The bond on the TRO was set at $50K.
Judges have a lot of discretion in setting bonds in injunction cases. Unfortunately, I do not know what the cases say the judge should use as criteria for setting this type of bond. But if likelihood of prevailing, that will become the dominant factor in setting the bond. Attorneys fees and damages will be fairly predictable within some range. But if the judge thinks there little likelihood of WPI winning, he may set the bond low.
But if the judge thought the potential damages HIGH and decides to protect WPI from an erroneous grant of a PI, then the bond could be potentially prohibitive. I doubt this latter outcome, but it could happen.
The judge can and will modify the bond setting over time but it will not be monthly. :-)
The start date of the PI hearing is 10/20. I do not know how much of the courts docket has been set aside for this. It could be hours or days. But on this one the ruling will not be delayed. TRO's are only good for 14 days, unless extended with findings. So while the court may issue a short extension of the TRO, that will be promptly followed with either a PI or dissolving the TRO.
I assume there will be a bond needed by MNTA though, but by my math the worst case should be less than than the additional cash MNTA receives by maintaining sole generic status (taking into account the contact reset).
This is monthly though, would the court just estimate some total number, or can they impose "installment plan" bonds?
Also, is the bond usually the full amount of the potential damage, or is it reduced base on how strong the judge considers the case to be?
After another hearing the judge will get to decide if he will convert the TRO into a PI (preliminary injunction) or dissolve the TRO. Could go either way.
But the PI will not have the benefit of any discovery results. So the evidence offered may be thin.
Another poster raised the possibility that WPI will have to bond. I think that would only come into play if the judge issues the PI and WPI wanted to launch anyway and offered to counter-bond. I think that unlikely.
Should be interesting. WPI will be throwing everything at the court to get this reversed.
You miss Zip's point.
The basis for a TRO is very similar to that of a PI, just that the facts have not been established. By ruling for the TRO, the judge has indicated that he would likely rule for a PI if discovery yields what MNTA expects to see.
A PI would last years, and would clearly be a game changer.
How difficult was it for Momenta to have that injunction placed?....I'm not familiar with how all that works....must have been a compelling argument for a judge to hold up Watson/Amphastar....what did they have to tell the judge for the judge to rule in their favor?
anyone know the legal ropes?
is this procedural OK news or really good news?