Buddyboy: Your link to 13d response is appreciated. My brief analysis of its significance: 13d has retained Baker Botts, an international heavy hitter law firm from the same ranks as Sidley Austin. BB's long letter to SA responds to each contention in SA's letter of deficiencies in the 13d nominating notice by either denying that the nominating notice contained any omissions or false statements or, if it did, that such were not misleading or material. For good measure, BB attaches a supplemental notice in an effort to cure any remaining deficiencies.

Based on the 13d retention of BB and the delivery of the above referenced letter to SA, it is apparent that 13d, through BB, will respond on Thursday to the court's order regarding accelerated discovery and eventually serve and file its answer to CYDY's complaint. It is also highly likely, in my mind, that 13d will seek its own preliminary injunction prohibiting CYDY from disqualifying the 13d BOD candidates. So there will be no quick resolution of CYDY's lawsuit through default by 13d.

This does surprise me as I continue to believe that the Patterson related omissions regarding his attempt to sell Incell to CYDY and his attempts to gain patents related to his consulting work for CYDY are potentially very compelling pieces of evidence that support CYDY's position.

All of the above is subject to all of my prior disclaimers in previous posts on this subject. I will be golfing with college buddies on Thursday and don't expect to be posting. GLTA.