It has been kind of quiet here on the home front, save a few enthusiastic pumps here and there, and the usual cast of bashers. Be nice to hear from some of the PIP longs who haven't posted in awhile. What are your thoughts on the appeal and the length of time since oral arguments on January 10th? We're now at day 77 and it doesn't look like we'll hear anything before next week. Once a Chancery Court judge finds liability, he has great leeway and discretion in fashioning a remedy. For the Supremes to overturn the Chancery judge they would necessarily have to find he abused his discretion. I recently reviewed Judge Parsons' decision, and it still appears to me it is well reasoned and written. Some of the posters on the Siga board, whom I respect, appear to concede liability, but think the Supremes may overturn expectancy damages, and remand to the trial court to award reliance damages. I disagree with them on that point, but agree that if a problem is found it will be on the damages issue. If anything, there may be a minor adjustment, but I expect Parsons to be upheld. What are your thoughts?
Reviewing the history of time from submission to decision it is very rare that the surpreme court takes over 80 days to reach a decision. To me this indicates that this decision will be more than just affirming Parson's decision. My knee jerk reaction is that this does not bold well for PIP; however, keep in mind PIP Xappealed on the 50/50 % split. Having reread the decisions and listened to the oral argument several times it would not surprise me if the decision is affirmed with a substitution of the % split per the LATS, benefiting PIP. Either way, I don't find any reason to remand to the trial court since the record does not include any facts upon which to measure reliance damages - PIUP only submitted expectancy damages.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Hi Alibi - I am no lawyer, but the reasoning that PIP should only get reliance damages makes no sense to me. PIP and SIGA agreed to the lats which clearly stated what the potential of the drug will be. When the potential came to fruition, they said, we didn't think it would be this much, it was only speculation (reliance). To me this was the clear, "Heads I win tails you lose, and why would we have an agreement at all and here we do in this case" comment one of the Supreme Court justices expressed. On the delay, a week and a half ago a case against or for Microsoft was affirmed. If you read some recent cases, I think the judges seem frustrated with the lower courts making procedural mistakes ... in PIP / SIGA, I don't see procedural mistakes, it all comes down to reliance vs expectancy .... and since the expected revenue was signed and agreed to in the lats, I think PIP will win. I also think (pie in the sky) some of the cross appeals will also go in PIP's favor (perhaps this is the cause of the delay). Lastly, I think what SIGA did (use PIP to get this dead in the water drug approved and then keep all the money) is so distatseful and wrong, I believe their management team is suspect and don't think they (their management team) will be around long.
You stopped short of the complete definition of promissory estoppel which is a substantial detriment (financial loss) ensues to the promisee from action of forbearance. PIP was paid back the initial loan amount with interest. What is their loss? This was a clean break. PIP had no tie to Arestvyr. They contributed no financial backing that was not fully paid back before negotiations halted, no mental capacity to developement of the drug, no efforts in bringing the drug in front of FDA , no negotiation on behalf of the drug. Nothing, nada. Why should they get any money. What is their financial loss in relation to their contribution? Tell me where you can contribute 3 million dollar for a short time, have that paid back in interest and come out with 225 million or so for doing nothing and why does PIP deserve this?
First of all your statement "signed and agreed to in the lats" is completely false, kind of like the information Pip sent to the FDA about Sparvax. Oh well, birds of a feather...
SparVax™ – Recombinant Protective Antigen (rPA) Anthrax Vaccine-Novel Second Generation Vaccine Technology” for your investigational product Bacillus anthracis Recombinant Protective Antigen 102 (rPA; E. Coli) (anthrax) vaccine -b(4)---. The product fact sheet contains false or misleading statements that represent your product as safe and effective for the purposes for which it is being investigated. This is problematic from a public health perspective because it suggests that SparVax is safe and effective when the product has not yet been approved by FDA and the promotional claims have yet to be demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience. As a result, these materials misbrand your investigational product in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. 352(a)&(n), and 321(n), and FDA’s implementing regulations. (See 21 CFR 312.7(......."
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Some nice comments ddales and they are appreciated. Although i own the stock I try to be objective in my reasoning in order to get a balanced picture of the argument. I was surprised tha the higher court even took up the appeal since there didn't seem to be any substantial legal grounds for doing so unless it was to clear the air of some of the lesser arguments made by Siga. The odds are heavily in our favor and my readings indicate we will have a final judgment by mid-month in April, just several weeks away. I won't even get into the "how high will it go" game because that is fruitless but certainly it would surpass the previous high reached upon the initial news of the lower court's decision. The recent low volume I think indicates a "wait-snd-see" attitude, an attitude that makes sense. See you at the victory party !