"Overall win for PIP". Interesting. Two Ph.Ds at Aegis and Wedbush with opposite conclusions. As I have stated, my legal view is that SIGA has won this case. I think the misread by Aegis is in stating that "expectation damages could be applied in this case" and that "expectation damages were considered applicable in this case". Yes, the court did conclude that expectation damages can be applicable in a Type II case but that does not mean that they can be established in EVERY Type II case. Where they are speculative, as Parsons concluded in his opinion, they cannot be awarded. Time will tell. I think it is 50-50 that the parties settle.
In holding there was an enforceable contract, the Supremes also held that PIP was entitled to the benefit of their bargain (expectancy damages). What they expected from the contract was an exclusive license to sell ST-246, with annual royalty payments to SIGA of 8% of the first $250 mil, 10% on sales above $250 mil, and 12% of sales above $1 billion. In addition SIGA was to receive 50% of any amounts by which margin exceeds 20% on sales to the U.S. Government. Some folks posting on this board, as well as the SIGA board, are arguing that expectancy damages would be too difficult to calculate with certainty, and therefore PIP is not likely to receive much from Judge Parsons on remand. They cite language in Parsons' trial order for that proposition. Can someone please explain to me why Parsons couldn't avoid the "uncertainty of damages" issue by simply giving PIP what they bargained for, i.e., an exclusive license agreement to sell ST-246 under the terms in the LATS. Doing so would avoid having to calculate monetary damages period, and PIP would have what they bargained for.
Too much bad blood. SIGA will never settle. Rereading Parsons decision he stated that a lump sum was too speculative, not an allocation of future income. The Supreme court decision is clear that he can leave the allocation as is or he can modify it to what was in the LATS.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
apple, NO, that is not what the Supreme Court said at all. Supreme Court said that in a Type II case, expectation damages are possible, if you can establish them with reasonable certaitny and not speculative. Parsons addressed this question at trial and said can't be done in this case. That is why he relied on equity, which can't do.