crackedtooth schreef:
[quote=Do DD]
Van IHUB. De jongens van Lazard kijken er op dezelfde manier naar als een aantal hier op het board:
Posted by: drbio45
In reply to: None
Date:7/13/2006 6:37:15 PM
Post #of 2590
INSM: Recent weakness due to pending jury trial creates an entry point;
BUY
This is from Lazard and I am not sure if this was previously posted
We see the patent overhang beginning to lift based on a worst-case
scenario for Insmed where the company is found liable for infringement of one or more valid claims in November but would be required to pay only a modest (5%-10%) royalty to Tercica. As per our attorneys, issuance of a permanent injunction is rare in the drug industry, especially for an FDA-approved (and improved) drug, leaving Insmed solvent as a viable commercial entity capable of capturing a greater percentage of the severe primary IGF-1 deficiency market, while at the same time pursuing additional indications for Iplex. Therefore, we view the stock's recent weakness due to the court's Order as an overreaction and not reflective of the most likely outcome from the
November jury trial.
Our patent attorney, who reviewed the court's recent Order, views Insmed's arguments as having strong legal merit but warns that these arguments are difficult to demonstrate convincingly in front of a jury, particularly when Tercica can wave the "gold seal and blue ribbon" of its patent at the jury.
According to our legal counsel, swaying juror opinion will be crucial
for the '414 patent; Insmed faces less of a challenge with the '151 and '287 patent.
Catalysts: Insmed could prevail outright at the jury trial in November. Meanwhile, the commercial launch of Iplex is off to a respectable start, considering Increlex's 4-month head start and we expect data from additional indications for Iplex over the next 6-12 months to expand the drug's potential beyond short stature.
Risks include a slower-than-expected launch of Iplex and/or a permanent injunction.
Maintain BUY and $4 target. Our 12-month price target derives from a
multiple of 6 times projected 2008 iPlex sales of $119M, discounted two years at 25% and including fully diluted shares of 120 million.
mvg, E.
De opmerkingen van Lazard bevestigen mijn DD en risico analyse. Ik blijf zeker long totdat aan de situatie iets fundamenteel verandert.
Bovendien wil ik nog opmerken dat als de patent attorney van Lazard oordeelt dat INSM juridisch sterk staat, maar misschien op het '414 patent geen gelijk krijgt van de jury, er hoger beroep mogelijk is en dat is voor een panel van rechters, dus juridisch geschoold. Een jury komt hier niet aan te pas.
E.
[/quote]
aanbevolen en inderdaad meer validatie van de eigen DD