|
Post by boytroy88 on Jun 28, 2017 13:34:36 GMT -5
Is the foundation a public entity? If not then how do one know whether they have additional funds or not? Ahhh...didn't notice you had a link...thx
|
|
|
Post by cyn on Jun 28, 2017 13:42:58 GMT -5
View the LOC drawdown as a BK-avoidance "hard-ball", pro-equity strategy. With the LOC now zeroed out, there's no more company-sources for Debtor in Possession (DIP)financing; thereby requiring Deerfield to finance it themselves... and making all parties more motivated to negotiate alternate debt refinancing options than resorting immediately to BK. Go Mike! JMHO
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Jun 28, 2017 13:44:24 GMT -5
It's a double edged sword. 1) They can pay Deerfield without having to dilute through payment with equity. 2) They go deeper into debt with the Mann Group and only buy themselves two months or so before they're back to trying to figure out how to get more money. I think it only postponed the inevitable dilution or (hopefully) rights offering. Dealing in months rather than years is not a viable long-term strategy. without an ex-us deal somewhere I agree. The only positive to the delay would be if there is a meaningful trajectory on TRX. We've seen the beginning of the upward move. Hopefully the curve continues & the SP has moved before dilution. Or perhaps the UAE is legit and simply requires a bit more time hence doing this.
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Jun 28, 2017 13:47:00 GMT -5
The board seems awfully quiet on what I perceive as semi major news...makes me a bit nervous. It is nerve racking but it's a interesting move on Mikes part. Shows confidence. (Also on the Mann Groups part.) Would have been safer to dilute. Agreed - I think it means something IS in the works and they just need a bit more time to dot the I's and cross the T's - JMHO
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jun 28, 2017 13:48:50 GMT -5
Covenants and prior debt arrangements aside, the money for DTC advertising has to come from somewhere. When commercials translate into increases in scripts, this request for remaining credit will look genius. Think Ford, Mulally, pre-auto industry melt-down. I know things have changed since.
That aside, if there is interest in a rights offering, do it. Then with increased capital, increased scripts, increased SP, do one more dilution if needed (and of less harm to LTSH) to put an end to the speculation of MNKD survivability and fill the coffers for immediate, mid term and future needs.
Let's put the basis for the short case to bed.
|
|
|
Post by compound26 on Jun 28, 2017 14:01:15 GMT -5
I think these two questions are related. The poster on SA has posited that the Mann Group assets consist principally of MNKD shares. When the Mann Group was created years ago, the price of MNKD was much higher and so the value of the Mann Group, but after the reverse split the 89 million shares (as reported in the March proxy) are now 17.8 million shares. Those are not worth $30.1 million if they were sold today, so one easy way to "use up" the credit line is to capitalize the interest on the balance sheet into the principal balance. To answer the second question, the company only nets $19 million in new cash. This begs two questions: 1. Where is Mike going to get the money to meet the Deerfield debt covenant come September 30? This transaction pretty much destroys the possibility of making it to September without a default if no additional money is raised since it would have been a squeaker even if the full $30.1 million were still available in cash. 2. Does the Mann Group have the $19 million in cash needed to fund this draw-down, or will they have to sell some or all of their MNKD stock to raise it? As a private entity we really don't know what the rest of their balance sheet looks like, but if they are cash poor they may have negotiated to roll the accrued and unpaid interest into the note as that does not require cash from either side. There could be a lot of shares hitting the market in the coming days if they need to raise the rest of the cash. What is clear is that the company needs some new financing options to materialize very quickly. It seems Deerfield has drawn a line in the sand and there will be not more money coming from that source, and now the Mann Group is tapped out as well. Matt, you and reverselo may be correct regarding Deerfield, but there is another possibility. Another partial cash payment and partial exchange for stock, as in April, could require MNKD to obtain the cash through the Mann loan. Frankly, I do not know which way it will go. What I do know is that the last time MNKD engaged Greenhill, we got the Sanofi deal. I hope they do better this time. The question I have is: Does hiring Greenhill mean that MNKD is already in serious discussions with a potential partner and needs advice on structuring the deal or that MNKD is desperate to find someone interested in partnering?I think what Matt P. stated below (when Mannkind engaged Greenhill last time) probably can help us understand what Greenhill will be able to do for Mannknind. By the way, I do not think Mannkind got a bad deal with Sanofi. I is just unfortunate that there was a CEO change at Sanofi after the partnership agreement was signed. MannKind's Management Presents at Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference (Transcript)seekingalpha.com/article/1685672-mannkinds-management-presents-at-morgan-stanley-healthcare-conference-transcriptSeptember 10, 2013 3:30 PM ET Executives Matthew J. Pfeffer – Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer The other question everybody always ask about is partnering, we do expect to ultimately partner this product. And we did announce during the call where we presented the results that we started a formal process, which is sort of code word for how that moves forward and engaged an external advisor Greenhill to help us with that effort given we’re a relatively small company and a relatively compact business development group, it’s nice to have some people who have done this a bunch more times than we have helping guide the process. This is not identifying partners, obviously we’ve been speaking to most of these folks for a long time. It’s really kind of sheparding the process through helping us with some of the analyses and making sure we get the best deal possible.
|
|
|
Post by silentknight on Jun 28, 2017 14:15:38 GMT -5
Matt, you and reverselo may be correct regarding Deerfield, but there is another possibility. Another partial cash payment and partial exchange for stock, as in April, could require MNKD to obtain the cash through the Mann loan. Frankly, I do not know which way it will go. What I do know is that the last time MNKD engaged Greenhill, we got the Sanofi deal. I hope they do better this time. The question I have is: Does hiring Greenhill mean that MNKD is already in serious discussions with a potential partner and needs advice on structuring the deal or that MNKD is desperate to find someone interested in partnering?I think what Matt P. stated below (when Mannkind engaged Greenhill last time) probably can help us understand what Greenhill will be able to do for Mannknind. By the way, I do not think Mannkind got a bad deal with Sanofi. I is just unfortunate that there was a CEO change at Sanofi after the partnership agreement was signed. MannKind's Management Presents at Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference (Transcript)seekingalpha.com/article/1685672-mannkinds-management-presents-at-morgan-stanley-healthcare-conference-transcriptSeptember 10, 2013 3:30 PM ET Executives Matthew J. Pfeffer – Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer The other question everybody always ask about is partnering, we do expect to ultimately partner this product. And we did announce during the call where we presented the results that we started a formal process, which is sort of code word for how that moves forward and engaged an external advisor Greenhill to help us with that effort given we’re a relatively small company and a relatively compact business development group, it’s nice to have some people who have done this a bunch more times than we have helping guide the process. This is not identifying partners, obviously we’ve been speaking to most of these folks for a long time. It’s really kind of sheparding the process through helping us with some of the analyses and making sure we get the best deal possible. Personally, I do. Without opening old wounds and discussing a past long gone, the terms of the deal essentially gave all control to Sanofi and none to MNKD for what was, in hindsight, very little upfront cash. If Greenhill can't negotiate or SHEPHARD MNKD to a better deal than that, I'd rather MNKD stop associating themselves with them. The Sanofi deal harmed MNKD greatly. I'm sure the change in CEO had something to do with it, but the deal should have been better. I can only hope MNKD ensures it has greater control over it's on destiny this go round, if that opportunity ever presents itself again.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 28, 2017 15:21:25 GMT -5
Ahhh...didn't notice you had a link...thx The link provided was to the Alfred Mann Foundation for Scientific Research. Then there is The Mann Group LLC, a Delaware LLC (who is the lender in this case) and also the Alfred Mann Living Trust (who is the managing member of Mann Group LLC). Those are three separate legal entities. The entity that sold stock in EYES was the Living Trust, not the Mann Group LLC. Also, The Mann Living Trust is the sole member and manager of The Mann Group, meaning that it is a for-profit privately held corporation that is not required to report publicly, and in that sense it is black box to us. If you know how to do it you can track down the registration to Delaware, but there the trail will end. As near as I can tell, the Mann Group LLC is the successor to The Mann Group Inc., a Delaware Corporation. A corporation and an LLC are similar entities, both providing limited liability, but the LLC is cheaper and easier to administer so most closely held corporations are not incorporated anymore and exist in the LLC form. The structure suggests that Al used this entity for many years prior to his death to hold his interests in various companies. As those companies were sold, spun-off, the shares donated to charities (like the foundation), and other dispositions happened, most of the assets could have been drained off (or not). Since the LLC was accountable to one man during life, and to his estate following his death, absolutely anything could have happened to the underlying assets, and that would be a matter that is between the LLC and the IRS. As a matter of good estate planning, I expect the LLC was stripped clean of anything valuable with the proceeds shifted to the trust prior to Mr. Mann's death. That is the entire purpose of separate legal entities as they build a legal wall between your personal assets and your business affairs. Since Mannkind was the only significant holding in which Mr. Mann was active (after EYES was sold off), I suspect that the LLC remained solely to manage the credit line and the related obligations. At any rate, the trustees of the Living Trust are there to protect the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust and they will not be risking a penny to prop up Mannkind when their fiduciary obligation is to the beneficiaries.
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Jun 28, 2017 17:25:09 GMT -5
My question to experts on this board is: can Mann Group actually refuse this request from MNKD? I wondered about that as well. Saying they submitted the request seems to imply that it could be rejected. If you're a CEO of a publicly traded company that has to disclose this information, don't you think you would discuss it ahead of time with the Mann Group and then only make your PUBLIC statement once the deal was agreed upon? If Mike announced the deal prior to discussions with the Mann Group then he has no right to be CEO.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jun 28, 2017 19:33:32 GMT -5
I wondered about that as well. Saying they submitted the request seems to imply that it could be rejected. If you're a CEO of a publicly traded company that has to disclose this information, don't you think you would discuss it ahead of time with the Mann Group and then only make your PUBLIC statement once the deal was agreed upon? If Mike announced the deal prior to discussions with the Mann Group then he has no right to be CEO. No duh:-)
|
|
|
Post by letitride on Jun 28, 2017 22:38:50 GMT -5
If the Mann group failed to back this you can be pretty sure all longs can just place their heads between their legs and kiss their own asses good bye. I'm not sure how you could drop a Bill on this and say oppppppppppps my bad I'm done now.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jun 29, 2017 3:11:44 GMT -5
Ahhh...didn't notice you had a link...thx The link provided was to the Alfred Mann Foundation for Scientific Research. Then there is The Mann Group LLC, a Delaware LLC (who is the lender in this case) and also the Alfred Mann Living Trust (who is the managing member of Mann Group LLC). Those are three separate legal entities. The entity that sold stock in EYES was the Living Trust, not the Mann Group LLC. Also, The Mann Living Trust is the sole member and manager of The Mann Group, meaning that it is a for-profit privately held corporation that is not required to report publicly, and in that sense it is black box to us. If you know how to do it you can track down the registration to Delaware, but there the trail will end. As near as I can tell, the Mann Group LLC is the successor to The Mann Group Inc., a Delaware Corporation. A corporation and an LLC are similar entities, both providing limited liability, but the LLC is cheaper and easier to administer so most closely held corporations are not incorporated anymore and exist in the LLC form. The structure suggests that Al used this entity for many years prior to his death to hold his interests in various companies. As those companies were sold, spun-off, the shares donated to charities (like the foundation), and other dispositions happened, most of the assets could have been drained off (or not). Since the LLC was accountable to one man during life, and to his estate following his death, absolutely anything could have happened to the underlying assets, and that would be a matter that is between the LLC and the IRS. As a matter of good estate planning, I expect the LLC was stripped clean of anything valuable with the proceeds shifted to the trust prior to Mr. Mann's death. That is the entire purpose of separate legal entities as they build a legal wall between your personal assets and your business affairs. Since Mannkind was the only significant holding in which Mr. Mann was active (after EYES was sold off), I suspect that the LLC remained solely to manage the credit line and the related obligations. At any rate, the trustees of the Living Trust are there to protect the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust and they will not be risking a penny to prop up Mannkind when their fiduciary obligation is to the beneficiaries. On all the Form 4s it states that the Common Stock that was sold in EYES were all Indirectly Owned by Incumed LLC. Only 5,218,420 sold were Directly owned by the Alfred E. Mann Living Trust and done so in a private sale to group of individual accredited private investors. The Mann Group LLC has nothing to do with EYES. EYES = Alfred E. Mann Living Trust and Incumed LLC MNKD = Alfred E. Mann Living Trust and Mann Group LLC
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jun 29, 2017 5:11:27 GMT -5
Is there really a discussion that the Trust is not going to come up with the money and Mike did not talk to them prior to the PR?
Al Mann developed the greatest advance in diabetes care in 95 years. Al knew it. His family knows it and the Trust knows it. Al and the rest of us thought the doctors would realize how great afrezza was especially for the T2s and start prescribing immediately. We gave the doctors too much credit and BP not enough as they have done everything to stop it. Now I see a major push for Trulicity has been obsoleted by afrezza. With the CGMs and people start seeing 200+ spikes at mealtime things will change and afrezza will become the T2 standard but it will take time.
I thought the major news was Greenhill was back. IMO they would not have taken the engagement unless they thought they had a deal. The question is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by promann on Jun 29, 2017 5:28:44 GMT -5
Is there really a discussion that the Trust is not going to come up with the money and Mike did not talk to them prior to the PR? Al Mann developed the greatest advance in diabetes care in 95 years. Al knew it. His family knows it and the Trust knows it. Al and the rest of us thought the doctors would realize how great afrezza was especially for the T2s and start prescribing immediately. We gave the doctors too much credit and BP not enough as they have done everything to stop it. Now I see a major push for Trulicity has been obsoleted by afrezza. With the CGMs and people start seeing 200+ spikes at mealtime things will change and afrezza will become the T2 standard but it will take time. I thought the major news was Greenhill was back. IMO they would not have taken the engagement unless they thought they had a deal. The question is what it is. Greenhill being back is very interesting, I wonder if they feel bad about the Sanofi fiasco they got MNKD into. I hope they will be working pro bono sort of speak to get MNKD a deal with cash. What's also interesting is what kind of deal MNKD is looking for is it a US partner ,a buyout, or maybe a just a huge invester wanting a percentage with a huge stake in MNKD . Whatever it is it's about cash and share holder value which is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by promann on Jun 29, 2017 5:38:09 GMT -5
I wonder how the market will perceive this news today. I can see Spencer's head line but I don't care to say.. MNKD Mannkind Maxes out its last credit card.. By spencer this morning. No clicks from me. 😠
|
|