Wed, Jan 28, 2015, 8:09 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 21 mins


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

SIGA Technologies, Inc. Message Board

mustyroger 7 posts  |  Last Activity: Dec 19, 2014 3:33 PM Member since: Aug 24, 2014
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Judgment could be after hour

    by fnmaman Dec 19, 2014 2:53 PM
    mustyroger mustyroger Dec 19, 2014 3:33 PM Flag

    The Judge's ruling, if and when it comes, is not really important. The computation of damage amount has been spelled out for a while, and while the parties did not agree on the amount, there is not so much at stake there. The real issue is a settlement, or, obviously, the appeal to the Supreme Court, which will take time. I am hoping for a settlement. If the bankruptcy court kicked SIGA out, that would make a settlement very likely.

  • Reply to

    Valortim contract filled

    by spectrollmicro Nov 20, 2014 11:14 AM
    mustyroger mustyroger Nov 20, 2014 2:55 PM Flag

    Actually, in bankruptcy and with an affirmance of Parson's decision, PIP would get all the assets of SIGA, which are about 200 million, plus the value of the drug going forward. So, that doesn't seem to be nothing.

  • Reply to

    new offer to be made on sale.

    by myword2967 Nov 18, 2014 9:25 AM
    mustyroger mustyroger Nov 19, 2014 2:34 PM Flag

    Hope you are right, but seems like wishful thinking. Maybe 3.00 is more likely.

  • Reply to

    I added

    by eurafrules Nov 14, 2014 1:05 PM
    mustyroger mustyroger Nov 14, 2014 3:24 PM Flag

    I agree on the neighborhood. SIGA should benefit from a settlement at that level, or a bit less perhaps. SIGA risks everything if they continue on appeal and that makes little sense. Maybe Weil Gotshaw will make some difference in how SIGA approaches a settlement. Or the mediator may make SIGA aware of the possibility that it might lose.

  • Reply to


    by mustyroger Oct 31, 2014 4:52 PM
    mustyroger mustyroger Nov 7, 2014 7:31 PM Flag

    The case was not tried to a jury. Judge has more leeway to consider an expert than when he must decide to allow expert testimony to a jury. Second point is that appellate court can depart from the trial court's theory, but affirm the judgment. As to timing, it seems likely that the case will not be over until late-2015 or thereabouts. If mediation fails, and I think it will not fail, then the briefing, oral argument, and a decision would take about 8-9 months I expect.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • mustyroger by mustyroger Oct 31, 2014 4:56 PM Flag

    On appeal, the appellate court can affirm on a basis different from the basis of the decision below. So, the appeals court can say that the value of the drug was $x, or a range from $x to $y, use the split found by the lower court, which was 70 percent to PIP, and be done. It doesn't have to affirm the finding of a number of doses, and a cost per dose, and a discount rate. Just fair market value, which is not speculative, and the split found by the lower court. I would imagine that PIP would suggest something along these lines as an alternative for the appellate court's consideration. It's simple and it is entirely consistent with Callahan.

  • mustyroger by mustyroger Oct 31, 2014 4:52 PM Flag

    There are arguments on both sides on appeal. That suggests a settlement. Mediation works when both parties are made aware of the weaknesses in their position. A good mediator does that well. SIGA does not apparently see that there are weaknesses in its position. Having been found to have negotiated in bad faith, SIGA nevertheless wants to skate away with no penalty. SIGA's arguments have been rejected three times, and counting. Still, SIGA loves to cite Callahan v. Raines. That case, cited by the Supreme Court in its opinion, stands for the proposition that damages are not allowed if speculative or conjectural. That's SIGA's position--reliance damages are too speculative here. So, what about Callahan? Maybe a closer look will help here. Callahan is not a contract damages case. Its a negligence case where a race horse was handled in a negligent matter. The court did not allow an expert to testify about a discounted cash flow analysis. Too speculative. There are several important distinctions to consider, with the most important one being presented last. The first point is that the parties in this case, in their bargaining, both recognized and negotiated over the values. SIGA placed a high value on the drug, and negotiated for that price in bad faith, and now wants to say a high price is too speculative. That is not an easy argument to make or to win. Second, the Callahan case was heard by a jury and the Judge's job is to prevent weak-minded jurors from getting snowed by sharp-talking experts. Where the finder of fact is a Judge, however, the standard is much looser because Judge's believe they are not weak-minded. Sometimes that is even true. The third and most powerful point, however, is that Callahan allowed the jury to determine the fair market value. That was not too speculative for a jury. In this case, the court could have found that the parties established value for the drug, at that time and base the award on that value.

1.40-0.02(-1.41%)Jan 27 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

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.
Caterpillar Inc.
NYSETue, Jan 27, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Yahoo! Inc.
NASDAQTue, Jan 27, 2015 4:00 PM EST
Anthem, Inc.
NYSETue, Jan 27, 2015 4:01 PM EST