|
Post by lorcan458 on Jan 6, 2016 16:13:17 GMT -5
I saw a lot of TV ads for Truejo. Comparing the spend on their other 2015 launch is a reasonable place to start when evaluating Sanofi's behavior.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jan 6, 2016 19:43:50 GMT -5
Sanofi can terminate the agreement if "Sanofi determines in good faith that Commercialization of Product is no longer economically viable in the United States" or "for any reason". Read all of Article 12.3(a) and not just the first line. The next line says they can terminate for any reason. The difference is that the "commercially reasonable" break has a 90 day notice period and the "any reason" break has a six month notice period.
From what I have read the last date for Sanofi is July 4th which fits the 6 month notice period and the "any reason" clause so there is not going to be a lawsuit. If you read Article 13.3 you can see why Mannkind would want shorten that period. The sooner that period ends the sooner revenue sharing ends.
|
|
|
Post by lorcan458 on Jan 6, 2016 20:14:09 GMT -5
From what I have read the last date for Sanofi is July 4th which fits the 6 month notice period and the "any reason" clause so there is not going to be a lawsuit. If you read Article 13.3 you can see why Mannkind would want shorten that period. The sooner that period ends the sooner revenue sharing ends. I think you are correct. However, there may be another scenario to consider...Genzyme bringing in the Mannkind launch as evidence of a pattern. I personally saw at least 7 Truejo commercials this year. I'm sure the number of commercials and when they aired is discoverable information. Also, the number and experience level of the sales team, the number of sales calls, etc. are all legally discoverable in the case of a lawsuit. With Sanofi already being sued, Mannkind may get brought into the fray whether they initiate it or not. Genzyme is almost certainly going to use Sanofi's behavior with Mannkind as further evidence of Sanofi's culpability as a pattern of behavior in their own lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jan 6, 2016 20:16:44 GMT -5
From what I have read the last date for Sanofi is July 4th which fits the 6 month notice period and the "any reason" clause so there is not going to be a lawsuit. If you read Article 13.3 you can see why Mannkind would want shorten that period. The sooner that period ends the sooner revenue sharing ends. I think you are correct. However, there may be another scenario to consider...Genzyme bringing in the Mannkind launch as evidence of a pattern. I personally saw at least 7 Truejo commercials this year. I'm sure the number of commercials and when they aired is discoverable information. Also, the number and experience level of the sales team, the number of sales calls, etc. are all legally discoverable in the case of a lawsuit. With Sanofi already being sued, Mannkind may get brought into the fray whether they initiate it or not. Genzyme is almost certainly going to use Sanofi's behavior with Mannkind as further evidence of Sanofi's culpability as a pattern of behavior in their own lawsuit. Yes, I saw toujeo ads popping up in Youtube a few times very recently.
|
|
|
Post by Actual Investor on Jan 6, 2016 21:38:33 GMT -5
From what I have read the last date for Sanofi is July 4th which fits the 6 month notice period and the "any reason" clause so there is not going to be a lawsuit. If you read Article 13.3 you can see why Mannkind would want shorten that period. The sooner that period ends the sooner revenue sharing ends. I think you are correct. However, there may be another scenario to consider...Genzyme bringing in the Mannkind launch as evidence of a pattern. I personally saw at least 7 Truejo commercials this year. I'm sure the number of commercials and when they aired is discoverable information. Also, the number and experience level of the sales team, the number of sales calls, etc. are all legally discoverable in the case of a lawsuit. With Sanofi already being sued, Mannkind may get brought into the fray whether they initiate it or not. Genzyme is almost certainly going to use Sanofi's behavior with Mannkind as further evidence of Sanofi's culpability as a pattern of behavior in their own lawsuit.Son-in Law is Partner in a law firm. He says that Genzyme lawyers would be remiss in not looking into current SNY behavior with similar partners. This would bring weight to MNKD position vs. SNY. Misery loves company - Courts love patterns of behavior.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 6, 2016 22:36:48 GMT -5
I saw a lot of TV ads for Truejo. Comparing the spend on their other 2015 launch is a reasonable place to start when evaluating Sanofi's behavior. Unless of course MNKD didn't want to have the expense of TV before formulary improved and thus MNKD is on record as having voted against TV spending in the JV oversight committee.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jan 6, 2016 22:56:00 GMT -5
From what I have read the last date for Sanofi is July 4th which fits the 6 month notice period and the "any reason" clause so there is not going to be a lawsuit. If you read Article 13.3 you can see why Mannkind would want shorten that period. The sooner that period ends the sooner revenue sharing ends. I think you are correct. However, there may be another scenario to consider...Genzyme bringing in the Mannkind launch as evidence of a pattern. I personally saw at least 7 Truejo commercials this year. I'm sure the number of commercials and when they aired is discoverable information. Also, the number and experience level of the sales team, the number of sales calls, etc. are all legally discoverable in the case of a lawsuit. With Sanofi already being sued, Mannkind may get brought into the fray whether they initiate it or not. Genzyme is almost certainly going to use Sanofi's behavior with Mannkind as further evidence of Sanofi's culpability as a pattern of behavior in their own lawsuit. One Toujeo ad. Ran a total of 893 times on TV. www.ispot.tv/brands/ZO3/toujeo
|
|
|
Post by kc on Jan 6, 2016 23:00:06 GMT -5
I think you are correct. However, there may be another scenario to consider...Genzyme bringing in the Mannkind launch as evidence of a pattern. I personally saw at least 7 Truejo commercials this year. I'm sure the number of commercials and when they aired is discoverable information. Also, the number and experience level of the sales team, the number of sales calls, etc. are all legally discoverable in the case of a lawsuit. With Sanofi already being sued, Mannkind may get brought into the fray whether they initiate it or not. Genzyme is almost certainly going to use Sanofi's behavior with Mannkind as further evidence of Sanofi's culpability as a pattern of behavior in their own lawsuit.Son-in Law is Partner in a law firm. He says that Genzyme lawyers would be remiss in not looking into current SNY behavior with similar partners. This would bring weight to MNKD position vs. SNY. Misery loves company - Courts love patterns of behavior. Genzyme is 100% owned by Sanofi. It was a company genzyme partnered with that is sueing. That company sold the drug Lemtrada to Genzyme mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N13436X20151109
|
|
|
Post by bill on Jan 6, 2016 23:09:26 GMT -5
Literally days ago lakers was saying the partnership was strong. Now he's saying things were so bad that mnkd should sue. You couldn't make this stuff up. Lurching from one wild theory to the next. I don't think there's an inconsistency in those positions. I, too, thought the partnership was strong, but this was based on my assessment that SNY was proceeding in a methodical manner. I assumed things that needed to be done would be done in due course, based on a time table it, as the expert, deemed best. As it turns out, SNY wasn't proceeding in a methodical manner, what we got was all we were going to get. There was nothing to come in due course. I'm willing to bet that SNY could have jumped either way very late into the game. They set things up so they could either continue or abandon ship. That's probably why MNKD was and was not surprised. They knew SNY wasn't putting its best foot forward, but SNY probably kept giving reasonable explanations about why things were taking a little bit longer to get in motion. The SNY senior executives could have gone either way, but in the end I think their spreadsheets showed that they weren't going to get the profits they wanted within the time frames they expected using the campaigns they laid out early last year when they thought Afrezza was only a niche drug. I think they made a poor choice on the target population and a poor choice on the marketing campaign; just breathe.
|
|
|
Post by corpplanner on Jan 6, 2016 23:33:53 GMT -5
Maybe, but MNKD could possibly be bankrupt before the lawsuit would conclude and so the shareholders would get nothing. SNY can drag this on for years.
And no law firm will take this case on contingency, which is what I think you were referring to when you said the lawyers would get a percentage at the end. Just not worth their time.
Last, even on contingency, terms are usually a third of all compensation of any kind from the other company plus the lawyers will collect quarterly compensation for expenses for travel, motions, depositions, copying documents, paralegals, lunches with clients, telephones/faxes/internet connection/subscriptions, etc. etc. etc. The plaintiff generally ends up with about 30% of the judgement.
|
|
|
Post by corpplanner on Jan 6, 2016 23:42:10 GMT -5
That's interesting info. But a bit confusing. Why would the contract be subject to the laws of NY? Are they more favorable to a potential plaintiff? MNKD is headquartered in California with operations in Connecticut. They were probably incorporated in Delaware. Sanofi's US HQ are in NJ.
|
|
|
Post by dstevenson on Jan 7, 2016 0:27:01 GMT -5
SNY really did a number on our SP. intentional or not, i am sure there will be fire from this managment and especially Al to see it suceed and shove it in SNY face. you'll be surprised how just the revenge angle can really light a fire under your ass.
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Jan 7, 2016 0:35:07 GMT -5
Maybe, but MNKD could possibly be bankrupt before the lawsuit would conclude and so the shareholders would get nothing. SNY can drag this on for years. And no law firm will take this case on contingency, which is what I think you were referring to when you said the lawyers would get a percentage at the end. Just not worth their time. Last, even on contingency, terms are usually a third of all compensation of any kind from the other company plus the lawyers will collect quarterly compensation for expenses for travel, motions, depositions, copying documents, paralegals, lunches with clients, telephones/faxes/internet connection/subscriptions, etc. etc. etc. The plaintiff generally ends up with about 30% of the judgement. Some cos reduced to a smidgen of a shell co. still doggedly pursued and won big, then issued dividend. That happened a lot in high tech.
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Jan 7, 2016 6:35:41 GMT -5
I've done some further thinking and analysis of the contract and I've come to a few new conclusions, and reinforced some old ones:
(i) Everyone who looks at this can clearly see that SNY intentionally killed the drug. I stand by that. Comparing launches, strategy, lack of resources, etc.... and you clearly see how they neglected Afrezza for their other products. I also think the reasons are clear. They retained 65% of Afrezza sales compared to 100% of Lantus, Toujeo, etc....thus those became their priorities. I also strongly believe they saw Afrezza as a threat due to patient results. If Afrezza users were posting results that were so good that they needed to use less basal, then Afrezza was going to cost them money by eating into their existing sales.
So, they starved the drug intentionally and in two quarters, more or less, decided to declare the drug a failure and give up on it. We didn't see much of anything in terms of marketing for several months. It's likely they decided to terminate months ago and were just waiting until Jan 1 to do it. Sanofi never had Afrezza or MNKD's interest at heart. That's apparent.
(ii) I've also come to the realization that the contract that MNKD signed with them when they partnered is SO BAD, that everything SNY did with Afrezza was completely within the legal framework of the contract and probably won't ever materialize into any type of legal action. MNKD really screwed themselves royally when they agreed to stipulations that gave them nothing and SNY EVERYTHING. Now, we sit here facing the reality of that situation with little to no recourse to do anything about it. Sanofi did their best to intentionally destroy the company and the drug, and MNKD gave them the permission to do it via that God-awful contract.
Take aways:
SNY is to blame for all of this, but MNKD shares some responsibility.
Big Pharma will stop at nothing to kill disruptive technologies that threaten its profits.
MNKD Management and BOD dropped the ball when they agreed to that contract.
Greenhill failed in their negotiations of said contract.
Retail shareholders have taken it on the chin in a royal way because of bad decision making, cut-throat business practices and inept company leadership.
I still hope they might turn things around and I remain EXTREMELY glad that Sanofi is gone. Holding.
|
|
|
Post by lakemann on Jan 7, 2016 6:56:19 GMT -5
Are institutions selling off?? Is there any way to tell?
|
|