Replies to post #129839 on Biotech Values

[dumaflotchie]

Dew, do you know what the terms for the MNTA agreement were back so many years ago. Was it "exclusive" rights and indefinite in timeframe?

It still seems to me that MNTA should be negotiating with NVS regarding mitigating the royalty arrangement back in favor of a profit sharing arrangement.

At some point in time, when MNTA gets its FoB program going, it may just hold as grudge for NVS being a pig on lovenox (? capoxone) when no such position was necessary.

Were it me, I would be first knocking on NVS's door......right here, right now.

Take that "royalty" overhang off this company and its stock can ride with the wind.

[iwfal]

Your reply is non-responsive to my point that either party (NVS or MNTA) can torpedo a proposed out-of-court settlement with Amphastar by simply refusing to sign on the dotted line.

Strongly disagree - since if they had terms about how to split patent suit results then if either party strayed too far during settlement talks the other side would undoubtedly trigger arbitration - or just let the suit run its course. I.e. you might be right in principal, but as a pragmatic matter any such terms would still apply to a settlement. (I've been in such negotiations before - and even when the terms don't strictly apply they are still loosely followed.)