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

SIGA Technologies Inc. Message Board

csmclemore 4 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 22, 2015 7:58 PM Member since: Jun 27, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • csmclemore csmclemore Jul 22, 2015 7:58 PM Flag

    1) I'm insulted! I believe development-stage companies must never be allowed to walk away from signed contracts... any that do should obviously be made to pay reliance damages. 2) Nope. Not even PIP is attempting to claim definite, certain, and reasonable data for the ascertainment of expected profits existed in 2006 as you are... because that would be dumb. PIP's whole argument is that once damages are established, the amount of the damages can be speculative... which is equally as dumb. 3) You stopped using numbers and after about your fourth sentence you jump on the crazy train and never look back so I will concede your point that I may have to put drop on ignore. I'm curious about your last discussion on insider buys and sells though and why you even bring it up and how you think it's relevant? Are you seriously suggesting the insiders making those trades have a line on how the SC is going to land on this? If they did, don't you think we would see a lot more insider buying and selling? Why bring it up? It is obviously irrelevant.

    Ok, seriously, I'm out. You can have the last word.

  • csmclemore csmclemore Jul 22, 2015 6:07 PM Flag

    Tee, you are deluding yourself 1) the BUSINESS must be long established with uniform profits, not the business sector. SIGA circa 2006 uniformly produced zero profits. 2) definite, certain, and reasonable data for the ascertainment of expected profits did not exist in 2006 and does not exist now. 3) Sigh, no. 4) You ignored the "limited, reasonable future time" requirement. How many years post breach is a "limited, reasonable future time". Let me help, in most cases, it is a year or less, not several years.

    But keep trucking brother. I'm out until the Supremes weigh in, I just couldn't help responding to you post because you are in fantasy land.

  • csmclemore csmclemore Jul 22, 2015 5:12 PM Flag

    "Generally, in order to prove damages resulting from lost future profits (which are not too speculative for recovery), it is necessary to either have a liquidated damages clause within the contract being enforced, discussed hereinafter, or it is necessary to prove that there is a business which has been long established, has uniformly made profits, there is definite, certain, and reasonable data for the ascertainment of such anticipated profits, and such profits were reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract. In such circumstances, anticipated profits may be recovered, at least for a limited, reasonable future time, even though they cannot be computed with exact mathematical certainty."

  • 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.

2.460.00(0.00%)Mar 13 4:00 PMEDT