Another attempt to summarize the meeting:
I. Formal part of the meeting. Lasted about 15 minutes. All the normal stuff - introduction of Board and Officers; election of directors; approval of other proposals; opportunity to ask questions of auditors.
II. Wheeler's power-point presentation of company issues. Lasted 20-30 minutes. Lots of same stuff done at analyst presentations. Went over acccomplishments. Talked about 3 areas of emphasis: A) Complex generics; B) Follow on Biologics; and C) Novel Drugs.
As to the complex generics (mLov and mCop), I did not find much new. Lots of discuss about how slow the FDA is now, which is a benefit for mLov (as to tLov) and a detriment as to mCop). Also the discuss as to how slow the legal process is relating to the TEVA lawsuit. As previously discussed, it was made clear that delay in trial date was not MNTA's idea and they would like to see the date much earlier in order to give clarity as to the validty and reach of their patents. (General counsel after meeting made remark that date was direct result of the judge that was assigned the case.) There was also indication that there are no other complex generics currently contemplated. When discussing the current drugs, there were a lot of comments about the uncertainty of future competition, from TEVA AND OTHERS. When later questioned about other competitors, he made clear that there may be others (and he clearly implied more than one) that have filed under "Paragraph III" and may be approved at any time. This concern that the cash from mLov now, and mCop at some point, is very uncertain is one of the primary drivers for conservative money management (reluctance to proceed without partners on other drugs and the last offerring).
As to FOB, Wheeler was just as enthusiastic as he had been in the analyst conferences. A chart was shown that explained that the goal was to have the new drugs (from MNTA) be better explained than the branded drug. Lots of discussion again about the difficulty finding the right partner who was willing to commit to the process without consideration of its own branded drugs. Later in response to a question about which companies might fit, generic companies (Sandoz, TEVA, Watson), major pharmas who have said that they were interested in pursuing FOBs (MRK, PFE), and Biotechs (AMGN, BIIB) were mentioned. Wheeler mentioned several times the necessity of top level (CEO/CEO) discussioons and agreement as to strategy.
As to novel drugs, M118 was indicated as difficult to partner. Very expensive trials - $200-300MM. When it was shopped a couple years ago, the major companies were either merging or commited to oral drugs (which cost as much as $1B to get through trials). The drug addresses a "highly served patient population." Only about 20% of the patients are not well served and those have lots of other problems too. By the time it is approved, it will be competing in a market that is primarily generic. But it would still be a nice fit for one of the companies that has an oral drug. M402 will go into the client this year - not much comment.
III. Questions from shareholders - another 20 minutes. As I said, most of the shareholders asked questions. I have incorporated some of them in the above discussion. One shareholder commented that TEVA seems to get away with making statements that seem to have to support in fact. Wheeler responded that the shareholder was not the only one that felt that way. The last offering came up, and Wheeler again emphasized the uncertainity as to timing of competition and the need to have adequate funds to fund the firms priorities.
IV. Palo Alto - 10 minutes. After Wheeler asked for the third time as to other questions, he called on Palo Alto who clearly had requested the floor to make a presentation. Two guys stood up with several boards with graphs etc. The first board was all about fiduiary duty. The BOD has a duty to "maximaze the share price." Another board had a graaph of the share price for 5 years. Another board had a graph of the shares outstanding over the same period, and a fourth board had a graph of both price and shares outstanding. The number of shares is up 60% over the period. The Board can do very little to control the price, but the company has over $250MM of cash and should buy at least enough shares to prevent share increases caused by option grants. (Implicit was that the option grants are too generous). He had handouts for the board members in support of the proposal. Several other shareholders spoke up not agreeing with the idea of buybacks. One other shareholder asked about paying dividends and the Palo Alto guy opposed the idea since it did not address the outstanding shares issue. I had a hard time not smiling the whole time - thinking that he sounded a lot like posters (both on iHub and Yahoo) who are absolutely convinced that the company is undervalued by the market and want the company to do something (anything) to increase the share price. I spoke to the guy afterward and he sounded like a true-believer, saying that he thought that the company is worth $100/sh. The only difference from some of the posters here and elsewhere is that he has owned the stock for 7 years.
I'm sure that I missed some interesting things, but, if I remember them, I will post them. I plan to go back next year - mostly to pay or collect my bet with DD.
AI
