was made. This is why the correct interpretation of contracts of this type is a matter of public importance.

The Stevens affidavit avoids the issue of national importance

14. It is telling that the Stevens affidavit filed by the Respondent does not state that the issue of how these contracts are to be interpreted is unimportant to the mining and resource industry-and thus leaves the point of the Brown affidavit filed by the Applicant uncontradicted. Indeed, the Respondent overlooks the fact that Brown's company, Canaccord Capital Inc., financed both parties to this litigation and that Brown has no stake in the outcome of this case.

Conclusions

15. All of the foregoing serves to highlight the inequitable and draconian nature of the remedy that was granted in this litigation. Putting the case against the Applicant at its highest, the Applicant used information conveyed to it in confidence to locate a property that the person who conveyed the information never wanted to acquire. Yet, in this case, a stranger to that relationship-a person who by happenstance subsequently acquired ownership of the information-was awarded the property.

16. The remedy granted in this case would not have been available to the person who conveyed the information to the Applicant, but it was given to a stranger to the confidential relationship. This is wrong in law and is manifestly unjust. The fact the remedy was given in the circumstances of this case raises important issues in the law pertaining to equitable and contractual breaches of confidence warranting consideration by this Court.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD

Mr. Joseph Grosso, President & CEO

Comments from Stockhouse Canada :

Consider this, if aquiline didn't find out about BLEGs and sold Minera to company X. Can company X sue IMR through Minera? The story continues.

A broker who follows this story tells me that if the current management team resigns the stock would double

It is great that Aquiline is continuing to expand the size of the Navidad silver deposit for the benefit of the ultimate owner.
The legal battle in the Supreme Court of Canada could continue for many months.

Will it be "Third time lucky"

or

"Three strikes your out""

Natürlich das Letztere !"

Ulfur

Mal schaun, schlimmer als es schon ist kann es nicht mehr werden. In einem Jahr weiss man mehr.
Wenn das Supreme Court den Fall behandelt hat Grosso zumindest eine kleine Chance.
Unabhaengig von meinen Aktienanteil vergoenne ich Henderson eine Niederlage. Der Sack ist doch nur im Gericht reich geworden.

MfG

XEX

"Three strikes your out"

Das ist nur bedingt richtig!
In der Tat, wenn der Supreme Court of Canada es ablehnt den Fall überhaupt anzuhören (und ich habe meine Zweifel das es nochmals zu einer Verhandlung kommt) das ist Ende in Kanada.
Aber wenn man sich mal die Homepage des Supreme Court anschaut und was do so verhandelt worden ist - es sind schon weitaus belanglosere Anliegen gehört worden.

Ich hoffe das Grosso in diesem Fall die Eier hat und die ganze Angelegenheit dahin vor Gericht bring wo sie hingehört - nach Argentinien.

Ich bin auf einen älteren Artikel gestoßen den ich für interessant halte:

http://www.worldpress.org/americas/2223.org

Sorry HTML geht nicht und das Java Applet hat Fehler ihr müsst den Link eben mal rauskopieren.

In Argentinien ist die Sache gar nicht groß verfolgt worden. Wenn die wüssten, daß eine kanadisches Gericht über deren Land entscheidet.

Die Sache ist noch lange nciht vorbei - vorausgesetzt Grosso wagt den Weg nach Argentinien.

Hello,

I got a shareholder package in the mail and notice of shareholder meeting on Dec 4th. The package says that Grosso is taking home a salary of $200,000 for his mismamagement of this company. Has anybody else considered looking into a shareholders class action on this stock and against Grosso? He now is going to conferences and touting the 'Grosso Group' and saying IMR is searching out other properties with their cash. He was putting out the same chit 15 months ago at the 2006 Las Vegas Conference....He gets the company sued, it turns out he was misrepresenting and not disclosing to shareholders, he looses the suit, and he has a non-existant acquisition program while taking down 200k a year....good work if you can get it...not to minimize the fast dealing of Henderson and AQI, but there is plenty of blame to go around.....the shareholders are the big loosers from his and Henderson's actions, and they both were in San Fran in the same room touting

Aquiline Resources Inc. ("Aquiline" or the "Company") (TSX: AQI) advises that the Supreme Court of Canada has announced that it will release its response on the application of IMA Exploration Inc., et. al. ("IMA") v. Minera Aquiline Argentina SA this Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 9:45 am ET. If IMA's application for leave to appeal is denied by the Supreme Court of Canada, then there will be no further appeal recourse for IMA and Aquiline will become the ultimate owner of Navidad.

Am 20 Dezember, rechtzeitig vor Weihnachten, wird der Supreme Court hoffentlich erwartungsgemäß die IMA Revision ablehnen,
das wäre ein schönes

Feliz Navidad

für die Aquiline-Aktionäre.

Ulfur

Willst du wieder Salz in meine Wunden damit reiben ?

Es kommt so wie es kommen wird....vielleicht etwas anderes was du erwartest, dann komme ich und zieh dich auf....Du Bazi !

Gruss

XEX

Nun, das hoffe ich nicht, das es anders kommt, als erwartet, but .. .shit happens.

Ist das nicht erstaunlich, quasi keine Postings im Stockhouse Board zu IMR und AQI. Alle schon im Weihnachtsurlaub? Oder ist der Rechtsstreit bei den Anlegern schon abgehakt?

Dann warten wir mal bis morgen, bei wem das Christkindl reinschneit.

Machen wir uns mal nichts vor

Ich glaube nicht das der Fall angehört wird. Wenn man sich die Homepage des Spreme Court von Kanada anschaut wurden zwar eine Menge, weitaus belanglosere Fälle angehört aber ich hab die Hoffnung aufgegeben in Kanada zu unserem Recht zu kommen.

Ich seh nur die Möglichkeit die Sache nach Argentinien zu bringen.

Ob Grosso aber die Eier hat und die Sache durchzieht wage ich zu bezweifeln.
Dies wäre sicherlich mit dem Umzug der kompletten Comapny verbunden.

Nein, nein, die Sache hat sich in Kanada erledigt.

Bleibt zu hoffen das man ds verbliebene Geld sinnvoll verwendet und endlich neue Claims herbeischafft.

Aber sowas wie Navidad findet man nur einmal im Leben

Henderson dem Drec..... gönne ich indes das er Navidad niemals versilbern kann

Aquiline Resources Inc.: Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Aquiline

Aquiline Resources Inc. ("Aquiline" or the "Company") (TSX: AQI) advises that the Supreme Court of Canada has today dismissed with costs the application for leave to appeal brought by IMA Exploration Inc. ("IMA") in IMA Exploration Inc. and Inversiones Mineras Argentinas S.A. v. Minera Aquiline Argentina SA. Aquiline has therefore been determined to be the sole beneficial owner (the "Ultimate Owner") of the Navidad silver deposit. IMA has no further recourse and its appeal has been terminated.

[Blockierte Grafik: http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q314/rn1112/mickyMinFelizNavidadBlue.jpg]

Ulfur

Gratuliere, ich lebe damit.

Ein scheiss Tag fuer mich , gut fuer dich.

Der Itaker hat verloren,auf die falschen gehoert.

Ich trage es mit Wuerde und verkaufe nichts, egal ob es nun ein Totalverlust wird.

Den thread koennen wir nun schlliessen,auf die meldung braucht sich keiner mehr melden.

Der Fall ist nun abgeschlossen, Grosso wird sich entweder einen neuen Platz suchen oder das restliche Geld verbraten in der Kasse.

Auf den falscher Gaul gesetzt .....Cést la vie !

Trotzdem soll Henderson in der Hoelle braten wollte ich noch sagen.

Don't cry for me Argentina....

XEX

IMA's objective is to once again be regarded as an industry leader in the field of mineral exploration and a premier investment choice.

The Company is undertaking this process in conjunction with its financial advisors (Canaccord Adams) along with other technical and business professionals in an effort to expedite the implementation of this business model.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD

Mr. Joseph Grosso, President & CEO

Ulfur

Sorry, wollte noch anhaengen das ich weiter brav halte sonst ist der Kurs bei 28 cents. :D...bis jetzt keine Panik auf der Titanic.
Cashmaessig ist IMA noch den Kurs wert darum kriegen die nichts von mir.

Vielleicht sollte man jetzt IMA kaufen ??

Was Grosso nun schafft ist eine andere Frage,vielleicht redet einer ueber IMA wieder aber positiv im Forum und dir vergehts lachen mit deiner AQI, oder ???

Bis dort hin bleibt IMA im Eiskasten, jetzt bleibe ich stur, mal schaun obs richtig war.

Die hard...... especially Mr. Henderson the better Lawyer.

Cheers and Feliz Navidad for you.

PS ... I miss Gogh.....

XEX

Jetzt haben einige kapiert das Cash entspricht 42 cents pro Aktie, sonst nichts.
Jetzt kommts drauf an was Grosso mit dem Geld macht, verblast er es oder machte er was draus.?

Frr..ein Mitglied hier das nichts mehr im Forum schreibt nachdem seine IMA und XCL in den Keller fielen ist anscheinend immer noch sauer wie die Sache mit IMA ausging.(siehe link unten)
Was soll ich sagen ???.....mit meinen 900...? Aktien die ich fuer 1.08 CAD mir angekauft habe.
Nun wo Joe Grosso( sein Spezi) in ein Moly Projekt eingestiegen ist nach der Niederlage und zwei Gerichtsurteilen die endgueltig ist fiel der Aktien Kurs noch weiter von 43 cents auf 37 cents.
Ja Bravo ! Mr. Grosso, der macht nun Fortschritte, der kaufte das Moly Projekt wahrscheinlich weil er was machen musste sonst hauen die letzten Aktionare ab weil sie Angst haben Grosso verbrennt die letzte Kohle beim naechsten Urlaub im Mittelmeer.
Ich bedaure das ich auf einige "Analysten" und Meinungen hier reingefallen bin, man lernt nie aus.
Jetzt sitze ich auf dem Scheiss von IMA...was soll ich sonst machen als weiter hoffen.
Seine Meinung unten ist uninteressant, der Fall Navidad ist gegessen, jetzt kommts drauf an was der Aktienkurs macht und ob Joe Grosso seinen fetten Arsch bewegt und wieder was auf die Fuesse stellt bin ich der Meinung....(ehrlich gesagt, ich glaube es nicht, der ist ein Spruecheklopfer, typischer Italiener)
Der feige Hund kann nicht mal eine mail von einen shareholder wie ich beantworten....

Bla- Bla lieber Frr, spar dir deinen report auf den goldseiten "wenn der Hund net gschissn haett"...>>>>

http://www.goldseiten.de/conte…/artikel.php?storyid=2610

Hallo eldo,
das Datum überlesen?
Verfasst von Diverse am 08.05.2006 um 7:53 Uhr

Grüße
Tschonko