Can Teva be trusted? As a very successful generic company that has made almost no missteps on its way to giganticness, it had a lot of credibility/political capital. But those who can read between the lines are seeing that erode, and Teva has to know this. Balanced against that is the general value of psychological warfare, not so much on Momenta shareholders as Momenta employees and potential partners. That's about all I can come up with. The weird part is why they haven't gone officially public about having been inspected, if psyops is their game. The Teva response to Ms. Chen is not wholly precise. As one Ihubber pointed out, it does not say who did the inspections. If it was not in fact the FDA, or it was but did not pertain to the ANDA, the response to Ms. Chen would be stupendously disingenuous, but probably not outright fraud. If that were the case, I could see their caution in not going public.
So I agree, the whole thing is whacky, but fascinating. I may be getting to the point, as rkrw might say, that I'm over thinking it. Indeed, at this point, I'm going to sit back and see what else shakes out of this campaign.
The other part of Tecva's credibility issue regards their comments on Copaxone. For example, Dew has been pointing out a PR in which they allege patent expirations of 2014 for some patents, and 2015 for some others. Apparently the 2015 expiration is for the EU, which, of course, has no bearing on the litigation, which is in the US. But they don't mention that little distinction in the PR (though there is a little shred of doubt on this, see this exchange currently ending here: siliconinvestor.com Don't have time to delve into that yet myself). And so on.
Cheers, Tuck |
