Biotech Values

[ThomasS]

MNTA: I'm afraid I do not understand your "concerns."
Sanofi, a MANUFACTURER, sought a TRO before the generic was even launched.
The case you cited was brought by CONSUMERS, after the product was being consumed, and obviously differed from the branded product by a different delivery mechanism.
It should be patently obvious that Sanofi is attempting to prevent loss of revenue, not attempting to prove that MNTA's product is non-equivalent and a danger to potential consumers.

"The suit alleges that two manufacturers -- Teva Pharmaceuticals and Impax Laboratories -- became aware of the problem, but failed to warn the public about differences that affected the release rate of the active ingredient."
{Does MNTA have this problem? Do you have a rationale to expect it later?}
What is your point? Do you expect Sanofi has more than a 1% chance of success in the long run? They couldn't get a TRO, thus I suspect that the Court agrees with my angle.

Barr did something to ensure greater revenues. They volunteered due to a perceived image problem.
Moral of the story: You have not provided any data which dissuades me to own MNTA. Perhaps you wish to own shares, but must buy-in at a higher (and riskier) price point and are still undecided. I recommend evaluating your individual risk tolerance.