|
Post by kball on Aug 25, 2016 18:49:23 GMT -5
This only confirms what we already knew, that Sanofi sandbagged Afrezza. They've done it before with Genzyme as well and are still in litigation. www.reuters.com/article/sanofi-genzyme-lawsuit-idUSL1N13433H20151109From the Article: Sanofi promised it would make "diligent efforts" to meet those goals, according to the complaint. Instead, the trustee alleges, it deliberately took a "slow path" to bring Lemtrada to market.The trustee further claims that even after Lemtrada was finally approved in November 2014, Sanofi skimped on marketing it, while actively promoting a different multiple sclerosis drug, Aubagio. As a result, the lawsuit says, Lemtrada has failed to meet any of the sales benchmarks. I believe this is the latest update on the case: apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=14909&threadid=32874Unfortunately i don't think Mannkind has the funds to bring a case like this against Sanofi at this time. There was a long thread about this topic some time ago. The language in Mannkinds contract with Sanofi wasn't as favorable. Ours was "reasonable efforts". Which lawyers would argue is easier for Sanofi to prove. Still, all of us hope for some settlement. The bigger the better
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 19:45:40 GMT -5
This only confirms what we already knew, that Sanofi sandbagged Afrezza. They've done it before with Genzyme as well and are still in litigation. www.reuters.com/article/sanofi-genzyme-lawsuit-idUSL1N13433H20151109From the Article: Sanofi promised it would make "diligent efforts" to meet those goals, according to the complaint. Instead, the trustee alleges, it deliberately took a "slow path" to bring Lemtrada to market.The trustee further claims that even after Lemtrada was finally approved in November 2014, Sanofi skimped on marketing it, while actively promoting a different multiple sclerosis drug, Aubagio. As a result, the lawsuit says, Lemtrada has failed to meet any of the sales benchmarks. I believe this is the latest update on the case: apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=14909&threadid=32874Unfortunately i don't think Mannkind has the funds to bring a case like this against Sanofi at this time. There was a long thread about this topic some time ago. The language in Mannkinds contract with Sanofi wasn't as favorable. Ours was "reasonable efforts". Which lawyers would argue is easier for Sanofi to prove.Still, all of us hope for some settlement. The bigger the better MannKind's currently in-progress "reasonable efforts" is also what could eventually be used to illustate how Sanofi, in fact, did not use efforts that are "reasonable" for a multinational corporation. In 2014, Sanofi was the world's 4th leading company in prescription sales. If you will notice, MannKind has and is still in the process of doing virtually everything Sanofi should have "reasonably" done, especially considering the size of the company in comparison to the size of MannKind. It will take little common sense to conclude that no "reasonable efforts" were made by Sanofi if MannKind can generate a "reasonable" positive prescription trend within a "reasonable" amount of time using "reasonable efforts".
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 25, 2016 19:56:20 GMT -5
There was a long thread about this topic some time ago. The language in Mannkinds contract with Sanofi wasn't as favorable. Ours was "reasonable efforts". Which lawyers would argue is easier for Sanofi to prove.Still, all of us hope for some settlement. The bigger the better MannKind's currently in-progress "reasonable efforts" is also what could eventually be used to illustate how Sanofi, in fact, did not use efforts that are "reasonable" for a multinational corporation. In 2014, Sanofi was the world's 4th leading company in prescription sales. If you will notice, MannKind has and is still in the process of doing virtually everything Sanofi should have "reasonably" done, especially considering the size of the company in comparison to the size of MannKind. It will take little common sense to conclude that no "reasonable efforts" were made by Sanofi if MannKind can generate a "reasonable" positive prescription trend within a "reasonable" amount of time using "reasonable efforts". This is a common error. Mannkind and Sanofi have different strategies and while a 'reasonable effort' with one strategy may fail the same effort with a different strategy may succeed. For that reason the success or failure of Mannkind will have zero impact on proving Sanofi's level of effort.
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Aug 25, 2016 20:01:44 GMT -5
I think I agree here. What's "reasonable" tends to change when your back is against the wall. MNKD is doing what a lot of other biotechs aren't doing. The pharmacist from Spiro's post in another thread would not have been so surprised if it was common procedure.
Not saying Sanofi made reasonable efforts. Just that it would be difficult to measure one by the other.
|
|
|
Post by vestful on Aug 25, 2016 20:35:52 GMT -5
I think I disagree. "Zero impact", doubt it. Would it be used in combination with other aspects to try to define reasonable in this circumstance. Probably
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on Aug 25, 2016 21:34:37 GMT -5
Sanofi spent a boatload of MannKinds money in the loan agreement. Maybe that's Sanofi's court defense, "I'm sorry we tried but we were incompetent."
They'd probably win with that...I don't think any guaranties for competence was specified in the partnership agreement.
I continue to think Afrezza needs to be a success before MannKind brings it to trial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 22:50:29 GMT -5
MannKind's currently in-progress "reasonable efforts" is also what could eventually be used to illustate how Sanofi, in fact, did not use efforts that are "reasonable" for a multinational corporation. In 2014, Sanofi was the world's 4th leading company in prescription sales. If you will notice, MannKind has and is still in the process of doing virtually everything Sanofi should have "reasonably" done, especially considering the size of the company in comparison to the size of MannKind. It will take little common sense to conclude that no "reasonable efforts" were made by Sanofi if MannKind can generate a "reasonable" positive prescription trend within a "reasonable" amount of time using "reasonable efforts". This is a common error. Mannkind and Sanofi have different strategies and while a 'reasonable effort' with one strategy may fail the same effort with a different strategy may succeed. For that reason the success or failure of Mannkind will have zero impact on proving Sanofi's level of effort. What exactly then are Sanofi's stategies? —Sanofi has a patient assistance program: www.sanofipatientconnection.com—MannKind has a patient assistance program. —Sanofi has sales reps —MannKind has sales reps —Sanofi does marketing and advertising —MannKind does marketing and advertising If a company as tiny as MannKind whom does not even generate a profit, builds a sales force from scratch, creates a patient assistance program, and generates a positive prescription trend in a reasonable amount of time compared to a multinational corporation's "attempt" that is also one of the top prescription sales corporations in the entire world, add in their Lantus patent expiration and their launch of their own new drug, then yes, I'd say it is pretty cut and dry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 22:56:04 GMT -5
I think I agree here. What's "reasonable" tends to change when your back is against the wall. MNKD is doing what a lot of other biotechs aren't doing. The pharmacist from Spiro's post in another thread would not have been so surprised if it was common procedure. Not saying Sanofi made reasonable efforts. Just that it would be difficult to measure one by the other. Sanofi has a patient assistance program. If MannKind's employees at their patient assistance program goes above and beyond, that just means they care about what they are doing and perhaps they think that is exactly how their job should be done.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdorbust on Aug 25, 2016 23:31:57 GMT -5
Harry says all you need to know about Sanofi here
|
|
|
Post by anderson on Aug 26, 2016 2:33:59 GMT -5
This is a common error. Mannkind and Sanofi have different strategies and while a 'reasonable effort' with one strategy may fail the same effort with a different strategy may succeed. For that reason the success or failure of Mannkind will have zero impact on proving Sanofi's level of effort. What exactly then are Sanofi's stategies? —Sanofi has a patient assistance program: www.sanofipatientconnection.com—MannKind has a patient assistance program. —Sanofi has sales reps —MannKind has sales reps —Sanofi does marketing and advertising —MannKind does marketing and advertising If a company as tiny as MannKind whom does not even generate a profit, builds a sales force from scratch, creates a patient assistance program, and generates a positive prescription trend in a reasonable amount of time compared to a multinational corporation's "attempt" that is also one of the top prescription sales corporations in the entire world, add in their Lantus patent expiration and their launch of their own new drug, then yes, I'd say it is pretty cut and dry. The one thing bad publicity about Sanofi as a partner would do is limit future partnerships. Also if they Sanofi ever gave a low ball offer for MNKD, maybe you could prove that slow rolling products was a way to acquire companies cheaper is a pattern (Genzyme) their might be some grounds. But we need to see the outcome of that lawsuit to see if Genzyme wins. Proving a pattern of bad behaviour would be timely and costly so isnt something we should dwell on now, lets just get scripts up and deal with this later.
|
|
|
Post by afleischner on Aug 26, 2016 9:23:00 GMT -5
who are the two executives named in the suit. If one of the two is that Edstrom He deserves to be sued.
|
|
|
Post by boytroy88 on Aug 26, 2016 9:28:16 GMT -5
who are the two executives named in the suit. If one of the two is that Edstrom He deserves to be sued. I thought it was three - Harkan (?sp), Matt, and the late Mr. Mann.
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Aug 26, 2016 16:14:34 GMT -5
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. It than could be argued, MNKD has the first deposition against Sanofi to prove Bad Faith that could result in Penalties? Even the litigation protection language Sanofi included in the contract language would be negated in "bad faith" ?
If MNKD did get some evidence of wrong doing at no cost from this litigation, yippee.
I think Mannkind's only recourse for a failure by Sanofi to make a good-faith effort to sell Afrezza was termination of the partnership.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Sept 26, 2016 10:44:00 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."
Thursday, September 22, 2016
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (DE 62) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Since Judgment has since been entered in this case, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED as moot. The proper way for Plaintiffs to ask the Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss without leave to amend would be in the forum of a motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P.59 or 60. (bp)
Source: www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10517923/Eric_Ardolino_v_MannKind_Corporation_et_al
NOTE: “Leave to Amend” is a judge’s way of saying, “I’ll give you another chance.” lawyeronaleash.com/legalese-translator-what-does-leave-to-amend-mean/
...so this order has, in effect, denied the plaintiff's request to get another chance. The denial, however, may be due to procedural errors, so it's possible for the plaintiff's to try again using the "proper way".
---
September 24, 2016 ended the 30-day window to appeal the decision, so I believe the lawsuit is over. Done. Stick a fork in it.
|
|