Westwater Resources Announces Favorable Decision by Texas Supreme Court
March 26 2018 - 7:59PM
Westwater Resources, Inc. (Nasdaq:WWR) (“WWR” or
“Westwater”) is pleased to announce that, on March 23, 2018, the
Supreme Court of the State of Texas issued a unanimous (8-0)
decision favorable to Westwater in its long-running lawsuit between
a Westwater subsidiary, URI, Inc., and Kleberg County, Texas.
The lawsuit involved a post-mining restoration standard, as
reflected in a 2004 settlement agreement between URI, Inc. and
Kleberg County, for one specific water well (out of a total of 39
wells) at URI’s Kingsville project. Kleberg County argued
that only baseline data taken in 1985 should be used to determine
the clean-up standard for the well, which showed that the water in
the specific well was allegedly suitable for agricultural
irrigation purposes prior to the start of mining. URI argued
that baseline data taken in both 1985 and 1987 should be used to
determine the clean-up standard for the well, and that averaging
the two data sets showed no suitable use prior to the start of
mining. The Supreme Court ruled in complete favor of URI and
denied Kleberg County any further relief.
Chris Jones, Westwater’s President, expressed satisfaction with
the decision. “We have long believed that the restoration
process at Kingsville was performed in full compliance with all
state requirements as well as the 2004 settlement agreement.
Now the Texas Supreme Court agrees with us. Both parties have
spent considerable time and money to reach this outcome, and
Westwater is pleased that the rule of law has been properly
applied. We will continue to restore the Kingsville project
as required by state law and look forward to future opportunities
to demonstrate our commitment to the health and safety of the
citizens of Kleberg County.”
In this litigation, which began in 2007, the trial court
concluded in 2013 that URI breached its contractual obligation,
under the 2004 settlement agreement with Kleberg County, to restore
one of 39 wells to its pre-mining use based on baseline data
obtained for that specific well in 1985. The trial court
ordered URI to continue restoring that one specific well until the
water was suitable for agricultural irrigation use. The court
of appeals affirmed in 2016 on liability, reversed on remedies, and
held that Kleberg County was entitled to its attorney’s fees as a
result of prevailing on URI’s contract breach. The issue
before the Supreme Court was whether the specific language
contained in the 2004 settlement agreement required URI to apply
only the 1985 baseline data or whether URI should apply both 1985
and 1987 baseline data. Although the 2004 settlement
agreement was silent on the use of either 1985 or 1987 data, both
URI and Kleberg County agreed, and the trial court and the court of
appeals concluded, that on this issue the 2004 settlement agreement
was unambiguous and clear on its face.
In its decision the Supreme Court found that the 2004 settlement
agreement did not refer to any particular set of data, or prescribe
the use of particular data, or place limitations on the data that
may be considered or require restoration of any well let alone a
particular well. The Supreme Court then reasoned as
follows:
“The
lower courts concluded, however, that URI could not use the 1987
baseline data, alone or in combination with the 1985 baseline data,
precisely because this outcome would ensue from a plain and
objective reading of the Settlement Agreement. Even though
the contract admits no ambiguity, the lower courts engrafted
limitations that are entirely external to the instrument and
directed to fulfill Kleberg County’s unexpressed subjective
intent. This is not a proper use of surrounding facts and
circumstances. Courts cannot rewrite the parties’ contract to
add to or subtract from its language.” |
|
In conclusion, the Supreme Court stated “. . . as a matter of
law, URI did not breach . . . the Settlement Agreement . . .” and
then it “reversed the court of appeals judgment and rendered
judgment that Kleberg County take nothing on its breach-of-contract
claim.” A complete copy of the Supreme Court’s decision can
be found on Projects Overview page of Westwater’s website at
www.westwaterresources.net.
Westwater was represented before the Texas Supreme Court by
Duncan C. Norton with the Austin law firm of Lloyd Gosselink
Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
About Westwater
WWR or the “Company” (formerly Uranium Resources, Inc.) is
focused on developing energy-related minerals. The Company
has developed a dominant land position in three prospective lithium
brine basins in Nevada and Utah in preparation for exploration and
potential development of any lithium resources that may be
discovered there. In addition, WWR remains focused on
advancing the Temrezli in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium project in
Central Turkey when uranium prices permit economic development of
this project. WWR controls extensive exploration properties
in Turkey under eight exploration and operating licenses covering
approximately 39,000 acres (over 16,000 ha) with numerous
exploration targets, including the potential satellite Sefaatli
Project, which is 30 miles (48 km) southwest of the Temrezli
Project. In Texas, the Company has two licensed and currently
idled uranium processing facilities and approximately 11,000 acres
(4,400 ha) of prospective ISR uranium projects. In New
Mexico, the Company controls mineral rights encompassing
approximately 188,700 acres (76,394 ha) in the prolific Grants
Mineral Belt, which is one of the largest concentrations of
sandstone-hosted uranium deposits in the world. Incorporated
in 1977, WWR also owns an extensive information database of
historic drill hole logs, assay certificates, maps and technical
reports for uranium properties located in the Western United
States.
Furthermore, on December 13, 2017, WWR announced it had entered
into a definitive agreement to acquire Alabama Graphite Corp. (AGC)
(TSX-V:CSPG) (OTCQB:CSPGF) pursuant to an arrangement agreement and
plan of arrangement. The primary asset of AGC is the Coosa
graphite project, located across 41,900 acres in east-central
Alabama. Finalization of the acquisition is subject to
shareholder votes, as well as customary regulatory agency and court
approvals. Closing of the acquisition is targeted for early
in the second quarter of 2018.
Cautionary Statement
This news release contains forward-looking statements within the
meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and
assumptions and are identified by words such as “expects,”
“estimates,” “projects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” and
other similar words. All statements addressing events or
developments that WWR expects or anticipates will occur in the
future, including but not limited to statements relating to
developments at the Company’s projects, are forward-looking
statements. Because they are forward-looking, they should be
evaluated in light of important risk factors and uncertainties.
These risk factors and uncertainties include, but are not
limited to, (a) the Company’s ability to close its transaction with
AGC and successfully integrate AGC’s business into its own; (b) the
Company’s ability to raise additional capital in the future; (c)
spot price and long-term contract price of graphite, uranium and
lithium; (d) risks associated with our foreign and domestic
operations; (e) operating conditions at the Company’s projects; (f)
government and tribal regulation of the graphite industry, uranium
industry, the lithium industry, and the power industry; (g)
world-wide graphite, uranium and lithium supply and demand,
including the supply and demand for lithium-based batteries; (h)
maintaining sufficient financial assurance in the form of
sufficiently collateralized surety instruments; (i) unanticipated
geological, processing, regulatory and legal or other problems the
Company may encounter in the jurisdictions where the Company
operates or intends to operate, including in Alabama, Texas, New
Mexico, Utah, Nevada and Republic of Turkey; (j) the ability of the
Company to enter into and successfully close acquisitions or other
material transactions, (k) the results of the Company’s lithium
brine exploration activities at the Columbus Basin, Railroad
Valley, and Sal Rica projects, and the possibility that future
exploration results may be materially less promising than initial
exploration result; (I) any graphite, lithium or uranium
discoveries not being in high enough concentration to make it
economic to extract the metals; and (m) other factors which are
more fully described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and other filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Should one or more of these
risks or uncertainties materialize or should any of the Company’s
underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary
materially from those currently anticipated. In addition, undue
reliance should not be placed on the Company’s forward-looking
statements. Except as required by law, the Company disclaims any
obligation to update or publicly announce any revisions to any of
the forward-looking statements contained in this news release.
Westwater Resources Contact: |
|
|
Christopher
M. Jones, President and CEO303.531.0480 |
|
Jeffrey L.
Vigil, VP Finance and CFO303.531.0481 |
|
|
|
Email: Info@WestwaterResources.netWebsite:
www.WestwaterResources.net
Alabama Graphite Corp (TSXV:CSPG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Alabama Graphite Corp (TSXV:CSPG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024