News Focus
News Focus
icon url

RockRat

08/11/10 1:23 PM

#101373 RE: biomaven0 #101371

Peter,

I think this is the contract.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1235010/000104746904007521/a2130432zex-10_4.txt

Have fun.

Edit: I'm darned if I can find what you all are looking for on expense splits, but do take note there are commercial milestone payments, one of which is payable upon being approved as the first generic. Put those redacted numbers into your models and smoke them.

Regards RockRat
icon url

RockRat

08/11/10 1:45 PM

#101376 RE: biomaven0 #101371

Ah, got it. Won't help much though. See page 70. "Schedule of adjustments." So redacted as to be useless.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1235010/000104746904007521/a2130432zex-10_4.txt

Gonna have to take Craig Wheeler at his word on this stuff, it would seem.

Regards, RockRat
icon url

DewDiligence

08/11/10 1:55 PM

#101377 RE: biomaven0 #101371

You won’t find evidence of the 50/50 split of Lovenox development costs in MNTA’s SEC filings because all of the numbers have been redacted, nor will MNTA provide precision on this matter because of the confidentiality provisions of the 2003 agreement with NVS.

However, on 3-Sep-2008, I listened to a half-day webcast by Sandoz that focused on its aspirations for difficult-to-make generics such as Lovenox and Copaxone. My notes from the Q&A sessions of this webcast state that, according to then-CEO of Sandoz, Andreas Rummelt, NVS fronted 100% of the Lovenox development costs and the net effect after all reimbursements is approximately a 50/50 split of these costs with MNTA.

(For Copaxone, which is covered by a separate agreement with NVS struck in 2006, the terms of the agreement allow MNTA to publicly disclose that the development costs are split 50/50.)