|
|
Post by falconquest on Sept 6, 2016 16:58:59 GMT -5
I thought I remembered there being a targeted team albeit small. Anyway, I'm also on the side of not pursuing a lawsuit at this point for lots of reasons. The new CEO clearly never wanted to pursue this and likely thought to expensive versus market given label, history, etc. But as I'm sure Mnkd are doing, it doesn't hurt to have their legal firm continually collect info as we go. Who knows what things look like in a few months from now. bioexec, This is off topic but would that be a picture of Gibson Les Paul Classic with triple humbucking pickups similar to one used by Mr. Peter Frampton? Just curious. On a more "on topic" note. It seems I recall Matt commenting that he anticipated a settlement payment from Sanofi in October. Of course he also said they were close to an international partner at one point as well. We can see where that went. |
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Sept 6, 2016 17:08:11 GMT -5
Falcon, at the risk of getting the guys and guitar comments again, yes well it is a vintage 1957 vos black beauty but it is not the Peter Frampton custom spec. Very similar. Mine was made in 1978 by Gibson and they added the bigsby. Amazing instrument. Pink Floyd licks sound exceptionally good on this guitar even when played by lay folks like me. ;-D
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Sept 6, 2016 17:11:06 GMT -5
It seems that many here talking about a lawsuit are assuming that arbitration, if used, will not be favorable to MannKind. However, the License & Collaboration Agreement between the two parties specifies that, if there arises a dispute which cannot be resolved between the parties, then it must be arbitrated. MannKind & Sanofi-Aventis will each get to select their own arbitration judge and a third arbitration judge, which must be mutually agreed upon by both parties, completes the 3 judges that make up the arbitration panel.
These judges (which the contract states, as I recall, must reside within the U.S.) will decide whether or not Sanofi-Aventis damaged the Afrezza brand or the company and whether MannKind's claim has merit, whether the party is entitled to any recompense and how much, if any. Whether any of this testimony gathered from the shareholders' lawsuit will be used in their deliberations is strictly up to the arbitration judges. That's good enough for me.
I actually do believe in the court system(s) within the United States. There are some poor lawyers in the system (of course, none of those would be ProBoard-MNKD members  ) but most arbitration judges have the experience and should have access to any and all data needed to render a fair decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Sept 6, 2016 17:17:54 GMT -5
Falcon, at the risk of getting the guys and guitar comments again, yes well it is a vintage 1957 vos black beauty but it is not the Peter Frampton custom spec. Very similar. Mine was made in 1978 by Gibson and they added the bigsby. Amazing instrument. Pink Floyd licks sound exceptionally good on this guitar even when played by lay folks like me. ;-D That's a very nice axe bioexec and thanks for the comments......now back to our regularly scheduled topic. |
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Sept 6, 2016 17:44:37 GMT -5
So now you not only know all the facts surrounding the case, you are also an up to date well experienced contract attorney? Thank you for your arrogant opinion - not. brotherm, I'm an arrogant, up to date, contract attorney and everything that matt said made sense and was delivered in a perfectly fine tone. The case for MNKD, if it can be made at all, will be at great cost of money and human resources. If we divert those to a lawsuit, then we risk weakening our case by failing to sell enough Afrezza. Not particularly fair, but the system does work that way sometimes. And I really don't see a lawyer taking this on a contingency basis. I know you don't care for me but I would like to thank you for being honest. Too often people mince words solely for the sake of creating an argument and not to learn something new. I appreciate you sticking up for the truth. Too often valid (not necessarily true) arguments get shot down solely on the basis of differing vantage points. It's nice to see vigilance for both the positive and the negative things surrounding Afrezza. And you did it without personally attacking him for "spreading FUD". |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Sept 6, 2016 18:32:50 GMT -5
no problem sophie - thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by kball on Sept 6, 2016 18:33:05 GMT -5
Falcon, at the risk of getting the guys and guitar comments again, yes well it is a vintage 1957 vos black beauty but it is not the Peter Frampton custom spec. Very similar. Mine was made in 1978 by Gibson and they added the bigsby. Amazing instrument. Pink Floyd licks sound exceptionally good on this guitar even when played by lay folks like me. ;-D That's a very nice axe bioexec and thanks for the comments...... now back to our regularly scheduled topic.Not yet...always thought the bigsby made it look like the guitar is in traction. Not the most elegant design..but if you can sound like Gilmour thats good enough for me Okay, now back |
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Sept 7, 2016 14:04:34 GMT -5
"...... It seems I recall Matt commenting that he anticipated a settlement payment from Sanofi in October. Of course he also said they were close to an international partner at one point as well. We can see where that went...."
Not certain but I thought I heard the same also. Perhpas though I was thinking of the insulin put funds? Does anyone recall any words from Matt about a SNY settlement timeline from Matt other than the insulin put?
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Sept 7, 2016 14:21:47 GMT -5
I don't remember anything about a time line. But something about ..we have to be carefull what we say at this point. Not sure if that was said because we didn't have Afrezza back yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Sept 7, 2016 20:40:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Sept 7, 2016 21:07:04 GMT -5
Thank you falconquest. Good one. So Matt answering the RBS rep question said, we don't owe money to SNY by any means (other than debt due in over 8 years) and there are a lot of ways that money could be flowing in the opposite direction (meaning from SNY to MNKD). Matt mentioned the 35% of Afrezza sales money from SNY and we know of the $50 million insulin put, but those two don't sound to me like "a lot of ways that money could be flowing" in our direction. Thus there appear to be other ways we could be receiving funds from SNY. This conference call was over 3 months ago. Hopefully negotiations are still being worked on and hopefully of course we might see a a good settlement of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by op2778 on Sept 7, 2016 21:34:35 GMT -5
I recall him saying: Epic history.......Embarrassment of......
until know, I'm only sad to own this stock.
Op
|
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Sept 8, 2016 22:06:17 GMT -5
The insulin put. Everyone should forget about Sanofi. The partnership agreement protects both parties, but it especially protects Sanofi. The only specific recourse I can see for Mannkind in the event of failure to perform by Sanofi is termination of the contract. We can hope for more, but we're not likely to get it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 4:03:08 GMT -5
brotherm, I'm an arrogant, up to date, contract attorney and everything that matt said made sense and was delivered in a perfectly fine tone. The case for MNKD, if it can be made at all, will be at great cost of money and human resources. If we divert those to a lawsuit, then we risk weakening our case by failing to sell enough Afrezza. Not particularly fair, but the system does work that way sometimes. And I really don't see a lawyer taking this on a contingency basis. I know you don't care for me but I would like to thank you for being honest. Too often people mince words solely for the sake of creating an argument and not to learn something new. I appreciate you sticking up for the truth. Too often valid (not necessarily true) arguments get shot down solely on the basis of differing vantage points. It's nice to see vigilance for both the positive and the negative things surrounding Afrezza. And you did it without personally attacking him for "spreading FUD". To the attorney: Seriously? Did you forget the case that Agmen recently won against Sanofi based on a jury trial? And now MannKind has a former VP from Amgen? No attorney taking this on a contigency basis? Man, you screwed up big time because as an attoney you should KNOW you gotta at least a give one valid reason WHY MannKind could NOT win in court, but instead you gave a monetary excuse and the word time. The case would be obvious, IMO, if MannKind generates a significant amout of prescriptions past what Sanofi did even in a year's time it would still hold ground. Sanofi has built a case against themselves and already has a bad rep with the courts. MannKind would win, IMO, if perscriptions increase to a point that they were willing to persue legal action. Did you forget Kent Kresa was on the BoD or something? To sophie: Glad you can at least recognize your comments are not "necessarily true". |
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Sept 10, 2016 0:46:30 GMT -5
I know you don't care for me but I would like to thank you for being honest. Too often people mince words solely for the sake of creating an argument and not to learn something new. I appreciate you sticking up for the truth. Too often valid (not necessarily true) arguments get shot down solely on the basis of differing vantage points. It's nice to see vigilance for both the positive and the negative things surrounding Afrezza. And you did it without personally attacking him for "spreading FUD". To the attorney: Seriously? Did you forget the case that Agmen recently won against Sanofi based on a jury trial? And now MannKind has a former VP from Amgen? No attorney taking this on a contigency basis? Man, you screwed up big time because as an attoney you should KNOW you gotta at least a give one valid reason WHY MannKind could NOT win in court, but instead you gave a monetary excuse and the word time. The case would be obvious, IMO, if MannKind generates a significant amout of prescriptions past what Sanofi did even in a year's time it would still hold ground. Sanofi has built a case against themselves and already has a bad rep with the courts. MannKind would win, IMO, if perscriptions increase to a point that they were willing to persue legal action. Did you forget Kent Kresa was on the BoD or something? To sophie: Glad you can at least recognize your comments are not "necessarily true". The partnership agreement spells out what happens if either party fails to live up to its obligations, which is an option to terminate. You can fantasize all you want, but .... |
|
) but most arbitration judges have the experience and should have access to any and all data needed to render a fair decision.
