|
Post by matt on Nov 10, 2017 15:01:55 GMT -5
A couple of years ago a form from Mannkind was filed but it was classified as "private." I do not know why the government would allow the doc not to be made public. I remember the document would be private for a couple of years. I would love to know why "private" for a couple of years? Does anyone remember this situation and what year this document would be made public? Confidential treatment orders are common and the SEC permits them otherwise competitors would have full visibility to important documents. However, when a CTO is issued it is generally limited to specific terms and conditions so the contracts read like this: Licensee will pay licensor a royalty equal to XX% of sales so long as cumulative sales are less than $XXXXXXX, and a royalty of XX% of sales once cumulative sales exceed $XXXX The general existence of the contract, who the parties are, or the subject matter are public record but the specific economic terms are obscured. Normally a CTO applies for five years, but the period can be extended.
|
|
|
Touchpoint
Nov 10, 2017 15:47:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by itellthefuture777 on Nov 10, 2017 15:47:39 GMT -5
A couple of years ago a form from Mannkind was filed but it was classified as "private." I do not know why the government would allow the doc not to be made public. I remember the document would be private for a couple of years. I would love to know why "private" for a couple of years? Does anyone remember this situation and what year this document would be made public? Confidential treatment orders are common and the SEC permits them otherwise competitors would have full visibility to important documents. However, when a CTO is issued it is generally limited to specific terms and conditions so the contracts read like this: Licensee will pay licensor a royalty equal to XX% of sales so long as cumulative sales are less than $XXXXXXX, and a royalty of XX% of sales once cumulative sales exceed $XXXX The general existence of the contract, who the parties are, or the subject matter are public record but the specific economic terms are obscured. Normally a CTO applies for five years, but the period can be extended. www.sbir.gov/sbc/technovax-inc
|
|
|
Touchpoint
Nov 10, 2017 15:48:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by itellthefuture777 on Nov 10, 2017 15:48:18 GMT -5
Confidential treatment orders are common and the SEC permits them otherwise competitors would have full visibility to important documents. However, when a CTO is issued it is generally limited to specific terms and conditions so the contracts read like this: Licensee will pay licensor a royalty equal to XX% of sales so long as cumulative sales are less than $XXXXXXX, and a royalty of XX% of sales once cumulative sales exceed $XXXX The general existence of the contract, who the parties are, or the subject matter are public record but the specific economic terms are obscured. Normally a CTO applies for five years, but the period can be extended. www.sbir.gov/sbc/technovax-inc www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1252339
|
|
|
Touchpoint
Nov 10, 2017 15:50:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by itellthefuture777 on Nov 10, 2017 15:50:51 GMT -5
Confidential treatment orders are common and the SEC permits them otherwise competitors would have full visibility to important documents. However, when a CTO is issued it is generally limited to specific terms and conditions so the contracts read like this: Licensee will pay licensor a royalty equal to XX% of sales so long as cumulative sales are less than $XXXXXXX, and a royalty of XX% of sales once cumulative sales exceed $XXXX The general existence of the contract, who the parties are, or the subject matter are public record but the specific economic terms are obscured. Normally a CTO applies for five years, but the period can be extended. www.sbir.gov/sbc/technovax-inc www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1252339www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/872911
|
|
|
Post by yash on Nov 10, 2017 23:02:44 GMT -5
Sports where did you find the date 17-Nov-17? I remember about the confidential document between MNKD and SNY but thought after the breakup and handover nothing should be confidential. Someone sent me the filing. I can not remember who it was. ( So many are into this! ) I just remember the date because I bought a few calls to play it. Thanks. I hope the confidential document is about if SNY break the partnership then they would pay 1B on this day and MNKD is free to announce another BP.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Nov 10, 2017 23:19:54 GMT -5
Sports where did you find the date 17-Nov-17? I remember about the confidential document between MNKD and SNY but thought after the breakup and handover nothing should be confidential. Someone sent me the filing. I can not remember who it was. ( So many are into this! ) I just remember the date because I bought a few calls to play it. was it something like a two year confidentiality agreement? the redactions will be removed?
Brentie and others probably remember.
|
|
|
Post by brentie on Nov 11, 2017 0:23:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 11, 2017 6:59:28 GMT -5
Someone sent me the filing. I can not remember who it was. ( So many are into this! ) I just remember the date because I bought a few calls to play it. was it something like a two year confidentiality agreement? the redactions will be removed?
Brentie and others probably remember.
It may have something to do with MNKD and SNY sales projections that they wanted kept confidential. Or SNY agreeing to buy in if those sales projections were met? Obviously they were not met. But it would let us know more about what SNY intentions were.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Nov 11, 2017 9:01:14 GMT -5
was it something like a two year confidentiality agreement? the redactions will be removed?
Brentie and others probably remember.
It may have something to do with MNKD and SNY sales projections that they wanted kept confidential. Or SNY agreeing to buy in if those sales projections were met? Obviously they were not met. But it would let us know more about what SNY intentions were. I think everyone would be surprised at some of the numbers that fill those blank spaces, I can only imagine what Al was expecting financially to let this go. I’d say no less than $50/share pre-split. it would be great to get to see what was redacted, but I doubt we will.
|
|
|
Post by yash on Nov 11, 2017 21:07:48 GMT -5
It may have something to do with MNKD and SNY sales projections that they wanted kept confidential. Or SNY agreeing to buy in if those sales projections were met? Obviously they were not met. But it would let us know more about what SNY intentions were. I think everyone would be surprised at some of the numbers that fill those blank spaces, I can only imagine what Al was expecting financially to let this go. I’d say no less than $50/share pre-split. it would be great to get to see what was redacted, but I doubt we will. oh.. now I understand why MNKD is keeping their sales low until 17-Nov-17 so that SNY cannot make hostile takeover...
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Nov 11, 2017 21:37:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Nov 13, 2017 7:38:27 GMT -5
I wonder why the Dutch limited partnership? MANNKIND CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, having a principal place of business at 28903 North Avenue Paine, Valencia, California 91355, USA (“MannKind”), TECHNOSPHERE INTERNATIONAL C.V., a Dutch limited partnership, having a principal place of business at 1097 JB Amsterdam, Prins Bernhardplein 200, Netherlands (“TICV”), MANNKIND NETHERLANDS B.V., a Dutch limited liability company, having a principal place of business at 1097 JB Amsterdam, Prins Bernhardplein 200, Netherlands (“BV” and together with MannKind and TICV, jointly and severally, the “Licensors”) i could not not find any reference to a Nov 17, 2017 date (release of full document for public disclosure).
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Nov 13, 2017 12:06:21 GMT -5
I wonder why the Dutch limited partnership? MANNKIND CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, having a principal place of business at 28903 North Avenue Paine, Valencia, California 91355, USA (“MannKind”), TECHNOSPHERE INTERNATIONAL C.V., a Dutch limited partnership, having a principal place of business at 1097 JB Amsterdam, Prins Bernhardplein 200, Netherlands (“TICV”), MANNKIND NETHERLANDS B.V., a Dutch limited liability company, having a principal place of business at 1097 JB Amsterdam, Prins Bernhardplein 200, Netherlands (“BV” and together with MannKind and TICV, jointly and severally, the “Licensors”) i could not not find any reference to a Nov 17, 2017 date (release of full document for public disclosure). It's a common European tax structure. I expect you will find that there is an Irish company as well. Have a look at Dutch Sandwich.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Nov 13, 2017 12:30:12 GMT -5
I wonder why the Dutch limited partnership? MANNKIND CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, having a principal place of business at 28903 North Avenue Paine, Valencia, California 91355, USA (“MannKind”), TECHNOSPHERE INTERNATIONAL C.V., a Dutch limited partnership, having a principal place of business at 1097 JB Amsterdam, Prins Bernhardplein 200, Netherlands (“TICV”), MANNKIND NETHERLANDS B.V., a Dutch limited liability company, having a principal place of business at 1097 JB Amsterdam, Prins Bernhardplein 200, Netherlands (“BV” and together with MannKind and TICV, jointly and severally, the “Licensors”) i could not not find any reference to a Nov 17, 2017 date (release of full document for public disclosure). It's a common European tax structure. I expect you will find that there is an Irish company as well. Have a look at Dutch Sandwich. Another common method of avoiding income tax is to consistently lose money hand over fist.
|
|
|
Post by yash on Nov 17, 2017 2:42:44 GMT -5
Is today (17-Nov-17) the day when confidential document details between MNKD and SNY are made public?
Epic, Embarrassment of riches, turnaround ??
|
|