Replies to post #6333 on Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[mouton29]

Interesting differeence between the statement in the article quoted by martin3 and the order quoted by IG.


The article states:

Amphastar and the others immediately fired back, arguing in an ex parte submission that Momenta failed to establish it would likely succeed on the merits, a key prerequisite for obtaining a TRO, according to the suit.

“At today's hearing ... the court expressly stated it was making no finding on likelihood of success on the merits. [We] respectfully suggest that the court's order has [been] issued in error,” attorneys for Amphastar and the others said.

However, in the order the judge stated that based on the oral argument and memorandum submitted by MNTA, "plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success."

In the real world one might imagine that the judge might have reasoned that a TRO for two weeks is of little harm to Amphastar but launch is of potentially great harm to MNTA so perhaps he bent over backwards to justify the TRO. Or maybe he is making a subtle distinction between a finding of a "reasonable likelihood of success" and a finding on the "likelihood of success".