Replies to post #129239 on Biotech Values

[tinkershaw]

I would argue that the launch of the AG is a direct result of and the damages proximately caused by the Amphistar intent to launch (possible actual launch).

Good argument. But it is an argument, and you now need to subpoena executives and emails from a third corporation, dramatically increasing the cost of the litigation and creating yet another layer in your argument. Keep it simple is the best strategy in a litigation for the Plaintiff, convolute it works best for the Defendant. It is a legitimate argument, but it makes the litigation more difficult and more speculative than it was. And damages will never compensate MNTA for the actual lost cash they would have made without the AG on the market.

But I do like the excellent analytical thinking on this board, including the possible game theory like strategy employed with the decision to launch the AG to encourage a settlement and limit the players.

Still, I think a settlement would have been more likely without the AG, as the damage threat I think was more likely to be a devastating one pre-AG launch.

To be developed this story. And really, as I indicated earlier, I would not hold MNTA on the basis of this litigation, but rather on the basis of copaxone in is future. More valuable to MNTA than enoxaparin ever was. But still an unknown road from there to that future, as copaxone makes MNTA a long-term entity with real staying power and real and powerful long-term cash flow, and then the future of FoB down the road thereafter.

Tinker