Parson's said exactly what the SC said. Told Parson's to revisit the issue of damages, including expectation damages, under general contract law, and not equity. Siga's attorneys argued exactly what I said they would earlier. That under Parson's "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" he cannot award contract damages because apparently one of his findings were that there was no enforceable contract between PIP and Siga, and that expectation damages were too uncertain and speculative to prove. That is why he went the "equity" route in the first place.
This is exactly the conundrum that I wrote about that Parson's would face. Be intellectually true to his earlier findings, or somehow attempt to squirm around them to appease the SC.
Seems like he doesn't want to be told what he can, and cannot, do. No judge does. He still must deal
with the issue of expectations damages versus reliance damages. Would be frankly shocking to me if
suddenly his vision on expectation damages, that were too uncertain and speculative to prove at the time
of trial, suddenly became 20/20 clear after his hands were slapped by the SC....
Parsons believes remedy as constructive trust, equitable lien is appropriate and now Delaware Supreme Court has given him ability to use expectation damages as justification if he chooses. Point of this matter was raised in language of his earlier decision (p.99 of Parsons 9/22/11 opinion):
"Under these facts, expectation damages in the form of an equitable payment stream akin to a constructive trust or an equitable lien on a share of the proceeds from ST-246 deserves serious consideration. Applying the equitable principles and remedies discussed supra to the facts of this case, I conclude that an appropriate remedy would be to afford PharmAthene a stream of future payments if and when commercial sales of ST-246 commence, after accounting for certain marginal expenses. Such a remedy would operate somewhat similarly to an award of a constructive trust or of an equitable lien on a partial interest in the proceeds derived from the patents and related intellectual property for ST-246. A remedy of this sort would comport with the Court’s authority to provide relief 'as justice and good conscience may require' and the requirement to avoid speculative damages."
He summarizes (p100) "Absent SIGA’s failure to negotiate a license agreement in good faith, PharmAthene would have controlled the ST-246 patents and product. Yet, due to its misconduct, SIGA currently controls those items and will in the future. In these circumstances, as in the case of an equitable lien, it is appropriate to recognize PharmAthene’s legitimate claim to share in the proceeds of ST-246."
For these reasons, it would seem equally shocking to me, if after dismissing reliance damages as appropriate remedy, he would suddenly return to it!
Like I said, he doesn't like SIGA for some reason, and is going to stick it to them any way he can. He's probably #$%$ and insulted at the appeal. You think a JUDGE doesn't have an ego bigger than most? If MO/EVenU2 thinks that's good for SIGA, he's dumber than I originally thought.