Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[jbainseky]

Cloaked Protector - this says it all:

Although Peregrine now argues that Bleecker’s tortious acts were intentional, the claims that Peregrine has chosen to pursue do not reflect such intentionality. Prevailing on each of its tort claims—negligence, negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud—does not require Peregrine to prove that Bleecker’s and/or CSM’s acts were intentional.

Thus, if those claims proceeded to trial, the trier of fact could rationally conclude that CSM’s act of switching the labels was completely accidental and yet adjudge CSM liable for Peregrine’s tort claims. Had Peregrine elected to plead an intentional tort, a trier of fact would not be able to so find, and Peregrine’s intentional tort claims may have survived a challenge based on the economic loss rule. In sum, because Peregrine’s tort claims—its second through fifth causes of action—are not based on a recognizable, independent legal duty, the Court concludes that they are barred by the economic loss rule and that Peregrine’s remedies are properly limited to bargain-of-the benefit damages obtainable through its breach of contract claim.

I thought everything was proved in the testimony that the acts were intentional?

But this was just a distraction, at least they can still recover damages.

FFTT

JBAIN