Vectura Share Discussion Threads

[polaris] 13/9/2019 14:50

judgement details now published on Justia:

[base7] 13/9/2019 13:47

As I said previously,perhaps HBM have decided to hold their remaining stake with view to our growing cash pile ,special dividends,buy back program, & , most importantly, our potential at very long last to exceed expectations.
Interesting to see if Paul Fry buys any shares now the results & the GSK outcomes have been published.He should know as well as anyone what our potential is.

[alexchry] 13/9/2019 13:41

a1ord53-you must be looking in the wrong place, I checked last week and they had many, many millions as polaris confirmed.

[polaris] 13/9/2019 13:22

p15 HBM still held almost 28M shares at the end of June 2019 (4.2% of the existing share capital), the last full Qly report. However, that was a reduction of 13.64M on the Q1 report.

If they have continued to sell at the same rate in Q3 then they will be under 20M by now.

[cockneytrader] 13/9/2019 13:10

Jftm - you can expect a time line of 6 - 12 months. I believe only interest would be accrued.

[justiceforthemany] 13/9/2019 13:00

If GSK do appeal how long would the process take and could the award to Vectura be increased?

[a1ord53] 13/9/2019 12:50

I checked HBM Partners site and no Vectura neither in current portfolio nor in past portfolio. Only in past portfolio mentioned SKY Pharma merge with Vectura.
So it looks like HBM got rid of Vectura completely.

So no more stock liquidity from HBM.

hxxps://www.hbmpartners.com/en/portfolio/index.php#tab_b4b280466dff33af095911481e48083e_1

[cityfarmer] 13/9/2019 12:32

Thanks Cotton I think you are correct

[cottonpickers] 13/9/2019 12:14

That I believe was the enhanced damages which was rejected

[cityfarmer] 13/9/2019 12:07

taking this from the RNS "The jury also found that GSK's infringement was wilful and, in addition to filing a claim for damages for the period from January 2019 to expiry of the patent in June 2021, Vectura has therefore applied for further damages for wilful infringement." is this claim for wilful infringement still to come?

[polaris] 13/9/2019 11:58

Stated aim is to become a contract development and manufacturing organisation. They are making progress on that front and aligning available resources. Company looking more and more like a bolt on to a larger generics company. No current CEO and a huge cash pile. Surely someone is going to take a stab at this in the next few months.

[richman777114] 13/9/2019 11:49

let me add that the sales at 78p were only made to fund what i believed were better opportunities elsewhereIMHO the stock has always been dirt cheap at under £1

[richman777114] 13/9/2019 11:43

polaris,it's certainly getting interesting nowi'm an ex SKP holder who has sold down from 140p to 78p-only got 35k left but also a 400k spread bet which i've rolled over umpteen timeslooking for 110p+ here

[alexchry] 13/9/2019 11:43

I will be satisfied with 135p+ as that was the price I could have got if I had had the sense to sell when the advair generic failed to get approval initially. I feel a little more optimistic since the court judgement but a long way to go.

[polaris] 13/9/2019 11:42

For 2019-2021 the EPS will now approach 10p due to the royalty payments. At the same time VEC can develop generic Ellipta device. Cash pile at end 2019 equivalent to £130M assuming GSK cough up. share price today is 84p and shares in issue will be sub 600M by year end. Answers on a postcard for value at YE.

[polaris] 13/9/2019 11:29

That's why I hold 250k of these. Still think the best parts are to come.

[richman777114] 13/9/2019 11:27

polaris,damages awarded, no retrial and slim chance of successful appealgeneric ellipta threatcaretaker CEOI see one pretty likely outcome hereIMHO of course

[polaris] 13/9/2019 11:13

With the update today that is around $107M plus the 3% royalty rate on certain products, probably worth close to $30M p.a. until patent expiry. That's £80M or a little over 12p per share before the royalties. What to GSK do now? That's the $160+M question...

[popper joe] 13/9/2019 10:48

Another $6m in interest to add to the pot.

[fhmktg] 13/9/2019 10:32

Going to appeal has dangers to both sides, but more so for GSK.The higher court could find fault with Judge Andrews findings of guilt, though in giving his updated rulings he will have consulted with his clerks and probably with a specialist colleague to avoid a retrial finding from the appeal bench.His process for managing the case will be looked at though there is no indication from GSK that he has made procedural errors.The risk to GSK is that the Circuit court might view their appeal a purely a delaying tactic and increase the penalties.Delaware is seen as the most professional state for patent case hearings, that's why companies start the processes there.If GSK loose any appeal that's almost certainly the end of the road for them.They could, of course simply throw the hat in now.Overall a win for VEC opens the way for the Ellipta generics and validates VEC's strategy.All to play for!

[polaris] 13/9/2019 09:44

GSK will obviously appeal but they are likely to lose. Shame about the legal fees too but it's still $100M plus continuing infringement...

[alex2727] 13/9/2019 09:36

Vectura Gets $10M Added To $90M Inhaler IP Award
By Mike LaSusa

Law360 (September 12, 2019, 10:37 PM EDT) -- A Delaware federal judge on Thursday granted British pharma company Vectura's request for $10.5 million in supplemental damages in a case in which a jury found GlaxoSmithKline willfully infringed a patent covering inhalers, though the judge denied Vectura's bid for an additional $33 million in enhanced damages.

U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews said he saw no reason not to award Vectura Ltd. about $10.5 million in supplemental damages for continued sale of the infringing inhalers after the litigation started.

GSK had argued the bid for supplemental damages was time-barred because it was filed a day late, but Judge Andrews swept that argument aside.

"Defendants make no other argument regarding the propriety of supplemental damages beyond asserting two corrections to [Vectura's] supplemental damages number," he said. "Accordingly, I will award plaintiff supplemental damages."

However, Judge Andrews refused to grant Vectura's bid for $33 million in enhanced damages on top of the nearly $90 million a jury awarded the drugmaker in May for GSK's infringement.

After weighing a number of factors, including the time frame of the infringement and the closeness of the case, the judge decided not to greenlight the enhanced damages.

"The arguments do not persuade me that the facts of this case are egregious," he said. "Therefore, despite the jury's finding of willful infringement, I do not think enhanced damages are warranted."

The judge also declined to award Vectura attorney fees based on similar logic.

"I do not think plaintiff has shown that defendants' noninfringement and invalidity theories were frivolous or unreasonable," he said. "Nor did defendants engage in litigation misconduct or unprofessional behavior."

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

In a bid for a new trial in June, GSK called the $90 million the jury awarded in damages "wildly inflated," arguing that it had done nothing willful and proved at trial that the patent was obvious. Just a few weeks later, however, Vectura asked for an addition $44 million on top of the initial amount.

Judge Andrews rejected GSK's bid for a new trial in a Tuesday order. Court records indicate GSK is planning to appeal the outcome.

Neither side responded Thursday to requests for comment.

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 Ltd. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al., case number 1:16-cv-00638, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Alex

[polaris] 13/9/2019 09:36

So VEC denied the other $33.5M in punitive damages. So be it. Lets have that final case decision, the RNS and move on.

[frazboy] 13/9/2019 09:33

Anyone have access to the full article?

[taffy100] 13/9/2019 09:04

Vectura Gets $10M Added To $90M Inhaler IP Award