Lots of fud out there and negative view of this co
Post# of 147702
(Total Views: 726)
Posted On: 01/15/2022 5:31:44 PM
Lots of fud out there and negative view of this court case/bomd
Not my words below but of another investor and i agree with their analysts of whats really going on.
Cytodyn IS seeking damages against Amarex for harm to its clinical trial program and business reputation through arbitration. Damages currently being sought against Amarex could result in an enormous monetary sum paid to Cytodyn. There may be additional findings pertaining to damages after the audit is conducted which may be filed in court in the event of Amarex's gross negligence or willful misconduct. Gross negligence or willful misconduct is an exception to MSA 9.3 Limitation of Liability and Damage (which we both agree on).
I respectfully disagree with your point below on damages and likelihood and potential outcome of reaching a successful settlement:
Your quote: "
Incidentally, the only side claiming monetary damages is Amarex who says they are owed $14 million. So any settlement would be Cytodyn agreeing to pay them, not the other way around.)"
From the court filings:
"In that arbitration, CytoDyn alleges that it has overpaid Amarex for work that was not properly performed and it is seeking damages from Amarex for harm to its clinical trial program and business reputation."
"It is undisputed that the parties’ respective damages claims will be resolved through arbitration, but this Court is the proper venue for CytoDyn’s equitable claims pending arbitration."
Damages against Amarex for harm to Cytodyn clinical trial program and business reputation could result in enormous monetary damages paid to Cytodyn.
I find James argument compelling (James is a trial attorney with over 30 years of experience) that parties are in process of negotiating a settlement. His comments on ymb quoted below.
James
16 hours ago
“This is nothing more than an extension of time of the deadlines while negotiations take place. The NSF dismissal is proper as the events took place prior to the purchase of Amarex by NSF. Even then the dismissal is WITHOUT prejudice meaning other claims may be brought depending on what is found in the future. Sidley would never let the “deep pocket” off the hook voluntarily if they did not already have a deal worked out in principle with Amarex. Sidley has most likely advised CYDY to make a total settlement of claims because nobody wins in litigation. This goes along with what I said when the CC was canceled. Both parties need more time to sort through everything. This definitely isn't about CYDY’s supposed inability to post the bond. If that were the case then Amarex would not agree to delay the deadline. Lawyers do not want to be hurried. The lead Defense lawyer just withdrew and new counsel is either getting up to speed or handling a settlement. The fact that this is a joint motion to the court indicates the parties are working towards resolution. Notice no request to change the other hearing date set for 2/23? Everyone can stop with the bull about CYDY not having money to pay the bond. A bond is 10% of the base price. CYDY probably wanted to delay having to pay the 10% if negotiations are moving forward. So the delay saves CYDY $650k in wasted bond cost if negotiations are successfully completed. Understand lawyers…they want settlement…trials are always risky…getting 60% of what you want by settling instead of trying for 100% is in the client’s best interest sometimes. And if Amarex has nothing to hide they would never agree to postpone the deadlines. They would want the cloud over their head removed ASAP and do everything to force CYDY to post the bond and carry out the Order. All in all…this is about what I predicted Thursday. Settlement negotiations are under way and both sides agreed to extend the deadlines by joint motion so as allow negotiations to move forward. Settlement to be announced soon.
James
13 hours ago
Fair point…having not read every damn page of the 10K or whatever it is called…I was unaware the Court required a full cash bond. Doesn’t change anything…if CYDY couldn’t post the bond why would Amarex let them off the hook and file a JOINT motion extending deadlines? They wouldn’t. But you still don't post the bond until trial is your only option. And CYDY did have sufficient cash to post it per your own bashing posts!! That is irrelevant to my posting that settlement negotiations are clearly underway. You guys have no idea the power of a law firm like Sidley & Austin…they are never going to allow CYDY to lose this case against Amarex…CYDY holds ALL the cards…snd as stated earlier…the JOINT motion says it all in the legal world…inability to post the bond would have been shoved up CYDY’s butt by Amarex’ lawyers…at this level these lawyers are “killers”…I don’t claim to be at that level but I have seen it up close…the best move NP made was hiring Sidley…I reiterate…settlement negotiations are underway and a settlement will be announced soon…and then CYDY won’t have to post a bond and most likely will have cash paid to them as well.
Not my words below but of another investor and i agree with their analysts of whats really going on.
Cytodyn IS seeking damages against Amarex for harm to its clinical trial program and business reputation through arbitration. Damages currently being sought against Amarex could result in an enormous monetary sum paid to Cytodyn. There may be additional findings pertaining to damages after the audit is conducted which may be filed in court in the event of Amarex's gross negligence or willful misconduct. Gross negligence or willful misconduct is an exception to MSA 9.3 Limitation of Liability and Damage (which we both agree on).
I respectfully disagree with your point below on damages and likelihood and potential outcome of reaching a successful settlement:
Your quote: "
Incidentally, the only side claiming monetary damages is Amarex who says they are owed $14 million. So any settlement would be Cytodyn agreeing to pay them, not the other way around.)" From the court filings:
"In that arbitration, CytoDyn alleges that it has overpaid Amarex for work that was not properly performed and it is seeking damages from Amarex for harm to its clinical trial program and business reputation."
"It is undisputed that the parties’ respective damages claims will be resolved through arbitration, but this Court is the proper venue for CytoDyn’s equitable claims pending arbitration."
Damages against Amarex for harm to Cytodyn clinical trial program and business reputation could result in enormous monetary damages paid to Cytodyn.
I find James argument compelling (James is a trial attorney with over 30 years of experience) that parties are in process of negotiating a settlement. His comments on ymb quoted below.
James
16 hours ago
“This is nothing more than an extension of time of the deadlines while negotiations take place. The NSF dismissal is proper as the events took place prior to the purchase of Amarex by NSF. Even then the dismissal is WITHOUT prejudice meaning other claims may be brought depending on what is found in the future. Sidley would never let the “deep pocket” off the hook voluntarily if they did not already have a deal worked out in principle with Amarex. Sidley has most likely advised CYDY to make a total settlement of claims because nobody wins in litigation. This goes along with what I said when the CC was canceled. Both parties need more time to sort through everything. This definitely isn't about CYDY’s supposed inability to post the bond. If that were the case then Amarex would not agree to delay the deadline. Lawyers do not want to be hurried. The lead Defense lawyer just withdrew and new counsel is either getting up to speed or handling a settlement. The fact that this is a joint motion to the court indicates the parties are working towards resolution. Notice no request to change the other hearing date set for 2/23? Everyone can stop with the bull about CYDY not having money to pay the bond. A bond is 10% of the base price. CYDY probably wanted to delay having to pay the 10% if negotiations are moving forward. So the delay saves CYDY $650k in wasted bond cost if negotiations are successfully completed. Understand lawyers…they want settlement…trials are always risky…getting 60% of what you want by settling instead of trying for 100% is in the client’s best interest sometimes. And if Amarex has nothing to hide they would never agree to postpone the deadlines. They would want the cloud over their head removed ASAP and do everything to force CYDY to post the bond and carry out the Order. All in all…this is about what I predicted Thursday. Settlement negotiations are under way and both sides agreed to extend the deadlines by joint motion so as allow negotiations to move forward. Settlement to be announced soon.
James
13 hours ago
Fair point…having not read every damn page of the 10K or whatever it is called…I was unaware the Court required a full cash bond. Doesn’t change anything…if CYDY couldn’t post the bond why would Amarex let them off the hook and file a JOINT motion extending deadlines? They wouldn’t. But you still don't post the bond until trial is your only option. And CYDY did have sufficient cash to post it per your own bashing posts!! That is irrelevant to my posting that settlement negotiations are clearly underway. You guys have no idea the power of a law firm like Sidley & Austin…they are never going to allow CYDY to lose this case against Amarex…CYDY holds ALL the cards…snd as stated earlier…the JOINT motion says it all in the legal world…inability to post the bond would have been shoved up CYDY’s butt by Amarex’ lawyers…at this level these lawyers are “killers”…I don’t claim to be at that level but I have seen it up close…the best move NP made was hiring Sidley…I reiterate…settlement negotiations are underway and a settlement will be announced soon…and then CYDY won’t have to post a bond and most likely will have cash paid to them as well.
(10)
(1)