Fort Lauderdale, FL (March 22, 2010) – The Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Canada) has declared that Yorktown Ventures, Inc. has
won court case #S024326 against Morrison Intermedia Inc. and
In 2002, Yorktown Ventures was served with a frivolous lawsuit.
Seeking to obtain a quick financial settlement, the suit was filed
by Morrison Intermedia Inc. and its principal, Maryann Morrison
(a.k.a. Maryann Yeomans, a.k.a. Mary Ann Morrison,
a.k.a. Mary Anne Morrison, a.k.a. Mary Anne Yeomans,
a.k.a.”The Gamble Goddess”, a.k.a.”magyplay”).
Yorktown Ventures’ policy is to vigorously defend against frivolous
lawsuits, and immediately retained counsel to do so.
Attorney Peter McGreevy of McGreevy & Henle LLP, was retained
to represent the company within the United States and to strategize
the overall handling of the case, frequently working with
retained Canadian attorneys to counter the claims brought
by the plaintiff.
To represent the company in Canada, the company hired the largest
law firm in Vancouver, B.C. With over 100 lawyers, the company
retained the firm of Bull, Housser & Tupper (BHT). Attorneys
from BHT in Vancouver were Dan Bennett and Chris Wilson.
The plaintiff (Morrison Intermedia Inc. & Maryann Morrison) changed
attorneys several times throughout the legal process. Representing
the plaintiff at various points during the case period were
Attorney Paul Mendes of Lesperance Mendes Lawyers, of Vancouver, BC;
and Attorney Mark Underhill of Underhill Boies Parker, of Vancouver, BC.
Some of the motion documentation provided by the plaintiff included
the name of Baumgartel Gould, now known as Gould Goodwin & Co.,
of New Westminster B.C.
On February 5, 2010 the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled
that Yorktown Ventures, Inc. was the victor of the case.
Yorktown Ventures, Inc. has also been awarded fiscal compensation
by the courts of British Columbia by Master Tokarek.
The company has initiated legal measures to collect from
This press release may contain forward-looking statements,
particularly as related to the business plans of the company,
within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are
subject to the safe harbor created by these sections.
Actual results may differ materially from the company’s
expectations and estimates.