ohm: Thanks to the good offices of board moderator, NuGilead, my 5 post limit has been removed. As to subpoenas re NSF, none would be necessary if, as Buddy just posted, USF is indeed a named defendant. However, as to the amount of exerted control necessary to pierce the corporate veil, and keeping in mind that I'm several decades removed from the law school class that would have addressed the necessary elements to do so, my recollection is that the case law imposes a high burden on attempts to so. I would also imagine that Sidley, in naming NSF a defendant, would have expressly pled piercing the corporate veil or some other legal theory that would create either direct or vicarious liability on NSF. (Simply owning Amarex or agreeing to investigate CYDY's complaints, however, would not, in itself, make USF liable for Amarex's contractual breeches or tortious misconduct.)

Moreover, if Buddy is correct that CYDY's complaint only seeks injunctive relief, then NSF isn't even a necessary party, and monetary damages are likely not involved. But there certainly could be separate damages discussions as part of settling the arbitration case. As in Amarex waiving its claim to additional fees and returning fees previously paid by CYDY. This is speculation, however.

Finally, Evil responded to one of my earlier posts by arguing that NSF might be motivated to drive an ultimate settlement simply to protect its investment in Amarex. I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly enough in the post to which he responded, but I was trying to make that very point. But, as I previously attempted to explain, that motivation would increase substantially if Sidley has a viable cause of action to assert against NSF itself.