MGK: Your settlement thesis is much more likely than a trial. The amount would be driven by which side has the most leverage, which each side calculates independently based on its perception of the admissible evidence that would have been introduced in the trial that the settlement would cancel.

Here, the evidence of misconduct/malpractice would likely be overwhelming, but, for a huge settlement amount, we also need strong leverage regarding control and causation applicable to NSF, plus lost profits damages that would survive the speculation defense. Moreover, the NSF control might have to exist as of the time and with respect to the conduct that specifically caused CYDY's damages. (Without doing extensive legal research on the case law in whichever jurisdiction CYDY would sue NSF, I can't reasonably assess the CYDY's leverage on the causation issue relative to NSF) To get a solid read on these factors, someone who understands this stuff would probably need at least a one hour briefing from SA's lead counsel on the case. I expect someone in CYDY management has received that type of a briefing and/or written report , but since I haven't, I'm still in I don't know what I don't know territory.

So yes, settlement is likely, but without enough info to reasonably assess overall leverage, I can't make an educated guess on the ballpark amount. Others may feel more confident to do so.