Replies to post #105878 on Biotech Values

[alertmeipp]

hey Rat, it's overshot already.

Getting approval and beating TEVA 2 years+ and counting are both very significant events for the company.

We have only seen the surface of what this company can do.

Don't be narrow minded.

[DewDiligence]

The questions I had Ms. Chen of Collins Stewart ask a couple of weeks ago pretty much address this question.

I disagree, RockRat. Where in your list of questions did you ask about the possibility that Teva’s Lovenox might be manufactured by another company and that Teva might effectively be nothing more than a marketing arm in this instance?

So not sure why this horse is being beaten again as if it's novel.

Because this is a novel line of inquiry and perhaps a very consequential one for MNTA investors.

[mcbio]

Re: MNTA

So far as I know, Oppenhimer is the only house that thinks Teva's enox won't be approved within a few months. . . .

Then, MNTA might slowly ramp up into the anticipated date of a Markman ruling, which now seems to be in the first half of next year. . . .

So that means that MNTA is dead money until the Markman ruling.

Assuming the consensus is that Teva will get their approval for generic Lovenox by year end, if we get to end of 1Q11 and there's no approval for Teva, perhaps sentiment will start to shift that MNTA may be the only company to obtain the approval. I think there's the possibility we could see some strength in MNTA shares on that alone, irrespective of the Markman ruling.

[DewDiligence]

With respect to the chain-mapping patent, I don't know how protective it might be from Teva's method, whatever that might be. Proof should not be so hard, as the FDA has this information. Granted, it's confidential, so MNTA presumably would have to have some plausible basis from another source to get the ball rolling on that, yes? So maybe it's hard in that sense. But couldn't they subpoena the info from the FDA, and have the judge look at it under seal, or something like that?

Because development activity for an FDA-approved drug is exempt from US patent infringement, MNTA can’t sue Teva for infringement of the patent in question unless Teva’s Lovenox is approved and launched. This is a problem Teva would be happy to have.

[DFRAI]

Rockrat,
have you considered novel or sci-fi writing? most people would like your forceful if novel way of presenting things. It certainly fits the trading and accumulating strategies that you envision for 2010 and 2011. There are some holes or aces in your story

1. I would love to hear TEVA state as a matter of fact that they have met the 5 conditions for sameness given by FDA

2. Stop giving "guidance" and color on the 10 to the 29 degree of permutations

[zipjet]

I think the share price is close to reflecting this consensus, but I don't think it is "more than priced in." I think if it plays out accordingly, we could see a drop to about $10 (it always overshoots; trot out your favorite conspiracy theory for why), before bouncing to $12 or so. Then, MNTA might slowly ramp up into the anticipated date of a Markman ruling, which now seems to be in the first half of next year.

My views echo RockRats on likely trading pattern if Teva gets approval.

I was thinking about VPHM as a stock that has a similar "overhang". For VPHM, the overhang is approval of a generic Vancocin.

But if you take a look at the EV/EBITDA of VPHM and use it to imply a value for MNTA, you get a stock price of 22-26.

ij

[ThomasS]

MNTA: "We already know the launch is going as well as could be expected, so the NVS and MNTA quarterly announcements aren't going to move the share price much..."

Are you serious? By your yardstick, MNTA's market cap has essentially no chance whatsoever of improving. (Unless and until ALL issues are resolved in MNTA's favor, by which time you will not be able to buy-in cheaply.)
I respectfully suggest you re-evaluate.