|
|
Post by prvs on Jul 1, 2016 7:40:13 GMT -5
MNKD gains its independence from the French on the same day that America gained its independence from the British. Lets have some fireworks!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by victoria on Jul 1, 2016 8:42:14 GMT -5
Happy 4th July. Its a little ironic that in international law terms, I think there's a principled argument that actually the 13 colonies as they were at the time technically gained independence when they were first recognised by a foreign state as independent and that, of course, was after the battle of Saratoga in 1777, and of all people it was France who recognised the USA (I think sometime in 1778?)....
Anyhow do truly have a good 4th of July. I'm the proud owner of one of the (relatively) few remaining copies of the first publication of the Declaration in a book (as opposed to broadsides at the time, or a magazine which was a bit sooner). That was the Annual Register for 1776,published start of 1777 in London, editor Edmund Burke, if your're interested.... Might even scan a copy for this website and upload it. The Annual registers for the war years are one of the best contemporary historical sources on that era and are relatively unbiassed (being edited by Burke) and based on information from the USA which was something of a 'first' in journalism. Its not often understood that in Britain the war was controversial because it was a war with our fellow countrymen (at the time) and efforts were actually made in Parliament to have a vote to stop it, but narrowly outvoted a couple of times.
You did us a favour by winning Yorktown, ultimately, because that caused what was an unconstitutional government (by which I mean a government acting unconstitutionally) in London to fall, due to the majority opposing the war by then, and be replaced by one which then negotiated peace. So thanks to the USA for having restored proper government here too, you stood up for the rights of all Englishmen and women, (and by then of course Americans) even if it meant having to fight and die for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jul 1, 2016 8:48:29 GMT -5
I'll send an email to Sanofi CEO Olivier Brandicourt asking if he's available to help with the fireworks:
Funny!
However...
"If you’re like me, every Fourth of July you’ve thought to yourself “What would happen if you lit all the fireworks off at once?” Well in 2012, the people of San Diego found out exactly what that would be like……….And it was EPIC!"
NOTE: I post this because I recall CEO Matt Pfeffer saying in January that the story of Afrezza will also be epic. Hope so!
May the Fourth be With You!     |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 1, 2016 10:23:30 GMT -5
Mn, as a MNKD holder I feel a bit like the first guy, in the first video.
"He had a lot of balls."
|
|
|
|
Post by ilovekauai on Jul 1, 2016 10:26:26 GMT -5
Happy 4th Everyone! Go MNKD! Aloha.
|
|
|
|
Post by victoria on Jul 1, 2016 10:27:35 GMT -5
Mn, as a MNKD holder I feel a bit like the first guy, in the first video. "He had a lot of balls." Probably very much in the past tense by the time he was finished, looking at that rocket! |
|
|
|
Post by kball on Jul 1, 2016 11:23:05 GMT -5
Mn, as a MNKD holder I feel a bit like the first guy, in the first video. " He had a lot of balls." Hahaha....Had Doctor at the ER: Hey aren't you the guy who was in here just last year with the gerbil? |
|
|
|
Post by mydogskip on Jul 2, 2016 12:14:30 GMT -5
On the subject of independence, I wonder if Mannkind will be able to extract any money from Sanofi for terminating the deal. So far nothing has happened and Matt has on several occasions hinted that discussions are still being had. I wonder if Mannkind is waiting to prove that they can increase Afrezza prescriptions as faster rate than Sanofi. And in turn use that as evidence that Sanofi purposely sat on their hands and failed to actively promote Afrezza to the best of their ability. What ever is the case, Sanofi seems to be very reluctant to give Mannkind any further payment.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 2, 2016 14:08:16 GMT -5
On the subject of independence, I wonder if Mannkind will be able to extract any money from Sanofi for terminating the deal. So far nothing has happened and Matt has on several occasions hinted that discussions are still being had. I wonder if Mannkind is waiting to prove that they can increase Afrezza prescriptions as faster rate than Sanofi. And in turn use that as evidence that Sanofi purposely sat on their hands and failed to actively promote Afrezza to the best of their ability. What ever is the case, Sanofi seems to be very reluctant to give Mannkind any further payment. The level of sales is not material at arbitration since Mannkind delegated responsibility to Sanofi. To get compensation you would have to show that any action on Sanofi's part was deliberate and that is not going to happen unless Sanofi were stunningly incompetent. Under the contract the decisions were Sanofi's to make, the fact a different strategy later worked will not get you anywhere - there was no breach of contract. I have said it before but it bears repeating - once Sanofi decided this was all over they will have been planning for arbitration and will have been meticulous about ensuring that the documentation trail supported their story. Mannkind's management never saw this coming (neither did I!) and so their trail will be far weaker. This is compounded by the different approach to discovery under ICC rules, basically you cannot conduct fishing expeditions but have to be reasonably specific. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Jul 2, 2016 15:45:07 GMT -5
On the subject of independence, I wonder if Mannkind will be able to extract any money from Sanofi for terminating the deal. So far nothing has happened and Matt has on several occasions hinted that discussions are still being had. I wonder if Mannkind is waiting to prove that they can increase Afrezza prescriptions as faster rate than Sanofi. And in turn use that as evidence that Sanofi purposely sat on their hands and failed to actively promote Afrezza to the best of their ability. What ever is the case, Sanofi seems to be very reluctant to give Mannkind any further payment. The level of sales is not material at arbitration since Mannkind delegated responsibility to Sanofi. To get compensation you would have to show that any action on Sanofi's part was deliberate and that is not going to happen unless Sanofi were stunningly incompetent. Under the contract the decisions were Sanofi's to make, the fact a different strategy later worked will not get you anywhere - there was no breach of contract. I have said it before but it bears repeating - once Sanofi decided this was all over they will have been planning for arbitration and will have been meticulous about ensuring that the documentation trail supported their story. Mannkind's management never saw this coming (neither did I!) and so their trail will be far weaker. This is compounded by the different approach to discovery under ICC rules, basically you cannot conduct fishing expeditions but have to be reasonably specific. It's actually simpler than showing that Sanofi intentionally sandbagged AFREZZA for some nefarious reasons. Think it iwll be much easier to prove that they did not reasonable execute the terms of the contract. There are industry standards for this and from what we have heard from various sources including their own reps this seems to be the case. I know several doctors that never had follow up on AFREZZA from the original call as well. Plenty of witness's plus we know they kept Mnkd in the dark as to what they were doing when they were supposed to be transparent partners. In addition they currently have a few other similarly situated pending lawsuits so a pattern can be established. Only takes a "preponderance of the evidence" I believe in this case and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" to prove as a case for fraud would where you would have to establish their intent. |
|
|
|
Post by kball on Jul 2, 2016 18:19:41 GMT -5
The level of sales is not material at arbitration since Mannkind delegated responsibility to Sanofi. To get compensation you would have to show that any action on Sanofi's part was deliberate and that is not going to happen unless Sanofi were stunningly incompetent. Under the contract the decisions were Sanofi's to make, the fact a different strategy later worked will not get you anywhere - there was no breach of contract. I have said it before but it bears repeating - once Sanofi decided this was all over they will have been planning for arbitration and will have been meticulous about ensuring that the documentation trail supported their story. Mannkind's management never saw this coming (neither did I!) and so their trail will be far weaker. This is compounded by the different approach to discovery under ICC rules, basically you cannot conduct fishing expeditions but have to be reasonably specific. It's actually simpler than showing that Sanofi intentionally sandbagged AFREZZA for some nefarious reasons. Think it iwll be much easier to prove that they did not reasonable execute the terms of the contract. There are industry standards for this and from what we have heard from various sources including their own reps this seems to be the case. I know several doctors that never had follow up on AFREZZA from the original call as well. Plenty of witness's plus we know they kept Mnkd in the dark as to what they were doing when they were supposed to be transparent partners. In addition they currently have a few other similarly situated pending lawsuits so a pattern can be established. Only takes a "preponderance of the evidence" I believe in this case and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" to prove as a case for fraud would where you would have to establish their intent.
And the money to fight one will come from where though? Such a catch 22 |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jul 2, 2016 20:32:58 GMT -5
In addition they currently have a few other similarly situated pending lawsuits so a pattern can be established. Only takes a "preponderance of the evidence" I believe in this case and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" to prove as a case for fraud would where you would have to establish their intent. I think unless Sanofi starts losing some of those cases, the only thing pending lawsuits show is that failed companies and / or underwater shareholders launch lawsuits. |
|
|
|
Post by patten1962 on Jul 2, 2016 22:34:47 GMT -5
The level of sales is not material at arbitration since Mannkind delegated responsibility to Sanofi. To get compensation you would have to show that any action on Sanofi's part was deliberate and that is not going to happen unless Sanofi were stunningly incompetent. Under the contract the decisions were Sanofi's to make, the fact a different strategy later worked will not get you anywhere - there was no breach of contract. I have said it before but it bears repeating - once Sanofi decided this was all over they will have been planning for arbitration and will have been meticulous about ensuring that the documentation trail supported their story. Mannkind's management never saw this coming (neither did I!) and so their trail will be far weaker. This is compounded by the different approach to discovery under ICC rules, basically you cannot conduct fishing expeditions but have to be reasonably specific. It's actually simpler than showing that Sanofi intentionally sandbagged AFREZZA for some nefarious reasons. Think it iwll be much easier to prove that they did not reasonable execute the terms of the contract. There are industry standards for this and from what we have heard from various sources including their own reps this seems to be the case. I know several doctors that never had follow up on AFREZZA from the original call as well. Plenty of witness's plus we know they kept Mnkd in the dark as to what they were doing when they were supposed to be transparent partners. In addition they currently have a few other similarly situated pending lawsuits so a pattern can be established. Only takes a "preponderance of the evidence" I believe in this case and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" to prove as a case for fraud would where you would have to establish their intent. Question, would it not be in Sanofi's best interest to settle out of court? I would think it would be cheaper. Any thoughts? Fyi, I have also talked with Sanofi reps. They did nothing with Afrezza... |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 3, 2016 9:11:00 GMT -5
The level of sales is not material at arbitration since Mannkind delegated responsibility to Sanofi. To get compensation you would have to show that any action on Sanofi's part was deliberate and that is not going to happen unless Sanofi were stunningly incompetent. Under the contract the decisions were Sanofi's to make, the fact a different strategy later worked will not get you anywhere - there was no breach of contract. I have said it before but it bears repeating - once Sanofi decided this was all over they will have been planning for arbitration and will have been meticulous about ensuring that the documentation trail supported their story. Mannkind's management never saw this coming (neither did I!) and so their trail will be far weaker. This is compounded by the different approach to discovery under ICC rules, basically you cannot conduct fishing expeditions but have to be reasonably specific. It's actually simpler than showing that Sanofi intentionally sandbagged AFREZZA for some nefarious reasons. Think it iwll be much easier to prove that they did not reasonable execute the terms of the contract. There are industry standards for this and from what we have heard from various sources including their own reps this seems to be the case. I know several doctors that never had follow up on AFREZZA from the original call as well. Plenty of witness's plus we know they kept Mnkd in the dark as to what they were doing when they were supposed to be transparent partners. In addition they currently have a few other similarly situated pending lawsuits so a pattern can be established. Only takes a "preponderance of the evidence" I believe in this case and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" to prove as a case for fraud would where you would have to establish their intent. Agreed. The way to do this is file for compliance - they did not meet the terms of contract in the resources they provided. Once you start accusing them of sandbagging that's dangerously close to fraud and the higher standard which is why I think Mannkind have been very careful about what they have said in that area. Committed resources are the thing to go after because that is direction and Sanofi cannot avoid responsibility whereas poor follow up or salesmanship is not as that devolves to the salesman. Under the contract everything to do with arbitration before and after is confidential so we may never know if it happened or what the outcome was. I am not sure how that is done because any award is going to show up in Mannkind's accounts. As to the amount - I think the panel will take Exubera's sales as the benchmark adjust it upwards for 2016 dollars deduct Afrezza sales and give Mannkind 35% of the balance. Existing lawsuits mean nothing at arbitration since they are outside the scope of the arbitration and under IBA evidence rules (this is an ICC panel with IBA evidence rules) it would not be admissible. If Sanofi have been following decent data retention/data destruction rules all the informal data generated by salesmen should have been destroyed by now - this is why proper data destruction policies are important in minimizing risk in litigation. If I was Sanofi and I had done my job preparing for the risk of arbitration I would definitely not settle. Not to say who would win, but my feeling is Sanofi would be the favorite. |
|
|
|
Post by kuka on Jul 4, 2016 0:47:24 GMT -5
SNY has been laying off sales people last 6 months .... It would be nice to find a few disgruntled former SNY sales reps to talk about their instructions regarding Afrezza ....
|
|
