JP ignores many of Siga's arguments they made in their motion and straight-out parrots much of what PIP said in their rebuttal. (If I have more time later and if anyone lets me know on here that they're interested, I can compose a longer post analyzing JP's reargument ruling.) Therefore, at least for me this gives some hope that JP's prejudice against Siga and unfairness of the remedy (50% of profits after $40m to Siga without any other contribution) will be glaringly obvious to the DE Sup Ct who will then rule accordingly on the appeal.
A snake charmer walked into a bar carrying a monkey and a straw basket.
So the bar tender asked:
What's in the basket?
So the snake charmer put down the basket and began playing his flute.
At that moment a large poisonous viper jumped out of the basket and while the monkey shreiked and fled the vipers fangs struck on the monkeys prodigious gonads.
haha(tears of) haha
"I really can't see any corporation other than PIP hoping this decision isn't overturned"
Here is another company that likes the decision:
Don't we also have a strong possibility of other corporations filing amicus briefs in support of SIGA's SC appeal simply because this is a bad decision that could well impact other firms if it stands? I don't remember hearing about any similar filings in the Chancery Court but it seems to me like the Delaware Supreme Court is a very different venue and more appropriate for this type of wider review of the decision's long term implications. I really can't see any corporation other than PIP hoping this decision isn't overturned.
Ilmdeamha...Again I say Thanks for a Job Well Done! Your dedication and help does not go unnoticed by the SIGA sters! And also thanks to all those of you that have commented on this thread....the lineup is definitely our A Team.....the All Stars of the SIGA MB!
ilmdeamha, great posts. Based on Parsons basically phoning in PIP's response to SIGA's arguments, I think there is now little doubt that several elements of Parsons decision are going to be remanded back down to the Chancery Court by the Delaware Supreme Court. The Supremes do seem to want their say in the more complicated cases, and that is a category SIGA v PIP definitely fits. I suspect that even Parsons expects his decision is coming back down with corrections after it spends a few months with the Supremes.
I think everyone needs to be prepared to dig in for the long haul on this one. I personally think that PIP isn't going to get a dime in the end but the court battle will probably last at least a year and could take as long as several years, with decisions bouncing between higher and lower courts for months at a time. PIP will have to continue to dilute and dilute and that is only if people continue to be dumb enough to buy their shares. Of course, base on what I have seen posted on the PIP board, there are plenty of people out there dumb enough to buy PIP shares.
...good points Golong
PIP never had any of the funds or LA payments they led SIGA to believe they could raise in a merger scenario. SIGA had a right to walk when it was obvious they would receive nothing from Pharma either through a merger or a licensing agreement. Pharma was even in negotiations with another potential partner during this time period, seriously in need of a partner to help raise investment funding. no cash infusion, no merger and no licensing agreement.
Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the replies.
<<I think one of our strongest arguments is the fact that this transactions was between two very sophisticated parties who were running multi million dollar publicly traded companies.
The law seems pretty clear that in Del., an equitable lien is inappropriate under those circumstances. Will like to see how the upper courts deal with that issue, but I think it could be the winner for us.>>
What do you think Golong about the fact that JP doesn't address at all this issue brought up by Siga? I agree with you it's a very strong convincing point. Clearly JP is setting a precedent in Delaware by awarding 50% of profits to a sophisticated party who according to his own comments didn't protect itself. IMO JP sweeping this under the rug as he did with Siga's examples of the circuit courts holding that you needed certainty in order to award damages, was a tacit admission that he was backed into a corner and had no good way to counter those points. If he did, you would think he would have mentioned it in his ruling, and he certainly had plenty of time to figure out how to refute Siga's case law examples - it took him almost 3 months to rule on the motion!