Replies to post #101623 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[skweze]

Nicely done. I would offer one more observation regarding the lawsuit. Referring to the complaint against CSM:

16. Additionally, CSM's breach(s) of contract may cause a delay in bringing Bavituximab to market and impact the value of the platform before commercialization, causing damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

We've heard nothing yet from management on the impact of the discrepancy, so it seems reasonable to assume that the impact of any delays to market can not be determined at this time. Accordingly, there would be little impetus to move the lawsuit forward until the actual damages can be evaluated. Just my layperson's observation, of course.

[Carboat]

Most likely this mill be moot as they will just settle and no blame assigned. As said earlier only clue will be found by analyzing balance sheet. If it is this clear cut PPHM should insist on a public vindication as the reputational damage needs to be remedied.

[md1225]

Great post Cloaked that clears the air for the ones with questions.

[nuke661]

CP,

You stated:

Which parties could have made the errors leading to the discrepancies?
Theoretically CSM, one of its sub-contractors or one of the manufacturers providing Bavi, Placebo or the SOC product. But for our case we can exclude all but CSM. Why! Because CSM is responsible for ALL sub-contractors and deliveries it receives and redistributes, EVEN those coming from Avid. CSM is responsible to test deliveries and make sure they are what the manufactures claim they are. This guarantees that Avid could not deliver some stronger Bavi version (if that would exist) or that the SOC manufacturer doesn't change anything to his product that would invalidate the trial or that the placebo is the placebo decided upon in the trial design.

Regarding the bolded and italicized statement; Do you know this for a fact and if so how do you know this as a fact?

Thanks CP.