|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 17, 2017 12:26:18 GMT -5
I think that is what the Deerfield agreement already is. Mannkind sold them $90 million in milestone payments as part of the 2013 agreement. Mannkind current has them as a long term liability at $9 million (fair value of $18.2 million) so Deerfield may not be keen to repeat the experience! As derek2 pointed out to promann , are you confusing Deerfield with Greenhill, who help negotiate the Sanofi-MannKind License & Collaboration Agreement? It was the agreement with Greenhill that was set up with milestone payments tied into Afrezza sales. It's definitely Deerfield. I got it a bit wrong though - Deerfield and a partner paid $18.9 million for up to $90 million in milestones. Roughly speaking they get paid $5 million for every $50 million of sales. This is the agreement - MILESTONE RIGHTS PURCHASE AGREEMENT
|
|
|
Post by cyn on Mar 17, 2017 12:40:25 GMT -5
I am a practicing finance attorney. Lenders generally always want to restructure a debt rather than foreclose on the collateral. In this case, the TS as an IP is less valuable in the hands of Deerfield than in the hands of Mannkind. Would certainly be interested in your opinion on what sort of terms Deerfield is likely to extract from MNKD for such a restructuring. MNKD doesn't seem to be in a great negotiating position as the money is due and there likely aren't any other willing lenders. There is always the cliched saying that if you borrow $1,000 from a bank and can't pay it's your problem, but if you borrow $20 million from the bank and can't pay it's their problem. Deerfield has probably already made a lot of money shorting MNKD stock, so they may not really be facing the loses it would appear if MNKD defaults. Deerfield type organizations usually aren't shy about extracting a pound of flesh or worse whenever they feel they have the leverage to do so. Thoughts? Spot-on dreamboat! It wouldn't be the first time a debt holder sucks up their pound of flesh (i.e. IP and operations "in-tact") via Chapter 11 restructuring or 363 Sale during distressed cash flow conditions. Happens all the time. My hope is that MNKD ramps up revenues to strengthen negotiating leverage with an impressive, positive growth trajectory and attract new debt players to the table before the Deerfield debt becomes due.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 17, 2017 13:05:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Mar 17, 2017 13:40:27 GMT -5
There are so many of these agreements and rewrites that I find it hard to keep track so I'm fine with people asking.
|
|
|
Post by derek2 on Mar 17, 2017 14:15:39 GMT -5
I am a practicing finance attorney. Lenders generally always want to restructure a debt rather than foreclose on the collateral. In this case, the TS as an IP is less valuable in the hands of Deerfield than in the hands of Mannkind. Would certainly be interested in your opinion on what sort of terms Deerfield is likely to extract from MNKD for such a restructuring. MNKD doesn't seem to be in a great negotiating position as the money is due and there likely aren't any other willing lenders. There is always the cliched saying that if you borrow $1,000 from a bank and can't pay it's your problem, but if you borrow $20 million from the bank and can't pay it's their problem. Deerfield has probably already made a lot of money shorting MNKD stock, so they may not really be facing the loses it would appear if MNKD defaults. Deerfield type organizations usually aren't shy about extracting a pound of flesh or worse whenever they feel they have the leverage to do so. Thoughts? Deerfield is all about Deerfield. It was apparent at the time (and was permissible) that when they converted debt to stock (at a discount) they immediately shorted and locked in the profit of that conversion discount (to the point that they have almost no original skin in the game at this point.) They're not into ownership. They'll only give up payment schedule if they're offered something far more valuable in return. That said, I suspect they don't want to lay claim to assets when a revenue stream would be more profitable and less messy. They're already tied to Afrezza's success with the milestone payments owed by MNKD, so I would assume a debt restructure with a sweetener might work. MNKD should bite the bullet and get rid of that debt as soon as possible. The LOC is tied up as collateral to the Deerfield loan which isn't even that much more than the LOC...
|
|
|
Post by Cowgirl on Mar 17, 2017 14:19:34 GMT -5
Forgot about the nurse educators...but again we'll see how much impact they have over time. Fingers crossed that more formularies, ins. coverage, PA lessening, new sales reps and Nurse educators can turn things around. Scripts should rise but it will be the trajectory that will make the difference.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 17, 2017 14:23:03 GMT -5
Forgot about the nurse educators...but again we'll see how much impact they have over time. Fingers crossed that more formularies, ins. coverage, PA lessening, new sales reps and Nurse educators can turn things around. Scripts should rise but it will be the trajectory that will make the difference. agreed cowgirl.
from the CC Mike C to the point where they’re able to secure favorable payor access in 70% of commercial plans checked in January of this year.
The nurse educator can go to patients home and teach dosing. Go nursing! (with titration packs.) 4,8,12.
|
|