% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SIGA Technologies Inc. Message Board

  • evenu2canexcel evenu2canexcel May 30, 2013 1:50 PM Flag

    Judge Farnan Nailed It In February!

    "Yesterday Wedbush held a conference call concerning the potential outcome of the appeal. The featured speaker was Judge Joseph Farnan, Jr. The legal side of the Siga story has always been a weakness for me, and as such I lean on the opinion of experts like this. In short, the Judge's opinion was that the supreme court would most likely not mess with the liability verdict as it was a finding of fact, but will remand it back with instruction to determine an outcome based on reliance damages as expectation damages would also be too speculative to figure. When asked point blank if he felt that pip's award amount would be reduced he
    said he believed it would."

    So, reliance damages it'll be,NWJ?
    You betcha.


    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I think this eventuality was telegraphed when parsons warned that one side might get noting out of the suit. He said "it's a #$%$ shoot". Nominal damages, i.e. a dollar, might be all he can award without additional testimony supporting the value of assistance PIP gave during the time the merger was in play. As it stands there's no tangible evidence upon which to award reliance damages. I think if there is any re-argument, it will be to bring evidence in to support the value of assistance given.

      • 1 Reply to musherga
      • You know Musher, your post makes me speculate a way Parsons can come out of this with his head held high. It’s to award $1 in reliance damages. This way he can be seen as consistent to his first decision. He can contend that originally he simply felt SIGA has an ethical responsibility in the matter, and had attempted to find a legal remedy in the estoppel decision. The SC did not uphold that position so he, albeit regretfully, had to decide that no practical or substantial final adjustment could be made.

    • What? Judge Farnan back in Feb said PIP would only be entitled to reliance damages, not expectancy. He was WRONG.

    • Even2, believe the SC said use expectation damage. Maybe the Judge is only partially correct.

      • 2 Replies to hosaquavas
      • "Where a trial judge makes a factual finding, supported by the
        record, that the parties would have reached an agreement but for the defendant’s
        bad faith negotiation, we hold that a trial judge may award expectation damages."

        SC said He May Did not say he had to....

        And if he does when He goes to use accepted Expectation Damage Formulation He will run into this: Expectation damages can only be recovered if they can be calculated to a reasonable certainty. Where damages cannot be calculated to a reasonable certainty, the injured party will only be able to recover nominal damages.
        Typically, the issue of certainty arises in cases where the damages suffered are in the form of lost profits. The general rule regarding lost profits and certainty in calculating damages is that if the injured party is an established business, lost profits are not treated as speculative because they can be estimated from past profits. Therefore, an established business will generally recover for its lost profits.

        However, where the injured party is a new business so that there are no past profits with which to estimate future profits, the courts examine each case individually and, if the courts can calculate damages to a reasonable certainty, then damages will be awarded. However, in the event that courts cannot, the injured party will be awarded nominal damages only.

        Any Other Award be it Monitary of some atempt at changing his tune and make the Lats Binding"The first thing he did in his opinion was rule that the Lats was NOT repeat NOT Binding" And this Goes Right Back to the SC And they will Flail him for being Squishy.

        He also could revert and go reliance.

      • "believe the SC said use expectation damage. Maybe the Judge is only partially correct."
        SC did but judge said it would be too speculative to use expectation damages( which is what Parsons concluded in his decision).

        But Farnum's key points were::
        1) Liability will be upheld
        2)"When asked point blank if he felt that pip's ward amount would be reduced he
        said he believed it would."
        3) Expectation damages too speculative(it remains to be seen whether Parsons agrees with his similar
        earlier position or attempts to pull speculative damages out of his #$%$)!

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Well, I’m no lawyer either (although I did gratuitously over-charge a client once…). But, for me the opinion of a fromer Judge in the employ of an investment firm is next to worthless. I think WedBush could find a judge to say he felt Kodiak Ice Cube Manufacturers was a good investment.

2.32-0.2300(-9.02%)Oct 27 3:59 PMEDT