Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

Nothing hypocritical about it. PPHM provides details, references verifiable to facts (a mail is a mail and either you produce it or you lied).

Furthermore PPHM produces elements they could not possibly know with information from CSM, no matter whether CSM told them or they learned about them from another external investigation.

And what is MORE, after these last amendements PPHM cannot say they don't know who it is! They wrote that the person (she) was present on the kick-off meeting and hence EVERYBODY present on the meeting knows who was the female project manager of CSM sitting there. there is even a meeting protocol from the kick-off! So stop the crap!

Plaintiff in the CA lingers (undeniably offered the same amendment basics for all the 3rd times even after judges warning) and just throws around mud with providing ANY facts supporting it.

All we hear from plaintiff in the CA are fact we already know from PPHM PR's and some anonymous ex-employees that bring nothing to the table except maybe the overall sentiment that management doesn't like the retail share holders which is a welcome sentiment if you accuse someone from SEC fraud.

So putting BOTH mentions of fraud on the SAME level is not correct. Furthermore the CA is even only still in the phase of deciding whether a trial will be held and the judge already twice said NO! In the PPHM vs CSM we are much further, its either settle or trial.