AZ - EU contract published

[Davros]

Breaking news on BBC

There is also a best efforts clause as regards the EU commitment. Delaying contract signing and product authorisation, and seeking to interfere with production and supply to fellow customers, doesn't really seem to fit with this.

This is interesting:

'6.2: To the extent AstraZeneca’s performance under this Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the aforementioned competing agreement(s).'

Are the EU expecting to get doses from the plant in India or is it just the UK they have an issue with?

If it's just the UK then in my opinion they're upset because we're more efficient

Too much to try and interpret here but interested in legal views

And what if anything was sent here from EU

Just to add, if AZ has indeed diverted supplies from EU factories to other markets the EU may have a case. However, if, as AZ contend, the problem is lack of capacity, I don't think the EU has a leg to stand on.

@SaskiaRembrandt

This is interesting:

'6.2: To the extent AstraZeneca’s performance under this Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not be deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the aforementioned competing agreement(s).'

That's referring to competing agreements entered into by the Commission, not by AZ.

" All I really want to know is...will This delay UK vaccinations?"

I hear you
Everyone needs to join together to solve the problem.

@JamesAnderson

Are the EU expecting to get doses from the plant in India or is it just the UK they have an issue with?

If it's just the UK then in my opinion they're upset because we're more efficient

I was wondering the same thing. Why aren't India bring dragged into this in the way the UK has been? This is a dispute between the EU and AZ so one can only assume it is political to bring Britain into this.

@CrotchBurn

Do we have any lawyers/legal professionals here who can give their opinion?

Lawyer David Allen Green is covering it on his Twitter account and blog.

twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1354794491807465472

Huge thank you to the legals on this thread 😁👌.

This could damage astra zeneka reputation, I wonder if there could be a counter action?

I don't think the EU have even approved it officially yet have they? And read another article just now saying what vaccines they have got, have been sent to vaccine centres without the correct length needles to extract the vaccines.

This is the problem with an organisation as big as the EU, and trying to agree everything as a political union, it all takes time. It might not matter for trade deals but things like vaccines in a pandemic you need to get a donk on, which is so difficult when you have soooo many different agendas and organisations to consult.

Also AZ are doing this on a not for profit basis. Add in potential legal fees and the cost of the vaccine is going to go up, impacting on the cost worldwide. The EU isn't going to come out of this looking like the good guys no matter what.

Also if they are going to cause issues like this, it's going to make companies, not just pharmaceutical companies, reluctant to operate in the EU. Isn't AZ a UK based company? I'd be packing that factory up and moving plant and people somewhere else out of the EU.

@bongsuhan

My rough understanding is:

1. EU invested in Belgian plant (100ms of Euros)

1. AZ confirmed that it had no conflicting obligations to be able to use the entire production in the EU for the EU contract

1. AZ agreed to use "best efforts" to produce vaccine.

1. In breach of 2., they actually sent production from the EU plant to UK to fulfill their UK contract while telling EU that they can't fulfill their delivery obligations

1. EU therefore requesting those doses back.

Your second point is incorrect. There is nothing in the agreement that says that AZ has to use the entire production in the EU for the EU contract.

Basically, the key point is whether the fact that AZ is fulfilling its contractual obligation to the UK means that it is not using its best reasonable efforts to fulfil the EU's order.

Lawyer David Allen Green is covering it on his Twitter account and blog.

Yes but note that his posts from yesterday are about a different example of a similar contract that he assumed the AZ contract would take the same format as. Now that we have the actual AZ contract (which, as it turns out, is entirely different the other contract), his comments from yesterday have been superseded.

@prh47bridge
*"The EU appears to be arguing that "best efforts" only applied until the vaccine was been developed. Bluntly, on a quick read of this contract, that interpretation is unsustainable. If the EU attempts to take AZ to a neutral court over this I would expect AZ to win. I could, of course, be proved wrong but I struggle to see how a court could possibly interpret this contract to mean what the EU says it means.

By publishing this the EU appear to have removed all doubt. They are in the wrong. Of course, they desperately want to blame someone else for the slowness of their vaccine rollout, but it is their own fault. They prioritised their processes over speed, forgetting that delays cost lives. Now, sadly, those who live in the EU are suffering a slow vaccination programme as a result of the EU's failures."*

I agree with you totally. But is suspect this will never end up in court. The Commission are under totally unprecedented pressure over this utter failure of their own making and it looks more like blister, bully and divert attention for internal EU consumption. I would be surprised as well if they actually block any exports because their wider vaccine procurement is heavily dependent on a variety of vaccines manufactured in the U.K. which of course the U.K. government could also block exports.

I wonder if AZ con withdraw from the EU approval process.

@CrotchBurn

So basically, the contract refutes the EU's stance.

I dont think they would take them to court over this. It would be too embarrassing.

The question is though, despite being in the right, will AZ cave and supply them the way they want just to be able to move on? Why would they do that/why wouldn't they do that? What's at stake for AZ?

Not sure as read on sky news az seem try and appease eu with immediate 8million doses a drop in the ocean on population size and 300million ordered but 8million is double the 4million eu claim was unlawfully sent from Europe to boost UK supply. Wheres this 8million come from? Some other countries order Do az keep emergency back stock?

news.sky.com/story/covid-19-brussels-has-binding-orders-for-astrazeneca-jab-says-eu-chief-12201916
My gut says EU don't have leg to stand on.
That their contract is very different to ours.
Also fact its not authorised by ema yet that was meant to be today but Germany say they don't want to use it on over 65s so if they want the az now immediately which groups do they want to vaccinate?
We have sky TV so try and watch more outside UK news and Portugal is really struggling right now.
Feel for EU citizens but the EU raiding factories demanding to know confidental contracts of other countries orders and threatening stop a different country phizer from exporting their vaccine outside Europe breaching their contracts is insane.
I did a bit of contract law at uni long time ago I fail see how Belgian law and court could interpret best endeavours any different to the UK.

If the EU dont respect contract law that's a real worry

Agreed, it'll have implications for companies wanting to invest in and deal with the EU

What on earth is the EU thinking, making this into a public, political row? Regardless of the legal ins and outs, they are looking childish and petulant and the whole thing stinks of post-Brexit sour grapes.

I still want to know what is going on with the EU and novavax.

Theres a lot of information about talks between novavax and the EU for orders.

Then there's a micro news item saying the EU has concluded a deal for 100m novavax vaccines - but this literally appears in just one source.

It was pointed out in a Spectator article I read that the contract refers to the doses being delivered during Q1. Well Q1 isn’t over yet so AZ cannot be deemed as in breach of contract until that date has passed.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-vaccine-row-shows-the-eu-doesn-t-understand-contract-law

I wonder if AZ con withdraw from the EU approval process.

Could you imagine the uproar if they decided to withdraw the EMA submission dossier with approval expected imminently!

Basically, the key point is whether the fact that AZ is fulfilling its contractual obligation to the UK means that it is not using its best reasonable efforts to fulfil the EU's order.

Surely there is only so much that can be done by AZ in terms of fulfilling its contractual obligation to the EU when that product hasn’t even been approved yet. Unless the EU were thinking that they/EU could stockpile it until they see fit to approve it, which is morally wrong and not something AZ would want to be a part of. Meanwhile we have a prior contract for a product that we have given approval m to and are actually using right now.

I think where things are tricky is the use of the definition "best reasonable effort". Is this a legally defined, well used term in business contracts? If not, who is to say what is "reasonable"?

Correction they/AZ

Listening on the French (BFM/RMC) radio this am. they seemed to be saying that the EU were disorganized & dawdled placing the order, ( my personal interpretation is they were banking on their own vaccine, but it won't be ready till late summer apparently !)
That the French leaders were completely incompetent & this is sour grapes.
The French love blaming UK for everything, as you should know by now (Joan of Arc & all that)

@CrotchBurn

I still want to know what is going on with the EU and novavax.

Theres a lot of information about talks between novavax and the EU for orders.

Then there's a micro news item saying the EU has concluded a deal for 100m novavax vaccines - but this literally appears in just one source.

Official eu documents say they had exploratory talks with nova on 17th Dec and French firm valneva in jan 2021. That threw me as why was macron pushing massive orders of sannofi and not valneva which is being produced in Scotland and Sweden? This link says Europe not sealed the deal with nova or valneva so will once again be behind the UK and maybe other countries.

m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/eu-seeks-more-moderna-covid-19-vaccines-eyes-deals-with-valneva-novavax/amp_articleshow/80218546.cms

But they have sought to increase order if the most expensive moderna which already said they exclusive contract with usa before deliver elsewhere outside of North America.
Moderna say March yet the ema already approved moderna which cannot deliver for 2months.
Az can deliver sooner yet they haven't authorised it and mayhe limit the age group it can be given to so that won't help europes elderly right now.

Does anyone know how long Oxford AZ has been waiting to be approved.
When did they submit application to EMA as Dr Campbell on you tube implied the EMA had all the data rolling for ages and could have approved sooner.