DD, could you go into more detail on the correlation b/t the lawsuit and Marth's comments? I'm not really understanding the link between the two (ie; why would the lawsuit cause Marth to admit the application may get something other than approval). TIA
This is not a question of Teva’s wanting to be honest with investors, but rather that MNTA’s lawsuit against Teva is now serving the business purpose
I've come to look at the lawsuit/offering as a single event. The lawsuit appeared to be a contingency for institutional investors to participate in the offering. I'm still not happy about about the price/timing of the offering but I do feel better about MNTA when looking at the lawsuit from this context.