This is all about the law, what is the law, forget what is right and wrong ethically it is all about the law.
Siga made an agreement, the details were not all worked out, then siga found out that this drug tested incredible, so they no longer wanted to be part of the deal, the problem was they agreed to agree to the deal. They acted in bad faith.
The only issue is, was this legal to do so. It very well might turn out that it was perfectly legal, but for people to go around and around and deny the facts makes no sense.
It is like you sell a car, you took a deposit, then someone comes along and offers you more, now is it right to sell the car to someone else? is it ethical? no of course not, but it may or may not be legal, perhaps the dude who lost the deal is only entitled to get his deposit back, or maybe he deserves to be made whole.
I dont know if siga will win or pip will win due to law, but i do know right from wrong.
Time will tell if siga will win with the law, just like casey anthony won with the law.
For a successful technology,
reality must take precedence over public relations,
for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard Feynman - Nobel-laureate physicist who discovered the cause
of the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger.
Great points except for the comment about previous management. M&F has been making all the strategic decisions on SIGA since they invested in 2004, just different M&F players out in front; Drapkin then Rose.
People who've invested in PIP solely to ride a lawsuit (sorry it didn't work out, btw) getting morally indignant at SIGA investors over the actions of the previous management is already moronic. Actually debating it with them is dumber still.
None of us are in SIGA to get rich off of the supposed screwing of PIP. That's the thing THEY are (or were) hoping to capitalize on...while wagging their fingers at us. Sort of like a dog fight bettor clucking his tongue about animal cruelty with investors in the venue that once hosted dog fights but which now cures children.
And we're arguing with them?
Any Pipsqueak who tries to point ethical fingers at Siga might answer a question for themselves. A PIP officer admitted that "Non-binding" was placed on the LATS purposefully. The question is: why would PIP do that, if not to provide an escape route for themselves (if the clinical trial had given bad results)?
Note that PIP wanted that clinical test held IMMEDIATELY -- which is largely what the Bridge Loan was for -- although NIAID would have paid for the test later on. WHY would PIP need to rush that test? Because, obviously, they wanted to walk away from the deal, if the test results were bad.
Do any of your PIPsqueaks honestly think that PIP would have wanted to carry out the LATS if 246 had failed that test? You KNOW they would not.
So don't go around pretending you are on some higher moral ground. PIP is really not an ethical company. It's Leech City.