Pharmascience Inc. v. Meda AB et al - Nov 18, 2021 - Part 1

12:03PM Nov 18, 2021

Speakers:

Sean Prouse

JUSTICE ZINN

MR. SKYODYN

Keywords:

report

frederick

witness

testify

document

record

evidence

court

assumptions

items

pharma

business

correct

paragraph

hear

agree

questions

period

expert

volumes

transcription test Check 12312

Check court recorder audio test November the eighth to 2021 Farm science

Morning everyone

thank you for joining in audio test. Okay this should last the live test one two okay good to go Oh Morning Katya morning Can you hear me Oh

morning Good morning

ready as well when when my friends and the car

don't see the witness so it hasn't arrived yet

but I do have

you sorry anyone in the waiting room yeah so he'll i

He's probably just waiting to see what happens but uh we'll just wait to Okay

you know Mr. Soriano. From our perspective, it's fine to come into the Steven morning's proceedings with that earlier fact witness the first fact witness. I don't have any objection to that.

And I would just add that his associate Matthews attorney was also asked to join this and send you a chat on that.

Okay. Won't be long.

Just a Moment Oh. It won't be long.

We will start in the next five minutes. There's just a bit of a technical

problem and no problem

of Miss Curie cupolas. We have our accounting expert Ms. Frederick is going to join today as well for Mr. Soriano's testimony. So if you wouldn't mind letting Frederick in. There's already happened.

The other person that I see an S Chen

Yes, that's still a Chen. She's with Ms. Frederick as well. So if you could let Miss Chen in as well, please.

And I'll be back it won't be long.

Morning cafe we had our link drop there.

yeah it completely shut down my apologies.

That's okay. That's okay. Not your fault

okay

do you have a recording in progress? We have someone from the defendants from Blake's. Just been we're just trying to join from the Thank you. We've had some issues this morning. I have had some issues

can everyone hear me

I can hear you.

Record is now resumed

Yes, thank you. It took us a second to all get back in but I think we're connected as well. Thank you.

So everybody's connected

we seem to have lost the video from Mr. Meyer.

Mr. Mark, can you hear me?

Kaalia Can you hear me? Are you still there?

I'm here it's Mr. Scouting is just on the podium to rename himself.

Okay, here we go.

Yeah, we're good to go. Thank you. Okay.

Kelly, I've lost. I've lost Mr. Golden again. His cameras off. Mr. Stone. Can you leave your camera on please?

Yes, yes, of course he had was just reorganizing. I misspelled my own name. So not a great commencement to the proceeding this morning. But I've sorted that out. It's not the first time my name has been misspelled, as I'm sure you can imagine. And usually not me, but anyways, we're good to go. Thank you.

Okay, great. And I understand the witnesses available. So can we bring the witnessing and swear him in?

Good morning, everyone. Morning, Mr. woodline. Can you hear me? Yeah.

Good morning. Morning lordship. Morning.

So can you please state your full name, occupation and professional address for the record?

My name is Mani. I'm a lawyer by profession. I work with Glenmark life sciences.

And would you prefer to be sworn in on a holy work or by

affirmation? By affirmation?

Do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by you to the court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning or good evening, Mr. Wadhwani. Can you can you just confirm you're alone in the room with no documents in front of you?

There are no documents in front of me. And there is nobody else in the room?

Where are you currently employed?

I currently work with Glenmark life sciences.

And how long have you been employed with klimax Life Sciences?

I've been working since 15, June 2020.

And what is your role at the company?

And I understand you're not testifying in your legal capacity today. Is that right?

That is correct.

What interest does Glenmark have in the outcome

of this litigation?

Then mark does not have any interest in the outcome of this litigation.

And are you being compensated for your time here today? No. Are you familiar with the company Glenmark generics limited?

Yes.

And what is the relationship between Glenmark generics limited to Glenmark life sciences

So again, Glenmark, generics limited got merged with landmark pharmaceuticals in 2015. And the merged entity was continued to be named as Glenmark Pharmaceuticals. In 2019, landmark pharmaceutical transferred its API business to Glenmark Life Sciences, which is my company with effect from first January 2019.

And what was the

very high level objection?

I'm going to lodge a hearsay objection at the beginning here given this way, you know when this witness started at the company, I 's obviously isn't a contentious area. Background, but given when he started at the company, things that happened before his time there are by definition The second hand so I'm putting my objection on the record.

Fair enough, we'll deal with it was it substantial?

Was the nature of the business of Glenmark generics limited.

So amongst the other business Glenmark, generic was into manufacturing of an API. So development, manufacturing and supply of API,

and who conducts that business now.

That business is transferred to my company, which is Glenmark Life Sciences.

Can you just briefly explain to the court how you came to be involved as a witness for this trial?

Okay, so that counsel for Pharmascience, they contacted Glenmark employees regarding this matter, and there was nobody else no employee who used to deal with zolpidem API. So are the people who are your marketing, zolpidem API, they left the organization. So I was in I was put in contact with Pharmascience phones.

And

are you putting contact with pharma scientists Council?

September in the month of September

Yeah. And you know, when counsel for pharma science first contacted Glenmark

a couple of years back in from 2019.

And you know, who they spoke to you that

the first email communication which I saw was between concept for Pharmascience and, and sort of other

sort of Adak. Okay, and I'll just spell that out. I think I have the spelling here if you can confirm it just for the benefit of the court reporter which is so you are a V. Adak is that right yes, that

that

is that is correct. Okay, and

where is that personnel

I have no idea he has left the organization.

okay. How did you prepare for your testimony today?

So, we had a meeting with the Council for Pharmascience they had asked many questions, and on the basis of these questions and our answers to that they had prepared an affidavit. So that affidavit draft content, various facts and statements, and additional information was also required. And I circulated facts and statements to the respective departments and responsible persons, and upon receiving their inputs and confirmation. You know, I provided all the details to consul for farmer and I also provided certain documents.

You just tell the court why a draft affidavit was prepared.

Sorry, come again.

Can you just explain to the court why a draft affidavit was prepared?

Because we wanted to testify by we wanted to give a testimonial by by way of an epidemic. Okay.

Just bear with me one second. I'm going to turn up my microphone, just in case you're having a hard time hearing me. Okay, can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to put a document up on the screen. And, Your Honor, this is FC 318.

Can you see the screen? Mr. Wadhwani? Yes.

And can you just tell the court if you recognize this document?

Yes, I recognize this is document and what is it? So this is an invoice raised by Glenmark generates limited to Farmer signs for supply of zolpidem API.

Friends rate? Yes. Just as

I'm sorry, I suspected an objection might be coming. I can't see you until you actually start speaking. And

so Oh, yes. Because of the way because of the screenshare this nature. Yeah. So so. My apologies for moving before making a noise. Yes, I have objection. This witness testifying about this document given the testimony that was well, maybe we can put

Yeah, and you start the witness in a side room. So we can deal with this objection. Okay, thank you.

Miss discone.

Yes, thank you. Yeah. So simply from the background information with respect to how this witness came to testify And the sequence of events, I would suggest, with all due respect to my friends that my original objection from earlier this week has been made out, it sounds as though they've been in contact with this company for years, and in contact with this individual and others since September, which is before the first witness list was due. And yet, as we only received this witness's name, and the documents, that including the one that was just put up two days ago, so all of the concerns that I've raised up until this point about the sequence of events appear to have been correct that my friends had access to this person, they were circulating a draft of an affidavit, they were collecting documents, and not sharing any of that with us, until until Tuesday, after the trial had already commenced, notwithstanding the orders to provide a witness list. And, you know, a first one and a second one, none of that happened. We never saw a draft affidavit from them. So nor did we see any of these documents until two days ago. So that's my first objection to this witness testifying at all, I would respectfully suggest that My Submissions regarding the prejudice of not being able to have the same types of conversations with this witness who says they have no interest in this litigation, and therefore, presumably, would have spoken to us and had or early November had, we had the opportunity to do so those are all born out at second. And I have a hearsay objection to this witness testifying about this documents specifically first, because on the face of the document, it's from 2014. The fact that he recognizes the document is in my respectful submission, immaterial, he can't possibly have been involved in the creation or storage of the document in 2014. And by his own testimony, and what he's describing as a discovery process where counsel for pharma science contacts him, he contacts other people who collect information and material and provided to him. But that's not testimony at trial. That is, by definition, hearsay, which is fine in the context of an examination for discovery, because the purpose of or the way our rules are set out a witness for a corporation and examination for discovery is supposed to inform themselves from other people at the organization. But that's not the case, as we all well know, at trial, as a direct individual who has direct knowledge of the information, and our documentation and or exhibits that are being proposed to be put in is required. And whether people are gone and type defendant that's not for the defendants, you know, to to compensate for nor for the court to compensate for the plaintiffs burden, and the plaintiff has to put in a witness who can give firsthand testimony about the things that he or she is testifying about. And this witness simply cannot do this. And the circumstances in which he describes collecting the information, make it clear that he's not the person to be able to give this court direct testimony about it nor the person who can answer our questions. And again, frankly, if we'd if we'd known what the situation was in in September or October, you know, the it'd be different we would we you know, I don't know, but the fact of the matter is we didn't, and we're in the situation we're in. So it was made. And with all due respect, the fact that this witness recognized the document because somebody else gave it to him is classic hearsay and admissible at trial. And those are my submissions on that. Thank you.

Jeremy, yes. So the dealing with the hearsay element first, I put the document on the screen didn't get to the point of asking the witness questions about where it came from. What it is, it's a business record. So this the hearsay objection, I don't think there's any space here this witness can testify where it came from how its cap can testify about business records, and then the hearsay element, there's no hearsay element here. So having not been able to ask the witness the questions, the court doesn't yet have testimony on what the document is where it came from, how it was stored, how was kept. I'm gonna ask the witness those questions and he is in the position

of that. Okay. But he wasn't there when it was created store camp.

He is able to testify as to how records are kept at the company as a legal officer. Now, yes, right. But and then with a history of how things have been maintained and kept in the course of business.

And as far as the draft affidavit, so I don't think it was clear from Mr. Webb on his testimony that there was a preference on their part. There was an attempt to get someone to answer these questions. It was done in a timely manner, no comp no fault of pharma sciences. Attempts were made and Mr. Wani explained. Mr. Wadhwani, explained that we did contact them a couple of years ago, and he was put in touch with us more recently, when deadlines were set, and was attempting to get answers to these questions. And as far as exchanging drafts of affidavits, you know, without going into the details of what we and our friends exchange prior to this trial, terms of settling or discussing the contents of what went forward, I think all I can say is an affidavit was not the process that parties consented to nor the court agreed to. So we have a witness who can say this is the business record, I have to at least be able to ask the witness those questions in order for him to establish what the what the document is, where it came from. And I don't, for a business record, the whole point of it is doesn't have to be a person who created the record and was there at the time. So without being able to ask the witness this question on a document that, frankly, confirms pharma sciences document in order this is, I don't know if you can still see it on the screen, but it's for the 43 kilos,

can my friend, my friends not giving testimony here either. So I'll stop my friend. I'll stop my friend there. i He's not the lawyer who's going to be you know, who's who's,

anyway? I'm telling the court what I expect the witness to say, which I think is fair. And Mr. My friend is right. If he wants to cross examine the witness, this is what I expect the witness to say. Maybe he won't say it and my friend won't have to do anything. Or maybe he will. As I said, not a party under control, not a witness under control. Mr. Scogan can cross examine on on the what Mr. Wadhwani knows about this document. But on its face, what I expect them to say is that this deal was an order placed by farmer science, the court already has in evidence, the corresponding the other half of this order. That was Miss Paula Martinez, who showed the invoices for the for the 43 kilos that arrived in 2015. It's very strange to hear that that my friends think there's some sort of prejudice to seeing the record that was kept at Glenmark, corresponding to the record that was kept at pharma science. I see how there's any prejudice there.

So So with all due respect to my friend, I don't know that that's true. He doesn't know that that's true. The witness doesn't know that. That's true. So he's here, my friend, for my friend to be giving this evidence is even worse than for the witness to be given the evidence. Well, actually, it's about the same triple hearsay quadruple, who say who cares, it's already way out. To my friend's point on the business records exception, the business records exception is so that you don't have to bring originals, it is a allows for copies to be referred to because it's a business record. Remember, these, the business records exception came out many, many years ago, because people didn't want to have to go to the bank to get the actual deposit slips and the actual records. So they would say, well, if a bank, you know, makes a record every day of what's coming in and out, we can use that we don't need to go you know, go to the branch in Yellowknife and and get a person from the branch in Yellowknife to come to Toronto to testify that the person deposited it, if they put the money in and it goes into the record, it goes into the record. That's all the business records exception, it gets my friend, it doesn't have anything to do with hearsay, it doesn't fix their hearsay problem. It can't establish the truth of the contents of the documents, nor can its establish any of the things my friend just said. So the witness as you as you yourself said, just as in the witness wasn't there, he can't testify to it. And by his own admission, this information is collected from other people who also weren't directly involved. So with all due respect, in my respectful submission, this is exactly what what my objection was at the beginning of the week, it's come to to bear and we ought to let Mr. Wadhwani go, because he's not going to be able to give any admissible respect to these documents and whether in fact, they're true or whether in fact, any of the things Mr. Draghi says are true. And nor is he going to be able to give any admissible evidence about what was going on at that company that he didn't work for in 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018, which is the relevant period so

I think my submission this Wesco

justice, and I think my friend and I have a different understanding of the business exception. I think what my friend is referring to is authenticity. The authenticity admission means that a party does show up with the original business records exception, it's stated quite clearly justice. I think Martin doe dealt with this recently. In a case with Pfizer, I was looking at case law on this week or two weeks ago, it's that the document is evidence of a thing that happened, or a transaction that took place. That's what business records exception means you can look at the document as evidence of something that happened. And there are preconditions to that. Not that you need to go to the bank. That's authenticity that's different from direct motion. We talk about the business records obsession,

rule, we visit court,

maybe we need to go there. It's the it's an exception to the hearsay rule, not not anything to do with authenticity

still has to be put in through a witness who can speak to it, which this witness cannot be cannot speak to what their record keeping was before he got there. He cannot speak to whether or not the the information in the documents is true. We don't introduce documents that are not admitted by the parties without without any witness testifying to them. And no, there is no witness who can testify to either that things my friend is saying in terms of establishing that this is in fact a business record or that it what it represents in any way, shape or form. They don't this is not the person. So you know, it's it's a principled objection to keep us on. On Track.

We're dealing with shifting arguments. Now here my work started with well as to be authentic. And now Now we're dealing with Well, it just has to be a person that was there at the time. We need to fully briefed the court on business records exception. And put that in. I mean, I don't know what the corporate poses for this. But this is this is a business record. I am going to lead. Mr. Wadhwani. I think he will testify to that. And I think it fits in the business records of sexual exception. And I think that is the only question right now, not whether he was there at the time. That's that's not contested.

He can't he certainly cannot speak to what the company did at the time. Well,

why don't we let the evidence be heard by the court and we can brief the court and closing on this business records exception? Because that seems to be the issue here.

Well, there's there's also the issue of prejudice. That was raised by Mr. Scogan. You had this information? I don't know some time ago. I expect him to continue to see

as we can show them. I don't think we do. But Mr. Wadhwani will confirm he gave us to us on Monday this week. gave you what these documents this document we're looking at I guess you can't see my share screen. But I'm I'm we're dealing with this document.

I know I can't see yours. Yours. Okay.

My apologies. I'll put it back up. So two documents I put to Mr. Wide one document, which I think you can see on your screen. Yes, I can. The SAP record. And those came to us this week. And the prejudice components of the prejudice component would be my friend saying, Well, this is a shock to us. We don't know the details behind this record. They do. This is this not 43 kilo order that Miss Martinez testified about 2015 April, this confirms what she said. There's no prejudice on this record

whatsoever.

This is his confirmatory

evidence. It's something that their witness already testified to from a witness who can't testify to it, then what are we doing? Why, why what there's no necessity. I mean, first of all, the necessity doesn't just because they want it. But second of all, if this is just confirmatory, of a document, they've already put in evidence through their own witness. Why are we doing this and and making exceptions to the general rule that witnesses testify about their personal knowledge when they get to trial? And this individual has no personal knowledge of the events that are recorded on this. He's clearly not the person that put the handwriting on it. You know, they've been working. I don't know whether they got the documents on Monday or not, but they've been working with these people since September. And And did they? Did they include us in any way shape or form it these documents aren't even productions yet?

They're not no question. They're

not there's no they're not

in their possession, power, or control. I I reject that state that they've had them since Monday. They haven't been rooster. So it's a series of my respectful submission. It is a series of problems one after another with this witness. And and I don't know why my friends are doing this, if it's just confirmatory of evidence they already have. And if it's not confirmatory, of evidence they already have and it's new evidence, then we run into all of the prejudice and hearsay problems.

Just as in this is Mr. Clamp sorry for repeating. But if I hold on, Mr. Scogan, pardon me, this is Mr. Scogan, is going to attack the credibility of us and our firm and suggest that we had this before Monday, you need to hear from this witness.

Can I justice? And can I make a request? And there is counsel, our understanding of how the system person and Mr. Clay and Mr. stainsby Jumping in repeatedly, it's my understanding that that counsel is counsel. And so I don't want to be dealing with two or three or four people. And I don't think it was fair when they did that to Ms. Torrance yesterday, to be ganging up on people, I can handle it. But it's not it's not appropriate. And and this sort of peanut gallery action and my respectful submission, please, can we keep that? Can we not do that? If my friend wants to send notes to Mr. drawling, suggesting that he do something like we would if we were in court, that's fine. But we have three or four people popping up.

I agree with Mr. Scogan. On that point. I agree. You Mr. drove me with respect to that is my understanding of this record. Exception. It's an exception to the hearsay rule. The problem I have with this witness, however, is he can't, from firsthand knowledge, Palace, anything about how this record was, how it was stored, whether it was possible to make changes to it, so on and so forth. He wasn't there there. And those that Mr. Scogan is entitled to us to satisfy himself and the court that this isn't an authenticity is authentic, and has now been changed. I also agree with him, frankly, that if the only purpose of this witness is to confirm the evidence that we already have, I Ciera was wondering, why are we hearing from this man? Because I haven't heard maybe the defendants going to lead some blockbuster evidence when it comes to their time. But I'd be surprised, frankly, if there is any such evidence to challenge we've already heard in terms of your client ordering and obtaining and the amounts there.

This document is just to address the the piece about duplicative evidence. This is a way for Mr. What wanting to claim when the order was placed, and what the document, which is I expect him to say, the record of available in June of 2014. API, this record from Glenmark, to explain Willowbank, or why one doesn't match the other all questions my friend can ask. So duplicative, no prejudice, it's going to lead into him explaining how he knows the business record, how he understands the SAP record, which is the next thing that will go up on the screen. And I think he needs to be able to explain this record in order to tie it into what was available in 2014. He knows, I think I hear what you're saying you you're you're suggesting that the witness needs to be there at the time to authenticate as a business record upset exception. I don't think that's the case. I think as a person who joins a company understands how records are kept, is able to look back at prior records and say those are the same type. And this is it's starting to sound like we need to have a motion on this. And I think the way to do this is hear what Mr. Wadhwani has to say about it. My friends can cross examine, and we do the submissions in closing on the business records exception, which I think is what Justice Martin no did in the trial, with Pfizer having a witness that or excluding a witness excluding testimony late in the day, it's already been a struggle.

The only reason it's late in the day counsel is you didn't advise the court about the idea or or the party opposite about this witness until Tuesday.

We were unable to confirm that he would be the right person to deal with his friends are saying that he's not. I mean, you can appreciate the difficulty we have as this as a third party trying to get someone to say they can speak to

records. I appreciate it's not easy. And we're going back in a period of time, but it's about to know me that there is absolutely no one at the company today who was there in 2014.

He's about to explain that the person we contacted who said that they can address this is no longer with a company. Well, I believe he actually already said that i He did say that he has no idea where that person is.

I hear you going to hear from this witness. I think both of the objections are well founded, I don't think this witness can testify from personal knowledge about what was going on at this company in 2014 1516 17 and 18, which is the roughly the relevant period of time, he cannot answer questions in that lease with respect to that period of time.

And I just point out, my lord that this Court has already heard, as I say, records from no one objected. It was appropriate to go in, you have to hear the testimony in order to qualify it. And we're being prevented from even being able to qualify this evidence. Well,

that my ruling, I'm happy to hear from this witness on these two documents in that period of time, he has no first hand knowledge.

And that case, maybe advise, maybe take a 10 minute break at the corporate just let Mr. Wadhwani know, we're on a 20 minute break and I'll just consult with my colleagues.

Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, we'll

take 15 and Cachia. Can you just let him know that we're adjourn for 15 minutes. Thank you for court.

The court is adjourned until 10.

recording stopped Okay, so we're saying here

recording in price credit hours

within a couple of minutes broke it wasn't justice Martin. Oh, it was Justice Tremonti. FC 19. Sorry 1396. And then secondly, the I appreciate your ruling on Mr. Wadlow money. May I ask him questions about what he knows of the company and zolpidem since commencing his employment in 2020.

How is that relevant?

probative quantity they're producing today ability today would have ability four or five years ago

I drank once. That's probably because of its ability four or five years ago.

Demonstrate my ongoing ability Continuous ability. We have the first piece I think from Ms. i Well, we have the business records from pharmacy services end of it. And Mr. Wadhwani, I can ask them questions about quantity today. And I think that illustrates day ability for five years, and ongoing.

I think that we

would say our friends, therefore, the ability to first Glenmark make this.

So I disagree. I too, was working at a different company five years ago, I can testify about that firm, and its ability to do whatever it was doing up until 2018. And then I can't testify about it now, nor can I testify about Blake's and ready to do this that or the other thing before I joined Blake's in in 2018. That's what tracked evidence is all about. So it's not probative. What we're doing now is not probative of what we did then without the connection that this witness cannot provide. So and I believe you already made a ruling about the relevance of, you know, information about zolpidem, etc. After the delay period and the proxy periods of respect, fully, I would submit that this witness is evidence of what's going on. And plus he did testify that the company that was doing this years ago, is a different company than then when he works for now. And there's been a corporate reorganization. So we don't know that either. Given the intervening events in these time periods and my respectful submission, as I suggested earlier, this witness should be should be left to his evening in peace. And just

on the corporate piece of it, I think, Mr. What one he said that the business it's not a different company. It's that the company he is currently employed technically by reorganizing took on the API business that was a subsidiary before. And on the provato piece if the answer comes out is we're making 6000 today, and what farmer science needs to prove its case was we would have placed an order for 50 kilos in 2014. I think that gives it context for what my friends are going to say is the ability to supply that was lacking

I think it has no probative value counsel, I truly do. I think if he were there in 14, and he could say we were able to manufacture 500 kilos and so Pridham be great that he can't and the fact that they may be able to do something doesn't tell me what he could do in 2014 1516, etc. So no, not a lot of asking those questions no relevance that I can see.

In that case, I think we can allow Mr. Wani back in and I guess the court will know he's being excused

Yes. And register people. Can you hear me miss me?

Yes, I can you

want to thank you very much for making yourself available but we don't need to hear anything further.

Shall not ship your Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you

without justice, Our next witness is Mr. Errol Soriano. And Mr. I'll turn it over to Mr. stainsby.

And Mr. Sorry, I understand it is on the Zoom call. Yes, he's in a waiting room.

Let's bring him in.

Good morning. Hear me?

I can can you hear me? Yes perfectly.

We need someone from Blake's on the call. We do. There we go. Thank you.

So it's Mr. Soriano. Can you please state your full name, occupation and professional address for the record?

Yes. Earl David surreal Chartered Professional Accountant and chartered business valuator 150 King Street West in Toronto, sweet 2300.

And it is noted that you would like to proceed by solemn affirmation. Is this correct? Yes, please. Do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by you to the court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Thank you. Stains me

here, justice in. Hello, Mr. Sorry, I know, I just want to confirm you're on the trial court. Can you let us know know that you're alone in the room and the documents in front of you, apart from the reports that you'll be talking about in this case? And is true. And just as the parties have agreed on Mr. storyhouse qualifications, and there are a trial toolkit is FC 322. If we could put those up on the screen, and I understand that there may be some minor qualification from my friend's side, they want to be able to say something about this, but this is what's been agreed to, and in order to, in the interest of efficiency, propose to take Mr. Gatto through his background, his education, that and that he'd be qualified in this manner. And he's frequently just received, like, is repeated repeatedly to qualify them?

There you have any objection to him being called? Right in this state?

We do not thank you

very much.

If we SC 322, then please just just send us the next exhibit. In this trial,

I don't know that we actually, it's an exhibit.

Well, I could read it into the record either way.

I was going to read it into the record actual sorry, no, you are qualified. You are a Chartered Professional Accountant chartered business, Certified Fraud Examiner with expertise in this modification, potential losses accounting and financial services, including in regard to damages claimed involving the pm NOC regulations, as they pertain to Canadian pharmaceutical

companies. Now, as I mentioned to you previously testified in matters such as this other matters. Can you give the court an overview of the history of testimony before this court and others? Yes. Just stepping back a step from that I've been doing nothing but damages, quantification where in my practice, and business valuation for approximately the last few years, in that time, I've testified in federal or provincial court, domestic arbitration and international arbitration, as well as before the PNP and other regulatory bodies 65 approximately 65 times. Mr. Syriana. You prepared three reports in this case, the first your first report by 2021 a supplementary report report dated August 2320 21. Reply report dated October 12 2021. Just as it asked the be marked in the first report is SC 4854 540 545. Yes, the second report is q1 FC 51. Yes, sir report is FC 58.

Management register can you just confirm the exhibit is 117

Okay, so each of those reports then is entered as read EFS. July 8 2021 is exhibit 117, the sank August 2321 is 119. And the third October 12 2021 is exhibit 100.

Thank you just to set it's just sorry. No. Could you please provide the court with a high level overview of the agreements and differences between you and an accountant is Paula Frederick? Yes. Miss Frederic lists some of the areas of agreement report, which I concur with, and some of the areas of agreement as they existed at that time, but at a high level, in initially reviewing this matter, a damages model in format, rather sophisticated model, and ultimately discredit us as a model my model and changed some of the variables to arrive at her what the losses were. So at its highest level, I've used a difference between Frederick and myself on a couple of variables. That impacts the model that we're both USD, which is my model. These would include acrylic, they would include the different volumes that we assume are calculations. Mine, as the Courtney know, came from Dr. Hollis. Frederick was asked, seeing the volume that came up from sorry, I'm not sure how to pronounce it Gruden hearse, there's first written doors, Dr. Gruden doors. So that's one area of difference. Another area of difference is the rate of customer investment or trade spend as it's also known, I was asked to rate of 35%, Ms. Frederick assumed a rate of 44.9%. The third area of principal difference is a leading to the rate of interest. Assume five to 6% and Ms. Frederick use the rate, I believe slightly less than 1%. So those three differences account for approximately 90 of difference between Ms. Frederick and myself. At that time, there were other small differences as caning to whether some of the costs are incremental or fixed costs. i In some cases, we had different views about that, I would consider a cost to be incremental cost, thereby reducing the losses as Miss Frederick incremental cost and therefore increase the losses. There's also an example where the opposite happened where cost was fixed and misread or was incremental. And then there's a couple of times where the sort of just the way we measured it was different. And my view on that is it's both methods have merits and disadvantages. So really, I was looking to compromise on those. But obviously, there hasn't been discussion about that. But though in a nutshell, those are the differences. Are you prepared to compromise, which is those? So one that I have? I've actually accepted Frederick on a couple of her position on a couple of items. The first is she noted a relatively minor error in my model, and I've corrected for that. That's approximately a $20,000 issue. I've also did Ms. Frederick's position that insurance is a rental cost. Initially relied on my previous variants with farm science in my understanding that shipments were insured therefore, additional shipment additional insurance. Miss Frederick and her quotes the discovery of I'm going to miss pronounce as well as item who said no that Fixed costs, which is Fred. I'm willing to accept that, given the evidence from design and domestic matter. Another issue I have agreed with Miss Frederick or accepted her calculation, I would say on this particular sheet is fee for service.

Simply stated, We delayed the appropriate rate of fee for service using slightly different mathematical methods. I took a weighted average of the after loss period, whereas Ms. Frederick assumed that the rates for the three years after the launch period would have been the rates applied to the volume in each of those three years during the last period. So it's it's simple, simply a different mathematical approach to work out what the rate of return Excuse me What fee for service rate would have been. I see merits and disadvantages. I don't think that one is better than the other. And given the dollar value involved, I was willing to simply spread Rick's view on that position on that particular issue. The last item was what is called QA QC or quality assurance and quality control. Again, real my previous experience, I was under the impression that QA and QC included incremental costs for materials. In the testing process when batches are tested. Frederick pointed out that it would be cost itself is is quantified as a as a fixed cost. So she decided to treat it as such as a fixed cost. My my view on it is it's probably in between, it's probably what's called a semi variable cost. And, you know, semi variable costs were discussed at another machine time. But in terms of this item, the treatment by Ms. Frederick as a fixed cost is probably closer to the number if it includes such things as equipment, and depreciation and things of that nature. Having said that, I don't have any evidence other than my knowledge on previous cases on which to agree with Mr. Frederick's number. So on that basis, I was simply asked to assert number on the item. Given these are areas where you've indicated your acceptance of Ms. Frederick's approach, what items are for you to discuss beyond the big ticket items that you ran through the volumes training, prejudgment interest, which really are matters, the four,

argument and or other?

What are the items left for you to discuss? So the items left for, as I characterize it adequately, accounted for approximately 3% of the difference in losses between Ms. Frederic and myself. And there are three items. The first is the machinery for manufacturing and packaging. These are tax expense items in the standard cost of manufacturing. And I view them to be more akin to fixed costs, whereas Mr. Frederick views them to be incremental costs. So that is one area where we still have disagreement. The secondary disagreement deals with management bonuses. I've I'm of the opinion that the management bonus is fixed and regular view that it is a variable cost. And the last I suppose with the destruction of product expired product. Again, I am of the view that there would have been no additional expired, expired slash destructive destroyed product during the last period in the butt for whereas Ms. Frederic assumes there would have been incremental destruction costs in the last period. Can we then get paragraph 15 of your first report to the court an overview of the structure and held together? Maybe you could just briefly describe what you're playing here. Yes, I the report is particularly rescheduled lengthy so I thought it would be useful to at the end said, explain the organization of the report. And these are the main headings in my report the text. As you can see, it's just a summary of qualifications in my mandate, which precede this section, Section C of the report. I've had set up my conclusion, my methodology, my scope, my assumptions, some background, an explanation of farm sciences systems. The details of my calculations, prejudgment interest, and then some boilerplate reading restrictions. So it's basically to, in focusing on a particular interest if the reader has been previously and is just looking for a particular item. And you mentioned, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but Volume Two of my report pertains to the schedules and are referred to attempt this schedule, my report and the schedules, I take it provide your calculations of the losses. So Miss Frederick, in this case. Alright. Paragraph 22. For Mr. Syriana, you provide, beginning at paragraph 22 the assumptions that I wrote by the opinions that you expressed, could you briefly run through them? Yes, as I see in Well, start started at paragraph 20. There are assumptions noted in my report. But the material assumptions are laid out in paragraph 23. And these are assumptions I've been provided by your firm. Do would you like me to what I think they're there for the the benefit. According to them, I would just point out for the benefit of the court that 23 B is the fact that's not an issue and the balance of them are I think, right. Now, you mentioned earlier Mr. Soriano fee service and customer investment can you provide support for the nice ending of the relationship between those two items, people fee for service is paid to the wholesalers for name implies versus they provide in stocking and distributing the product. Customer investment is the amount of paid to end customers to promote the product. So, the important actually I was observing yesterday, the important thing to understand is that both amounts are listed as sub components of overall consumer investment on the profit and loss statements. So I was watching as his elbow

doing a quick, I believe it was Miss salvo that was doing was doing a quick ation of the of the CI rate. And I believe her patient included the F the fee for service computing expense. So, I think that her calculation actually overstates the CI rate base fee for service in both model therefore, both Ms. Frederic and and I account for fee for service separately. So if fee for services accounted for as a separate expense item, it should not again be part of the CI calculation itself of undertook. Thank you now talking about destruction costs. What did what what are you your is your view on one of those? My understanding of the destruction costs is that that and then was therefore destroyed as a cost associated with that. I've been asked to proceed on the basis that that product would not have if zolpidem had been on the market during the budget for period. I think Ms. Baird wants to say something.

Apologies, but I do not think this is in Mr. Sorry, Angela's report, there's a reference to him having considered destruction or being been him having been told that his action costs were immaterial, but none of this further evidence is contained in his report, not in his reply work. And so this is not proper.

This is in this is evidence out in this trial that Mr. Suriano has been privy to during the course of trial. I believe the court would benefit from the

expression his expression of his opinion. It's a minor item, but

and he should he's going to spend about a minute and a half longer talking about it. This is your

distraction. Issue. Yes.

I maintain my it's not proper. This was information that came out from the fire farmer science, this mystery, no had access to them, either through counsel directly and preparing his reports, he instead relied on an assumption that it was immaterial, Miss Frederick, disgusted and report and again, no response in the reply. I don't think the fact that testimony from people he could have spoken to in advance yesterday changes.

I think it's a proper reaction. It's not an issue for you.

Thank you. Now, what do you say about commissions and bonuses, Mr. Sorry. And commissions and bonuses are, in my view, a fixed cost set up in my report, and also set up Fredericksburg report that, quoting I believe, from the examination for the scope, the Zaidan. That bonus is set at the end of the year, or excuse me, at the beginning of the year, which are added to that in the targets of the bonus pool. So if a product is added, instead of dollars of sales to hit your bonus, you would require two and a half million as an app. So the net effect, it does have that on the bonus pool paid out. It is zero from adding an additional product, it's simply changes in the pool. Thank you. Justice. And it just occurred to me that in fact, Miss Baird submissions on the expired goods. Sorry, I know, within his reply report, he did actually address that fired goods. And so maybe we'll deal with it when we get to the third report.

Certainly if he's dealt with it, and I agree with you testify to it.

And Miss Syriana, what do you say about the cost related manufacturing and packaging machines? Or have you already addressed that? Uh, well, I've said that, Miss Frederick, and I disagree on the treatment of that. And just to reiterate, I view that to be a cost. Whereas, Ms. Frederick use it to be available cost, the, my understanding of the components of that item are that includes depreciation, and capital cost, as well as previously understood to include space, and repairs and maintenance. Well, first a testimony yesterday from Bruno ciobo Guilbeau. And he seemed to say, that space, but part of that cost, so that that item, which is a fixed cost would cut out of the cost. But what we're left with is that this cost includes capital costs and appreciation and repairs and maintenance. The capital costs and depreciation are fixed amounts, the depreciation is a touch, rather than a usage charge. So those items might remain fixed, the repairs and maintenance might go as more usage, so I could see that component being a variable cost. So at the end of the day, I think having heard the testimony yesterday

and that means

ponent and a variable component, and I bought that Tony was yesterday as well. And from Can I heard that seemed tense to me. You know, again, only certain this is an item that could have had me misread or can I had an opportunity to thank you now, just want to turn briefly secondary and just ask you why you prepare. Mr. Syriana. Quite simply had increased or three adjusted his estimates. So, the same model that report updated for the new numbers in Dr. pollicis report. Okay, say And then the third report the Report 2021 Report. Translated that was to review and comment on Ms. Frederick's dated September if we could pull up that report. Paragraph what provides your the purpose of the report? If we could go sorry. What can you tell you tell us about your response to miss pred Frederic? Is it the same as before the ticket items remain volumes, consumer investment and interest rates? Yes, that's certainly what paragraph two if we could just drop down next page. This is a chart in paragraph three is what I refer to currently referred to as a waterfall. And the last that I calculate in my report, as such as, because as we know, Dr. Hollis has changed his volumes slightly. But with the last night, the pieces between that box, and the last gray box are differences between my number and Ms. Frederick's, which is the last. So the items in red are the differences that reduce my loss towards Ms. Frederick's, and I comes in green, which you can see green to well, because they're very increase the loss. So when you add all those together, you get in reconciles from 3,000,008 52. Down to miss number 1,000,005 53. Three big items, you can see the three big red boxes to assume sales, customer investment in the assumed rate of interest. Then in paragraph four, and this was what I was reviewing my comments to justice in just go make adjustments with respect to the cost of sales, and you will specifically adjust for expired goods. That being said, can I ask you then talk to us about expired goods?

I maintain my objection that a the questionnaire that we started with was destroyed. And he had referred to in his original report that having an assumption of the reference here to the subject heading a frequently expired goods lead to note that he's changed from tablet volunteers. It doesn't for the evidence it doesn't discuss issues of expiry it doesn't question or the really respectful submission

does demonstrate justice in that it's clearly a matter of just fashion, if not face to face through the reports between the experts and is in my respectful submission fair for Mr. Suri be permitted to comment on it.

Mr. Sorry, no, but no evidence and no basis for any of this in any of his work. Now to facts or evidence or things he relied on to do it as I said is simply a change in the volumes applied and is no it doesn't anyway of the fact or the assumptions made by Mr. sardana.

Where does this is this the only reference in this

the end of the report justice

all it says is that he tested the unit volume I think he's talking about that and why he made decisions. Alright, well can you do that on the unit?

Tablets okay. What is your own, you know, on the cost of sales adding you and Miss Frederick? Mr. sardana.

Sales is made up of a variety of different As we discussed a bit earlier, a couple of those items

have been resolved from my perspective than that total. Miss Frederick's beyond that, for the reasons I've already stated, the cost of sales, although it's it says it's 100 of the difference here is now something quite, quite a bit less than that. Because it really just pertains to our difference on mission time for packaging and manufacturing, which is working from memory of about half of that number. There's a $50,000 difference, I believe, between us on cost of sales. Thank you. Just sorry, no. And my last question for you. Would you be able to do your calculations if that is necessary based on things of this court trial? Oh, absolutely. That is actually stated in my report, and stated in his report, that is

the model as the court sees fit. Thank you, Mister. Sorry. I know the rest of my questions.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Sorry. Good morning. And I believe you can have a copy of your report in front of you. And by first report, I'm going to be reading the jelly

version. That's okay with you.

And looking at Appendix B in that, which is your certificate concerning conduct for expert witnesses, correct? Yes. sighs

returning to no problem.

And you signed on January 14 2020. So good. So called in this case since at least January 14 2020. And were you involved public Wi Fi?

I don't recall.

Did you provide us also with a wish list of information or documents that you wanted from Valiant during this discovery phase with

us? I've certainly had meetings with counsel about that.

And did that include made me from Valiant?

Not that long. Again, I'm working from memory.

Include any information from meta? Again and notes from Valiant or meta are cited in your report as relaxed?

I believe that's correct.

And if we can see in your first report Yes. Yes. You relied on Dr. Hollis his opinion regarding PMS. Oh, but sales volumes. Yes. And you also reviewed the case. And several pharmacy documents there's a number listed as well as discovery transcripts from print. Correct. And discuss with my son. Yes. And just to convince you didn't listen evaluate productions in your scope of review. Luckily, we have now ended listing the meta productions in your scope of review correct. And that's given everything pharma sciences lost profits?

Yes. Not valiance no correct. And not that is not matters

and if A and B of Appendix C of your report you were or a and b you refer to both Dr. Hollis his report and profits analysis. Just to confirm it is one of that is one the Excel document are correct. Okay.

And this,

I think, morning is not the first time you have estimated lost profits in a second. And so you're familiar with Mark for these. These types of exercises as

evidence in Section eight cases are these frameworks calculate a

sample usually there'll be a formulary expert render a payment. In about four world the generic product would be listed on the formulary.

To be honest, the experts other than a volumes, experts such as Dr. Oz, I'm not familiar with what is provided there. As we discussed this morning, simply asked to assume, for example, the last period

you're aware, economist in in this case, Dr. Hollis relies on a real, very expert

style. I was aware that he did. Yeah.

And you understand that the economist for Varmus is here is Dr. Wallace. And you understand that the formulary expert here is Ms. Rosemary Bakowski.

I didn't I don't believe I recall that.

And so have you seen these report in this action?

I don't believe so.

And you have worked in eight cases with Dr. Hollis and Miss Bukowski previously Correct.

Dr. Hollis Yes. I don't recall Ms. Borkowski? Was

Dr. At Bakowski, the other experts in the pharma science preclinical proceeding this summer that you participated in

are called Dr. I believe. I apologize, my memory on to blend together after well. I believe Dr. Hollis was on freaking out when I don't. The other expert you mentioned was on that case or not.

And so you you said Miss because these report in this proceeding?

I don't recall that I have no.

So when you receive Dr. hald is updated report. The one that led to your supplemental report. Did you ask why he had updated volumes

No. At that stage simply took the updated volumes inserted it into my model and attached a brief letter is just an update

so you relied on their policies opinion for last volumes and you did not ask to do it in their underlying reports.

It's not a vaccine

and so like when you testified for pharma science this summer, you didn't look at every report just Dr. Aden Hollis his report?

Yes, I don't believe in that case. So provided provided a report yes.

And so were you aware of for right now when I asked you the questions that Miss Borkowski was in case

I might have read that in Doctor report. But as I stood here, quite frankly, right now, the name had not come to me. No.

Okay. And you were not given a reason why you needed to supplement your other than the quality had adjusted volumes.

That is, that was my understanding correct.

In your first report, you indicated in several places and due to a few examples of them if you like, let me just give me the question. You were advised by sup pharma science with respect to certain things. And like an example of that can be found on page 15 A paragraph 42. Where you you have a statement about I'm advised by pharma science, tooling. You would agree with me there are statements of that nature in your first report?

Yes, there are.

Did you have discussions or respondents with representatives of pharma science?

No, I did not. More precise wording was counsel was advised sciences position is or something to that effect. That's a point. Frederick raised in her critique, and I think it's a valid point. Wording should have been that the information came from counsel, prove got it from pharma sides.

Okay. So where you were, were you say in your reports that you were advised by pharma science, you actually mean counsel for pharma

science? Correct.

And so, these are further assumptions then?

Well, there i My understanding was it was information provided by farmers science, but I did not have direct discussion with farmer science. So I view it as a different set of circumstances, then assumptions, for example, on PGI rates

but you didn't speak to farming is dope. on those topics?

Sorry, let me to interrupt you correct.

And likewise, where you say I was in, under advise by farmer science, that's not based on any document? And in this case, it's, it's based on discussions with counsel,

you must documents are referred to.

And you discussed this with Mr. stainsby. This morning, but you recently accepted some of the critiques included in Miss Frederick's responding, work.

Yes. And

there we have them all. So you now accept Ms. Frederick's approach?

Yes, as I said before, the evidence from the transcript of fixed costs, runs contrary to my experience with pharma science, where they ensure particular shipments. So I believe it's a $1,000 item. So I was willing to accept your view on that.

And you similarly have accepted Mr. Frederick's view on freight.

No, actually misstatement we had always agreed on freight.

And you accept her approach to fee for service.

I accepted that I call a saw off or a compromise. I don't think her mathematical position is better than mine. They're different. And I believe the $20,000 difference or something to that effect, just to get rid of the item, because one than the other that I was willing to accept her number.

And the same applies to yield.

Yes, he was less than $1,000 issue. So I didn't even give him much.

Lastly, quality assurance and quality control

that when I was asked, or asked to accept your position, and you

refer times to do compromise, but I just want to be clear, all the items I just listed insurance rate fee for service yield and quality assurance are either neutral or increased the losses of fire science, correct?

No, there were two items, you left one off, which is the correction as well. There were two items that reduced the loss. And there were three items that increase the loss.

Sorry, the correction is considered the same as accepting so let's talk about that. You miss Frederick found an error with respect to variances and you agree with Aaron have made that correction Correct? is not something you suggest as compromise.

No, compromise she was correct.

And just accept that on the last one, the quality assurance and quality control that you were asked to do assume so I just want to so counsel asked you to do is Frederick was

she they asked me position at the end of the day. Really. Because, as we said a moment ago, my view was the court will decide and we will adjust accordingly. But my understanding on QA and QC is that, as I said earlier, component in a variable component. So my own view is that the numbers are in the middle. But again, that'll that'll rise from fall, I suppose on the average, his owners hurt.

Well, so but, or sorry, I want to be clear, so you're accepting and as somebody that you didn't agree with?

Oh, my understanding. At the time I was accepted to be semi variable. I was told. That's right. And therefore to assume it, but I hadn't heard the evidence. A fixed cost. So that's why I had to.

And we

didn't. We didn't particularly this morning, because we had no objection to being tender. Trigger target business. You're correct.

I am. I am. Yes.

You're required to follow standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered business owners. And I'm going to refer to that is most of us all, if that's if it's okay with you as CSV.

Yes, that's an acronym.

And we can put it on the screen practice 320. That's our scope of work standards and recommended for expert reports.

Yes, that's correct.

And paradigms

are, which will school or scroll to? Could I ask you maybe, because the pictures of everybody are cutting yet at the perfect moment to read it? Thank you. Yes.

And so you'll see, the idiot that in particular, the highlighted beginning of that is the elements that are key assumptions and determine the reasonableness and appropriateness of consumption. And you agree that's a requirement of the standard?

Yes, hold our requirements. The explanatory comments are less than requirements I don't know what you're calling perhaps explanatory comment and you the

assumptions you made in your report included a zoom to specific 35% for customer investment and you referred to earlier and it might have just been Frederick assumed that also but you've read her report, she calculated investment

now she listed it as an assumption. Yes, paragraph 17 sub point D.

in the paragraph, sorry, do you have Well, hang on. Sorry, I'm getting comments. Here. My apologies.

Not at all. Um

but you agree with Ms. Ms. Frederick set out and we can turn up the paragraphs and maybe report starting at paragraph 34. She goes into an endless lysis for trade spend, or customer investment as has been called and

he does do a calculation Yes. But ultimately, the rate that she uses as an assumption

that she tests that she provides her vision for that in paragraph 38 to service

a relation explaining how she got to that, but ultimately, it's an assumption

and you heard as to paragraph 17, where's her assumption? In paragraph 18. She goes on For those assumptions that are within my area of expertise, pricing, or investment expense and price of ACPI are reviewed, and I'm gonna let informados assess the reasonable ability of these students. And that's what she starting at page 34. Of course,

it is. I was actually here, hold yourself out as an expert in customer, but I guess

and you did not set up an exercise, you did not test the assumption of 35. For customers, you were given Correct?

No, my that assumption based on my previous experience, where it's a sole source, and I've used in previous case were tested.

So that's nowhere in your report, isn't that?

Because it was an assumption, interrupt your refund?

You don't see that that's easier in this in your report?

No, no, because I'm not counting on the reasonableness. But I was comfortable with it as it is it's again as an assumption in my

so to back up there, you don't ever murmuring testament? Correct.

And so you did not comply with Section Five D and that non key assumptions and determine they're reasonable to do that for customers?

Well, because it's in my view, and this is the Miss Frederick, my I'm in customer investment, there are multiple factors that go into deciding a particular rate for a particular product, sole source versus source, that sort of thing. I have in the past, prepare calculations to estimate CI raise. But that is where what has probably happened. In this case, given there proxy data that I was aware of that analysis could be taken as an assumption that will be presented by other experts, or witnesses, I should say.

And so then, acknowledge, you've calculated customer investment in previous cases,

where the information was available to do so. But it was arranged based on a proxy. Proxy was going to be accepted, obviously, for the court did not provide an opinion on what rate was employees that said the proxy indicator range of x to y. And, you know, Ms. For instance. Back is simply just an average of three numbers and saying, Well, that's what was. That's what happened afterwards. So it was assumed that's what would have happened July last period. That doesn't mean that's not experts in MCI, in my opinion. That's simply a mathematic calculation.

And nowhere in reports, do you say you haven't calculated why you didn't tell me the reasonableness of investment or why you've done it in previous cases? I couldn't in this one who in your reply We're back after you saw what Miss Freidrich hit. And you make no report about what Frederick different customer investment Correct.

I do not respect you. Let me just do not give someone that I was asked to address in my report. I'm not sure I can do it if I hadn't given something in my individual report

on that. And I would turn out other one of the practice directions of practice 310.

And, in particular, point two E. And I'll give you a moment to read. Let me see. When we get there. I can

see it. I'll just read it. Thank you. Yes.

And in as we've done your report, you didn't say that expertise spread

comments on either way.

In and we know that mandatory comment for this particular section, it says that the experts have clashed assumptions used those assumptions that the expert is directed to take that are not within his or her area of expertise. And so, as you just said, you do it in your report, you didn't say?

Well, I indicated that I was asked to assume the thing that which one's right my area of expertise could have been his ID and could have been inserted.

So I would agree, I would agree that it was an error. And it is.

And if we can six eyes in the same set of Mr. Mercer practice direction, or distance? There is a moment that there be a statement that the expert report hadn't come prepared and confirmed with the practice standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered business valuator that I do, and that is contained in your work or your second one. We don't see it until the reply

let me just check. It's in there

I won't see it there. And that that is? That's actually a standard template for our reports. Because this one, this report was in slightly different for some reason it didn't. But it should have been and I did comply.

Well, so we've we've been to some of the other standards. And so I think that yeah, for justice in desert doesn't Can I please are both standard documents. We've we've gone to

three to three I believe

they are

give me the UFC.

320-338-0330 324 and 330.

So three to four different 103. B exhibit one.

And just confirm No. Well, you you didn't calculator customer counting expenses that you you did Kelly, in your report.

Got it? Yes, the approach. The reason I didn't do it Nessus or CI was just a different set of circumstances that would have affected the rate of CI period. Calculating an average, the period afterwards is interesting, but my understanding was going to be about what the rate would have been based on a source versus dual source product at that time.

And just click you will find that pharma sciences largest expense and this premium customer The biggest difference, just

not the biggest, biggest expense yet.

And finds the customer that meant for PMS, Opal dim is great. And then she did to me that would be that your estimated loss will overstate and insisted to me that would be that your estimated loss will overstate in some cases, but for World losses, yes.

Stated another way the losses in my account in my model would have to be reduced would be reduced as a result of changing the percentage wishes.

And if we could turn now to paragraph 109, of your first report. Yes.

And, and we're gonna walk through this because I know there's no end to this, this particular citation in your next report that we're going to talk through this, but the the your first report, no nine, have you attribute to miss Syed, about manual gene and the costing, quote, depreciation equipment, building occupants for the machine. Yes. And ended questions from the discovery of Miss divers. And then in your October report, you did this to a different portion of Mrs. Midas transcript, correct?

Yes, in my role I correct correct estate in footnote four on page two.

Because the the statement in quotes originally. And so, you you needed? That's right. And if we pull out the data section

to be and it's now site to question 927. And you'll see that first report and I guess in quotations, the direct quoting this answer either, is it. No, it's not an answer from Miss from msida. And, and we couldn't find the quote that you that you put in your report in any of the discovery transcripts preceding it, because you updated to this and and non sales you couldn't find. So is that cool? Case?

And it was? I believe it was?

And it wasn't?

I don't know, offhand. But I think the fellow that was reviewing that just basically took it from incorrect document.

And so you did some notation in your reply report to point to another section, but sorry. In fact, that evidence came from another proceeding.

No, it was a correct course. That addressed it. And

doesn't contain us. That's actually another.

So the eating we're agreed on 109 direct quote, right. Yes.

And from a previous procedure, what are you test for?

Science? testified or no,

you put in an expert word

hastily sir. Yes.

And you made a reference to a fellow preparing Who are you talking about?

People that worked in business and when you realize

you cite the transcript and update your scope or view? From where you actually got the quote?

No, because I so the citing PLACES YOU'LL?

And the original transcript that I did the quote that was not produced to us to your knowledge.

It was a mistake in my report, it's no longer part of my opinion. The updated corrected citation is what? For my opinion

you didn't enter your paragraph one agreed that that direct quote is not in Mr. Cleves.

Well, the first report is has the in it the Y report explains my reliance on the fact that machine time consuming machine manufacturing and packaging. So it was simply a correction. The we talked about on the units this is tablets.

But we agreed that all use in your report is that you're correcting the footnote citation and you give it a new record a quote from mislead in in the proceeding in this section.

I thought it spoke where I could have started paragraph five. But I did not

prepare. I've also corrected a footnote citation doesn't make any reference.

I see. So your reaction should have had to that that quote comes out this quote comes I thought it was implied but if it's not going around that well

to be clear I'm also suggesting usually what happened and where you got the original quote given evidence of pharmaceuticals but I'm trying to skip one of your reply report

reply report

oh sorry. No, you're the first report yes. The schedules used by pharma science indicating the revenues and equity

needed for them. Yes, these are produced reports.

In these are

the pharma science tracks specifically BMS open them in accounting system?

They're yes, they're based on standard costs. They're there I want to track specific areas based on estimates which are center costs primarily. Just to give you an example, an accent you would probably know kilogram that sort of that would be allocated to this product so they can point to a new invoice and save the news on this product was XY and Z. They have a cool topic and allocated

and just as carried away here, and I know we started early, I'm happy to take a would would like to do. I wasn't watching the past some that I am being

Why don't leave Can I just tell support Council

great is going to happen lately well through the the the

the sprinkler system and working with wire in terms of maybe we'll take him how long you are

so it's not necessary with Mr. Usual apply given Red Cross. Yes.

Mr. stains are his Thank you very much

for the 1135

recording stuff