Friday Trivia-thon: the lawyers at Schering-Plough have (inadvertently, I assume) potentially mis-directed investors who might well be looking for the Remicade/Centocor agreement -- to assess that much-debated "Change of Control" language. How so?
The just filed First Quarter Form 10-Q says this (at page 23) about the agreement:
". . . .and the change of control provision relating to REMICADE and golimumab is contained in the contract with Centocor, filed as Exhibit 10(v) in Schering-Plough’s 2008 10-K. . . ."
One problem: There is no "filed*" Exhibit 10(v) to the 2008 Form 10-K.
In fact, there isn't any Exhibit 10(v) in the 2007 Form 10-K, or the 2006 Form 10-K, or the 2005 Form 10-K. Nope -- there isn't one in the 2004 Form 10-K, either.
But there is an Exhibit 10(u) (as in "Uganda"), not 10(v) (as in "Vytorin") -- that appears in the 2003 Form 10-K, filed in February 2004. Click the link -- I've been quoting it for about seven weeks, right here.
I am certain it was inadvertent. Really. I am.
Remicade, is after all, only 18 percent of all of Schering-Plough's sales, through March 31, 2009 -- suddenly Schering's single largest franchise, at $518 million -- eclipsing even Zetia, this quarter (but that's largely due to falling US Zetia sales, so the proportion is shifting toward Remicade, as a percentage of the total sales in Q1).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Technically-speaking there is, in the Exhibit Index, an Exhibit 10(v) listed, but the actual exhibit is solely "incorporated by reference" into the 2008 Form 10-K -- thus, the Exhibit itself may not be found there. And thus, it is technically "filed" -- as Exhibit 10(u) to the 2003 Form 10-K.
No comments:
Post a Comment