(Total Views: 436)
Posted On: 06/22/2023 6:57:01 PM
Post# of 154227
Regardless of whether the NSF takeover of Amarex stated explicitly that they would assume Amarex’s liabilities —
The question is — does the Amarex CEO saying that he would investigate (actual evidence, his emails to Nader) and his appointment of 2 board members and the person in charge of Amarex (not sure of his exact title) while the dispute was in early stages, open NSF to liability because they had control of Amarex? NSF was in charge when Amarex refused to hand the data over. CYDY can make a case that the refusal by NSF/Amarex further impeded CYDY’s operations, not to mention the legal fees involved in forcing Amarex/NSF to disgorge the data. It was over a year of stonewalling by the NSF CEO before CYDY finally went to court for the injunction.
My guess, but only a guess, is that Sidley-Austin would not have included NSF in their petition for an injunction were they not planning to include NSF as a defendant in future actions.
The question is — does the Amarex CEO saying that he would investigate (actual evidence, his emails to Nader) and his appointment of 2 board members and the person in charge of Amarex (not sure of his exact title) while the dispute was in early stages, open NSF to liability because they had control of Amarex? NSF was in charge when Amarex refused to hand the data over. CYDY can make a case that the refusal by NSF/Amarex further impeded CYDY’s operations, not to mention the legal fees involved in forcing Amarex/NSF to disgorge the data. It was over a year of stonewalling by the NSF CEO before CYDY finally went to court for the injunction.
My guess, but only a guess, is that Sidley-Austin would not have included NSF in their petition for an injunction were they not planning to include NSF as a defendant in future actions.
(4)
(0)
