|
Post by golfeveryday on Dec 6, 2017 23:36:49 GMT -5
Agreed. Especially considering none of us would expect MNKD to ever have anything further to with them. not none of us:-) you think Sanofi backed out of the deal with a plan to get back in once label change was approved and the selling environment was better?
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Dec 7, 2017 0:29:27 GMT -5
I could be wrong on this, but I'm seeing this a different way. I trust Mike C. and he has done a great job since he arrived at MannKind. I'm thinking that the information that was shielded before and needs to continue to be withheld has to do with competitive information and strategies. It is just that Sanofi chose for a variety of reasons not to utilize this info. It is still important for MannKind success so it still needs to be shielded. I believe that if the shielded information is released, it would hurt MannKinds competitiveness in the market.
|
|
|
Post by straightly on Dec 7, 2017 0:46:06 GMT -5
I could be wrong on this, but I'm seeing this a different way. I trust Mike C. and he has done a great job since he arrived at MannKind. I'm thinking that the information that was shielded before and needs to continue to be withheld has to do with competitive information and strategies. It is just that Sanofi chose for a variety of reasons not to utilize this info. It is still important for MannKind success so it still needs to be shielded. I believe that if the shielded information is released, it would hurt MannKinds competitiveness in the market. I choose to believe the management with my yes vote on my suffering shares. And I choose to believe in their judgement on this one also. Think this way: Some clauses in the agreement were terrible and a potential partnersaw it and ask for it in the bargain. Of course MNKD will refute it, still, that weakens MNKD's position, for nothing! I know I have chosen to be blind, and so far it was for worse, but I am more hopeful everyday.
|
|
|
Post by doctorgreenback on Dec 7, 2017 0:55:14 GMT -5
Dr fakeo. no wonder you have 5 stars above your name.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 7, 2017 4:26:52 GMT -5
Dr fakeo. no wonder you have 5 stars above your name. the 5 stars is because I am an opinionated loud mouth.
your stuff is crap. Like spirometery is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Dec 7, 2017 6:33:28 GMT -5
Interesting. So I guess this means that we won't get to see the redacted sections of the Sanofi agreement. I really want to know what kind of information is being concealed and why it is so important to keep it a secret? I am assuming that's what this is regarding. Right? Withholding full information about the MannKind-Sanofi Agreement borders on MannKind breaching fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. I never thought that I'd seriously consider taking legal action against MannKind until today. This is deeply troubling to me as a shareholder. Me as well! I proposed back in August to Matt when the relationship with SNY had run its course the status of the CTO. I believe the anticipated sales figures are very important both for future prospects as well as potential damages with the handling by SNY. The following in a nutshell was his response: "Our agreement with Sanofi still exists. It does not formally end for another couple of months, even though most of it is now mute. That said, the confidentiality provisions remain in effect, unless or until there is something material that happens that might override those provisions, such as a material cash payment or anticipated obligation." I dont know exactly how to parse that but perhaps someone besides MNKD still wants it handled confidentially.
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Dec 7, 2017 6:43:09 GMT -5
you think Sanofi backed out of the deal with a plan to get back in once label change was approved and the selling environment was better? Stefan Schwartz (the man with a new title every few months /) was at the time VP - US Afrezza lead said they needed to take a different approach. At the time the target market was T2s above 7 A1c under PCP care. That different approach ended up being onduo.com/What we know today is over 100million people in the U.S. have diabetes or prediabetes. What we also know is that if we treat early while there is still beta function left we can stop the progression and in some cases reverse the loss of beta cell function. What we also know is the chances of a woman who finds a lump on her breast has a 20% chance of it being cancerous. With diabetes 50% of prediabetics after being sent home to diet and take a walk will further progress and at some point 70%+ will join the A1c above 7.0 club. At that point their chances of having a heart attack is 3x the non-diabetic. How would women feel today if we sent them home with the lump, told them to diet and take a walk and there is a pretty good chance the lump is nothing to worry about? Is Sanofi still involved with afrezza, few know. What we do know is they are suppose to announce their official product launch plans soon for the 2018 launch. We also know the recent availability of the Abbott Libre in your favorite pharmacy is starting to make an impact after only a week and at $25 a sensor a lot of PWDs are not waiting for the insurance coverage to give it a try. In other words, IMO the Libre is bringing competition to the original Onduo business model. As I have said for years technology will save afrezza. The more the better, Watson, Sugar IQ, Onduo, One Drop, the G5/6+, Libre, Glimp/Nightscout, etc. Until people see their BG profiles and understand the key in treating diabetes is stopping the spike the value of afrezza is not appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by promann on Dec 7, 2017 6:54:33 GMT -5
Hammer I agree with your last sentence. We were told that they wanted to keep some aspects of the contract with Sanofi secret because they did not want to show their hand. Another words they wanted it kept confidential from other pharma companies so as not to tell their trade secrets. It could be that lawyers for Sanofi are pressuring MNKD to keep it confidential. I,m not sure why MNKD would do anything Sanofi would ask of them at this point but one things for certain it is troubling. I wouldn’t make to much of it it’s probably nothing but trying to keep how they were going to commercialize Afrezza secret.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Dec 7, 2017 7:24:00 GMT -5
I could be wrong on this, but I'm seeing this a different way. I trust Mike C. and he has done a great job since he arrived at MannKind. I'm thinking that the information that was shielded before and needs to continue to be withheld has to do with competitive information and strategies. It is just that Sanofi chose for a variety of reasons not to utilize this info. It is still important for MannKind success so it still needs to be shielded. I believe that if the shielded information is released, it would hurt MannKinds competitiveness in the market. I choose to believe the management with my yes vote on my suffering shares. And I choose to believe in their judgement on this one also. Think this way: Some clauses in the agreement were terrible and a potential partnersaw it and ask for it in the bargain. Of course MNKD will refute it, still, that weakens MNKD's position, for nothing! I know I have chosen to be blind, and so far it was for worse, but I am more hopeful everyday. I think this is close. Some clauses in the agreement were terrible and a potential partnersaw it and ask for it in the bargain.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Dec 7, 2017 7:31:06 GMT -5
you think Sanofi backed out of the deal with a plan to get back in once label change was approved and the selling environment was better? Could be.. Original agreement was set up before SNY CEO change. Or they could’ve been planning on a buy in or buy out down the road at a price that would be way too low now. Why would you give the competition a starting place? They didn’t have many choices then IMO. Whatever it is it’s for their benefit. I don’t know enough about any of this to know if it’s common practice.
|
|
|
Post by madog365 on Dec 7, 2017 7:49:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Dec 7, 2017 7:57:25 GMT -5
Hammer I agree with your last sentence. We were told that they wanted to keep some aspects of the contract with Sanofi secret because they did not want to show their hand. Another words they wanted it kept confidential from other pharma companies so as not to tell their trade secrets. It could be that lawyers for Sanofi are pressuring MNKD to keep it confidential. I,m not sure why MNKD would do anything Sanofi would ask of them at this point but one things for certain it is troubling. I wouldn’t make to much of it it’s probably nothing but trying to keep how they were going to commercialize Afrezza secret. We got a cash payoff from SNY, and they “repurchased insulin” as a settlement at the end of the partnership. As part of the agreement, there was probably a non-disclosure agreement and the agreement not to sue, simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 7, 2017 12:37:33 GMT -5
Interesting. So I guess this means that we won't get to see the redacted sections of the Sanofi agreement. I really want to know what kind of information is being concealed and why it is so important to keep it a secret? I am assuming that's what this is regarding. Right? Withholding full information about the MannKind-Sanofi Agreement borders on MannKind breaching fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. I never thought that I'd seriously consider taking legal action against MannKind until today. This is deeply troubling to me as a shareholder. Given that the agreement is now over it would seem less important than ever that the info be shared with shareholders. We know what did happen, so what's the argument we need to know what might have happened, or what they thought was going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Dec 7, 2017 13:00:26 GMT -5
If there are 20 good reasons the information should become public and one that it should not, then most likely there are legal reasons it must remain dormant. I for one trust management and no longer really care about the past. They seem to be making the right decisions since Mike took over. We will know very soon.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Dec 7, 2017 13:09:30 GMT -5
We got a cash payoff from SNY, and they “repurchased insulin” as a settlement at the end of the partnership. As part of the agreement, there was probably a non-disclosure agreement and the agreement not to sue, simple as that. I don't know, but I would be surprised if the SEC would make an exception due to a non-disclosure agreement. If that was the case, then couldn't shady companies could enter into token NDAs with friendly third parties just to keep information from the eyes of investors? Yet I've never heard of that happening. I may well be wrong.
|
|