Insmed Inc (INSM)

[wjlknew]

Comments re your proposed letter:

CEO Allan didn't give away the short stature market. If you recall, a jury (right or wrong) determined that Insmed infringed the patent. Faced with the possibility of an injunction or substantial monetary damages, what would you have done ... "give away" the indication or pay several times what you could ever hope to earn by appealing the verdict (and possibly bankrupting the company in the process).

I have seen several statements to the effect that Insmed was only banned from "marketing" Iplex for short stature. Although it is not the definitive document, the PR is all we have at this juncture and that is simply not true. The PR states: "As a consequence of the court's finding that Tercica's patents were infringed, Insmed will no longer be able to provide IPLEX in the U.S. for severe Primary IGF-1 Deficiency and the following indications: Primary IGF-1 Deficiency, Noonan's Syndrome, Laron Syndrome, Growth Hormone Deficiency, and all other short stature indications; and Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency." NO LONGER ABLE TO PROVIDE means no longer able to PROVIDE. You can argue all day that "provide" means "market", but it does not. The final document will no doubt define "provide" very precisely.

I do agree with one thing. The CEO is overpaid.