|
|
Post by mssciguy on Dec 16, 2015 11:56:57 GMT -5
BlueCat a PR person and a securities law firm on retainer would be perfect. To complain to SEC in a serious way you need a securities lawyer, right? At least whistleblowers do... Hey maybe kickstarter... Otherwise all of those patents, IP, and all of that future are subject to theft and destruction on The Street as we've been feeling, oh and did I forget to mention shareholder value destruction?
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Dec 16, 2015 12:02:07 GMT -5
BlueCat a PR person and a securities law firm on retainer would be perfect. To complain to SEC in a serious way you need a securities lawyer, right? At least whistleblowers do... Hey maybe kickstarter... Otherwise all of those patents, IP, and all of that future are subject to theft and destruction on The Street as we've been feeling, oh and did I forget to mention shareholder value destruction? Yep.
My guess is that MNKD doesn't want to do the spend on someone good. Difficult to justify the cost during the cc.
However - surprised that the Mann group or what hasn't done it as the main investor across their portfolio of companies.
But could be a blind spot. Never ceases to amaze how many execs are brilliant with GTM and product, but are missing this skill set in their DNA - and you don't know, what you don't know.
On that note, WRT to this situation - clearly we don't know either. And that is not good. And that we do know.
|
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Dec 16, 2015 12:05:25 GMT -5
BlueCat a PR person and a securities law firm on retainer would be perfect. To complain to SEC in a serious way you need a securities lawyer, right? At least whistleblowers do... Hey maybe kickstarter... Otherwise all of those patents, IP, and all of that future are subject to theft and destruction on The Street as we've been feeling, oh and did I forget to mention shareholder value destruction? Yep.
My guess is that MNKD doesn't want to do the spend on someone good. Difficult to justify the cost during the cc.
However - surprised that the Mann group or what hasn't done it as the main investor across their portfolio of companies.
But could be a blind spot. Never ceases to amaze how many execs are brilliant with GTM and product, but are missing this skill set in their DNA - and you don't know, what you don't know.
On that note, WRT to this situation - clearly we don't know either. And that is not good. And that we do know.
Well if in fact Sanofi does something really brutal BlueCat -- maybe move to solar at least partially, should see strong growth there due to climate change. No brainer and the sector is down 90% from highs just a few years ago. Just like MNKD down 90%, isn't that amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 16, 2015 14:02:09 GMT -5
this is a great thread and a basic reason i came to the proboards in the first place. thank you hammer . please everyone let us get back to these kinds of fruitful discussions and initiate a moratorium on the rants and FUD. anyone else know any/all of the reasons a company enters a blackout/quiet period besides potential M/A if it's not right before a CC? because if it's only for potential M/A then we're in for some happy times in 2016, IMO. Just curious, how is this more fruitful than any other speculation, including the negative kind? I'm not saying I find it objectionable.... but don't really see how any of our speculation changes anything regarding what happens in the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by factspls88 on Dec 16, 2015 16:10:49 GMT -5
I think you have a plausible theory that may have more merit than mine. I do believe that cringe-worthy moment was the coup de grace for Hakan. My own theory was that Hakan blew a TS negotiation and that it was the last straw for Al, but that Al recognized that Hakan still had an important role to play in shepherding Afrezza along and managing the transition to Sanofi once a buyout was finalized  . I also think that Al recognized that Hakan played a pivotal role in getting Afrezza approved and wanted to ensure that Hakan was properly rewarded for all the work he had done, most importantly in the form of a significantly higher stock price. (I know that latter is significantly at odds with how corporate America works but I think Al doesn't conform to those norms.) All that said, who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by kbrion77 on Dec 16, 2015 16:20:41 GMT -5
I think you have a plausible theory that may have more merit than mine. I do believe that cringe-worthy moment was the coup de grace for Hakan. My own theory was that Hakan blew a TS negotiation and that it was the last straw for Al, but that Al recognized that Hakan still had an important role to play in shepherding Afrezza along and managing the transition to Sanofi once a buyout was finalized . I also think that Al recognized that Hakan played a pivotal role in getting Afrezza approved and wanted to ensure that Hakan was properly rewarded for all the work he had done, most importantly in the form of a significantly higher stock price. All that said, who knows. I really hope Mannkind can see the day where they have established 4 licensing deals for 4 different products and are generating a substantial amount of revenue and are announcing new partnerships/licensing deals every year. I don't want a premature buyout. Once Afrezza becomes a blockbuster companies will be coming to Mannkind to partner for the next blockbuster formula. |
|
|
|
Post by factspls88 on Dec 16, 2015 16:24:01 GMT -5
Your right about Afrezza will be successful when SNY wants it to be....just hope that the time comes soon! When is the pediatric study complete? 2017? That might represent the biggest market and may be worth waiting for, from Sanofi's perspective. But if they do wait that long, they better pony up some cash for Al's troubles. Al is down all this money after 10-15 years of struggle with FDA, Shrkeli, political science graduate biotech experts, GSCO, hedge funds... Al is a fighter and so should we be. Alternatively, Phase II beginning very soon could showcase early adopters, maybe in an Afrezza hub format with flipcards, or maybe something bigger. It's very FUNNY that Afrezza is getting free airtime from local affiliates, just imagine what would happen if they open their wallet. "Hey Dr. Brandicourt, what's in your wallet?"That free airtime is due to the efforts of an external or internal PR Agency contracted by Sanofi. These things generally do not happen on their own. |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 16, 2015 16:27:05 GMT -5
So, your thesis is that SNY is starving MNKD to get a better price, correct? If that's the case, then MNKD (and Al) were displeased with Hakan's weak efforts, yet they kept him on the payroll. This suggests that Al (and/or) Al's minions are out there beating the bushes for more TS partners and has left day to day operations to Hakan. Has anyone seen evidence of Al shopping and negotiating yet? Because that is what we would expect in this scenario. My thesis is simple. SNY has interest in Afrezza as well as the TS program. SNY is not willing to completely commit to Afrezza until certain regulatory conditions,least of all that include SNY insulin as secondary API for Afrezza and A better label moving into EU. All of these items will eventually be secured but will take some time. Afrezza will be successful when SNY wants it to be! Article 2 subsection 2.7 of the redacted license agreement pertains to third party license of TS development (IMHO), and is the only mechanism in which SNY does not have complete control of. MNKD is free to develop and present TS to 3rd parties but SNY retains access to such data rooms and retains redacted time frames in which to review and do due dilligence on such TS developments. This is good for SNY since ultimately will provide a source of income either by a third party or by SNY. This is not good for SNY since it the intent is to own TS they may have to purchase piecemeal in a time frame other than by their own doing. If forced to purchase TS developments before the mentioned regulatory milestones SNY is forced to show the hand they have been trying to conceal by the complete redacted agreement. The question I think we all should be asking management is Has SNY entered the "Data Room"? To those who have cordial correspondence with Matt, ask the question. If they have not entered the data room its a simple and honest NO response. Hammer. I disagree with you and others with respect to the interpretation of Article 2 subsection 2.7. The assumption that SNY has a first right of refusal for any TS product is speculation at best and most likely not so. If SNY did have a first right of refusal, the definition of "product" would not have been redacted and the agreement would have just stated that SNY first right of refusal applies to "any and all products" period. So in my opinion there is a carve out for SNY of certain future TS products most likely in the diabetes fIeld. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by figglebird on Dec 16, 2015 16:33:51 GMT -5
Whichever way you read it, it would be tricky to detangle afrezza(TS) from any other application(TS) with respect to IP. From a legal standpoint any rights buyer of Afrezza could EASILY claim they own rights to Afrezza's formulation - otherwise what would they be buying LEGALLY.
|
|
|
|
Post by EveningOfTheDay on Dec 16, 2015 16:40:25 GMT -5
Whichever way you read it, it would be tricky to detangle afrezza(TS) from any other application(TS) with respect to IP. From a legal standpoint any rights buyer of Afrezza could EASILY claim they own rights to Afrezza's formulation - otherwise what would they be buying LEGALLY. I am not sure that is necessarily true, but more important, perhaps that is why Sanofi obtains open access to the production processes, as Mr. Man said. |
|
|
|
Post by me on Dec 16, 2015 16:43:18 GMT -5
this is a great thread and a basic reason i came to the proboards in the first place. thank you hammer . please everyone let us get back to these kinds of fruitful discussions and initiate a moratorium on the rants and FUD. anyone else know any/all of the reasons a company enters a blackout/quiet period besides potential M/A if it's not right before a CC? because if it's only for potential M/A then we're in for some happy times in 2016, IMO. Just curious, how is this more fruitful than any other speculation, including the negative kind? I'm not saying I find it objectionable.... but don't really see how any of our speculation changes anything regarding what happens in the real world. Really, you don't see any difference between hammer's thesis discussion below, and "MNKD will file for BK" or "SNY will BO MNKD at $100 p/s" or "I fear that Afrezza causes lung cancer"? Is that what you're saying? There's "speculation" like the foregoing, and then there's speculation like the following. Personally, I see a HUGE difference between the two and I'm intrigued with hammer's thought process here (although you can see in my earlier post that I disagreed with him that this would have caused SNY to encourage MNKD to fire Hakan because of the CC request for TS partners). Article 2 subsection 2.7 of the redacted license agreement pertains to third party license of TS development (IMHO), and is the only mechanism in which SNY does not have complete control of. MNKD is free to develop and present TS to 3rd parties but SNY retains access to such data rooms and retains redacted time frames in which to review and do due dilligence on such TS developments. This is good for SNY since ultimately will provide a source of income either by a third party or by SNY. This is not good for SNY since it the intent is to own TS they may have to purchase piecemeal in a time frame other than by their own doing. If forced to purchase TS developments before the mentioned regulatory milestones SNY is forced to show the hand they have been trying to conceal by the complete redacted agreement. Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/4521/hakan-talk?page=2#ixzz3uWQlOmt3 |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Dec 16, 2015 16:44:53 GMT -5
Whichever way you read it, it would be tricky to detangle afrezza(TS) from any other application(TS) with respect to IP. From a legal standpoint any rights buyer of Afrezza could EASILY claim they own rights to Afrezza's formulation - otherwise what would they be buying LEGALLY. I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that the interpretation that Hammer and others have made that SNY's has a first right of refusal on all future TS applications is most likely not true. The Agreement would have been worded differently if it was the intention of the Parties to give such a right to SNY. |
|
|
|
Post by bill on Dec 16, 2015 16:56:09 GMT -5
Whichever way you read it, it would be tricky to detangle afrezza(TS) from any other application(TS) with respect to IP. From a legal standpoint any rights buyer of Afrezza could EASILY claim they own rights to Afrezza's formulation - otherwise what would they be buying LEGALLY. I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that the interpretation that Hammer and others have made that SNY's has a first right of refusal on all future TS applications is most likely not true. The Agreement would have been worded differently if it was the intention of the Parties to give such a right to SNY. I also believe you are correct, and I have this vague recollection that MNKD was asked this question a long time ago and replied that SNY had no rights to other TS products. This might be a question Matt could answer via email. I'm almost sure he or Al has said that the partnership agreement does not encumber their ability to develop, market, and sell other TS-based products. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 16, 2015 17:00:20 GMT -5
Just curious, how is this more fruitful than any other speculation, including the negative kind? I'm not saying I find it objectionable.... but don't really see how any of our speculation changes anything regarding what happens in the real world. Really, you don't see any difference between hammer 's thesis discussion below, and "MNKD will file for BK" or "SNY will BO MNKD at $100 p/s" or "I fear that Afrezza causes lung cancer"? Is that what you're saying? There's "speculation" like the foregoing, and then there's speculation like the following. Personally, I see a HUGE difference between the two and I'm intrigued with hammer 's thought process here (although you can see in my earlier post that I disagreed with him that this would have caused SNY to encourage MNKD to fire Hakan because of the CC request for TS partners). Article 2 subsection 2.7 of the redacted license agreement pertains to third party license of TS development (IMHO), and is the only mechanism in which SNY does not have complete control of. MNKD is free to develop and present TS to 3rd parties but SNY retains access to such data rooms and retains redacted time frames in which to review and do due dilligence on such TS developments. This is good for SNY since ultimately will provide a source of income either by a third party or by SNY. This is not good for SNY since it the intent is to own TS they may have to purchase piecemeal in a time frame other than by their own doing. If forced to purchase TS developments before the mentioned regulatory milestones SNY is forced to show the hand they have been trying to conceal by the complete redacted agreement. Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/4521/hakan-talk?page=2#ixzz3uWQlOmt3There is a full gamut of speculation with ones like you've mentioned at the extremes of good and bad. Some like the issue of cancer risk may be brought up by people that were not around for the lengthy discussions on that topic from long ago. Actually we have a lot more info about that than many of these other issues... we can address that topic with explaining what the science shows and doesn't show. But no I wasn't saying all speculation isn't unique. I just don't see what the "fruit" that comes from it. Some of it may be more interesting to me than others... but it is still merely a bunch of investors lacking real info, engaging in speculating. I found it odd to claim some speculation is somehow more productive than others... to what end. Speculating neither prevents the bad nor creates the good. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 16, 2015 17:02:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that the interpretation that Hammer and others have made that SNY's has a first right of refusal on all future TS applications is most likely not true. The Agreement would have been worded differently if it was the intention of the Parties to give such a right to SNY. I also believe you are correct, and I have this vague recollection that MNKD was asked this question a long time ago and replied that SNY had no rights to other TS products. This might be a question Matt could answer via email. I'm almost sure he or Al has said that the partnership agreement does not encumber their ability to develop, market, and sell other TS-based products. Yes, I seem to remember that as well, but lacking the ability to point to a particular transcript (without spending time searching), I hadn't bothered saying so. |
|
. I also think that Al recognized that Hakan played a pivotal role in getting Afrezza approved and wanted to ensure that Hakan was properly rewarded for all the work he had done, most importantly in the form of a significantly higher stock price. (I know that latter is significantly at odds with how corporate America works but I think Al doesn't conform to those norms.)
