|
|
Post by agedhippie on May 9, 2016 19:04:28 GMT -5
In addition, a few tens of millions might be expected to come in from RLS and upfront payments of international partnerships over the next year or two. It's still not enough IMO and the ATM still sits out there to be exercised. I wonder what has happened to negotiations with SNY over a severance? What negotiation over severance? If Mannkind wanted to exclude an early exit then they should never have put the break clause in the contract. Having allowed the clause you don't get compensation because the other party used it! Pfizer paid because they lacked a break clause, Sanofi learnt from that error or just had better lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by james on May 9, 2016 19:21:49 GMT -5
In addition, a few tens of millions might be expected to come in from RLS and upfront payments of international partnerships over the next year or two. It's still not enough IMO and the ATM still sits out there to be exercised. I wonder what has happened to negotiations with SNY over a severance? What negotiation over severance? If Mannkind wanted to exclude an early exit then they should never have put the break clause in the contract. Having allowed the clause you don't get compensation because the other party used it! Pfizer paid because they lacked a break clause, Sanofi learnt from that error or just had better lawyers. I don't expect that to be the end of the story here. The negotiations would be about whether Sanofi acted in good faith and provided reasonable commercialization efforts. The clause is not a universal get out of jail free card; if Sanofi has been sandbagging, then there is compensation owed. They may be willing to provide severance even if they feel that they could win the case, simply to avoid the likely litigation costs and bad publicity (which they are hip deep in already). I don't know one way or another, I was just asking the question... Certainly, the longer this goes without resolution, the more likely that nothing is going to come of it. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on May 9, 2016 20:06:33 GMT -5
What negotiation over severance? If Mannkind wanted to exclude an early exit then they should never have put the break clause in the contract. Having allowed the clause you don't get compensation because the other party used it! Pfizer paid because they lacked a break clause, Sanofi learnt from that error or just had better lawyers. I don't expect that to be the end of the story here. The negotiations would be about whether Sanofi acted in good faith and provided reasonable commercialization efforts. The clause is not a universal get out of jail free card; if Sanofi has been sandbagging, then there is compensation owed. They may be willing to provide severance even if they feel that they could win the case, simply to avoid the likely litigation costs and bad publicity (which they are hip deep in already). I don't know one way or another, I was just asking the question... Certainly, the longer this goes without resolution, the more likely that nothing is going to come of it. You are going to have to prove that at arbitration and not in litigation - good luck with that, there is a reason why that arbitration clause is in there! Also there will be no bad publicity because both sides signed a contract agreeing to keep any arbitration, findings, and awards confidential. This now comes down to whether Sanofi were dumb enough to leave an obvious paper trail which is highly unlikely if they were sandbagging. Legalities aside - right now Mannkind needs Sanofi a lot more than Sanofi needs Mannkind. It says that right in the 10Q that was just filed and gives five ways Sanofi could screw things up if they were so inclined.. |
|
