|
Post by patten1962 on Nov 18, 2016 14:29:20 GMT -5
It was only a few weeks ago that people on this board were saying that SNY wouldn't give us anything! That they or some other BP would just wait and pick us up in a fire sale after BK. What say you now....I say they knew they better settle up now or pay more later. Thank you sports. I was gonna say that. People just don't remember what they post!
|
|
|
Post by madog365 on Nov 18, 2016 14:45:58 GMT -5
It was only a few weeks ago that people on this board were saying that SNY wouldn't give us anything! That they or some other BP would just wait and pick us up in a fire sale after BK. What say you now....I say they knew they better settle up now or pay more later. I still don't think SNY had any legal obligation or risk of having to pay MNKD for the Afrezza launch, but as they prepare to do a major corporate restructuring of their own they figured it was better to be done with it. The $30 million on the insulin put was a pre-existing obligation that would have survived bankruptcy so they would have paid it one way or another. Given the near zero interest rates, paying now instead of over a few years is pretty much a wash. They use a different API to manufacture their insulin so they would have wound up discarding the insulin anyway, so not taking the insulin from MNKD saved them some money.
The part that they did leave on the table was the value of the building. In a worse case bankruptcy situation they would have been able to see the building for whatever amount they could get for it, and the difference would have been an unsecured claim like any other creditor. After marketing, real estate brokerage, property taxes, insurance and other costs while they sold the building, it is not clear how much they would have realized, as the building has been sitting unsold with a price tag of $25 million. They may have simply decided that it wasn't worth the trouble.
As for what anybody would pay for MNKD in a bankruptcy, that remains to be determined. The value of the patents will rise and fall with market demand for the products they protect, so unless sales increase enough to at least cover manufacturing costs, the offers will be insultingly small. Danbury is security for Deerfield so that value is outside of the bankruptcy estate.
The story continues to be traction in the market. If the product catches fire, so will the share price and financing options.
You don't even realize that quote was directed towards you, do you? According to your predictions on this board, MNKD should have declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago. You told us to expect it before the Q3 earnings. Well here we are today.
|
|
|
Post by me on Nov 18, 2016 15:53:47 GMT -5
It was only a few weeks ago that people on this board were saying that SNY wouldn't give us anything! That they or some other BP would just wait and pick us up in a fire sale after BK. What say you now....I say they knew they better settle up now or pay more later. I still don't think SNY had any legal obligation or risk of having to pay MNKD for the Afrezza launch, but as they prepare to do a major corporate restructuring of their own they figured it was better to be done with it. The $30 million on the insulin put was a pre-existing obligation that would have survived bankruptcy so they would have paid it one way or another. Given the near zero interest rates, paying now instead of over a few years is pretty much a wash. They use a different API to manufacture their insulin so they would have wound up discarding the insulin anyway, so not taking the insulin from MNKD saved them some money. If this is the case, then why would SNY originally structure the put agreement where they would take delivery of the insulin in exchange for their payment?! Are you really suggesting their plan all along was to make the payment, then spend more money to take the delivery, and then spend some more money to discard or destroy the insulin? I consider myself a reasonably capable business executive and a fairly intelligent person, but I really don't understand how what you've described above can be true. I'm always open to some enlightenment!
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Nov 18, 2016 16:08:32 GMT -5
I still don't think SNY had any legal obligation or risk of having to pay MNKD for the Afrezza launch, but as they prepare to do a major corporate restructuring of their own they figured it was better to be done with it. The $30 million on the insulin put was a pre-existing obligation that would have survived bankruptcy so they would have paid it one way or another. Given the near zero interest rates, paying now instead of over a few years is pretty much a wash. They use a different API to manufacture their insulin so they would have wound up discarding the insulin anyway, so not taking the insulin from MNKD saved them some money.
The part that they did leave on the table was the value of the building. In a worse case bankruptcy situation they would have been able to see the building for whatever amount they could get for it, and the difference would have been an unsecured claim like any other creditor. After marketing, real estate brokerage, property taxes, insurance and other costs while they sold the building, it is not clear how much they would have realized, as the building has been sitting unsold with a price tag of $25 million. They may have simply decided that it wasn't worth the trouble.
As for what anybody would pay for MNKD in a bankruptcy, that remains to be determined. The value of the patents will rise and fall with market demand for the products they protect, so unless sales increase enough to at least cover manufacturing costs, the offers will be insultingly small. Danbury is security for Deerfield so that value is outside of the bankruptcy estate.
The story continues to be traction in the market. If the product catches fire, so will the share price and financing options.
You don't even realize that quote was directed towards you, do you? According to your predictions on this board, MNKD should have declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago. You told us to expect it before the Q3 earnings. Well here we are today. For the sake of civility... I don't think matt would have come on the board and done an "I told you so". Let's cut him some slack without assuming we're all on opposite teams. He reported on things that were readily seen... and even mentioned a deal with Sanofi, although was incorrect about how good the deal would be. Some investors prefer to look at facts and details before forming investment decisions. Without details, we're all left with guessing. Just because it worked out this time doesn't mean it was a high probability to do so. matt doesn't seem like the kind of person that just rolls the dice on a stock. It would be nice to have more transparency and details, but that's just me. But to crucify someone for stating what all of us were thinking isn't right. They weren't baseless claims. If you disagreed, that was your prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 18, 2016 17:02:18 GMT -5
You don't even realize that quote was directed towards you, do you? According to your predictions on this board, MNKD should have declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago. You told us to expect it before the Q3 earnings. Well here we are today. For the sake of civility... I don't think matt would have come on the board and done an "I told you so". Let's cut him some slack without assuming we're all on opposite teams. He reported on things that were readily seen... and even mentioned a deal with Sanofi, although was incorrect about how good the deal would be. Some investors prefer to look at facts and details before forming investment decisions. Without details, we're all left with guessing. Just because it worked out this time doesn't mean it was a high probability to do so. matt doesn't seem like the kind of person that just rolls the dice on a stock. It would be nice to have more transparency and details, but that's just me. But to crucify someone for stating what all of us were thinking isn't right. They weren't baseless claims. If you disagreed, that was your prerogative. All of us? Speak for yourself....I wasn't thinking that at all.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Nov 18, 2016 17:12:14 GMT -5
For the sake of civility... I don't think matt would have come on the board and done an "I told you so". Let's cut him some slack without assuming we're all on opposite teams. He reported on things that were readily seen... and even mentioned a deal with Sanofi, although was incorrect about how good the deal would be. Some investors prefer to look at facts and details before forming investment decisions. Without details, we're all left with guessing. Just because it worked out this time doesn't mean it was a high probability to do so. matt doesn't seem like the kind of person that just rolls the dice on a stock. It would be nice to have more transparency and details, but that's just me. But to crucify someone for stating what all of us were thinking isn't right. They weren't baseless claims. If you disagreed, that was your prerogative. All of us? Speak for yourself....I wasn't thinking that at all. With Lefty on this one. My thoughts were down a much darker path - as in - SNY should have to pay alot, but they would get away with virtual slaughter. FWIW - I think SNY felt they needed to pay (either for legal pressure, or the sheer cost to go through that process). Nothing I've seen in their business ethics (see also, a year ago media stories) suggests they would give up the cash to another company out of the goodness of their franco-hearts.
|
|
|
Post by madog365 on Nov 18, 2016 17:15:05 GMT -5
You don't even realize that quote was directed towards you, do you? According to your predictions on this board, MNKD should have declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago. You told us to expect it before the Q3 earnings. Well here we are today. For the sake of civility... I don't think matt would have come on the board and done an "I told you so". Let's cut him some slack without assuming we're all on opposite teams. He reported on things that were readily seen... and even mentioned a deal with Sanofi, although was incorrect about how good the deal would be. Some investors prefer to look at facts and details before forming investment decisions. Without details, we're all left with guessing. Just because it worked out this time doesn't mean it was a high probability to do so. matt doesn't seem like the kind of person that just rolls the dice on a stock. It would be nice to have more transparency and details, but that's just me. But to crucify someone for stating what all of us were thinking isn't right. They weren't baseless claims. If you disagreed, that was your prerogative. He claimed the company would declare bankruptcy before q3 earnings were released... that is a pretty heavy claim to make and i think that completely negates everything else you can claim as "cogent". People don't appreciate the FUD when they have real money at stake here. Next you state that's what "all of us" were thinking! Who are you even speaking for? I don't see anyone agreeing with you by liking your post, nor here nor in the last thread. Anyone who thought mannkind was going to declare bankruptcy this year is an idiot in my book (or has an agenda)
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Nov 18, 2016 17:15:51 GMT -5
Imho as I have stated before it was a simple business decision based on cost benefit for both sides. Time to move on...🙏
|
|