I don't think Parsons will back away from his original ruling. The reason it got remanded was that he had based his ruling improperly on the law of promissory estoppel. All he has to do now is apply the law on expectation damages, and he will reach the same conclusion. He may even award pip more. For those of you who think he will award none or less (70/30), you are being either delusional or in denial. In my mind, the 50/50 after first 40 million profits is the most equitable and brilliant award any judge can think of under the circumstances. siga backed away from the contract clearly because of coporate greed, which must be punished. pip must be awarded what it otherwise would have earned, period.
that said, the best solution is for siga to start a merger talk with pip, in good faith this time, on a one for one basis, so both companies can prosper like they should 8 years ago. siga already outsmarted itself once. Hope they are not going to outsmart itself again.
You're right about that, but in this case, the most sensible thing for siga to do is to remove the bad blood and merge with pip like they should in the first place. As a shareholder of both companies, I like to see that ending. siga cheated (you can't really blame them when the drug suddenly had a breakthrough and had a billion dollar potential), fought, and lost. Now is the time to come back to the table and work out a deal acceptable to both parties.
The way the share price goes seems to suggest a 2 for 1 deal. It doesn't really matter. Once the matter settles, the price will rise and everyone will be happy.
Maybe it is rare in your world. In the world at large, there is still a justice system that punishes the bad and corrects a wrong. siga vs pip is a case in point. Of course, you are too biased to see it. My advice to you is to get some pip, so you can offset your loss when the ruling is made.