Martinique Mining Corporation, Inc. et al. v. Henry Mountain Mining & Exploration Company, LLC
Oct 04, 2011OUTCOME: Arbitration award to clients of $10,500,000
Attorneys Dusten L. Heugly and Daniel W. McKay of the Utah law firm of Heideman, McKay, Heugly and Olsen (“HMHO”) obtained a favorable result in a complex commercial arbitration proceeding held in Miam ... i, Florida involving gold and precious metal mining claims located on the Henry Mountains in Southeastern Utah. HMHO’s clients Martinique Mining Company and its controlling shareholders Robert O. Hoggatt Jr., Dan Vaughan and Kim E. Wilson engaged HMHO in 2010 when Henry Mountain Mining and Exploration Company, LLC (“HMME”), which was funded by a multi-national refinery within its principal offices in South Africa domestic headquarters in Miami, Florida refused to pay them as agreed or return their mining claims, water rights and other assets. The case was litigated before an arbitration panel in Miami, Florida and in the Federal District Court of Southern Florida. Hearings in Florida, included depositions in Utah, and detailed discovery to unravel the web of subsidiary companies formed by the group which controlled HMME. In what appeared to be a classic case of David v. Goliath in terms of financial resources and HMME’s engagement of several law firms and multiple attorneys to defend them, HMHO and its client ultimately received a very favorable decision. The award obtained by HMHO for Martinique Mining came as a result of the arbitration panel finding that HMME committed fraud and breached the agreement between the parties. HMME was ordered to pay HMHO’s clients cash of approximately $2,500,000 and to inject $8,000,000 - $10,000,000 in capital to fund exploration of the mining claims. The award further specified that if HMME failed to comply, then HMME was to return the mining claims, water rights and all other assets to Martinique. “We went to bat for our clients who had limited resources in comparison to their larger and better funded counterpart,” said Daniel McKay. “We took on this fight despite the challenges we faced because it needed to be done. These are good, hardworking people who were being taken advantage of. We tried to be efficient in picking our battles and we spent countless nights combing through records to find the best evidence and apply the right legal theories to the facts of the case. That effort culminated in a victory for our client. It is very gratifying.”
