Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Threes]

I disagree, CP is not putting words in anybodies mouth. The source being from the plaintiffs side are going to be written leaning to the plaintiffs direct as much as possible.
However, the plaintiff in the CA clearly has stated there best case in the original and two amendments without any significant substantiated collaboration. So in using there argument to qualify they have nothing is fair play.

Quite the reverse for the complaint filed by PPHM which includes details , dates, and collaborated evidence. The vials, the change in the protocol of the trial down to the capacity the female employee at the time of the switch. The internal check points that person "she" had to navigate to pull this off.
The cloaking of the act from her superiors.

IMO , CP has done his DD and qualified the facts as he sees them.

I am not a big conspiracy theorist and did not immediately buy into the sabotage angle, but, it appears CP was right on.