Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

G. Hudson  

View G. Hudson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • SIGA Technologies: Uncovering Hidden Value In Bankruptcy [View article]
    Johns Research- Your comment->"At this stage, I see little hope for either of those events. Investors who have bid this stock to over $2 per share need to understand that their entire investment could quite possibly be wiped out."

    So you think you are smarter than the Ronald Perelman and his team of investment advisors who continued to buy shares of SIGA AFTER the bankruptcy was files (excerpt below from above post)-

    MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. (Ronald Perelman’s company owns 25% of SIGA and continued to buy SIGA shares after bankruptcy filing)

    (see below purchases of 403,884 shares of SIGA after bankruptcy filing) Does anyone believe Ronald Perelman http://bit.ly/1IT58z1 “worth 14 BILLION dollars -26th richest American” who owns 25% of SIGA’s stock would be dumb enough to continue buying SIGA stock if he thought there was any way SIGA would end up bankrupt.)

    My comment: All of my research points to Perelman's company being right on - $195 million is chump change for him and he is not going to let SIGA go bankrupt even if he has to lend some money to SIGA
    Feb 18, 2015. 01:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • SIGA Technologies: Uncovering Hidden Value In Bankruptcy [View article]
    So you believe Chancellor Parsons can just come up with any method to calculate a damage award and a defendant has to just accept it and the Delaware Supreme Court has no say???????

    William J. Haynes II, SIGA's General Counsel, commented, "We believe the decision to award expectation damages is not supported by law with the amount of the award being completely speculative, conjectural and arbitrary. We are confident in the strength of our grounds for appeal, and will ask the Supreme Court of Delaware to overturn this judgment." ---> LINK-> http://bit.ly/16XE1kO

    Anyone who understands the case law for determining an expectation damage award knows that Judge Parsons has exceeded his authority and HIS AWARD WILL BE OVERTURNED = Reliance damages of $200,000 to $300,000 is the proper award.
    Feb 12, 2015. 09:06 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SIGA Technologies: Uncovering Hidden Value In Bankruptcy [View article]
    Edge of the Street,

    Thanks for the well written article. I was planning on writing a similar article but didn't find the time. Also, even though I own both SIGA & PIP stock (significantly less PIP), I am still very confident that the Delaware Supreme Court will throw out Judge Parsons award and that PharmAthene's damage award will be limited to an amount that approximates a reliance damage award -> between $200,000 to $300,000.

    Obviously as you have pointed out in your article, the upside for this stock, if the $195 million award is thrown out, is fantastic while the downside is minimal. For anyone interested in reading my articles supporting a reliance damage award, here are some links-

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    Feb 11, 2015. 09:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SIGA Technologies: Uncovering Hidden Value In Bankruptcy [View article]
    MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. (Ronald Perelman’s company owns 25% of SIGA and continued to buy SIGA shares after bankruptcy filing)


    (see below purchases of 403,884 shares of SIGA after bankruptcy filing) Does anyone believe Ronald Perelman http://bit.ly/1IT58z1 “worth 14 BILLION dollars -26th richest American” who owns 25% of SIGA’s stock would be dumb enough to continue buying SIGA stock if he thought there was any way SIGA would end up bankrupt.)


    9/23/14 bought 151,158 shares of SIGA @ $1.3286
    (http://bit.ly/1IT58Pj )

    9/24/14 bought 52,999 shares of SIGA @ $1.3569

    (http://bit.ly/1IT58Pp )

    11/6/14 bought 70,000 shares of SIGA @ $1.4601

    11/7/14 bought 129,727 shares of SIGA @ $1.5179
    Feb 11, 2015. 09:38 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • SIGA Technologies: Uncovering Hidden Value In Bankruptcy [View article]
    Another reason the appeal won't swiftly be rejected is -> I called the Supreme Court clerk - SIGA hasn't even filed their brief yet and has until March 2nd to file it. PharmAthene will have to wait until SIGA's brief is filed to try to have the case thrown out.
    Feb 11, 2015. 09:18 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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
COMMENTS STATS
317 Comments
764 Likes