Replies to post #1546 on Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[DewDiligence]

This has been discussed ad nauseam. The FTC would object vociferously to having one company own both branded Copaxone and the obligate technology for making a generic version of Copaxone for the US market.

[10nisman]

Actually, I could see TEVA exploring such a thing. While the FTC would no doubt disallow TEVA from "cornering the market" on generic versions of enox (and Copaxone?), could you imagine the value of MNTA's technology to a company like TEVA? TEVA nakes great money off of its generics, right? What would absorbing MNTA do except accelerate its ability to do so?

Why do we keep coming back to this topic? MNTA would make a great addition to a number of great companies however Teva is not one of them (FTC issues). Enough said. In addition, anyone that thinks MNTA would agree to sell itself for $21/share needs some serious help. Now if the 2 was a 3, CW may be able to find time to meet for a casual lunch. Make the 2 a 4 and I'm sure CW would be free to spend an afternoon and dinner discussing the possibilities.

10nis

[jbog]

Hattie,

While the FTC would no doubt disallow TEVA from "cornering the market" on generic versions of enox (and Copaxone?),

I'm not sure on what basis the FTC would object. As of today, because Sandoz has all the licenses for the technology for Enox and I'd assume copax if Momenta has any roll in either drug from a production point of view.

I really don't have a clue what the current roll that Momenta plays in Copax. It probably has little roll in Enox.