|
|
Post by apidistra on Dec 19, 2019 10:08:45 GMT -5
The big question is: why?
Why the change? Why now?
|
|
|
|
Post by longliner on Dec 19, 2019 10:10:46 GMT -5
The big question is: why? Why the change? Why now? Too soon?  |
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on Dec 19, 2019 10:31:08 GMT -5
Too soon for what?
Why does a debtor and its lender alter a recently negotiated credit facility that makes the near-term easier for the debtor and only modestly improves a longer-term benefit to the lender? Forbearance (is this what we are seeing?) occurs for a reason.
Either a situation has worsened (and I think we'd see acceleration under the terms of the original facility, rather than this amendment) or there is Information that is not currently public that is seen as benefitting both if short-term forbearance is granted.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Dec 19, 2019 10:47:10 GMT -5
Pediatric approval can't come soon enough. Correct, it's not possible for Peds approval to be soon enough to help with these covenants. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Dec 19, 2019 10:54:14 GMT -5
Too soon for what? Why does a debtor and its lender alter a recently negotiated credit facility that makes the near-term easier for the debtor and only modestly improves a longer-term benefit to the lender? Forbearance (is this what we are seeing?) occurs for a reason. Either a situation has worsened (and I think we'd see acceleration under the terms of the original facility, rather than this amendment) or there is Information that is not currently public that is seen as benefitting both if short-term forbearance is granted. Nothing material has changed or MNKD would be required to report it. I wouldn't read too much into it. A little give and take. |
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on Dec 19, 2019 10:59:41 GMT -5
Too soon for what? Why does a debtor and its lender alter a recently negotiated credit facility that makes the near-term easier for the debtor and only modestly improves a longer-term benefit to the lender? Forbearance (is this what we are seeing?) occurs for a reason. Either a situation has worsened (and I think we'd see acceleration under the terms of the original facility, rather than this amendment) or there is Information that is not currently public that is seen as benefitting both if short-term forbearance is granted. Nothing material has changed or MNKD would be required to report it. I wouldn't read too much into it. A little give and take. Yes, the swath of material non-public information is wide. Could be just give and take. But why this change and why now? |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Dec 19, 2019 11:04:41 GMT -5
Nothing material has changed or MNKD would be required to report it. I wouldn't read too much into it. A little give and take. Yes, the swath of material non-public information is wide. Could be just give and take. But why this change and why now? Doesn't seem that mysterious to me. Various people argued (here and elsewhere, e.g. see Kastanes' article at SA) that MNKD was likely going to miss the next MidCap requirement. Assuming they were right, wouldn't now be the time to alter the agreement? |
|
|
|
Post by Clement on Dec 19, 2019 11:12:38 GMT -5
Too soon for what? Why does a debtor and its lender alter a recently negotiated credit facility that makes the near-term easier for the debtor and only modestly improves a longer-term benefit to the lender? Forbearance (is this what we are seeing?) occurs for a reason. Either a situation has worsened (and I think we'd see acceleration under the terms of the original facility, rather than this amendment) or there is Information that is not currently public that is seen as benefitting both if short-term forbearance is granted.Yeah, I've been puzzling over this, too. Very good results from BREEZE would seem to be a longer-term motivator for the lender. Earlier this year, Rothblatt stated that prelim data from BREEZE would be available around Christmas, but the study start date was then delayed a month or so. (We won't see an NDA until 2021 unless there's a miracle.) |
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on Dec 19, 2019 11:16:55 GMT -5
Yes, the swath of material non-public information is wide. Could be just give and take. But why this change and why now? Doesn't seem that mysterious to me. Various people argued (here and elsewhere, e.g. see Kastanes' article at SA) that MNKD was likely going to miss the next MidCap requirement. Assuming they were right, wouldn't now be the time to alter the agreement? Might be. I'd think rather it is more profitable for the lender in the short-run not to ease terms if the game is up for a miss to occur. Especially if the longer-term is that much more valuable to it. |
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Dec 19, 2019 11:18:29 GMT -5
Nothing material has changed or MNKD would be required to report it. I wouldn't read too much into it. A little give and take. Yes, the swath of material non-public information is wide. Could be just give and take. But why this change and why now? Because if they didn’t re-negotiate terms, MannKind would have already failed the loan covenants. Sadly... |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Dec 19, 2019 11:24:01 GMT -5
Nothing material has changed or MNKD would be required to report it. I wouldn't read too much into it. A little give and take. Yes, the swath of material non-public information is wide. Could be just give and take. But why this change and why now? It was becoming obvious MNKD was not going to be in compliance with covenants by 2nd tranche, so this does provide better clarity to the investment community... yes 2nd tranche and highly probable no on 3rd. The give-take change was likely initiated by MNKD in order to get that clarity and help support share price a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on Dec 19, 2019 12:03:58 GMT -5
Yes, the swath of material non-public information is wide. Could be just give and take. But why this change and why now? Because if they didn’t re-negotiate terms, MannKind would have already failed the loan covenants. Sadly... And what would have happened in case of debtor failure? Lender still wins. No, I don't think that's it. I think perhaps lender sees a bigger payday. Otherwise, why alter the terms in this way? Of course, you may be right, but we shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Dec 19, 2019 12:09:40 GMT -5
Because if they didn’t re-negotiate terms, MannKind would have already failed the loan covenants. Sadly... And what would have happened in case of debtor failure? Lender still wins. No, I don't think that's it. I think perhaps lender sees a bigger payday. Otherwise, why alter the terms in this way? Of course, you may be right, but we shall see. Yes, just like many years past, this undoubtedly means there are all sorts of amazing things being hidden from us. It will undoubtedly happen Monday. Just to get the wild speculation going, I'll revive a really old one that Apple is going to get into healthcare by making huge investment into MNKD  If you want this game to get going you need to throw forth your own version of the hidden unicorn. BTW, Deerfield certainly got big payday(s) on MNKD over the years, no unicorn involved. |
|
|
|
Post by apidistra on Dec 19, 2019 12:13:13 GMT -5
And what would have happened in case of debtor failure? Lender still wins. No, I don't think that's it. I think perhaps lender sees a bigger payday. Otherwise, why alter the terms in this way? Of course, you may be right, but we shall see. Yes, just like many years past, this undoubtedly means there are all sorts of amazing things being hidden from us. It will undoubtedly happen Monday. Just to get the wild speculation going, I'll revive a really old one that Apple is going to get into healthcare by making huge investment into MNKD If you want this game to get going you need to throw forth your own version of the hidden unicorn. BTW, Deerfield certainly got big payday(s) on MNKD over the years, no unicorn involved. This does not answer the central question of my post: why this change and why now. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Dec 19, 2019 12:36:17 GMT -5
apidistra... sure it does. I said Apple is investing in MNKD on Monday, so obviously MidCap is going to want to be on good terms with MNKD and Tim Cook Or there is the real explanation I proposed in prior post.
|
|
