AZ - EU contract published

[Davros]

Breaking news on BBC

Interesting that, unless what we're seeing is a translation, the contract is in English. I don't think a contract written in French or Dutch would have any status in English law. And even if a contract is written in multiple languages, as I understand it usually only one has actual legal status in the event of a dispute.

I may have imagined this but I thought that AZ wanted the contract to be in English but maybe that was just the UK one? (Please don't ask for a source, it is a vague recollection)

prh47 thank god this didn't happen in March or we wouldn't have your expertise!

The EU-AZ contract has a specific definition of the term at clause 1.9. As far as AZ is concerned, best reasonable efforts means, " the activities and degree of effort that a company of similar size with a similarly-sized infrastructure and similar resources as AstraZeneca would undertake or use in the development and manufacture of a Vaccine at the relevant stage of development or commercialization having regard to the urgent need for a Vaccine to end a global pandemic which is resulting in serious public health issues, restrictions on personal freedoms and economic impact, across the world but taking into account efficacy and safety.
Interesting, UVL is claiming that ‘best effort’ only relates to the period during which the company is ‘developing’ the vaccine, not after it’s been developed IE ‘best effort’ doesn’t apply at this stage. But that wording clearly refers to development, manufacture and commercialisation stages.

[quote Bookriddle]@MarshaBradyo what does it mean about redacted text, I'm being really thick here[/quote]
The EU has redacted some of the text from the contract so, when you view the contract, there is a black bar where the text should be. So, for example, where there is a clause that says, "the total cost currently estimated to be" they have removed the next bit as that is the actual price, which is clearly commercially sensitive. If you downloaded the version that was released originally and have Adobe Reader, it is possible to read some of the redacted text.

On what basis?

On the basis that I think they are right?

Sorry to disappoint prejudices, but haven't read/don't read the DM - I'm going on what the EU are saying themselves and what AZ say themselves etc

Also what possibly could you agree with about the EU?

They are shooting themselves in the foot for future pharma companies - in fact, for all sorts of products.

The reason lots of countries will prefer UK for head offices/ contractual obligations etc is because our legal system is trusted - the EU thinks they can insert "new" export controls on a particular produce when they choose to do so.

Exactly the reason businesses from around the world will choose to deal with UK. Companies will likely be thinking of how to back acking away and leaving EU without anyone noticing in case they change another law to prevent them.

@SushiSoozie what you agree they should ban exports to other countries even from different supplier ? If Az have broke
Contract fair enough for them to have it out with them, but how can you even consider breaking other contracts when your gripe is that yours has been broken
And why bring uk into it we didn't sign their contract or even have knowledge of it , other than what is printed.
Also schoolboy error to publish and there be parts readable that shouldn't be , if I did this at work I could be on a displinary .

@SushiSoozie

On what basis?

On the basis that I think they are right?

Well, you were saying that everyone you disagreed with was a tabloid reader and were asking others to provide legal expertise to bolster their opinions. So it's reasonable to ask what expert opinion informs your own views. Saying 'I think they are right' doesn't cut it.

Also what possibly could you agree with about the EU?

Quite a lot.

Exactly the reason businesses from around the world will choose to deal with UK. Companies will likely be thinking of how to back acking away and leaving EU without anyone noticing in case they change another law to prevent them

Ha, hilarious! Don't know if you've noticed, but everyone is or has already left the UK for the EU (little thing called Brexit you might have heard of).

@lljkk

I believe that the average EU citizen (paying attention) is blaming EU commission/leaders for this cock-up, too. I can be pro-EU and still recognise a big cock-up.

The seemingly better qualified Twitterati seem to think that AZ have messed up by over-promising to both UK & EU, but ultimately it will take so long for lawyers to sort it out that only lawyers will benefit from the argument.

This is my best hit so far, in trying to find commentators (lawyers) who start from a position of "what does this say" rather than what outcome they want or whose side do they already love/hate.

As mentioned before, David's analysis from yesterday was based on a template that turned out to be completely different to the one that this contract is based on. He'll undoubtedly do another analysis now that we have the actual contract but he hasn't uploaded anything yet.

@SushiSoozie who is everyone that has left uk?
You just sound bitter tbh
Do you live in uk

It isn't all the redacted text but yes, I can confirm that substantial chunks of it are visible in Adobe Reader
Oh my God, this is laughable. I was working on behalf of a school a few years ago and the DfE sent out FOI in that format with, what turned out to be, very useful information redacted in that format. Helped us no end, but I was genuinely stunned at their incompetence. This is another level.

Can anyone cite some best reasonable efforts the EC has made to identify other CMO for Astrazeneca to work with to resolve these supply issues? I don't know what involvement they had with the Netherlands and Belgian factories, nor any other efforts underway, but it looks like a contract obligation.
(Also hoping to see a Belgian legal view overall.)

@icedpurple just throwing around what people had read on daily mail is an easy insult, favourite thinh on mumsnet , you must only read daily fail . Some on here have provided more info than the daily mail who is often lacking content.
Also its often good to read multiple
Newspapers sometimes you then can figure out the truth hidden between them

On the basis that I think they are right?

Translation: you don’t have a damn clue.

Well, you were saying that everyone you disagreed with was a tabloid reader and were asking others to provide legal expertise to bolster their opinions. So it's reasonable to ask what expert opinion informs your own views. Saying 'I think they are right' doesn't cut it

No, you misunderstood. What I said was people were repeating what they have read in the papers thinking that it was gospel. I did not do that.
As you can imagine, EU papers are reporting it very differently. I'm sure if you read some you would see that the news is based on perspective, not hard fact.
Just because your papers tell you that the EU are big bullies out to steal your vaccines, doesn't mean its actually what is happening. Do you think Ursula Von Der leyen is just making it up when she says the EU has a legal claim? Are all the legal experts agreeing with her lying?

Think about it logically.

@SushiSoozie some if eu people have made some badly worded comments though almost blaming the uk.
If az have broke contract they have every right to challenge.
Do you think it would be right though to restrict Pfizer exports from eu
to countries that also have contracts ?

@CrotchBurn

How is it that Germany managed to do side deals for vaccines by the way? I mean what loopholes were exploited there?

Let’s face Germany are known for trying to take what they want.

@SushiSoozie

Well, you were saying that everyone you disagreed with was a tabloid reader and were asking others to provide legal expertise to bolster their opinions. So it's reasonable to ask what expert opinion informs your own views. Saying 'I think they are right' doesn't cut it

No, you misunderstood. What I said was people were repeating what they have read in the papers thinking that it was gospel. I did not do that.
As you can imagine, EU papers are reporting it very differently. I'm sure if you read some you would see that the news is based on perspective, not hard fact.
Just because your papers tell you that the EU are big bullies out to steal your vaccines, doesn't mean its actually what is happening. Do you think Ursula Von Der leyen is just making it up when she says the EU has a legal claim? Are all the legal experts agreeing with her lying?

Think about it logically.

You're imposing your own agenda on this, big time.

I haven't seen anyone other than you refer to 'papers' here. I've seen people discuss the issues related to the contract dispute. They may or may not be right. None of us - including you - are experts. All you've done is insult other posters and say 'I think the EU is right' without providing a shred of evidence to support your view.

Now, can you tell us on what basis you have come to your view that the EU is 'right'? If you ask others to support their views, you'll agree that you need to do the same.

Lawyer here -

Best Reasonable Efforts apply to the obligation to ‘build capacity to manufacture 300 million doses’.

They are fitting out two EU plants. That’s a Best Reasonable Effort. I am sure AZ are sorry if that’s run into trouble, but it was a Best Reasonable Effort.

Sushi there's some lawyers here who have given some very good explanations of the clauses. You may find them helpful to read.

Did I just see that EMA have approved AZ for use for all adults across the EU, ignoring Germany's advice to exclude the over 65s?!

@Waspnest was just going to ask if any news on approval?

If UVL and co have always had this understanding of the contract (that the EU would go to the front of the queue), I wonder why the world was not told about it at the time? God knows, the EU needed some positive spin given the sluggish nature of their vaccine rollout.

I think it's breaking news - I haven't seen any detail, just a headline.

SushiSoozie

Have you read the thread because there are solicitors on here, in what capacity - strengthens or majors I know not - but pretty obvious they are not rolling out the daily mail ....or the Guardian, famous for omitting pertinent points to shoe horn anything into its ideal...