A pretty good legal analysis of the situation on YF....
Brian A 7 minutes ago
I think it’s fairly obvious that we’re not going to see Neuro’s entire argument until the company, sometime in the next 30-days, files its Official (full) response to Relief’s full Complaint. Neuro will have to offer a point-by-point refutation of Relief’s claims in their response. Until then, we can speculate until the “cows come home,” but we won’t know Neuro’s complete argument.
I would like to see evidence of Neuro’s contention that Relief believed the endeavor was doomed to fail, and then chose not to fund it for that reason. If Neuro has nothing to offer beyond someone’s “word,” then Neuro may be in deep “kimchi.” Relying on someone’s “credibility” alone is often difficult to do, and will require substantial evidence supporting the individual’s credibility and character to be effectively demonstrated to the jury. This is especially true when corroborating evidence is presented that establishes the seeming veracity of the Complainant’s claim(s).
As a counterpoint, I hope Relief has official receipts that show each of the letters they allege they sent to Neuro were actually sent via courier, and the official computer files that show the origination date of the letters sent. Those dates should correspond with the dates on the letters, and the courier receipts, reflecting they were actually sent to Neuro.
Either way…one thing is relatively evident. Neither Party chose to seek official withdrawal from the Collaboration Agreement, leaving the agreement intact and largely enforceable, IMO. So, as with every case before any court, the New York Court will have to determine Mens Rea (intent) for both company’s at various points along the path, and in the light of their individual analyses of the circumstances as they understood them to be at the time…especially with regard to their interpretation of the other party’s actions/inaction.
There are two paths, aside from settling outside of the Court, these proceedings will follow. First, the Court/Judge could read Relief’s Complaint and Neuro’s official response, review all relevant information submitted by the Complainant (Relief) and the Respondent (Neuro), and make a quick determination (relatively speaking, that is) regarding the totality of everyone’s actions, and in the context of the potential impact upon an ongoing global healthcare crises; and Second, the Court could begin its preparations for a very lengthy and protracted legal battle over each and every point/counterpoint in Relief’s Complaint and Neuro’s Response.
One thing is likely certain…there will not be a quick resolution regardless…at least not using the definition of “quick” people outside of the legal system are accustomed to using. So settle in, “girls and boys.” This “party” is just getting set to start. ??
