Anyone think that Sidley-Austin would continue to be going after Amarex if they didn't think they had the funds to pay? Anyone besides Craig think that a parent company that appoints two of its high-level executives to the top jobs at its subsidiary (Amarex), while they remain employed by NSF; that has their paid executives on the Amarex board; and that has its CEO personally tell the (former, thank goodness) CEO of CYDY that he would personally look into why Amarex hasn't done its job -- can claim that it, the parent company, didn't control its subsidiary and should have no liability?

NSH has deep pockets. NSF controlled/controls Amarex.