(Total Views: 662)
Posted On: 12/08/2021 4:58:15 PM
Post# of 148899
Re: KenChowder #111885
Ken and Sean: You both make a similar point re Hopson. If he is integrally involved, it would strongly suggest that Sidley has calculated that there is the likelihood, or at least the possibility, of a massive monetary recovery with a substantial fee attached. For this to occur, Sidley would need to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that a breach of contract or duty (imposed by tort law) by Amarex/NSF was a direct (proximate) cause of the damages suffered by CYDY.
Reduction in the share price would not likely be a viable theory for damages. The sp reduction hits the shareholders mainly and these defendants owe no contractual or other duties to CYDY shareholders. Moreover, establishing proximate cause would be impossible. But Sidley would have some potentially viable damages theory in mind, vetted by legal research, before commencing such an action. Clawing back all prior payments to Amarex would be a large claim ($80M), but that would require proving that all the other separate jobs were performed in breach of the contractual standards; whereas the focus so far has been mainly on the HIV BLA work.
A far larger claim would be the amount of lost profits as a direct result of the FDA's rejection of the HIV BLA. Having no current ability to research such a claim, and therefore engaging in wild speculation, I suppose such a theory might be that, but for the gross negligence/intentional misconduct of Amarex and its alter ego, NSF, the FDA would have approved the HIV BLA by late 2021, with the damages being the profits lost between then and whenever the BLA eventually does get approved. That would probably amount to a billion or so dollars based on the opinion of a damages expert (forensic economist). And although a firm like Sidley would not often take a case on a contingent fee basis, the above theory of the case might be the exception. Enter Mr Hopson!
There are likely many reasons why the theory I imagined above wouldn't fly; so don't take it at face value. Without researching it thoroughly, it's just idle conjecture. Kind of fun though.
Reduction in the share price would not likely be a viable theory for damages. The sp reduction hits the shareholders mainly and these defendants owe no contractual or other duties to CYDY shareholders. Moreover, establishing proximate cause would be impossible. But Sidley would have some potentially viable damages theory in mind, vetted by legal research, before commencing such an action. Clawing back all prior payments to Amarex would be a large claim ($80M), but that would require proving that all the other separate jobs were performed in breach of the contractual standards; whereas the focus so far has been mainly on the HIV BLA work.
A far larger claim would be the amount of lost profits as a direct result of the FDA's rejection of the HIV BLA. Having no current ability to research such a claim, and therefore engaging in wild speculation, I suppose such a theory might be that, but for the gross negligence/intentional misconduct of Amarex and its alter ego, NSF, the FDA would have approved the HIV BLA by late 2021, with the damages being the profits lost between then and whenever the BLA eventually does get approved. That would probably amount to a billion or so dollars based on the opinion of a damages expert (forensic economist). And although a firm like Sidley would not often take a case on a contingent fee basis, the above theory of the case might be the exception. Enter Mr Hopson!
There are likely many reasons why the theory I imagined above wouldn't fly; so don't take it at face value. Without researching it thoroughly, it's just idle conjecture. Kind of fun though.
(17)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
