|
|
Post by kball on Mar 10, 2016 8:17:56 GMT -5
If MNKD could get SNY to court in a jury trial, anything could happen; juries are notorious for coming up with the wildest verdicts for the worst reasons. Arbitration is far less likely to yield a wild and crazy result, and is often cheaper. Those clauses are usually upheld, so if there's an arbitration provision, that's likely where it will end up. But will there be an arbitration, or a settlement? I hope they settle, quicker, cheaper, less time for Matt and his top guys away from the business. Not looking for much out of our settlement, like I said, forgiveness of debt would be fine with me, not that we don't deserve more, but tough to prove, and arbitrators are generally not swayed, as are jurors, if you have the right legal team.Not to mention, the sad fact that arbitrators, should they rule against the fat cats, then get fewer calls to arbitrate future cases. So the incentive to do so is compromised. ( I just saw a tv story on this like 2 weeks ago and for the life of me can't remember which industry or which program it was, but if i do, i will post further down) |
|
|
|
Post by spiro on Mar 10, 2016 9:07:03 GMT -5
Spiro says it way too easy to flush Baboriley out of the woodwork. Now, he sounds like an attorney. Unfortunately, Baba's opinions have been correct, way too often. One of these days, he is going to be wrong.
Spiro here, still hoping for the best outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 10, 2016 16:55:03 GMT -5
If MNKD could get SNY to court in a jury trial, anything could happen; juries are notorious for coming up with the wildest verdicts for the worst reasons. Arbitration is far less likely to yield a wild and crazy result, and is often cheaper. Those clauses are usually upheld, so if there's an arbitration provision, that's likely where it will end up. But will there be an arbitration, or a settlement? I hope they settle, quicker, cheaper, less time for Matt and his top guys away from the business. Not looking for much out of our settlement, like I said, forgiveness of debt would be fine with me, not that we don't deserve more, but tough to prove, and arbitrators are generally not swayed, as are jurors, if you have the right legal team.Not to mention, the sad fact that arbitrators, should they rule against the fat cats, then get fewer calls to arbitrate future cases. So the incentive to do so is compromised. ( I just saw a tv story on this like 2 weeks ago and for the life of me can't remember which industry or which program it was, but if i do, i will post further down) This is what the panel selection looks like: ... a panel of three (3) independent and neutral experienced arbitrators, one (1) chosen by MannKind, one (1) chosen by Sanofi, and the third (3rd) chosen by the foregoing two (2) arbitrators (with such third acting as the chairperson of the panel).
|
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Mar 10, 2016 17:31:34 GMT -5
Not to mention, the sad fact that arbitrators, should they rule against the fat cats, then get fewer calls to arbitrate future cases. So the incentive to do so is compromised. ( I just saw a tv story on this like 2 weeks ago and for the life of me can't remember which industry or which program it was, but if i do, i will post further down) This is what the panel selection looks like: ... a panel of three (3) independent and neutral experienced arbitrators, one (1) chosen by MannKind, one (1) chosen by Sanofi, and the third (3rd) chosen by the foregoing two (2) arbitrators (with such third acting as the chairperson of the panel).
Interesting info. Thanks for posting. This arbitration process is risky for both parties. Settlement seems to be in the best interest of both parties. I think it is very clear that Sanofi sandbagged Afrezza. Would the arbitration panel see it that way. It is hard to say. Another thing interesting about arbitration is that you have three people deciding on hundreds of millions of dollars of potential damages. That's a lot of pressure. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 10, 2016 18:32:21 GMT -5
Another interesting point is that the contract says, "Any settlement discussions or arbitration proceedings occurring under this Agreement shall be conducted in strict confidence".
The sequence is notification, dispute resolution, arbitration. It may well be that Mannkind immediately invoked arbitration and we are sitting in the 60 day resolution period at the moment but they say anything as they are bound by that confidentiality requirement. This makes things difficult because we cannot know what Mannkind is claiming as they cannot tell us. A guess would be failure to adequately market the product, but that is going to be difficult to sustain.
If Sanofi really did decide to get out back in July they will have made sure that from that point onward there is a paper trail that supports their case. That's SOP in these cases, all potentially ambiguous actions are documented and justified as they occur to avoid dispute later (I've been in a few of these, outsourcing deals usually). This is why there will be no big pay out - the lawyers are not going to be able to point to any hard evidence. In a court case a good lawyer can paint a picture for a jury and use emotion but arbitration is data driven.
Even so these things usually get settle because it's quicker and cheaper. Sanofi will already know what they will settle this for and Mannkind just have to find what the upper end of that range is. There are other variations that could work - Sanofi may give the Afrezza they hold in exchange for Mannkind waiving the 180 supply rule (Sanofi have to continue to sell Afrezza for 180 days on the 35:65 split) which amounts to several million dollars worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 11, 2016 1:43:24 GMT -5
Of course, if MNKD could locate one or two ex-Sanofi (or sufficiently disgruntled) employees that could point the way to the smoking gun, things might turn out quite well. But that's usually just on TV or the movies. Where's Paul Drake when you really need him?
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 11, 2016 1:44:34 GMT -5
Spiro says it way too easy to flush Baboriley out of the woodwork. Now, he sounds like an attorney. Unfortunately, Baba's opinions have been correct, way too often. One of these days, he is going to be wrong. Spiro here, still hoping for the best outcome. Yeah, I've had a lot of good, sober opinions over the years, however, have traded the stock like an emotional fool!  |
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Mar 11, 2016 7:39:32 GMT -5
Let me begin by saying that I believe, along with many of you, that Sanofi sandbagged Mannkind and Afrezza. In a big way, in my opinion. The question as to whether Sny provides a cash settlement when they hand back Afrezza has to do with why they didn't try to sell Afrezza. Let's look at the two possible reasons why they would have sandbagged Afrezza: 1. Sanofi knew Afrezza was a big threat and they partnered with Mannkind to slow down the adoption of the drug. I don't believe this is what happened. I believe that the previous CEO Viehbacher fully planned to push Afrezza hard. I don't believe the Sny Board agreed with him. In fact, it is my belief that the Afrezza partnership sealed the Viehbacher termination decision by the board. Viehbacher was being too aggressive and innovative for their comfort. So Sny brings in Oliver Brandicourt to bring order and tradition back to Sanofi. 2. Sanofi made the decision to slow sell Afrezza the moment Viehbacher was terminated. This is what I believe happened. As I look back, I can see so many signs that I should have picked up on that Sanofi wasn't trying. No effort to open international markets. Hardly any visible marketing efforts. Ignoring Afrezza at conferences and on conference calls. The list goes on. Because i I believe that the second reason is true, it makes a difference as to what Sanofi does as they close out the partnership. Sanofi really doesn't believe that Afrezza is a game changer. After seeing all of the evidence to the contrary, I don't know how they can draw that conclusion. It is what it is. Because they have been on a course to end the partnership for some time, I think they just want to be free of what they believe is just a niche drug. Because they saved hundreds of millions in advertising and staff costs and because Mannkind is having cash problems, they can neatly tie up this problem partnership at a relatively low cost. At this point, Sanofi is trying to reorganize and reinvent itself. Afrezza is not part of that equation. In fact, it's an annoyance to Brandicourt. I believe that for the reasonable cost of $200 to $300 million, Sanofi gets fully rid of Mannkind and Afrezza and Mannkind agrees not to sue in the future. I believe Sanofi just wants to get away from the partnership as quickly and inexpensively as possible. Heck with the money Sanofi saved on the slow sell, they can pay off Mannkind and still be ahead in their minds. Obviously I could be wrong and we shall see in the next 4 weeks. I think you may be spot on. I completely agree with your assessment of SNY's thoughts on Viehbacher and I believe Vienbacher will be proven right in the end. Sure would love to see SNY kick 200-300 million to MNKD. It would also explain Matt's not throwing them under the bus at the moment. Perhaps he knows it's coming? As you state: We shall see...and soon. |
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Mar 11, 2016 8:34:15 GMT -5
MannKind should absolutely NOT give up any right to sue Sanofi. If they were to agree to that, then Sanofi would be able to say all kinds of negative things about Afrezza in the future with impunity. Very good point MN. |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 11, 2016 9:58:11 GMT -5
If SNY is going to toss significant cash our way, and negotiations for same are nearing conclusion, a small leakage of such could explain the share price action the last couple of weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Mar 11, 2016 10:20:08 GMT -5
We will find out soon enough. I've been on record that I think one will happen but looking at all the bad luck and miss steps Mannkind has had, I won't be shocked if SNY walks away scot-free
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 11, 2016 13:18:23 GMT -5
MannKind should absolutely NOT give up any right to sue Sanofi. If they were to agree to that, then Sanofi would be able to say all kinds of negative things about Afrezza in the future with impunity. Very good point MN. They have already given up that right. |
|
|
|
Post by thsloppy on Mar 12, 2016 10:40:33 GMT -5
Think there may be a settlement when the business is returned and a forgiveness of the line in exchange for no further actions or statements. I don't think it will be as large as some as hoping. Anyone who has launched a product in the medical industry knows that a limited launch is fairly common practice, especially when building a new market (of which inhaled insulin is). Sanofi can easily defend it's actions by going this direction. They can easily state they wanted to test the patient acceptance, work through the prescription issues, gauge and build insurance coverage, identify potential hurdles etc. Actions could potentially support this; hired and trained few hundred reps, some conference introduction, some limited ads, insurance campaign etc. All of this is blind to use behind the scenes. I actually believe this was the original intent and then to grow from there. That is until the CEO change.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4allthemarbles on Mar 14, 2016 14:38:48 GMT -5
I would urge caution- SNY hasn't done us any favors before. To assume they will make such a large payout is dangerous.
Of course I can hope- but..... I am going to assume they will lowball us at every opportunity. If it goes the other way, great. But I want to be realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Mar 14, 2016 14:46:52 GMT -5
I would urge caution- SNY hasn't done us any favors before. To assume they will make such a large payout is dangerous. Of course I can hope- but..... I am going to assume they will lowball us at every opportunity. If it goes the other way, great. But I want to be realistic. With the way Mannkind has been treated over the years, as a Mannkind long I don't assume anything good will happen anymore. I believe that Sanify will consider it in THEIR best interest to be done with Mannkind and Afrezza. Why would they want to risk a big arbitration decision going against them when they could pay off Mannkind relatively cheaply and get this off their books. |
|
