RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Cohodes Short SummaryCookieMonster, thank you for posting useful information. Although long, I ALWAYS like to hear both sides of the story.
From the article, its clear that the maxium fine would be 10% of the total sales of a year.
The CMA may impose a financial penalty on any business found to have infringed the Chapter II prohibition or Article 102 (or both) of up to 10% of its annual worldwide group turnover. This would up the fine from my original estimate of $60 to $70 million to say $110 million to $120 million. This is the MAXIMUM fine that can be imposed. MAXIMUM. Period. They have $175M in cash on hand at the moment. I would argue that the Cinven payment of $200 million due in October has a clause that thou shall not be paid if regulatory fines are imposed so there is some comfort that the payment can be paid without a problem.
Next, future cash flows. There was nothing where it says the CMS has the authority to ROLL BACK prices. Even at status quo (and lets assume declining sales), the Company would still be a cash cow.
Another interesting timbit in the article:
The CMA’s findings on dominance and abuse are provisional and no conclusion can be drawn at this stage that there has, in fact, been any breach of competition law. We will carefully consider any representations from Pfizer and Flynn Pharma before deciding whether the law has been infringed. This finding came out in August of 2015. It is now June of 2016. Is there an update to this?
CookieMonster wrote: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-issues-statement-of-objections-to-pfizer-and-flynn-pharma-in-anti-epilepsy-drug-investigation