|
|
Post by dinvestor89 on Mar 8, 2018 15:30:23 GMT -5
It feels like, to me, their "partnership" was designed to kill off Mnkd. Their efforts were effortless. Bad faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by liane on Mar 8, 2018 15:33:04 GMT -5
Uhhhh... because we settled with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Mar 8, 2018 15:54:47 GMT -5
It feels like, to me, their "partnership" was designed to kill off Mnkd. Their efforts were effortless. Bad faith. Sanofi wrote the contract. MNKD could not sue them. It had to go to arbitration. I can not remember the settlement. Was it 165 million dollars? ADDED; no it wasn't 165 million. |
|
|
|
Post by liane on Mar 8, 2018 15:59:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Mar 8, 2018 16:16:27 GMT -5
It feels like, to me, their "partnership" was designed to kill off Mnkd. Their efforts were effortless. Bad faith. I get the spirit of your question. I personally concur that they were very conservative based on the risk map of coverage, history of inhaled insulin and the heavily burdened label. Outright sabotage, hmmm, uhhh, not sure but this has been beaten to death in the past. The deal could have been better perhaps and maybe we should poke at that to inform future deals. After all, good agreements make long friends. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Mar 8, 2018 17:01:38 GMT -5
It feels like, to me, their "partnership" was designed to kill off Mnkd. Their efforts were effortless. Bad faith. I get the spirit of your question. I personally concur that they were very conservative based on the risk map of coverage, history of inhaled insulin and the heavily burdened label. Outright sabotage, hmmm, uhhh, not sure but this has been beaten to death in the past. The deal could have been better perhaps and maybe we should poke at that to inform future deals. After all, good agreements make long friends. Deal should have allowed SNY to pull out earlier. Forcing them to stay in a minimum time just wasted valuable time and spread the perception that Afrezza was failure. MNKD should also have been smart enough to raise capital while we still had multi-billion market cap. Then a quick SNY exit would have allowed MNKD to jump in much sooner and get going with necessary trials needed for payer/provider acceptance. |
|
|
|
Post by robbmo on Mar 8, 2018 17:47:36 GMT -5
It feels like, to me, their "partnership" was designed to kill off Mnkd. Their efforts were effortless. Bad faith. Sanofi wrote the contract. MNKD could not sue them. It had to go to arbitration. I can not remember the settlement. Was it 165 million dollars? ADDED; no it wasn't 165 million. I believe it was ~$270 M. Loan ~$70ish M, insulin purchase ~$40ish M, we go to keep the upfront cash of $150M Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/9674/why-suing-sanofi?page=1#ixzz59CTxSuox |
|
|
|
Post by dinvestor89 on Mar 8, 2018 18:47:00 GMT -5
I get the spirit of your question. I personally concur that they were very conservative based on the risk map of coverage, history of inhaled insulin and the heavily burdened label. Outright sabotage, hmmm, uhhh, not sure but this has been beaten to death in the past. The deal could have been better perhaps and maybe we should poke at that to inform future deals. After all, good agreements make long friends. Deal should have allowed SNY to pull out earlier. Forcing them to stay in a minimum time just wasted valuable time and spread the perception that Afrezza was failure. MNKD should also have been smart enough to raise capital while we still had multi-billion market cap. Then a quick SNY exit would have allowed MNKD to jump in much sooner and get going with necessary trials needed for payer/provider acceptance. Ah so there was a minimum time Sanofi had to stay? I would like to know who negotiated that. Smh. I still smell fraud. Arbitration clause? How convenient, for Sanofi. Sounds more and more like a design to kill off Mnkd. |
|
|
|
Post by robbmo on Mar 8, 2018 19:15:50 GMT -5
Deal should have allowed SNY to pull out earlier. Forcing them to stay in a minimum time just wasted valuable time and spread the perception that Afrezza was failure. MNKD should also have been smart enough to raise capital while we still had multi-billion market cap. Then a quick SNY exit would have allowed MNKD to jump in much sooner and get going with necessary trials needed for payer/provider acceptance. Ah so there was a minimum time Sanofi had to stay? I would like to know who negotiated that. Smh. I still smell fraud. Arbitration clause? How convenient, for Sanofi. Sounds more and more like a design to kill off Mnkd. I disagree with the sabotage concept, and believe that if Viehbacher hadn't been fired, we would have had a different outcome. He had the vision, and knew how to make a successful product. The kiss of death was when Brandicourt took over. The positive side is we got to learn what not to do from their mistakes, and get to watch Brandicourt ruin their company. Overall, I think it was a good thing, and we are in a better place now than we have been in a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by kc on Mar 8, 2018 21:29:17 GMT -5
Asked and answered since the termination period. Need to end this thread and move on. Mod..... Pull the plug and lock it down.
|
|
