|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 13, 2016 11:40:41 GMT -5
Just imagine 1 or 2 Sanofi sales reps spilling the beans on what effort they really put into marketing! My fear is that SNY was clever enough to not leave much litigation exposure. They may have gotten MNKD's concurrence on limited marketing in the JAC by making the same case that many expressed here that formulary improvement was necessary first. If SNY were sandbagging at the formulary negotiation level that could have involved a fairly small number of people with knowledge that would implicate SNY as having been complicit in the failure of Afrezza. MNKD certainly didn't portray that they have been fighting with SNY in the JAC to change course. To me, the JAC seemed like a positive thing to have in the agreement... but it may simply have been part of SNY's risk mitigation. If MNKD went along with them, then MNKD would have the much tougher burden of proof to show that SNY had gotten their consent through deception. IMO, as someone that has dealt with commercial legal issues, but is not qualified to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by lorcan458 on Jan 13, 2016 12:16:25 GMT -5
As far as legal exposure, if internal memos are subpoenaed that show because of Afrezza lowering the basal requirement, the decision was made to stop putting forth a reasonable commercialization effort, that could be a 8, 9 or 10 figure lawsuit and the death-knell for Sanofi as far as attracting partnerships given what they did to Genzyme.
|
|
