Are you guys eleven years old? Either way, can you kindly take this ridiculous adolescent #$%$ match somewhere else?
There is an "ignore" button, you know. It won't insulate you from the many topics directed to the attention of this Great Man, but you'll no longer read his stuff, at least.
Technical analysis, if it works at all (and I think it doesn't, or else trillionaires would be walking among us) predicts the behavior of huge crowds trading in popular stocks.
It's foolish IMO to imagine it would predict the behavior of the couple dozen day traders working this one
"Please note the words: "if" they can prove them with "reasonable certainty". That is a big IF my friend. "
I've gone through the decision, and did not find that term...except in a footnote (#99) attached to a paragraph agreeing with Parson's finding of fact re: the LATs..
If this is an honest mistake, and they said something extremely similar (though I can't find it), would you be kind enough to correct yourself?
Interestingly, The Supreme Court opinion which was put up on the PIP site yesterday along with all the other "previous court proceedings, was taken down today."
No, it's there.
You say "the market" as if the wisdom of millions was baked into this stock action, when it's really only hundreds of day traders. No instis are going to be coming in at this point. And the market can't predict Parsons. I suspect at this point even Parsons can't predict Parsons.
The market isn't like some kind of predictive oracle even under best circumstance. And these are way too obscure stocks for this to be gp best circumstance.
I see your point, and hope you're right.
I see the Supremes stating, repeatedly and explicitly, that expectation damages apply. That's blunt contradiction of Parsons, and I worry he may act accordingly. He doesn't want to be reversed twice.
Again, I do see your point. I do not, however, see it as patently obvious or clear.
"How sadistic was it for the Supremes to release the opinion on a Friday before a 3-day weekend? Torture us much?"
Ha. OTOH it's taking me, at least, the full three days to process and digest.
"Not good for M&A in Delaware... Any company that gets left at the altar will be running to court regardless of intent screaming 'bad faith.'"
"Any" company? Did you read the article? The Supremes have drawn a very narrow distinction. This applies only to certain situations (when "Type II agreements to negotiate in good faith" have been signed, and bad faith occurs), and " the record supports a finding that an agreement would have been reached but for the defendant’s bad faith negotiations.
The problem with your logic is that it doesn't lead to a favorable result for us. It will therefore be ignored and down rated.
It's an objective analysis from a respected neutral expert, and it explicitly affirms PIP's assertion that the decision makes new law. And it implicitly confirms that LATS will be the basis for establishing the expectation damages.
I realize that this is not what we want to hear. But desperate straining for reassuring interpretation is not a sound investment strategy IMO.
The appeal decision supersedes Parsons previous stance on expectation damages. That's the entire point of the appeal decision. Why are we in denial of this? How does that help us invest better?
"now PIP is limited to modest expectation damages based on Parsons' own comments in his original decision."
This seems to be the line the board's hypnotically accepting (ala "the monkeys died" and "non-binding means non-binding). But Parsons was REVERSED. He is not limited by his prior statements. He is, instead, directed by the supreme court, which contradicted his previous statements...and supersedes them.
Parson's previous view of expectation damages in this case has no bearing at this point. Nor does his previous view of the idea of returning to LATS terms. I know it's not what any of us wants to hear, but I have nearly half my savings in this stock, so I'm looking for truth rather than soothing empty reassurance.
I'm inclined to agree with you. But point out that a route is neither prudent nor realistic can not, at this point, rule out that route. Name a more prudent or realistic route he can take from here.
Parsons only resorted to promissory estoppel because all other routes were completely inappropriate. At this point, the supremes have left him no alternatives. And LATS is the only inappropriate one. Aside from LATS, it would just be Parsons completely winging it, without even the rationale of promissory estoppel to justify his speculation. He will not go that way. So will someone out there suggest where he could go, if not back to LATS?
You just can't say "it won't happen because it's patently crazy". The only remaining options are patent craziness. There's completely speculative patent craziness (just whipping up a number), or there's patent craziness with some glancing relationship with reality (LATS). He's got to go LATS.
OTOH, to repeat something I posted to another thread, if LATS terms applied, then Parsons will have to factor in the substantial time/risk/investment PIP would have been required to apply in order to gain that degree of control of ST-246. Rights wouldn't just go to PIP for free. Even in his relatively unbridled earlier decision, Parsons acknowledged expenses, etc, in his decision.
It would still be very bad, however, and perhaps worse than the 50-50 split. And I'd still really like someone to make a convincing case for why Parsons wouldn't look to LATS. A couple smart posters agree that's where the Supremes seem to have point him.
I need an antacid.
scruffyroger, that's not how you read it yesterday. What changed your mind?
Also on further thought, if LATS terms applied, then Parsons will have to figure in the substantial time/risk/investment PIP would have had to apply in order to gain that degree of control of ST-246. It wouldn't just go 88-92% to PIP for free. Even in his relatively unbridled earlier decision, Parsons acknowledged expenses, etc, in his decision.
Looks like my post didn't show, so I'll try to reconstruct. Hope it doesn't wind up duplicated.
Sorry you've been downrated for your well-reasoned point. People don't like negative news around here.
As I posted elsewhere a few mins ago, it looks like Parsons has the choice of either 1. clinging to LATS (which he thinks don't apply) to assess expectation damages (which he doesn't think are appropriate), or else 2. picking damages out of thin air, without even the thin and discredited excuse of promissory estoppel to back him up. I can't see any other route than back to LATS. Though I hope it's not so.
But that's not what I'm saying. Parsons is under intense scrutiny, and can't act capriciously or vindictively. This isn't personal.
My question is, when there's nowhere rational to go, yet you've got to find some basis, where would he go? csmclemore seems to think (re: "I see this decision as very very bad for PIP.") that he'll throw up hands in exasperation and give up. I guess that's possible, but if he assigns even $1 of expectation damage, it will be (for reasons Parsons and csmclemore both have explained) highly speculative. So why would a small highly speculative assessment be any more rational than a large one? And if he's been dropped down a rabbit hole by the supremes, as seems the case, why wouldn't he cling to LATS as the least totally insane and inappropriate vehicle? (and, dear god, don't let that happen!)