Replies to post #129087 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

MNTA chose to sign a unique front-end-loaded, profit-share contract with Sandoz. They could have signed a deal with a higher royalty rate (without the third-party entry clause) yet they chose the higher risk deal and now they are in a bind because of Amp's approval. Isn't the "irreparable harm" partly their fault since they assumed more contract risk than needed?

For MNTA, specifically, the irreparable harm caused by the launch of another generic Lovenox is indeed partly self-inflicted. However, MNTA are NVS are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Amphastar, and NVS/MNTA have carefully avoided discussion of the Lovenox profit share in their pleadings.

Will the judge take this into consideration after ruling on the case?

He could, but it would be somewhat illogical to do so insofar as MNTA and NVS will presumably argue their case on the basis of economic damages to the Lovenox partnership as a unit rather than to each company separately.