Re: Legal Summary from ASM reminder oral arguments can be watched..replay..Navidea lawyer doing really good framing
replay is not available on official court link, but if anyone PMs me I can point to a recording.
IMHO it is not a good sign that the NAVB attorney spent so much time arguing the facts rather than the law (although CRG was arguing facts as well). See See Carl Sandburg quote
CRG had previously gone to the OH Supreme Court on the jurisdiction issue and it's complaint was dismissed based on Judge Serrott's answer which cited legal authority that could have been repeated today, including that parties cannot waive a court's subject matter jurisdiction, and that the OH court would have jurisdiction even if it had not been specifically reserved in the GSA. Both of those legal points are significant and could have been included in response to specific questions asked by the judges.
CRG continued to stand by what it knows to be a totally disingenuous argument: That the swept funds were in the same category as interest payments made prior to the GSA and so it was appropriate for the TX court to not apply those funds towards damages and that appeals court should not consider them in the question of whether CRG collected more than the $66M cap. CRG's own damages spreadsheet introduced in the TX trial as an exhibit belies this assertion. CRG's argument, that if payments made prior to the GSA were included in the $66M cap then there would have been no need for a trial since those payments plus the $59M paid with the CAH closing already exceeded $66M, is without legal merit. CRG had claimed at trial damages well in excess of $70M, enough so that even after giving credit for the $4.1M swept funds there would still be damages in excess of $66M which would have allowed CRG to collect the full $7M LOC and be within the GSA limitations. What CRG was not anticipating is that the TX judge would reduce their claimed damages by millions (they over-claimed both attorney fees and interest) which is why they were not entitled to draw the entire $7M LOC. In other words, there could have been a ruling which would have allowed CRG to keep the swept funds and the entire LOC, but that is simply not what happened, and CRG's assertion to the court today is an outright falsehood. To prove this point I'm attaching CRG's spreadsheet introduced by them at the Texas trial and challenge anyone to provide any explanation as to how this can be read other than to show an intent that the $4.1M of swept funds was suppose to be applied towards the damages. (These figures are prior to the actual judgment which reduced by millions the total asked for as noted above.) Proof CRG misled court