MRT, Inc. and other plaintiffs in a fraud lawsuit against renowned
research institute Inter-University Micro Electronics Center (IMEC)
will request a re-trial of the March proceedings against IMEC because
IMEC has admitted, under oath, that it destroyed and intentionally
concealed critical evidence.
MRT, Inc. and other plaintiffs believe IMEC's actions resulted in
incriminating information not being presented to the jury, partly due
to the active concealment by IMEC, and partly because, under oath,
IMEC admitted that it destroyed back-up tapes containing revealing
evidence. The destruction of evidence occurred after the lawsuit began
in 2002, but was not disclosed until just days before the trial began.
IMEC, which was found liable of misrepresentation in the first
trial held in the District Court in Dallas, is accused of defrauding
the plaintiffs and costing them millions of dollars by misstating the
market readiness of optical interconnection technology developed by
IMEC in association with the University of Brussels.
Several months before trial, IMEC was ordered by the Court to
produce certain evidence. In response, IMEC claimed that it had
produced everything but failed to disclose that it had destroyed most
of the requested evidence. As a result of subsequent orders by the
Court, IMEC was forced to disclose the steps it had taken to locate
and produce the requested evidence. Only then, did IMEC reveal that it
had destroyed most of the evidence sought.
At the same time, IMEC revealed for the first time that it still
had a few backup tapes left, but that IMEC had never retrieved any
documents from those tapes despite being ordered to produce the
evidence. After the court ordered IMEC to retrieve the evidence from
its backups, IMEC then claimed that it was technologically incapable
of doing so, further stalling the production. By further court order,
these back up tapes were delivered to the plaintiffs but only days
before the trial began, and far too late to be reviewed for admission
of the evidence in the trial.
A spokesperson for MRT, Inc., Jeroen Van Cauwelaert, said: "IMEC
had a legal obligation to preserve relevant evidence as soon as the
lawsuit commenced in 2002. IMEC blatantly disregarded this obligation
and, by its own admission, destroyed backup tapes containing relevant
evidence. IMEC was also under court order to produce documents
residing on the remaining backup tapes. IMEC failed to do this too and
didn't even reveal its failure until days before the trial. We believe
all of this warrants a re-examination of the case by a jury that has
access to the complete spectrum of evidence and information about
IMEC's actions. If the whole story is presented, there is little doubt
that IMEC's unfair and fraudulent business practices will be exposed."
The plaintiffs are prepared to present in a very detailed manner
evidence of this destruction and concealment of evidence by IMEC. This
includes sworn affidavits from IMEC employees, including an in-house
counsel, who described the destruction of the back up tapes.
