Replies to post #128057 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

If MNTA has utmost confidence in their patents, I don't see why they wouldn't wait [on trying to settle the case] until the ruling on a preliminary injunction.

They might wait for the ruling on a PI, but this would be a big gamble. To date, MNTA’s management team has acted conservatively, so it would be surprising, IMO, if MNTA did not entertain the possibility of settling prior to the ruling on a PI. This is not to say that a settlement agreement prior to the ruling on a PI will actually be consummated, but rather that I think it will be attempted.

[zipjet]

I don't see why they wouldn't wait until the ruling on a preliminary injunction.

DD will have his view - here is mine.

You never know how a judge will rule in complex matters until he does. And the time to cut a settlement is while both parties recognize the RISK.

By granting the TRO the judge has put Amphastar/WPI at risk. IF they ever considered a settlement, now is the time to do it. This fact setting also argues strongly for courts upholding a settlement if struck, as not being in restraint of trade. Delaying a competitor certainly does not look like restraint of trade if there is a significant possibility of a PI, as must now be evident to all.

Some judges will even make rulings to induce settlement and then reverse themselves to create an atmosphere of uncertainty to pressure the parties to settle.

Over confidence is a novice error in litigation. I know - I have made it with serious consequences. Settlements that split the rewards leaves both sides reasonably happy.

ij