Provided with two tutorials about damages by the DSC?
Ignored PIP's conduct on the matter?
Only to morons.
"So it's a good thing for PIP that the DSC did not uphold Parsons' unreasonably speculative holding and agreed to SIGA's appeal for an oral hearing?"
Who believes that PIP, the influence peddler(GOOG "Murtha, Pharmathene, O'Toole" for the disgusting details), and its actions have gone unnoticed by the DSC?
So it's a good thing for PIP that the DSC did not uphold Parsons' unreasonably speculative holding and agreed to SIGA's appeal for an oral hearing?
What a moron!
" Advantage is still PIP's, because SIGA flagrantly disregarded a contract because they thought they found a loophole. DE SC already said so"
Only because noone disclosed the doublecrossing, "non-binding", Murtha influence peddling
by PIP but reliance damages it will be, $1, one buck, of reliance damages?
When was last time Eiseman or Altucher were right?
Oral arguments in October/November; decision for SIGA January 2016?
"DSC is looking at a filthy rich man..."
DSC is looking at a filthy company whose primary business in 2006 was influence peddling!
GOOG " Murtha, Pharmathene & O'Toole" to educate yourselves on corruption, to understand how a genius like Drapkin was snookered, and to understand why PIP stamped "Non-binding" on documents in 2006.
PIP was trying to have its cake & eat it too & so far they have been successful.
But karma is about to bite them where the sun doesn't shine?
"There is nothing of substance to your post."
Why would a successful in every respect billionaire and his genius former lifelong friend advisor/lawyer
seek to deal with a miniscule startup biotech(with no products or revenue or contracts) located in the difficult to find outskirts of the giant metropolis of Annapolis,Md.?
"Might be a helpful place to start."
The helpful place for you to start is:
GOOG "Murtha, Pharmathene & O'Toole"
All those stories of corruption and the corrupted should keep you busy with "substance"?
Bumped to refresh memories about why anyone/ any entity would "deal or associate" with a PIP!
"Morally, this case is about a company set up to peddle John Murtha's influence, derive payments for playing, and distributing those laundered payments to Murtha et al as contributions, speaking fees, etc.
Drapkin was snookered to pay for the play and he and SIGA have suffered as a result.
With the passing of Murtha, PIP is now depending on the courts being as snookered as Drapkin to avoid BK?
To rule in favor of PIP, the DSC basically has to ignore the wording of Parsons' lengthy rationale for
selecting "promissory estoppel" and his inability to support or justify "expectancy damages" and accept the wording of Parsons' last ditch effort to support expectancy damages with a calculation that he completely discounted in his original opinion as far fetched and that never would meet the tests/cases needed to
award expectancy damages.
Reliance damages of one buck it will be?
You betcha! "