DECENT POST FROM apenny4em FROM YAHOO BOARD
Insmed has this all under control (9 Ratings) 13-Dec-06 07:01 pm The bashers have had a few great days flooding the board with opinions on the dire position Insmed is in. I loved the one being peddled by the TRCA shareholders about the merger. I have news for you guys:
1) Your bashing doesn't have ANY effect on the share price. The 'newby' who you are persuading to sell his Insmed shares has never existed. I'm afraid that you've wasted your time.
2) There will be no merger between Insmed and Tercica. TRCA's fate is at the mercy of Ipsen. There is no future for Increlex. There is no fairy tale ending for you.
Insmed's position is as follows:
They know that their case will be successful on appeal, if not sooner. Have a look at Trial Doc 952 if you doubt this. The movement in the share price during the trial was enough to tell anybody with half a brain that Insmed has a winning case - the jury's verdict was just a blip. The parties with whom they have been negotiating also know this - believe it or not, they employ the best legal eagles. Which brings me to
This trial has had a NEGLIGIBLE effect on Insmed's financial position. Insmed has been planning a partnership for a long time - knowing that they would need more cash by mid-2007. Win or lose, the trial was never going to change that.
All of the foregoing is crystal clear to the judge. She knows a partnership will shortly be announced. She knows that Insmed is confident that they will win the case sooner or later. So the idea that she has delayed her decision on the injunction for two months in order to force a settlement is laughable (and the invention of the TRCA shareholders). Which begs the question -
Why the delay?
Apparantly she is going to back the jury's verdict.
Apparantly she is going to dismiss the IC allegation.
The IC hearing was on the 29th November. All she had to do after that was to decide on the (triple?) damages and future royalties or injunction. Why the two months?
Imo, she has DECIDED that Genetech have a case to answer on the Inequitable Conduct charge, and she needs the time -
1) to go through the evidence submitted by Insmed to ascertain that it is factual. See Trial Doc 1007 - it's pretty compelling stuff. See Trial Doc 1008 - it's Genetech's response, and it has guilt written all over it. Lots of 'it was never our intention' (as though that will get them off the hook).
2) to decide on Insmed's JMOL requests.
3) to decide on the reduced damages.
And once again, there CANNOT be an injunction -
1) The judge is well aware of the applicable Supreme Court ruling.
2) The judge is well aware that Increlex cannot fill the gap which would be left if Iplex was withdrawn. TRCA/Genetech's expert witness testified that if Increlex was administered at dosage equivalent to the optimal dosage of Iplex it would cause serious side effects to some patients.
3) It is common knowledge that dosage of Increlex at ANY level promotes cancer growth - not so important when children are the patients, but absolutlly crucial for the other indications which are currently the subject of clinical trials.
4) The Federal Government has made available $7.5m for the purchase of Iplex - THEY think that it is an important development.
I live in the UK, and I work during the day. Although the bashers' posts have no effect on the share price, it's still depressing to see a board full of them. Could I ask any longs who see any value in this post to keep it, and others like it, on the front page please?
Rate it:
apenny4em
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View Messages
Ignore User
Report Abuse
