In my opinion, the main issue in this case is the enforceability of the Licensing Agreement Term Sheet (“LATS”). By way of a very brief synopsis, SIGA takes the position that the LATS was not binding, and was merely an “agreement to agree.” (The LATS is not signed and contains a legend in the footer of each page that states "Non Binding Terms.’) [There is a well-established principle that a contract cannot be enforced if it is subject to future negotiations which would make it, by definition, a mere “agreement to agree,” or if it lacks essential/material terms.] PharmAthene claimed that the LATS was binding and sued to enforce the LATS. SIGA moved for partial summary judgment. The Court denied SIGA’s motion for partial summary judgment in all respects.
The trial is scheduled to begin on January 3, 2011.
Like what smart guy? bald faced eructations don't carry much weight. About the ONLY thing he said about the merits is "I am DUBIOUS about PIP's specific performanceclaim" -- all the rest can be distilled down to "I need more info. See you at trial"
well sport (allah be praised isn't that what you posted on the DTCH board") What you believe is irrelevant and a docmented lair. So far Among other things) you have stated that since 1985 you have been incvolved in 30,000 lawsuits (3 a DAY) without vacation, that you know Dr Rose, that you graduated from Columbia med school, that you have extrasensory powers-- You are most likely a sociopath and perhaps clinically insane..
"ASSUMED truth of the ALLEGATIONS"
Wow! Yahoo message boards are 'infested' with wannabe lawyers. Any lawyer worth his salt would not spend his valuable time on a Yahoo message board. Why did it take you more than two hours to construct such a factually inaccurate statement?
I am not looking for a fight, but I would not hesitate to challenge and confront a mediocre, wannabe lawyer like you!
The judge actually said quite a bit about the merits of the case. He did not offer conclusions or made determinations, and appropriately so.
To say the judge said nothing about the merits is simply incorrect.
Hey place yer bet. It's your money sport.-- But you may need to do a few more unnecessary MRI's before it's all it's over. You don't know jack and cannot seem to comprehend the difference between a ruling based solely on the ASSUMED truth of the ALLEGATIONS contained in the complaint (which FYI the judge is required to do for purpose of the SJ motion) and PROVING their truth and legal sufficiency at trial.
Funny how some think on tis board that parroting back the words of the judge's opinion makes you knowledgeable.
For a variety of reasons, PharmAthene has a great future. I can envision a scenario where the PPS of PIP may exceed $80.00 in a week, but description of such a scenario might give others ideas and provoke a visit from the FBI.
Emergent Biosolutions, Inc. (EBS) is currently trading at $23.84. PharmAthene has the potential to trade higher than EBS, within a year.
My average is about $2.83. I'll add large blocks between $3.25 - $2.75.
I warned about the probability of a bear raid; however, we're not experiencing a bear raid at the present. A bear raid would have pushed the PPS below $2.00, within a matter of minutes. But one remains highly likely. In such an event, back up the truck! The current PPS can be attributed to nervous investors and shorting.
A settlement is possible before the end of the trial. Completion of a trial and a verdict by the court does not necessarily mean that settlement negotiations are over. Many cases settle after verdict based on the threat that the verdict will get overturned on appeal. SIGA has enormous exposure. The future of SIGA is at stake. It's absolutely foolish to short PIP.
In short, hold, and buy more below $3.25, but do not buy on margin.
Yup he has stated that clear and convincing is the std and further all you have read is in the context of of an SJ motion. The judge has said NOTHING about the merits at all other than-we need to go to trial. Glad I amuse you ( I am a practicing attorney) Good luck sawbones.
Frankly, I find your reply utterly amusing. Suffice it to say, your arguments are neither clear nor convincing. I stand by my opinions. It is unnecessary to engage in a nuanced discussion of the applicable standards of proof in this case. The judge has already outlined the applicable standards of proof. Have a nice day!