Nickel Ltd Files Second Lawsuit Against Pure Bioscience for $22 Million

24 November 2005

Nickel LTD today announced that in accord with a March 25, 2005 court judgment in its favor authorizing suit on an accelerated basis, it has filed a second lawsuit against Pure Bioscience (Formerly Innovative Medical Services "IMS") seeking $22 million in direct quantifiable contractual damages, and for a like amount in other relief.
The first suit against Pure was recently served and is on-going. That suit seeks direct contractual damages exceeding $15 million as quantified under the explicit terms of that contract, and an equal amount in unspecified damages.
Nickel, stated that its total claims against Pure, which do or will in a forthcoming third proceeding already in preparation, 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 $47500,000.00 in direct contract claims, and that amount again in other damages.
Falken Industries Ltd recently recovered a consent judgment against Nickel for € 8,800,000.00 ($10,736,000.00) for damages resulting from Nickel’s inability to deliver under a supply agreement. Nickel maintains that its default was the direct consequence of PURE’s refusal or inability to deliver to it.
Pure’s multi-million dollar contractual obligations to Nickel are acknowledged by Pure and appear in SEC filings – see 10QSB 17 March, 2003 and 10QSB 16 June 2003. PURE’s press releases of the time also admit Nickel’s timely performance under the contracts and all are public records which have been submitted in the suit. Under one of three contracts, Pure is also liable to deliver to Nickel nearly 800.000 shares of Pure common stock and a third suit is being initiated in Sweden and is expected to be filed within a month seeking a declaratory judgment that those shares are irrevocably vested in Nickel or its assign as well as other declaratory relief specifying that the contract as a whole including the exclusivities granted to Nickel, are a binding and enforceable obligation of Pure. Exclusive jurisdiction of the Swedish arbitral tribunal is contractually compelled.
The jurisdiction of the French courts for the first two suits was heavily contested by Pure, but 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 is considering its options in participating in a series of additional lawsuits beingasserted by other parties, aggregating claims purportedly in excess of $ 100 million, being brought separately against Pure, its officers, agents, publicist, and other representatives in their corporate and individual capacities, and which are being filed in France under article 1382 of the French Civil Code. Exclusive jurisdiction for these claims is in the French courts under Article 14 of the French Civil Code.
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.”
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.

Source: PrWeb

All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.