Replies to post #99804 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

MNTA/NVS/SNY—Cliffs Notes version of the Court’s ruling on SNY’s request:

TRO=Temporary Restraining Order. Had this been granted, NVS would have had to cease commercial activities with respect to generic Lovenox pending the outcome of the hearing on SNY’s request for a preliminary injunction (scheduled for 8/17/10). However, the Court rejected SNY’s request for a TRO, which means there are no restrictions on NVS’ commercial activities with respect to Lovenox.

There are two reasons that could have caused the Court to reject SNY’s request for a TRO:

1. SNY did not show that a TRO was needed to avert serious economic to itself; or

2. The Court did not think SNY was likely to prevail in this case on the merits.

That Lovenox is a blockbuster drug argues against reason #1 above, which leaves reason #2 as the logical explanation for the Court’s refusal to grant a TRO.

[turtlepower]

For the TRO to have been issued, would sandoz/mnta have had to show that the FDA made the wrong decision or would they have had to show that the FDA's decision was harmful to their business or both? TIA.