InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 5
Posts 475
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/27/2012

Re: Protector post# 198855

Monday, 12/08/2014 5:55:05 PM

Monday, December 08, 2014 5:55:05 PM

Post# of 346154
CP - Good point on the many tangibles that can be readily quantified. There is also additional phase III patient enrollment good for at least $20MM. If there is any hint of sabotage or deliberate tampering, it's hard to imagine CSM wanting to engage in discovery, so maybe there will be an early settlement. All imo.

I agree. PPHM will NEVER produce that paperwork and I am almost sure they will not make many claims at all as to things they can't make hard true invoices etc.

If I am the Judge then I'd say having the paperwork on AbbVie doesn't prove that AbbVie would have signed it, even if AbbVie declared for the court that a date was set to do so, even then THEY cannot say that 5 min before signing a sudden event could have made them (or even PPHM) change their minds.

The time-to-market that is another thing. Their PPHM can PROVE that the FDA approved (even the sabotaged) data ( so no one can question the fact the FDA might maybe not have approved it) and that this approval was delayed by that investigation, the vials recall etc. That is tangible. But this delay cannot be before (on or about) Sept 20th or extend after the EOPII meeting was held.

The same for the REAL cost of the investigation, losses due to the loan pay-back and forced to use the ATM after Sept 24th below 2$ to compensate for the loan rather then at the 5.40$ before Sept 24th.

I think that the fact that the Judged ruled that the damages cannot be limited in the case of constructed fraud may have changed the mindset with CSM. They know they'll get at least constructed fraud on their hands, so maybe they settle this time.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CDMO News