I hate Siga...their management...their business model...their public relations...just about everything having to do with the company.
With that said, I will go on record well in advance of anyone else, that the trial court's judgment will be reversed, IN PART, not on the issue of liability against Siga (which will be affirmed), but on the issue of DAMAGES, which were legally not sustainable nor appropriate IMHO. The case will be remanded back to the trial court for further determination of damages consistent with the SC's ruling.
I agree with everything you've said golongin. It was a ridiculous ruling, but at this point, the market and the company and the PR have been destroyed, so it's rather pointless. It's like fighting over who's pen it is, when the pen has no ink left. Chimerix shot themselves in the foot by miscalculating what their PR attack on SIGA would net, so they're dead too. This whole thing was mismanaged by Rose from the beginning. Had the company's CEO had some foresight and less of an ego, this stock could literally be sitting at $25+. I learned a LOT of lessons for the amount of money I "paid". Some of which even have to do with observing other people's mistakes in life and investing. Would rather have the money back, but I will take it. It won't ever happen to me again, that's for sure.
GL: IF the court finds a problem, it will be on the damages issue, which is what took Parsons so long to file his opinion. I am sure he wrestled considerably with the rule of law which says damages too speculative to calculate shall not be awarded. Coming up with a percentage of profits over a time certain was pretty smart and avoided the potential problem of speculative damages. I think the Delaware Supremes uphold Parsons.
"Coming up with a percentage of profits over a time certain was pretty smart and avoided the potential problem of speculative damages."
Sure, as in "The court is barred from using corporal punishment, so it will use a corporal reprimand instead. 20 lashes is so ordered". Or, as Clinton would say “It all depends upon what your definition of ‘Damages’ is”.
The judge(s) stated in their cross examination that such awarded damages being speculative at best were inappropriate citing equitable estopple... therefore any damages should only reflect what PIP suffered at the time of breeched negotiations which was not part of the $1-5 Billion potential contract estimate but rather confined to PIP's $3mil loan that was given to SIGA to conduct early testing in order to validate the drug. This so PIP could raise the $21mil to pay SIGA for a liccensing aggreement which they never did.
Parson's remedy implied Promisory or more acurately Equitable Estopple is enforceable on contracts not yet realized or validated by both parties and assumes the outcome of such negotiations would have been an agreemen which was "a coin toss" on his part. Not the case under NY nor Del businesscontractual law.
"damages too speculative to calculate shall not be awarded. Coming up with a percentage of profits over a time certain was pretty smart"
It’s ridiculous. Like saying “Hmmm, I can’t beat him in on head, because that would be assault. So, I’ll pretend to brush some lint off of his hat very, very, very briskly….”
The decision is adolescent. Like saying “I didn’t steal it… I borrowed it for a long time…”
Or, like saying “Yes, you did say I couldn’t drive my friends to the beach today in your car. That's why I had my girlfriend drive...”
That is what I exactly posted. The trial court will be upheld on liability, and reversed in part on the issue of damages. The damages findings by the lower court, IMHO, were a real stretch of both equity and contract law. Almost as if Parsons came up with the damages he wanted, then attempted to bootstrap those findings into any principles of law or equity that remotely suggested a remedy.
I have 2k shares left, down from 40k shares (sold all but 2k around $4.50) after taking a 350k bath in the stock, then making all of that back, plus some, in primarily CLSN...average of 1.10 (after writing CC against stock and cashing in 90% of those holdings), and AMRN...$6.50 PP on large holdings.
Still burned by Siga and how management seemingly continues to issue stock, or stock options and/or rights to themselves, while not buying any stock on the open market for years, despite it falling more than 90%.
Yes...curious as to how the appeal will come out but frankly I feel it is basically much to do about nothing at this juncture. At one time the BARDA contract, plus the built in renewals, meant the value to Siga over time could be upwards of 1 billion dollars. That was definitely something to ponder and get excited about. That's not the case now. I frankly think the best case scenario is whether or not the stock will ever see $4.00 again.
I think longs need to ask themselves where this company goes after Phase 1 of the BARDA contract is complete? There really is no pipeline to speak of per se..Take a look yourself. If BARDA does not renew (which I personally think will be the case), then what?
IMHO...Do your own DD...