WELL WHERE IS EVERYBODY??? SEEKING ALPHA: Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit
Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit
Jul. 21, 2014 6:15 AM ET | About: SIGA Technologies Inc. (SIGA), Includes: PIP
Subscribers to SA PRO had an early look at this article. Learn more about PRO »
Disclosure: The author is long SIGA, PIP. (More...)
•The original equitable damage award to PharmAthene has been reversed, and another equitable damage award is not available.
•Even though Delaware Supreme Court stated that expectation damage awards are available in similar legal cases, PharmAthene will not receive an expectation damage award.
•Based on all information derived from court briefs, rulings and opinions, PharmAthene will only receive a small reliance damage award which will cause SIGA's share price to significantly increase.
I believe those people who have already analyzed the PharmAthene (NYSEMKT:PIP) vs. SIGA (NASDAQ:SIGA) legal case are trying to over complicate the Delaware Supreme Court's (NYSE:SC) May 24, 2013 opinion. Many people still believe the original equitable damages award granted by Judge Parsons is still an option since the Supreme Court seemed to be throwing out Judge Parsons' damage award only as it related to reversing promissory estoppel. The below excerpt starting at the bottom of page 37 and continuing on page 38 of the above Supreme Court opinion seemed to be interpreted by a lot of people as to the possibility of an equitable damage award still being an option for Judge Parsons.
"Because we had not previously addressed whether Delaware recognizes Type II preliminary agreements and permits a plaintiff to recover expectation damages, 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 the Vice Chancellor's damages award and remand the case for reconsideration of the damages award consiste
Always said & say now-Reliance Damages=$1(one buck)!
Parsons must fall on his 28 page opinion explaining why he could not award expectancy damages at the time of the breach because they were too speculative.
Why is he dithering?
Could it be that the appointment of Andre, Siga's legal eagle, to the SC and the embarrassing reversal
of his fantasy promissory estoppel damages award have him concerned about his future on the CC?
Who knows, but time & his next opinion will tell,NWJ?