Nickel Ltd perfects Hague Convention Service of $ 22 million claim against Pure Bioscience

Share Article

Nickel Ltd today announced confirmation from the Ministry of Justice of perfected service under the Hague Convention of the second lawsuit against Pure Bioscience (Formerly Innovative Medical Services "IMS") OTC:BB PURE. This second suit is for direct contractual damages exceeding $22 million and will seek other, additional consequential and ancillary damages.

Nickel Ltd – today announced confirmation from the Ministry of Justice of perfected service under the Hague Convention of the second lawsuit against Pure Bioscience (Formerly Innovative Medical Services "IMS") OTC:BB PURE. This second suit is for direct contractual damages exceeding $22 million and will seek other, additional consequential and ancillary damages.

A first suit seeking $ 15 million in contractual damages is ongoing.

Attorneys representing Nickel stated :

“This lawsuit is the second of three suits to be initiated arising out of various conflict which we believe are the product of Pure’s questionable intentions from the outset of the relationship. Evidence suggests that Pure’s only purpose for engineering the agreements with Nickel was a need to buttress its declining stock quotation through leaks and subsequent news releases.

Pure’s egregious disregard for contractual obligations, appears to be a modus opendi in support of a tactic known as pump and dump. It contracts, leaks information, announces the deal, manipulates its stock quotation, and brings or provokes suit to extract itself from the commercial relationship and extort settlements.

Noteworthy on this point is the company’s organizational structure. It has 11 employees one of which is a full time staff litigator, another of which is a para-legal, it has no marketing or sales department, no business activity to speak of and purported annual revenues of at most $ 150,000. Throughout its existence it has incurred systematic losses of several million dollars each year. Yet, undeterred it violently dilutes shareholder equity by covering a large amount of its expenses, reportedly including executive and other reportedly disproportionate compensations by the issuance of options and shares, in a never ending cycle to fuel the need for news to prime the pump and strategies ensuring key officer cash outs.

Semantics and disingenuous commentary, tortuous and self-serving misinterpretations, alleged cease and desists, and inaccuracies, appear regularly in PURE’s SEC filings and Press Releases alike.”

Nickel, stated that its total claims against Pure, which do or will in a forthcoming third proceeding include allegations for (i) breaches of Nickel’s exclusive rights to commercialize Axen, an Axenohl derivative in Europe and the United States, (ii) breaches of Pure’s agreement not to compete in the US and in Europe, (iii) and breaches of Pure’s fiduciary responsibilities in the management of a joint venture, and (iv) other direct contract claims, exceed $ 47.500.000,00 in direct contract claims, and that amount again in other damages.

Pure’s admission of its multi-million dollar contractual liability to Nickel appear in SEC filings – see 10QSB 17 March, 2003 and 10QSB 16 June 2003. Under one of the three contracts, Pure is also liable to deliver to Nickel nearly 800.000 shares of Pure common stock as at its value on March 11, 2003 exposing Pure to $ 368,000 in additional damages based on today’s trading price.

On March 25, 2005, the French Court ruled against Pure and confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate two of the matters and PURE did not appeal. The French Court further granted leave to proceed on two lawsuits on an accelerated basis in the trial part. Attorneys for Nickel stated : “Such leave is generally interpreted to signify the court’s belief that a case is meritorious.”

Nickel also advised that it and its attorneys are considering participating in a series of additional lawsuits against Pure and its officers and agents with other parties, and considering a class action. These claims aggregate in excess of $ 100 million all or many of which will be filed shortly some before the end of this year.

Attorneys for Nickel concluded: "Under two of the Agreement(s) Pure is specifically prohibited from any competing activity in the United States, and required to make minimum purchases and meet development objectives all of which it has refused to perform. In our view, the presentation and sale of Axen or Axenohl derivative products in the United States specifically competes with Nickel’s disinfection product group, and as such constitutes, in the least a clear violation of the non-compete clause of the agreement.”

Nickel recently suffered a judgment against it for € 8,800, 000.00 ( $ 10,736,000.00) in favor of Falken Industries Ltd for damages resulting from its inability to deliver under a supply agreement with Falken, which it said was a direct consequence of Pure’s refusal or inability to deliver to it.

When contacted, Rishard Lebbe, Ast Vice President Communication at Falken advised :

“Pure has mastered the art of trompe l’oeil and gives new meaning to the adage of counting one’s eggs before they are hatched. It professes for example the recovery of a $ 3,6 million arbitral award against Falken, but conspicuously omits from its disclosures in SEC filings and Press Releases, that on appeal, Pure has argued and admitted that the Federal Court compelling Falken to arbitrate even as it was a non-signatory to the arbitral clause contained in the litigious contract, was without subject matter jurisdiction. This argument supported by a decision of Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States, renders the order compelling the arbitration, and as a consequence the award against Falken resulting there-from a complete nullity.”

Falken has moved to have confirmation stayed while awaiting decision on the appeal.

About Nickel LTD

Nickel Ltd is an investor in intellectual properties, product engineering and marketing.

This press release includes statements that may constitute "forward-looking" statements, usually containing the words "believe", "estimate", "project", "expect" or similar expressions. These statements are made, to the extent relevant, pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Factors that would cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, acceptance of the Company's current and future products and services in the marketplace, the ability of the Company to develop effective new products and receive regulatory approvals of such products, competitive factors, dependence upon third-party vendors, and other risks. By making these forward-looking statements, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release.


Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Srdjan Ristic
2 222 1076
Email >