I say the revised ruling should be reliance damages plus punitive damages. This would keep it simple in case a similar case happens again. If you break a deal, there will be a fine, but not that complicated bs he came up with last time.
Parson's going to stick it again to Siga and the market already knows that. The stock is trading a cent off it's 52 week low. The recent "accounting" maneuvers by Siga so that PIP has not seen one dime from the judgment to date, will probably not sit well with Parsons. Bad faith in negotiations, followed by "bad faith" post
an equitable verdict in favor of PIP, just might not sit too well with the trial judge.
I'm not sure what rationale he's going to use but I think the end result will be very close to the earlier verdict.
License agreement...profit sharing....royalties....whatever, but he'll come up with something. And Siga will appeal and everything will be rehashed again sometime in 2016. I do think whatever he comes up with will close the accounting loopholes that Siga is now using to deny payments to PIP.
There is literally no scenario that I can envision where Siga wins outright. None. The findings of bad faith have been made, and were upheld on appeal. And you don't make a finding of that magnitude and then give the prevailing party $1 in damages because you can't prove with reasonable certainty the extent of future damages at the time of breach. Parsons is a goner either way. Siga will be his last statement on the consequences of corporate bad behavior. IMHO of course.