mighty: I find the NSF mention significant , but n

mighty: I find the NSF mention significant , but not necessarily an indication that NSF is now a party in the arbitration. My guess would be that Sidley's settlement posture is that NSF needs to contribute on behalf of Amarex or CYDY will take the arbitration to final ruling and then force Amarex into bankruptcy. This assumes that CYDY's provable damages are well in excess of Amarex's malpractice policy limits, which I think is likely, especially since Amarex's service contract contained a limitation of liability provision regarding consequential damages. ( I believe Sidley correctly views the limitation of liability language as unenforcible under Maryland law, but that doesn't mean that Amarex wasn't relying on that language when it chose its malpractice policy limits.


I believe the above interpretation is also consistent with the quote from the call.

Mighty, please post more often. I found your posts yesterday rebutting the interpretations of the CC by some board members to be extremely perceptive.