Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 22:23:29 GMT -5
Cant remember the name of company suing SNY but any good law firm is going to try and bring in MNKD during discovery. I am currently apart of a lawsuit. My dog had an operation with a poor success rate. The operation had major complications and was sold to us with a 95% success rate. He almost died twice and lived an awful life for two years. It costs my family almost 30,000 20,000 was preventable. What got the lawyers ready to settle was when my lawyer stated he was going to go through their data base of dogs who had this same operation that had failed and bring them in too. I had learned the operation was failing in most dogs but they kept doing it becuase it was expensive.
I would have to think SNY's lawyers know this and if they get MNKD to agree to confidential package it would help SNY greatly. Although these are all long shots and not reasons to invest in a company. Its just hopium for our situation.....
|
|
|
Post by jimo on Feb 3, 2016 22:23:46 GMT -5
Sanofi's CEO quickly decided Afrezza was not part of their new strategy last spring/summer and ended the partnership the first day they could. They will give it back as soon as possible to get afrezza staff focused on their current strategy.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 3, 2016 22:42:09 GMT -5
Cant remember the name of company suing SNY but any good law firm is going to try and bring in MNKD during discovery. This may be the one you are talking about ... Some (ambulance chasing?) legal firm is suing Sanofi, accusing Sanofi (and its subsidiary Genzyme) of dragging their feet. www.reuters.com/article/sanofi-genzyme-lawsuit-idUSL1N13433H20151109I'm not sure that suit has any more merit than the ones being launched against Mannkind by other firms.
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Feb 4, 2016 3:09:53 GMT -5
I was told by Sanofi rep they are in until July. But who knows if he is right? I was pleased with the call. Question is, people that are long, Are they looking at the call objectively? Based on your recent posts - I would say that you are the one that is not looking at this objectively, or at least not aware of enough of the company history to be wholly objective. You do realize that at the current burn rate they will be out of money in July? Getting them the rights back at the point does them no good, and if they can't sign another partner until they get the rights back then that basically spells BK unless Mann steps in again and drops a huge loan. What SNY did is to opt out in Jan knowing that they have enough roadblocks available to make it an uphill run for MNKD to kill them shortly before MNKD is able to turn it around. This is elegant and cruel but fits well to the French culture. Matt is disclosing as little as possible and tries to do things SNY has not thought about due to their tradition background and hierarchical structure. WS is betting on SNY. This is epic.
|
|
|
Post by parrerob on Feb 4, 2016 5:52:59 GMT -5
Wake up this morning and reading the transcript I am much more confident exactely as I was after the JPM. In effect quite nothing has changed.
The reason of this call was that Matt and the management needs now to provide further transparency (on what they can obviously) and clearly this call was part of what He promised at the JPM and they had to do it. Then I agree too with MnH. that something was needed to be written (transcripted) at this stage.
All cash information has been postponed at the earning call. So following the new "concept" that Matt will maintein what publicly promised We should expect to be in same way relatively fine with this in 2-3 weeks. Not expect big announcement but may be something more about Receptor income by EOD and debt reorganization.
Note: JO made a specific question in order to be sure that there are no near term announcement on new partnership on TS (He was assured directly by Matt previously that at least by April no news on Afrezza side too) so I am expecting other short term dirty games by GS. What a news ?
The only think now that is very very negative for me is Alfred Mann missing. It is not possible that He is not taking his part on these call. Al Mann even if at home, or forced to bed, sure required to be connected as well and to say his view after SNI departure from the partnerhsip. Really hope to hear from him by next Earning Call but I believe, at this stage, He is no more longer to speack (for a reason or another). Don't want to say nothing about money and investment here. He represents an important Asset for the whole human beeing. So sad.
R.
|
|
|
Post by bill on Feb 4, 2016 7:30:07 GMT -5
Perhaps we should look at this another way. The point of these transitions following a termination of agreement is to protect the distributor's reputation and to protect the patient. Is it also possible that Sanofi may be more cooperative than many of us expect?
Can Sanofi really afford to project the image of being a lousy choice for global pharmaceutical partnership with all the other drug development companies out there?
It's a possibility that Sanofi wants this parting to be amicable, although I would be stunned if, as part of the transition, Sanofi agreed to lower prices immediately. If they wanted to hurt MannKind, then Sanofi was stupid to go ahead and publicly state that Afrezza is not commercially viable in the U.S. because by saying that they paint themselves into a corner. If Sanofi-Aventis really had wanted to hurt MannKind to try to stop Afrezza, they would have claimed the "for any reason" clause and then terminated with a 6-month notice to force MannKind to burn through another three months cash. Now that they've "gone public" that they haven't been able sell Afrezza in spite of their "best efforts", they'll have to speed up the transition under the 90-day notice provision. I don't see much material that needs to be transferred. After all, they didn't do that much!
My point is simply that Sanofi may not want to project a "bad partner" image and so may want this transfer to go nicely... and fast. Concern for their own reputation is also why a think that a cash or debt settlement may be possible. The wild card here could be who is in control of when the partnership gets terminated. Is it up to SNY to decide whether it's April or July, sometime before or sometime between, or is it up to MNKD? I thought Matt said that MNKD may request that the partnership get extended beyond April. I would have thought that MNKD was in control of when the partnership gets terminated once SNY gave notice since the 90 and 180 day notices are there so that MNKD has time to get ready to assume full control of Afrezza. It may be to MNKD's benefit to only assume full control when they're prepared for it. That would be better news than if SNY were in control. Has anyone found the answer somewhere in the partnership agreement. I looked a while back, but didn't find anything I thought was compelling.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 4, 2016 8:56:16 GMT -5
I started in the healthcare industry in 1978 so I will let you do the math on how old that makes me. I have been president of two NASDAQ listed companies and vice president of a NYSE listed, Fortune 100, and I am presenting working on a new start-up. I have seen, and lived, these stories from both sides.
Firstly, Matt is doing what he can. A CEO can only play the cards he is dealt and his cards are not that strong. Good gamblers can win hands with lousy cards but it is better to be holding four aces. My point is that he is trying to do what he can to maximize he value of the assets he has. There probably are foreign partners that will sell Afrezza, but they are not companies that most of you have ever heard of. Back in the 1960's most drug deals were done on a country or regional basis, but by the 1980's big pharma insisted on global exclusivity, and gobbled up almost all of the smaller players. There were once eight German pharma companies that were significant players; now there is only Bayer. All the others have merged.
The take away is that managing a series of regional partnerships has two ramifications. The first is that any big pharma deal is off the table The big pharmas want drugs globally or not at all, and doing an foreign deals will kill the chance of getting another big pharma. The other is that the skill sets required to manage across time zones and cultures, each with a different regulatory system, will take some getting used to. I earned 3 million frequent flyer miles along the way. I was once assigned to Japan for three years, and I spent the first 2 years getting to learn how business is done (and I lived there the whole time). Still, there are good family owned pharma companies in Italy, France, Japan, China, India, and a few other places and those would be good partners, although they don't have the deep capability of big pharma. Asian deals take a long time, especially in Japan.
TS is what is is, but if management thinks they don't need clinical trials after what they went through with Afrezza, then they need to read the FDA regulations on combination products. The same drug with a different delivery system is a different drug as far as FDA is concerned, and they will do a risk assessment on a case by case basis to decide how much testing is needed.
Don't get too wrapped up in how long it will take to get out of the Sanofi arrangement; that is just eight weeks away and that is a blink in the life of a pharma CEO. Maybe I have mellowed in my old age, but I have gotten used to it taking months to do much of anything in this highly regulated industry. While I know day traders like to work on different time lines, measured in hours, April will be here very soon. The real risk is cash. As the calendar pages flip slowly, the cash drains steadily.
Matt has no magic wand to force partners to the table, and even when the ink dries on the paperwork the new partners will take time to get up and running. The potential partners are going to be much smaller firms with less robust balance sheets than even second tier big pharmas so nobody is going to be writing big checks. I don't know how Matt keeps the lights on given that the cash crunch has a MUCH shorter time line than future revenues, and some of the earliest payments are due to organizations that are known predatory lenders who will not renegotiate. Until that question gets resolved, MNKD is still a big question mark.
|
|
|
Post by liane on Feb 4, 2016 9:00:28 GMT -5
matt Your posts have always had a lot of insight. Thanks for the additional background!
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Feb 4, 2016 9:11:07 GMT -5
MNKD needs to hire Matt so we can get this thing going in the right direction!
|
|
|
Post by therealisaching on Feb 4, 2016 9:16:18 GMT -5
I started in the healthcare industry in 1978 so I will let you do the math on how old that makes me. I have been president of two NASDAQ listed companies and vice president of a NYSE listed, Fortune 100, and I am presenting working on a new start-up. I have seen, and lived, these stories from both sides. Firstly, Matt is doing what he can. A CEO can only play the cards he is dealt and his cards are not that strong. Good gamblers can win hands with lousy cards but it is better to be holding four aces. My point is that he is trying to do what he can to maximize he value of the assets he has. There probably are foreign partners that will sell Afrezza, but they are not companies that most of you have ever heard of. Back in the 1960's most drug deals were done on a country or regional basis, but by the 1980's big pharma insisted on global exclusivity, and gobbled up almost all of the smaller players. There were once eight German pharma companies that were significant players; now there is only Bayer. All the others have merged. The take away is that managing a series of regional partnerships has two ramifications. The first is that any big pharma deal is off the table The big pharmas want drugs globally or not at all, and doing an foreign deals will kill the chance of getting another big pharma. The other is that the skill sets required to manage across time zones and cultures, each with a different regulatory system, will take some getting used to. I earned 3 million frequent flyer miles along the way. I was once assigned to Japan for three years, and I spent the first 2 years getting to learn how business is done (and I lived there the whole time). Still, there are good family owned pharma companies in Italy, France, Japan, China, India, and a few other places and those would be good partners, although they don't have the deep capability of big pharma. Asian deals take a long time, especially in Japan. TS is what is is, but if management thinks they don't need clinical trials after what they went through with Afrezza, then they need to read the FDA regulations on combination products. The same drug with a different delivery system is a different drug as far as FDA is concerned, and they will do a risk assessment on a case by case basis to decide how much testing is needed. Don't get too wrapped up in how long it will take to get out of the Sanofi arrangement; that is just eight weeks away and that is a blink in the life of a pharma CEO. Maybe I have mellowed in my old age, but I have gotten used to it taking months to do much of anything in this highly regulated industry. While I know day traders like to work on different time lines, measured in hours, April will be here very soon. The real risk is cash. As the calendar pages flip slowly, the cash drains steadily. Matt has no magic wand to force partners to the table, and even when the ink dries on the paperwork the new partners will take time to get up and running. The potential partners are going to be much smaller firms with less robust balance sheets than even second tier big pharmas so nobody is going to be writing big checks. I don't know how Matt keeps the lights on given that the cash crunch has a MUCH shorter time line than future revenues, and some of the earliest payments are due to organizations that are known predatory lenders who will not renegotiate. Until that question gets resolved, MNKD is still a big question mark. Excellent summation Matt. With your background how would you be dealing with SNY in seeking cash out the door? This seems to me the only opportunity for any meaningful inusion to see if 2.0 can take flight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 9:21:12 GMT -5
I started in the healthcare industry in 1978 so I will let you do the math on how old that makes me. I have been president of two NASDAQ listed companies and vice president of a NYSE listed, Fortune 100, and I am presenting working on a new start-up. I have seen, and lived, these stories from both sides. Firstly, Matt is doing what he can. A CEO can only play the cards he is dealt and his cards are not that strong. Good gamblers can win hands with lousy cards but it is better to be holding four aces. My point is that he is trying to do what he can to maximize he value of the assets he has. There probably are foreign partners that will sell Afrezza, but they are not companies that most of you have ever heard of. Back in the 1960's most drug deals were done on a country or regional basis, but by the 1980's big pharma insisted on global exclusivity, and gobbled up almost all of the smaller players. There were once eight German pharma companies that were significant players; now there is only Bayer. All the others have merged. The take away is that managing a series of regional partnerships has two ramifications. The first is that any big pharma deal is off the table The big pharmas want drugs globally or not at all, and doing an foreign deals will kill the chance of getting another big pharma. The other is that the skill sets required to manage across time zones and cultures, each with a different regulatory system, will take some getting used to. I earned 3 million frequent flyer miles along the way. I was once assigned to Japan for three years, and I spent the first 2 years getting to learn how business is done (and I lived there the whole time). Still, there are good family owned pharma companies in Italy, France, Japan, China, India, and a few other places and those would be good partners, although they don't have the deep capability of big pharma. Asian deals take a long time, especially in Japan. TS is what is is, but if management thinks they don't need clinical trials after what they went through with Afrezza, then they need to read the FDA regulations on combination products. The same drug with a different delivery system is a different drug as far as FDA is concerned, and they will do a risk assessment on a case by case basis to decide how much testing is needed. Don't get too wrapped up in how long it will take to get out of the Sanofi arrangement; that is just eight weeks away and that is a blink in the life of a pharma CEO. Maybe I have mellowed in my old age, but I have gotten used to it taking months to do much of anything in this highly regulated industry. While I know day traders like to work on different time lines, measured in hours, April will be here very soon. The real risk is cash. As the calendar pages flip slowly, the cash drains steadily. Matt has no magic wand to force partners to the table, and even when the ink dries on the paperwork the new partners will take time to get up and running. The potential partners are going to be much smaller firms with less robust balance sheets than even second tier big pharmas so nobody is going to be writing big checks. I don't know how Matt keeps the lights on given that the cash crunch has a MUCH shorter time line than future revenues, and some of the earliest payments are due to organizations that are known predatory lenders who will not renegotiate. Until that question gets resolved, MNKD is still a big question mark. Excellent summation Matt. With your background how would you be dealing with SNY in seeking cash out the door? This seems to me the only opportunity for any meaningful inusion to see if 2.0 can take flight. I thought this was the wild card also. Was anything mentioned on the conference call this time around.
|
|
|
Post by kball on Feb 4, 2016 9:21:52 GMT -5
matt Your posts have always had a lot of insight. Thanks for the additional background! So agree liane. And if he's worried, then i'm worried
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 4, 2016 11:56:37 GMT -5
Why would SNY give it back early? They dug the knife in our back with their statement that Afrezza has no shot at gaining any traction and now they are going to turn it over early? If SNY truly feels threatened by MNKD then why would they give them a chance to sell the drug earlier? This is not rocket science this is common sense. I would be surprised if SNY didn't want to pay MNKD a parting gift and forgive the debt for an agreement by MNKd not to sue them I do not put much faith in the MNKD suing SNY scenario. But if it did, there is a negative side to any such lawsuit. That is, would another company be eager to partner up with MNKD if it sees MNKD suing its last partner? It is at least a consideration.
|
|
|
Post by prvs on Feb 4, 2016 16:03:00 GMT -5
So it looks like we are back to square one-MNKD needs it's own sales force in the US and they need it yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by prvs on Feb 4, 2016 17:00:42 GMT -5
I started in the healthcare industry in 1978 so I will let you do the math on how old that makes me. I have been president of two NASDAQ listed companies and vice president of a NYSE listed, Fortune 100, and I am presenting working on a new start-up. I have seen, and lived, these stories from both sides. Firstly, Matt is doing what he can. A CEO can only play the cards he is dealt and his cards are not that strong. Good gamblers can win hands with lousy cards but it is better to be holding four aces. My point is that he is trying to do what he can to maximize he value of the assets he has. There probably are foreign partners that will sell Afrezza, but they are not companies that most of you have ever heard of. Back in the 1960's most drug deals were done on a country or regional basis, but by the 1980's big pharma insisted on global exclusivity, and gobbled up almost all of the smaller players. There were once eight German pharma companies that were significant players; now there is only Bayer. All the others have merged. The take away is that managing a series of regional partnerships has two ramifications. The first is that any big pharma deal is off the table The big pharmas want drugs globally or not at all, and doing an foreign deals will kill the chance of getting another big pharma. The other is that the skill sets required to manage across time zones and cultures, each with a different regulatory system, will take some getting used to. I earned 3 million frequent flyer miles along the way. I was once assigned to Japan for three years, and I spent the first 2 years getting to learn how business is done (and I lived there the whole time). Still, there are good family owned pharma companies in Italy, France, Japan, China, India, and a few other places and those would be good partners, although they don't have the deep capability of big pharma. Asian deals take a long time, especially in Japan. TS is what is is, but if management thinks they don't need clinical trials after what they went through with Afrezza, then they need to read the FDA regulations on combination products. The same drug with a different delivery system is a different drug as far as FDA is concerned, and they will do a risk assessment on a case by case basis to decide how much testing is needed. Don't get too wrapped up in how long it will take to get out of the Sanofi arrangement; that is just eight weeks away and that is a blink in the life of a pharma CEO. Maybe I have mellowed in my old age, but I have gotten used to it taking months to do much of anything in this highly regulated industry. While I know day traders like to work on different time lines, measured in hours, April will be here very soon. The real risk is cash. As the calendar pages flip slowly, the cash drains steadily. Matt has no magic wand to force partners to the table, and even when the ink dries on the paperwork the new partners will take time to get up and running. The potential partners are going to be much smaller firms with less robust balance sheets than even second tier big pharmas so nobody is going to be writing big checks. I don't know how Matt keeps the lights on given that the cash crunch has a MUCH shorter time line than future revenues, and some of the earliest payments are due to organizations that are known predatory lenders who will not renegotiate. Until that question gets resolved, MNKD is still a big question mark.
|
|