AstraZeneca says EU loses legal bid for more vaccine

[EasterIssland]

AstraZeneca says EU loses legal bid for more vaccine supplies by end-June

AstraZeneca (AZN.L) on Friday said the European Union had lost a legal case against the pharmaceutical firm over the supply of COVID-19 vaccines as a court in Brussels rejected an EU request for more deliveries by the end of June.

The Anglo-Swedish firm committed in a contract to do its best to deliver to the 27-nation bloc 300 million doses by the end of June, but production problems led the pharmaceutical company to revise down its target to 100 million vaccines.

The cuts in the supplies delayed the EU's vaccination drive in the first quarter of the year, when the bloc had initially bet on AstraZeneca to deliver the largest volume of jabs. That led to a bitter dispute and to the EU's legal action to get at least 120 million doses by the end of June.

But the judge said the company should only deliver 80.2 million doses by a deadline of Sept. 27, AstraZeneca said.

www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/astrazeneca-says-eu-loses-legal-bid-more-vaccine-supplies-by-end-june-2021-06-18/

@Bluethrough

The AZ vaccine is for cost, yet that hasn't stopped the west from taking all the supplies & the developing world getting virtually none! AZ should have charged for this, why should the 5th richest country in the world get vaccines for cost?

AZ could then have used these profits to increase production facilities the world over, train and administer to dev countries.

Plus the huge profits generated would have been taxed, helping our economy and giving AZ more money for next generation vaccines and more funding for the Oxford teams.

But my main point was that the "for cost" argument made by Motorina had no bearing on the court case - issues with the contract would still have occured.

AZ are not able to charge a profit, it was a term of the Oxford team (whose company own the rights to the vaccine) when agreeing to partner with AZ that the vaccine be produced at cost for the duration of the pandemic.

Why should the 5th richest country in the world get vaccines for cost?

Rightly or wrongly, perhaps it's because we were the ones who put up so much of the money for the research and development?

EU funded oxford jenner for many years, enabling them to dev the AZ vaccine, whilst at the same time, continuing with current programs, indeed EU funding helped dev the orginal SARS 1 vaxx that the current vaccine is based on.

Dr Sarah Gilbert is very clear on this.

But the uk funding had no bearing on the AZ decision in anycase.

Blue yep the EU funding is a great thing for some many institutions throughout Europe.

The UK as part of the EU paid its share of that funding.

So whilst it's true that the EU did fund Jenner Institute until recently, UK money also went to the funding of other vaccine development through it's EU contributions.

And this is all about Brexit and its naive to say it's not! The UK 'won' the 1st big battle by having more vaccines sooner. The EU will most likely win most of the other battles.

Oh that age old argument! You sure you voted to stay in?

I see the UK has negotiated and is paying in substantially to be part of the Horizon program - though it has no say.

Money isn't the only thing these programs get you, they help scientists to work across each others borders, ensure coop between universities.

Its not just about x pounds.

We'll have to agree to disagree on any Brexit issue, i can see none.

And yes, the movement of people throughout the EU was a good thing and the UK benefited so much from it.

Why did you mention your pro EU stance then if you want to keep it private?
The Eu/ has plenty of faults, funnily enough i think the biggest one is FOM, it needs reforming, the shifting to Strasburg - pointless, the rush to get poorer countries in the euro, Trade deal with China.

I ve reported your post, you should be able to make your piont without calling me names.

I ve reported your post, you should be able to make your piont without calling me names.

OK. Not sure I called you any names but hey ho if MN deems that not name calling is name calling then so be it!

This is the full judgement if anyone cares to translate it ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3090

It allows both sides to claim a win but apparently leaves until September a decision on whether AZ did not use its best efforts. This is an interim judgment that says they may not have used their best efforts. If in September the court finds they didnt I imagine AZ will appeal.

And this is all about Brexit and its naive to say it's not! The UK 'won' the 1st big battle by having more vaccines sooner. The EU will most likely win most of the other battles

Yes in the UK this is seen as a matter of national pride and the first test of post Brexit Britain.

In the EU this is seen as a company that let people down at a critical time. Many people don't know of any connections between AZ and the UK. Most people see this as a commercial dispute that's old news because now there is Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen etc

@QuentininQuarantino

Oh maybe *@CryingAtTheDiscotheque*

I really hate selective reporting (and selective reading) and in the case of my toddler, selective listening!

I hate to break it to you, but the selectivity of you children's listening will become more pronounced as they grow.

Example: "I would maybe give you some money if you kept up with your homework, with your chores, and came home at a reasonable hour"

Offspring response (in absence of all the above being complied with) 'You said you would give (me) some money. You promised and you're now reneging on that You're going back on your word".

@Bluethrough

The real losers are us, for noone will ever make a not for profit vaccine again

what has the profit angle got to do with this case? if AZ were charging £100 per vaccine, the judgement would still have been the same.

No company will do it again because it was a stupid thing to do.

Just picking up on this point (and I'm replying to a number of people who have said similar, not just you.)

I think one thing we've all learned about this is that vaccine making - any drug making, really - is fraught with hazard. Your drug may never get to market (Sanofi). It may have unacceptable side effects (the CSL and UQ candidate). Or it may work, but be slower and more complex to mass produce than anticipated (Az).

Traditionally, manufacturers have charged eye-watering amounts for new drugs to compensate for this risk. Zolgensma, at best part of 2 million a dose, is a prime example of this.

In that context, what Az did - albeit required by Oxford - was hugely radical. They could have reasonably expected a significant reputational payoff for this. Maybe a Nobel prize for their CEO, even. Why not? They're rolling out at cost the drug that will vaccinate the world. No other manufacturer have supplied covax with more than a fraction of the number of doses that Az has.

Instead they've been sued and suffered very significant reputational damage. The hazards of vaccine manufacture have gone up. The perceived non-financial payoffs have not been achieved.

That's why I think that one consequence, albeit indirect, of this legal proceedings is that, in the next pandemic, any manufacturer will look at what happened to Az and go 'bugger that - price this one high just in case'.

Sure, it's not in the judgement. But it's a realistic consequence.

I understand your pov.

However, AZ "could" declare the pandemic over in july, releasing them from the Oxford clause, the reputational damage AZ have suffered is, partly, of their own making, they shouldn't of signed such a binding contract with the UK Govt and/or not favoured the UK so blatantly.
Surely they must have seen this coming? Though i do appreciate that had they favoured the EU, it would be the UK taking them to court!

Whilst AZ do make up a majority of the vaccines with Covax, its also nothing like what is required.

As i said before, i don't agree in the action the E/U has taken but not for the reasons of the at cost deal.

a better deal would be to have used profits to build future vaccine facilities worldwide, training and R&D, just a doubling of the vaccine price would have released billions for this type of program.