Here is a post I made of my analysis of the court case in may last year. What i remember from 2018 is unexpectedly losing the Marc and Christina from the ibat team, then shortly after the JV with sorcia. Also I remember after that happened the word "oil-field brine" was missing from all company updates until 2021 in may.
Lawsuit analysis made on May 19th 2021:
This lawsuit, like all, is a moving target. First off so far we only get to see the plaintiffs views and opinions of the current state of things. We have not yet gotten a response from IBAT relating to these claims.
So in 2016 Burba partnered with these two other people to form a company called North American Lithium (NAL). These two people were/are Marc Philip Privitera and Christina Metz Borgese. These two people partnered with Burba to create a company called NAL, this company was to hold the Intellectual Property equally owned equally by Burba, Priviteral, and Borgese. NAL still owns the intellectual property for the mobile extraction unit. Well when this happened burba then formed ibat to focus on the oil-well brine. Specifically NAL contractually assigned the commonly owned intellectual property to IBAT which restricts Ibats use of the intellectual property only be used with oil-field brine. All other applications except for a specifically designated area of the imperial valley were to be used only by NAL. So the contract with NAL was that all three members would be also be part of IBAT where they could control the people who were 51% of the IBAT board of directors, and that ibat could only own the rights to oil-fields related intellectual property. At the same time the Salton sea brine areas in the imperial valley was set apart from that requirement but the company that owns the rights to mine the Salton sea valley for lithium refused to work with Burba. For some unknown reason, the salton sea company who owned the mining rights for imperial valley refused to work with burba either through ibat or NAL. So the two other partners of nal decided to try and set up a deal with the Salton sea company without burba, which was explicitly designated as something allowed in the contract that ibat had with NAL along with the employment contracts which Privitera and Borgese had with IBAT. Well something happened and burba decided to terminate the employment of both Privertera and Borgese, from their executive ibat positions, in may 2018 only weeks after signing the contract IBAT made with NAL for the intellectual property related to oil-field brines. From the lawsuit it seems he terminated their employment because they were making the deal with the salton sea company whereby he was not directly involved because the salton sea company refused to deal with burba directly. So this is the history lesson that we learn from the the lawsuit.
Going further down this rabbit hole, the lawsuit claims that IBAT has not released the original share certificates which IBAT contractually is obligated to give to both Privertera and Borgese, whereby they have not yet be able to deposit these IBAT shares into any "main street" brokerage firm because the certificates they were given are copy's and not the original. The lawsuit goes on to claim that they have not yet been able to get the original share certificates related to the NAL intellectual property acquisition contract. Also since this has happened burba has licensed the patent pending intellectual property acquired from NAL to Sorcia for non oil-fields related intellectual property and use. (Futhermore, at the patent office where burbas patent is running in to trouble. One of the main points from the examiner is that the use of the patent for oil-field specific brines is not a patentable claimed because it is a obvious use of such technology as it stands in the art. This makes it seem like IBAT will not be able to get a oil-field specific patent under the current circumstances.)
It makes it seem like burba has been violating the intellectual property contract agreement it has with NAL. Along with the withholding of the original share certificates contractually obligated to both Privertera and Borgese from the NAL - IBAT intellectual property contract.
Although there is a way for things to work them selves out in ibat's favor for sure. Like there is a chance ibat could end up with reinforced rights to it's intellectual property and that of all the non oil-fields brine applications/property as well. But I have no idea what the court might do. And these allegations are pretty intense and unexpected, so I do not lean towards thinking this will occur.
So to sum things up these are the summary of claims against IBAT as presented by both Privertera and Borgese where Privertera is still a executive officer employed at IBAT.
1. Breach of Borgese Employment Agreement against IBAT
Burba Fired Borgese for inappropriate reasons. The lawsuit Requests payment for salary, severance, and bonus. As specified by their employment contract.
2. Breach of Privitera Employment Agreement against IBAT
Burba Fired Privitera for inappropriate reasons. The lawsuit Requests payment for salary, severance, and bonus. As specified by their employment contract.
3. Breach of Share Exchange Agreement against IBAT
Non-payment of Quarterly Royalty Payments, in violation of
Section 2.4 and Schedule C
Failure to create of advisory board “to oversee the development
and implementation of lithium extraction and processing
technology” where two of three positions are to be appointed by
NAL
. Prevented NAL from overseeing the development and
implementation of the intellectual property,
Prevented NAL from nominating 51% of IBAT Board seats
Licensing of technology to other parties
4. Breach of Contract Share Exchange Agreement against IBAT
By the Holders of Shares Issued by SA Lithium, Borgese and Privitera
(“Borgese and Privitera”)
Failure to deliver original share certificates to Borgese and
Privitera for 1,566,667 and 1,566,666 shares respectively in
violation of SEA Section 2.2(a
Failure to issue Vend-In Shares to Borgese and Privitera of
5,024,330 and 5,024,332 shares respectively in violation of SEA
Section 2.2(b) (i-iii) and Schedule A
Failure to issue Stock Option Plan shares in violation of SEA
Section 2.2., estimated to be 5,698,500 to each Borgese and
Privitera,
Failure to grant additional stock option participation in violation of
SEA Section 3.2(a),
Preventing Borgese and Privitera the right to nominate individuals
to fill the “EVP Engineering and Operations and EVP Research
and Development positions” in violation of SEA Section 3.4
Failure to grant additional stock option participation in violation of
SEA Section 3.2(a)
5. Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations against Burba and IBAT
by Borgese and Privitera
IBAT also knew or reasonably should have known of Borgese and
Privitera’s ongoing and prospective business relations with SSI because the intellectual
property acquired by IBAT was limited to “lithium extraction from oil-field brines”, and
EEA Section 7 excluded work done on geothermal sources in the Imperial Valley from
competitive conduct.,
Burba and IBAT’s interference with the above matters was intentional,
improper and without authorization
6. Breach of Contract against Burba
By NAL
Since August 2018 Burba has failed to provide capital to support the
operations of NAL
NAL sent Burba a request for a capital contribution for his share of the
NAL expenses
As a direct and proximate result of Burba’s violations of the contractual
obligations to NAL, NAL has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages
Overall I feel like there are many very troubling parts to this lawsuit.
First Privitera who is still a board member is part of this lawsuit against IBAT.
Second Ibat is accused of not fallowing through with the contract to acquire its intellectual property from NAL on multiple fronts and sections.
Third IBAT has known its intellectual property is restricted to oil-field brines but has made license agreements with Sorcia which are not related to oil-field brines.
Therefore this lawsuit as it is now presented is a threat to three aspects for IBAT.
1. it is a monetary threat due to the potential for inappropriate employment termination, and all the costs/fees assocated.
2 it is a threat to intellectual property related to the apparent violation of the contract between IBAT and NAL for intellectual property
3 it is a threat to the license agreements between IBAT and Sorcia because IBAT has licensed its technology for use in non oil-field brine areas which goes explicitly beyond the contractual obligations made between IBAT and NAL
