Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SIGA Technologies, AŞ Message Board

  • isaac_dj isaac_dj Apr 23, 2013 3:01 PM Flag

    Court Decision in Favor of SIGA will LIkely Lead to an ACQUISITION Offer

    And a FAVORABLE decision by the DE Supreme Court is very likely. The reason is the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which is a basis for enforcing a promise when there is no enforceable contract. Tthe doctrine of promissory estoppel requires detrimental reliance on the promise by one of the parties, which did not exist in this case.

    The lower court said that SIGA had promised to have a good faith negotiation for a license agreement with PIP and that SIGA did not fulfil that promise. However, PIP could not have detrimentally relied on that promise. The reason is that NO REASONABLE PERSON can rely on the outcome of future negotiations when the outcome is not known. And to DETRIMENTALLY RELY on something that is not known is not just unreasonable -- it is insane.

    So since there could not be a detrimental reliance, there cannot be a promissory estoppel.

    Therefore, look for the DE Supreme Court to decide in favor of SIGA.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "a FAVORABLE decision by the DE Supreme Court is very likely"

      Currently, the price of SIGA reflects the most negative court decision possible. So if the court decides for SIGA, the combination of the ongoing shipments of Arrestvyr (ST-246) and a favorable decision should open the floodgates of BUYING ORDERS.

      Again, the reasons for the HIGH LIKELIHOOD of a favorable DE Supreme Court decision are
      :
      1. No detrimental relance by PIP was possible because the negotiations' outcome could not be known in advance (negotiations ended in an impasse).. So no resonable person could rely on the unknown outcome.
      2. Tthe doctrine of promissory estoppel requires detrimental reliance on the promise by the injured party .
      3. PIP should have waited, as a reasonable and prudent person would have done, for the few weeks duration of the negotiations. There was no implied or express reason for PIP to act urgently (except perhaps to fool the courts into using the promissory estoppel).
      4. A grave adverse effect on future negotiations ( a public policy issue) since IF the DE Supreme Court affirms the lower court's decision, it would mean that an agreement to negotiate determines the outcome of the negotiations (which would be outright ludicrous).

    • When I see all of this jibberjabber from a single poster, I see red flags. ice_hawk_7 will post himself into oblivion!

    • "a FAVORABLE decision by the DE Supreme Court is very likely"

      The reasons are:
      1. No detrimental relance by PIP was possible because the negotiations' outcome could not be known in advance (negotiations ended in an impasse).. So no resonable person could rely on the unknown outcome.
      2. Tthe doctrine of promissory estoppel requires detrimental reliance on the promise by the injured party .
      3. PIP should have waited, as a reasonable and prudent person would have done, for the few weeks duration of the negotiations. There was no implied or express reason for PIP to act urgently (except perhaps to fool the courts into using the promissory estoppel).
      4. A grave adverse effect on future negotiations ( a public policy issue) since IF the DE Supreme Court affirms the lower court's decision, it would mean that an agreement to negotiate determines the outcome of the negotiations (which would be outright ludictous).

      • 1 Reply to ice_hawk_7
      • "IF the DE Supreme Court affirms the lower court's decision, it would mean that an agreement to negotiate determines the outcome of the negotiations (which would be outright ludicrous). "

        Such a BINDING DECISION by the DE Supreme Court will affect all DE corporations, which are spread throughout the 50 states. In other words, it will affect INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Consequently, SIGA will likely appeal, if such a strange decision actually takes place, to the US Supreme Court. And given the ramifications of such a decision, the USSC will likely agree to take the case.

        Naturally, the hypothetical event of a ridiculous decision by the DE Supreme Court will probably never happen. The fact that the DE Supreme Court will decide this case EN BANC (all judges of the court present) ensures that the DECISION WILL BE REASONABLE. This bodes very well for SIGA.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • " look for the DE Supreme Court to decide in favor of SIGA."

      For if the supreme court rules in favor of PIP, it would be a strong deviation from the current applications of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However, since there is absolutely no reason to modify the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which has worked well for many decades, the DE Supreme Court will likely decide for SIGA.

      In addition, a decision affirming the lower court's ruling would in all likelihood hamper future negotiations since a promise to negotiate would then have to be viewed as if the outcome is promised because the DE Supreme Court decisions set presedents and are binding.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to ice_hawk_7
      • " look for the DE Supreme Court to decide in favor of SIGA."

        The lower court acknowledged that SIGA only promised to negotiate in good faith for a license agreement with PIP and that the license agreement was never reached because the negotiations ended in an impasse. Still, the lower court treated SIGA's promise to negotiate as if it was a promise to give PIP the license agreement.

        But that was just a lower court decision and it is not binding for any future case. However, a decision by the DE Supreme Court sets a precedent and it is binding for ALL future cases with similar circumstances. Now, imagine the effect that aa DESC decision that is similar to the lower court's would have on corporations in America. NO ONE WILL BE WILLING TO AGREE TO NEGOTIATE IF THAT COULD BE TREATED BY THE COURTS AS A PROMISE FOR A SPECIFIC OUTCOME.

        The result of such a decision would undoubtedly be an outright mess. That's why Supreme Courts must consider the PUBLIC POLICIES that might stem from their decisions because they are often legal precedents.

    • "doctrine of promissory estoppel requires detrimental reliance on the promise by one of the parties"...Citing no pipeline product or development, PIP's SP has been propped up for the last 7 years by this law suit's potential favourable outcome. On the otherhand SIGA has had a detrimental impact on their SP wrt the lawsuit. Using Parson's logic one could therefore argue promissory estoppel resulted in detriment to SIGA but a benefit to PIP therefore PIP should be given to SIGA in compensation for their SP losses on this lawsuit & fire Richman

    • You need to go back and re-read Judge Parsons' ruling, particularly his findings of fact. The appellate court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by evidence in the record, even if the evidence is contradictory. In your prediction on the outcome you have omitted the fact that in exchange for the bridge loan and PIP's technical assistance, Siga promised there would be either a merger, or PIP would be granted an exclusive license agreement IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATS. Then, after st-246 achieved certain milestones with PIP's money and technical assistance, Siga unilaterally and materially changed the provisions of the LATS. THAT is what got SIGA singed by Judge Parsons.

      • 6 Replies to alibi4sail
      • "or PIP would be granted an exclusive license agreement IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATS"
        Niether Siga or The contract said that, they were to negotiate in good faith exclusivly for a period of 90 days in acordance with terms on the Lats. (and I might add it did not say "Very similar to terms on the Lats" that was pure fabrication on parsons Part) In acordance with does not mean the same $ amounts or precentages it means the same types of terms. Thats what negotiate means.
        And People For the last Time PIP is the one that left negotiations early and filed a lawsuit with 5 days left, not Siga.

      • "Siga promised"

        Well, I "promise" that if SIGA ever hits $15 again, I'll give you ten grand. Cross my heart and hope to die. Good luck with that in court.

      • PIP's money DID NOT fund the achievement of any milestones. The primate trail was funded by USAMRID and began before any LATS was presented. The human safety trial was to be funded by the NIH, but PIP wanted it sooner so part of the loan went to that. PIP wanted assurance that the product was safe. I am sure PIP would have walked away from the deal if either of these results were poor despite an agreement to negotiate. As far as technical help, Hruby testified that if anything, PIP's presence was a negative with the federal agencies he was dealing with.

        Sentiment: Buy

      • Technical assistance? Does that include wanting to fire Dennis Hruby? Now there's a value add...

        Sentiment: Buy

      • I thought they also promised bentleys for everyone, where is that in his ruling?

      • -- The appellate court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by evidence in the record, even if the evidence is contradictory --

        That's pure nonsensense. The issue here is whether the lower court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel correctly. It clearly did not.since it did use the reasonable detrimental reliance test.

        How can any reasonable executive rely on the outcome of negotiations when that outcome is not known? A reasonable person would not rely, and much less detrimentally rely, on an unknown outcome.

    • The lower court erred because PIP could not have detrimentally relied on the outcome of the negotiations.

 
SIGA
0.00(0.00%)