There MAY be a jury eventually, if they are able t
Post# of 154091
(Total Views: 431)
Posted On: 11/03/2022 8:55:28 PM
Re: craigakess #130128
There MAY be a jury eventually, if they are able to prove deliberate malfeasance, and/or gross negligence. We don’t have the Master Services Agreement, as you have pointed out, so we don’t know what provisions there are for Sidley Austin to be able to sue them on such grounds.
If there has been deliberate sabotage, there are all kinds of laws that would have been broken - for instance, securities laws, since CYDY is a publicly traded company, and conspiracy to defraud CYDY investors, etc. Deliberately breaking a law doesn’t shield people from legal action just because there is an arbitration clause.
But, it would be mighty hard to prove deliberate sabotage unless there’s a disgruntled Amarex whistleblower who would testify.
Gross negligence is a slam-dunk. We just don’t know the contract language about that.
If you were Amarex, how would you like to have a court filing asking for some kind of relief — for instance, the ability to sue for damages — even if, for instance, the victim’s law firm knew that they would not prevail, but that the act of FILING the case would make public a whole bunch of allegations and their factual basis, which demonstrated your gross negligence? Do you think maybe the fear of losing your reputation through public disclosure might put CYDY in a much better negotiating position?
If you were running a biotech and looking for a CRO, would you hire one that couldn’t even fill out an FDA form correctly, and couldn’t bother to log in the most basic data about the test subjects?
If there has been deliberate sabotage, there are all kinds of laws that would have been broken - for instance, securities laws, since CYDY is a publicly traded company, and conspiracy to defraud CYDY investors, etc. Deliberately breaking a law doesn’t shield people from legal action just because there is an arbitration clause.
But, it would be mighty hard to prove deliberate sabotage unless there’s a disgruntled Amarex whistleblower who would testify.
Gross negligence is a slam-dunk. We just don’t know the contract language about that.
If you were Amarex, how would you like to have a court filing asking for some kind of relief — for instance, the ability to sue for damages — even if, for instance, the victim’s law firm knew that they would not prevail, but that the act of FILING the case would make public a whole bunch of allegations and their factual basis, which demonstrated your gross negligence? Do you think maybe the fear of losing your reputation through public disclosure might put CYDY in a much better negotiating position?
If you were running a biotech and looking for a CRO, would you hire one that couldn’t even fill out an FDA form correctly, and couldn’t bother to log in the most basic data about the test subjects?
(3)
(0)