The Prolific Billy Kenber - "Investigations Reporter"So far articles Billy has written about drug "scandal" in UK.
June 7 - 1 so far
June 6 - 1
June 4 - 3
June 3 - 5
Total = 10 articles in 4 days (thus far)
May - 4 stories (1 of these co-written)
April - 8 stories (6 of these co-written)
March - 5 stories (2 of these co-written)
So in the past 4 days Billy has written more articles on his own than in the previous 3 months..
Here are a few of my takeaways.
1. This reporter is writing a lot about this in a very short time. It moves from the Patels to AMCo rather quickly and it is not subtle in doing so. 4 of the first 5 articles on June 3 are about the Patels, the focus changes to AMCo and Cinven afterwards, with little mention of the Patels.
2. I believe that this story arc was supposed to be longer. Introduce the Patels, then over a week or two move the focus to AMCo, the timetable for these articles doesn't make any sense journalistically or from a story telling perspective, as you are putting headline over headline. You are competing with yourself for readers.
3. I believe that this was an attempt to create a "Martin Shkreli" type of event in the UK. Shkreli and Turing were the focus of the press in the US initially, and then Valeant came into focus. It is clear that Valeant was the target there, but the "story" focused on creating outrage over a villain first. After you create a public outrage you go can use it to go after anyone you paint with the same brush.
Now here is the latest article:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/price-rise-loophole-was-approved-by-whitehall-drug-company-claimed-g8wndwcgp
It is behind a pay wall, which is a great way to encourage fair and balanced journalism (and unfortunately for the shorts more difficult to reach eyeballs), but I have ponied up for a subscription. Here is a few choice quotes:
"A drug company allegedly told potential investors that Department of Health officials had approved its strategy of exploiting a loophole in NHS rules, The Times has learnt."
"During a meeting with a US hedge fund last September John Beighton, the chief executive of AMCo, one of the four companies, is said to have explained how this method allowed it to implement price rises with “no restrictions” because generic drugs with no brand name were not subject to a profit cap. He said that the Department of Health “absolutely understands” what the company was doing in side-stepping the profit cap, it is claimed."
"The Times has been told that Mr Beighton said that the government did not mind because it believed the price rises provided an incentive for rival generic manufacturers to enter the market. However, AMCo remains the sole supplier of many of the drugs it makes, in part because of the time it takes to obtain a rival licence from the medicines regulator, the relatively small size of the market and difficult manufacturing processes."
"The meeting with the US hedge fund came shortly after the Canadian company Concordia Healthcare announced that it had agreed to buy AMCo in a deal that valued the company at £2.3 billion. By dropping the brand name of a drug companies are able to petition the government to move a medicine from category C in the NHS drug tariff, which is subject to a profit cap, to category A, which is not."
First of all, potential investors would likely mean when they were marketing a secondary share offering. A lot of hedge funds would have been pitched to and were able to get a lot of knowledge about the business and how it works at that time, unfiltered (you brag about how much money you can make in these meetings, the opposite of what you do in public).
When he says "The Times has been told" Kenber is obviously referring to himself.
The big takeaway from this is that Billy Kenber has a hedge fund source that was at one of these meetings. One that likely approached Kenber (how would Kenber know that this meeting took place otherwise). Why would this individual come forward with this information? Because it is in the British public's interest? Unlikely, the same reason hedge funds do most things. Profit.
The money behind the CXR short is not peanuts, we are talking about a well funded group. They had decided on their plan of attack a long time ago. But the buyout talks forced them to step up their timeline in a big way.
GLTA,
Marcel