Replies to post #129402 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

I don't see anything from all this that suggests the $135m is flexible year to year.

I think the point is not that the figure you cite is flexible but that a decreasing amount of the AG, or altogether elimination of the AG, is going to translate in a higher figure of mL sales by definition, which makes it more likely that the threshold is exceeded and MNTA shifts into the profit share.

[DewDiligence]

Until now, my understanding of the “hybrid” economics following an AG launch has been as posted in #msg-46578876 (from Feb 2010). Before posting #msg-46578876, I asked Bev in IR how the AG hybrid economics work, and the answer was that MNTA could not give out such details but I was on the right track. I took that to mean that the algorithm in #msg-46578876 was substantially correct.

Intuitively, the algorithm in #msg-46578876 is more logical than the one you describe in #msg-68341563, but logic does not always hold in these kinds of agreements. Your decoding of the redacted text parses, so it is undoubtedly correct, illogical as it may be. Thank you for making the correction.

[acgood]

Addendum to my long-winded post-

$99.1m out of $135m corresponds prorated 268 days (puts the SNY AG launch on or around 10/5/2011)

Note that this put the SNY launch of the AG before MNTA even obtained the TRO on 10/7/2011. So it is pretty clear that the launch of AG by SNY occured as rapidly as possible after the 9/19 approval of amphastar's product, as it would make sense to try to beat them to the market. And, SNY's actions reflect them taking no opinion about the outcome of the MNTA-Amphstar legal wrangling