Replies to post #105138 on Biotech Values

[pollyvonwog]

It certainly doesn't make any sense whatsoever UNLESS these two numbers are much closer to each other as a net payment to Momenta. The people here wouldn't agree at this point.

I think that point is utterly absurd.

In regards to the m-enox deal, CW said at the UBS conference that they were in a much better negotiation position with the 2006 copax agreement and the terms reflect that sentiment. When enox was signed, MNTA was a brand new company looking for validation for their platform. I would imagine that NVS had doubts about MNTA's technology in 2003 and so a deal was constructed with those doubts in mind. In 2006, it was clear that their technology was unique and quite valuable and gave MNTA the edge in negotiating.

[zipjet]

In a nutshell, would Sandoz be at this point in M-Enox without Momenta? Nope. So why would Momenta accept 45% of profits versus 10% of sales????? It certainly doesn't make any sense whatsoever UNLESS these two numbers are much closer to each other as a net payment to Momenta. The people here wouldn't agree at this point.

You miss the point. MNTA with NO deals and fine technology still NEEDED a partner badly. NVS/Sandoz brought a lot of value to the deal, funding, validation, regulatory and marketing skills. The contract was the deal MNTA was able to strike. That deal was prerequisite to doing full profit sharing deals like Copaxone.

zip