|
|
Post by mnholdem on Feb 18, 2020 23:06:23 GMT -5
I think it's highly unlikely that we would hear public statements from current/former officers, directors and/or managers of MannKind Corporation primarily because that have signed non-disclosure agreements. HOWEVER, that does not mean that the Board of Directors is barred from questioning current and former employees pertaining to the conduct of an employee facing disciplinary action, for example. An NDA would also be ineffectual in a situation where a former officer is required to appear before a judge/jury. I suspect that is why Bill McCulloch is not intimidated by any threats of legal actions by MannKind's CEO. There may be some C-Level witnesses that Mike would not want to testify.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Feb 18, 2020 23:12:23 GMT -5
mnholdemIf the data about VDex prescriptions was obtained as part of what MNKD pays Symphony for, what is the legal violation? As I remember, the implication from Bill was that was where the data point was from. That wasn't something Bill released to Mike with the expectation or requirement (as in NDA, or stating it a trade secret) of privacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 18, 2020 23:17:29 GMT -5
I think it's highly unlikely that we would hear public statements from current/former officers, directors and/or managers of MannKind Corporation primarily because that have signed non-disclosure agreements. HOWEVER, that does not mean that the Board of Directors is barred from questioning current and former employees pertaining to the conduct of an employee facing disciplinary action, for example. An NDA would also be ineffectual in a situation where a former officer is required to appear before a judge/jury. I suspect that is why Bill McCulloch is not intimidated by any threats of legal actions by MannKind's CEO. There may be some C-Level witnesses that Mike would not want to testify. It's equally likely that Bill simply has nothing to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Feb 19, 2020 9:02:44 GMT -5
I think it's highly unlikely that we would hear public statements from current/former officers, directors and/or managers of MannKind Corporation primarily because that have signed non-disclosure agreements. HOWEVER, that does not mean that the Board of Directors is barred from questioning current and former employees pertaining to the conduct of an employee facing disciplinary action, for example. An NDA would also be ineffectual in a situation where a former officer is required to appear before a judge/jury. I suspect that is why Bill McCulloch is not intimidated by any threats of legal actions by MannKind's CEO. There may be some C-Level witnesses that Mike would not want to testify. It's equally likely that Bill simply has nothing to lose. And what is your logic behind that comment? |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 19, 2020 9:56:23 GMT -5
If VDex doesn't have the patient base to support their business without Mannkind subsidizing them, what does Bill have to lose by attacking MC?
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Feb 19, 2020 10:08:12 GMT -5
Goodness...the lengths Bill will go for a buck. I won't be voting for this guy! McCullough v. FCA U.S. LLC 11-09-2018 WILLIAM McCULLOUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant and Respondent. In February 2011, McCullough purchased a new 2011 Jeep Cherokee for $51,754.03 including taxes, fees and certain options. Within four months and having driven the vehicle about 2,000 miles, it began to exhibit transmission problems. After multiple transmission repair visits, in April 2013 McCullough traded the vehicle in and received $28,000 toward a replacement vehicle, a 2013 Jeep. In January 2015, he asked Chrysler to repurchase the replacement vehicle. Chrysler rejected the offer. In April 2015, McCullough sued Chrysler for damages, civil penalties and attorney fees under the Act. Chrysler responded by offering McCullough the "actual price paid or payable, including any incidental and consequential expenses incurred" for the vehicle, less an offset for use, plus McCullough's reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough did not accept the offer. Chrysler answered the complaint in May 2015, and concurrently served an offer to compromise under section 998 to pay restitution less an offset for McCullough's use, plus reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough rejected the offer, but offered to mediate the dispute. Chrysler declined mediation. casetext.com/case/mccullough-v-fca-us-llc |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Feb 19, 2020 10:09:07 GMT -5
If VDex doesn't have the patient base to support their business without Mannkind subsidizing them, what does Bill have to lose by attacking MC? If he is libelous, he stands to lose his millions. And he’s way too smart to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 19, 2020 10:12:59 GMT -5
Or Bill simply puts VDex in BK and moves on.....who would do such a thing?🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Feb 19, 2020 10:15:32 GMT -5
Goodness...the lengths Bill will go for a buck. I won't be voting for this guy! McCullough v. FCA U.S. LLC 11-09-2018 WILLIAM McCULLOUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant and Respondent. In February 2011, McCullough purchased a new 2011 Jeep Cherokee for $51,754.03 including taxes, fees and certain options. Within four months and having driven the vehicle about 2,000 miles, it began to exhibit transmission problems. After multiple transmission repair visits, in April 2013 McCullough traded the vehicle in and received $28,000 toward a replacement vehicle, a 2013 Jeep. In January 2015, he asked Chrysler to repurchase the replacement vehicle. Chrysler rejected the offer. In April 2015, McCullough sued Chrysler for damages, civil penalties and attorney fees under the Act. Chrysler responded by offering McCullough the "actual price paid or payable, including any incidental and consequential expenses incurred" for the vehicle, less an offset for use, plus McCullough's reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough did not accept the offer. Chrysler answered the complaint in May 2015, and concurrently served an offer to compromise under section 998 to pay restitution less an offset for McCullough's use, plus reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough rejected the offer, but offered to mediate the dispute. Chrysler declined mediation. casetext.com/case/mccullough-v-fca-us-llc The high value of good character...... |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Feb 19, 2020 10:30:32 GMT -5
Or Bill simply puts VDex in BK and moves on.....who would do such a thing?🤣 Would not matter, he could be sued personally. |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Feb 19, 2020 10:36:56 GMT -5
Goodness...the lengths Bill will go for a buck. I won't be voting for this guy! McCullough v. FCA U.S. LLC 11-09-2018 WILLIAM McCULLOUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant and Respondent. In February 2011, McCullough purchased a new 2011 Jeep Cherokee for $51,754.03 including taxes, fees and certain options. Within four months and having driven the vehicle about 2,000 miles, it began to exhibit transmission problems. After multiple transmission repair visits, in April 2013 McCullough traded the vehicle in and received $28,000 toward a replacement vehicle, a 2013 Jeep. In January 2015, he asked Chrysler to repurchase the replacement vehicle. Chrysler rejected the offer. In April 2015, McCullough sued Chrysler for damages, civil penalties and attorney fees under the Act. Chrysler responded by offering McCullough the "actual price paid or payable, including any incidental and consequential expenses incurred" for the vehicle, less an offset for use, plus McCullough's reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough did not accept the offer. Chrysler answered the complaint in May 2015, and concurrently served an offer to compromise under section 998 to pay restitution less an offset for McCullough's use, plus reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough rejected the offer, but offered to mediate the dispute. Chrysler declined mediation. casetext.com/case/mccullough-v-fca-us-llc Mango, that is meaningless. Chrysler should have been sued. And their Jeep’s have been notorious for being lemons and they have been notorious for not making amends. I know this personally myself also |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Feb 19, 2020 10:59:05 GMT -5
If VDex doesn't have the patient base to support their business without Mannkind subsidizing them, what does Bill have to lose by attacking MC? You could turn that around. If Mike doesn't have the patient base to support their business what does he have to lose by attacking VDEX? This is just throwing random insults really. It doesn't address the problems raised by the emails. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 19, 2020 11:15:28 GMT -5
My girlfriend had the same problems with her jeep. Transmission. Good job Bill... maybe if you were the CEO you’d save Mannkind some bucks!😁
|
|
|
|
Post by porkini on Feb 19, 2020 11:21:37 GMT -5
Goodness...the lengths Bill will go for a buck. I won't be voting for this guy! McCullough v. FCA U.S. LLC 11-09-2018 WILLIAM McCULLOUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant and Respondent. In February 2011, McCullough purchased a new 2011 Jeep Cherokee for $51,754.03 including taxes, fees and certain options. Within four months and having driven the vehicle about 2,000 miles, it began to exhibit transmission problems. After multiple transmission repair visits, in April 2013 McCullough traded the vehicle in and received $28,000 toward a replacement vehicle, a 2013 Jeep. In January 2015, he asked Chrysler to repurchase the replacement vehicle. Chrysler rejected the offer. In April 2015, McCullough sued Chrysler for damages, civil penalties and attorney fees under the Act. Chrysler responded by offering McCullough the "actual price paid or payable, including any incidental and consequential expenses incurred" for the vehicle, less an offset for use, plus McCullough's reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough did not accept the offer. Chrysler answered the complaint in May 2015, and concurrently served an offer to compromise under section 998 to pay restitution less an offset for McCullough's use, plus reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough rejected the offer, but offered to mediate the dispute. Chrysler declined mediation. casetext.com/case/mccullough-v-fca-us-llcYeah, I'm not a big fan of Chrysler products either.  |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Feb 19, 2020 11:25:21 GMT -5
Goodness...the lengths Bill will go for a buck. I won't be voting for this guy! McCullough v. FCA U.S. LLC 11-09-2018 WILLIAM McCULLOUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant and Respondent. In February 2011, McCullough purchased a new 2011 Jeep Cherokee for $51,754.03 including taxes, fees and certain options. Within four months and having driven the vehicle about 2,000 miles, it began to exhibit transmission problems. After multiple transmission repair visits, in April 2013 McCullough traded the vehicle in and received $28,000 toward a replacement vehicle, a 2013 Jeep. In January 2015, he asked Chrysler to repurchase the replacement vehicle. Chrysler rejected the offer. In April 2015, McCullough sued Chrysler for damages, civil penalties and attorney fees under the Act. Chrysler responded by offering McCullough the "actual price paid or payable, including any incidental and consequential expenses incurred" for the vehicle, less an offset for use, plus McCullough's reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough did not accept the offer. Chrysler answered the complaint in May 2015, and concurrently served an offer to compromise under section 998 to pay restitution less an offset for McCullough's use, plus reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees. McCullough rejected the offer, but offered to mediate the dispute. Chrysler declined mediation. casetext.com/case/mccullough-v-fca-us-llcYeah, I'm not a big fan of Chrysler products either. He showed his lack of DD by buying a Chrysler in the first place! Second, he showed absolute desperation to make significantly more money than he suffered and was owed by rejecting Chrysler's offer and instead trying to sue. Ridiculous and not the character traits that represent a good BoD. |
|
