Least amount of brains? Please be kind and disclose how much you've lost on this stock and company. The only people lacking brains are the ones that can't read the writing on the wall......namely SIGA management does not give a crud.
You really have a funny way of interpreting things. I've never seen someone who can take every word and phrase as a positive for his side. A very risky proposition .
Change his mind, or look like a total jack hole? He basically first said the sky was blue and that's a fact, and then came back and said.....no, I think they're right and the sky is most certainly purple. No wonder the fool retired....
And what exactly did this vice chancellor say about the speculative nature of expectation damages at that time??? Your $1M question to answer .
So, are you saying that the trial judge couldn't possibly have made a MISTAKE??
What part of MAY do you not understand?? You are reading it wrong....it's that they
MAY be avaible....as in under certain terms and circumstances, some of which include
non-speculative....not may as in you "may" now take a step forward. I'm surprised that
a guy that thinks he's so intelligent can't see the dispute in the comprehension of that.
Where you're off is that you've heard them say that they reaffirm Parson's decision but remanded it to him to say that expectation damages MAY be available. MAY. You took that as they ARE available. You talk about everyone else hearing what they want to hear, but conveniently overlook certain words or phrases. Perhaps they were trying to send him a message and give him an easy out, and he didn't get it. Ever think of that? Probably not. But it is an option whether you want to believe it or not.
You are full of contradictions....one minute you state the high court is ruling, and then you state that you firmly believe PIP will win. If the high court will rule, why don't you just wait for it? Sure has been a while since the hearing though, no? If there was an affirmation, wouldn't that lean towards a quick ruling? I mean, if something was so sure and cut and dry, why would it take this long? Perhaps that's why you're clearly nervous.
Oh, well, I didn't realize that!! PIP said they "would have paid more" in court?!? My goodness, that solves it because....NO ONE ever fibs or stretches the truth or has a change of memory in court! Man, you are a silly guy, you know that??
BINDING?!?! LOL! Good one! It appears you either have a sense of humor after all, or you forgot about the little words on the bottom of the sheets.
You can back out of or breech an agreement or contract ANY time you want. And, the other party can sue...but they have to have assuredly lost something. What I am disputing now is your silly comment that SIGA STOLE from PIP. Nothing is further from the truth.
I post here because I find you amusing. Your comments are funny and sound desperate and anxious. You almost sound like you're trying to convince yourself. If you're so certain, why don't you just sit back and let what you are assured of happening, happen? You do know what they say about the dog that barks the loudest, right?
Your arguments get more outlandish the more time goes by, and the more you feel nervous. SIGA stole from PIP? So, if I agreed to sell you my bicycle for $50 and you said yes, and then I found out the bike had expensive petals on it, so I said, actually I want $200....and you said no....and then I walked away. What exactly did I STEAL from you? It was my property to being with. Just craziness....
So, if they had a fully enforceable contract, then they breached the contract, right? What's all this "SIGA negotiated in bad faith" stuff about then!?!?
Absolutely. Was it signed by both parties and approved by the board? I've NEVER seen a business contract that wasn't signed by both parties. While it isn't necessarily required by law, it is standard business practice. The issue of not NEEDING to have a signed contract to have a contractual agreement and obligation is if you are BEHAVING as if you do. NEITHER party or side was behaving as if they were acting on the agreement they had, other than the bridge loan that was repaid by SIGA and ACCEPTED by PIP.
The trial judge was wrong in the view of the SC before, no?
Your arrogance is only an attempt to convince yourself that you're right. At this point, I'm so minimally invested that I really won't be affected either way. You will. Which is the root of your nervousness.
Good luck with that.
Either you rely on events and happenings AFTER the breach or you don#$%$ irrelevant what happens after...what's important is AT THE TIME how a party was hurt. I have a hard time understanding how exactly PIP was hurt AT THE TIME. They were not successful in bringing ANY drug to market. And, if they decide to rely on the events AFTER the breach, they HAVE TO consider the fact that competition came in, and it took WAAAAY longer to bring the drug to market than anticipated, AND the FDA isn't even CLOSE to approving it. So, you can't look into the future selectively.
PS, I also think, had SIGA invested in decent lawyers with average intelligence, we wouldn't even be arguing this right now. You'd be licking your wounds on a 50M MC company, and I'd be buying a new house.
Actually, what I bought....and still buy, is that a company that has done absolutely NOTHING in the market is entitled to a MASSIVE amount of revenues just because they kinda' got screwed out of an agreement. Here's the point....had PIP been absolutely successful in bringing drugs to market and was a 2B+ market cap company due to it's knowledge and success, I'd TOTALLY get it. But, how were they damaged on this? Landing the contract and original terms or whatever would have NEVER guaranteed them success with this drug. And THAT'S the point. Period. You can insult and spin it any way you want, but that's the bottom line. HOW exactly were they damaged AT THE TIME. If I lost out on being a partner with Steve Jobs during his garage days....that doesn't mean I lost out on BILLIONS. I could have made a decision on their behalf, and insisted they listened to me, that would have thrown the whole thing into a death spiral. I don't think you get that. Hopefully the DSC does.
"We reverse the Vice Chancellor’s promissory estoppel holding because a promise expressed in a fully enforceable contract cannot give rise to a promissory estoppel claim. We also reverse the Vice Chancellor’s equitable damages award based on his factual conclusion that the parties would have reached an agreement, so that he may reconsider the award in light of this opinion".
What part of "MAY" do you not understand in that last sentence??
Hysterical. So now pip is right and going to win because of karma? Maybe you should just stay quiet and stop trying to defend pip and argue with everyone who has an opposing view. You're starting to sound nervous and desperate, and that's not a good thing. Your argument is filled with mostly opinions and insult, and rarely facts. Childish.