Recent

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

SIGA Technologies, AŞ Message Board

csmclemore 4 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 9, 2015 8:30 PM Member since: Jun 27, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    More magical predictions

    by csmclemore Apr 20, 2015 11:47 PM
    csmclemore csmclemore Jun 9, 2015 8:30 PM Flag

    Update: the DSC will hear the appeal October/November with a decision around January.

  • Reply to

    More magical predictions

    by csmclemore Apr 20, 2015 11:47 PM
    csmclemore csmclemore Apr 22, 2015 1:52 PM Flag

    absolutely

  • Reply to

    More magical predictions

    by csmclemore Apr 20, 2015 11:47 PM
    csmclemore csmclemore Apr 22, 2015 12:31 AM Flag

    The opening brief, answering brief, and both reply briefs (along with the final decision) are posted on the Delaware Supreme Court website, along with a video of the oral arguments. The arguments for why expectation damages are clearly laid out by both sides so there really aren't going to be any surprises in this appeal, and the facts weigh heavily in favor of SIGA. It is obviously impossible to say without speculation what the value of ST246 was in 2006, and I'd go as far as to say that that fact is uncontested even by Parsons, who argues that his remedy does rely on gross and utter speculation as to the dollar amount of the award, but that once the fact of damages are established, speculation as to the amount of the damages is ok.... which is absurd. He correctly found in his original ruling that PIPs expert testimony and formula were utterly speculative and now he has pathetically resorted to reversing his own decisions because the DSC has put him in a box.

  • csmclemore by csmclemore Apr 20, 2015 11:47 PM Flag

    Specific timeline: the DSC will hear the appea en banc in August. The final decision in favor of SIGA (reliance damages) will be released in November. Why? The general rule, followed in Delaware law and elsewhere, is that future lost profits must be established by “substantial evidence” and not by speculation. Mobile Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lindell Radiology, P.A., 1985 WL 189018, at *4 (Del. Super. July 29, 1985) (“The general rule is that loss of future profits must be established by substantial evidence and can’t be left to speculation.”); Re v. Gannett Co., Inc., 480 A.2d 662, 668 (Del. Super. 1984) (“Courts have required that loss of future profits be established by substantial evidence and not be left to speculation.”(citing 25A C.J.S. Damages §§ 162(2), 162(4); 22 AM. JUR. 2D Damages § 172, at 242-45)).

    Many seem to think that PIP got some sort of victory out off the first DSC decision. I'm guessing they haven't read the briefs and counter briefs that can be found by searching "Delaware supreme video" and scrolling to the very bottom...

SIGA
2.050.00(0.00%)Mar 19 3:59 PMEDT