Again, I am no lawyer but don't understand how Judge Parsons could (if he is the one that gets the remanded case) award anything less than the original 50-50 split - the contract with the lats was in place - seems like the definition of a contractural agreement. So it was not promissory estoppel - ok fine ... but the contract was in place (the bridge loan agreement) and do believe Parsons awarded based on that agreement. What am I missing?
You are correct...Parsons ruled on the contract for Siga acting in bad faith......he did not need to rule on primariy estoppel because he calculated rightly that Pip was entitled to 50% of the profit if there is profit after the first 40mm of delivered product. There is no reason for Parsons to change the award since the Supreme State tribunal agreed with his decision on the basis of the LATS provision in the Agreement.
OK Genius - let's analyze your post. First of all, it is a lot not alot. I think I learned that in 1st grade. Second, you don't follow up your expert opinion with any data that can be confirmed or refuted. That makes your opinion baseless. Catching my drift or am I too stupid for you to understand?
dd, just saw your post. I don't get it either. Only thing I can figure is that the market can not identify with PIP's position and there is a misinterpretation that profit sharing is speculative. I see it as impossible for PIP to get less this next time around since Parsons will have to justify not using the agreed upon terms in the LATS for his allocation. Combined with SparVex and the rest of the drug portfolio this SB at leas a $4 stock now with 1 year potential over $6.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Agree, no worse than prior award. Possibly a little better (since he attempted to determine an agreement they would have reached given positive developments and likelihood that PIP would have conceded to higher upfront $40 million [promissory estoppel decision] vs. $16 million under LATS).
I agree with your analysis. I might note that I was in agreement with it when I owned no stock either way. As I have considered it I am long PIP now.
My take was that the fans of SIGA are hoping that Judge Parsons takes advantage of some of the leeway language in the decision - things like the comments about the challenges of estimating value in the context of lack of certainty of outcomes at the time - to reduce the award. But the tone of the decision is so derisory of SIGA based on actions the court clearly saw as unfair if not dishonest that it is likely an exercise in wishful thinking to hope that Judge Parsons will give the benefit of the doubt to SIGA on an issue he has already long considered and was basically fully supported on my the court whose comments were more procedural ones clarifying how to consider the kind of case it is rather than ones pertinent to the determination of value.
My take also is that the upside for PIP is so great - oddly exacerbated for PIP investors who have benefitted so mightily by all the shorts who are now falling on their swords hoping to further suppress PIP prices - making PIP cheap to acquire in this context where the odds seem so heavily in their favor given their low market cap and potential upside.
As for the opinion of Hangmanzz - given that his statements are consistent bereft of support in facts or logic and almost always focus on inarticulate misspelled ad hominem attacks, I think it is pretty safe disregarding his pronouncements.