The SC says that Parsons must rule on expectation damages, most people here do not think he can since damages can be received from lost expectancy if is can prove with reasonable certainty. The SC mentions that both PIP and Sigas conservative estimates at the end of 2005 was approx 1 billion. I pulled the attached definition of lost expectancy from a legal site
Expectation damages are those damages which a plaintiff sustains not based on the injury but because of the loss of some future, possibly speculative, stream of income. They are composed of incidental damages and consequential damages
Expectation damages are awarded to a party harmed by breach of a contract, provided that those damages can be calculated with reasonable certainty. Expert testimony, if well supported and thorough, is an acceptable way of determining expectation damages. To the extent that the calculation of expectation damages remains somewhat uncertain, doubts are resolved in favor of the nonbreaching party. Still, the burden of proof remains at all times on the plaintiff
Parson will use the conservative1Billion as Lost expectancy and award them50% or $500 mil
We can thank RP for this mess. If only he had ponied up a mil or so then all of us long time holders would be wealthy now. If I lose my shares, over 100k then I will have the consolation of knowing he lost over 30 ml.shares, remember how siga could not be a small business, again RP was the problem.to many shares His friend Drapkin,wow, what can I say about him., and now a heart Dr playing CEO. Give PIP credit, they played the hand and won something or maybe nothing.
Back to Parsons, I do believe he will use expert witness for the award, hopefully he will sit both parties down and they can work out some reasonable damage amount for the survival of both companies.
I think you have it wrong unfortunately. RP may lose his shares in the current company in a BK but I would
bet anything that he would be part of the group that would buy ST-246 out of BK, and would be part of the new
"Siga" entity (it wouldn't be called that) that would take over the BARDA contract and all assets of the former company.
If the judge did award 500 million in damages to PIP, and the verdict was somehow upheld by the SC, PIP would still get nothing.. This is a 135 million dollar market value company with only one asset of any real value...the BARDA contract.. A 500 million dollar verdict would make Siga BK, ie, liabilities far exceeding tangible and intangible assets. Siga files BK and discharges the judgment in total. Done all the time. Of course current shareholders would probably get zip as well, but Siga could recapitalize as a new entity probably within nine months of filing BK...Keep the BARDA contract and the rest would be history.
With your logic SIGA will go out of business the day after the decision to dock them 500 MILLION DOLLARS...The stock will plummet to less than a $1 and there will be no money to pay PIP a single penny. Think about it...Minus the cost of doing business, their current contract is probably only going to break even...this is a joke, right?
No...Siga would not go out of business regardless of what the judgment is in favor of PIP. BK doesn't work that way. Business would go on as usual frankly. The only difference would be the judgment would be wiped out as would probably common shareholders....The company would recapitalize, current creditors would like be paid in full, and Rose and the BOD would get new stock certificates! LOL!
Kind of what I have felt all along. The current Phase 1 contract to PIP is worth basically zero. Break even on it would be about what I suspect. No profits can be booked until we get FDA approval for ST-246. That could be in a year...possibly two...or possibly never. In the meantime, cash will continue to drain from the coffers as the company ramps mfg and delivery to BARDA. And the first 40 mil of profits on a net basis goes back to Siga in any event. PIP is likely to never see a dime from the current BARDA contract.
I disagree with hosaquavas but at least appreciate the explanation of his logic.
Newsigalurger, you make it sound like Parsons is worried about whether Drapkin is going to friend him on Facebook. With your logic, I'm sure he lays awake at night worrying about how to let a Chairman of company who has acted in bad faith and lied to him in legal proceedings get off without consequence so that he himself can look good when its time to be reappointed for another 12-year term.