Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:04:20 PM
Hey frogman - that wasn't my quote, although I agreed with the substance.
Besides, if MNTA felt threatened by Teva, why not a secondary in the 20's?
In addition, MNTA management never felt threathened from Teva. However, they were forced to do the offering in order to cover their buttocks from a potential lawsuit if tL actually did get approval. Class action lawyers would have had a field day saying Teva warned you repeatedly that they expected approval very soon, yet you ignored their warning and shareholder value was damaged significantly because of it. Thus, MNTA Management did an offering that was big enough to cover their buttocks but not too large to significantly hurt long-term shareholder value.
4. Most important - Be nice, be merry, & be kind to fellow posters
FEATURED Cannabix Technologies Announces First Delivery of Marijuana Breath Test (MBT) to a Major Construction Client • Mar 19, 2026 12:45 PM
ECGI Building in Crypto's Top-Performing Sector as Tokenized Real-World Assets Surge Past $26 Billion • ECGI • Mar 19, 2026 8:30 AM
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
