Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 16:04:02 GMT -5
Lots of theories floated all year long about whether SNY was sandbagging mnkd or not. My thought is that the previous ceo of sny had a vision, brandicourt had a different vision (whether forced on him by the sny board or not). Regardless, imo the problem started with the few quotes we had from sny (fall 2014) about what their survey's told them (first key point btw) and sny's belief that they could price afrezza higher than existing treatments due to the lack of needles. Then came december 10 2014 (or thereabouts) and mnkd got the sec to apply a CTO to parts of the contract. The part that was black lined included numbers around the sales price of afrezza. This will be key to understanding (or not) the issues. I believe it's possible if not likely that the deal between the two created a product where they couldn't lower the price due to the costs and profit sharing involved. This herein would be the problem with a lawsuit against sny in combination with their "surveys". I'm guessing sny can prove they couldn't lower the sales price of afrezza as the contract, costs, and expected/desired profits were structured. As a result, afrezza couldn't compete cost wise with existing therapies. AS a result, insurance companies refused to cover it in tier 2 thus squashing sales. Well, you see where I'm going with this so I won't belabor the point. But if any of this turns out to be true, no judge will favor on mnkd's side. It might have been that brandicort looked at afrezza and the contract and decided "if the drug sells, great, if not we will dump it".
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by pengiep on Jan 5, 2016 16:11:13 GMT -5
Wow, what a perfect storm of misery for us retail longs. Bye bye early retirement! I would have been better off buying lottery tix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 16:12:13 GMT -5
Shareholder or MNKD against SNY
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Jan 5, 2016 16:12:22 GMT -5
Lots of theories floated all year long about whether SNY was sandbagging mnkd or not. My thought is that the previous ceo of sny had a vision, brandicourt had a different vision (whether forced on him by the sny board or not). Regardless, imo the problem started with the few quotes we had from sny (fall 2014) about what their survey's told them (first key point btw) and sny's belief that they could price afrezza higher than existing treatments due to the lack of needles. Then came december 10 2014 (or thereabouts) and mnkd got the sec to apply a CTO to parts of the contract. The part that was black lined included numbers around the sales price of afrezza. This will be key to understanding (or not) the issues. I believe it's possible if not likely that the deal between the two created a product where they couldn't lower the price due to the costs and profit sharing involved. This herein would be the problem with a lawsuit against sny in combination with their "surveys". I'm guessing sny can prove they couldn't lower the sales price of afrezza as the contract, costs, and expected/desired profits were structured. As a result, afrezza couldn't compete cost wise with existing therapies. AS a result, insurance companies refused to cover it in tier 2 thus squashing sales. Well, you see where I'm going with this so I won't belabor the point. But if any of this turns out to be true, no judge will favor on mnkd's side. It might have been that brandicort looked at afrezza and the contract and decided "if the drug sells, great, if not we will dump it". Thoughts? I dont think so although a lot will have to do with how things go in the transition. Dont forget, MNKD had a seat at the table and had an equal vote. I believe MNKD went along with whatever Sanofi proposed because MNKD believed that Sanofi knew what they were doing with the launch. Very little basis for a lawsuit. Trend |
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 5, 2016 16:14:46 GMT -5
Lots of theories floated all year long about whether SNY was sandbagging mnkd or not. My thought is that the previous ceo of sny had a vision, brandicourt had a different vision (whether forced on him by the sny board or not). Regardless, imo the problem started with the few quotes we had from sny (fall 2014) about what their survey's told them (first key point btw) and sny's belief that they could price afrezza higher than existing treatments due to the lack of needles. Then came december 10 2014 (or thereabouts) and mnkd got the sec to apply a CTO to parts of the contract. The part that was black lined included numbers around the sales price of afrezza. This will be key to understanding (or not) the issues. I believe it's possible if not likely that the deal between the two created a product where they couldn't lower the price due to the costs and profit sharing involved. This herein would be the problem with a lawsuit against sny in combination with their "surveys". I'm guessing sny can prove they couldn't lower the sales price of afrezza as the contract, costs, and expected/desired profits were structured. As a result, afrezza couldn't compete cost wise with existing therapies. AS a result, insurance companies refused to cover it in tier 2 thus squashing sales. Well, you see where I'm going with this so I won't belabor the point. But if any of this turns out to be true, no judge will favor on mnkd's side. It might have been that brandicort looked at afrezza and the contract and decided "if the drug sells, great, if not we will dump it". Thoughts? I dont think so although a lot will have to do with how things go in the transition. Dont forget, MNKD had a seat at the table and had an equal vote. I believe MNKD went along with whatever Sanofi proposed because MNKD believed that Sanofi knew what they were doing with the launch. Very little basis for a lawsuit. Trend The only way Mannkind would have a case is if they can prove what Sanofi said they would do wasn't what they actually did. And that would be difficult to prove unless Mannkind can procure a whistle blower within Sanofi. |
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Jan 5, 2016 16:15:41 GMT -5
Wow, what a perfect storm of misery for us retail longs. Bye bye early retirement! I would have been better off buying lottery tix. No, you wouldn't. The odds of MNKD being successful are still far better than those of any lottery tickets. I bought more today (MNKD, not lottery tickets). |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 5, 2016 17:15:11 GMT -5
The Agreement clearly gave Sanofi 100% of the power over pricing. Short of complaining at the JAC meetings, contractually there was little MannKind could do about pricing. This whole thing reeks of Sanofi stalling and I wonder if it wasn't exactly that - a clever $200 million ploy to delay market acceptance of Afrezza until Lixilan (Lantus + Prandial combination) gets approved by the FDA.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdnewbie on Jan 5, 2016 17:35:57 GMT -5
Wow, what a perfect storm of misery for us retail longs. Bye bye early retirement! I would have been better off buying lottery tix. No, you wouldn't. The odds of MNKD being successful are still far better than those of any lottery tickets. I bought more today (MNKD, not lottery tickets). I was just saying if I win the 400 million PowerBall tomorrow I'd throw 50 mil at mnkd just to take shares out so they can't be shorted. |
|
