"Weisgram v. Marley Co.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Weisgram v. Marley Co., handed down last year, illustrates what can happen if expert testimony admitted at trial flunks the Daubert test on appeal. In Weisgram, the Court held that if an appeals court concludes that expert testimony was improperly admitted at trial, and that the plaintiff could not satisfy his or her burden of proof without the testimony, the appellate court may enter judgment for the defendant. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Ginsburg reasoned that, in the wake of Daubert, Joiner, and Kuhmo, "parties relying on expert evidence have had notice of the exacting standards of reliability such evidence must meet . . . . It is implausible to suggest, post-Daubert, that parties will initially present less than their best expert evidence in the expectation of a second chance should their first try fail."22
Accordingly, under Weisgram a plaintiff may establish liability at trial, convince the district court judge that a highly accredited expert's testimony on lost-profit damages satisfies the Daubert test, win a large verdict based on the expert's testimony, and still lose the case if the appeals court concludes that the expert's underlying methodology or conclusions were flawed."
Your in denial csmclemore.. Dalbert would have had to be raised in the initial case. PIP has won and it's only a matter of how much over $250 mill they will get.. Fortunately ST-246 is worth in excess of 1 bill so SIGA should be able to negotiate bearable payout terms with PIP.
Damn, if only someone had brought up the Daubert standard prior to this coming appeal so the speculative nature of the remedy could be challenged... Oh wait, Parsons already did in his original opinion. See footnote 221.
 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993) ("[T]he trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."); M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513, 522 (Del. 1999) (adopting Daubert as the standard for assessing admissibility of expert evidence in Delaware).
Go ahead and keep buying PIP then...no need to post here.....with your rationale it's an easy DOUBLE..but for some reason the market has cooled on PIP the last couple sessions.... I wonder why....if it's such a SLAM dunk...?
Having carefully reviewed the testimony and reports of PharmAthene's experts, including especially Baliban, I find that PharmAthene's claims for expectation damages in the form of a specific sum of money representing the present value of the future profits it would have received absent SIGA's breach is speculative and too uncertain, contingent, and conjectural. Therefore, I decline to award such relief. 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. These uncertainties relate to, among other things, regulatory matters, questions of demand, price, competition, and the parties' marketing competency. Moreover, when it comes to expert evidence, reliability is of the essence. In appraisal proceedings, for example, this Court often accepts discounted cash flow (DCF) calculations prepared by experts, but also "repeatedly has recognized that the reliability of a DCF analysis depends on the reliability of the inputs to the model." Similarly with breach of contract claims to recover lost profits, "[r]eliability of the lost profits projections is essential in making a determination of lost profits." The huge fluctuations in Baliban's estimated damages (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) based on changes to a few variables in his analysis confirm that it would be unduly speculative to attempt to fix a specific sum of money as representative of PharmAthene's expectation damages.
"Having carefully reviewed the testimony and reports of PharmAthene's experts, including especially Baliban, I find that PharmAthene's claims for expectation damages in the form of a specific sum of money represent
ing the present value of the future profits it would have received absent SIGA's breach is speculative and too uncertain, contingent, and conjectural. Therefore, I decline to award such relief."
That "carefully reviewed" sword is hanging menacingly over this wonderful CC judge & his "carefully reviewed" flip-flop, no GUV?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision..."
And is that where we are headed if the DSC does not force Parsons to fall on his 28 page sword?
Parsons who cannot recognize a bona fide loan from a $3M payoff laundering operation which after Murtha passed was completed(PIP paid anyhow) & PIP kissed off as unnecessary and no longer useful to obtain grants or whatever no GUV?
Sentiment: Strong Buy