Replies to post #114352 on Biotech Values

[jbog]

Dew

Some investors are under the impression that the FTC would merely require Teva to divest MNTA’s generic-Copaxone program, but it’s highly unlikely, IMO, that the FTC would acquiesce to such a mild remedy.

While it is somewhat farfetched, I wouldn't put it past Teva if they looked to buy Momenta and fund the whole transaction by selling Momenta's portion of the copaxone franchise to Sandoz.

[EyeamBill]

The FTC won’t allow Teva to buy MNTA—I guarantee it!

I'm less than a novice in such areas but the news of the last few days has me believing that MNTA would be foolish to be acquired by anybody less than a ridiculously handsome premium.

If I had the majority of the voting share then I'd hold out for a sum so large for my shares that any offer would be viewed as bottom-fishing.

Now that the USPTO has applied their stamp (again) then I'd let it ride. There are many more rungs to the ladder than the compounds in the pipeline and m-Copaxone and m-enox. I'm no longer a buy & hold guy, but, there is no other player yet in the micro-industry (a.k.a., solo-industry) that appears to have the infrastructure to reverse-engineer numerous compounds that are losing patent protection in the next decade.

For those whom desire the usual disclaimer; yes, I'm long. :-)

Bill

P.S.: I realize that the USPTO is not judge, jury, and executioner in such matters. I have admittedly lost more than I care to admit in http://superbserv.com/, a micro-company of which I'm both a large shareholder and creditor; it attained a USPTO patent years ago. We have the best technology but improper timing. Sorry Dew, I'm really not trying to sell SuperbServ here; I'm just trying to illustrate that I don't take the USPTO rulings as harbingers for the future. Perhaps we could help you in your meals bet, though!

[dav1234]

makes sense,i would personally want regulators to prevent such anti-competitive behavior,but TEVA are clever and protecting their Copax cash cow must be their top priority, if they lose half of copax cash to a generic then IMO their divi becomes iffy and that would seriously hurt their pps and reputation.

maybe a direct buyout is unrealistic but another company friendly(loyal) to TEVA could, an israeli billionaire could make an offer ,TEVA could even try to "bribe" its way in by offering to partner (and fund) other drugs with MNTA ( unlikely,unethical but not impossible),back door deal with another pharma to take out MNTA in buyout and slow down MCopax and in return TEVA could slow down on their own competing generics from that Pharama (again unethical,illegal but not impossible)

billions at stake,anything is possible

[RockRat]

I do not follow your logic here. If the situation were left on its own with no buyout, there would eventually be branded copaxone and one generic in different hands. If Teva bought MNTA and the FTC wanted to achieve the same situation as above, they would simply have Teva divest the generic. While it does not help Teva in the generic copaxone situation, they should still be able to keep m-enox and all the pipeline, and they might be interested in that, particularly if they can't get t-enox to work (while keeping their prey's share price a bit low by pretending they can still get t-enox to work).

What are the odds? Not high, and hopefullly not for as little as 21 bucks. At least, I'd be very disappointed in MNTA management if they accepted that low an offer. But I do not think it is as impossible as you do because of regulatory blockage.

I agree that if the FTC were to require Teva to divest the branded, nobody would buy it. But I do not understand why you don't think "the FTC would acquiesce to such a mild remedy" as divesting the generic. Why do you find the concept so unlikely, when it preserves the current competitive balance?

Regards, RockRat