I just read the company's response letter to the m
Post# of 153887
(Total Views: 688)
Posted On: 09/02/2021 2:00:27 AM
I just read the company's response letter to the motion for protective order. (It's posted on one of the 2 CytoDyn Facebook Shareholder/Investor Groups pages).
Company seeking five non-party depositions at this time, for four hours each deposition.
First, company argues that the 13Ds lack standing to quash the subpoenas.
Second, even if they have standing to object, company says their argument is without merit.
In this regard, summarizing from memory so I might be missing a lot here, according to the company, of the 3 cases cited by the 13Ds on the issue, 2 of the cases had to do with motions bought by the 3rd parties themselves (see standing argument above) and not by any of the parties.
And, as to the third case, AbbVie, the company flipped the argument on the 13Ds by pointing out that in that case the court denied the motion for a protective order, and the company repeatedly cited the same AbbVie case to support the company's position here on the motion for the protective order.
Also, the company pointed out that, even last week, the Defendants violated SEC rules, and in fact just stipulated to the violation in order that a restraining order not be issued against them.
And, further, the company argued that the Defendants delayed in bringing the motion.
Not legal advice and not financial advice, but after reading this, I feel more strongly towards the company's position here.
But, everyone should read the opening and responding letter briefs for themselves.
Company seeking five non-party depositions at this time, for four hours each deposition.
First, company argues that the 13Ds lack standing to quash the subpoenas.
Second, even if they have standing to object, company says their argument is without merit.
In this regard, summarizing from memory so I might be missing a lot here, according to the company, of the 3 cases cited by the 13Ds on the issue, 2 of the cases had to do with motions bought by the 3rd parties themselves (see standing argument above) and not by any of the parties.
And, as to the third case, AbbVie, the company flipped the argument on the 13Ds by pointing out that in that case the court denied the motion for a protective order, and the company repeatedly cited the same AbbVie case to support the company's position here on the motion for the protective order.
Also, the company pointed out that, even last week, the Defendants violated SEC rules, and in fact just stipulated to the violation in order that a restraining order not be issued against them.
And, further, the company argued that the Defendants delayed in bringing the motion.
Not legal advice and not financial advice, but after reading this, I feel more strongly towards the company's position here.
But, everyone should read the opening and responding letter briefs for themselves.
(11)
(0)