VRX - Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.

[Rasputin]

Picasso,

 

I checked valeant bonds at interactive brokers, I don't see any with 10% current yield.  Some have ytm around 8-8.5%.

 

Do you have the cusip with 10% yield? 

[Picasso]

I think the spreads came in. I was quoted in the 9's for the 21's and around 8.75 for the 24's last week. Equity hasn't moved much since but perhaps bonds are trading more firmly.

 

I think the 24's at 9%+ are money good but it sounds like you're seeing them at 8%

[ERICOPOLY]

Here is what LessThanIV just wrote which makes a lot of sense to me, rather than explanations that don't make sense which seem to satisfy many that he's a discredited idiot:

 

 

The purpose of this action is for R&O to get to the bottom of this, avoid accrual

of avoidable damages, if any, and secure an early adjudication without waiting until

Valeant sees fit to file suit.

Accordingly, R&O seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Valeant’s

claims are without merit and that R&O owes Valeant nothing. R&O will conduct

discovery, including written discovery and depositions, in order to determine Valeant’s

involvement, if any, in a scheme to defraud R&O and others.

 

This was taken directly from the complaint for declaratory judgement.

 

Makes sense that they have to drag Valeant into it in order to see if they have any involvement in a fraud scheme. 

 

The "gee, I don't know who you are" line looks like it was necessary in order to establish an excuse to sue Valeant just to start the discovery into Valeant's involvement -- "stop billing me I don't know who you are, I haven't seen any invoices, and I don't owe you anything... I just have to sue you now because you won't leave me alone".  Clever I guess.

 

Couldn't he have sued by saying "I know who you are, but I don't think I owe you anything because my contract is with Isolani and I think you are all engaged in fraud" to get the same effect? That would also drag Valeant into this so you could begin a discovery process but you wouldn't look like a liar.

 

To me, he doesn't look like a liar.  That's because I think there is some sort of legal method to his madness.  He's not going to get very far if he intends to keep the money and Valeant indeed has been sending invoices, so my brain just throws out that "intends to keep the money" bullshit immediately.  He can't seriously be acting like he doesn't know who Valeant is given what goes on these days at R&O -- it's got to be some kind of ploy or legal maneuver. 

 

Remember that he starts off this whole episode with a declarative letter from his lawyer stating that he will not be sending any more checks!

 

Funny though, Ackman put a lot of weight on the "I don't know who Valeant is" type of thing -- it's on his slidedeck as evidence that this case is a non-issue.

[Picasso]

I think <IV makes some reasonable points.  It is unusual to see Davenport admit to potentially fraudulent activity.  And we have to wonder what the rest of that e-mail exchange was.

 

A lot of things are not adding up.  Either both sides are freaking morons (possible) or there's more going on here than originally stated.

 

Can we list out exactly what we know for a fact?

[ERICOPOLY]

Also possible that before July, the shorts gave Reitz a summary of a lot of the misleading practices of Valeant (powerpoint slides that differ from the 10-K).  Might have shown him the weird phone numbers, etc... etc... 

 

Or leave the shorts out of it... perhaps he suspected it on his own...

 

At that time perhaps Reitz didn't understand that Valeant really effectively owned Philador and didn't understand the consolidation.  So he might have been suspecting the channel stuffing short rumors, and not knowing about the consolidation and furthermore perhaps at that time he learned about the misuse of his license.

 

So perhaps he voiced those concerns up the chain and all they were willing to discuss with him was the license issue, because they were still interested in keeping their whole consolidation structure a secret.

 

But that secrecy just fed his paranoia.

 

I don't know... this is the trouble with keeping secrets.  Management keeps secrets from shareholders and it leads to distrust.  They keep secrets from business partners (like Reitz) and it leads to distrust.

 

Or it could be a more serious thing... time will tell.  We've got the R&O lawsuit as well as the independent board inquiry.

[cmlber]

Here is what LessThanIV just wrote which makes a lot of sense to me, rather than explanations that don't make sense which seem to satisfy many that he's a discredited idiot:

 

 

The purpose of this action is for R&O to get to the bottom of this, avoid accrual

of avoidable damages, if any, and secure an early adjudication without waiting until

Valeant sees fit to file suit.

Accordingly, R&O seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court that Valeant’s

claims are without merit and that R&O owes Valeant nothing. R&O will conduct

discovery, including written discovery and depositions, in order to determine Valeant’s

involvement, if any, in a scheme to defraud R&O and others.

 

This was taken directly from the complaint for declaratory judgement.

 

Makes sense that they have to drag Valeant into it in order to see if they have any involvement in a fraud scheme. 

 

The "gee, I don't know who you are" line looks like it was necessary in order to establish an excuse to sue Valeant just to start the discovery into Valeant's involvement -- "stop billing me I don't know who you are, I haven't seen any invoices, and I don't owe you anything... I just have to sue you now because you won't leave me alone".  Clever I guess.

 

Couldn't he have sued by saying "I know who you are, but I don't think I owe you anything because my contract is with Isolani and I think you are all engaged in fraud" to get the same effect? That would also drag Valeant into this so you could begin a discovery process but you wouldn't look like a liar.

 

To me, he doesn't look like a liar.  That's because I think there is some sort of legal method to his madness.  He's not going to get very far if he intends to keep the money and Valeant indeed has been sending invoices, so my brain just throws out that "intends to keep the money" bullshit immediately.  He can't seriously be acting like he doesn't know who Valeant is given what goes on these days at R&O -- it's got to be some kind of ploy or legal maneuver. 

 

Remember that he starts off this whole episode with a declarative letter from his lawyer stating that he will not be sending any more checks!

 

Funny though, Ackman put a lot of weight on the "I don't know who Valeant is" type of thing -- it's on his slidedeck as evidence that this case is a non-issue.

 

Here's an out there scenario where he gets to keep the money. 

 

He could argue that Valeant has no contractual relationship with him personally (which it doesn't), so can not force him to deposit the checks in the R&O account.  And he could defend himself from Isolani's lawsuit trying to force him to deposit the checks through the clean hands doctrine if he can prove that Isolani acted in bad faith (which is entirely possible).

 

It sounds ridiculous, but crazier things have happened.

[Picasso]

Eric, I don't know if you missed it but the lawyer (Kaufman) who is lead attorney on this R&O suit is a pretty low pedigree lawyer.  He went to CSUN and Southwestern by Korea Town.  If you're going to be taking on Valeant/Philidor over tens of millions, is that the guy you hire?

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric, I don't know if you missed it but the lawyer (Kaufman) who is lead attorney on this R&O suit is a pretty low pedigree lawyer.  He went to CSUN and Southwestern by Korea Town.  If you're going to be taking on Valeant/Philidor over tens of millions, is that the guy you hire?

 

I didn't look at who the lawyer is.  Maybe he's not as good as Julia Roberts in that movie where she doesn't even have a law degree (yes, I'm just trying to be funny).

 

[Picasso]

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/92759

[ERICOPOLY]

None of this discussion would have happened were it not for management trying to sugar coat the accusations of Reitz as a standard issue.

 

AZ Value's blog comments wouldn't have happened were it not for deceptive powerpoints and gradually receding disclosures.

 

Andrew Left's "Enron" allegations would not have happened had Philador been properly disclosed to investors from the beginning.

 

All the deception leads to suspicion and paranoia.  But not necessarily wrongdoing.  It's just that when they are being deceptive all the time, how will we ever be able to tell the two apart?

[ZenaidaMacroura]

Eric your points are good, I have been rethinking a little.  Would you disagree with something like this:

 

- Reitz obviously was interested in selling his pharmacy for $350K -he willingly entered into an agreement

 

- The closing condition required Isolani to get a license in California -something they failed to do for 7 months or so.  They just kept using Reitz's insurance credentials.  This got Reitz nervous due to the potential liability, he was 90% on the hook.  It's documented he emailed numerous times about the progress Isolani was making towards their license.  At this point his exit op is still to close the R&O deal for $350k (transferring 100% of the ownership upon closing would also absolve his liability).

 

- There is some disagreement (this is the period you cited where for over a month Reitz vents his concerns) and he  tells Isolani/Phil to stop using his credential.  Interestingly, Davenport and two other senior Philidor execs fly in to meet with him.  We don't know what was said during the meeting -we only have Reitz version of events (and an email snippet) that Davenport agreed to cease activities using Reitz's credentials.  Reitz claims they didn't stop.

 

- A bunch of legal things happen.  I think this is where it becomes more nuanced -maybe Reitz's motivation changes, maybe he sees some optionality?  Reitz begins withholding the reimbursement checks.  Eventually citing reasons of fraud  Reitz's lawyer voids the purchase agreement option.  Since the purchasing agreement also gives Isolani/Philidor operational control over R&O voiding the agreement also voids that control?  Does Reitz regain control of R&O's accounts -can he now technically cash the checks/access the money if his lawyer sues Valeant and Isolani/Philidor/VRX decide its not worth the trouble and exits stage left?  Even if Valeant fights him to the bitter end (Reitz may stand by the fraud allegation), Reitz preserves his ownership in R&O wrestling it back from Isolani and has the chance at some whistleblower money? 

 

- maybe the nuance is not apparent to the people at Valeant HQ and so they think the stir is an attempt by Reitz to secure more favorable terms/disrupt business as usual to get some bargaining leverage?

[Picasso]

Looks like Valeant was looking to expand Philidor.  Bummer.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-04/valeant-said-to-have-planned-philidor-expansion-before-shutdown

[ZenaidaMacroura]

So what do people think about the possibility of VRX opening up another entity like Philidor to do exactly what they did with Philidor? Good business practice or not? If you keep it secretive, PBMs won't notice.

So in the emails, at one point Isolani tried to get Reitz to step down.  He refused.  I remember Hempton/Sirf citing a second website "RandO Pharmacy."  It would be funny if Philidor had planned to completely recreate the structure without Reitz but continue using his credentials/doing everything else the same. That's really far into left field though.

[Picasso]

Eric your points are good, I have been rethinking a little.  Would you disagree with something like this:

 

- Reitz obviously was interested in selling his pharmacy for $350K -he willingly entered into an agreement

 

- The closing condition required Isolani to get a license in California -something they failed to do for 7 months or so.  They just kept using Reitz's insurance credentials.  This got Reitz nervous due to the potential liability, he was 90% on the hook.  It's documented he emailed numerous times about the progress Isolani was making towards their license.  At this point his exit op is still to close the R&O deal for $350k (transferring 100% of the ownership upon closing would also absolve his liability).

 

- There is some disagreement (this is the period you cited where for over a month Reitz vents his concerns) and he  tells Isolani/Phil to stop using his credential.  Interestingly, Davenport and two other senior Philidor execs fly in to meet with him.  We don't know what was said during the meeting -we only have Reitz version of events (and an email snippet) that Davenport agreed to cease activities using Reitz credentials.  Reitz claims they didn't stop.

 

- A bunch of legal things happen.  I think this is where it becomes more nuanced -maybe Reitz motivation changes, maybe he sees some optionality?  Reitz begins withholding the reimbursement checks.  Eventually citing reasons of fraud  Reitz's lawyer voids the purchase agreement option.  Since the purchasing agreement also gives Isolani/Philidor operational control over R&O voiding the agreement also voids that control?  Does Reitz regain control of R&O's accounts -can he now technically cash the checks/access the money if his lawyer sues Valeant and Isolani/Philidor/VRX decide its not worth the trouble and exits stage left?  Even if Valeant fights him to the bitter end (Reitz may stand by the fraud allegation), Reitz preserves his ownership in R&O wrestling it back from Isolani and has the chance at some whistleblower money? 

 

- maybe the nuance is not apparent to the people at Valeant HQ and so they think the stir is an attempt by Reitz to secure more favorable terms/disrupt business as usual to get some bargaining leverage?

 

I think preserving ownership and a potential whistle blowing is low probability.  He only received 35k upfront and a salary until the sale was finished.  What was there to be a whistleblower on?  He'd have to know a lot of things for a fact to risk losing out on $350k and all the legal expenses.

 

If that was the case, he should have just taken all $20 million and purchased VRX put options.  Now that would have been a real heist.

[ZenaidaMacroura]

Eric your points are good, I have been rethinking a little.  Would you disagree with something like this:

 

- Reitz obviously was interested in selling his pharmacy for $350K -he willingly entered into an agreement

 

- The closing condition required Isolani to get a license in California -something they failed to do for 7 months or so.  They just kept using Reitz's insurance credentials.  This got Reitz nervous due to the potential liability, he was 90% on the hook.  It's documented he emailed numerous times about the progress Isolani was making towards their license.  At this point his exit op is still to close the R&O deal for $350k (transferring 100% of the ownership upon closing would also absolve his liability).

 

- There is some disagreement (this is the period you cited where for over a month Reitz vents his concerns) and he  tells Isolani/Phil to stop using his credential.  Interestingly, Davenport and two other senior Philidor execs fly in to meet with him.  We don't know what was said during the meeting -we only have Reitz version of events (and an email snippet) that Davenport agreed to cease activities using Reitz credentials.  Reitz claims they didn't stop.

 

- A bunch of legal things happen.  I think this is where it becomes more nuanced -maybe Reitz motivation changes, maybe he sees some optionality?  Reitz begins withholding the reimbursement checks.  Eventually citing reasons of fraud  Reitz's lawyer voids the purchase agreement option.  Since the purchasing agreement also gives Isolani/Philidor operational control over R&O voiding the agreement also voids that control?  Does Reitz regain control of R&O's accounts -can he now technically cash the checks/access the money if his lawyer sues Valeant and Isolani/Philidor/VRX decide its not worth the trouble and exits stage left?  Even if Valeant fights him to the bitter end (Reitz may stand by the fraud allegation), Reitz preserves his ownership in R&O wrestling it back from Isolani and has the chance at some whistleblower money? 

 

- maybe the nuance is not apparent to the people at Valeant HQ and so they think the stir is an attempt by Reitz to secure more favorable terms/disrupt business as usual to get some bargaining leverage?

 

I think preserving ownership and a potential whistle blowing is low probability.  He only received 35k upfront and a salary until the sale was finished.  What was there to be a whistleblower on?  He'd have to know a lot of things for a fact to risk losing out on $350k and all the legal expenses.

 

If that was the case, he should have just taken all $20 million and purchased VRX put options.  Now that would have been a real heist.

Right, his windfall would be that VRX doesn't fight him for it due to fear of exposing practices.  The ability to keep his pharmacy/whistleblow is just what he's left with even in the worst case scenario (VRX does decide to have it out with him in court).  His lawyer voiding the agreement actually happened so at that point the $350K is no longer conceivably on the table...

[Picasso]

He could still lose if VRX lets him keep the cash.  If Philidor is ever caught in the future it will lead back to R&O and all those ill gotten gains in Reitz's account.  That's probably even worse.

 

And if Philidor is as dumb as that R&O suit makes it sounds, it was an eventuality whether Philidor was caught or not.

 

Also think about this:  In another quarter or two Philidor would be a 10% customer or more.  It would eventually have to be disclosed by Valeant in 2016.

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric your points are good, I have been rethinking a little.  Would you disagree with something like this:

 

- Reitz obviously was interested in selling his pharmacy for $350K -he willingly entered into an agreement

 

- The closing condition required Isolani to get a license in California -something they failed to do for 7 months or so.  They just kept using Reitz's insurance credentials.  This got Reitz nervous due to the potential liability, he was 90% on the hook.  It's documented he emailed numerous times about the progress Isolani was making towards their license.  At this point his exit op is still to close the R&O deal for $350k (transferring 100% of the ownership upon closing would also absolve his liability).

 

- There is some disagreement (this is the period you cited where for over a month Reitz vents his concerns) and he  tells Isolani/Phil to stop using his credential.  Interestingly, Davenport and two other senior Philidor execs fly in to meet with him.  We don't know what was said during the meeting -we only have Reitz version of events (and an email snippet) that Davenport agreed to cease activities using Reitz's credentials.  Reitz claims they didn't stop.

 

- A bunch of legal things happen.  I think this is where it becomes more nuanced -maybe Reitz's motivation changes, maybe he sees some optionality?  Reitz begins withholding the reimbursement checks.  Eventually citing reasons of fraud  Reitz's lawyer voids the purchase agreement option.  Since the purchasing agreement also gives Isolani/Philidor operational control over R&O voiding the agreement also voids that control?  Does Reitz regain control of R&O's accounts -can he now technically cash the checks/access the money if his lawyer sues Valeant and Isolani/Philidor/VRX decide its not worth the trouble and exits stage left?  Even if Valeant fights him to the bitter end (Reitz may stand by the fraud allegation), Reitz preserves his ownership in R&O wrestling it back from Isolani and has the chance at some whistleblower money? 

 

- maybe the nuance is not apparent to the people at Valeant HQ and so they think the stir is an attempt by Reitz to secure more favorable terms/disrupt business as usual to get some bargaining leverage?

 

I would do something easier if I wanted to steal money.  Likely he is pretty honest if he made it to age 64 and still kept his license.  Because if I were him, then instead of waiting to age 64 and working a long hard and boring life as a pharmacist, I would have instead made a fortune selling pain killers out the back door of the pharmacy to addicts and quit at age 34.

 

[ZenaidaMacroura]

He could still lose if VRX lets him keep the cash.  If Philidor is ever caught in the future it will lead back to R&O and all those ill gotten gains in Reitz's account.  That's probably even worse.

 

And if Philidor is as dumb as that R&O suit makes it sounds, it was an eventuality whether Philidor was caught or not.

 

Also think about this:  In another quarter or two Philidor would be a 10% customer or more.  It would eventually have to be disclosed by Valeant in 2016.

So if he didn't want the money at all, or if Reitz knew it was in his best interest to not try and get the tens of millions from reimbursement checks then why didn't he have his lawyer terminate the purchase agreement earlier (when he first suspected the illicit actions)?    Surely he wasn't holding out for $350K (while maintaining zero interest in the millions in reimbursements he was withholding)?

[ERICOPOLY]

Also think about this:  In another quarter or two Philidor would be a 10% customer or more.  It would eventually have to be disclosed by Valeant in 2016.

 

They could open a second network and transfer the volume over to that one.  After all, it is alleged that a lot of the volume never even went through R&O's doors physically.  That part of the volume could be shifted to the new network.

 

But I'm mostly kidding.  I agree this type of shit can't be kept a secret forever.  It just takes one hysterical pharmacist to sue Valeant and it is outed at that point.  Just like what happened to Philador #1!

[nodnub]

Valeant 'Witch Hunt' Going Too Far for Brave Warrior's Greenberg

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/valeant-witch-hunt-going-too-far-for-brave-warrior-s-greenberg

 

 

wow... 

Greenberg owned about 5.7 million shares at the end of June, which accounted for as much as 37 percent of his fund at the time, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

[ZenaidaMacroura]

Eric your points are good, I have been rethinking a little.  Would you disagree with something like this:

 

- Reitz obviously was interested in selling his pharmacy for $350K -he willingly entered into an agreement

 

- The closing condition required Isolani to get a license in California -something they failed to do for 7 months or so.  They just kept using Reitz's insurance credentials.  This got Reitz nervous due to the potential liability, he was 90% on the hook.  It's documented he emailed numerous times about the progress Isolani was making towards their license.  At this point his exit op is still to close the R&O deal for $350k (transferring 100% of the ownership upon closing would also absolve his liability).

 

- There is some disagreement (this is the period you cited where for over a month Reitz vents his concerns) and he  tells Isolani/Phil to stop using his credential.  Interestingly, Davenport and two other senior Philidor execs fly in to meet with him.  We don't know what was said during the meeting -we only have Reitz version of events (and an email snippet) that Davenport agreed to cease activities using Reitz's credentials.  Reitz claims they didn't stop.

 

- A bunch of legal things happen.  I think this is where it becomes more nuanced -maybe Reitz's motivation changes, maybe he sees some optionality?  Reitz begins withholding the reimbursement checks.  Eventually citing reasons of fraud  Reitz's lawyer voids the purchase agreement option.  Since the purchasing agreement also gives Isolani/Philidor operational control over R&O voiding the agreement also voids that control?  Does Reitz regain control of R&O's accounts -can he now technically cash the checks/access the money if his lawyer sues Valeant and Isolani/Philidor/VRX decide its not worth the trouble and exits stage left?  Even if Valeant fights him to the bitter end (Reitz may stand by the fraud allegation), Reitz preserves his ownership in R&O wrestling it back from Isolani and has the chance at some whistleblower money? 

 

- maybe the nuance is not apparent to the people at Valeant HQ and so they think the stir is an attempt by Reitz to secure more favorable terms/disrupt business as usual to get some bargaining leverage?

 

I would do something easier if I wanted to steal money.  Likely he is pretty honest if he made it to age 64 and still kept his license.  Because if I were him, then instead of waiting to age 64 and working a long hard and boring life as a pharmacist, I would have instead made a fortune selling pain killers out the back door of the pharmacy to addicts and quit at age 34.

I'm not sure if it's material to an evaluation of his honesty, but he does have a disciplinary footnote from when he misrepresented the efficacy of a product the lab he founded (Aerosol Science

Labs, 2008) was compounding.

[ZenaidaMacroura]

Valeant 'Witch Hunt' Going Too Far for Brave Warrior's Greenberg

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/valeant-witch-hunt-going-too-far-for-brave-warrior-s-greenberg

 

 

wow... 

Greenberg owned about 5.7 million shares at the end of June, which accounted for as much as 37 percent of his fund at the time, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

  I think he's looking at a 16% decline just from the VRX position.

[Picasso]

He could still lose if VRX lets him keep the cash.  If Philidor is ever caught in the future it will lead back to R&O and all those ill gotten gains in Reitz's account.  That's probably even worse.

 

And if Philidor is as dumb as that R&O suit makes it sounds, it was an eventuality whether Philidor was caught or not.

 

Also think about this:  In another quarter or two Philidor would be a 10% customer or more.  It would eventually have to be disclosed by Valeant in 2016.

So if he didn't want the money at all, or if Reitz knew it was in his best interest to not try and get the tens of millions from reimbursement checks then why didn't he have his lawyer terminate the purchase agreement earlier (when he first suspected the illicit actions)?    Surely he wasn't holding out for $350K (while maintaining zero interest in the millions in reimbursements he was withholding)?

 

Maybe the simplest explanation is the best one here.

 

He had a formal business agreement and everything was going well until he saw weird things going on like the quarterly audits.  Inertia right?  It would take at least several months before that became an issue.  And those audits were being done by Philidor which seemed to startle him for various reasons.

 

What does seem weird is that Philidor ships the drugs to R&O.  I didn't see any Isolani shipments unless they were omitted.  So he must have known about the Philidor connection much earlier.  Especially since his first e-mail included Davenport in 2014.

 

And as for simplicity, maybe he realized something was indeed going very wrong (or paranoid) and he needed to protect himself.  His lawyer may have advised him to hold onto those funds.  I'd be surprised if he didn't.

[Picasso]

Which brings me to the next possibility:

 

Maybe Kaufman and Reitz met at the Camarillo outlet malls during the summer (hear me out).  Their wives were shopping at the Banana Republic Outlet and they were waiting on the bench outside.  Perhaps Kaufman started a conversation by complaining about how his ex-wife spent so much (all Century City lawyers have ex-wives) and now they're stuck driving a couple hours out to shop at the outlet.  Women, am I right?  Reitz laughs and says Kaufman should be happy, he sold his business for $350k last year and it's doing around $300 million of sales this year.  Kaufman's radar goes off and begins his probe into what Reitz does for a living....

 

Fast forward and the relationship between Reitz and Kaufman builds.  As Kaufman learns about some of the strange layers behind R&O's main customer, he starts asking questions like "are you sure they are fully licensed?" and "how do you know they aren't defrauding the insurance companies?"  and then "you do know you're on the hook for fraud if they're faking these orders right?"

 

Suddenly tension between Reitz and Philidor escalates.  Kaufman says its time for Reitz to protect himself after a long, honest and hard working career.  Hold the checks and funds until we get down to the bottom of this.

 

.........

 

Meanwhile on the other side of the continent:

 

William Ackman:  Who the fuck is this R&O guy and why the hell do we care?

 

..........

 

Somewhere at Valeant Headquarters as Pearson walks into his office and hands his coat to the secretary:

 

Michael Pearson:  Hey Alice, why's everyone so quiet this morning?  I heard someone mention something about Citron..... Maybe they're making margarita's to celebrate closing the Amnoun acquisition without inviting me.... Holy god, mother of all abominations what the f*&$ just happened to our stock?

 

...........

 

And then all hell breaks lose.

 

It's possible.

[lessthaniv]

Here is one thing I don't understand. (there are many... but here is one)

 

http://sirfonline.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2015/10/Isolani-vs.-Reitz-Gary-Kaufman-Declaration.pdf

 

In Exhibit 4:

 

Andy Davenport is responding to Russell Reitz by email confirming that he as stopped the practice of using R&O's NPI numbers. But in that email he says ..." While we remain comfortable with the practice, we halted activity pending coming to some alignment with you". 

 

Q? Why would Andy Davenport put in writing that he is "comfortable with the practice"?

 

In Exhibit G:

 

This is an email exchange between Russell Reitz and Jaime Fleming. Jaime is apologizing for "jumping the gun on an IHS Audit response. She sends Russell suggested answers to the questions they've asked.

 

Q? Why did they cut the document off with her actual suggestions in red?

 

In Philidor's news release, Andy maintains they've done nothing wrong. This is with hindsight as to whats already on the record and printed in the press? 

 

Are we missing some legal angle whereby Philidor can use the NPI numbers for instance? In any event, reading the 2015 Pharmacy Lawbook, it appears that using NPI numbers incorrectly while improper, is considered only a misdemeanor? 

 

http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/lawbook.pdf

 

 

4329. Misdemeanor: Non-Pharmacist Acting as Manager, Compounding, Dispensing or

Furnishing Drugs

Any non-pharmacist who takes charge of or acts as supervisor, manager, or pharmacist-in-charge

of any pharmacy, or who compounds or dispenses a prescription or furnishes dangerous drugs

except as otherwise provided in this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

Another interesting point here;

 

Exhibit F

 

Jason Ohta is writing to Gary Kaufman describing the  impact to Isolani's operations caused by Reitz withholding funds.

 

The very last paragraph cites the named operating account as "Isolani d/b/a R&O Pharmacy".  d/b/a is an acronym for doing business as. An operating account named in this fashion could accept cheques payable to either Isolani or R&O Pharmacy. But , Isolani only owned 10%? I don't understand this structure?