The Supreme Court has ruled that expectational damages are appropriate. The purpose of expectational damages is to put the non-breaching party in the position the party would have occupied had the contract been fulfilled. If Parsons puts PharmAthene into the position PharmAthene would have occupied ex the breach, PharmAthene gets ST-246 (or the economic equivalent). SIGA receives license revenues starting at 8% of revenues escalating up to 12% depending on total revenue. That would put SIGA in a worse position than before the Supreme Court decision.
Yeh, like a 3-4 point gap up by those trying to get on the train & a humungous short squeezing that takes it up
another few points.
Friday AH was the signal for the panicky buying to come Tuesday.
50,000 plus shares traded at 4PM & and another 60-70K shares AH WITHOUT news.
Will the MM's be able to open is what is coming Tuesday,NWJ?
That's assuming the LATS is fully in force. Parsons explicitly said it shouldn't be. The question is whether the Supreme's decision changes that. I've read the appeal decision a couple times, and see no reason to assume that's changed. And my understanding is that unless stated otherwise, a trial judge's findings of fact (e.g. that the LATS do not currently apply) is not in dispute in appeal.
True, Parson's also stated his reasoning for NOT awarding expectation damages. But that was an opinion, rather than a statement of fact. And he's been explicitly told to reverse on that.
That said, I'm not a lawyer. I'd love to hear what Golong and CSLmore have to say about this point.
If LATS are in effect, c21973's reasoning seems solid to me.