icon

Sometimes I wonder how we can take ourselves seriously.

In politics, for instance, politicians from the same party rip each other apart and slag each other in the media during primary season. The negative ads come out against members of their own party, which lessens the chances that the primary winner will be elected and also makes the job of the eventual opponent from the other side that much easier.

For an example that shows the hilarity of our legal system while also demonstrating that the grown-ups in our society are sometimes no more mature than kids on a playground, keep up with this Siga-PharmAthene business.

For those just tuning in, PharmAthene (PIP) and Siga (SIGA) were years ago negotiating a partnership for Siga's smallpox antivira ST-246. Talks went far, but Siga backed away, at allegedly the last moment, but after the impression was given that it was a done deal.

PharmAthene argued in court recently that Siga negotiated in "bad faith" while the documents that PharmAthene is arguing prove that a deal was done are all labeled "non-binding".

This sounds like the kid playing third base in dodge ball crying because the other kid said, "That's it. I'm taking my ball and going home."

It gets even better when PharmAthene argues that the label of "non-binding" was accidentally left on the paperwork. Really? Accidentally missed that little detail, hey?

Doesn't this one sound like, "The dog ate my homework?"

So then a judge sides in favor of PharmAthene, who's invested nothing aside from legal costs into ST-246, and orders Siga to share 50% of profits with PharmAthene - again, who has invested nothing into the product.

What makes this a mockery of the legal system is that judge is inherently saying that stamping "non-binding" on a non-binding agreement means absolutely nothing.
Think that's setting a precedent?

In other words, this judge is giving ammunition to every two bit clown out there to try and get someone to sign any document with the words "non-binding" on it, because according to this guy, those words don't mean anything.

On another angle, the guy that "accidentally" left the non-binding stamp on the paperwork has got to go. C'mon now, are we to take this stuff seriously?

This whole ordeal is a circus.

And the best might be the headline that read "Siga Bid for Ruling Re-Argument Should Be Denied, Rival Says."

No kidding.

So PharmAthene doesn't believe that Siga should get another shot to argue? Big surprise, considering the "rival" just handed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for an investment of chump-town legal expenses.

Let's look at the case again:

Siga was negotiating a partnership and then took the ball and went home before the game was over because mom had dinner on the table. In the process, company officials signed some documents that were labeled "non-binding" that were not really non-binding because somebody forgot to take the "non-binding" label off. PharmAthene then decided that they couldn't play dodge ball without the ball that Siga took home and "invested" in a couple of lawyers to argue that the "non-binding" label was an accident, and also that Siga wasn't really acting in "good faith" because he lied when he said mom had dinner waiting; he was actually going home to watch "He-Man: Masters of the Universe."

Shows you how much a good lawyer will do...PharmAthene could make serious bank - assuming this judge's decision stands - on a product that is not theirs and while putting up no risk - after signing an agreement that has "non-binding" stamped on it and then arguing that it was actually "binding."

I'm getting dizzy here.

This stuff is classic.

Disclosure: Long SIGA.

Add a Comment