PARSONS: "The evidence adduced at trial proved that numerous uncertainties exist regarding the marketability of ST-246 and that it remains possible that it will not generate any profits at all....."
SC: "...and because it is unclear to what extent the Vice Chancellor based his damages award upon a promissory estoppel holding rather than upon a contractual theory of liability predicated on a Type II preliminary agreement,102 we reverse ...."
"That huge damage award"??? Really?? What if net profits amount to $5?? Would that be huge?? There's where your argument is flawed and that's why Parsons did that. Where his problem appears to be has been identified ad hominem on this board.... that he already stated earnings were not certain and they have to be proven with reasonable certainty. But you can be sure if he can find a way to screw siga, he will.