Seeking Alpha

G. Hudson

 
View as an RSS Feed
View G. Hudson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit [View article]
    Judge Parsons hasn't released his final judgment yet. However since SIGA has calculated that amount and believe it could potentially be the correct amount, they have included in their financial statements. This doesn't mean Parsons won't come up with a different amount- I believe PharmAthene thinks the award should be closer to $240 million. However even though SIGA has based their financial statements on the above award, it doesn't stop them from having the award overruled by the Delaware Supreme Court.

    NOTE: SIGA's management still believes a reliance damage award is the correct award.
    Dec 5, 2014. 09:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit [View article]
    I believe VC Parsons current memorandum opinion is fantasy land and will be overturned by the SC. I was the only one stating that the SC ruling required VC Parsons to choose between a lump sum distribution of either expectation damages and reliance damages. I don't expect that I will waste a lot of time debating this since I am confident the SC will over turn and remand this back to VC Parsons wasting both PharmAthene's and SIGA's money. Since I try to avoid getting emotionally involved with owning a stock, I will play this to make the best return out of the present situation.
    Aug 12, 2014. 09:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Rebutting G. Hudson's 'Potential Award' Article [View article]
    Reminder about "Memorandum Opinions"-

    "Memorandum opinions are often issued in areas of well-settled law or where a particular set of facts may create imprudent case law."

    I think we can all agree that VC Parsons' memorandum opinion IS NOT AN AREA OF WELL-SETTLED LAW.
    Aug 11, 2014. 10:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Rebutting G. Hudson's 'Potential Award' Article [View article]
    Memorandum Opinion- http://bit.ly/1mCw3yQ

    "Under United States legal practice, a memorandum opinion is usually unpublished and cannot be cited as precedent. It's formally defined as: "[a] unanimous appellate opinion that succinctly states the decision of the court; an opinion that briefly reports the court's conclusion, usu. without elaboration because the decision follows a well-established legal principle or does not relate to any point of law."

    MY THOUGHT: VC Parsons' ***memorandum*** opinion definitely does not relate to any point of law. As I indicated in my articles- the SC limited Judge Parsons to a lump sum expectation damage or reliance damage award. I believe this memorandum opinion, if it becomes a final opinion by VC Parsons, will be overturned by the SC. I don't plan on wasting a lot of my time debating this fantasy opinion by VC Parsons.
    Aug 11, 2014. 09:48 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How The Judge Will Arrive At A Remedy In SIGA V. PharmAthene [View article]
    Jeff,

    I won't go there but "non sequiturs" isn't necessarily my favorite comment.

    I know Judge Parsons has spent every day trying to figure out how to award PharmAthene a large damage award but you have to wonder as time passes (This case filed in December of 2006, after many hours of hearings & research, he settled for promissory estoppel as the basis for his September 2011 damage award and now 3 years later, he is having to take all this time to come up with a ruling???) if he is having trouble finding a basis for that award which will hold up to a SC appeal.
    Aug 7, 2014. 10:09 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Highlights From Solazyme's Q2 2014 Conference Call [View article]
    Kevin,

    Thanks for your reply.

    So was any of this quarter's volume from Brazil and if not, what is the capacity there?

    Glenn
    Aug 2, 2014. 05:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Highlights From Solazyme's Q2 2014 Conference Call [View article]
    Kevin,

    Can you answer the following question- based on SZYM's current manufacturing facilities available, what % of the total optimal manufacturing capacity does the 2nd quarters $9 million product revenues represent? In other words, if you were using all capacity from your current facilities, would you be able to manufacture $90 million of product (therefore current usage is 10% ($9 million/ $90 million)?

    I will appreciate any information you can provide that will answer this question.

    Thanks,
    Glenn
    Aug 2, 2014. 10:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Responding To J. Eiseman's Rebuttal Article [View article]
    I agree with your statement that we are on the same page with the unjust enrichment award with the exception of the amount that could be awarded.

    It looks like the case decided yesterday was first submitted in November 21, 2013. It looked like it could be a fairly complex case and the opinion submitted was his first for the case. It would seem the case between PharmAthene and SIGA would be easier for him since he has over 8 years into this case. It would seem that he should be at least close to making an opinion as to how this case should move forward.
    Aug 1, 2014. 10:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Responding To J. Eiseman's Rebuttal Article [View article]
    Jeff,

    In my reply, I didn't say PharmAthene is not entitled to an award for unjust enrichment. My point was the fact that SIGA drastically needed the $3 million loan can not be used as part of the calculation for the value of the unjust enrichment award since the loan was covered by a contractual right and was repaid with interest. Yes, PharmAthene could be able to get an unjust enrichment award for the value of its teams effort in launching ST-246 that SIGA accepted and obviously didn't pay for. This amount would be significantly less than any payment stream award.
    Aug 1, 2014. 09:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Responding To J. Eiseman's Rebuttal Article [View article]
    VinceP,

    There is very little doubt that the $3 million loan was very important to ST-246 success. However, the below excerpt states that PharmAthene can not pursue a separate unjust enrichment award as a result of that loan ->excerpt from page 70 of Judge Parsons' September 22, 2011 Opinion-

    "To the extent PharmAthene's claim for unjust enrichment relies on its provision of capital in the form of the Bridge Loan, the Bridge Loan Agreement alone provides the measure of PharmAthene's rights. Once the merger had been terminated, the Bridge Loan Agreement required SIGA to "negotiate in good faith with the intention of executing a definitive License Agreement in accordance with the terms set forth in the [LATS]."152 As discussed supra, SIGA breached that duty and thereby breached that contract. Therefore, PharmAthene must look to the Bridge Loan Agreement to enforce its rights in that regard, and it cannot pursue an independent claim for unjust enrichment based on SIGA's use of the capital it provided under that Agreement."

    PharmAthene's attorneys did a terrible job of protecting their rights and therefore are to blame for not including a better articulated damage award in their two agreements with SIGA. I guess both companies made mistakes.
    Jul 31, 2014. 08:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Responding To J. Eiseman's Rebuttal Article [View article]
    Larry,

    Thanks for the compliment. I have enjoyed and respect debating with Jeff. I know Judge Parsons is a loose cannon so he may very well come up with an award closer to Jeff's analysis. However I believe the SC stands in his away of accomplishing that.

    As far as the unjust enrichment case, the SC has not weighed in on that as they are awaiting Judge Parsons' next ruling. My main thought is that the unjust enrichment award won't be as large as a payment stream award since its value will have to be based on the work performed by PharmAthene's team over a limited number of months in assisting SIGA launching the ST-246 drug. It will be hard for PharmAthene to prove that teams' work was worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Jul 31, 2014. 12:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • While We Wait For A Ruling In SIGA V. PharmAthene, One More Round With G. Hudson [View article]
    Jeff,

    Your comment:

    "whether an income stream based either on the LATS or the formula that he imposed last time would be too speculative (Again, you say "Yes" and I say "No")."

    MY REASON = I don't believe that Judge Parsons has the precedent or legal authority to impose an income stream based upon this case. It has nothing to do with being speculative. Just as he couldn't use promissory estoppel last time, I don't think there is any legal justification of a similar nature to hang his hat on.
    Jul 30, 2014. 05:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • While We Wait For A Ruling In SIGA V. PharmAthene, One More Round With G. Hudson [View article]
    Jeff,

    Thanks for responding to my article. My article doesn't state that Judge Parsons won't or can't consider an equitable payment stream, it strictly points out that the SC's recommended remedy, as demonstrated by the case laws referenced, etc., is a choice between a lump sum expectation damage award and a reliance damage award. Here is my heading excerpt-

    "•Delaware SC has sent Judge Parsons clear instructions to consider a lump sum expectation damage or reliance damage award."

    I agree with you that Judge Parsons can and is considering all possible options to award PharmAthene a large equitable payment stream award. In fact, it won't surprise me if he actually does come up with that type of award. However, my research leads me to believe he has little, if any, precedent to award one. It will be up to the SC to determine if they let the award go through which won't be that easy.

    It will be interesting to see Judge Parsons' ruling. Also I have not and will not ever try to offend you. I would never say that anyone was ignorant especially when debating the many nuances and legal options involved in this case. I am not an attorney and am open to anyone pointing out an error in reasoning on my part. I really am trying to make sure most of my money is on the right stock. However, I now own a significant amount of both companies stock (more SIGA) since I believe both stocks are undervalued.
    Jul 30, 2014. 12:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Responding To J. Eiseman's Rebuttal Article [View article]
    Jeff,

    Sounds great- I look forward to reading your article. As I mention in my article, I am not concerned about my ego as to being right or wrong. I want to know the truth, supported by documentation, as to what the likely damage award will be as soon as I can determine it. If I find out information that makes me believe I am wrong about something, I then take steps to insure that my investments align with the new found information and thus am able to make the best return on my investments.

    I hope you enjoy, as I do, the process of debating this matter. Also, I hope you don't take any of my articles as being personally offensive to you. All I am trying to do is to determine the best way to get a return out of my investments. Your articles are helpful in that they challenge me to dig deeper into this matter.

    I want to assure you that I try my hardest not to get emotionally involved with any of my investments. Even after writing this article, I have continued with my research and believe the information I have found makes me even more convinced that I am right.

    I know and agree with you that Judge Parsons has many options to look at and is not constrained by the SC from looking at methods, other than promissory estoppel, to determine the damage award PharmAthene will receive. However I think the legal constraints that he faces will severely limit the methodology he can use and that the SC was trying to get him to understand the "proper remedy". I have more information to share about this but will wait to see your newest article.
    Jul 29, 2014. 11:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. SIGA: Rebutting G. Hudson's 'Potential Award' Article [View article]
    Jeff, Thanks for responding to my article. I have many points that I plan on making to counter points you have made in your article, and may respond by writing another article. Since I am busy with other projects, I will decide over the weekend as to my method of response. I know this won't surprise you but your article has not swayed my opinion of this case. I agree with you that Judge Parsons is looking at every thing he can use to justify a large award to PharmAthene but I also know this won't be easy for him since he is very concerned that the Delaware SC doesn't overturn his next ruling.

    NOTE: I own both PharmAthene and SIGA’s stock as I believe both are undervalued though I believe SIGA’s stock will significantly increase in value after the dust settles from this case. I actually added to my PIP investment when the stock recently dipped to $1.25.
    Jul 25, 2014. 08:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
297 Comments
755 Likes