New settlement conference date is here. It is now 22 July 2013.
ICM is asking for a Writ of Mandamus Here.
Notice that it is filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court.
What the heck is a Writ of Mandamus? Mr. Wiki speaks HERE.
At first blush it seems that ICM is trying to compel the MDL court to do or not do . . . something . . ?
SkunK
I hate to go out on a (short) limb here, but it seems obvious that ICM has not been happy with the way things have been going in the MDL court. Time after time the court has sided with GreenShift on the major issues. Time and again ICM has used border line harsh language to describe the court's decisions. ICM is now going up the food chain to get things straightened out!
It seems ICM has a very high legal bar to cross. If they are not legally justified in this step and are ruled against, they run the risk of appearing arrogant and disrespectful of the MDL court. Or is that burning bridge already in the rear view mirror?
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
Google "The Use of Mandamus in Federal Courts" by Haden and Tompkins. This is a short pdf that provides important perspective.
1) This appears to be an act of desperation on the part of ICM, which is good for GERS.
2) The Appellate Court can take an indeterminate amount of time to rule and the lower court proceedings could be suspended during this time.
Those of you that have scoffed at the possibility that DVG will avail himself of all legal strategies to delay these proceedings need to think again. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that this filing and the PEIX announcement have occurred in the same week. Their strategy to extend these proceedings to the point that GERS is financially exhausted seems to continue to be in play as we launch the second legal front.
SETTLEMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Possible settlements delayed by the mother ship.
and pix drops
pix down again
If a party to a case is dissatisfied with some decision of the trial court, the party may appeal the decision to a higher court with a petition for a writ of mandamus before the trial proceeds. The order will be issued only in exceptional circumstances.
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms not happy
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
icms desperate
The Lawsuit Against Patent Infringing PEIX Specifically Mentions the Stockton plant which has Edeniq equipment, not ICM's.
Edeniq does not indemnify their equipment. As an example, Amaizing Energy got sued for infringing with Edeniq equipment. Edeniq left them hanging and Amaizing Energy went under. They sold out to ANDE who has since licensed their equipment with GERS. Are you saying ICM is indemnifing equipment that's not theirs but Edeniqs? PEIX will burn millions they don't have defending against these solid patents, backed and double checked by the USPTO and interpreted in GERS' favor by the courts.
Have a look at what Cardinal Ethanol(being sued for using ICM equipment) said about ICM's indemnification "promise". Keep in mind, ICM is hurting as no more ethanol plants have been built in years. ICM laid off more than 50% of their workforce since this lawsuit began.
"However, in the event that damages are awarded, if ICM, Inc. is unable to fully indemnify the Company for any reason, the Company could be liable. In addition, the Company may need to cease use of its current oil separation process and seek out a replacement or cease oil production altogether."
"The Company is not currently able to predict the outcome of this litigation with any degree of certainty. ICM, Inc. has, and the Company expects it will continue, to vigorously defend itself and the Company in these lawsuits. The Company estimates that damages sought in this litigation would be based on a reasonable royalty to, or lost profits of, GS CleanTech Corporation. If the court deems the case exceptional, attorney’s fees may be awarded and are likely to be $1,000,0000 or more. ICM, Inc. has also agreed to indemnify the Company. However, in the event that damages are awarded, if ICM, Inc. is unable to fully indemnify the Company for any reason, the Company could be liable. In addition, the Company may need to cease use of its current oil separation process and seek out a replacement or cease oil production altogether." *****************************************
"We are subject to litigation involving our corn oil extraction technology. We have been sued by GS CleanTech Corporation for asserting its intellectual property rights to certain corn oil extraction processes we obtained from ICM, Inc. in August 2008. GS CleanTech is seeking to enforce its patent rights against ICM and the Company. According to information available through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, certain patents have been issued and other patents will be issued to GS CleanTech. If GS CleanTech is successful in its infringement action against the Company, we may be force to pay damages to GS CleanTech as a result of our use of such technology."
That's right, ICM indemnified Cardinal Ethanol and Cardinal is telling their shareholders that if ICM can't pay, the buck stops with the infringing ethanol plant. That they're liable and may be forced to halt oil extraction in the event of an injunction.
SETTLEMENTS BILLIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BILLIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm no lawyer, but I think the way they've characterised it actually understates their culpability. They suggest that their liability only attaches in the event that ICM can't pay the indemnity. This is not the case imo. As infringers of the patents they would be directly liable in the event the case went against them, regardless of ICM's ability or willingness to pay. GERS would look to to them directly to pay the settlement and then they could try to recover from ICM rather like trying to recover after the fact from an insurance policy. The financial position of Cardinal Ethanol and the other infringers is therefore more important to GERS than that of ICM.
Let's get it on. The sooner they settle is better. The price goes up daily.
Let's get it on. The sooner they settle is better. The price goes up daily.
Post a Comment