Replies to post #224418 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[MazelMan]

JB seems like all the inspectors on board "missed by that much".

Either way IMO credibility for pphm made good strides. Now let's move on to the CA closure and the big show of Bavi results to round it out.

Overall I receive this as a step in the right direction.

Norff

[BioBS2012]

........at least they can still recover damages

I fail to see how they can recover what got damaged the most:

(1) Reputation
(2) Shareholder Value
(3) Lost Income from delayed commercialization
(4) Shareholder value
(5) Additional cost to run larger stuy
(6) Shareholder value

You get the picture. Cheers.

[Protector]

jbainseky, read the full court text because you are making a wrong conclusion.

Full Text

The court accepts Motion for Partial Summary Judgment because PPHM has not filed for ANY deeds that needs the prove of 'intention'. That would have happened at the trial, but since there is no need for intention because CSM/Bleecker admitted to the label switching the economic loss doctrine applies.

In short: CSM says we admitted to the label switching and PPHM didn't file for anything that needs to prove 'intention' so a partial summary judgement is at order, why loose money to prove intention if in any case, even if proven to be intentional, it will not make a difference and it would cost extra to both parties.

And the court says (two examples):

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.

In other words PPHM pursue's CSM for things where the pure fact suffices, no need to explain WHY that fact occurred. The above does NOT say it was accidental and not intentional, it says even if it was intentional it doesn't matter.

18 The Court notes that, although Peregrine alleged in the First Amended Complaint that CSM’s project manager falsely confirmed on April 15, 2010 that CSM was following the PRS trial group assignments after CSM had already “secretly and unilaterally swapped the A and B arms,” (FAC ¶ 17), Peregrine nonetheless elected not to plead claims for intentional conduct.

And you say:

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

Yes, it was, Jeff Masten's investigation made it surface he said it could NOT be done by accident. And PPHM had this prove of INTENTION from Jeff Masten on and about Sept 20th 2012, so BEFORE they filed the lawsuit with CSM.

But the court now says, I don't care if it was intentional or not because you (PPHM) didn't file for anything that needs to be intentional and CSM/Bleecker agreed that they did the dose swicthing so lets not throw money away to start prove 'intentional' on a trial (economic loss doctrine).

So yes, PPHM had/has prove of intend but they or their lawyers made the mistake of not FROM THE VERY BEGINNING (that is when I and some others started to posts about the sabotage and the intentional part) file claims accordingly. They needed to know what the woman was thinking before they could call it sabotage. LOL.

But for CSM this is a PYRUS victory! The judge DID NOT limit damages in case of constructed fraud in the previous leg and now grants summary judgement saying that there is NO NEED TO PROVE intend for any of PPHM's claims (incl. constructive fraud) to be right, just proving the facts will suffice. So what follows is going to be a walk in the park for PPHM and NO LIMITS on damages. However, those behind JB may be off the hook as intend is of the hook, at least in this trial.