Replies to post #149497 on Biotech Values

[biomaven0]

>MNTA

Note that the SEC slightly revised its guidance about cancellation of a 10b5-1 Plan. They now say that any cancellation of a sale under such a plan is tantamount to the cancellation of the Plan, and they would investigate all the facts and circumstances if a new Plan was then adopted.

From Wikipedia:

On March 25, 2009, the SEC staff revised its interpretative guidance regarding the circumstances under which the affirmative defense in Rule 10b5-1(c) is available. In particular, the staff followed the approach previously urged by some commentators to clarify (1) that the cancellation of a 10b5-1 plan could call the good faith of other, executed plans into doubt and (2) that the Supreme Court's decision in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975), did not affect the SEC's ability to bring an enforcement action against a would-be insider trader who canceled a trading plan and did not trade in a particular transaction because a subsequent decision, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006), made clear that Blue Chip Stamps dealt only with the implied private right of action for violations of Rule 10b-5 and not the "in connection with" requirement for all Rule 10b-5 violations.

Se also:

http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/pages/SECStaffIssuesInterpretiveGuidance-10B5-1Plans.aspx

Peter

[Double_Bagel]

MNTA—Another day without a 10b5-1 sale (now 29 in all). I added more shares.

Even if the hiatus in 10b5-1 selling turns out to be nothing, I’m very comfortable adding at current prices.

Ok, I will bite :-) If there was a reason for the cancellation, what was the likely reason?

1. Progress in the M402 trials
2. They feel good about the appellate court giving them an en banc re-hearing
3. They feel good that m-Copax is close to FDA approval.
4. There is progress on the 2-3 drugs that they are working with baxter.
5. They have a miracle cure for baldness :-)

Thanks.

[BTH]

Have you seen an instance where insiders have ceased these type of sales only to see later there was a "material event" which was the reasoning for the cease of sales?

Further, if there is, in fact, a "material event" is this a legal obligation for them to stop selling, or is this just a personal trading decision by the selling party?

[jbog]

Even if the hiatus in 10b5-1 selling turns out to be nothing

If you go back a couple of years you'll see that Momenta insiders only executed 2 and 3 transactions in each of the proceeding Sept timeframes (one by a departed exec and Bishop) compared more than 20 in each Aug.

You're pumping.