Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 10:09:24 GMT -5
I suspect that Pfeffer and Thompson (maybe even Kresa?) were in a conference Room at 55 Corporate Dr, Bridgewater, NJ 08807 and that "raising money" would be one way to describe the meetings. ;) MN, what kind of power does MNKD have over SNY to negotiate a settlement? Right now, its not like there is any proof MNKD is setting the world on fire with efforts to sell Afrezza and yes, I am long since 09. Some stuff we don't know that forces SNY to the table? Like what?
|
|
|
Post by als57 on Oct 4, 2016 10:30:35 GMT -5
Could it be that they are approaching Sanofi to partner with them on the Technosphere/Epi project? Here's hoping that once burned is once learned and its not the 65/35 deal. They are California dreamers entering the liar of
French pirates who give no quarter.
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Oct 4, 2016 10:52:07 GMT -5
I suspect that Pfeffer and Thompson (maybe even Kresa?) were in a conference Room at 55 Corporate Dr, Bridgewater, NJ 08807 and that "raising money" would be one way to describe the meetings. MN, what kind of power does MNKD have over SNY to negotiate a settlement? Right now, its not like there is any proof MNKD is setting the world on fire with efforts to sell Afrezza and yes, I am long since 09. Some stuff we don't know that forces SNY to the table? Like what? As much as this deal with SNY works against us, I would think it's the terms of the deal and arbitration that would force SNY to the table. In any case, I just can't wait for there to be closure on this. IMO, it's the #1 thing stopping MNKD from making any deal with anyone for anything. I can't imagine any company would want to make any kind of a deal when another company, SNY, holds so many rights to technology, patents, and property as collateral.
|
|
|
Post by avogadro on Oct 4, 2016 10:59:25 GMT -5
They are California dreamers entering the liar of
French pirates who give no quarter. When it comes to SNY, "liar" is a fit description.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Oct 4, 2016 11:04:22 GMT -5
I suspect that Pfeffer and Thompson (maybe even Kresa?) were in a conference Room at 55 Corporate Dr, Bridgewater, NJ 08807 and that "raising money" would be one way to describe the meetings. Ah Ha...
|
|
|
Post by ilovekauai on Oct 4, 2016 11:04:53 GMT -5
Cj: I'm curious as to what "rights" Sanofi holds in regards to MNKD tech, patents, and property as "collateral." Do you have a moment to elaborate on this? I've never heard this before. Mahalo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 11:14:06 GMT -5
Cj: I'm curious as to what "rights" Sanofi holds in regards to MNKD tech, patents, and property as "collateral." Do you have a moment to elaborate on this? I've never heard this before. Mahalo. I think on the 80 million that MNKD owes Sanofi - which isnt due until 2024 though
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 4, 2016 11:17:17 GMT -5
I suspect that Pfeffer and Thompson (maybe even Kresa?) were in a conference Room at 55 Corporate Dr, Bridgewater, NJ 08807 and that "raising money" would be one way to describe the meetings. MN, what kind of power does MNKD have over SNY to negotiate a settlement? Right now, its not like there is any proof MNKD is setting the world on fire with efforts to sell Afrezza and yes, I am long since 09. Some stuff we don't know that forces SNY to the table? Like what? That is, indeed, a very good question. My initial thought is that Afrezza awareness among physicians & patients is growing along with sales, in spite of the fact that the company has a 60-person salesforce in the field and has only begun its DTP marketing. Compare that to Sanofi's 2015 effort with their huge resources and large U.S. salesforce. I don't have the exact number of sales reps that Sanofi still has in the U.S., but in 2010 MM&M reported that, "Sanofi-Aventis will winnow its US sales forces down by 1,400, the company announced on Friday. The move follows layoffs in April of around 400 reps, and brings the total sales force headcount down to roughly 4,000. The Paris-based company employed approximately 6,500 US-based reps just one year ago."
Source: www.mmm-online.com/channel/sanofi-aventis-to-cut-1400-sales-reps/article/180820/
A roughly 70-person Sales & Marketing team from MannKind appears to be accomplishing as much as, if not more than, what Sanofi-Aventis accomplished with its enormous resources. Then MannKind has what becomes obvious when you look at the sales graphic - Sanofi quit promoting Afrezza way before they served the termination notice and thus were in violation of the terms of the Agreement. This has been confirmed by the testimony of a former Sanofi sales rep in the recently dismissed shareholder lawsuit against MannKind. There's more information that will not see the light of day because of confidentially provisions within the agreement, but much will be presented to an arbitration panel if needed for a reasonable settlement.
|
|
|
Post by hawaiiguy42 on Oct 4, 2016 11:17:57 GMT -5
1. Mnkd gonna conduct EpiHale clinical trial for the next 3-4 mos. After that, Mnkd will review the result w/ FDA early 1Q17. The whole process to FDA approval is ~ 10 mos. 2. Mnkd will co-market Afrezza in NFL game-day pamphlets for SD Chargers, LA Rams, Phily Eagles, Chicago Bears. These are large markets. An Ads could show up in USA Today. 3. Mnkd has been negotiating a settlement w/ Sanofi. Matt has traveled in the last 2 weeks. Mnkd will announce when there is some news. 4. BoD has plan to address delisting, extend the runway. 5. Of course Afrezza ramp-up would help pps. Afrezza story was printed in trade journals. I can't disclose my source. I recite to the best of my recollection. I think this is all hogwash or at least 90% of it is. To substantiate the 90%, I need facts.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 4, 2016 11:24:22 GMT -5
Given all the money out there, are there not PE firms who look for healthcare deals who also have a stable of operating execs who would cut off body parts in return for a comp package that included equity to make them wealthy assuming success? Given how hot the epi space is now, seems possible but PE firms probably don't want to put up a lot of $$ so how about some risk mitigation by getting a hedge fund or two to share the risk. Private equity firms normally invest only in companies with a profitable business with potential to earn even more with some restructuring or further investment, and venture capital firms do not invest in companies that are already public since they tend to make their money on IPO pops. The logical buyers are existing pharma companies with an interest in diabetes, but most of the research dollars from big pharma is going into oral agents like GLP-1 for use with or without metformin. Are there lots of healthcare executive who would like a sweet comp package, sure, but not so many investment funds willing to give them the dollars. MNKD, between the debt and equity, is simply overpriced for most financially motivated investors.
The fact is that companies like MNKD have the public markets and not much else unless a strategic partner steps up. There really are only three strategic partners for Afrezza; Sanofi already had its chance and I don't see Lilly or Novo chasing Afrezza. The public markets are going to be rough on any company with a < $1 stock price, but that is the case. I don't see that Sanofi is going to sink more money into MNKD especially as they are preparing for major layoffs as Lantus is replaced by biosimilar basalglar and, despite the rhetoric of loving to hate Sanofi, I think holding out for any Sanofi settlement is unlikely to get results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 11:38:40 GMT -5
Given all the money out there, are there not PE firms who look for healthcare deals who also have a stable of operating execs who would cut off body parts in return for a comp package that included equity to make them wealthy assuming success? Given how hot the epi space is now, seems possible but PE firms probably don't want to put up a lot of $$ so how about some risk mitigation by getting a hedge fund or two to share the risk. Private equity firms normally invest only in companies with a profitable business with potential to earn even more with some restructuring or further investment, and venture capital firms do not invest in companies that are already public since they tend to make their money on IPO pops. The logical buyers are existing pharma companies with an interest in diabetes, but most of the research dollars from big pharma is going into oral agents like GLP-1 for use with or without metformin. Are there lots of healthcare executive who would like a sweet comp package, sure, but not so many investment funds willing to give them the dollars. MNKD, between the debt and equity, is simply overpriced for most financially motivated investors.
The fact is that companies like MNKD have the public markets and not much else unless a strategic partner steps up. There really are only three strategic partners for Afrezza; Sanofi already had its chance and I don't see Lilly or Novo chasing Afrezza. The public markets are going to be rough on any company with a < $1 stock price, but that is the case. I don't see that Sanofi is going to sink more money into MNKD especially as they are preparing for major layoffs as Lantus is replaced by biosimilar basalglar and, despite the rhetoric of loving to hate Sanofi, I think holding out for any Sanofi settlement is unlikely to get results.
Thanks. I was thinking PE or some type of alt investor group for the epi product but per your comments, maybe not. My take on GLP is its mostly me too stuff except for perhaps Intarcia which is an interesting company. For Afrezza, I had thought even pre-Sanofi GSK would make interesting partner. I cringed when the Sanofi deal was announced. They suck, I know from personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Oct 4, 2016 11:44:09 GMT -5
One innovative vehicle for raising capital that is generating attention in the market lately is royalty-based financing. Instead of purchasing an equity interest in a company, the investor lends the company a set amount of funds, just like a regular loan. Repayment, however, can be structured with more flexibility than a loan. For example, the company could make repayments that are calculated solely as a percentage of the company’s revenue stream over a period of time.
To illustrate how royalty-based financing works, suppose a company needs a $50-million investment. It is possible that the company could find an investor willing to lend the money on a 10-year repayment plan with an interest-only repayment in the first year, principal and interest repaid in equal monthly installments over the next nine years and, perhaps, payments of three percent of the company’s monthly revenues during that same nine-year repayment period. The investor would reap a return on principal, together with interest and the royalty amount, and the company will have achieved fairly low-cost financing without giving up any equity in the company. This same repayment scenario would play out even if the loan did not have an interest component to it, but if it just involved repayment of the loan based on a percentage of the company’s revenues. In this context, the same $50-million investment may require a longer repayment period, and the revenue stream to the investor would be more susceptible to swings in the company’s revenues. On the other hand, without the interest component, the repayment of the $50-million investment carries less risk of default since all payments to the investor are from the company’s revenues. Under either structure, it appears to be a win-win for all. And, if like many of these royalty-based financing investors, the investor takes a warrant for a small equity position, the investor could see some additional reward from a future sale of the company without taking any additional risk.
Of course, this type of financing would depend on the investor's assessment of whether a drug will succeed if funded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 12:14:19 GMT -5
One innovative vehicle for raising capital that is generating attention in the market lately is royalty-based financing. Instead of purchasing an equity interest in a company, the investor lends the company a set amount of funds, just like a regular loan. Repayment, however, can be structured with more flexibility than a loan. For example, the company could make repayments that are calculated solely as a percentage of the company’s revenue stream over a period of time.
To illustrate how royalty-based financing works, suppose a company needs a $50-million investment. It is possible that the company could find an investor willing to lend the money on a 10-year repayment plan with an interest-only repayment in the first year, principal and interest repaid in equal monthly installments over the next nine years and, perhaps, payments of three percent of the company’s monthly revenues during that same nine-year repayment period. The investor would reap a return on principal, together with interest and the royalty amount, and the company will have achieved fairly low-cost financing without giving up any equity in the company. This same repayment scenario would play out even if the loan did not have an interest component to it, but if it just involved repayment of the loan based on a percentage of the company’s revenues. In this context, the same $50-million investment may require a longer repayment period, and the revenue stream to the investor would be more susceptible to swings in the company’s revenues. On the other hand, without the interest component, the repayment of the $50-million investment carries less risk of default since all payments to the investor are from the company’s revenues. Under either structure, it appears to be a win-win for all. And, if like many of these royalty-based financing investors, the investor takes a warrant for a small equity position, the investor could see some additional reward from a future sale of the company without taking any additional risk.
Of course, this type of financing would depend on the investor's assessment of whether a drug will succeed if funded.
and does Mann foundation have the funds to do such financing? With so much invested thus far, it would make logical sense to take it to the final step? If they do have funds , whats the incentive for others to invest , when they themselves are not stepping in?
|
|
|
Post by saxcmann on Oct 4, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5
One innovative vehicle for raising capital that is generating attention in the market lately is royalty-based financing. Instead of purchasing an equity interest in a company, the investor lends the company a set amount of funds, just like a regular loan. Repayment, however, can be structured with more flexibility than a loan. For example, the company could make repayments that are calculated solely as a percentage of the company’s revenue stream over a period of time.
To illustrate how royalty-based financing works, suppose a company needs a $50-million investment. It is possible that the company could find an investor willing to lend the money on a 10-year repayment plan with an interest-only repayment in the first year, principal and interest repaid in equal monthly installments over the next nine years and, perhaps, payments of three percent of the company’s monthly revenues during that same nine-year repayment period. The investor would reap a return on principal, together with interest and the royalty amount, and the company will have achieved fairly low-cost financing without giving up any equity in the company. This same repayment scenario would play out even if the loan did not have an interest component to it, but if it just involved repayment of the loan based on a percentage of the company’s revenues. In this context, the same $50-million investment may require a longer repayment period, and the revenue stream to the investor would be more susceptible to swings in the company’s revenues. On the other hand, without the interest component, the repayment of the $50-million investment carries less risk of default since all payments to the investor are from the company’s revenues. Under either structure, it appears to be a win-win for all. And, if like many of these royalty-based financing investors, the investor takes a warrant for a small equity position, the investor could see some additional reward from a future sale of the company without taking any additional risk.
Of course, this type of financing would depend on the investor's assessment of whether a drug will succeed if funded.
and does Mann foundation have the funds to do such financing? With so much invested thus far, it would make logical sense to take it to the final step? If they do have funds , whats the incentive for others to invest , when they themselves are not stepping in? Good question! Why not take final step especially if Al said so? Just not sure how much money they have either? What are they waiting for? Maybe waiting on something?...scripts increase?, new deal/partner?, SNY settlement??
|
|
|
Post by cjc04 on Oct 4, 2016 13:18:43 GMT -5
Cj: I'm curious as to what "rights" Sanofi holds in regards to MNKD tech, patents, and property as "collateral." Do you have a moment to elaborate on this? I've never heard this before. Mahalo. I know there are others here who know all the details better than I do, but from what I understand, SNY holds the patents and tech for Afrezza and at least the Valencia head quarters as collateral against the loan. "The loan" of course being all money SNY blew and accomplished nothing with. Slightly ironic.
|
|