1. SIGA breached its contractual obligations to negotiate in good faith.
2. The LATS is binding.
3. SIGA is not liable under a theory of promissory estoppel.
4. SIGA is liable for expectation damages, not reliance damages. This is new law: "Where the parties have a preliminary agreement to negotiate in good faith, and the trial judge makes a factual finding, supported by the record, that the parties would have reached an agreement but for the defendant's bad faith negotiations, the plaintiff is entitled to recover expectation damages."
5. SIGA must still pay part of PIP's legal fees and expert witness expenses.
Good old Judge Parsons will now decide those expectation damages based on the LATS. BTW, the purpose of expectation damages is to put the non-breaching party in the position it would have occupied had the contract been fulfilled. And, we all know Judge Parsons is not to fond of SIGA's conduct in this case.
SIGA deserves to be raked over the coals for its abominable behavior in its deals with PIP.
Your read on this is 100% correct. If one read the notes from the original decision it is simple to divine Judge Parson's leanings. Expect Parson's to find PIP's model of expectation damages far more "persuasive" than bad faith SIGA. What is not apparent from the decision is the bad blood between Siga's legal team and Parsons. Yes folks, those things DO matter. SIGA would be well advised to settle but won't. I believe this because Parsons indicated clearly to SIGA it was in their best interests to settle before the first ruling and they refused to do so. PIP clearly has the upper hand now and will press it.
you guys are preaching on the wrong board.....Parsons already made a fool of the Delaware Courts with his initial ridiculous decision....he's not about to make that same mistake twice.....his reputation is definitely at risk...this is more likely (from an earlier post by Tomcatbubba)
Expectation Damages do not assume contract enforcement (specific performance) therefore PIP cannot be granted the license under terms of the contract. Also, expectation damages can only be recovered if they can be calculated to a reasonable certainty. After looking at SIGA's prospects for ST-246 back in 2006, there was no reasonable certainty about how profitable (if at all) the drug would be. Parson's stated himself that there were uncertainties at the time of negotiations - so if he awards anything too crazy SIGA can appeal again based on his comments. I think he boxed himself into a corner on this statement not knowing that PIP would be eventually awarded expectation damages.