I am long PIP, and I believe the judicial outcome will favor PIP to at least the same extent as we saw in Parsons original ruling. Most legitimately objective legal analyses conclude the same.
If we accept PIP has a positive outlook (certainly because of the case against SIGA, but even absent the ruling-- given PIP's own product development) then can we also accept the pps is being kept artificially low?
And if we accept the pps is being manipulated, are we able to hypothesize as to why?
At what point will this become a business decision on commercial terms for SIGA? Wouldn't a buyout of PIP be a lot more economical than risking the same award again?
Could market makers who are long SIGA also be keeping PIP down as insurance against a devastating judgement? Keeping the last resort in SIGA's back pocket; that being the buying up of PIP shares at rock bottom prices?
Agree with first premise about the case, disagree with the entire issue of manipulation. Look at some of the posts I've made regarding cash value per share of the two companies and you will find logical explanation for why both trade at current prices. That analysis suggests that markets expect much the same remedy but are pricing both at 30%+ discount under such a scenario due to the uncertainty.