Vectura Share Discussion Threads

[best1467] 30/6/2019 19:58

My reasoning was the current valuation of Vec if GSK lose the case along with Uk appeal you are looking at around 50% of the current market cap in damages or more then they look at the potential risk to the Ellipta range and it becomes very attractive to GSK. Then we have the strong chance that Hikima would not be happy with GSK as a partner so along comes the counter bid.I would also see Hikima making a takeover approach if they start to see the right data from the Ellipta trial similar thing happened when SKP fluitform partner tried a sneaky approach but they didn’t quite have the cash to take it private but no worries on that front with a Hikima.
But looking to the here and now the chart looks very bullish to me signalling a 90p breakout this week.

[diesel] 28/6/2019 23:19

I don't see GSK being interested in Vec on the basis of losing the patent case, maybe on the basis of developing generic Ellipta product but it's early days there.

[alexchry] 28/6/2019 21:29

Anything over 130p would suit me though that seems quite a stretch from where we are now.

[justiceforthemany] 28/6/2019 18:06

Telegraph touted 175p/share a year or two back but usual premium is 30%.

[pooroldboy55] 28/6/2019 16:22

So not all bad news.but who to replace him with??

[jimboyce] 28/6/2019 16:21

Today is Ward Liiley's last day at the job.

[best1467] 28/6/2019 15:25

Not sure they would have much of a say if it looks likely vectors will win this Case I would see a GSK bid swiftly followed by Hikma

[boadicea] 28/6/2019 13:18

Would VEC's various partners in other projects be happy to see a GSK takeover?
If not, then what?

[richman777114] 28/6/2019 12:53

seems to be a plausible scenarioall IMHO DYOR

[jimboyce] 28/6/2019 12:34

150p a share minimum, or 175p if it's GSK! : --))

[polaris] 28/6/2019 12:26

no comment ;-)

[richman777114] 28/6/2019 12:24

Polaris,CEO gone+Application for enhanced damages against GSK+generic Ellipta competitive threat=GSK bid?Regards,

[polaris] 28/6/2019 12:04

VEC playing the small company card in the face of the large multi-national. The loss of revenues impacted other developments that would have been possible. It's a rather tried and tested heart-string story but, given the background, is likely to see a positive result. GSK knew exactly what they were doing and probably thought they could grind VEC into the ground in any bogged down litigation. I am pleased that VEC are pushing this and it remains to be seen what the judge makes of it all. There is also the remaining lifetime of the '991 patent in the US and what this means for payments from GSK to VEC. Further, in any final ruling, there will be the establishment of who pays legal costs to take into account. Only after the full ruling is published can GSK look to make a formal appeal.

[greenc] 28/6/2019 11:53

The latest from Delaware :

Vectura Demands Another $44M In Inhaler IP Clash


Law360 (June 27, 2019, 6:30 PM EDT) -- British pharma company Vectura has asked a Delaware federal judge to pile another nearly $44 million onto the damages GlaxoSmithKline owes after a jury found GSK willfully infringed a patent covering inhalers, saying the company is still selling the products and doesn’t plan to stop.

Vectura Limited asked Tuesday for about $10.5 million in supplemental damages for continued sale of the infringing inhalers from Jan. 1 through May 16 and for more than $33 million in enhanced damages on top of the nearly $90 million a jury said GSK owes for the infringement.

“There is no indication that GSK intends to cease selling its infringing products or to modify its infringing products, which supports enhancing damages,” a brief in support of the request says.

A jury found in May that GSK willfully infringed one claim of a Vectura patent covering a method that produces better dispersion by inhalers in GSK's line of Ellipta products, including Breo Ellipta, Anoro Ellipta and Incruse Ellipta. The judge affirmed the verdict about two weeks after it was announced.

Vectura argued Tuesday that internal and prelitigation communications show that U.K.-based GSK never really believed that its inhalers didn’t step on Vectura's '991 patent. In the brief, Vectura also accused GSK of “deliberately” copying its invention to come up with a commercially viable product. GSK believed it could infringe the patent because Vectura “would not have the stomach” to sue, the brief says.

Vectura sued GSK in 2016, the day after GSK said it would not license additional patents under a 2010 licensing agreement between the parties.

Earlier this month in a bid for a new trial, GSK called the original damages “wildly inflated,” arguing that it had done nothing willful and proved at trial that the patent was obvious.

GSK accused Vectura of basing its royalty estimates off “the entire market value” of the Ellipta inhaler line without apportioning the invention’s value.

Vectura said Tuesday that the harm infringement would cause to the small research and development company should have been obvious to GSK. “The evidence shows that Vectura’s business is dependent on licensing its patented technologies, and that the loss of revenue from licensing to GSK impacted development work that might otherwise have occurred,” the brief says.

The extra damages are a drop in the bucket for a company that pulled in nearly $40 billion in the last fiscal year, Vectura said, arguing that would not have a material impact on GSK.

Counsel for the parties did not respond to a request for comment on the request for enhanced damages.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,303,991.

Vectura is represented by Kelly E. Farnan and Christine D. Haynes of Richards Layton & Finger PA and Dominick A. Conde, Christopher P. Borello and Damien N. Dombrowski of Venable LLP.

GSK is represented by Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP and Martin J. Black, Kevin M. Flannery, Robert Ashbrook, Sharon K. Gagliardi, Blake B. Greene and Katherine A. Helm of Dechert LLP.

The case is Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Glaxo Group Ltd., case number 1:16-cv-00638, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

[diesel] 28/6/2019 11:23

We're pushing towards new highs for over a year, this is getting very encouraging..

[diesel] 25/6/2019 19:22

I wonder if they are waiting for it to get above 100p before announcing a share buyback programme!

[insideryou] 25/6/2019 17:57

The whole financial stock market world is a criminal empire where billionaire insiders use it as their wealth creating machines.

[pooroldboy55] 25/6/2019 16:33

Poss this is what has been pushing price up last few days. UT price again above offer if that means anything ??

[polaris] 25/6/2019 16:27

Assume that RNS just out is wrong...don't they mean £0.863764 per share? If they bought today then i'd be unhappy with not being able to get 0.863764p per share too. ;-)

[pooroldboy55] 25/6/2019 14:54

Go along with all that Paul as you say totally illegal but nothing will ever be done about it.

[polaris] 25/6/2019 14:41

Someone trading via CFD or SB IMO. If the company is not meeting the full position in the market then it is rather easy to set buy and sell limits and, if you are also in control of the order book in a thinly traded stock, then move the price to trigger the limits. Of course, this is the very definition of stock manipulation and is illegal. However, how do you really prove it?

I mean, honestly, the last few days have seen the price edge up on volumes up to 1m per day and then a 3.5% fall follows on a volume of 30k. That smells like a sardine left to ripen in the sun! Bear in mind that the total volume for today so far is around 800k. The VWAP has to be around 87.

classic order book collapse...IMO

[insideryou] 25/6/2019 14:32

Who in your opinion is doing this as a strategy?

[pooroldboy55] 25/6/2019 14:25

Looks like classic pump and dump with large trades coming after close.