I agree with you in that in two instances describing PIP's attempt to claim lump sum damages Parson's ruled against them on the basis that a lump sum award is too speculative. However, he specifically indicated on top of page 101 that "it is appropriate to recognize PharmAthene’s legitimate claim to share in the proceeds of ST-246".
He goes on to state "In the final analysis, a responsible estimate of what PharmAthene should have
received had SIGA negotiated in good faith (i.e., its expectancy interest) is a definitive license agreement providing, at the least, an interest in ST-246 for which, after paying SIGA approximately $40 million, PharmAthene would receive 50% of all profits derived from sales of ST-246 and related products. Moreover, PharmAthene should have received this benefit for a period of at least ten years following the first commercial sale of any product derived from ST-246."
He then turns to construction of equitable stream of payments as means of avoiding issue of the award being too speculative by effectively forming an equitable lien. "Accordingly, I grant PharmAthene’s request for expectation or reliance damages in the form of an “equitable payment stream” or an equitable lien on all sale proceeds from ST-246 and related products as follows . . ."
Notice he used the words "expectation or reliance damages". In other words even if SIGA was right and "reliance damages" were all that is justified, Parsons believes the remedy is not a few hundred thousand as SIGA contended under such a scenario. Whether he calls them reliance damages or expectation damages, he has given a clear view of what he believes the value of PIP's "legitimate claim to share in the proceeds of ST-246" as a result of the facts of this case. In his earlier decision he used both terms to describe the award of his remedy.
What exactly is the predicament you think he has created for himself?
"What exactly is the predicament you think he has created for himself"
Taking the wrong road and going over the cliff with promissory estoppel etc after dithering for 47 pages that
he could not take the right road because there was no there there so he winged with obfuscatory verbage
from his anal aperture the 50/50 split for 10 years after $40M,etc.
He must now take the right road at that time and rediscover there is still no there there.
So, what to do?
Get rid of the predicament of no "there there" and let the chips fall where they may rather than proving his bias and shortcomings again fabricating there,NWJ?
Reliance damages=$1 for PIP.
He tried and he tried hard for PIP but he failed.
So, he falls on his sword as forced by the SC.
The main predicament is that his higher court gave him a swat on the behind and said do it over. He's not going to come back again with the same division of spoils and risk getting reversed again IMO. I think SIGA see a much fairer ruling this time around as JP needs to tread more carefully. at close to $3 SIGA is a great value from rosk/reward perspective IMO