Replies to post #109978 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Your thesis that the lawsuit is a business maneuver is exactly what I posted in #msg-57304268.

[oldberkeley]

Blade & Dew- I agree with your thesis, makes a lot of sense. Neither Teva nor Momenta/Novartis has any shortage of good attorneys and I can't believe that MNTA's guys are advising the company that this suit is a potential winner.

My only question arises from that point. It seems a bit of a risky gambit. If this suit is a business strategy to show the market that MNTA can also play offense, don't you feel that either a dismissal or worse yet an outright loss will weaken the market perception of MNTA—as an astute group of businessmen, something the street needs to believe—and by association the science and the product itself?

Not to mention the PPS.

[zipjet]

MNTA has no cause of action ... MNTA has not one shred of credible proof

Wow - your post is quite a tirade. It is also misguided at best. To the extent that a given suit has a business purpose as well as the enforcement of legal or equitable rights is a point of no interest to the court.

Complaints in federal court are required to put the defendant on notice of the cause of action asserted. They are not "fact pleadings" as we find in many state courts. Not even state courts require "proof"* in the complaint or petition.



ij

* I can think of some minor exceptions to my statement but the statement serves well as a generalization.

[mouton29]

<<Where is the "substantial and irreparable harm?>>

By definition, an injunction seeks to prevent FUTURE irreparable harm. I'm not a litigator, but believe an element of irreparable harm is that the harm is "imminent" hence the various citations to statements suggesting approval and launch are expected to happen soon.

As to your claim, MNTA has not a shred of proof, how do you know what proof they have or what may be found in discovery, should the judge permit discovery? They are not required to set forth all of their evidence in their complaint.

[oc631]

Blade,

I agree with you the lawsuit is without merit (another "blunt layman"). Perhaps this is the first punch in a dirty fight against Teva but I would expect the suit to be thrown out of court (unless the FDA approves T-Enox before that happens.)

By this, I mean, that MNTA is attacking TEVA's business strategy of attempting to provide Mr Market with assurances that TEVA's generic Lovenox is near imminent approval, and, thereby, injuring MNTA's business and causing its stock to be undervalued and, therefore, harming MNTA shareholders.

Dew and others on this MB have made an excellent case for T-Enox not to be taken seriously (and I hold the utmost gratitude for the work done - I am long MNTA). Yet it's alarming how many people on this MB discount, or not even address, the possibility that this lawsuit was a result of MNTA finding out, through other sources, that T-Enox in fact may be approved. I hope to hear Wheeler continue to discredit the chance of T-Enox approval in the future so I myself can discount the possibility. Until then I hold my opinion that yours, and not yours alone, is a dangerously cynical attitude.