| Followers | 71 |
| Posts | 3426 |
| Boards Moderated | 1 |
| Alias Born | 04/28/2004 |
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:33:20 PM
This has been discussed ad nauseam. The FTC would object vociferously to having one company own both branded Copaxone and the obligate technology for making a generic version of Copaxone for the US market.
I agree with that.
But let's pretend I'm Teva. Speaking hypothetically, if my biggest concern re: MNTA is m-copaxone, then I would buy the company now and divest the m-copaxone "franchise." That may let me stay on good terms with the regulators, and by divesting m-copaxone but keeping the people, i basically make it hard for the purchaser of the m-copaxone estate to capitalize on their asset.
Advances in Domestic Heavy Rare Earth Minerals Production Essential for North American Defense Stockpiles • ALOY • Mar 18, 2026 9:00 AM
ECGI Advances $10M Mortgage Tokenization Pilot as SEC Interpretation Adds Clarity • ECGI • Mar 18, 2026 8:45 AM
ECGI Advances Mortgage Tokenization Pilot as Institutional Market Rails Continue to Develop • ECGI • Mar 17, 2026 8:30 AM
Record Gold Prices Reshape Economics of New Mine Development • SNWGF • Mar 16, 2026 10:46 AM
Cannabix Technologies Announces Commercial Launch of Marijuana Breath Test (MBT) • BLOZF • Mar 16, 2026 8:37 AM
Exxe Group Advances Platform Strategy and Share Structure Reduction Following Strategic Meetings • AXXA • Mar 11, 2026 1:03 PM
