(Total Views: 560)
Posted On: 11/02/2022 4:35:37 PM
Post# of 148894
Jake, how would you categorize Amarex refusing to turn over the data and refusing to submit to audits that are permitted under the contract?
It's one thing to be negligent, and another to stonewall in the attempt to hide that negligence (and to hold the data hostage). In layman's terms (the only ones I know), what they did is an admission of guilt. Let's say you just did a crappy job, but weren't attempting any intentional malfeasance. Wouldn't you allow an audit, if you were contractually obliged to, with excuses -- didn't have a lot of time, had to rush this out, etc. -- rather than refuse to show your work? To me this makes gross negligence look good, and there must be some way Sidley can figure out an angle to make them make CYDY whole, no? Or maybe not. But if there really was no way to force Amarex to pay up, you'd think Sidley would just let the arbitration go on about its little business. And it's taken 13 months. There must be some big gap in the numbers proposed on the two sides.
It's one thing to be negligent, and another to stonewall in the attempt to hide that negligence (and to hold the data hostage). In layman's terms (the only ones I know), what they did is an admission of guilt. Let's say you just did a crappy job, but weren't attempting any intentional malfeasance. Wouldn't you allow an audit, if you were contractually obliged to, with excuses -- didn't have a lot of time, had to rush this out, etc. -- rather than refuse to show your work? To me this makes gross negligence look good, and there must be some way Sidley can figure out an angle to make them make CYDY whole, no? Or maybe not. But if there really was no way to force Amarex to pay up, you'd think Sidley would just let the arbitration go on about its little business. And it's taken 13 months. There must be some big gap in the numbers proposed on the two sides.
(2)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
