1 Biotech Soars While Another Crashes

• Report this Comment On December 09, 2011, at 9:07 PM, Juddman7 wrote:

  PLEASE, NEVER REFER TO 'PIP' as our PARTNER! How sick is that! And, there are a number of reasons why the merger did not happen. Parson's ruling will go on appeal and be a thorn in Both parties sides until PIP is bankrupt. Yeah, like PIP is suppose to sit there, contribute absolutely nothing in the advancement of ST-246 and SIGA hands over half of their profits....unreal. Parson's lost it big on this one, and ONCE AGAIN, the higher courts will turn over ANOTHER Parson's ruling. The boy needs to go back to helping people get out of their speeding tickets.

  Pip isn't getting a penny, unless SIGA deems it worth it to kick that pipster to the other side of the ring.

• Report this Comment On December 12, 2011, at 9:48 AM, JohnDoe2b wrote:

  This is the first media report I've seen that accurately reflects SIGA's relationship with PIP. SIGA was called out by the judge for its unethical renege of its agreement, only after they had some success with its drug that it no longer wanted to share. SIGA's management is wasting money if it appeals. Their handling of this lawsuit (with shareholders' money) is what is weighing on the stock price. Settle and move on.

• Report this Comment On December 13, 2011, at 6:30 PM, MOSCapital wrote:

  I thoroughly disagree with you, JohnDoe2b. The contract had "non-binding" written all over it. Literally, all over it. And PIP's lawyer's even acknowledged that, but argued that it was a mistake. Really? And they didn't think to make sure it was gone before signing it? Business rule #1 = don't sign a contract if you haven't read it thoroughly, or if there is any wording you don't like or understand.

  Also, the ethical nature of the transaction is still unclear. All PIP did was give a small loan to SIGA, and SIGA paid that back with interest. PIP did nothing else to further the development or share in the costs of developing it.This isn't a drug that came about yesterday. SIGA has been the one risking it's business trying to develop this drug for years, and PIP wants a part of the profit for what? They were involved for a short time period. Where is the unethical transgression

  Finally, did you ever think that PIP didn't care about this drug until they realized it's potential? And now they are trying to make it seem like it was binding contract, when it clearly wasn't. All because they felt wronged. I'm sorry, but they signed the contract when it had "non-binding" in it. Therefore, they had to know SIGA still had final say. If they didn't then their business will fail anyways because they clearly don't know how to operate.

  Which seems more unethical, a company who invested all their resources, time, and productivity wanting the profits from their drug once they see the potential, or a company who had a flimsy agreement to merge trying to take profits from a drug for which they had no part in its development beyond a small bridge loan (which was repaid and then some)? Ask yourself that, and maybe you're answer will change. In the meantime, SIGA will put it's money to good use defending what is rightfully theirs.

  PIP may get a settlement to stop the legal fees from draining SIGA's balance sheet, but I highly doubt that the 50% of profits stands. It seems more like an empty gesture on Parson's part because he's taken an emotional stance in favor of PIP. PIP could have given SIGA a loan for 5 times the amount they did and 50% of the profits wouldn't be close to justified.

• Report this Comment On December 14, 2011, at 2:15 PM, JohnDoe2b wrote:

  The judge ruled there wasn't a contract. But it was clear from the decision, and previous lengthy rulings on SIGA's failed motions, that the judge believed SIGA was unethical for its handling of its relationship with PIP. Essentially they fooled them into thinking they were partners, took their money and reneged when things went better than expected (PIP clearly thought they were getting more than bank interest on the loan. SIGA had no collateral and without some timely luck they were toast and PIP would be unsecured.). Judge Parsons made it clear he thought SIGA was unethical and warned them to settle at the end of the trial. But SIGA stubbornly pressed on as surely as they will pursue a futile appeal, with shareholders' money.

Add your comment.