7 ms·

I guess ideally AZ wouldn't enter multiple contracts that conflict with each other...

Diggsey 6y ago
So you're suggesting AZ should never have agreed to supply the EU at all? The contract clearly says they're to make their "best reasonable effort" to satisfy this contract. Breaking previous contracts would be unreasonable. There are so many things the EU could do here that could help: - Provide more resource to AZ to get more facilities up and running. - Offer to sell some of that future ramped up production back to countries like the UK in exchange for getting some vaccines now. - Expedite the approval process of other vaccines. - Allow member states to negotiate indepently. What did they choose to do? Raid the EU vaccine production facilties, and threaten legal action against the very company trying to supply them the vaccine. Like yeah, that's really going to help people. The UK government directly paid for the research and development of the AZ vaccine, and paid for the manufacturing facilities in the UK to be built, when there was a lot of pressure to simply partner with US firms. Where was the EU when this was happening? Why didn't the EU take it upon themselves to do the same thing? The presumptiveness of the EU to dictate that AZ should redirect UK vaccines to the EU is astounding.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  The contract clearly says they're to make their "best reasonable effort" to satisfy this contract. Breaking previous contracts would be unreasonable. To me reading the contract as a non-lawyer, the BRE conditions felt like game, set and match to AZ. For one thing, the definition of "best reasonable efforts" does seem to be ambiguous, but evidently it's intended to relate to what a business comparable to AZ would be expected to do. It seems unreasonable to expect that a large, multinational business manufacturing essential drugs during a public health crisis would knowingly and deliberately breach an existing contract to supply a fixed number of doses on a fixed schedule to another party, which is what AZ reportedly has with the UK. On top of that, there is the discrepancy between 5.1 and 5.4. The latter says the UK counts as "within the EU" while talking about manufacturing at sites located within the EU, but it also explicitly says the inclusion of the UK is only for that specific clause. Clause 5.1 is specifically about the initial doses and requires AZ to use its BREs to manufacture the initial doses within the EU with no such including-the-UK qualifier. So it appears that, contractually, AZ is actively required to make BRE to manufacture the initial doses for the EU not in the UK, and in any case, unless there is something very strange hidden in the censored wording, the obligations relating to delivery are also covered by a BRE qualifier. Presumably this will all end up being decided in court, probably long after it really matters for anything other than financial compensation, but on a first reading by this layperson, it does look like AZ have the stronger case here.
- libertine 6y ago
  I don't understand why: - approval timing; - contract celebration date; Has anything to do with the fact that AZ is failing to comply with it's duties. AZ isn't waiting for EU approval to start producing stock to fulfill their initial order, that makes no sense - it takes WEEKS to build stock for the goal of the 80 million doses. The stock that will be delivered, 30% of what was expected, is being produced before this approval. So this "approval process" argument makes no sense. Regarding the contract celebration date, same applies - they were expected to deliver 80 million doses in a timeframe, which they agreed upon. Why don't we do this the other way around, why don't we all be transparent and see if they are also failing to supply the UK? Because if it's supply issues, then it should be a problem of both countries no? Or they were shifting stock made in Europe to fulfill UK orders? I really hope the EU gets to the bottom of this, because it stinks.
  - Diggsey 6y ago
    The timing matters because that's when AZ could start ramping up production. It's incredibly expensive to build new plants, and they're already doing this with no margin for profit, so they can't just do that in the hope that the EU eventually gets off its arse and decides to buy the vaccine. I mean: the EU still hasn't decided whether to even give the AZ vaccine to the most at risk people. The timeline: - The UK paid for research and development of a new vaccine. - The UK pre-ordered X amount of vaccine. - AZ began setting up facilities in the UK to manufacture X amount of vaccine - Three months later, the EU pre-orders Y amount of vaccine. - AZ begins setting up EU plants to produce Y amount of vaccine. If you check the contract, the EU specifically says that the plants must be built in the EU, and that AZ would need special permission to use UK plants, so of course AZ are not going to reserve extra capacity in the UK for this contract. - The EU plants suffered problems ramping up production, in large part because the shorter schedule set by the EU. The provisioning for the EU contract has nothing to do with the prior UK contract. There's nothing that "stinks" here, only poor planning on behalf of the EU bureaucracy and a sprinkle of bad luck. Had the EU not stipulated that the plants be built in the EU, AZ would have likely been able to provision more capacity more quickly. Had the EU placed their order earlier, there would have been more time for AZ to resolve the issues in the EU plants. Had the EU responded to the drop in production by asking for assistance from the UK, or by attempting to assist AZ, instead of throwing its weight around, I would have a lot more sympathy. The EU, in its slowness to react, has actively harmed its member nations, and is now looking for a scapegoat (AZ) to blame to avoid the repurcussions.

So you're suggesting AZ should never have agreed to supply the EU at all? The contract clearly says they're to make their "best reasonable effort" to satisfy this contract. Breaking previous contracts would be unreasonable. There are so many things the EU could do here that could help: - Provide more resource to AZ to get more facilities up and running. - Offer to sell some of that future ramped up production back to countries like the UK in exchange for getting some vaccines now. - Expedite the approval process of other vaccines. - Allow member states to negotiate indepently. What did they choose to do? Raid the EU vaccine production facilties, and threaten legal action against the very company trying to supply them the vaccine. Like yeah, that's really going to help people. The UK government directly paid for the research and development of the AZ vaccine, and paid for the manufacturing facilities in the UK to be built, when there was a lot of pressure to simply partner with US firms. Where was the EU when this was happening? Why didn't the EU take it upon themselves to do the same thing? The presumptiveness of the EU to dictate that AZ should redirect UK vaccines to the EU is astounding.

Silhouette 6y ago
The contract clearly says they're to make their "best reasonable effort" to satisfy this contract. Breaking previous contracts would be unreasonable. To me reading the contract as a non-lawyer, the BRE conditions felt like game, set and match to AZ. For one thing, the definition of "best reasonable efforts" does seem to be ambiguous, but evidently it's intended to relate to what a business comparable to AZ would be expected to do. It seems unreasonable to expect that a large, multinational business manufacturing essential drugs during a public health crisis would knowingly and deliberately breach an existing contract to supply a fixed number of doses on a fixed schedule to another party, which is what AZ reportedly has with the UK. On top of that, there is the discrepancy between 5.1 and 5.4. The latter says the UK counts as "within the EU" while talking about manufacturing at sites located within the EU, but it also explicitly says the inclusion of the UK is only for that specific clause. Clause 5.1 is specifically about the initial doses and requires AZ to use its BREs to manufacture the initial doses within the EU with no such including-the-UK qualifier. So it appears that, contractually, AZ is actively required to make BRE to manufacture the initial doses for the EU not in the UK, and in any case, unless there is something very strange hidden in the censored wording, the obligations relating to delivery are also covered by a BRE qualifier. Presumably this will all end up being decided in court, probably long after it really matters for anything other than financial compensation, but on a first reading by this layperson, it does look like AZ have the stronger case here.
libertine 6y ago
I don't understand why: - approval timing; - contract celebration date; Has anything to do with the fact that AZ is failing to comply with it's duties. AZ isn't waiting for EU approval to start producing stock to fulfill their initial order, that makes no sense - it takes WEEKS to build stock for the goal of the 80 million doses. The stock that will be delivered, 30% of what was expected, is being produced before this approval. So this "approval process" argument makes no sense. Regarding the contract celebration date, same applies - they were expected to deliver 80 million doses in a timeframe, which they agreed upon. Why don't we do this the other way around, why don't we all be transparent and see if they are also failing to supply the UK? Because if it's supply issues, then it should be a problem of both countries no? Or they were shifting stock made in Europe to fulfill UK orders? I really hope the EU gets to the bottom of this, because it stinks.
- Diggsey 6y ago
  The timing matters because that's when AZ could start ramping up production. It's incredibly expensive to build new plants, and they're already doing this with no margin for profit, so they can't just do that in the hope that the EU eventually gets off its arse and decides to buy the vaccine. I mean: the EU still hasn't decided whether to even give the AZ vaccine to the most at risk people. The timeline: - The UK paid for research and development of a new vaccine. - The UK pre-ordered X amount of vaccine. - AZ began setting up facilities in the UK to manufacture X amount of vaccine - Three months later, the EU pre-orders Y amount of vaccine. - AZ begins setting up EU plants to produce Y amount of vaccine. If you check the contract, the EU specifically says that the plants must be built in the EU, and that AZ would need special permission to use UK plants, so of course AZ are not going to reserve extra capacity in the UK for this contract. - The EU plants suffered problems ramping up production, in large part because the shorter schedule set by the EU. The provisioning for the EU contract has nothing to do with the prior UK contract. There's nothing that "stinks" here, only poor planning on behalf of the EU bureaucracy and a sprinkle of bad luck. Had the EU not stipulated that the plants be built in the EU, AZ would have likely been able to provision more capacity more quickly. Had the EU placed their order earlier, there would have been more time for AZ to resolve the issues in the EU plants. Had the EU responded to the drop in production by asking for assistance from the UK, or by attempting to assist AZ, instead of throwing its weight around, I would have a lot more sympathy. The EU, in its slowness to react, has actively harmed its member nations, and is now looking for a scapegoat (AZ) to blame to avoid the repurcussions.