Aaron from YMB: CYDY SUING 13D POINTS PT 2:
Post# of 155557
(Total Views: 1309)
Posted On: 08/12/2021 5:15:32 PM
Aaron from YMB:
CYDY SUING 13D POINTS PT 2:
1) We now have the answers from 13D. As I stated in my last post about the chancery court case, the accusations by Cytodyn against 13D were of a binary yes or no nature.
I will go through some later but basically 1) Are the facts stated by Cytodyn true? 2). Did 13D leave them out of their submission to investors?
The answer is yes and yes. There was no way for 13D counsel to deny it. This has left them with the only possible avenue to explore. While everything asserted is correct, it's not important or out of the hands of Patterson whose company made the decision without him (more on that later).
Many posters have noted these are horrible answers but under the circumstances it was all they had.
2) CASE WAS EXPEDITED.
Generally a case like this gets expedited because the judge has seen the preliminary evidence and believes that the decision is a forgone conclusion. If so, best to not waste the courts time and make a ruling.
Had the 13D response been to refute the facts that may have swayed the judge. But saying the facts are true but insubstantial I don't believe will cut well with this judge
This judge apparently has decades of experience in corporate law decisions and corporate bylaws. She saw something (the binary conclusion I mentioned before) that caused her to expedite the case.
The 13D response is basically, your eyes aren't deceiving you, it's your brain. None of those material facts are important!
I don't think that's going to hold much water.
3) NEXT STEP?
Most likely the next step is the judge is going to now throw the ball back to Sidley for a response/rebuttal to 13D's answer and she will make a judgement from that.
4) PATTERSON TALKS TOO MUCH
For all BP scientific knowledge he doesn't seem to know what most every American citizen knows. When involved in court proceedings, just shut up.
The argument that BP wasn't part of a buyout offer for Incelldx is practically refuted by BP's own tweet. He discusses it openly even mentioning a confidentiality that was broken so he can talk about it implying he was directly a party to the actions (This tweet was only last week SMH).
Cytodyn is suing for an injunction to silence the 13D and there is Patterson saying he is free to openly discuss matters now. He's practically making the case for Cytodyn that he needs to be muzzled.
But wait there is a lot more.
5) DID BP GET PAID FOR ASSAYS?
BP tweeted that he withheld the Assays because he didn't get paid. (I will link to it separately in the reply section so it doesn't pull this main post down).
It's been stated as fact in the Sidley documents submitted to court that BP was eventually getting $20,000 per month for his services. It seems BP felt the Assays were a separate deal
One can surmise where this went off the rails. BP demanding payment for Assays, NP asking what the hell he is paying $20K a month for?
So were the assays supposed to be separately billable?
The Assays would have been months of work. If BP felt he wasn't paid for months of work, one wonders why he didn't sue in court for non-payment of contracted work?
Ask yourself if you would have sued the company after performing months of labor and didn't get paid?
NP certainly has evidence of the monthly$20K arrangements. It looks more and more like BP simply withheld the Assays.
6) BP TIMELINE
A) BP getting paid $20K a month from Cytodyn
BP hyped Leronlimab even doing speaking engagements
C) BP tries to sell Incelldx for $350 million to Cytodyn and is rejected.
D) BP gets caught trying to patent Cytodyn tech.
E) BP withholds important Assays that will affect BLA submission.
F) BP doesn't sue for non-payment of Assays work even though he claims he is owed money
G) BP starts playing up Ivermectin and Maraviroc and downplaying Cytodyn.
H) BP signs onboard to 13D proxy battle.
I) BP involvement from the timeline above left out of 13D submission
Now how does this timeline look?
7) BP SP AFFECT
The OWS comments by BP may also be submitted in the Sidley response.
They caused a positive spike in the stock price as well as generating a number of articles. The info was incorrect as well but that's besides the point.
The point will be to show how the stock price jumped just on the single comments of BP.
Why is this pertinent? Cytodyn is claiming the 13D and BP need an injunction because they are affecting the SP. BP's OWS comments and the resultant SP spike go towards proof his words matter and the need for the injunction.
CONCLUSION:. None of this looks good for 13D. As this is simply to decide if an injunction is warranted I don't see this court battle taking too long to conclude.
BP saying he can talk about confidential agreement pertaining to sale of Incelldx
https://mobile.twitter.com/brucep13/status/14...0750248967
BP tweeting he withheld Assays
https://mobile.twitter.com/brucep13/status/14...0942012417
CYDY SUING 13D POINTS PT 2:
1) We now have the answers from 13D. As I stated in my last post about the chancery court case, the accusations by Cytodyn against 13D were of a binary yes or no nature.
I will go through some later but basically 1) Are the facts stated by Cytodyn true? 2). Did 13D leave them out of their submission to investors?
The answer is yes and yes. There was no way for 13D counsel to deny it. This has left them with the only possible avenue to explore. While everything asserted is correct, it's not important or out of the hands of Patterson whose company made the decision without him (more on that later).
Many posters have noted these are horrible answers but under the circumstances it was all they had.
2) CASE WAS EXPEDITED.
Generally a case like this gets expedited because the judge has seen the preliminary evidence and believes that the decision is a forgone conclusion. If so, best to not waste the courts time and make a ruling.
Had the 13D response been to refute the facts that may have swayed the judge. But saying the facts are true but insubstantial I don't believe will cut well with this judge
This judge apparently has decades of experience in corporate law decisions and corporate bylaws. She saw something (the binary conclusion I mentioned before) that caused her to expedite the case.
The 13D response is basically, your eyes aren't deceiving you, it's your brain. None of those material facts are important!
I don't think that's going to hold much water.
3) NEXT STEP?
Most likely the next step is the judge is going to now throw the ball back to Sidley for a response/rebuttal to 13D's answer and she will make a judgement from that.
4) PATTERSON TALKS TOO MUCH
For all BP scientific knowledge he doesn't seem to know what most every American citizen knows. When involved in court proceedings, just shut up.
The argument that BP wasn't part of a buyout offer for Incelldx is practically refuted by BP's own tweet. He discusses it openly even mentioning a confidentiality that was broken so he can talk about it implying he was directly a party to the actions (This tweet was only last week SMH).
Cytodyn is suing for an injunction to silence the 13D and there is Patterson saying he is free to openly discuss matters now. He's practically making the case for Cytodyn that he needs to be muzzled.
But wait there is a lot more.
5) DID BP GET PAID FOR ASSAYS?
BP tweeted that he withheld the Assays because he didn't get paid. (I will link to it separately in the reply section so it doesn't pull this main post down).
It's been stated as fact in the Sidley documents submitted to court that BP was eventually getting $20,000 per month for his services. It seems BP felt the Assays were a separate deal
One can surmise where this went off the rails. BP demanding payment for Assays, NP asking what the hell he is paying $20K a month for?
So were the assays supposed to be separately billable?
The Assays would have been months of work. If BP felt he wasn't paid for months of work, one wonders why he didn't sue in court for non-payment of contracted work?
Ask yourself if you would have sued the company after performing months of labor and didn't get paid?
NP certainly has evidence of the monthly$20K arrangements. It looks more and more like BP simply withheld the Assays.
6) BP TIMELINE
A) BP getting paid $20K a month from Cytodyn
BP hyped Leronlimab even doing speaking engagements C) BP tries to sell Incelldx for $350 million to Cytodyn and is rejected.
D) BP gets caught trying to patent Cytodyn tech.
E) BP withholds important Assays that will affect BLA submission.
F) BP doesn't sue for non-payment of Assays work even though he claims he is owed money
G) BP starts playing up Ivermectin and Maraviroc and downplaying Cytodyn.
H) BP signs onboard to 13D proxy battle.
I) BP involvement from the timeline above left out of 13D submission
Now how does this timeline look?
7) BP SP AFFECT
The OWS comments by BP may also be submitted in the Sidley response.
They caused a positive spike in the stock price as well as generating a number of articles. The info was incorrect as well but that's besides the point.
The point will be to show how the stock price jumped just on the single comments of BP.
Why is this pertinent? Cytodyn is claiming the 13D and BP need an injunction because they are affecting the SP. BP's OWS comments and the resultant SP spike go towards proof his words matter and the need for the injunction.
CONCLUSION:. None of this looks good for 13D. As this is simply to decide if an injunction is warranted I don't see this court battle taking too long to conclude.
BP saying he can talk about confidential agreement pertaining to sale of Incelldx
https://mobile.twitter.com/brucep13/status/14...0750248967
BP tweeting he withheld Assays
https://mobile.twitter.com/brucep13/status/14...0942012417
(26)
(1)