PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 2627-VCP (Del. Ch. May 31, 2012).
Issue Decided: In response to a request for a post-decision proposed form of Order, the Court reviewed different proposed forms of Order with 30 different points of disagreement submitted by the parties regarding the form of Order to implement the post-trial written decision in this case, that was summarized on these pages here, and in which the Court imposed as part of its judgment a right to future profits from the sale of a product–as a penalty at least partially due to a failure to negotiate in good faith.

The decision denying a motion for reargument of the post-trial ruling was the focus of a summary here. Other prior decisions by the Court of Chancery in this case, which of course also provide more background details, have been highlighted on these pages here, here and here.

Brief Overview

The multitude of issues regarding the exact form of Order needed to implement the Court’s decison are not of widespread applicability and so for purposes of this brief blurb, I will refer merely to the more noteworthy aspects of the opinion.  One of those is a reference to Section 4734 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code, which the Court referred to as directing the Prothonotary of the Superior Court to enter a judgment calling for the payment of a sum of money in accordance with Section 4734.  This reference is useful for those Chancery practitioners that need to enforce a judgment by the Court of Chancery for a sum certain.

The Court also discussed Court of Chancery Rule 54(d) which refers to costs that are awarded by right pursuant to a judgment, but those costs do not include attorneys’ fees. However, the Court enforced a provision in the parties’ agreement that shifted attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.

UPDATE: BloombergBusinessweek reports that the final Order has been appealed.