Recent

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

SIGA Technologies, Inc. Message Board

  • homebuilder_watcher homebuilder_watcher May 27, 2013 9:29 AM Flag

    Good article summarizing the case

    h**p://w*w.delawarelitigation.***/2013/05/articles/delaware-supreme-court-updates/supreme-court-affirms-liability-of-siga-technologies-to-pharmathene/

    Replace all the asterisks

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • It's an objective analysis from a respected neutral expert, and it explicitly affirms PIP's assertion that the decision makes new law. And it implicitly confirms that LATS will be the basis for establishing the expectation damages.

      I realize that this is not what we want to hear. But desperate straining for reassuring interpretation is not a sound investment strategy IMO.

    • Is this the article you referred? You have stated that the expectations award would be based on the value of Siga at the time of the merger discussions, yet both companies had expert witnesses giving probable valuation of the company, I believe the Siga expert said the value of St246 was around 500 million and PIP expert valued it at over one billion. Why were they having these discussions if there were not revelant to the amound of the expectations award that PIP was seeking?

      Supreme Court Affirms Liability of SIGA Technologies to PharmAthene Based on Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith

      Posted on May 26, 2013 by Francis Pileggi
      Print
      Comment
      More Sharing ServicesShare Link


      SIGA Technologies, Inc. v. PharmAthene, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 314, 2012 (May 24, 2013). This Delaware Supreme Court decision was the subject of a BloombergBusinessweek article on Sunday, May 26. The Court of Chancery’s opinion was highlighted on these pages at this link. Also, several other prior Chancery decisions in this case were also outlined on these pages.


      Issue Addressed: Is an agreement to negotiate in good faith in accordance with a term sheet an enforceable obligation?

      Short Answer: Yes, and a court may award expectation damages if the record supports a finding that an agreement would have been reached but for the defendant’s bad faith negotiations. This aspect of the trial court’s 117-page decision was upheld, but Delaware’s high court reversed and remanded the damages award to reconsider damages in light of this opinion.

      One Takeaway from this Supreme Court Opinion: The detailed facts must be tethered to any lesson or principle of law taken from this opinion, but at least one ineluctable result of this ruling is that any attorney or businessperson who sends a term sheet to another party in the context of having a duty to negotiate in good faith, must read this opinion in order to determine whether liability will attach as a result of refusing to finalize a definitive agreement in a manner that may be construed, based on this opinion, to be based on less than good faith.

      Brief Background

      The prior decisions linked above provide more background, but a bare bones distillation of the factual setting involves SIGA and PharmAthene negotiating simultaneously for a license agreement and a merger agreement, with the goal that if the merger was not consummated that at least a license would result. After trial, the Court of Chancery found that the term sheet contained the essential terms for the license and that if a merger was not consummated, that a final and formal license agreement would be entered into. See Supreme Court Slip op. at 9.

      Key fact: The parties signed a merger agreement which provided that if the merger were terminated, the parties agreed to negotiate in good faith a definitive license agreement based on the term sheet. (Notably, at the bottom of the two-page term sheet was a “footer” that stated: “non binding terms”. In the context of the other overwhelming facts, that footer was not determinative.)

      Bullet Points on Legal Principles from Opinion
      •Delaware’s high court discussed choice of law principles but determined that it was not necessary to decide the issue because New York and Delaware law were not meaningfully different on the relevant issues. See footnotes 34 to 36 and accompanying text. Nonetheless, the court discussed the reasoning that can be employed when two related, and somewhat overlapping contracts, have two different choice of law provisions.
      •In the context of proposing terms substantially different than the term sheet, the court described “bad faith” as:


      ”not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.” See footnote 66 and related text.
      ” •The elements of a promissory estoppel claim were recited and then the court reasoned that such a claim does not apply to this case because a fully enforceable contract governs the promise at issue–that is, the merger agreement with its provision to negotiate in good faith. See Slip op. at 30-31.
      •Two types of “agreements to negotiate in good faith” are referred to as “Type I” and “Type II” based on federal decisions described in footnotes 82 and 85 and accompanying text. Type II agreements do not guarantee the parties will reach agreement on a final contract due to good faith differences that may arise, but a Type II agreement: “does, however, bar a party from renouncing the deal, abandoning the negotiations, or insisting on conditions that do not conform to the preliminary agreement”. Footnote 85.
      •DAMAGES: The Delaware Supreme Court announces new law in this opinion: When the parties have a Type II agreement to negotiate in good faith, and the record supports the trial court’s finding that the parties would have reached an agreement but for the defendant’s bad faith negotiations, the plaintiff is “entitled to recover contract expectation damages.” Slip op. at 37. Expectation damages presupposed that “the plaintiff can prove damages with reasonable certainty.” See footnote 99. Because this is the first time the Delaware Supreme Court clarified this issue of damages, it reversed and remanded for Chancery to reconsider the award of damages in light of this opinion.
      •Attorneys’ Fees: The Court of Chancery awarded fees based on both the bad faith exception to the American Rule as well as a fee-shifting provision in the Bridge Loan Agreement between the parties. The high court affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees based on the fee-shifting provision and a finding that the fees requested were reasonable. See footnote 110 and related text.
      •The high court did not address the bad faith basis for awarding fees except to note in footnote 109 that the Court of Chancery has inherent equitable authority to award fees–separate from the award of costs pursuant to 10 Del. C. Section 5106 (citing Scion Breckenridge Managing Member, LLC v. ASB Allegiance Real Estate Fund, 2013 WL 1914714 at *12 (Del. May 9, 2013)).
      •The Supreme Court also remanded for the Court of Chancery to reconsider the award of expert fees so as to tailor them to the bases of liability on which PharmAthene prevailed. See footnotes 111 and 112.
      Tags:
      10 Del. C. Section 5106
      , agreement to agree
      , attorneys' fees
      , contract interpretation
      , damages
      , Delaware business litigation
      , delaware supreme court
      , duty to negotiate in good faith
      , expectation damages
      , Francis G.X. Pileggi
      , promissory estoppel


      About

      Francis practices primarily in the areas of corporate and commercial litigation. He is the managing member of... Read More

      Selected as a ‘Top Blog’ by LexisNexis



      Search

      Stay Connected
      View My Twitter Profile
      View My LinkedIn Profile
      View My Facebook Profile
      View This Blog's Facebook Network


      Subscribeemail address



      Topics

      Delaware Supreme Court Updates
      Chancery Court Updates
      Annual Review of Cases
      Commentary
      Other Court Decisions
      Selected Articles by Francis


      Resources

      Delaware Supreme Court
      Delaware Court of Chancery
      Guidelines for Working with Local Counsel in Delaware
      Chancery Practice Guidelines
      The Delaware Journal of Corporate Law
      Annual F.G. Pileggi Distinguished Lecture In Law


      Recent Posts
      Supreme Court Affirms Liability of SIGA Technologies to PharmAthene Based on Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith
      Insider Trading Claim against Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. Allowed to Proceed
      Chancery Declines to Enjoin Acquisition of Plains Exploration and Production Co.
      Court Declines To Dismiss Caremark Claims Against Directors Of Delaware Corporation Based In China
      Delaware Fiduciary Duty of Disclosure Explained by Chancery

      RT @fpileggi: Supreme Court Affirms Liability of SIGA Technologies to PharmAthene Based on Failure to Negotiate in

      • 1 Reply to hosaquavas
      • Yes that is the article. Of course PIP presented an expert to attempt to value their damages at trial. They were suing for damages were they not? The point is, the judge awarded the damages claimed based on estoppel and equitable relief. The standards for establishing damages under these principles are different than under expectation damages which require that damages can be calculated with reasonable certainty and not conjecture or speculation. Judge Parsons in his opinion stated that under theories of expectation damages, in this cases the damages would be speculative. That is why he relied on estoppel and equity to get PIP what he thought they were entitled to. The Supreme Court has overruled him and said that damages in this case can only be awarded for expectation damages if they are not speculative which Parsons said they were. Is Parsons now going to say "I didn't really mean that"? He would look pretty silly again when SIGA once again appealed to the Supreme Court.

    • From the article:
      •DAMAGES: The Delaware Supreme Court announces new law in this opinion: When the parties have a Type II agreement to negotiate in good faith, and the record supports the trial court’s finding that the parties would have reached an agreement but for the defendant’s bad faith negotiations, the plaintiff is “entitled to recover contract expectation damages.” Slip op. at 37. Expectation damages presupposed that “the plaintiff can prove damages with reasonable certainty.” See footnote 99. Because this is the first time the Delaware Supreme Court clarified this issue of damages, it reversed and remanded for Chancery to reconsider the award of damages in light of this opinion.

      New law? Does this mean the judge has the ability to award a lot more? Does this change the expected "expectation" damages?

    • From the article:

      "One Takeaway from this Supreme Court Opinion: The detailed facts must be tethered to any lesson or principle of law taken from this opinion, but at least one ineluctable result of this ruling is that any attorney or businessperson who sends a term sheet to another party in the context of having a duty to negotiate in good faith, must read this opinion in order to determine whether liability will attach as a result of refusing to finalize a definitive agreement in a manner that may be construed, based on this opinion, to be based on less than good faith."

      Not good for M&A in Delaware... Any company that gets left at the altar will be running to court regardless of intent screaming "bad faith."

      Sentiment: Buy

      • 1 Reply to playthrough2001
      • "Not good for M&A in Delaware... Any company that gets left at the altar will be running to court regardless of intent screaming 'bad faith.'"

        "Any" company? Did you read the article? The Supremes have drawn a very narrow distinction. This applies only to certain situations (when "Type II agreements to negotiate in good faith" have been signed, and bad faith occurs), and " the record supports a finding that an agreement would have been reached but for the defendant’s bad faith negotiations.

 
SIGA
2.050.0000(0.00%)Mar 19 4:00 PMEDT