|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 29, 2016 8:15:14 GMT -5
Admittedly I do not post as often as before or follow as closely as I used to. Since the agreement with SNY is now null and void with the exception of put payments from SNY, would it be appropriate for MNKD to release the agreement in full, non-redacted? If MNKD truly will not be receiving any payments for damages, I see no reason not to.
If damages are forth coming, I would understand the need to keep it confidential.
Personally I would like to see insight of what expectation of sales were between both parties since both independently came up with their own expectations. Perhaps Castagna could give some background on this issue. I do not have Twitter, so if anyone feels this is of benefit please feel free to pass it on.
|
|
|
|
Post by liane on Aug 29, 2016 8:24:16 GMT -5
Hi hammerGood to see you around again! |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 29, 2016 8:27:02 GMT -5
Thanks Liane. You have always been a gracious host.
|
|
|
|
Post by me on Aug 29, 2016 8:44:03 GMT -5
Admittedly I do not post as often as before or follow as closely as I used to. Since the agreement with SNY is now null and void with the exception of put payments from SNY, would it be appropriate for MNKD to release the agreement in full, non-redacted? If MNKD truly will not be receiving any payments for damages, I see no reason not to. If damages are forth coming, I would understand the need to keep it confidential. Personally I would like to see insight of what expectation of sales were between both parties since both independently came up with their own expectations. Perhaps Castagna could give some background on this issue. I do not have Twitter, so if anyone feels this is of benefit please feel free to pass it on. Since the redacted portions are highly confidential, I doubt they will ever be "un-redacted." That is not to say that at some point MNKD might not give us a flavor for the expectation of sales with SNY, but I don't see the agreement being released in the clear. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 29, 2016 8:51:50 GMT -5
Since the redacted portions are highly confidential, I doubt they will ever be "un-redacted." That is not to say that at some point MNKD might not give us a flavor for the expectation of sales with SNY, but I don't see the agreement being released in the clear. I agree with that. Redaction occur because one of the parties does not want confidential and proprietary information in the public domain. Normally obligations of confidentiality survive termination of an agreement for some defined period, with three and five years being the most common periods, so it would require the legal waiver of the other party to disclose their confidential information. |
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 29, 2016 12:39:08 GMT -5
I decided to bring this question directly to Matt. Matt has always been cordial and receptive to answer investor inquiries. I will share with the board my question and his response. It tends to bring up more questions than answers as is usually the case.
Matt,
Sorry to send this question if you are no longer handling investor questions. Please feel free to forward.
Since the agreement with SNY is null and void, What is the status of the SEC CTO pertaining to the agreement with SNY. Will investors finally be clued in on what sales expectations were by SNY, by MNKD?
I personally feel the sales expectations are the basis for potential damages since I am of the opinion they did not due their due diligence in respect to appropriate marketing of Afrezza, but my opinion means nothing.
Any insight on the material remaining confidential?
Sincerely,
"I have tried to get Rose to take a bigger role here, but am happy to respond.
Our agreement with Sanofi still exists. It does not formally end for another couple of months, even though most of it is now mute.
That said, the confidentiality provisions remain in effect, unless or until there is something material that happens that might override those provisions, such as a material cash payment or anticipated obligation."
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Aug 29, 2016 13:40:10 GMT -5
I decided to bring this question directly to Matt. Our agreement with Sanofi still exists. It does not formally end for another couple of months, even though most of it is now mute.
Mute? I assume that he means moot, although for some reason "mute" seems to be overtaking it in the public discourse. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 29, 2016 13:52:11 GMT -5
That said, the confidentiality provisions remain in effect, unless or until there is something material that happens that might override those provisions, such as a material cash payment or anticipated obligation." What he is saying is correct as section 13.8 has Article 8 which deals with confidentiality survive termination of the contract almost in it's entirety. The only thing that could break that would be a material cash payment since that is exempt, or a listed obligation. Even in that case only the event could be disclosed and not anything else so the contract would remain largely redacted. |
|
