Seeking Alpha

G. Hudson

View as an RSS Feed
View G. Hudson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    I think both stocks will go up some after a final decision is made but I believe SIGA's will go up dramatically after PIP's award is drastically reduced!!!
    Jul 30 10:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ackman has new questions for Herbalife [View news story]
    I question the sanity of anyone who would go long JC Penney and short Herbalife (LOL)
    Jul 30 10:24 AM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    The good news is that SIGA has picked up the pace in their manufacturing and delivering of the drug. :) It only took 58 days to deliver 3rd shipment of almost 200,000 courses-

    http://www.siga.com

    "May 29, 2013 SIGA Completes Second Delivery of Arestvyr(TM) Under BARDA Contract"

    "July 16, 2013 SIGA Meets Drug Delivery Condition Under BARDA Contract and Qualifies for First Payment for Delivering Arestvyr(TM) "

    Great news for SIGA since they will add $79 million to their assets prior to any ruling-

    "SIGA has met a key requirement of its contract with the Government's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and has qualified for a payment of approximately $79 million for the courses delivered to date."

    Possibly good news also for those of you who believe PIP will share in this too. Both stocks going up today as a result of the news!!!!!
    Jul 16 10:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    Larry & Jeff,

    One of the points I am trying to get is for VC Parsons to understand that he already has all the information to make a decision. He doesn't need PharmAthene and SIGA to run up more legal and professional witness fees. He needs to do his review of the SC ruling, re-review of all of his prior information, research as much case law as he can find to support a ruling that will not cause or at least will withstand a SC appeal, and then make a ruling.

    Both companies stocks will be better off to get this behind them. I think both company's stocks are undervalued and if anyone wants to own both stocks, they will be better off after the case is over. Of course, whichever company gets the best ruling versus the prior ruling by VC Parsons should do better. As everyone knows I think it will be SIGA and Jeff thinks it will be PIP. You can't go wrong buying either company's stock but you will do better if you can pick the winner.
    Jul 16 09:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    Jeff,

    Thanks for the tip. I will email Stacey. Also, for the record, I hope PIP's share price goes back up too when all the dust settles from this case. I think VC Parsons is not doing either company a favor by dragging this out.

    thanks,
    glenn
    Jul 11 04:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    SIGA stock up nicely over last couple days! I wonder what happened at PharmAthene's presentation-

    PharmAthene To Present At The JMP Securities 2013 Healthcare Conference On Wednesday, July 10, 2013

    http://bit.ly/176Ke8N;highlight=

    Anyone know???
    Jul 11 01:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    NOTE: SIGA shorts have been covering during the last couple months and since the court ruling-

    Settlement Date Short Interest Avg Daily Share Volume Days To Cover
    6/28/2013 6,427,051 304,690 21.093738
    6/14/2013 6,582,598 236,072 27.883857
    5/31/2013 6,997,681 396,116 17.665737
    5/15/2013 7,531,635 165,158 45.602605

    Read more: http://bit.ly/18bgGLW

    NOTE: (Still huge # as percentage of average daily volume-> 21 days+)If there ever is an announcement that VC Parsons was properly looking at awarding just reliance damages-> SIGA's share price could explode just from short covering
    Jul 11 09:55 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    Villian,

    I am sorry you feel that way. As we live in a country known for its openness and for allowing people to question anyone including the President, I feel it's my right as well as your right to openly critique anyone in a leadership roll. If you have a different opinion about VC Parsons and his conducting of this case, please feel free to write your own letter and have it published.
    Jul 10 07:02 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    Villian,

    Sorry you feel that way- I am confident of my interpretation of this case and since we live in a country where we are allowed to speak our opinion even to judges (or if he was even the President of this country), I believe I have a right to voice my opinion to him as well as to everyone else.

    If you have a different opinion, I would suggest that you write your own letter and get it published.
    Jul 10 06:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene Vs. Siga: An Open Letter To Delaware's Vice Chancellor Parsons [View article]
    1) obviously the facts were different but their management changed their mind once before too - just noted VC Parsons' comment about that change of heart

    2) VC Parsons has made it clear that if he can find a way to award damages to PharmAthene, he will. You and I just have a different view of what those damages should and will be.

    3) I am sure you don't see anything new so as our opinions are quite different, I am looking forward to the final determination of this case as to who is right but we both might be waiting for a while.
    Jul 10 06:31 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How An Improved Damages Award Against SIGA Would Affect PharmAthene's Valuation [View article]
    Jeff,

    Long article with a lot in it. Obviously you put a lot of time and effort in to it. Sorry but I don't have the attention span to read through some of it but the areas I read didn't change my mind as to the outcome. Also at a quick glance I immediately saw some problems with a calculation that seemed should have been fairly straight forward. Here is that excerpt where you were calculating PIP's share projected share price-

    "Nevertheless, multiplying this conservative 12.75 by $1.49 = $14.24 per share."

    I don't know if you meant to multiply or to add but obviously you added the two numbers together. Not sure which way you wanted to go. Anyone can make that kind of mistake so just wanted to point it out to you.

    The main thing I found interesting in your article were the statements by VC Parsons at the hearing-

    "So, number one, I think I have to look at what the Supreme Court said, and go back and address in the context solely of a breach of contract. . . . I'm taking a fresh look at expectation damages. And if I conclude that I can't do expectation damages, I'll take a fresh look at what equitable relief, if any, I can grant in the circumstances. (pp. 12-13)"

    For all of those people who think VC Parsons can just try to make another equitable payment stream to satisfy an expectation damage award, this statement seems to once again contradict that methodology. After reading your selected statements from the hearing (which I assume are there more to support PIP's view) I am even more confident that there won't be an expectation damage award and only reliance damages will be awarded.
    Jul 5 10:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why PharmAthene Will Win Its Suit With SIGA And How Much It Will Collect [View article]
    VC Parsons comment - "if any, I can grant in the circumstances"

    IF ANY - is the multi-million dollar question so it's obvious VC Parsons isn't sure he can do it and I can guarantee if it's questionable unfortunately both companies and their attorneys will be headed back to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
    Jul 2 10:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene's Damage Award Will Be Limited To Reliance Damages [View article]
    The below excerpt explains why- WHEN THERE IS A CONTRACT- unjust enrichment, which VC Parsons used as his method of determining his damage award under promissory estoppel, can not be used!!

    From pages 69 & 70 of VC Parsons 9/22/11 opinion

    Unjust enrichment is the “unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money . . . of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity. . . .”146 To succeed on a claim for unjust enrichment, a party must show: (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a relation between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) the absence of a justification; and (5) the absence of a remedy at law.147 “A person who officiously confers a benefit upon another is not entitled to restitution,”148 however, absent having first afforded the recipient an opportunity to reject the benefit.149------->... Moreover, unjust enrichment involves a threshold inquiry: “whether a contract already governs the relevant relationship between the parties.”150 If so, “then the contract remains ‘the measure of [the] plaintiff’s right.’”<<<--...
    Jul 1 07:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene's Damage Award Will Be Limited To Reliance Damages [View article]
    Another excerpt from page 35 of the SC opinion-

    "The Eighth Circuit then proceeded to analyze the question of whether Goodstein would bar expectation damages for breach of a Type II agreement. The Eighth Circuit noted that the Goodstein court rejected expectation damages because there would be no way to measure them without knowing whether the parties would have reached an agreement.92 The Eighth Circuit questioned whether Goodstein would still apply if a judge could discern “what agreement would have been reached.”93------>&... Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit declined to award expectation damages because the “[t]erm [s]heet was silent on significant issues”and “the missing terms [could not] be judicially determined by objective criteria inthe [t]erm [s]heet itself or in commercial practice, usage, or custom.<<<---...

    REMINDER EXCERPT FROM MY ABOVE COMMENT: """"""""The Bridge Loan Agreement and Merger Agreement provisions incorporating the LATS do not constitute a basis for binding SIGA to the terms of the LATS for a second and independent reason: they do not contain all the essential terms of a license agreement for a product like ST-246""""""



    Jun 30 09:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PharmAthene's Damage Award Will Be Limited To Reliance Damages [View article]
    FOR THOSE OF YOU STILL HANGING ON TO YOUR HOPES AND PRAYERS OF ANOTHER EQUITABLE PAYMENT STREAM BY VC PARSONS-> THE FINAL NAIL IN THAT COFFIN IS- using VC Parsons' own words-> that LATS doesn't contain all of the essential elements of a license agreement SOOOOO in other words-> even to try to come up with an equitable payment stream, VC Parsons would have to speculate and conjecture as to what those missing (uncertain) elements would have been in order to determine any percentage, amount of the revenues or net profits that could be awarded as an equitable payment stream (even though I don't think expectation damages allows for this type of payment anyway)!!!

    Excerpts from pages 43 thru 49 of VC Parsons 9/22/11 opinion titled- "The LATS does not contain all of the essential elements of a license agreement"

    "The Bridge Loan Agreement and Merger Agreement provisions incorporating the LATS do not constitute a basis for binding SIGA to the terms of the LATS for a second and independent reason: they do not contain all the essential terms of a license agreement for a product like ST-246. In determining whether all essential terms are present, a court must decide whether a reasonable negotiator in the position of one asserting the existence of a contract would have concluded, in that setting, that the agreement reached constituted agreement on all of the terms that the parties themselves regarded as essential and, thus, that the agreement concluded the negotiation."

    "Regardless of whether the parties intended to be bound, “[w]here the[y] fail to agree on one or more essential terms, there is no binding contract.”108 Moreover, where, as in this case, a plaintiff seeks specific performance of an alleged contract, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement contains all essential terms and that they are sufficiently definite to be enforced.109 Paraphrasing the statement of the applicable test in SIGA II, I must determine whether a reasonable negotiator in the position of [PharmAthene] would have concluded, in that setting, that the [LATS as attached to the Bridge Loan Agreement or the Merger Agreement] constituted agreement on all of the terms that the parties themselves regarded as essential and thus that the agreement concluded the negotiations...Having carefully considered all of the relevant evidence, I conclude that the answer to that question is no. In particular, I find that a reasonable negotiator in the position of PharmAthene would not have concluded that the LATS, as attached to the Bridge Loan and Merger Agreements, manifested agreement on all of the license terms that SIGA and PharmAthene regarded as essential. In that context, therefore, such a reasonable negotiator would not have believed that the LATS concluded the parties’ negotiations."

    "In Asten, the court ordered specific performance of a term sheet. In reaching that conclusion, the court held that the intent of the parties to split the proceeds was clear and “an unresolved administrative issue as to how to effect the split does not constitute the omission of a material term.”114 The circumstances here are different. The issues SIGA and PharmAthene implicitly left for future negotiations involve far more than simply “unresolved administrative issues.” In addition, PharmAthene has not proven that the parties believed they had reached agreement on all essential terms."

    "The key question before the court in Parker-Hannifin was whether all of the terms the parties themselves regarded as important had been resolved. There, the court held they had been.

    I cannot draw the same conclusion here. By the end of January 2006, the parties appear to have agreed on the main economic terms of a license agreement to ST-246.The logical next step would have been to turn the LATS over to the parties’ respective counsel to incorporate those key terms into a formal license agreement. PharmAthene, however, effectively preempted this next step by expressing its preference for a merger agreement rather than a license. In fact, PharmAthene tried to secure the best of both worlds by attempting to include in the merger term sheet a requirement that the parties attach to the anticipated merger agreement a full-blown, executed license agreement in case the merger was not completed. But, SIGA, through Drapkin, balked. He refused to incur the time and expense of fully negotiating a license agreement that might never be needed and instead agreed only to include in the Bridge Loan Agreement and, ultimately,the Merger Agreement, provisions that 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] . . . .”115 These facts render the decision in Parker-Hannifin inapposite"
    Jun 30 01:20 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
264 Comments
721 Likes