<<<was that MNTA pretty much wrote (established?) the approvability standard for the FDA for generic lovenox>>>
I kind of pretty much surmised that. Sometimes we are told to only listen to what people say without examining the underlying inferences and realities that go with it. In this case, it was pretty clear that MNTA drafted the standards and the the FDA (wisely) took credit for it.
One thing that also struck me was the wording of Teva's press release after MNTA lovenox was approved in how diced and legalese and specific it was in the way that it exactly avoided stating that it met the standard as expounded by the FDA. When one reads language like that, one either has to conclude that an inarticulate pin head wrote it, or the inanity of it was intentional, and to serve a particular purpose.
In this case to scare the analyst community that Teva was on MNTA's heels, and at the same time CYA (ie, cover themselves from stating an out and out actionable and misleading thing).
There have been many clues like this. We shall see if it holds up. I think Dew's perception on this is looking more and more correct. It is just going to take us some time to see it play out. If not Teva, then who? Well, no one. Even the folks at MNTA don't really, really, really know, or they'd be buying shares hand over fist, insider tax selling or not. Even they cannot know. Although they do indeed suspect.
Tinker
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
