Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:59:24 PM
True, but Amphastar's complaint, which was posted here yesterday (and which they also withdrew yesterday), argued in part that their enox should be approved because it FDA scientists had considered it approvable
(and were about to approve it) some time before the new MNTA-inspired FDA guidelines were instituted. They claimed the FDA had "moved the goalposts" (I recall this was a phrase their lawyers had used).
So isn't it at least theoretically possible that the FDA approved their enox on the basis of a "grandfathering" or rolling back to previous guidelines that were in place when their application was first evaluated?
If this is so (and I do hope it is not), it would potentially vitiate the basis for MNTA's suit.
Any thoughts on why this would be outside the realm of possibility?
North Bay Resources Announces Mt. Vernon Gold Mine Bulk Sample, Sierra County, California • NBRI • Sep 11, 2024 9:15 AM
One World Products Issues Shareholder Update Letter • OWPC • Sep 11, 2024 7:27 AM
Kona Gold Beverage Inc. Reports $1.225 Million in Revenue and $133,000 Net Profit for the Quarter • KGKG • Sep 10, 2024 1:30 PM
Element79 Gold Corp Announces 2024 Clover Work Plans & Nevada Portfolio Updates • ELMGF • Sep 10, 2024 11:00 AM
Nightfood Holdings Inc. Completes Major Step on Uplist Journey by Closing Strategic All-Stock Acquisition of CarryoutSupplies.com • NGTF • Sep 10, 2024 8:15 AM
Element79 Gold Corp. Announces Sale of 100% Interest in Elder Creek, North Mill Creek, and Elephant Projects to 1472886 B.C. Ltd. • ELEM • Sep 9, 2024 9:34 AM