The operating income for CZR only covers a fraction of the interest on the debt of $24 billion.
In the last few weeks, 2016 bonds for CZR went from above 90 cents on the dollar to 37 cents.
Share price is at about $13
It is hard to make the case that SIGA is a good short. when one looks at what else is available.
Is wasn't aware of the break up fee. Never heard of that. Why wasn't it brought up during the case? Had a good summer right up until theruling. Thanks. Hope yours was good. I think I'm done with the market for good. And our legal system.
Only half terrible, what Pip says they expected was something that had a small chance of happening. Every biotech is going to be the next big thing right? What percentage of them receive FDA approval for their drug and successfully market it? Maybe Parsons should have included the disclosure at the end of all optimistic press releases as part of his value model.
And my main complaint is that if anything, Parsons should have made Siga pay the merger breakup fee specified in the merger agreement and that should have been it. And it should have been done years ago.
Hope you had a good summer Drod.
I see you are a bit brighter than your relative EVENU2CANEXCEL. Unfortunately it appears you share the same nasty habit of believing childish name calling is an appropriate response to an attempt at a thorough pursuit of substantiated arguments on both sides. That involves an effort to find pieces that support your position, lend credence to your arguments and provide quality information to other interested investors. There have been some like CSMCLEMOR who have made reasoned arguments that I an others appreciate.
It may defy logic, but I having an intelligent conversation can help both parties, even when they do not agree. Try it some time, you might learn something.
And the acts of Bad Faith that prevented PIP from owning the rights to ST-246 that SIGA now holds and stands to profit from even more as a consequence of its acts of bad faith should be ignored? Delaware SC has been clear that it is choosing a different path for damages than NY. So if you want to shaft someone in a deal to negotiate in good faith, then make certain agreement specifies NY law before signing the deal and negotiating in bad faith. I'm sure ROP and SIGA will keep that in mind for their next deal. But that won't fly in this jurisdiction.
The article is 100% accurate. Third party fair representation of value for pip and siga was zero. No bank would lend them money, investors would not invest; as the whole enterprise was too speculative!
Half of new drug is worth 500 million? Let's value ST-383 at one billion and ST-669 is worth 100 billion. The ruling is laughable.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I bought a powerball ticket and I expected to win. Someone else picked the right numbers and I didn't, so I will sue them for half of the winnings because I expected to win!
Pip should have got the breakup fee specified in the merger agreement and that is it. And it should have been done years ago. What we have been witness to these past years is the effects of corruption in action, thus the incredibly long time this has and will continue to drag out unless the DSC throws the case out on appeal.
"The article was written after SC remand and before Parsons subsequent review. "
KAKA, the article obviously was not available until after the remand BUT the essence/SUBSTANCE/THESIS of the article was available or the article could not have been written & PARSONS ignored/did not use/rejected "what was hiding in plain sight" for the article and its author and your KAKA can't change that!
KAKA 24/7 or will starve,no?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Hilarious. This "poster" is here 24/7 for the last couple of months, spouting off paragraph after paragraph, page after page of drivel. Ask yourself why ANYBODY would be spending as much time as this numb-nuts, knucklehead to sway one's thought process the other way. It truly defies logic. This doofus-dummy, frwdlook, is obviously a _____________________________ (fill in the blank )
Once again emerging from you cave with colorful epithets to take another intellectual beat down! Got to love your simple way of summing up your view without bothering to read and become better informed. Still think that SIGA was years away from NHP studies at the time of the acts of bad faith? The article was written after SC remand and before Parsons subsequent review.
It establishes fact that despite his earlier decision, he could still find justification for expectation damages. And, if he did, Delaware case law provided that he can rely on expectations of the non-breaching party.
That is what he has done. Only he was careful to also consider SIGA's expectations at that time as well, relying on key inputs to the model (it requires higher level math skills than you will have using the pebbles in your cave) that were shared by both parties.
So why did Parsons pull Promissory estoppel out of his rear orifice, cite 28 pages of reasons why he could not award expectancy damages and not rely on "what was hiding in plain sight", FRWDLOOK paid basher KAKA?
Could it be that it would not stick because it was too speculative, KAKA know-it-all?
Or are you Parsons a dope for missing "what was hiding in plain sight"?
PIP gets ZIP ...whenever!
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Rely too much on what Parsons says? It's a good problem to have! You and others on this board don't rely enough on what he says.
So funny that you think only one person in the world had the ability to design trials and engage with regulatory body about pathway for regulatory approval. No one you are so blind to the short comings associated with SIGA's legal position.
Chancery Court is a court of equity. It matters not what PIP has or has not done with it's own products when it comes done to determining expectation damages for SIGA's breach. Even if Supreme Court would have arrived at different number themselves, they can't dismiss the damage award for that reason.
SIGA must show he disregarded facts of the case regarding reasonable expectations that existed at that time. The record shows that SIGA had far greater expectations for ST-246 than what Parsons has arrived at in his order. How do they argue Parsons is unreasonable when he is using SIGA's own estimates of 5% and $100/course?
You really think that Parsons is biased when he says SIGA's actions constituted Bad Faith? Well then you must think every member of Delaware Supreme Court is equally biased since they affirmed his finding that SIGA acted in Bad Faith. That alters the standards by which they determine reasonable certainty.
Odds are greatly stacked against SIGA and it matters not what anyone thinks of Hruby.