With all that has happened with this company, and all that has not happened with this company, no one in their right mind would buy it. Same can be said for PIP. Each has one product and only one customer, and neither of them is going anywhere anytime soon. Most of us retail investors would be so much better off if we had never heard of either one.
Parsons doesn't necessarily have to award a dollar amount for Siga's breach of the contract. Under the contract, the companies agreed to a merger, but if for any reason a merger did not happen, PIP was to receive an exclusive license to sell ST-246 in accordance with the provisions of the License Agreement Term Sheet (LATS). Under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, whenever the subject of a contract is "unique", or when damages for breach are difficult to calculate, the court has the option of awarding "specific performance" of the contract. Thus, Parsons could simply award PIP an exclusive license to sell ST-246, retroactive to the date of the breach. I'm not saying Parsons will award specific performance . . . simply that IMO he has that option. Doing so would eliminate any problems with calculating damages with reasonable certainty.
Of course the order is going to be in PIP's favor you fool! There is no question that Siga has been found liable by both the trial court and the Supreme Court. You honestly think Parsons is now going to reverse himself on the liability issue? The only question is "how much", and whatever the amount is, it will be in PIP's favor. DYAODMF!
You are so fos! The largest individual stockholder in Siga is the infamous Dr. Eric Rose with 472,897 shares. So yes, you are both a fool and a liar!
I think you have posted many times under different user names the same old worn out arguments. You are either a liar or a fool or both. You do not own over a million shares of Siga . . . only an absolute fool would. Good try and thanks for playing.
The issue is "who shafted whom". Both Parsons and the Supremes ruled that Siga management shafted itself. Just to play along with your meaningless game, both Parsons and the Supremes found Siga liable to PIP. The Supremes directed Parsons to recompute damages under a breach of contract theory, rather than promissory estoppel. Whether Parsons got the damages issue "right" remains to be seen, and whether you think he did or not doesn't really matter does it?
Well moron, in case you missed it, Parsons found Siga liable and so did the Supremes, each on different theories of liability, but liable just the same. Siga, in fact, shafted itself. That is the reality that Nice... (and apparently you) continue to struggle with. But hey, if blaming Parsons will make you feel better, then have at it.
Nice... you wouldn't know reality if it busted you in the mouth. Siga shafted itself; most everyone on this board knows it. Both the trial court and the Supremes said so. Only question is how much? Parsons will do his best to get it right, whatever right is. As long as his award and conclusions of law are supported by evidence in the record, the Supremes will uphold him.
I don't believe they could survive a shareholders' suit for breach of fiduciary responsibilities.
Chimerix announced today it has replaced its CEO with its Chief Medical Officer over the public backlash over the company's initial refusal to provide its antiviral drug to the 7 year old Virginia boy suffering from adenovirus. The boy's father confirmed the virus has all but disappeared following treatment with the drug.
The market has hammered bios recently, and Barda reducing the Sparvax contract isn't helping either. Its been nearly 90 days since oral arguments; time for a decision.