|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 2, 2016 23:29:31 GMT -5
Makes me sick to read this. Pisses me off more than anything. I'd moonlight as a "sales rep" on my own time for MannKind because I believe in the product as well as to give SNY and any SNY sales rep that has that attitude a big F you. I'm in! We could get a good sales team going. I'll do it on my own time too. Who else is in?
|
|
|
Post by figglebird on Feb 2, 2016 23:42:03 GMT -5
From a legal standpoint, if mnkd were to threaten suit, they would have a MUCH MEATIER or substantive/provable CLAIM(know this from experience) taking Sanofi to task on their failure to live up to their obligations stipulated in the supply agreement - THIS IS WHERE ONE CAN POINT TO A GARDEN OF HARD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, PRESENTABLE IN COURT.
|
|
|
Post by kball on Feb 2, 2016 23:42:35 GMT -5
Pisses me off more than anything. I'd moonlight as a "sales rep" on my own time for MannKind because I believe in the product as well as to give SNY and any SNY sales rep that has that attitude a big F you. I'm in! We could get a good sales team going. I'll do it on my own time too. Who else is in? I'd totally buy drugs from Sports! :-)
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 3, 2016 2:16:47 GMT -5
What exactly was SNY spending all the money on? A bunch of Salaries for people who did nothing? I remember reading about all these wonderful positions being created in SNY's higher archly for Afrezza. They accomplished NOTHING!!!! I literally had a SNY rep (who sells Tojeau) laugh at me last week and ask how MNKD stock price was doing. Oooo... I also have made the mistake of admitting that I bought MNKD stock. Gotta stand proud having suffered defeat for a cause one believes in.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Feb 3, 2016 2:35:06 GMT -5
Right now is not the time to spending resources (both financial and human) on this. If you think about it the more successful they can make Afrezza either on their own or with another partner would only validate the fact that SNY was inept, apathetic, and not fully committed to seeing it become successful which in turn would elevate the potential damages from the time lost of their failed so called launch/efforts. We need to pursue/address that issue from a better position of strength down the road, not when we need to allocate the aforementioned resources to gaining traction going forward. Having said all that, if they ponied up a DECENT kiss goodbye fee, it would be prudent to at least consider it. Otherwise, prove they mishandled it by showing just how successful it should have been even before any label improvement. If you do that, they would be hard pressed to defend their ineptness and lack of fiduciary responsibility according to the agreement. If there is to be a suit, MannKind needs to be mindful of the applicable statute of limitations, so they can't wait too long for proof that Afrezza would sell great. I don't want to see legal proceedings, I just hope they have enough to get a real good deal on this breakup. Then look only forward. Sanofi has some good defenses in terms of the FDA required label, and the big Afrezza sign and presence at the ADA Convention. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the contract between MNKD and SNY included a waiver of jury trial clause (or possibly a mandatory arbitration provision - which may or may not be enforceable). I could see a jury getting mad at SNY and screwing them, but not so much a judge or panel of arbitrators.
|
|
|
Post by dictatorsaurus on Feb 3, 2016 8:56:11 GMT -5
Right now is not the time to spending resources (both financial and human) on this. If you think about it the more successful they can make Afrezza either on their own or with another partner would only validate the fact that SNY was inept, apathetic, and not fully committed to seeing it become successful which in turn would elevate the potential damages from the time lost of their failed so called launch/efforts. We need to pursue/address that issue from a better position of strength down the road, not when we need to allocate the aforementioned resources to gaining traction going forward. Having said all that, if they ponied up a DECENT kiss goodbye fee, it would be prudent to at least consider it. Otherwise, prove they mishandled it by showing just how successful it should have been even before any label improvement. If you do that, they would be hard pressed to defend their ineptness and lack of fiduciary responsibility according to the agreement. If there is to be a suit, MannKind needs to be mindful of the applicable statute of limitations, so they can't wait too long for proof that Afrezza would sell great. I don't want to see legal proceedings, I just hope they have enough to get a real good deal on this breakup. Then look only forward. Sanofi has some good defenses in terms of the FDA required label, and the big Afrezza sign and presence at the ADA Convention. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the contract between MNKD and SNY included a waiver of jury trial clause (or possibly a mandatory arbitration provision - which may or may not be enforceable). I could see a jury getting mad at SNY and screwing them, but not so much a judge or panel of arbitrators. I bet a few whistle-blower Sanofi sales reps would have a thing or two to say about the great sandbagging effort.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Feb 3, 2016 9:35:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by od on Feb 3, 2016 10:35:39 GMT -5
What exactly was SNY spending all the money on? A bunch of Salaries for people who did nothing? I remember reading about all these wonderful positions being created in SNY's higher archly for Afrezza. They accomplished NOTHING!!!! I literally had a SNY rep (who sells Tojeau) laugh at me last week and ask how MNKD stock price was doing. So what you are telling us is that SNY has at least one jerk on their sales force...probably some jerks in your workplace...perhaps some who post of our board. Is is possible the reps' comment reveals who he/she is, not on SNY nefarious plans?
|
|
|
Post by dictatorsaurus on Feb 3, 2016 10:45:43 GMT -5
What exactly was SNY spending all the money on? A bunch of Salaries for people who did nothing? I remember reading about all these wonderful positions being created in SNY's higher archly for Afrezza. They accomplished NOTHING!!!! I literally had a SNY rep (who sells Tojeau) laugh at me last week and ask how MNKD stock price was doing. So what you are telling us is that SNY has at least one jerk on their sales force...probably some jerks in your workplace...perhaps some who post of our board. Is is possible the reps' comment reveals who he/she is, not on SNY nefarious plans? I don't think he's trying to say Sanofi reps are jerks as much as he's trying to say the whole attitude towards Afrezza was disgraceful. He's trying to prove a point that SNY never took Afrezza seriously on any level, from the higher up CEO to the low level floor sales man.
|
|
|
Post by od on Feb 3, 2016 10:57:56 GMT -5
So what you are telling us is that SNY has at least one jerk on their sales force...probably some jerks in your workplace...perhaps some who post of our board. Is is possible the reps' comment reveals who he/she is, not on SNY nefarious plans? I don't think he's trying to say Sanofi reps are jerks as much as he's trying to say the whole attitude towards Afrezza was disgraceful. He's trying to prove a point that SNY never took Afrezza seriously on any level, from the higher up CEO to the low level floor sales man. D - I understand what cjc was saying. I am suggesting that if the rep was simply a jerk, having nothing to do with SNY, it does not prove the point. Perhaps the rep was reflecting SNY's disregard for Afrezza, but having spend most of my career in the industry, I don't believe the sales force has insights into the intentions of the C-suite.
|
|
|
Post by petech on Feb 3, 2016 11:25:35 GMT -5
Isn't the partnership to be interpreted under the laws of New York?
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Feb 3, 2016 12:18:12 GMT -5
I simply assumed that because MannKind is a Delaware Corporation, the L&C Agreement would have been filed there.
Regardless, anybody can click the link (above) to see that New York's statute of limitations is 6 years...
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Feb 3, 2016 13:15:44 GMT -5
I don't think he's trying to say Sanofi reps are jerks as much as he's trying to say the whole attitude towards Afrezza was disgraceful. He's trying to prove a point that SNY never took Afrezza seriously on any level, from the higher up CEO to the low level floor sales man. D - I understand what cjc was saying. I am suggesting that if the rep was simply a jerk, having nothing to do with SNY, it does not prove the point. Perhaps the rep was reflecting SNY's disregard for Afrezza, but having spend most of my career in the industry, I don't believe the sales force has insights into the intentions of the C-suite. Clearly you do not understand what I was saying. Dictatorsaureus described it perfectly, and then you went back in your own direction. You're the only one who suggested that ground level local reps where acting on "C-suite" orders. I believe my experience with this rep is just one example of what has happen across the country. INSTEAD of SNY's sales reps influencing and changing the old school ideas of docs & endos, by supporting and educating on Afrezza, they themselves were influenced by the push back against Afrezza and got on board with it. Almost as if they were embarrassed by their little sister, and now, they're saving face with the rest of the industry by jumping on board with the "yea I knew it wouldn't work either" attitude. That attitude from the SNY reps is what scared me the moment I heard SNY was splitting. If we couldn't gain traction with an ally like SNY, then how the heck are we going to get anywhere when they're against us too? Not to mention, they're supposedly "with us" until the agreement is over which is an absolute JOKE. All these reps are out saving face and probably have more negative comments on Afrezza than our competition does. OH YEA, let's add that our money will run out close to the time we can even get Afrezza back in MNKD's hands. Sry folks,,, not feeling too optimistic today. You all can use beer, wine & liquor to ease the pain but none of them work for me any more. A tall picture of Kool-aid is the only thing that helps me sleep. A near term buy out of something is the only way I can see us surviving, and I hope that is what all the recent moves have been setting up for.
|
|
|
Post by petech on Feb 3, 2016 13:24:07 GMT -5
Yeah I think you can always contract around where jurisdiction should be. As I recall, there was a "this contract should be interpreted under the laws of NY" clause.
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Feb 3, 2016 13:37:06 GMT -5
The Real Motivation for Efforts to Undermine MNKD There is a continuing —and, to some, inexplicable—drumbeat of negativity concerning the prospects of this (by market cap measures) tiny stock. There is also a relentless campaign of short-selling—notwithstanding the fact only a meager $1 of profit potential remains even if every bearish prognostication is realized. The explanations, to me, are simple. MNKD has dared to threaten a multi-billion dollar franchise . . . and those enterprises which presently have the oligopoly on that franchise want to defend it, at all costs. What are mere millions when billions are at stake? The short selling, from that perspective, is not prosecuted with the traditional profit motive in mind. The objective, rather, is to keep MNKD’s share price depressed . . . for the principal purpose of ensuring that the company cannot use its own stock as currency in any effort to raise additional capital. Regrettably, SNY was not the right marketing partner for MNKD. Indeed, SNY is a member of the very oligopoly that has an interest in ensuring that Afrezza does not gain traction in the market. SNY from the beginning had a greater incentive to realize 100% of the profits on sale of its own diabetes therapies (e.g., Toujeo) than a fraction of the profits on the sale of Afrezza. The fox, in other words, had been contracted to guard the henhouse. The results of SNY’s “marketing efforts” therefore were not surprising . . . nor was SNY’s termination of the contractual arrangement. There have been exchanges on this board regarding the nature of the remedies that MNKD might have against SNY. One or two posters have expressed the opinion that the terms of the contract between MNKD and SNY may (or will?) foreclose MNKD’s rights to damages for breach of that contract. I am not at all certain that I hold the same view. But I believe, in any event, that there exists an independent ground for SNY’s liability. Even if it is concluded that SNY had the right to terminate its relationship with MNKD, that could have been accomplished with a one sentence letter communicating that decision. SNY instead chose to make public statements that it was terminating its relationship with MNKD because (in words and substance) Afrezza would never be a commercially viable product, even if reasonable marketing efforts were made. Those statements (i) were not required for exercise of SNY’s contractual right to terminate, and (ii) had the effect (and were very likely intended to have the effect) of damaging Afrezza’s reputation. Posit, for example, the senior management of a public company that is a potential purchaser of Afrezza, or MNKD partner, who believes in the product’s potential. Any proposal by the management of that company involving Afrezza would certainly elicit shareholder skepticism—if not opposition—based on the stated pronouncement of a major pharmaceutical company that it had concluded, after (purportedly) diligent analysis, that the product would never be commercially viable. Other measures of damage come readily to mind, but will not be elaborated in the interests of space. To put the matter plainly: I believe that SNY’s gratuitous statements concerning MNKD’s prospects amounted to product disparagement, for which SNY is answerable in damages. Indeed, if it were to be determined that SNY purportedly based those statements (which it did not need to make at all) on the results of intentionally inadequate marketing efforts, SNY’s bad faith might well provide a basis for engrossment of MNKD’s compensatory damages with punitive damages. finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/?&bn=0243242e-59fb-3abc-8d27-962c7bf26a1d&tid=1454443357904-880a6f40-a1a6-4e37-8100-269a6ae5f247&tls=la%2Cd%2C8%2C3[the damage may be trebled. I fully expect Sanofi will eventually substantially extend Mnkd's runway.]
|
|