Replies to post #131140 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Your interpretation of the language in the SEC filing doesn’t make sense, IMO. You’re saying that MNTA would have to pony up an additional $15M for the bond in the worst-case scenario where the injunction were lifted and Amphastar launched, while I’m saying that MNTA has to pony up an additional $15M for the bond in the best-case scenario where the royalty-based period ends quickly because NVS’ sales of generic Lovenox remain strong.

The gist of the agreement, IMO, is that the more money MNTA is making, the more MNTA can afford to contribute to the bond.

[mouton29]

Re MNTA bond sharing with Sandoz

The somewhat awkward wording in the SEC filing tracks the langauge of the license agreement, which agreement was referenced in this post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.aspx?msg=68499140. The license uses the phrase "upon termination of the *** period" .

I don't see the ambiguity and I think you may be confused by the double negative If another generic launches, the period during which a hybrid royalty/profit share terminates, or, as a normal person would say, the royalty switches from hybrid to pure royalty. If the period during which the hybrid is paid (or more precisely, payable) does not terminate prior to March 31, i.e., if there is no 3rd party generic launch, then MNTA has to pay the extra $15.