It’s easy to take the approach why Amrn is in the right and du is wrong. It’s easy to build the case for strength of appeal and how generics will react. And let us not underestimate the other side. Generics will be prepared to affirm their case, so it’s not as easy as Covington just going on the offensive what nobody here is speaking of is the flip side of the coin and the fact that generics will fight the appeal and they will be playing to win.
Every great legal mind here and every great idea is getting caught up in GROUP THINK, obviously w the favorable decision we want but remember generics aren’t just going to roll over and die.
I’ve been monitoring all the legal debate but I see very little on the generic mindset. Obviously it’s because this is Amrn, and we all root for an Amrn win but I believe as should everyone Hikma/Reddys they’re playing to win, too.
But, putting aside, right or wrong, interpretation of law is what matters. Like majority here I want Amrn to win. But what I want doesn’t matter, what does, is how the events will unfold.
JT was a cpa. I’m retired but I was an actuary.
What’s the difference between an accountant and an actuary?
Accountants make financial decisions based upon material that is in the past. While actuaries make financial decisions on predicting future events. I say that to offer my perspective here it’s all about risk/reward scenario. Counting odds % of material events.
All the predictive modeling I use comes back with steep odds. JT would be utterly cavalier to downright reckless to risk the future of the company on appeal.
I have done a 180 as a result of current state of affairs. Now I fully believe only reasonable, conservative thing to do is explore bo.
JT is not a gambler and going all the way through with appeal is akin to the degenerate gamble dismisses strategy, believes in odds and is 3 sheets to the wind!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
