|
Post by brentie on Aug 24, 2016 20:34:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 24, 2016 20:47:06 GMT -5
Thank you, brentie, for breaking the news. I've been following this case daily.
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Aug 24, 2016 22:33:05 GMT -5
Great news. No blood money for the bottom feeders.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Aug 25, 2016 1:40:42 GMT -5
The release of the news of this lawsuit probably affected the share price today. Evidently the market was reacting to not knowing how the judge was going to rule. Somebody was betting that the decision was going to be against the company. Fortunately we had a good judge who understood the case and ruled favorably on behalf of the company. Hopefully this ruling will have a positive affect on the market this morning showing that the company is continuing to do the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 25, 2016 10:48:20 GMT -5
Great news. No blood money for the bottom feeders. It's not over quite yet. "The plaintiffs can appeal the decision within 30 days."
|
|
|
Post by als57 on Aug 25, 2016 11:07:40 GMT -5
Be nice to know the individual or individuals from Mannkind that caused the plaintiffs to believe that a case could be made for misrepresentation. I'm sure MNKD's defense cost precious monies that could have been used to lengthen our runway. Hopefully, the ordeal can be used as a tutorial for the future against exaggeration.
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Aug 25, 2016 12:33:48 GMT -5
Be nice to know the individual or individuals from Mannkind that caused the plaintiffs to believe that a case could be made for misrepresentation. I'm sure MNKD's defense cost precious monies that could have been used to lengthen our runway. Hopefully, the ordeal can be used as a tutorial for the future against exaggeration. The cost of the defense likely came from an insurance policy for such issues.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Aug 25, 2016 12:45:52 GMT -5
I have a printed copy of the Judges Motion to dismiss and will read it this evening. you can get it on the US District Court Central district of CA web site. Case 2:16-cv-00348-RGK-GJS Document 60 Filed 08/23/16
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Aug 25, 2016 13:12:30 GMT -5
I have a printed copy of the Judges Motion to dismiss and will read it this evening. you can get it on the US District Court Central district of CA web site. Case 2:16-cv-00348-RGK-GJS Document 60 Filed 08/23/16 Isn't it funny what Mnkd cult members (I meant investors) do for fun in the evening. We read legal rulings, press releases, Twitter posts etc, etc, etc........ Ah, what fun.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Aug 25, 2016 15:11:00 GMT -5
As I recall the case, it sounded pretty harmless, but not totally frivolous. Very typical of what the securities bar has been doing the last 20 years. The judge is known as a no-nonsense guy, and not particularly friendly to plaintiffs in general; I'm sure these plaintiffs were not happy when they drew him. If they do appeal, I'd say maybe a 25% chance of getting it overturned (if it gets overturned, then they go back to the same judge to carry on with the case (unless the judge becomes an Afrezza user between now and then), I would say they are no more than halfway through the case at this point. The case also might settle in the interim, under the threat of an appeal. But if it does settle, plaintiff's aren't likely to get much, maybe a few bucks for their efforts, most of which will go to the plaintiffs' attorneys. The foregoing are all generalizations, but, you know, you can take them to the bank!
And mannmade is on the money; more than likely covered by insurance, as will any final judgment or settlement (to the limits of the insurance, of course).
|
|
|
Post by kc on Aug 25, 2016 15:12:13 GMT -5
From Page 3: Case 2:16-cv-00348-RGK-GJS Document 60 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 8
A former diabetic sales specialist (“Former Employee 1” or “FE1”) who sold Afrezza for Sanofi in the greater Atlanta, Georgia area until August, 2015 (the very beginning of the class period) reports that the spirometry issue “was the major impediment to Afrezza prescription sales.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 54, ECF No. 49.) However, FE1 also listed numerous other problems with Afrezza’s commercialization, including that Sanofi made “little to no effort” to deal with insurance coverage issues, “dedicated few resources or support to Afrezza sales,” or to “physician outreach,” and “provided its sales force with limited marketing materials.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 56, ECF No. 49.) Prior to his departure, a Sanofi supervisor told FE1 that “Sanofi needed to increase Afrezza sales numbers or it might stop promoting the drug.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 56–57, ECF No. 49.)
The bold is my highlighting the comments. This Sanofi employee was only with Sanofi until August 2015. He knew that Sanofi had moved already decided to ditch Afrezza. This is a clear indication of BAD FAITH which I hope that Sanofi eventually pay's big dollars back to MannKind. It would seem that after Sanofi hired their new President Brandicourt in April 2015 that they already had made their decision to bag Afrezza but had to appear they were making a good faith effort. My guess is their board decided in October 29, 2014 when they terminated Chris Viehbacher.
Many on the board noticed at the end of 2014 and then in several other Sanofi calls that they seemed to be devoting less and less attention to Afrezza. Made most of us wonder but we defended Sanofi as just being conservation and waiting to do consumer marketing. This former Sanofi employee knew in August 2015 it was over. That is why we only saw a couple of ad's magazines for Afrezza in August , September and Nov and then it ended. What a slimy bastard company Sanofi is and hopefully they will pay big dollars for their fraud.
This topic was about MannKind winning their class action suit which had nothing to do with the Sanofi issue but it did allow enough discovery to prove out what we have all known a long time that we should have a very strong case against Sanofi in arbitration. Fraud is Fraud and I'm sure that when depositions are taken in the arbitration like the "FE1" employees it will prove out that Sanofi will need to pay up to get away from their mess.
|
|
|
Post by daduke38 on Aug 25, 2016 15:19:16 GMT -5
From Page 3: Case 2:16-cv-00348-RGK-GJS Document 60 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 8
A former diabetic sales specialist (“Former Employee 1” or “FE1”) who sold Afrezza for Sanofi in the greater Atlanta, Georgia area until August, 2015 (the very beginning of the class period) reports that the spirometry issue “was the major impediment to Afrezza prescription sales.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 54, ECF No. 49.) However, FE1 also listed numerous other problems with Afrezza’s commercialization, including that Sanofi made “little to no effort” to deal with insurance coverage issues, “dedicated few resources or support to Afrezza sales,” or to “physician outreach,” and “provided its sales force with limited marketing materials.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 56, ECF No. 49.) Prior to his departure, a Sanofi supervisor told FE1 that “Sanofi needed to increase Afrezza sales numbers or it might stop promoting the drug.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 56–57, ECF No. 49.)
The bold is my highlighting the comments. This Sanofi employee was only with Sanofi until August 2015. He knew that Sanofi had moved already decided to ditch Afrezza. This is a clear indication of BAD FAITH which I hope that Sanofi eventually pay's big dollars back to MannKind. It would seem that after Sanofi hired their new President Brandicourt in April 2015 that they already had made their decision to bag Afrezza but had to appear they were making a good faith effort. My guess is their board decided in October 29, 2014 when they terminated Chris Viehbacher.
Many on the board noticed at the end of 2014 and then in several other Sanofi calls that they seemed to be devoting less and less attention to Afrezza. Made most of us wonder but we defended Sanofi as just being conservation and waiting to do consumer marketing. This former Sanofi employee knew in August 2015 it was over. That is why we only saw a couple of ad's magazines for Afrezza in August , September and Nov and then it ended. What a slimy bastard company Sanofi is and hopefully they will pay big dollars for their fraud.
This topic was about MannKind winning their class action suit which had nothing to do with the Sanofi issue but it did allow enough discovery to prove out what we have all known a long time that we should have a very strong case against Sanofi in arbitration. Fraud is Fraud and I'm sure that when depositions are taken in the arbitration like the "FE1" employees it will prove out that Sanofi will need to pay up to get away from their mess. I see this as no real different than a deposition. At this point it's only one person, but I am sure others will verify. And your description of SNY is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by gamblerjag on Aug 25, 2016 15:19:21 GMT -5
Cha cha cha cha cha ching
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Aug 25, 2016 15:19:26 GMT -5
From Page 3: Case 2:16-cv-00348-RGK-GJS Document 60 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 8
A former diabetic sales specialist (“Former Employee 1” or “FE1”) who sold Afrezza for Sanofi in the greater Atlanta, Georgia area until August, 2015 (the very beginning of the class period) reports that the spirometry issue “was the major impediment to Afrezza prescription sales.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 54, ECF No. 49.) However, FE1 also listed numerous other problems with Afrezza’s commercialization, including that Sanofi made “little to no effort” to deal with insurance coverage issues, “dedicated few resources or support to Afrezza sales,” or to “physician outreach,” and “provided its sales force with limited marketing materials.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 56, ECF No. 49.) Prior to his departure, a Sanofi supervisor told FE1 that “Sanofi needed to increase Afrezza sales numbers or it might stop promoting the drug.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 56–57, ECF No. 49.)
The bold is my highlighting the comments. This Sanofi employee was only with Sanofi until August 2015. He knew that Sanofi had moved already decided to ditch Afrezza. This is a clear indication of BAD FAITH which I hope that Sanofi eventually pay's big dollars back to MannKind. It would seem that after Sanofi hired their new President Brandicourt in April 2015 that they already had made their decision to bag Afrezza but had to appear they were making a good faith effort. My guess is their board decided in October 29, 2014 when they terminated Chris Viehbacher.
Many on the board noticed at the end of 2014 and then in several other Sanofi calls that they seemed to be devoting less and less attention to Afrezza. Made most of us wonder but we defended Sanofi as just being conservation and waiting to do consumer marketing. This former Sanofi employee knew in August 2015 it was over. That is why we only saw a couple of ad's magazines for Afrezza in August , September and Nov and then it ended. What a slimy bastard company Sanofi is and hopefully they will pay big dollars for their fraud.
This topic was about MannKind winning their class action suit which had nothing to do with the Sanofi issue but it did allow enough discovery to prove out what we have all known a long time that we should have a very strong case against Sanofi in arbitration. Fraud is Fraud and I'm sure that when depositions are taken in the arbitration like the "FE1" employees it will prove out that Sanofi will need to pay up to get away from their mess. Now for the conspiracy theory: Suppose that the lawsuit was a way for MNKD to actually get discovery done and avoid the appearance of taking on Sanofi directly during the transition. I know, what am I drinking, but now we have a smoking gun and MNKD can deny any complicity in the process. Just sayin'...
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 25, 2016 15:19:31 GMT -5
They won't appeal. Their law firm, Rosen, specializes in this kind of case and since tweaks were made to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act more than 50% of all class actions get dismissed at the pleading stage. The problem is that to win a private securities suit the plaintiff must plead fraud, but the fraud must be screamingly obvious because the plaintiff can't get discovery until after the Rule 12(b) hearing, so the fraud has to be obvious when the 12(b) hearing is held.
This was a weak case as these things go, and made even more difficult because it didn't allege false statement but rather omission of additional statements required to revise past statements. Stick a fork in this one.
|
|