"the May 2013 instuctions to Chancery explicitly made Expectation Damages the appropriate remedy for this sort of breach - this was unclear in 2011. The only remaining issue before the court is whether Judge Parsons clearly erred in granting those damages as $113M Principle + $80M Interest + $30K/Day."
Can you define expectation damages? They are required to be "at the time" of the breach. They can not be speculative and must be certain. Wow, you are right - this is really simply -- 113M -- no doubt. Glad that is cleared up. Wonder why Chimerix is competing for the order, wonder why FDA has done countless animal studies, dosage studies, and now human safety studies -- Still not finalized or weighed.
Hell - Parsons himself defined the extreme speculation required to get to this number -- Why he tried estoppel, didn't work.
Justin Karen L. Valihura specifically stated in the oral arguments Oct 7th 2015 -- "but isn't the issue that the damages have to be proven". Oh I guess she was just joking, probably didn't mean it.
Maybe I misunderstood -- if it was a rhetorical question -- As in why would they buy from a BK company -- If they weren't sure that company would survive --- then I apologize ---- A little touchy this afternoon -- Sorry.
I do not believe they have put in an additional order but I do believe they are working on one or more reorders. However they may have, I just don't know. I do without doubt believe Siga survives BK and will provide additional drug reserves to the SNS.
Who the freak else would they buy it from?
And while I am responding to ridiculous statements -- Are you guys serious when you suggest a company or individual should be punished by a court that has no punitive recourse for due process of the law? Siga should just pay the judgement without appeal because it's moral. Really?
Friday we are reminded of the levels of cruelty the terrorists will go to -- and a bioterrorism stock acts like this -- 100K shares less than $60K dollars in volume. Comical.
Siga has no chance of reversal from the DeSC? I was there, Strine no doubt was extremely combative with their position -- That isn't because he will find it easy to twist Delaware law to award damages PIP can't prove.
Because they are the only ones who have it (except for maybe Israeli government who likely do). DA!
"Hopefully" -- interesting word, works well with invoke - beseech, implore, beg...
Consequences -- meaning like defining the damages and awarding the ones that were "Proven" in court as the law requires -- or meaning like consequences -- like in punishment - or punitive action - disallowed in this court?
BTW -- when did using due process become evil?
And while I am on it -- Why does PIP get two bites of the apple -- they didn't close the merger because they were afraid of the non human primate results - once they were known they have been damned determined to get their "non-binding" LATS agreement instated. (for 3mm repaid loan - not 25mm at risk merger , which was worth 1.7 billion) Just doesn't feel right.
Justified, non speculative -- Parsons handled this the first time around, thoroughly and quite adeptly, unfortunately for your side. Also the DeSC upheld this finding of law.
Still long both. GLTA
sorry -- honestly just trying to understand what you are saying -- how hard do you expect? I mean what exactly -- more than the 200mm?
Do you have any idea how much debt they have? Corn is cheap for sure but they have a horrible crush spread . This company is in trouble. I think they know it. Sold 1/3 of GPP for 15 -- they wanted 25. Sure sign of strength there. They needed the cash.