|
|
Post by lakon on Apr 4, 2016 14:05:52 GMT -5
I agree as the Mann Trust and other Mann Companies have too much comment stock and not enough preferred. I would be shocked if we are not purchased by the end of 2016. I do think we will get some definitive answers SHORTLY in the next quarter or sooner. I do not believe any preferred shares of MNKD have ever been issued. Note MannKind is authorized to issue 10,000,000 preferred shares, but has not done so to date. So there is only 1 kind of share issued to date, common shares(I am assuming comment stock was suppose to be common stock). ...and after TASE, I don't think that MNKD could issue those preferred, but haven't researched too deeply... |
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Apr 4, 2016 15:20:28 GMT -5
Call me an optimistic. You have to wonder about the deal. If cash was offered and for some reason this current deal was better, I would highly doubt cash is a problem. Could be wrong. But also SO many possibilities in terms of Afrezza moving forward. International partner. Increased RX. Further Cricket deals. Until I see current weekly Rxs go to zero I will remain loyal and belief in MNKD. THERE ARE to MANY possible good outcomes to have an attitude like yours. Again, call me an optimistic! I'm a bit on the skeptical side, though I would love for you to be right. Here is why I am skeptical: First argument: the deal was better with no cash offered. I tended to believe the same when Sanofi "only" offered USD 150m in upfront cash for Afrezza - that somehow the profit sharing led to a higher "best-case" outcome for MNKD given the milestones and the 65:35 profit sharing. We all know that upfront cash would have been the better choice and might have committed Sanofi more strongly. I know from M&A negotiations from my day-time job that upfront cash is very important and often involves the toughest negotiations, whereas milestones are usually a way to save face for both parties and bridge some sort of valuation disagreement in a friendly way. So bottom line: no upfront payment for TS is a negative. MNKD really needs cash very urgently. Not just my interpretation. Matt has said it, it's all over the 10-K, it is clear as daylight. Given how difficult the current situation is, MNKD should be prepared to give up some long-term gain for short-term survivability (=cash). You must be new here. Let me be the first to welcome you to Proboards. |
|
|
|
Post by bearcatbob on Apr 4, 2016 15:36:00 GMT -5
Ultimately the question is the ability of the product to compete in the market place. I have always operated on the belief that Afrezza was a real game changer. While we have some great success stories - we have not had the success that a true technical break through should have produced. If the technology is what we hope - a deep pocket partner should rapidly emerge. The fact that Sanofi is walking away truly brings this issue into question.
|
|
|
|
Post by liane on Apr 4, 2016 15:43:08 GMT -5
I don't think SNY is walking away because Afrezza can't compete in the market place. I think SNY is walking away because the new CEO of SNY did not share the vision of the game-changer Afrezza could be, and he lacked the determination to to show that to the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2016 15:45:26 GMT -5
I don't think SNY is walking away because Afrezza can't compete in the market place. I think SNY is walking away because the new CEO of SNY did not share the vision of the game-changer Afrezza could be, and he lacked the determination to to show that to the world. I agree with this but also think the 65/35% split had a part to play also....... |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Apr 4, 2016 16:06:34 GMT -5
Obviously we need someone with deep pockets that BELIEVES in Afrezza for this to take off.... Hopefully it happens. Great user results so far but we need thousands more like them!
|
|
|
|
Post by bearcatbob on Apr 4, 2016 16:36:28 GMT -5
I don't think SNY is walking away because Afrezza can't compete in the market place. I think SNY is walking away because the new CEO of SNY did not share the vision of the game-changer Afrezza could be, and he lacked the determination to to show that to the world. It is not about simply being able to compete in the market place - it was my hope that we had a game changer technology that would change the market place. The move by Sanofi tells we that is not the case. Do we have a niche technology with great advantages for some - or a game changer breakthrough. I see nothing in recent events that says we have a game changer breakthrough. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 4, 2016 16:45:24 GMT -5
Whether or not Al Mann's various trusts will invest depends on how the trust documents read on the day he died. Most trusts, even if they are irrevocable, allow the grantor to change the beneficiaries until the time of death, so what he told the NY Times in 2007 has no bearing on what the documents say today. They might still provide for investment into MNKD, they might not. Unless you have a copy of the indenture you can't really know.
As for the rest of the discussion, the company will need money. The biggest challenge is that secondary offerings on a company like this always come with a discount and, possibly, warrants. The heavier the warrant coverage, the less of a discount is needed and vice versa. The problem is that many investment funds have restrictions in their charter that do not allow purchase of shares below a $5 price, and many of the rest have a $1 requirement. Those without any price requirement are not nice people to do business with, and if you think the shorts are evil, then you haven't seen anything relative to the vulture investors that go after biotechs. There is money out there, but it will be very unpleasant to go into the market at this price range.
|
|
|
|
Post by ezrasfund on Apr 4, 2016 19:44:19 GMT -5
Whether or not Al Mann's various trusts will invest depends on how the trust documents read on the day he died. Most trusts, even if they are irrevocable, allow the grantor to change the beneficiaries until the time of death, so what he told the NY Times in 2007 has no bearing on what the documents say today. They might still provide for investment into MNKD, they might not. Unless you have a copy of the indenture you can't really know. As for the rest of the discussion, the company will need money. The biggest challenge is that secondary offerings on a company like this always come with a discount and, possibly, warrants. The heavier the warrant coverage, the less of a discount is needed and vice versa. The problem is that many investment funds have restrictions in their charter that do not allow purchase of shares below a $5 price, and many of the rest have a $1 requirement. Those without any price requirement are not nice people to do business with, and if you think the shorts are evil, then you haven't seen anything relative to the vulture investors that go after biotechs. There is money out there, but it will be very unpleasant to go into the market at this price range. Besides "vulture investors" there might be companies interested in buying the assets out of bankruptcy. After noticing that Valeant managed to add Provenge to their portfolio I can't help but again wonder who they are and whether they have any relation to the short interest. |
|
|
|
Post by robsacher on Apr 4, 2016 20:57:18 GMT -5
I don't think SNY is walking away because Afrezza can't compete in the market place. I think SNY is walking away because the new CEO of SNY did not share the vision of the game-changer Afrezza could be, and he lacked the determination to to show that to the world. Perfectly written and expressed…  |
|
|
|
Post by kc on Apr 4, 2016 23:24:08 GMT -5
I don't think SNY is walking away because Afrezza can't compete in the market place. I think SNY is walking away because the new CEO of SNY did not share the vision of the game-changer Afrezza could be, and he lacked the determination to to show that to the world. I agree with you. Then they never gave it a fair test drive and probably tried to buy the company on the cheap after trying to starve MannKind to death by not selling the product |
|
|
|
Post by patten1962 on Apr 4, 2016 23:27:55 GMT -5
I don't think SNY is walking away because Afrezza can't compete in the market place. I think SNY is walking away because the new CEO of SNY did not share the vision of the game-changer Afrezza could be, and he lacked the determination to to show that to the world. I agree with you. Then they never gave it a fair test drive and probably tried to buy the company on the cheap after trying to starving MannKind to death by not selling the product Kc, so true! Beat them down, kill the company then say "we will buy you for $1.00 a share! Go back to France! MannKind lives! DIABETIC PATIENTS will be helped! And we make lots of cash! |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 5, 2016 6:33:25 GMT -5
We had the ability to walk away. Now they and others will be chasing us!
|
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Apr 5, 2016 7:01:17 GMT -5
I don't think SNY is walking away because Afrezza can't compete in the market place. I think SNY is walking away because the new CEO of SNY did not share the vision of the game-changer Afrezza could be, and he lacked the determination to to show that to the world. It is not about simply being able to compete in the market place - it was my hope that we had a game changer technology that would change the market place. The move by Sanofi tells we that is not the case. Do we have a niche technology with great advantages for some - or a game changer breakthrough. I see nothing in recent events that says we have a game changer breakthrough. Bob bear, you said: "I see nothing in recent events that says we have a game changer breakthrough". Which events would have made you see that we have a game changer breakthrough? If you mean that a 'game changer breakthrough' means that there is a game changer (Afrezza) and everyone is keen to get it (breakthrough?) than there are 2 prerogatives: a) Everyone needs to know about it and can afford it b) Everyone understands that this is what he/she wants SNY failed to deliver a) and b) by not executing 'events'. Is that what you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by wmdhunt on Apr 5, 2016 10:11:52 GMT -5
I am hoping the Mann Group loan "arrangement" is locked in and not cancellable for at least some amount of time. With the passing of Al, the purse strings may not be as open as before? Just losing money and worrying as usual at this point. Anyone know any "facts" in this regard?
|
|
