|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Oct 15, 2018 11:51:52 GMT -5
Be careful. Last time there was a thread on corruption proboards went down and posts were deleted. Also that was the last day Kastanes posted.You saying Big Pharma took him out? RIP, sweet Kastanes, we hardly knew ye. |
|
|
|
Post by jkendra on Oct 15, 2018 12:02:52 GMT -5
Be careful. Last time there was a thread on corruption proboards went down and posts were deleted. Also that was the last day Kastanes posted.You saying Big Pharma took him out? RIP, sweet Kastanes, we hardly knew ye.   |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Oct 15, 2018 12:17:58 GMT -5
You saying Big Pharma took him out? RIP, sweet Kastanes, we hardly knew ye. That was pretty funny:-) Back to topic, I think we will hear something from United therapeutics during their earnings call later this month. 10/23 I believe. ( about the deal ) |
|
|
|
Post by buyitonsale on Oct 15, 2018 12:46:20 GMT -5
I do not see any PR about earnings or upcoming events on UT website.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Oct 15, 2018 13:06:09 GMT -5
I do not see any PR about earnings or upcoming events on UT website. It’s on my CNBC real time app under events for United therapeutic. Which is usually an estimate but pretty much they hit it. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Oct 15, 2018 16:52:12 GMT -5
UK cost of a pack of Novolog pens to the NHS is $38 (it's free to the patient), the US price is $563. They will still be making a profit even at the $38 price so they could easily reduce their prices by 90%. you know that for a fact? Yes, because to do so would be illegal under the EU competition laws. It would be a straightforward article 102 breach. |
|
|
|
Post by slapshot on Oct 16, 2018 9:15:52 GMT -5
you know that for a fact? Yes, because to do so would be illegal under the EU competition laws. It would be a straightforward article 102 breach. I'm not a lawyer, but I do not think this is factually correct. 1. It would definitely not be a "straightforward" breach, as there would be many factors to consider. 2. May merely break even, but not be profitable. 3. If price is already set by competition, they could compete at a similar cost at a loss without competing unfairly. etc. etc. Just because there is a law doesn't mean everyone complies and even if they could be profitable at a given price in one are of the world doesn't necessarily mean that the same price translates everywhere else. Aged, I think you have made too broad of an assumption, but again, I'm not a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Oct 16, 2018 10:17:51 GMT -5
Yes, because to do so would be illegal under the EU competition laws. It would be a straightforward article 102 breach. I'm not a lawyer, but I do not think this is factually correct. 1. It would definitely not be a "straightforward" breach, as there would be many factors to consider. 2. May merely break even, but not be profitable. 3. If price is already set by competition, they could compete at a similar cost at a loss without competing unfairly. etc. etc. Just because there is a law doesn't mean everyone complies and even if they could be profitable at a given price in one are of the world doesn't necessarily mean that the same price translates everywhere else. Aged, I think you have made too broad of an assumption, but again, I'm not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, especially not an EC anti-competition lawyer  The EC regulations are limited to sales within the EU so elsewhere in the world they can do what they like. What matters is predatory pricing. The EU takes this as: - prices below the average variable cost (AVC) (ie, costs that vary with the amount of products produced) by a dominant firm will be presumed abusive; - prices below the ATC (ie, fixed costs plus variable costs) but above the AVC will be regarded as abusive if they are part of a plan to eliminate competitors. If Novo sold at a loss, or even break even, with the intent of shutting competitors out of the market they would quite clearly be in breach. However if their cost of production is such that they could undercut a competitor that would be acceptable. You don't get penalized for efficiency. Just because a competitor is breaking the law does not mean you can as well, and if you sold at a loss to match a competitor doing so the EC would prosecute both of you. The EC does not need someone to file a complaint, they frequently initiate investigations themselves. Legal niceties aside, what possible incentive is there for Novo Nordisk to sell to the NHS at a loss? The NHS buys insulin from everyone EMC and NICE approved so it's a commodity. Supposing for a moment Novo Nordisk sold at a loss then all that would happen is that the NHS gets cheap insulin, Novo Nordisk gets a whopping loss, and as soon as they try to put the price up NHS starts buying from everyone else again. The market shares revert, and Novo Nordisk has taken that lose for no reason - love to see the explanation for that in the annual report! |
|
|
|
Post by tinkusr8215 on Oct 16, 2018 11:04:35 GMT -5
Is this the answer to the original question?
As previously announced, the effectiveness of the agreement was conditioned upon expiration or termination of the required waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. The requisite waiting period expired on October 15, 2018, and the agreement became effective the same day.
|
|
The EC regulations are limited to sales within the EU so elsewhere in the world they can do what they like.