(Total Views: 352)
Posted On: 02/16/2024 10:26:53 PM
Post# of 148870
Craig’s credentials are not the issue. We know that he is an attorney and member of the California bar.
The issue is that the CEO of NSF assured the CEO of IPIX that serious allegations of malfeasance would be investigated, in the company that NSF acquired and controlled by installing its own management and board members (concurrently employed by NSF). Therefore they had access to all relevant information from Amarex.
If such an investigation occurred, CYDY was never informed, and NSF-controlled Amarex would not release the clinical trial data until forced to divulge by a court. Meanwhile, they continued to bill CYDY for work which CYDY says was not done, or was not done at a professional standard. The FDA has sanctioned Amarex, which supports CYDY’s allegation.
Craig said
And the rest of us think that what it’s about is NSF’s actions after they were made aware of allegations of malfeasance. Their failure to correct the situation in the company they controlled, and continued efforts to be paid even more for work that they allegedly had not performed and/or had not performed at the professional standard specified in the contract, makes NSF complicit and thus liable in an (alleged) fraud.
They cannot rely on a claim that they had no knowledge and thus no liability.
The issue is that the CEO of NSF assured the CEO of IPIX that serious allegations of malfeasance would be investigated, in the company that NSF acquired and controlled by installing its own management and board members (concurrently employed by NSF). Therefore they had access to all relevant information from Amarex.
If such an investigation occurred, CYDY was never informed, and NSF-controlled Amarex would not release the clinical trial data until forced to divulge by a court. Meanwhile, they continued to bill CYDY for work which CYDY says was not done, or was not done at a professional standard. The FDA has sanctioned Amarex, which supports CYDY’s allegation.
Craig said
Quote:
it's about what NSF was indemnified for prior to that by Amarex
Investors Hangout: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=667...z8RxpV3cai
And the rest of us think that what it’s about is NSF’s actions after they were made aware of allegations of malfeasance. Their failure to correct the situation in the company they controlled, and continued efforts to be paid even more for work that they allegedly had not performed and/or had not performed at the professional standard specified in the contract, makes NSF complicit and thus liable in an (alleged) fraud.
They cannot rely on a claim that they had no knowledge and thus no liability.
(6)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
