Also, parsons got it wrong with estoppel, that caused delays and more legal fees. If he came up with 113 million to start with we may be done with this whole thing. So why should siga foot the bill for added delays for interest and legal fees?
Bad faith it is . But can profit be determined without speculation. You admit he probably would have a different award if siga sold more 246. He's just speculating on #s then in my opinion. Not knowing the sat date or the finish date of a contract or how much raw material is needed to finish all has an impact on profits.
I'm not sure if either company tried settling. But if not siga has no choice to fight on. If they happen to get another contract on this wonder billion $ drug they can pay if not pip gets less.
Why can't you stick to the questions posed? Instead you just rant about shorts and painting the tape etc. None of which has anything to do with stock price. Both stocks are down because it's dead $ on appeal for awhile. Both companies thought they were fighting over a whole pie and it turns out they are squabbling over a burnt crust. Neither company has a pipeline or a business besides lawsuit.
I lost $ when i bought stock when it was over $6 listening to message board pumptards. I already stated SC may not even hear appeal. I think I'm pretty fair here. I may be stopped out of my recent position soon. Appeal means dead $ for awhile. Both companies should settle which I also said before. But the amount of the award does not matter. You pip pumptards keep saying drug was worth billions not me. The award is now based on proving profits lost. It is not an easy equation to figure out. Many "horses" in same race for barda $ failed every horse is different but they are running in the same race for barda $. Nature of the game is speculative. Proving profits lost with many variables difficult. I bet anything if siga had delivered billions in 246 parsons award would be different what does that tell you?
He hasn't cost me any $ but you can't accept that someone has opinion other than yours. Yes do the comps what drug in same stage sold for billions? Take a look at some other companies that were trying to secure barda $ like cbli. Fda pulled their pathway and barda ran.
Just because biodefense was funded doesn't mean siga was guaranteed anything. "When siga breached, it was a whole lot less" so less speculative than a lot speculative equals guaranteed profits?
Here's another question, let's say siga still had the entire contract in Original form. And they delivered $3 billion worth of 246 and it was all delivered before 2010. Do you think parsons award would still be the same as it is today?
If it was house they were arguing over you do comps in the area to get a reasonable figure. If it was on an established business in would be based on prior years.
It doesn't matter what anyone thought the drug was worth. Expectation damages for lost profits and they can not be speculative.
2 billion guaranteed in 2006? Where's the $? I guess a guarantee with the govt is non speculative.
I haven't read it in awhile but it appears that making it a type 2 means that expectation damages can be awarded. However, expectation damages can not be speculative.
99 An expectation damages award presupposes that the plaintiff can prove damages with reasonable certainty. Callahan v. Rafail, 2001 WL 283012, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 16, 2001) (citation omitted) (“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.’”).
Of course you miss the real point. Siga was in uncharted territory with 246. Making the speculative nature of this process even greater. But stick to your stupidity of trying to attack me.
Tested on animals that actually had the disease. If you don't know this is a much different process than say a cancer drug in phase 3 your a moron. Are you 12?