"For the purposes of the record, we will consider the motion by PharmAthene to reopen the record as granted, but of course I'm reserving judgment on whether any of this evidence is ultimately admissible or considered anyway," Parsons said in a bench ruling in PharmAthene v. Siga.
The vice chancellor's decision permits PharmAthene to supplement the record with data regarding certain milestones achieved by Siga as well as public statements released by the company. Among the information the plaintiff sought to include in the record was a contract between Siga and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for the drug, identified as ST-246, and information regarding cash flow and revenue recognition.
Stephen P. Lamb, an attorney with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, represented Siga. He argued against reopening the record, saying that the additions proposed by PharmAthene occurred after the contract was breached, and therefore, are irrelevant to determining damages.
"What is relevant, is what the expectation was at the time of the breach and what monies Siga received six or seven years after breach really and truly have very little to do with the expectations at the time of the breach," he told the court.