Mkt Cap up when law suite filed for Commercially Reasonable

[lakers]

Sanofi has had many infractions w/ the law.

Sanofi whistleblower lawsuit kicks into higher gear
Dan Mangan | @_DanMangan
Fri, 20 Nov '15 | 2:38 PM ET
CNBC.com
A whistleblowing former paralegal at drug giant Sanofi is now claiming she was aware of "many instances" where Sanofi lawyers destroyed documents to avoid turning them over to opponents in prior legal cases.

The French pharmaceutical group Sanofi-Synthelabo headquaters in Ambares.
Patrick Bernard | Getty Images
The French pharmaceutical group Sanofi-Synthelabo headquaters in Ambares.
Ex-Sanofi paralegal Diane Ponte's new allegation comes in an affidavit she filed in her pending lawsuit against the company.
Ponte's suit, filed last year, claims she learned of an alleged scheme at Sanofi to pay more than $30 million in kickbacks to promote the company's diabetes drugs. The suit came a year after the France-based drug company already agreed to pay more than $100 million to the U.S. federal government to settle other claims related to alleged kickbacks to doctors, and seven months after Sanofi agreed to pay a nearly $40 million fine in Germany in connection with two employees who were convicted there of paying bribes to boost drug sales.
"Prior to my last position with Sanofi, I had been working in the Sanofi litigation department for approximately seven years," Ponte wrote in her affidavit in Newark, New Jersey, court. "In the course of my working in the Sanofi litigation department, I became personally aware of many instances in which documents were deliberately destroyed by Sanofi attorneys to avoid turning over said documents in discovery."
The term "discovery" refers to the process in which opponents in civil litigation exchange documents and other evidence that are relevant to issues in their case, and which could affect the outcome of that case.
PLAY VIDEO
Should drug ads be banned?
Sanofi, when contacted by CNBC about ongoing issues related to Ponte's case, said, "Sanofi does not comment on pending litigation." Last year, when Ponte's case was filed, it referred to her as a "disgruntled former employee who is opportunistically attacking our company," and called her allegations of employment law violations "without merit."
However, Sanofi attorney John Bennett recently argued in legal motions that Ponte's claim of document destruction was "false, scandalous and unsupported by any evidence."
Bennett also said that Ponte, while working at Sanofi, had never reported any such document destruction to the company's internal complaints system despite that she would have had an obligation to do so under Sanofi's Code of Business Conduct.

But Essex County Judge Michelle Hollar-Gregory refused during a hearing last week to strike the paragraph in Ponte's affidavit that alleges the document destruction by Sanofi's lawyers.
Court filings reveal other new details in the case.
Ponte's affidavit says that Sanofi's North American general counsel, Robert DeBerardine, and another lawyer at the company, Edward Berg, were not licensed to practice law in New Jersey for at least part of the time they were working as lawyers at Sanofi. That's despite Sanofi's North American headquarters, where Ponte had worked, being located in that state, and despite a state Supreme Court rule requiring in-house counsel at a company to obtain at least a limited license if they want to practice law in the state.
PLAY VIDEO
Sanofi Pasteur: APEC is important to us
Sanofi claims in court papers that the two attorneys' law license status isn't relevant to Ponte's case, particularly since they were licensed to practice elsewhere in the United States. Sanofi also claims that DeBerardine applied for limited in-house counsel status in April 2013 and had it granted just last month. Berg's own June 2015 application for that status "is currently pending," the company said.
Ponte's suit filed last December claims that she was fired in September 2014 in retaliation for bringing the alleged kickback scheme to light, which led to an internal probe at Sanofi. She also claims that Sanofi's board fired then-CEO Christopher Viehbacher in October 2014 "in part" because Viehbacher "was involved in the aforesaid illegal and/or fraudulent activity."
The suit from Ponte alleges she was pressured in March 2013 to approve nine pending contracts Sanofi had with Accenture and Deloitte worth a total of $34 million. Her suit says that despite that she was being asked to review the contracts' legality, she learned they had actually been executed by Sanofi executive Raymond Godleski four months beforehand.
Her suit claims she determined that the contracts involved illegal incentives from the three companies to "induce customers, including physicians, hospitals and/or retail pharmacy programs such as Walgreens and Rite Aid to [among other things] influence the prescribing of drugs and/or improperly 'switch' from selling other manufacturers' drugs ... to selling Sanofi drugs, in violation of the aforesaid Federal healthcare laws."
Such alleged kickbacks or incentives are illegal because they can encourage the prescription of drugs covered by federal Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs, which in turn could mean that those programs end up paying more in reimbursements than they otherwise would have.
In 2012, Sanofi agreed to pay the federal government $109 million to resolve allegations that the company violated the federal False Claims Act by giving physicians free units of the knee injection Hyalgan in order to induce them to buy and prescribe the drug, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute.
In March 2013, two ex-Sanofi employees were sentenced by a court in Germany to suspended sentences, and Sanofi was fined 28 million euros ($29.8 million) in connection with a bribery case there. A spokesman for prosecutors told the Reuters news agency that the former employees made illicit payments to a consulting company that was advising a Sanofi client in order to get the client to order more drugs from Sanofi.
"Sanofi was unfairly given preference because of this," the spokesman told Reuters. A spokesman for Sanofi told that news agency earlier this year that the company had cooperated with the probe and had tightened its compliance system.
A woman receives a free flu shot from a Walgreens employee during a free flu shot clinic in Oakland, California.
You got the flu shot. But will it work this year?
Also related to the ongoing case in New Jersey, Judge Hollar-Gregory last week refused, as least for now, to order Ponte or her lawyers to give back to the company documents related to Sanofi that are in their possession.
A CNBC reporter was present when Sanofi's lawyer Bennett argued in court that many if not all of the documents are subject to attorney-client privilege, and that Ponte had stolen the documents.
"It's not true!" angrily protested one of Ponte's lawyers, Chris Stueben, when Bennett referred to Ponte's alleged "stealing" of company information.
Ponte's lead lawyer, Rosemarie Arnold, said that many of the documents would not be subject to attorney-client privilege because they were seen by people not connected to Sanofi's legal department, as well as for other reasons.
"She was bullied by them," Arnold said of Sanofi, which is accused in Ponte's suit of creating a hostile work environment after she made her claims of wrongdoing there. "And now they're trying to bully her some more."
SUBSYS image from video
A drug stock skyrocketing from painkiller profits
Among the documents that Ponte had in her possession is an email from one of Sanofi's in-house lawyers, Berg, written on March 21, 2013, after he was asked to review some contracts that had been flagged by Ponte as having potential legal issues.
Berg's email, which is in court records, has the subject line "contracts with Accenture."
Berg, writing that he was giving "a relatively quick review," said in the email that "the contract has almost no meaningful deliverables, is poorly constructed and incorrectly mentions Regulatory Review, with no mention of Legal review, when in fact the issues are most likely to create legal risk (kickback) rather than regulatory."
"My initial overall take is that the contract violates almost every principal of financial stewardship and good business practices, with few deliverables, an outlandishly short time frame, no consideration as to the clear legal issues in these types of engagements with customers," Berg wrote.
Despite Berg's apparent concern, Ponte alleges the company pushed for approval of the contracts.
Accenture and Deloitte are not named as defendants in Ponte's lawsuit. Accenture declined CNBC's request for comment when Ponte's suit was filed last year. Deloitte said at that time that "we are confident our contracts and services were entirely appropriate."
Ousted Sanofi CEO Christopher Viehbacher
Eric Piermont | Getty Images
Ousted Sanofi CEO Christopher Viehbacher
CNBC also has spoken to a former Sanofi contractor, who on Tuesday of this week described how then-Sanofi executive Godleski allegedly pressured her to enter incorrect codes for purchase orders so that the companies that were the subject of the questionable contracts, Accenture and Deloitte, could start getting paid.
The ex-contractor, Jean Kazimir, said Godleski, who is named as a defendant in Ponte's lawsuit, wanted the companies to get paid even though the contracts hadn't been approved by Sanofi's legal department, and despite that the purchase orders would have been for goods instead of for the services that were detailed in the contracts.
"I knew something wasn't right," Kazimir told CNBC. She said she had told Godleski he would need to put his request in writing, but that he never did so.
Kazimir's account is also cited in a federal class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan by shareholders against Sanofi. That suit alleges the company and then-CEO Viehbacher misled investors and inflated Sanofi's stock price by touting sales growth of its diabetes drugs "while omitting disclosure of the illegal practices used to achieve those sales." Those alleged illegal practices include the same ones at the center of Ponte's state court lawsuit.
Sanofi "funneled tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in disguised payments to consultants Accenture and Deloitte, which according to whistleblowers served as middlemen in a scheme to induce pharmaceutical retailers and hospitals to favor Sanofi's diabetes drugs over competing drugs from Novo Nordisk," the Manhattan federal court suit claims. The whistleblowers are identified in the suit as Ponte and Kazimir.
Godleski's lawyer declined to comment on Kazimir's allegations.
Sanofi has asked a federal judge to dismiss the shareholders' lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to lay out sufficient legal grounds for their action.
www.cnbc.com/2015/11/20/sanofi-whistleblower-lawsuit-kicks-into-higher-gear.html

[dreamboatcruise]

Jan 5, 2016 21:39:30 GMT -5 lakers said:

The potential law suit should entice a premium outright sale of AFZ franchise. Together with $1.5B dev tax loss credit, Mnkd is a very attractive acquisition target.

I'm checking for change under the sofa.  I figure I might be able to leverage a buyout... and by leverage I mean if I can get enough of a fulcrum with a 2x4 and a cardboard box as pivot point to lift the sofa.

[nadathing]

Re: "Once Afrezza is priced on par with injectables, the year of real world results will make it a lot more likely for tier 2 placement".

They can lower the price immediately, but even if they did, when would Afrezza be reviewed for consideration to move into tier 2? Therein lies the problem. Can MNKD last that long or can tier 2 be granted at any time?

[hammer]

Jan 5, 2016 22:36:14 GMT -5 lakers said:

Jan 5, 2016 22:30:11 GMT -5 mnkdmorelong said:

Whoa, slow down.  

Lawyer's fees for these types of lawsuits are paid for by the parties.  Discovery and Depositions will run millions.  Then there is the trial (if at all).  It will take at least 3 years depending on the court to get to trial.  

MNKD must prove that SNY did not perform as per the contract.  How are they going to do this?  Pfizer's Exubera also failed.  This will be SNY's defense.  How is a jury going to sort through all this and decide?  

SNY has much more money than MNKD.  They will not offer to pay for anything.  In fact, they may extend Discovery and be aggressive with motion practice to make it more costly for MNKD.  

Pfizer spent more than 10X to market Exubera. The JAC meeting minutes have been kept and will serve as evidence. It's an easy case. See my previous posts and lawyer payment. It would cost Mnkd zero to follow through the law suit.

Agreed. The redacted agreement holds the ultimate damages in relation to product expectations. I believe we will have access to expectations soon. The expenses for the Toujeo launch will be compared to Afrezza. Keep in mind Toujeo was expected to gain approval after the Afrezza launch but due to an early decision from the FDA became the primary drug launch. Is 2 billion reasonable? Its minimal in my opinion but the redacted agreement will provide better background. If SNY does not fulfill duties of separation in reasonable manner that number could easily increase.

Either way a suit is justified and should go forth. It would add another black stain to the workings of SNY with partners and perhaps cripple future deals they may be in competition with.

I'm in for the long haul and will wait for the picture to become a bit more clear. Its not all doom and gloom since MNKD still has something to say at the next conference and investors will have an unprecedented ability to hear the breakout session. If nothing else its the beginning of transparency.

[silentknight]

I posted this in another thread so I apologize for the duplication but it seems more appropriate here.

If MNKD decides to pursue ligitation, they have an excellent case, just as strong as Genzyme does against SNY if not stronger. Let me explain why they'd likely win.

(i) Take a look at Sanofi's partnership with Regeneron for the drug Praluent. It's a cholesterol fighting drug that Sanofi signed for. FDA approval to preferred coverage with insurance coverage took four (4) months. It costs in excess of $14,000 per year. Now compare what they did for Afrezza. Poor doctor education, worsening formulary coverage, little to no advertising expenditures...... Comparing the two makes it clear they neglected Afrezza. Compare the commercially reasonable efforts of the two, and throw in poor doctor education, no efforts to improve insurance coverage and a few patient testimonials about how they had to do all the work to get the drug on their own, and you paint a stark picture of Sanofi's failure contractually.

As others have said, you could also compare it to the launch to their other insulin products and I wager you'd find Afrezza launch lacking in comparison.


(ii) The U.S. legal system and especially jury trials, love to stick to the big business when they can. Juries typically result in LARGE punitive damages for companies they find liable. You make the case that a large FOREIGN company like Sanofi swoops in and does a small AMERICAN biopharma dirty and Sanofi could be looking at hundreds of millions if not billions in damages. Appeal to a juror's emotions and more often than not, they'll vote guilty for no other reason other than sympathy for the plaintiff if you make a decent case. Sanofi would likely settle out of court and I expect that to occur with Genzyme as well. It could drag on for a while, but a decent law firm would likely accept the case for nothing up front if they small a big payday with settlement money when it's all over.

They did MNKD dirty. It's plain to see and a jury would too. After all, the burden of proof is much lower in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one but I don't think this would ever see a courtroom. Sanofi wouldn't want it to.

[hammer]

It will also be interesting to see what SNY does with the current Afrezza/Praluent study. Will they abandon this study or go forward potentially helping Afrezza. Just for kicks, since SNY is no longer contractually obligated to refrain to less than 5% of stock, how much could they buy at .74C ? No I don't expect that but you must assess all angles.

[mnkdmorelong]

Jan 6, 2016 6:42:01 GMT -5 silentknight said:

I posted this in another thread so I apologize for the duplication but it seems more appropriate here.

If MNKD decides to pursue ligitation, they have an excellent case, just as strong as Genzyme does against SNY if not stronger. Let me explain why they'd likely win.

(i) Take a look at Sanofi's partnership with Regeneron for the drug Praluent. It's a cholesterol fighting drug that Sanofi signed for. FDA approval to preferred coverage with insurance coverage took four (4) months. It costs in excess of $14,000 per year. Now compare what they did for Afrezza. Poor doctor education, worsening formulary coverage, little to no advertising expenditures...... Comparing the two makes it clear they neglected Afrezza. Compare the commercially reasonable efforts of the two, and throw in poor doctor education, no efforts to improve insurance coverage and a few patient testimonials about how they had to do all the work to get the drug on their own, and you paint a stark picture of Sanofi's failure contractually.

As others have said, you could also compare it to the launch to their other insulin products and I wager you'd find Afrezza launch lacking in comparison.


(ii) The U.S. legal system and especially jury trials, love to stick to the big business when they can. Juries typically result in LARGE punitive damages for companies they find liable. You make the case that a large FOREIGN company like Sanofi swoops in and does a small AMERICAN biopharma dirty and Sanofi could be looking at hundreds of millions if not billions in damages. Appeal to a juror's emotions and more often than not, they'll vote guilty for no other reason other than sympathy for the plaintiff if you make a decent case. Sanofi would likely settle out of court and I expect that to occur with Genzyme as well. It could drag on for a while, but a decent law firm would likely accept the case for nothing up front if they small a big payday with settlement money when it's all over.

They did MNKD dirty. It's plain to see and a jury would too. After all, the burden of proof is much lower in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one but I don't think this would ever see a courtroom. Sanofi wouldn't want it to.

You make many assumptions.  First what is the jurisdiction?  If France, MNKD's lawyers will need to hire French lawyers to decipher French laws (Napoleonic Code). Will the judge allow testimony from another case?  Probably not.  Most of the cause of low Afrezza sales is tied to its high price.  Per the contract, SNY has sole rights to set prices.  The parties probably talked about the price before the contract.  How is MNKD going to prove damages based on a too high Afrezza price?  SNY suffered just as much as MNKD.  

It takes a lot of gumption to file a lawsuit.  Mostly because of the huge cost involved.  Don't think for a minute that anybody who has been wronged can sue the wrongor.  

There is no law firm in this world that will take this case on as a contingency.  Why would they commit legal resources when they can make money elsewhere.  I know, the payday at the end.  As an investor, you were looking for the MNKD payday.  Has it arrived yet?

[peppy]

Sanofi spent 200 million dollars to stop a competitor?
screencast.com/t/SGh9fJcmjF

Make a deal to sell the product, price it too high for the label.
Let 600 people get a prescription.
Declare it a failure.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the label. Non-inferior.

 When the price is correct, and insurance covers afrezza. I think patient demand will have some physicians put Type 1's on Afrezza, and then

When physicians see better blood glucose levels and happier patients, afrezza will be prescribed.

I still think demand will be huge.

As far as law suits, they are expensive, take years, and then years after that to see the money.

[peppy]

Jan 6, 2016 6:55:29 GMT -5 hammer said:

It will also be interesting to see what SNY does with the current Afrezza/Praluent study. Will they abandon this study or go forward potentially helping Afrezza. Just for kicks, since SNY is no longer contractually obligated to refrain to less than 5% of stock, how much could they buy at .74C ? No I don't expect that but you must assess all angles.

yeah they could continue to cover.

[hammer]

Jan 6, 2016 6:57:12 GMT -5 mnkdmorelong said:

Jan 6, 2016 6:42:01 GMT -5 silentknight said:

I posted this in another thread so I apologize for the duplication but it seems more appropriate here.

If MNKD decides to pursue ligitation, they have an excellent case, just as strong as Genzyme does against SNY if not stronger. Let me explain why they'd likely win.

(i) Take a look at Sanofi's partnership with Regeneron for the drug Praluent. It's a cholesterol fighting drug that Sanofi signed for. FDA approval to preferred coverage with insurance coverage took four (4) months. It costs in excess of $14,000 per year. Now compare what they did for Afrezza. Poor doctor education, worsening formulary coverage, little to no advertising expenditures...... Comparing the two makes it clear they neglected Afrezza. Compare the commercially reasonable efforts of the two, and throw in poor doctor education, no efforts to improve insurance coverage and a few patient testimonials about how they had to do all the work to get the drug on their own, and you paint a stark picture of Sanofi's failure contractually.

As others have said, you could also compare it to the launch to their other insulin products and I wager you'd find Afrezza launch lacking in comparison.


(ii) The U.S. legal system and especially jury trials, love to stick to the big business when they can. Juries typically result in LARGE punitive damages for companies they find liable. You make the case that a large FOREIGN company like Sanofi swoops in and does a small AMERICAN biopharma dirty and Sanofi could be looking at hundreds of millions if not billions in damages. Appeal to a juror's emotions and more often than not, they'll vote guilty for no other reason other than sympathy for the plaintiff if you make a decent case. Sanofi would likely settle out of court and I expect that to occur with Genzyme as well. It could drag on for a while, but a decent law firm would likely accept the case for nothing up front if they small a big payday with settlement money when it's all over.

They did MNKD dirty. It's plain to see and a jury would too. After all, the burden of proof is much lower in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one but I don't think this would ever see a courtroom. Sanofi wouldn't want it to.

You make many assumptions.  First what is the jurisdiction?  If France, MNKD's lawyers will need to hire French lawyers to decipher French laws (Napoleonic Code). Will the judge allow testimony from another case?  Probably not.  Most of the cause of low Afrezza sales is tied to its high price.  Per the contract, SNY has sole rights to set prices.  The parties probably talked about the price before the contract.  How is MNKD going to prove damages based on a too high Afrezza price?  SNY suffered just as much as MNKD.  

It takes a lot of gumption to file a lawsuit.  Mostly because of the huge cost involved.  Don't think for a minute that anybody who has been wronged can sue the wrongor.  

There is no law firm in this world that will take this case on as a contingency.  Why would they commit legal resources when they can make money elsewhere.  I know, the payday at the end.  As an investor, you were looking for the MNKD payday.  Has it arrived yet?

14.4 Governing Law. This Agreement, and all questions regarding the existence, validity, interpretation, breach or performance of this
Agreement, shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, United States, without
reference to its conflicts of law principles with the exception of sections 5-1401 and 5-1402 of New York General Obligations Law. The United
Nations Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall not be applicable to this Agreement.

[silentknight]

Jan 6, 2016 6:57:12 GMT -5 mnkdmorelong said:

Jan 6, 2016 6:42:01 GMT -5 silentknight said:

I posted this in another thread so I apologize for the duplication but it seems more appropriate here.

If MNKD decides to pursue ligitation, they have an excellent case, just as strong as Genzyme does against SNY if not stronger. Let me explain why they'd likely win.

(i) Take a look at Sanofi's partnership with Regeneron for the drug Praluent. It's a cholesterol fighting drug that Sanofi signed for. FDA approval to preferred coverage with insurance coverage took four (4) months. It costs in excess of $14,000 per year. Now compare what they did for Afrezza. Poor doctor education, worsening formulary coverage, little to no advertising expenditures...... Comparing the two makes it clear they neglected Afrezza. Compare the commercially reasonable efforts of the two, and throw in poor doctor education, no efforts to improve insurance coverage and a few patient testimonials about how they had to do all the work to get the drug on their own, and you paint a stark picture of Sanofi's failure contractually.

As others have said, you could also compare it to the launch to their other insulin products and I wager you'd find Afrezza launch lacking in comparison.


(ii) The U.S. legal system and especially jury trials, love to stick to the big business when they can. Juries typically result in LARGE punitive damages for companies they find liable. You make the case that a large FOREIGN company like Sanofi swoops in and does a small AMERICAN biopharma dirty and Sanofi could be looking at hundreds of millions if not billions in damages. Appeal to a juror's emotions and more often than not, they'll vote guilty for no other reason other than sympathy for the plaintiff if you make a decent case. Sanofi would likely settle out of court and I expect that to occur with Genzyme as well. It could drag on for a while, but a decent law firm would likely accept the case for nothing up front if they small a big payday with settlement money when it's all over.

They did MNKD dirty. It's plain to see and a jury would too. After all, the burden of proof is much lower in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one but I don't think this would ever see a courtroom. Sanofi wouldn't want it to.

You make many assumptions.  First what is the jurisdiction?  If France, MNKD's lawyers will need to hire French lawyers to decipher French laws (Napoleonic Code). Will the judge allow testimony from another case?  Probably not.  Most of the cause of low Afrezza sales is tied to its high price.  Per the contract, SNY has sole rights to set prices.  The parties probably talked about the price before the contract.  How is MNKD going to prove damages based on a too high Afrezza price?  SNY suffered just as much as MNKD.  

It takes a lot of gumption to file a lawsuit.  Mostly because of the huge cost involved.  Don't think for a minute that anybody who has been wronged can sue the wrongor.  

There is no law firm in this world that will take this case on as a contingency.  Why would they commit legal resources when they can make money elsewhere.  I know, the payday at the end.  As an investor, you were looking for the MNKD payday.  Has it arrived yet?

There are some assumptions there, but many of those are based on experience. (I work in the legal field).



First, the jurisdiction would be in the U.S. The agreement was for U.S. rights, with options to continue on to other countries (which never occurred). So, the venue where the damages took place would be in the United States, thus a U.S. trial. It's why Genzyme filed their lawsuit in Manhattan.


Second, you don't have to introduce evidence from another case. Where do you get that? You compare Afrezza to Lantus, Toujeo, or Praluent to make your points that it was starved of resources compared to other Sanofi drugs. The price was set by Sanofi, true. But a lawyer worth his salt could make the argument that the price was the primary factor in limiting sales and was set at a price that prevented it from market saturation. You explain that as the marketer, Sanofi had a responsibility to make every reasonable effort to market the drug appropriately and that setting the price point at a level that killed sales violated that stipulation of the contract.

Civil trials are not like criminal ones.  You don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.  All you have to prove is that Sanofi, more likely than not, failed to provide Afrezza with the resources and effort to make it commercially viable, as they promised.  One look at TV/print/internet ads for their other products, insurance coverages, and their efforts at doctor education, and it's a slam dunk, at least to me.

You'd be surprised how many attorneys would take a corporate breach of contract case with no retainer or fees until settlement. 

I'm content to keep waiting for my MNKD payday, just like I've waited for the past four years. It hasn't arrived. I could have sold in the 11's after the partnership but I didn't. Hind sight is always 20/20 but I still think there is intrinsic value in TS and Afrezza that hasn't been tapped yet.   

[mnkdmorelong]

Jan 6, 2016 7:09:02 GMT -5 hammer said:

Jan 6, 2016 6:57:12 GMT -5 mnkdmorelong said:

You make many assumptions.  First what is the jurisdiction?  If France, MNKD's lawyers will need to hire French lawyers to decipher French laws (Napoleonic Code). Will the judge allow testimony from another case?  Probably not.  Most of the cause of low Afrezza sales is tied to its high price.  Per the contract, SNY has sole rights to set prices.  The parties probably talked about the price before the contract.  How is MNKD going to prove damages based on a too high Afrezza price?  SNY suffered just as much as MNKD.  

It takes a lot of gumption to file a lawsuit.  Mostly because of the huge cost involved.  Don't think for a minute that anybody who has been wronged can sue the wrongor.  

There is no law firm in this world that will take this case on as a contingency.  Why would they commit legal resources when they can make money elsewhere.  I know, the payday at the end.  As an investor, you were looking for the MNKD payday.  Has it arrived yet?

14.4 Governing Law. This Agreement, and all questions regarding the existence, validity, interpretation, breach or performance of this
Agreement, shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, United States, without
reference to its conflicts of law principles with the exception of sections 5-1401 and 5-1402 of New York General Obligations Law. The United
Nations Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall not be applicable to this Agreement.

Thanks for the link.  NY State laws will be used.  But what is the jurisdiction?  One can sue in France using NY State laws.  This may sound perverse but an Order from a NY court may not enforceable in France.  Look for another part of the contract that speaks about this.

[silentknight]

Jan 6, 2016 7:27:24 GMT -5 mnkdmorelong said:

Jan 6, 2016 7:09:02 GMT -5 hammer said:

14.4 Governing Law. This Agreement, and all questions regarding the existence, validity, interpretation, breach or performance of this
Agreement, shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, United States, without
reference to its conflicts of law principles with the exception of sections 5-1401 and 5-1402 of New York General Obligations Law. The United
Nations Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall not be applicable to this Agreement.

Thanks for the link.  NY State laws will be used.  But what is the jurisdiction?  One can sue in France using NY State laws.  This may sound perverse but an Order from a NY court may not enforceable in France.  Look for another part of the contract that speaks about this. 

He just told you what the jurisdiction would be as per the contract, New York. You want to find something in the contract that speaks to it, look for yourself. You're claiming that they could reference law in the United States to file suit in France?  Using that logic, could one file suit in NY referencing French law? Not to my knowledge.  I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. It's why there are courts in other countries. You file suit there if you want to claim damages.

Now you're just trolling. You're looking for an excuse to argue and are not offering up any valid points of discussion.

[mnkdmorelong]

Jan 6, 2016 7:39:21 GMT -5 silentknight said:

Jan 6, 2016 7:27:24 GMT -5 mnkdmorelong said:

Thanks for the link.  NY State laws will be used.  But what is the jurisdiction?  One can sue in France using NY State laws.  This may sound perverse but an Order from a NY court may not enforceable in France.  Look for another part of the contract that speaks about this. 

He just told you what the jurisdiction would be as per the contract, New York. You want to find something in the contract that speaks to it, look for yourself. You're claiming that they could reference law in the United States to file suit in France?  Using that logic, could one file suit in NY referencing French law? Not to my knowledge.  I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. It's why there are courts in other countries. You file suit there if you want to claim damages.

Now you're just trolling. You're looking for an excuse to argue and are not offering up any valid points of discussion.

If you read carefully you will see my point.  Jurisdiction is not the same as what laws will be used to interpret the contract.  If you cannot understand this, I cannot help you.

[slugworth008]

Jan 5, 2016 22:38:29 GMT -5 lorcan458 said:

Lakers' list is all very supportable from a legal point of view and having two simultaneous lawsuits for the same type of behavior will reinforce each other. I'm sure the list gets quite a bit longer when it includes all the behind the scenes information that Mannkind has that we retail shareholders don't know about. There are plenty of law firms who will take the case with no up-front costs for Mannkind and in I think Mannkind has a moral obligation to help discourage big pharma from behaving in the way Sanofi has.

Once Afrezza is priced on par with injectables, the year of real world results will make it a lot more likely for tier 2 placement. Mannkind can even offer a discount card or make it slightly less expensive to start since they have so much inventory and a contract to keep buying insulin. Script count is far more important right now than profit margin. If scripts can be pushed up in the exponential rate that they should be, the share price will recover to a level that will make raising money from minor dilution much more palatable to us longs.

   Now that some of the dust has settled and I've thought more about wether or not MNKD should sue SNY.. I now believe they should. Hindsight being 20/20 the firing of Vienbacher killed Afrezza at SNY, however that's not our issue - the deal was already signed and SNY screwed us every step of the way. Personally I am amazed that SNY didn't see the value of Afrezza to their bottom line...or perhaps the new CEO saw it as a threat?? In any case - Yes an attempt should be made to pile on and sue them. I think MNKD can make a solid case and I also believe that their is a lawfirm out there with multiple names on the letterhead that will take the case without too much upfront money. JMHO