InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 253567
Next 10
Followers 839
Posts 120700
Boards Moderated 13
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: iwfal post# 127957

Friday, 10/07/2011 6:09:51 PM

Friday, October 07, 2011 6:09:51 PM

Post# of 253567
On 1), your modification is reasonable and proper, IMO, but it comes into play only if another party gets FDA approval prior to 2014. I would expect MNTA to settle with the sponsor of a third FDA-approved generic on the same terms as with Amphastar, so NVS/MNTA’s generic exclusivity until 2014 would be likely even if another company got FDA approval before 2014.

On 2), I envision that 100% of the hypothesized 20% royalty on Amphastar’s sales goes to MNTA. The patents in question belong to MNTA, not the NVS/MNTA JV; moreover, post-2014, NVS benefits indirectly by keeping a larger proportion of the NVS/MNTA JV’s profits.

“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.