Replies to post #108855 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Indeed I did; however, there’s a key difference between the Telaprevir case and the generic-Lovenox case: when VRTX monetized Telaprevir, it was in the midst of phase-3 trials and there could have been a skeleton in the closet with respect to safety.

The Phase 3 safety question was the big one for VRTX. For MNTA, I think the big question has to do with whether TEVA receives approval for its generic Lovenox any time soon, if ever. (And we both are in agreement on this question.)

In the case of generic Lovenox, what does confidence in the drug have to do with anything? Lovenox is a big-selling drug and will continue to be a big-selling drug for many years. The only question is how much MNTA’s participation is worth; therefore, I would view a monetization of MNTA’s share of Lovenox as a strictly financial transaction with no particular inferences to be drawn about the future of Lovenox per se.

I'm saying the question is not directed to the potential future market of Lovenox but rather towards MNTA's share of the generic Lovenox market going forward; namely, whether or not TEVA gets approval for its generic Lovenox any time soon, if ever. I.e., if MNTA is confident it will remain the only company with generic Lovenox approval, perhaps they would be more inclined to retain their rights to generic Lovenox profits.