Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 14:41:31 GMT -5
Theres def a lawsuit coming regardless. I mentioned in another post that yesterday I thought to myself thats odd, the day the new Ceo can start is the first day SNY can terminate. Hakan clearly stated things were fine between SNY and MNKD and that they had plans into 2016. From SNY's press release it couldn't sound further from the truth. Sanofi could have notified MNKD yesterday or even January 1 if they wanted to. They didn't. They did it today, which is also the date of the CEO's first day. That might be a coincidence, but I don't think it is. If MNKD didn't know, and Sanofi terminated on the start of the first day of a new CEO's tenure, then they're even bigger dicks than I ever imagined. wow, great point. I wonder though if SNY was even aware of mnkd's situation? that is, did sny even care enough to notice what's been going on at mnkd with tase, convertibles, cash position, and ceo change? They might have not cared since brandi came along. In that case, today was just another day for sny. Meanwhile, for mnkd it's.......well, it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by lsl428 on Jan 5, 2016 14:47:27 GMT -5
again if MNKD knew this was coming ....why wouldn't they have done a second dilution /capital raise in anticipation? Not just the TASE offering which failed.......that what has me thinking they were not prepared.....again hope that is not the case
|
|
|
Post by biffn on Jan 5, 2016 14:53:31 GMT -5
My current view after much reading today is that SNY wanted to low ball MNKD for Afrezza or the whole TS IP and used the terms of the partnership agreement to squeeze Al. Al refused and SNY took the first opportunity to act on the nuclear option available in the agreement. The question then becomes, did Al have something in his back pocket or was it a hardball bluff. Alternatively, if MNKD had another offer that SNY refused to meet (Al squeezing SNY), then it may have brought us to this same place, though the SP doesn't seem to match that type insider information. I'm hopeful and still holding and we should know something soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by purge on Jan 5, 2016 14:55:39 GMT -5
My initial thoughts are, "when you are invested in a biotech, silence is usually not good." Now we know why management has been so silent lately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 15:02:27 GMT -5
Theres def a lawsuit coming regardless. I mentioned in another post that yesterday I thought to myself thats odd, the day the new Ceo can start is the first day SNY can terminate. Hakan clearly stated things were fine between SNY and MNKD and that they had plans into 2016. From SNY's press release it couldn't sound further from the truth. Sanofi could have notified MNKD yesterday or even January 1 if they wanted to. They didn't. They did it today, which is also the date of the CEO's first day. That might be a coincidence, but I don't think it is. If MNKD didn't know, and Sanofi terminated on the start of the first day of a new CEO's tenure, then they're even bigger dicks than I ever imagined. IMO MNKD has known
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 15:04:52 GMT -5
Sanofi could have notified MNKD yesterday or even January 1 if they wanted to. They didn't. They did it today, which is also the date of the CEO's first day. That might be a coincidence, but I don't think it is. If MNKD didn't know, and Sanofi terminated on the start of the first day of a new CEO's tenure, then they're even bigger dicks than I ever imagined. wow, great point. I wonder though if SNY was even aware of mnkd's situation? that is, did sny even care enough to notice what's been going on at mnkd with tase, convertibles, cash position, and ceo change? They might have not cared since brandi came along. In that case, today was just another day for sny. Meanwhile, for mnkd it's.......well, it is what it is. I wonder if there was some sort of clause in the partnership agreement that could terminate the contract if there was a change in upper management. If I agreed to terms with X, but then X is fired I do not want to work with Y.
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Jan 5, 2016 15:34:13 GMT -5
wow, great point. I wonder though if SNY was even aware of mnkd's situation? that is, did sny even care enough to notice what's been going on at mnkd with tase, convertibles, cash position, and ceo change? They might have not cared since brandi came along. In that case, today was just another day for sny. Meanwhile, for mnkd it's.......well, it is what it is. I wonder if there was some sort of clause in the partnership agreement that could terminate the contract if there was a change in upper management. If I agreed to terms with X, but then X is fired I do not want to work with Y. Probably not. If that were the case, then MNKD could have pulled the plug when Viebacher was fired and Brandicourt showed his true colors and ignored Afrezza. I don't think DeSisto made them bail, but I do think they should be worried about a new CEO in light of what now lays before them. He could go several different directions and I still believe that MNKD has excellent grounds for a lawsuit if they so choose to explore it. Compare the launches of Afrezza to Praluent. Both are Sanofi partnerships and they are as different as night and day.
|
|
|
Post by 4Balance on Jan 5, 2016 15:41:23 GMT -5
I think MNKD had to know, and they prepositioned DeSisto to help bolster confidence that MNKD could survive. Afrezza is a disruptive technology. To have hired someone with demonstrated expertise in that area--just before SNY's announcement--sounds like a way to manage change in a positive way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 15:42:33 GMT -5
I wonder if there was some sort of clause in the partnership agreement that could terminate the contract if there was a change in upper management. If I agreed to terms with X, but then X is fired I do not want to work with Y. Probably not. If that were the case, then MNKD could have pulled the plug when Viebacher was fired and Brandicourt showed his true colors and ignored Afrezza. I don't think DeSisto made them bail, but I do think they should be worried about a new CEO in light of what now lays before them. He could go several different directions and I still believe that MNKD has excellent grounds for a lawsuit if they so choose to explore it. Compare the launches of Afrezza to Praluent. Both are Sanofi partnerships and they are as different as night and day. Just goes to show another avenue that was not covered by MNKD. Always spend money on lawyers. There should have been an out clause in their contract. Too much trust went into this partnership. Either they had no other offers or it continues to show how out of their league they are. They should without a doubt explore a lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Jan 5, 2016 15:53:50 GMT -5
Probably not. If that were the case, then MNKD could have pulled the plug when Viebacher was fired and Brandicourt showed his true colors and ignored Afrezza. I don't think DeSisto made them bail, but I do think they should be worried about a new CEO in light of what now lays before them. He could go several different directions and I still believe that MNKD has excellent grounds for a lawsuit if they so choose to explore it. Compare the launches of Afrezza to Praluent. Both are Sanofi partnerships and they are as different as night and day. Just goes to show another avenue that was not covered by MNKD. Always spend money on lawyers. There should have been an out clause in their contract. Too much trust went into this partnership. Either they had no other offers or it continues to show how out of their league they are. They should without a doubt explore a lawsuit. I do think they made a bad deal and I think Al, Hakan, and the board realized it soon after they so called "launch". They gave away too much and left themselves no recourse to correct a terrible partnership. SNY did them a favor today I believe. It was proven that it wasn't going to succeed with SNY involved and at the rate it was going, they were going to end up in the same place they are now; as a company with an amazing product with little demand and serious liquidity concerns. Losing Sanofi does nothing to change it. What it does do is free up MNKD to correct past mistakes and hopefully make a sale or find a better partner. We'll see. And yes, they needed lawyers then and they need them now, more than ever.
|
|