Our live Investing Matters Podcast Special which took place at the Master Investor Show discussing 'How undervalued is the UK stock market?', has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Gsk was never selling the drug in USA.??
It has been reported that four generic drugmakers paid a combined settlement of $500,000 to Mr Bayer before he moved for voluntary dismissal (link below)
In GSK's statement on the 11th of August it states that Generics, retailers and packagers have been dismissed from the US product liability litigation MDL cases.
As a casual observer it would appear to me that GSK and Sanofi (British and French) are in danger of becoming increasingly isolated against a wall of cases
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/opening-round-zantac-litigation-gsk-scores-decisive-win
fatprofits, Zantac stopped being sold in many countries years before 2019 and there are also time limits on filing cases in those countries so probably too late for many.
@barchid, ths sale of shares in 29 July RNS was to satisfy tax liabilities on vesting of shares, you should read the RNS.
I could not even guess at that.
There are potential litigation risks around medications,
GSK paid out $bn's in the US market on Advair -
but generated many more billions in pre tax profit
from Advair. From memory that was a
question of how the drug was marketed/sold -
rather than the compound itself.
Zantac was the medication that helped propel
GSK (Glaxo then) in to the big league.
fatprofits
You make a very fair point.
Another thing that bothers me is the fact that when something untoward turns up like this that it is often the start of bad news and not the end of it, remember Tesco false accounting, for instance ?
The fact that Walmesley sold (RNS 29 July) 148,525 shares at £17.6341 to raise over £2.6million is not a good look to me, what might yet come out of the woodwork ?
Could/should the risks factor in the prospectus been more severe re Zantac?
Every ambulance chaser lawyer will be reading through that more than once to see what case they can make, and so the bad news could keep coming.
It will not just be confined to the US market.
If this involves the prescription Zantac then we are looking
at the best selling drug globally by the late 1980's.
I was prescribed Zantac prior to the advent of proton pump inhibitors.
Like 99.99% of people I have little idea of how this ends.
Hi clued , I just got round to reading your responses and the points you make are valid, yes it will be for the plaintiffs to make a case but to a degree the FDA action has started that process, the pills do in certain conditions (apparently storage at above a given temperature) contain traces of NDMA and high exposure (of the sort possible for a long-term user?)MAY increase the risk of cancer. The plaintiffs will force GSK/Pfizer to defend in court a process that will be time-consuming, cost significant legal fees cast something of a pall over the companies for possibly several years even if they eventually win. In such a war of attrition, they may decide like Bayer or J and J that to capitulate and buy their way out is the lesser evil.
I spoke to a couple of guys better informed than me over the weekend and the gossip (and it is just gossip) is that the ULVR bid may have been conditional on an indemnity against this eventuality and that when it came up in discussion it was a surprise to some of GSK's board! It was also suggested that once GSk had appreciated the implications of it they tried to deposit the problem on Haleon, an entity which has never sold Zantac. The writing is definitely on the wall for the GSK boardand IMV a SP recovery is , in part, dependent upon major changes there. I do not expect a strong SP recovery in the short to medium term.
I sympathise with the last sentence of your 13.56 post but in The USA the concept of financial redress even for a self-inflicted problem is widely held , see Bayer, J and J and the fentanyl story.
casapinos, reading your 2020 FDA link, each plaintiff will also presumably, if GSK lawyers do their job properly, be required to provide relevant provable details re each drug issue they consumed that'll give the length of time from purchase (manufacture can be found using the Manufacture Batch No.) to consumption so that a level of NDMA can be determined !! The latter is most relevant because any case the plaintiffs have is linked to the increase in this 'probable' cancer causing NDMA substance over time. Most people take their prescribed drugs fairly timely and most pharmacies don't stock drugs for very long, as they lose effectiveness, so this is another factor favouring GSK. Levels of plaintiff intelligence are also relevant re taking personal responsibility.
Sorry for labouring this, but these situations really annoy me as are fundamentally immoral, adverse effects from drugs like Thalidomide in late 1950's are a completely different matter where a drug company cut corners and the current regulatory controls were not there. Anything we do has its risks and we need to accept some responsibility for whay we do.
casapinos, respect your position wirh GSK/HLN and your attempt to be objective re Zantac business. There are many many foods and parts of living that are probable carcinogens if consumed above a certain level and proving that Zantac specifically has caused a cancer is the onus on plaintiffs here and not too easy a task. How many actually have a cancer as proved caused by Zantac ? The lives of each plaintiff will be scrutinised, eg do they smoke, do they have extra stress / have they any mental neuroses, do they take illegal drugs, have they worked with asbestos, etc.. any of which would contribute to a cancer (if they have one). When GSK win they may have their legal costs awarded to the plaintiffs. When latter first cases fail, the No Win No Fee lawyers will quickly tell their clients that they'll have to cough up some dough and many will then walk away. I think GSK should fight this to the death even though I own a significant stake. Both USFDA and EMA have found no probable link to cancer and the two should also be held liable because they are the orgs meant to protect the consumer. There is also Caveat Emptor and buyers have to take some responsibility for what they consume, eg I myself very diligently assessed the risks of taking a specific Covid vaccine and take full responsibility for any consequences therefrom. Many of you recall the signing of a form before receiving a Covid vaccine placing responsibility for taking same on yourself !! No one is forced to take pharma !!
Again, lots of could, may. All unproven scientifically.
These law firms that just look for angles. They may have the angles of "may" & "could", way to subjective IMHO.
Data tells you its a non runner. These firms are chancers playing law of averages. IMO we will grind back up to normal trading levels
Upfront declaration - I DON'T hold , having sold in the aftermath of the Company's rejection of the ULVR bid, the fiasco that was the company presentation of the split and cards on the table , suggested that neither GSK nor HLN were IMV a buy/hold a few weeks ago. So I got lucky , but still interested and would like to share a few thoughts .
GSK/Pfizer have made it clear that there is no significant scientific evidence that Zantac is harmful, BUT that won't stop the cases going ahead.
Zantac has been withdrawn from sale , under instruction from the FDA see:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-requests-removal-all-ranitidine-products-zantac-market
There is an argument that this is due to an excesss of caution , but it distinctly weakens GSK/Pfizers defence and this para is IMV significant:
"NDMA is a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer). In the summer of 2019, the FDA became aware of independent laboratory testing that found NDMA in ranitidine. Low levels of NDMA are commonly ingested in the diet, for example NDMA is present in foods and in water. These low levels would not be expected to lead to an increase in the risk of cancer. However, sustained higher levels of exposure may increase the risk of cancer in humans."
Court cases WILL almost certainly go ahead and at best GSK/Pfizer will need to spend tens of millions of dollars to defend their case and the threat of losing it will hang over the companies for most probably several years.
The other point is that the last similar case, Bayers legal challenges over Roundup cost them around $10 billion when they chose to bring cases to a conclusion, EVEN THOUGH Roundup is still on sale!!
Todays rebound from sharp falls may prove to be transient, my view remains that there are much better (and safer) investments elsewhere.