Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

pphmtoolong, yes there is a better change for settlement now.

as explained here - see end of post CSM has manoeuvred itself in a difficult position with this summary judgement.

1) Judge has already said: NO damage limits if constructive fraud
2) Judge now says, on the trial NO need to prove 'intend', the FACTS suffice for ALL CLAIMS (incl. constructive fraud).

So, CSM/Bleecker, in order to get this summary judgement granted, have admitted to the dose switching. So, PPHM wins but STILL needs to prove that CSM/JB knew about the dose switching and did not tell (because that is the constructive fraud claim). Just NOT TELL, and NOT WHY (the intend) SHE DID NOT TELL!!! So now with this judgement it suffices to prove that JB knew and she did because she said so herself (but with the excuse she tough everything was OK). So that is constructive fraud because not telling something to your customer is constructive fraud if you can show what advantage doing so would offer. And that is 'the hope to wheel in the unblinding contract".

But what this verdict does is setting everybody BEHIND the intend out of the wind because the Judge said : You can't go there, don't spend money to prove intend in my court. Give me the facts and that is all I need.

So settling could be cheaper for CSM and faster for PPHM.