Nice wish, but Christmas has come and gone. One year ago this stock was trading at 30 dollars, the anticipated growth that resulted in the doubling of the stock price never happened, and now the PE is out of whack. The share price is not dropping with the market, it is drifting down so as to reflect the current state of the company and its growth rate. There was nothing in the earnings or the guidance that would support a rise to 72. Do not fall in love with a stock, the market as a whole got way ahead of itself toward the end of December and there are much better buys out there right now.
"The FDA also indicated that if major deficiencies are not identified during the review of the NDA, the FDA plans to communicate proposed labeling and, if necessary, any postmarketing requirement/commitment requests to Santarus by December 12, 2012."
There is no vehicle by which a patent expiration can be extended in the drug industry outside of an Act of Congress or due to very unusual regulatory delays. The Street is still digesting this unforeseen turn of events, however I would respectfully contend that we see double digits by next Friday. Everyone enjoy the weekend.
As has been stated repeatedly on this thread, the conventional wisdom is that the longer the decision takes to render, the better the odds of a reversal and or a remand. HOWEVER, as I posted earlier, sometimes the court goes into GREAT detail in affirming a decision even if they do not have to. Mind you most of these decisions are written by clerks, and some of them like to do extensive research even if they come to the same conclusion as the district court, sometimes even finding the district court's reasoning to be flawed but finding different reasoning to come to the same conclusion. In the event that we win the appeal, don't be shocked to see the stock drop in the very short term as games will be played either way, and SNTS has been the object of many a game by the market makers.
I did not post the RECKITT decision so as to foreshadow our decision itself, as was noted by the gentleman Mr. Merkle, because the pertinent issues were incomparable. The decision is, however, both an indication of the current backlog of the court (the panels are never that far off one another), and the unfortunate fact that sometimes the court goes into great (and needless) detail in affirming a decision. Yes, it is commonly believed that a reversal or a remand takes longer than an affirmation, but not always. In addition, I was disappointed that Mr. Chu did not hammer home the clearly false argument by Par that Zegerid was a commercial failure, as the court touched upon in their questioning. I have not seen the written brief, but I would have liked to have heard him ask the court how a company could make a profit with a business model of copying drugs which were commercial failures, and further why they would spend millions of dollars in legal costs to defend their ability to produce the failed product.
RECKITT BENCKISER V. WATSON LABS was released today (Reckitt lost the appeal), and their oral arguments were heard on 06-06-2011 or over a month after ours.
How does that bode for us? Bueller? Bueller?
Are you talking about the oral arguments in the Zegerid appeal? It can take some courts up to a year to render a decision after oral arguments are heard.....I wouldn't hold your breath.
I believe that on average about 25 percent of patent rulings are overturned on appeal....so those would be the odds.
There can be no settlement, the verdict has been rendered, which leaves nothing to settle. The court has found the patents invalid, and that decision stands until it is overturned on appeal. If PAR agreed to a settlement now any and every other company could market a generic of Zegerid. The only positive possibility is that PAR decides that sales of Zegerid haven't grown enough to justify manufacturing the product. A full 25 percent of patent verdicts based upon "obviousness" are overturned on appeal, but that is years down the line. The climb back up will be slow, with lots of newcomers whining about it, but such is life.
Shares why are you trying so hard to sound more intelligent than you are? Just express yourself as you normally would and it won't read so forced. The number of cases is hardly infinite, have you ever been to a federal district court? The U.S. District of Delaware only produced about 28 opinions in all of February, and that includes various orders and memorandums as well as decisions. Barely one a day. Have you read any of the more complex cases, so as to gauge the simplicity of the present matter? The court asked that they attempt to negotiate and they followed those instructions. Would you rather they told the judge to screw?
The glaring error in your logic is that federal judges have clerks that research (and write) many, if not all, of their decisions. He is not saving any work for himself at all, in any event. Apart from that, there may be a grain of truth in your premise. However, even if one were to agree that the management team is inexperienced at this, their legal team is not by any measure. The court will churn out a decision at some point, rest assured. This is a fairly simple case.
I forgot to add, I attempted to find some sort of rhyme or reason to the order of the decisions coming out of the United States District Court in Delaware, but could not. It seems they are still releasing decisions from trials that occurred in 2008. I think we may have a while yet to wait.
The label I posted is the label of the product, period. They can not advertise in any way, shape, or form which varies from the information on the label. If you read the accompanying FDA letter on the same page as the label, you will note it is somewhat threatening as to this very issue. Whether it was a loss or a compromise, the immediate release and faster onset claims will not be a part of this product. Does that mean that they will spend less to promote this product than they would have otherwise? More likely than not. The approved label and package contain nothing to distinguish the product from all of the others. Does it work better? It does for a fact. But now we (and sales) have to wait for that information to reach consumers indirectly.
Have any of you seen the label for OTC?
Artistically it is quite well done, but I was hoping for more....
If any of you didn't notice, the Federal D.C. of Delaware ruled against PAR in an infringement suit last week involving Purdue Pharma;
The bad news is that the trial took place back in April, which means there could be up to a three month backlog of opinions to be completed and released.
FYI regarding the Par lawsuit, the next scheduled court date is 10-21-2008 for the claim construction hearing and a trial date has been set for 07-13-2009.