|
Post by phdedieu12 on Jul 24, 2023 20:15:40 GMT -5
Pretty sure phdedieu12 was being sarcastic, aged. So from "Mike deserves no credit for Tyvaso revenue streams", we now have "Mike's incentive structure should explicitly exclude revenue from Tyvaso". Remarkable Poor guy - he has managed to turn a cash-bleeding enterprise into a soon-to-be-profitable, 4 revenue stream business, but can not get credit for 50% of the revenue streams! A few questions for anyone who cares to answer: 1) If striking partnerships is really so easy that the CEO should get no credit for it, why was Hakan unable to strike a single deal for his 3 years before getting fired? Mike came in, had a consulting firm do an analysis on potential partnerships, and then closed an incredible deal with an incredible partner. The results of the deal should then be excluded from his performance metrics? 2) Is the metric that shareholders should care about, and judge a CEO based on, A) performance of the entire company - potentially including share price, peer benchmarking, revenue growth, profitability or B) performance of only the revenue streams where the company itself is charged with sales? As an FYI for 2B, this literally dis-incentivizes the CEO to do deals with partners because none of the time and money spent on those endeavors is factored into performance. 3) Is a CEO's job just to get out of a partner's way? Or is the CEO's job to A) close a deal that benefits smaller co B) hit smaller co's milestones for clinical trials C) scale manufacturing and drive efficiencies during an extremely aggressive ramp-up D) manage the partnership with the CEO of an enormous company with large ambitions that has eaten up other smaller companies E) navigate relationships with current partner and future partners as the smaller co develops a broader partner landscape and does R&D on products that could one-day even compete with larger co F) co-develop a novel IoT device with larger co based on smaller co's technology G-Z) the rest of their job leading every other business unit and function in the company I don't think the view that "Mike should not get any credit for the deal, it is all Martine" deserves much attention. But here is an alternative point of view for anyone interested, already alluded to in Questions 1 and 3A. For those who have not researched Martine Rothblatt, the CEO of United Therapeutics, it is worth your time to do so. She is an absolute BEAST - an extremely tough, successful, and litigious entrepreneur. You can learn more here: seekingalpha.com/article/4447134-liquidia-martine-rothblatts-united-therapeutics-is-tough-to-beat . At the same time she was negotiating with MannKind, she was also likely* trying to do a different deal with LQDA - one that would grant UTHR exclusivity to sell LQDA's drug, without promises of commercial success. (*Liquidia has acknowledged an unnamed company making such an offer). Martine’s fiduciary responsibility in the deal with MannKind was the best interests of UTHR, not MNKD. The reason the deal is so good for us is that Mike negotiated the deal on behalf of MNKD. Anyone who wants to take for granted the amazing deal with have with UTHR or claim that "anyone could have done it" ignores that A) Mike took an analytical / strategic approach to finding the right partner for a deal B) Hakan could not do a deal in years of being CEO while asking for partners in conference calls C) Mike did not just do a deal, but one that heavily benefitted MannKind D) we had so little leverage at the time and E) Martine was the party on the other end negotiating for the best interests of UTHR. Mike showed poise in the highest-stakes strategy, sales and negotiation and made what is proving to be an amazing business move. Anyhow friends - I will go back to focusing more on the future. Just couldn't help myself on this one. But in terms of what is important - Q2 earnings will be great! I think we can achieve $45M and maybe more - Afrezza is a dark horse. Q3 earnings will be fantastic. And each quarter will only get better and more profitable. So for that, I will just say thank you Mike Thank you Tarheel, I have lost the desire to argue with silliness and you've made my point eloquently.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 24, 2023 21:54:34 GMT -5
You answered one of my questions. What does the PTAB ruling mean if the courts say no? Courts already ruled, and upheld, LQDA infringed. I realize one court (two courts in this case) can say "infringed" and another court say "infringement is a moot point". I agree about the popcorn. It's always fun when you can have the USPO issue patents which are debated in courts which rule on the basis of the patents issued by the USPO who then decides, for whatever reasons, "Oh? Did we say these were patentable and issue patents? What we meant was, not patentable." Your tax dollars at play. Queue the circus music. There are two separate court cases running (1) the patent infringement case that just ruled, (2) the IPR appeal case that will uphold the invalidating of the patent. Once the second case rules for LQDA the first case becomes moot since there is not patent to infringe any more. The first case was unwinnable IIMHO, but a bit of a lottery ticket and like most lottery tickets it wasn't a winner
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 24, 2023 21:58:02 GMT -5
LQDA would have to pay UTHR damages.
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Jul 25, 2023 5:26:37 GMT -5
Interesting. Shorting is a dangerous strategy for many when, if wrong, can lead to bankruptcy. Shorting LQDA might just be the forthcoming game about to be played by Wall Street's deep state players. It should be interesting to follow the stock price in the coming weeks and months. IMO, retail investors should stay far away from companies in LQDA's potentially volatile position.
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 25, 2023 6:21:24 GMT -5
Interesting. Shorting is a dangerous strategy for many when, if wrong, can lead to bankruptcy. Shorting LQDA might just be the forthcoming game about to be played by Wall Street's deep state players. It should be interesting to follow the stock price in the coming weeks and months. IMO, retail investors should stay far away from companies in LQDA's potentially volatile position. It’s been awhile since anybody mentioned the social media posts promoting LQDA from ex-con Martin Shkrelli. Because he’s proven to be an amoral sociopath, nobody should trust a single thing he says, so I immediately wondered whether he planned to short LQDA.
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Jul 25, 2023 7:52:23 GMT -5
I seem to recall one of the court conditions on Shkreli is that he no longer invest in the stock market. Being an amoral sociopath though, he probably would ignore conditions anyway and find a way around it. He never seemed to respect the judicial system or anyone for that matter. This could add another chapter to the eventual book and movie on Mannkind Corp
|
|
|
Post by Clement on Jul 25, 2023 8:12:31 GMT -5
I seem to recall one of the court conditions on Shkreli is that he no longer invest in the stock market. Being an amoral sociopath though, he probably would ignore conditions anyway and find a way around it. He never seemed to respect the judicial system or anyone for that matter. This could add another chapter to the eventual book and movie on Mannkind Corp I don't see any restriction on his investing personally. And he is allowed to reapply to the securities industry. From Wikipedia: " In April 2018, Shkreli agreed to a Securities and Exchange Commission order banning him from the securities industry in exchange for settlement of the SEC administrative action against him; Shkreli is eligible to apply for readmission to the industry.[148] In 2020, the Federal Trade Commission and seven states—California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—filed a civil lawsuit against Shkreli.[149] A seven-day bench trial was held in December 2021.[149] In January 2022, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an lenghthy opinion and order directing Shkreli to return $64.6 million in wrongfully obtained profits (disgorgement); the money is to be distributed to victims nationwide (via the states that were plaintiffs in the case). The court found that Shkreli had violated federal and state law through an anticompetitive scheme to delay "the entry of generic competition for at least eighteen months" and banned Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry for life.[149][150][151] On February 23, 2022, U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered Shkreli to pay a $1.39 million fine for violating securities laws between 2009 and 2014 and banned from serving as an officer or a director of any publicly traded company for life.[152][153]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 25, 2023 8:38:40 GMT -5
MNKD has volume today. 174,000 real time in 7 mins. 150,000 shares in three mins. $4.54 2.37% +0.11 Today www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/mnkd/real-timeVolume: 219,952 in 10 mins Added, MNKD volume at 30 mins of trade, 269,083 shares, $4.49 1.24% +0.055 Today $4.39 is the 100 MONTH MA. price hasn't been through that since 2016. schrts.co/NBEmaXzg$4.65 takes out last months high of $4.64.
|
|
|
Post by slapshot on Jul 25, 2023 9:01:06 GMT -5
^This. The PTAB and subsequent IPR have both ruled the patent invalid so that's done. UTHR are appealing that ruling and those appeals almost invariably fail unless the review didn't follow process which is exceptionally rare. If UTHR lose the appeal then the FDA will immediately grant approval and LQDA will start selling within a month or so. Right now LQDA is presenting papers, and has salesmen out talking to doctors in preparation for launch - they aren't standing still. The CEO of LQDA may have the charisma of a damp dishcloth, but he is extremely competent and was at UTHR for 18 years ending up as co-CEO with Martine. I have my popcorn for this one - www.liquidia.com/management/roger-jeffsYou answered one of my questions. What does the PTAB ruling mean if the courts say no? Courts already ruled, and upheld, LQDA infringed. I realize one court (two courts in this case) can say "infringed" and another court say "infringement is a moot point". I agree about the popcorn. It's always fun when you can have the USPO issue patents which are debated in courts which rule on the basis of the patents issued by the USPO who then decides, for whatever reasons, "Oh? Did we say these were patentable and issue patents? What we meant was, not patentable." Your tax dollars at play. Queue the circus music.
Not sure what your point about the USPTO is... The USPTO is 100% fee funded and takes no tax dollars. It has been running at a surplus since i can remember and actually subsidizes the tax payers as the surplus fees are diverted to congress for general use.
Further, the USPTO has separate departments. The examining corps determines patentability at the outset. A totally separate division of examiners considers any/all re-examination and the PTAB is again a totally separate entity. You act as if there is one person there making all the decisions.
|
|
|
Post by ronw77077 on Jul 25, 2023 9:04:03 GMT -5
I applaud tarheelblue once again for a well reasoned and thoughtful assessment of why MC has been an excellent leader of MNKD. It is very difficult to change the path of a company, especially when one is constrained financially.
And I also think $45 M is quite possible for Q2.
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 25, 2023 10:12:50 GMT -5
You answered one of my questions. What does the PTAB ruling mean if the courts say no? Courts already ruled, and upheld, LQDA infringed. I realize one court (two courts in this case) can say "infringed" and another court say "infringement is a moot point". I agree about the popcorn. It's always fun when you can have the USPO issue patents which are debated in courts which rule on the basis of the patents issued by the USPO who then decides, for whatever reasons, "Oh? Did we say these were patentable and issue patents? What we meant was, not patentable." Your tax dollars at play. Queue the circus music.
Not sure what your point about the USPTO is... The USPTO is 100% fee funded and takes no tax dollars. It has been running at a surplus since i can remember and actually subsidizes the tax payers as the surplus fees are diverted to congress for general use.
Further, the USPTO has separate departments. The examining corps determines patentability at the outset. A totally separate division of examiners considers any/all re-examination and the PTAB is again a totally separate entity. You act as if there is one person there making all the decisions.
Your point is taken. I was too flippant, and ignorant of the divisions. My apologies. Respectfully, I still think it's a valid point to question why the examiners across the divisions of the organization were not in alignment. Did the PTAB change the rules of what is considered patent-able, or is there a lack of communication about those guidelines between the PTAB and the prior examiners? What kind of performance management system is in place to avoid these kinds of outwardly embarrassing conflicts?
The USPTO should operate similar to the court system. Judges do not like and the legal system looks bad when rulings are overturned and because our legal system is influenced by prior decisions (as is patent-ability influenced by "prior art") serious effort is invested to be methodical and avoid the appearance of sloppy work. That may also be entirely true of the USPTO, but the efforts there won't be as obvious as in the legal system, so I may hopefully be forgiven some of my ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 25, 2023 10:32:19 GMT -5
MNKD has volume today. 174,000 real time in 7 mins. 150,000 shares in three mins. $4.54 2.37% +0.11 Today www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/mnkd/real-timeVolume: 219,952 in 10 mins Added, MNKD volume at 30 mins of trade, 269,083 shares, $4.49 1.24% +0.055 Today $4.39 is the 100 MONTH MA. price hasn't been through that since 2016. schrts.co/NBEmaXzg$4.65 takes out last months high of $4.64. MNKD volume at 2 hours of trade, 498,433 shares. $4.49 1.24% +0.055
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 25, 2023 15:50:20 GMT -5
MNKD Nasdaq real time volume, 1,342,662 shares. $4.46 0.68% +0.030
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 25, 2023 18:07:09 GMT -5
Respectfully, I still think it's a valid point to question why the examiners across the divisions of the organization were not in alignment. Did the PTAB change the rules of what is considered patent-able, or is there a lack of communication about those guidelines between the PTAB and the prior examiners? What kind of performance management system is in place to avoid these kinds of outwardly embarrassing conflicts? ... It's a resource problem really. There a huge volume of patents filed and if they were reviewed to the depth used by an IPR the costs to file would go through the roof. As it stands they review the patents and cut out the obvious deadwood. This works because most patents are never used, but stored away was ammunition. It's only at point of challenge that the validity needs to be fully checked, and at that point the challenger will have collected the evidence so it's a matter of judging if the challenge is valid. This works because the challenger has the incentive to spend far more researching the patent than the patent office could.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 26, 2023 10:31:34 GMT -5
Volume at 2 hours of trade, real time, 292,777
volume at 1 hour was, 157,862 that is the rate per hour, so far.
$4.45 0.22% -0.0100
|
|