Replies to post #125418 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

Rick Shea (MNTA’s CFO) stated plainly that the Judge presiding over the Lovenox patent case set the trial schedule after ascertaining that Teva was not close to FDA approval.

Several comments:

1) How much does the judge even know? e.g.:

a) Does he have Teva proprietary data?

b) Does he have data from the FDA itself? (this seems unlikely - but possible that some kind of subpoena was sent to them)

c) How competent is the judge to determine the likelihood of approval? (Not dissing the judge per se - but as we all know this is highly technical). And note the tenor of Momenta's own comments that you have pointed to today seems to support that they are still worried - and they definitively have more expertise than the judge.

All told my guess is the judge has more data than we do - but probably not much more. And less expertise. So again, I'd read this as moderately supportive of a belief that Teva approval will be delayed - but not more than 'moderately'. And largely counterbalanced by Momenta's continued worry since in many ways I'd consider their opinion more valuable.

2) My second comment is that this change from high confidence in MNTA "because Teva and Momenta agreed to late trial date it means good things' (one reading of the tea leaves) to high confidence in MNTA prospects "because the judge believes not important until then" (a mutually incompatible reading of the tea leaves) should be worrisome. It highlights the danger of tea leaf reading.