The following is excerpted from the question-and-answer section of the transcript.
(Questions from industry analysts are provided in full, but answers are omitted - download the transcript to see the full question-and-answer session)
Question: Steve Brozak - WBB Securities - Analyst
: Congratulations. This is really something you guys have been working hard on and looking forward to. I'm going to use a word that I really hate,
but it unfortunately describes what people are interested in. Can you give us some granularity on what these numbers mean in terms of how the
ruling basically has gone into place and how it affects the contract that was awarded specifically for PharmAthene? And I'll have one follow-up
question after that and I'll jump back into the queue.
Question: Steve Brozak - WBB Securities - Analyst
: Okay, and that actually leads me, and you've partially answered the question, what kind of time frames are we looking at here? And I'll jump back
into the queue to let other people ask questions.
Question: Steve Brozak - WBB Securities - Analyst
: Well again, congratulations. Let me hop back into the queue and I look forward to more good news. Take care, gentlemen.
Question: Matt Duffy - Concept Capital Markets - Analyst
: Good morning. Thank you for taking my question and congratulations, it's been a long process. Several quick questions. First of all, I was wondering
if you could walk us through what you believe the next steps are to get from here to procurement for 246 under the existing contract. And then
within that contract, what portion of the $433 million do you believe is development versus procurement?
Question: Matt Duffy - Concept Capital Markets - Analyst
: Okay, that's very helpful. One quick aside on the attorney's fees. The judge only offered, or I should say ordered SIGA to pay one-third of your
attorney's fees. Can you give us any color on what the rationale -- looking at the verdict or his write up, it wasn't clear exactly why it was only a
third. And is that something that you guys might appeal?
REFINITIV STREETEVENTS | www.refinitiv.com | Contact Us
consent of Refinitiv. 'Refinitiv' and the Refinitiv logo are registered trademarks of Refinitiv and its affiliated companies.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 / 1:00PM, ALT.OQ - PharmAthene, Inc. Conference Call to Discuss Delaware Court of
Chancery Decision
Question: Matt Duffy - Concept Capital Markets - Analyst
: Okay, that's very helpful. Thanks. One last thing and I'll jump back in the queue. Can you talk about any clinical steps or steps on the application,
whether with FDA or BARDA or anybody else within the government? Steps that SIGA and you now will have to go through between now and
them actually placing orders and actually purchasing product?
Question: Matt Duffy - Concept Capital Markets - Analyst
: Okay, very good. Thanks and congratulations again.
Question: Joe Pantginis - ROTH Capital Partners - Analyst
: Good morning and congratulations as well. This is a great feather in your caps. Two questions, Eric first, thanks a lot for the color you gave regarding
the appeal, that it's really not a protracted process. Can you provide any additional color with regard to the appeal process and any potential
financial commitments that SIGA would have should they file an appeal? And then I have a follow-up. Thanks.
Question: Joe Pantginis - ROTH Capital Partners - Analyst
: Okay, great. Thanks a lot for that. And then a little technical question. I don't know if you can address this at this point unless I missed it. Any potential
roundabout figure about potential reimbursement on these legal and expert fees?
Question: Joe Pantginis - ROTH Capital Partners - Analyst
: Sure, great. Thanks a lot, guys, for the color.
Question: Nathan Cali - Noble Financial Group - Analyst
: Thanks for taking the questions. Congrats again, guys. A nice win for you. I just had a quick question on the trial. It's on an appeal situation. It's my
understanding from reading the transcript that it may be difficult because of the bad faith that was flushed out in the trial and that this was a bad
faith ruling. And based upon Judge Parsons' knowledge in the case over the last -- starting in 2007, and his ruling from the bench without a jury,
that that would make it more difficult to appeal in this situation.
| 
