Catalyst hints it may call sting 'evidence'

in that in the Moyse lawsuit, Catalyst argued that it was Moyse, a junior analyst who worked first for Catalyst and then for a few weeks for West Face, who gave West Face the confidential information it then used to win control of WIND, and that in the Vimpelcom lawsuit, Catalyst says it was some of the nine defendants who leaked secret information and worked with West Face to win the bid.

It’s precisely because the two claims arise from the same set of circumstances that West Face lawyers Kent Thompson and Matthew Milne-Smith say Catalyst’s actions constitute “litigation by instalments,” a classic sort of abuse of process.

And they called Catalyst’s suggestion of fresh evidence a “threat,” and noted that lawyers David Moore and Brian Greenspan had the alleged new information since September last year and yet abandoned the effort to bring it before the appeal court.

But Moore told Hainey that all he was doing was flagging the court to the possibility such a motion could be brought.

It is rare that courts grant such motions, made under a rule that gives a last chance to parties who have uncovered fresh evidence only after the first trial and appeal are complete.

Hainey has promised a decision this week.

Meanwhile, Catalyst and West Face will be back before him in June for argument on West Face’s counterclaim to another Catalyst lawsuit.

Last year, Catalyst filed a suit against West Face and a number of other companies