(Total Views: 913)
Posted On: 10/30/2021 1:36:06 PM
Post# of 148892
Another post from YMB. Our resident attorneys may wish to comment.
JWR2 hours ago
Going through the legal documents for the CYDY-Amarex lawsuit, a few things became clear to me. First, Cytodyn is suing Amarex, not the other way around. This is a law suit around rights to the data and obligations within the MSA. Separately in arbitration it whether Amarex breached their contract through non compliance and/or non-performance and related damages.
The contract is very clear about expectations on Amarex. Specifically in the MSA: "Amarex will perform the Services with due care and diligence in accordance with generally prevailing industry practices and standards and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and each Project Work Order."
Dr. Pourhassen email telling Amarex to "Please file the BLA no later than next week Wednesday, even if we are short in no matter what portion of whatever it is that we are short" is similar to telling a Taxi driver to get you to an appointment on time even if you need to break speed limits. The taxi driver will still get the ticket if he or she breaks a speed limit and gets caught. Similarly, NP's email does not change the terms of the contract compelling Amarex to perform the contract with "due care and diligence following industry practices and standards". The additional statement from Nader that "BLA is now the priority" is really the message. And the message is irrelevant to the case as Amarex has the responsibility to push back if they feel it violates the contract and their own standards. Nader is not the regulatory expert. A CRO's job is to provide "clinical trial management services" plain and simple. The included email and even statements made by Nader given accolades to Amarex are all red herrings.
Additionally, when reviewing the "Refuse to File" information, it's clear that there are significant gaps in the clinical trial data not only in the section filed in later April but in those filed in May. Keep in mind it's a rolling review and Amarex needs to follow industry practices for which sections need to be submitted and which sections can be filed later. And when the filing is complete, Amarex has accountability to ensure the clinical trial related data is correct.
Amarex's attorneys made a major error in my opinion of introducing the email and RTF letter into discovery as RTF letter and no doubt prior emails and other items that will be entered in by Cytodyn's legal team will highlight further the gaps in performance. Similar to the decision of the Chancery Court, this is simply a question of contract law. Emails...especially vague ones...do not change contract law. Nor do emails such as...general calls to hit deadlines..break SEC law. Amarex is still obligated to follow industry best practices and applicable laws independent of any email asking to speed things along and file additional information if needed later.
The narrative of the shorts is just that...a short attack plain and simple. Legally it has no bearing other than possibly being libel.
I have confidence that when the big gun Cytodyn attorneys file their response to the request to dismiss, it will be extremely damaging to Amarex. In the meantime, the only thing the Shorts "red herring" is doing is given some great prices on a very oversold Cytodyn stock.
JWR2 hours ago
Going through the legal documents for the CYDY-Amarex lawsuit, a few things became clear to me. First, Cytodyn is suing Amarex, not the other way around. This is a law suit around rights to the data and obligations within the MSA. Separately in arbitration it whether Amarex breached their contract through non compliance and/or non-performance and related damages.
The contract is very clear about expectations on Amarex. Specifically in the MSA: "Amarex will perform the Services with due care and diligence in accordance with generally prevailing industry practices and standards and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and each Project Work Order."
Dr. Pourhassen email telling Amarex to "Please file the BLA no later than next week Wednesday, even if we are short in no matter what portion of whatever it is that we are short" is similar to telling a Taxi driver to get you to an appointment on time even if you need to break speed limits. The taxi driver will still get the ticket if he or she breaks a speed limit and gets caught. Similarly, NP's email does not change the terms of the contract compelling Amarex to perform the contract with "due care and diligence following industry practices and standards". The additional statement from Nader that "BLA is now the priority" is really the message. And the message is irrelevant to the case as Amarex has the responsibility to push back if they feel it violates the contract and their own standards. Nader is not the regulatory expert. A CRO's job is to provide "clinical trial management services" plain and simple. The included email and even statements made by Nader given accolades to Amarex are all red herrings.
Additionally, when reviewing the "Refuse to File" information, it's clear that there are significant gaps in the clinical trial data not only in the section filed in later April but in those filed in May. Keep in mind it's a rolling review and Amarex needs to follow industry practices for which sections need to be submitted and which sections can be filed later. And when the filing is complete, Amarex has accountability to ensure the clinical trial related data is correct.
Amarex's attorneys made a major error in my opinion of introducing the email and RTF letter into discovery as RTF letter and no doubt prior emails and other items that will be entered in by Cytodyn's legal team will highlight further the gaps in performance. Similar to the decision of the Chancery Court, this is simply a question of contract law. Emails...especially vague ones...do not change contract law. Nor do emails such as...general calls to hit deadlines..break SEC law. Amarex is still obligated to follow industry best practices and applicable laws independent of any email asking to speed things along and file additional information if needed later.
The narrative of the shorts is just that...a short attack plain and simple. Legally it has no bearing other than possibly being libel.
I have confidence that when the big gun Cytodyn attorneys file their response to the request to dismiss, it will be extremely damaging to Amarex. In the meantime, the only thing the Shorts "red herring" is doing is given some great prices on a very oversold Cytodyn stock.
(23)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
