This is a brilliant judge!!! I don't think his ruling is appealable. There is simply no legal basis for any other remedy than the one so brilliantly explained by the judge. The best course of action for siga is to settle with pip, something they should have done long time ago. Now it is more costly, of course, but still would not be as costly as going for another appeal as the company has announced. They have very incompetent lawyers! just my opinion.
You get a really. Parsons is wasting our time with this ruling.
Parsons from the transcript of the trial:
"THE COURT: All right, but now, in this case, I think we have the plaintiff's own expert saying -- depending if he makes these assumptions, he gets in the range of $10 million in damages. If he makes some other assumptions, he gets a billion 70 million in damages or something like that. If I change this assumption, I get 400 million. I do this one, I get 600 million. I mean, to me, it looks like that whole wall behind me, and I'll just take a dart and throw it at the wall, and that will be the damages."
You can check the transcript as this is a quote. Everyone is free to re-post this.
Now for my best line of the year - I guess Parsons stayed at the Christiana Road Holiday Inn Express the night before he pinned this Memorandum Opinion.
I do not know what tomorrow brings but for Parsons - the other Justices will turn and walk the other way when they see him. This is an embarrassment to the court that prides itself in being the premier court in the US.
That was then , and this is now, especially based on the sc ruling and remand. In other words, Parsons is now certain that expectation damages can be awarded in Delaware Law. Furthermore, you failed to understand that what he was saying in that transcript was that siga better settle with pip instead of insisting on him to rule, because if they wanted him to rule, he would have no choice but to rule for pip and the award would be much much higher than siga would have ever imagined, because he would have to rule based on broad economic terms specified in LATS. BUt, siga was too stubborn to see that, thinking they could get away with it because expectation damages would be too speculative to quantify, and thinking they broke a contract and there was no remedy for it. Obviously, they are completely wrong, and want to continue on this losing course, until they hit the dead end.
I don't think SIGA lawyers were incompetent, but rather SIGA's position after having acted in bad faith, was indefensible. Chancery and Supreme Court of Delaware have both supported these facts. I agree that there really isn't much that is appealable and that SIGA still has chance to alter final terms by offering constructive settlement that could help it avoid bankruptcy and loss of the asset. They don't have the cash, nor can they generate it from current BARDA contract to cover the value of the damages Parson's has just issued. Only option for them would be to offer PIP stake in potential future value of the product, something Parson's did not do with his expectation damages.
first sentence nailed it... that's why it was such an easy call all those years ago... i wasn't basing my prediction on outcome of litigation (which judge? who had the better lawyers) but just on who was right and who was wrong.... if you keep it simple, it becomes easy to make correct decisions