Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 6:15 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 3 hrs 15 mins

Recent

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

SIGA Technologies, Inc. Message Board

central_decision 20 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 16, 2014 11:12 AM Member since: Sep 19, 2008
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Clarity on why this gets overturned by the SC...

    by csmclemore Aug 12, 2014 12:49 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 16, 2014 11:12 AM Flag

    So now we have moved on to probability theory - scenario analysis - no more than 1/k2 of the distribution's values can be more than k standard deviations away from the mean . We all know what happens once you get past 4 models using this.

    Whats that probabilty theory where if one of the outcomes is $0 then the answer is $0 no matter what other models show?

    The standard is reasonable certainty - not probably or more likely. Who knows, maybe the Supreme Court will allow new law here because of the wrong committed.

  • central_decision central_decision Aug 16, 2014 10:35 AM Flag

    I guess you are not referring to the "gatekeeper" portion of the opinion but "ruling that excluded lost profits testimony was “speculative” because the plaintiff was an “unestablished” company and the expert had based the future profitability of the plaintiff not on its own (limited) financial performance, but on the performance of much larger “established” companies that were not “substantially similar” as to any objective business metric. The opinion could make it difficult in the future for a newly-established business to claim lost profits entirely out-of-line with its more limited, start-up earnings; as the Court observed, the “trial court’s ruling merely meant that Sargon could not obtain a massive verdict based on speculative projections of future spectacular success.” "

    The number calculated will be huge. If we want this over fast, we can only hope that Holiday Inn Express Parsons sets the appeal bond high so the Chief Justice has to put his boots on sooner than later to kick it back down. I see the Supreme Courts remand addressing Parsons personally for dragging this out since 2006 and it still not being over.

  • central_decision central_decision Aug 15, 2014 3:04 PM Flag

    If they will not reply, I will. Don't want you to feel lonely.

    You have to understand that they cannot reply with any reasonable certainty.

    They are investing in a stock without looking at the 6 models put forth by the "expert". They have not seen the model that generated the $10 million damages number. The "expert" took into account what you are saying - but lets not address that. Hang in there if you want but I feel the stock will go down more once the huge award (calculation) is put into the order. It will be like the world is ending. Then the SIGA attorneys will use the information in record to appeal. No one knows the final outcome with reasonable certainty but if PIP gets anywhere near what Holiday Inn Express Parsons is looking at - it will new law. For one, I am not sure the Supreme Court wants to go there.

  • Reply to

    Clarity on why this gets overturned by the SC...

    by csmclemore Aug 12, 2014 12:49 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 13, 2014 7:02 AM Flag

    I am not saying you did but PIP's expert did. How can you say that reasonable certainty standard has been met when PIP's own expert put forth a model with 0% chance of commercialization. Do we not expect SIGA to bring this up on appeal? The standard is reasonable certainty not reasonable, probably or even most likely. I would say your calculation is in the ballpark; yes, (its a big ballpark) but does it reach the reasonable certainty standard? No.

    From the transcript:
    "THE COURT: All right, but now, in this case, I think we have the plaintiff's own expert saying -- depending if he makes these assumptions, he gets in the range of $10 million in damages. If he makes some other assumptions, he gets a billion 70 million in damages or something like that. If I change this assumption, I get 400 million. I do this one, I get 600 million. I mean, to me, it looks like that whole wall behind me, and I'll just take a dart and throw it at the wall, and that will be the damages."

  • Reply to

    Clarity on why this gets overturned by the SC...

    by csmclemore Aug 12, 2014 12:49 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 12, 2014 11:40 PM Flag

    I guess I would feel better if you could have Baliban calculate with reasonable certainty the future profits the all the Ebola drugs will have in the future. Also, use the probability of success he used in the model that generated the $10 million answer in your calculation. Hence the problem with your conclusion. We cannot be sure any Ebola drug will make to market so there is no reasonable certainty - much like ST-246. Baliban put forth six models and the $10 million one shots down any chance of reasonable certainty.

  • Can I say with any reasonable certainty that the Supreme Court will overturn Parsons? No. If the standard is probably or most likely, the answer would be yes.

    I would challenge Baliban to calculate the profits today from any drugs under development by either PIP or SIGA (other than ST-246) with reasonable certainty. It cannot be done and that is the issue. You can use probability models to get a number but they do not reach the reasonable certainty requirement. Try it for any of the Ebola drugs - who can say with reasonable certainty which one if any will make money as of today? Give it a couple of years - you might have a better shot (SIGA attorneys please feel free to use this example in the appeal).

    Baliban put forth 6 different models/calculations and Parsons goes for the $1.07 billion answer where there was an 84% chance of commercialization (note 16% chance of it not being commercialized). This was the calculation with the highest outcome to PIP. One of Baliban's calculation had an outcome of $10 million that if I recall correctly showed a a 0% chance of commercialization. So you tell me - speculative or not?

    I believe there will be another drop in SIGA when the number is calculated and released. I will buy then. PIP will go up and the Company will issue more stock to take advantage of the price increase. Parsons once again will be overturned by Supreme Court and give PIP the $1. It should not take as long for them as they have already heard the case except for the new Justice. Can I say that with reasonable certainty? No, they could always change the legal standard of reasonable certainty to most likely.

    SIGA did PIP wrong but PIP could have avoided this by paying their lawyers the $10,000 it would have taken to get everything in writing. So here we sit wasting another year.

  • Reply to

    Parsons statement during the trial .........

    by central_decision Aug 10, 2014 11:35 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 12, 2014 11:04 AM Flag

    Day 4 after Holiday Inn Express Parsons embarrassment.

    Today over breakfast, it was explained to me that if Baliban could calculate a drug's value with any reasonable certainty that he would not be an expert witness but a private hedge fund partner. But then again, he did hedge his bet by providing six calculations varying from $10 million to $1.07 billion - so somewhere in these numbers there must have been some reasonable number even if it was not certain.

  • central_decision central_decision Aug 11, 2014 12:16 PM Flag

    We are hear today because PIP would not spend $10,000 in legal fees to finalize an agreement in 2006. SIGA did PIP wrong. Bankruptcy is a federal court and they would just reduce the award if it ever came to that. You say it is worth $5.45 - you can make 3 times your money. Per your calculations, you should put all your money in PIP and you will be rich.

    Parsons is an embarrassment and we do not need to wait for the Supreme Court to overturn his decision to know that..

  • Reply to

    Parsons statement during the trial .........

    by central_decision Aug 10, 2014 11:35 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 11, 2014 2:37 AM Flag

    The Supreme Court held that promissory estoppel was not applicable but that expectation damages are. Past that we will have to agree to disagree. Expectation damages that are speculative, uncertain, contingent, and conjectural amount to $1 plus various attorney, etc fees.

    Parsons knows the level of wrong SIGA did through the reading of the emails covered by client attorney privilege. He knows that the Supreme Court would not go for an equitable income stream, The Supreme Court never held the expectation damages were not speculative - only that they are the remedy available. One of those emails had to state that if PIP won they only get a $1 and coming from someone out of Columbia Law(Drapkin) - that has to really get under Parsons skin.

    I will not venture a guess as to what SIGA's appeal will say but you need to look no further than Parsons September 22, 2011 Opinion which states:
    "Having carefully reviewed the testimony and reports of PharmAthene’s experts,
    including especially Baliban, I find that PharmAthene’s claims for expectation damages
    in the form of a specific sum of money representing the present value of the future profits
    it would have received absent SIGA’s breach is speculative and too uncertain, contingent,
    and conjectural. Therefore, I decline to award such relief. The evidence adduced at
    trial proved that numerous uncertainties exist regarding the marketability of ST-246 and
    that it remains possible that it will not generate any profits at all. These uncertainties
    relate to, among other things, regulatory matters, questions of demand, price,
    competition, and the parties’ marketing competency."

    "The huge fluctuations in Baliban’s estimated damages (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) based on changes to a few variables in his analysis confirm that it would be unduly speculative to attempt to fix a specific sum of money as representative of PharmAthene’s expectation damages.

  • Parsons from the transcript of the trial:
    "THE COURT: All right, but now, in this case, I think we have the plaintiff's own expert saying -- depending if he makes these assumptions, he gets in the range of $10 million in damages. If he makes some other assumptions, he gets a billion 70 million in damages or something like that. If I change this assumption, I get 400 million. I do this one, I get 600 million. I mean, to me, it looks like that whole wall behind me, and I'll just take a dart and throw it at the wall, and that will be the damages."

    I stand by my statement that he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before writing this Memorandum Opinion. Everybody is laughing at him except people working in the Delaware Courts that have to live with the embarrassment.

  • Reply to

    Don't blame the judge for punishing siga

    by pagesus52 Aug 10, 2014 10:27 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 10, 2014 11:28 PM Flag

    You get a really. Parsons is wasting our time with this ruling.

    Parsons from the transcript of the trial:
    "THE COURT: All right, but now, in this case, I think we have the plaintiff's own expert saying -- depending if he makes these assumptions, he gets in the range of $10 million in damages. If he makes some other assumptions, he gets a billion 70 million in damages or something like that. If I change this assumption, I get 400 million. I do this one, I get 600 million. I mean, to me, it looks like that whole wall behind me, and I'll just take a dart and throw it at the wall, and that will be the damages."

    You can check the transcript as this is a quote. Everyone is free to re-post this.

    Now for my best line of the year - I guess Parsons stayed at the Christiana Road Holiday Inn Express the night before he pinned this Memorandum Opinion.

    I do not know what tomorrow brings but for Parsons - the other Justices will turn and walk the other way when they see him. This is an embarrassment to the court that prides itself in being the premier court in the US.

  • Reply to

    Assumptions,Speculation = Embarrassment

    by cnova7912 Aug 10, 2014 12:22 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 10, 2014 3:07 PM Flag

    Maybe you should check the trial record - PIP's expert had 6 different calculations with the lowest being $10 million. He had Parsons so confused that he said the evidence presented was like asking him to throw a dart at the wall behind him to get a number. If you were not there you can order a copy of the recording so you can see how it went down. This is just a waste of another year - he did no one any favors.

  • Reply to

    Why does anyone think SIGA will win on appeal?

    by high4stocks Aug 10, 2014 11:31 AM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 10, 2014 2:44 PM Flag

    The Court is a court of equity and the Delaware Supreme Court will hold fast to that.

    SIGA will assist in the calculation of an amount and will appeal when Parsons issues the order. An overriding factor in a court of equity for expectation damages is they cannot be punitive - look at the case law. Parsons just cannot get passed what he read in the emails covered by client attorney privilege and the selective memory he heard during the trial from Donald Drapkin.

    This is just another waste of a year.

  • central_decision central_decision Aug 10, 2014 10:49 AM Flag

    Baliban had 6 calculations ranging from 1 billion to 10 million. Parsons choose the billion answer and it will be turned over as a matter of law. Parsons own statements during the trial like the one were he asked Baliban how his calculation were anything other than throwing a dart on the wall behind him and Baliban agreeing will come back to haunt him. Parsons has never been able to get past what he read in the emails covered by client attorney privilege and are they not allowed to be considered but it burns Parsons.

    This will be left to the lawyers making north of $750 an hour to argue. His opinion will be waste of another 2 years.

  • Reply to

    Expectation Damages

    by spacenukes Aug 8, 2014 9:40 PM
    central_decision central_decision Aug 8, 2014 11:38 PM Flag

    Per the LATS, SIGA was to get 10% royalty plus 50% of net profit of government sales. If the cost to produce is $50, add the $10 royalty and split the remained - you get $280 million. SIGA will appeal and this will drag out forevermore.

    If hard to get past the reasonable certainty requirement when there has only been a contract for 1.7 million verses the 14.7 million used in the award. This will be shot down as punitive. Parsons did no one a favor with this ruling and his own words will be used in the appeal.

  • central_decision by central_decision Aug 8, 2014 10:59 PM Flag

    This will be appealed and drag on another 2 years.

  • Reply to

    Short Interest down. Alot!

    by sigakingone Jul 27, 2014 7:12 PM
    central_decision central_decision Jul 27, 2014 8:53 PM Flag

    Yeah, I would not want to be short when the opinion comes down - too much risk for a little reward at most. Parsons will be issuing opinions this week but only he knows if SIGA/PIP will be one of them. He has no opinions so far this month and there is no way that is acceptable to a Court that takes so much pride in their statistics.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    More Great News

    by saint_van46 Jun 25, 2014 4:00 PM
    central_decision central_decision Jun 27, 2014 4:34 PM Flag

    Yea, the stock has been taken down this week in anticipation of the change. The volume today seems a little excessive for just this though.

  • Reply to

    100,000 + shares traded in 10+ minutes

    by sellhighdrinklow Jun 25, 2014 11:47 AM
    central_decision central_decision Jun 27, 2014 4:12 PM Flag

    They blew past that at the end of the day today. Not too many holders with the number of shares that were let lose at the close. A little window dressing before the end of the quarter. Time will tell.

  • Reply to

    Hear Comes Da Judge

    by jacat62 Jun 19, 2014 8:07 PM
    central_decision central_decision Jun 23, 2014 9:45 AM Flag

    Parsons generally likes to have a ruling at month end - hopefully it will be the PIP/Siga so everyone can get on with their businesses. I do not see any new clerk shining any light here.

    Sentiment: Buy

SIGA
1.44-0.09(-5.88%)Sep 15 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
NasdaqGSMon, Sep 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
21Vianet Group, Inc.
NasdaqGSMon, Sep 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT