ShareThis Page
CMU ordered to pay $5.7 million to investor |

CMU ordered to pay $5.7 million to investor

| Thursday, April 8, 2010 12:00 p.m

Carnegie Mellon University owes a London investor $5.7 million for falsely claiming in 1999 that a proposed technology for cracking heavy hydrocarbons was ready to be commercialized, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

CMU spokeswoman Teresa Thomas said the university would appeal.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab said Christian Bouriez and his company, Montanelle Beheer, relied on CMU officials’ claims when he invested $5 million into Governors Refining Technologies, a company that was going to bring the technology to market.

CMU officials said they had a hydrocarbon-cracking technology using microwaves and a catalyst that would convert heavy hydrocarbons such as pitch or paraffin wax into lighter hydrocarbons such as diesel fuel, according to the lawsuit.

When CMU asked for more money in 2000, Bouriez hired an independent auditor who determined the technology “did not work and has never worked,” according to a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that overturned an earlier ruling from Schwab in favor of CMU. The judge on Tuesday found that CMU is liable to Bouriez because it made “material misrepresentations” about the viability of its technology.

Thomas said the university disagrees.

“We believe the court erroneously concluded that Carnegie Mellon Research Institute negligently misrepresented the commercial viability of the technology at issue in this case. We strenuously disagree with this finding,” she said.

An arbitrator in 2006 concluded that CMU misled Governors Refining Technology about the viability of the process and awarded the company $10 million in damages. CMU did not contest that ruling, according to the 3rd Circuit ruling.

Asked whether the appeals and district courts’ rulings concluding CMU misled investors could affect the university’s ability to attract private research dollars, Thomas said CMU “has an excellent reputation for applied research and has for decades produced important positive results, both scientifically and commercially, around the world.”

“Because this matter involves ongoing litigation, we are not in a position to comment further on the specifics of the case,” Thomas said.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.