InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 251711
Next 10
Followers 826
Posts 119569
Boards Moderated 14
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: HattieTheWitch post# 128506

Saturday, 10/15/2011 1:18:58 AM

Saturday, October 15, 2011 1:18:58 AM

Post# of 251711
Re: More settlement musings

…is it likely that MNTA is going to come out of such a settlement worse off (not getting as much money over time) than it would have been in the absence of Amphastar's approval?

Yes, of course—MNTA has to forgo some upside to eliminate the risk of losing the patent case. However, the kinds of settlement terms outlined in #msg-67801477 would not forfeit as much cumulative economic value as exwannabe suggested in #msg-68017105 because of the horizon issue mentioned in #msg-68017552.

Moreover, one could argue that MNTA’s shareholders will be better off after the kind of settlement envisioned in #msg-67801477 than they would have been if Amphastar had never received FDA approval. How can this be? Because a favorable settlement with Amphastar will ensure that no one will be unduly concerned about FDA approval of generic Lovenox from Teva or any other applicant; instead, investors will assume that MNTA will be able to settle with those companies on the same (or better) terms as the settlement with Amphastar. In other words, following a favorable settlement with Amphastar, the headwind on MNTA’s share price from worry that a new competitor will destroy MNTA’s lucrative Lovenox franchise will finally be gone.

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

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.