Replies to post #56642 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

>MNTA – it is simpler to state Case 1 or 2: 65%<

The distinction between case 1 and case 2 matters greatly because the economics of the Lovenox collaboration with Sandoz are much more favorable to MNTA if they have the only generic on the market.

If Sandoz/MNTA have the only generic Lovenox on the market, the Lovenox collaboration becomes an equal or near-equal profit split. On the other hand, if Teva or Amphastar launch a generic Lovenox, instead of a profit split, MNTA gets royalties on Sandoz’s sales at a relatively low rate.

[ThomasS]

MNTA: (new numbers in bold)

Case 1 – MNTA/Sandoz obtains approval for generic Lovenox and neither Teva nor Amphastar obtain approval

Case 2 – MNTA/Sandoz obtains approval for generic Lovenox and Teva or Amphastar do also

Case 3 – Nobody obtains approval for generic Lovenox but the application from MNTA/Sandoz remains under consideration by the FDA pending resolution of certain issues

Case 4 – MNTA/Sandoz receives an FDA rejection of the Lovenox ANDA with no likelihood of a resubmission


Case 1: 35% 70%
2: 30% 10%
3: 35% 20%
4: 0% 0%

New rationale:
1. High confidence in MNTA
2. Where will the FDA place the bar, as discussed today on the webcast? If high, MNTA gets the only approval. How can they set the bar lower, if they know that MNTA has the purest molecule? I think the FDA must set the bar high, such that it's MNTA or no one. Only caveat: If Teva/Amphastar have an equal or better technology in-hand.