Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

G. Hudson  

View G. Hudson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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
  • Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit [View article]
    Both SIGA & PharmAthene's (NYSEMKT:PIP) share prices are currently undervalued in my opinion. Both companies share price are valued like they both will lose this legal battle. I would encourage anyone wanting more information to read my Seeking Alpha article at this link- http://bit.ly/WFwzpY "A Case For Buying Both SIGA And PharmAthene".

    Anyone investing in both of these companies at their current share price should have an almost automatic profit in the future when the dust settles from this law suit.

    (http://bit.ly/WFwx1q) 54.5 million shares X $1.34 = $73 million
    (NASDAQ:http://bit.ly/WFwx1r) 53.3 million shares X $2.73 = $146.5 million

    TOTAL MARKET CAP = $219.5 MILLION

    SIGA's current BARDA contract should enable them to have gross profits of between $283.8 MILLION & $335.8 MILLION to split between these two companies. If Judge Parsons was to split these profits evenly between the two companies, neither company would have to pay any taxes on these profits because both companies have huge Net Operating Loss carryforwards -> PIP has over $200 MILLION NOL & SIGA has over $150 MILLION so most of this gross profit will go to either one or both of these companies as CASH on their balance sheets!!!

    NOTE: Beyond the current BARDA agreement, both companies have other opportunities that should add a lot of value to both company's share price!
    Jul 24, 2014. 09:24 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit [View article]
    Here is a link to the case -

    http://bit.ly/1rzDKMZ

    RGC International Investors, LDC v. Greka Energy Corp

    Excerpt from page 32 of the above referenced Delaware SC May 24, 2013 opinion-

    "In RGC International Investors, LDC v. Greka Energy Corp.,78 although that Vice Chancellor confusingly awarded damages for both breach of an obligation to negotiate and promissory estoppel,79 he concluded that he should “award damages and security in the amount equal to what [the plaintiff] should have received” under the term sheet.80 He reasoned that the award was not speculative because the term sheet embodied “how the parties themselves agreed to value [the defendant’s] obligations to” the plaintiff.81"

    NOTE #79 for above- "See supra notes 72–74 and accompanying text (explaining that promissory estoppel cannot arise based on a promise contained in a fully enforceable contract)."

    MY COMMENT: The Delaware SC is basically saying that Vice Chancellor Stine did not have to reference promissory estoppel in this case to derive the lump sum expectation damage award he awarded.
    Jul 22, 2014. 09:40 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit [View article]
    My answer to your comment is derived from page 21 of SIGA's January 15, 2014 reply brief on remand-

    "The purpose of awarding damages for breach of contract is to restore the non-breaching party to the position it would have been in had the breach not occurred. Duncan v. TheraTx, Inc., 775 A.2d 1019, 1022 (Del. 2001). The Court of Chancery may not award damages that exceed the parties' reasonable expectations, measured at the time of breach, regardless of bad faith conduct, real or imagined. See E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v Pressman, 679 A.2d 436, 445 (Del. 1996)"

    Also here is another excerpt explaining the difference between bad faith & fraud fro Black's Law Dictionary-

    "On the comparison with fraud, which Black’s Law Dictionary equates to "bad faith", there are two important distinctions: fraud does include bad faith but bad faith does not necessarily include fraud and "people go to jail for fraud. They don’t go to jail for bad faith" (Rocking Chair Plaza v Brampton 1988 29 CPC 2d 82)."
    Jul 22, 2014. 07:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit [View article]
    Yes I agree that Vice Chancellor has already addressed unjust enrichment but we come to different conclusions-

    Excerpt from Vice Chancellor Parsons' September 22, 2011 Opinion-

    "Conceptually, therefore, the fifth element of unjust enrichment might be satisfied. In this case, however, PharmAthene did not introduce evidence of such harm other than in connection with the overall relief it seeks based on its claims for SIGA’s breach of its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith and promissory estoppel. A further finding of unjust enrichment would not lead to different or additional relief. Thus, I conclude that PharmAthene’s unjust enrichment claim effectively is subsumed in its breach of contract."

    MY INTERPRETATION: The relief sought currently by PharmAthene, as directed by the Delaware SC, is for expectation damages from SIGA's breach of its contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith. Since the unjust enrichment claim is subsumed by its claim for expectation damages, an unjust enrichment claim is not available even if it ends up that expectation damages can not be awarded and only reliance damages are awarded. In other words, if Judge Parsons is not able to calculate an expectation damage award with reasonable certainty, he can't just turn around and try to come up with another formula to calculate an unjust enrichment damage award.
    Jul 22, 2014. 04:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Explanation Of Potential Damage Award In PharmAthene Versus Siga Lawsuit [View article]
    There has been no press release concerning this because Judge Parsons is taking his sweet time and has not ruled on this legal case even though the last hearing (1/15/14) was over 6 months ago. Apparently Judge Parsons doesn't believe in the right to a speedy trial.
    Jul 22, 2014. 02:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
322 Comments
766 Likes