Catalyst Capital hints that it may use sting ‘evidence’ in its $1.5B Wind Mobile lawsuit

TORONTO — Lawyers for Catalyst Capital Group Inc., the private equity firm tied to an unprecedented undercover “sting” against a retired Ontario Superior Court judge, are still suggesting they may use some of that “information and evidence” in court proceedings.

The prospect was mentioned briefly in a hearing Monday before Ontario Superior Court Judge Glenn Hainey in Catalyst’s $1.5-billion lawsuit against West Face Capital, Vimpelcom Ltd. and nine other companies Catalyst says misused its confidential information and conspired to foil its unsuccessful bid for WIND Mobile.

A consortium headed by West Face acquired WIND in a deal valued at about $300 million, and later sold the wireless carrier for $1.6 billion.

The Monday hearing was an unusual one, brought by Catalyst to argue that a recent Court of Appeal decision in its earlier lawsuit against West Face and former employee Brandon Moyse helps its case in the second action.

Last fall, as the National Post reported, Catalyst acknowledged that a subcontractor working for a security firm it hired had carried out the sting on Frank Newbould, who was the trial judge in the original Catalyst lawsuit against West Face.

The subcontracting firm was the Israeli intelligence firm Black Cube, but a spokesman authorized to speak for Catalyst said at the time that Catalyst neither ordered nor knew about it until after it happened.

Newbould was surreptitiously audiotaped and photographed as he was wooed by an agent posing as a potential client in his then-new arbitration business.

The fruits of that undercover operation — photographs of Newbould at dinner, an audio tape and edited transcripts — were then shopped, unsolicited, to the Post by third parties who attempted to discredit the former judge.

A Wind Mobile store stands in downtown Calgary, Alta., on Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2016.

Just last month, the appeal court dismissed Catalyst’s appeal in the Moyse case, where Newbould found so strongly in favour of West Face — exceptionally, the appeal court did it from the bench, without even requiring lawyers representing Moyse or West Face to argue the matter.

West Face and the other defendants are asking Hainey to stay — or dismiss — the Vimpelcom case.

But Catalyst asked for an extra opportunity to make further arguments about the impact of the appeal court’s decision in the Moyse case on the Vimpelcom lawsuit, saying that it means the stay shouldn’t be granted.

The two lawsuits are similar, in that in the Moyse lawsuit, Catalyst argued that it was …read more

Source:: Nationalpost

      

(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)

Be the first to comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*