The predicted values are collected from healthy subjects, based on height and age. If lung function remains constant in the face of growth and age, one would expect to see a drop in the percent of predicted. Same concept applies to lung volume parameters; absolute FVC goes up due to growth. I think the pressures are more meaningful because they have to do with strength more than size. But even here bigger = stronger. It would be useful to correlate the height delta with percent predicted delta for serial tests in a subject.
The crux on appeal is whether parsons has correctly applied the law. I have excerpted from lemore's previous comments:
In SIGA v Pharmathene, the Delaware Supreme Court found that where the parties have a Type II preliminary agreement to negotiate in good faith, and the trial judge makes a factual finding, supported by the record, that the parties would have reached an agreement but for the defendant’s bad faith negotiations, the plaintiff is entitled to recover contract expectation damages. However, they also noted that "an expectation damages award presupposes that the plaintiff can prove damages with reasonable certainty...(“It is well-settled law that ‘a recovery for lost profits will be allowed only if their loss is capable of being proved, with a reasonable degree of certainty. No recovery can be had for loss of profits which are determined to be uncertain, contingent, conjectural, or speculative.’”"
I think the degree of certainty fails on all 4 tests.
The most ridiculous part of Judge Parsons' ruling is conflating mathematical proportion, i.e. a fraction, with a mathematical probability. They can both be expressed as a percentage but they have entirely different meanings. Applying 85% probability of success to an amount the parties expected to receive ignores the 15% probability that they would receive nothing. Probability means that nothing can be determined about an outcome prior to the event's occurrence. Also probability is not based on an opinion, it is based upon a "significant" number of repeated trials and dividing the number of a certain outcome by the number of trials.
The probability approach would only be mathematically valid if enough reasonably similar circumstances could be found and the successes and failures tabulated. Even then, It would fail the tests for reasonable certainty.
siga's expert is to make the calculations based on pip's expert's model with modifications as directed by the judge. See the order available on pip web site under investor tab
I will be interested in seeing the order. Also the interest getting calculated from the time of the breach is wrong. Interest should start at the time sales are realized. Pip would not have had the benefit of income until there was revenue. Therefore they cannot be entitled to interest on money that would not have existed.
Baliban's model incorporates a probability of success, which is is another way of saying it is speculative.
Shorts don't need a "thesis". All they need is cooperation, access to algo trading platform and a sizeable account. You have to understand that the market is not transparent.The fact that there has been no phase 3 is enough to make this company attractive to short. Add to that a history of failed products on the platform. The details on etep are superfluous.
That's too big of a position for speculation, IMO.. Market Cap is currently 4.2 billion. I see a realistic cap of about 5 once Afrezza reaches the market. But It will take several hundred million more in capital to get it there. I was long shortly after the shelf at 2.50 and took profit several times up into the 8 dollar range. I bought a few puts today. If this drug was a clear winner they would have partnered it by now. It's all too easy to be long a biotech that has a good product and lose money trading their stock. Stick with an industry you know something about or dig in and learn BIO's.
"NDA is built into the street calculus".
You seem to be contradicting yourself. 1/3 of the float is short. "The street" is betting against success bigtime. This name is the new DNDN. Shorts are so burned by the citadel shelf that it's now a vendetta.
Still getting the thumbs down, GL?
Thanks for the tip on MGNX. It looks like a winner.
BTS is one of several aliases for a guy from the siga board.
Some movers on my watch are BCRX, MACK, ITMN. I'm currently fully hedged in MACK with short calls, on the sideline on the other two. Also looking for an option play in MNKD for PDUFA on 15 july.
looks to me like shorts are exiting in orderly fashion to avoid panic buying.
shorts never have to cover. The only hard motivation is interest to owner and dividends on exdiv. If you own the stock neither of these apply. And they are irrelevant when a company is failing.
Drugs administered to military must be FDA approved. However emergency authorization makes this a low hurdle under exigent circumstances.