What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

What clause are you talking about. That is not how contracts work, and I can not understand how anybody think it could be. If I order 100 candles I expect 100 candles, not 50 candles because someone else ordered first. Don't be stupid. It is up to the provider to work out his own supply not the customer to second guess it.

The only exception is if manufacturing was curtailed due to unforeseen circumstances and in that case the order should be equally reduced to all customers.

However depending on the timing, many of those candles (to continue your analogy) may have already been committed to the other customer before the manufacturing issue. Then when the production issue hits, the party (in this case you) that signed the agreement much later will suffer much more of the shortfall. You will still get your 100 candles but you will have to wait for the full amount. 50 now and the rest later.

mista11

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

So the EU should just accept that AZ made "Best Reasonable Efforts" despite them only offering less than a third of their original supply target for Q1 21? What happened to the €300m that they got in August to allow them to scale up for the necessary level of production? Why has it come out so late in the day that they were so far behind, they seem to have no issues supply the UK? Why didn't they offer product from another plant, like from India, which the contract does allow?

Saying Best Reasonable Efforts doesn't absolve them of their obligations. They will have to prove they made Best Reasonable Efforts which will be a hard task given their pitiful output so far.

I dont disagree on that, its a disgrace and they should be held accountable, the amount of deaths, seriuos illness and sorrow this will cause is unaccepatble to me and my family - ive no idea if it is enforcable

This is a eurpoean issue and all the other factories have pre agreed contracts, how would you feel if the european factory is perfoming and india wasnt, would you offer them half of your supply?

Natterjack from Kerry

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

This is a British vaccine being produced in British funded factories to supply Britain. Britain has arranged through Astra-Zeneca to licence the vaccine to other factories so that the vaccine can be sold at cost. Britain can supply the EU or others with excess vaccine and in the case of the EU this needs no further certification but it is under no compunction to do so. Where do you get the idea that you are entitled to this?

This is a fair question, and while it depends on the legal detail of the contract, on the face of it, is a rich as getting upset about all the wheat, oats, and maize exported from Ireland to Britain during the famine. Contracts existed to sell it in 1846/47, and so quite rightly, it was exported.

Pete_Cavan

Bit cynical wrote: »

However depending on the timing, many of those candles (to continue your analogy) may have already been committed to the other customer before the manufacturing issue. Then when the production issue hits, the party (in this case you) that signed the agreement much later will suffer much more of the shortfall. You will still get your 50 candles but you will have to wait.

Read Clause 13.1 (e) of the contract. It explicitly says that AZ have no comments to third parties which prevent them from fulfilling their obligations under their contract with the EU.

hotmail.com

The Health Commissioner needs to be replaced or sacked and Ursula needs to follow her.

mista11

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Read Clause 13.1 (e) of the contract. It explicitly says that AZ have no comments to third parties which prevent them from fulfilling their obligations under their contract with the EU.

Which third party are you talking about?

There is no third party preventing them, what is preventing them is the yields they are getting from the european manufacturing facilities so that clause is not relevant

brickster69

Vaccine manufacturing isn’t like making a Pork Pie in a butchers shop - it’s a highly specialised industry which is prone to delays. That is why no company can or will guarantee a delivery date.

Pete_Cavan

mista11 wrote: »

I dont disagree on that, its a disgrace and they should be held accountable, the amount of deaths, seriuos illness and sorrow this will cause is unaccepatble to me and my family - ive no idea if it is enforcable

This is a eurpoean issue and all the other factories have pre agreed contracts, how would you feel if the european factory is perfoming and india wasnt, would you offer them half of your supply?

Its not about individual factories, AZ are ultimately responsible for all their factories. My point is that Best Reasonable Efforts isn't a free pass like some suggest. They will have a very hard job proving they made Best Reasonable Efforts given how far off target they are and how late in the day they notified it. At a minimum, they should have advised of the situation earlier and discussed solutions, not doing so seriously hampers claims that they made Best Reasonable Efforts.

gaming_needs90

brickster69 wrote: »

Vaccine manufacturing isn’t like making a Pork Pie in a butchers shop - it’s a highly specialised industry which is prone to delays. That is why no company can or will guarantee a delivery date.

That is absolutely understood and fair enough. What isn't okay is shafting one contract because you forgot about a clause in another contract.

Dempo1

hmmm wrote: »

I'm happy for the EU to fight our side, and not roll over on this. We want the vaccines we paid for. The border is a complete sideshow.

If the EU are worried about the vaccines entering Ireland and transiting into NI, we should intercept them.

I'd be happy if I could see the EU has not messed up here, I'm certainly not happy they decided to invoke article 16 without even consulting the Irish Government, that's disgraceful in anyone's book.

Bit cynical

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Its not about individual factories, AZ are ultimately responsible for all their factories. My point is that Best Reasonable Efforts isn't a free pass like some suggest. They will have a very hard job proving they made Best Reasonable Efforts given how far off target they are and how late in the day they notified it. At a minimum, they should have advised of the situation earlier and discussed solutions, not doing so seriously hampers claims that they made Best Reasonable Efforts.

When is it the production issues started?

mista11

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Its not about individual factories, AZ are ultimately responsible for all their factories. My point is that Best Reasonable Efforts isn't a free pass like some suggest. They will have a very hard job proving they made Best Reasonable Efforts given how far off target they are and how late in the day they notified it. At a minimum, they should have advised of the situation earlier and discussed solutions, not doing so seriously hampers claims that they made Best Reasonable Efforts.

The contract states that the initial order is supplied from the EU factories ....not if the EU facories cannot make it then Uk or India will

On notification, the advice from the legal profession is they have communicated in line with the contract - that doesnt feel right to me either

Pete_Cavan

mista11 wrote: »

Which third party are you talking about?

There is no third party preventing them, what is preventing them is the yields they are getting from the european manufacturing facilities so that clause is not relevant

Claims about UK getting in early and therefore getting priority are wrong. If that were the case, then they would be in breach of contract. I'm just pointing out that this regularly trotted out line (and analogies using candles or other items) and just wrong.

embraer170

Hard for the EU to ever be right.

Always accused of being weak or unreactive. When the EU does react and takes an assertive position to protect citizens, everyone accuses it of behaving like a crooked ganster. Meanwhile people manage to ignore the last 5 years of British Brexit politics (or 1 year of COVID mismanagement).

Maybe it is the years and years of anti-EU media conditioning or some deep inner distrust of the whole EU Institutions, but it is rather odd.

If you think this is bad, imagine 27 (mostly rich) countries fighting over vaccine orders and supplies.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Health Commissioner needs to be replaced or sacked and Ursula needs to follow her.

Not one bit happy if the EU create a border on OUR island. Not one bit.

It's ours, not something for some Belgian bureaucrat to decide.

mista11

Dempo1 wrote: »

I'd be happy if I could see the EU has not messed up here, I'm certainly not happy they decided to invoke article 16 without even consulting the Irish Government, that's disgraceful in anyone's book.

A politically motivated ****e show to distract attention from them - its a disgrace

Wolf359f

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

What gives you the idea that the UK diverted doses which would have gone to Ireland?


This is a British vaccine being produced in British funded factories to supply Britain. Britain has arranged through Astra-Zeneca to licence the vaccine to other factories so that the vaccine can be sold at cost. Britain can supply the EU or others with excess vaccine and in the case of the EU this needs no further certification but it is under no compunction to do so. Where do you get the idea that you are entitled to this?


And, of course, as Britain has a higher death rate than other countries it makes sense to use the vaccine in Britain first rather than countries with a lower rate.

Britain this, Britain that.... Why does poor aul Northern Ireland get left out? Why can't it be a UK vaccine, UK funded etc...

I would find it hard to believe that AZ or any other vaccine company would allow any excess stock held by a country to be sold by that country to another.

Pete_Cavan

mista11 wrote: »

The contract states that the initial order is supplied from the EU factories ....not if the EU facories cannot make it then Uk or India will

On notification, the advice from the legal profession is they have communicated in line with the contract - that doesnt feel right to me either

That's not what I am saying. My point is that will have to prove that they made Best Reasonable Efforts. It doesn't just mean they can turn around and say "you'll get what you get". Some post that phrase as if it absolves AZ of any wrongdoing.

mista11

mista11 wrote: »

The contract states that the initial order is supplied from the EU factories ....not if the EU facories cannot make it then Uk or India will

On notification, the advice from the legal profession is they have communicated in line with the contract - that doesnt feel right to me either

Section 5.4 clearly addresses manufacture of the vaccines from plants in the EU and the UK. You can't just claim it's not relevant because it doesn't support your opinion.

oharach7

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Read Clause 13.1 (e) of the contract. It explicitly says that AZ have no comments to third parties which prevent them from fulfilling their obligations under their contract with the EU.

Just copying the wording below for ease of reference:

(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;

Representations like the one in 13.1(e) are given as at a point in time - in this case on the date of signing the contract.

So AZ could argue that it was not in breach because at the time of signing there was nothing standing in the way of its ability to service both contracts. I would expect the EU to dispute that reading.

But the bigger point is - if there is a misrepresentation under this clause, what is the remedy? We don't have any Belgian lawyers on this thread, but if it's merely a right to damages, then the misrepresentation is a red herring because what's needed right now are more vaccines not damages after a prolonged court battle.

Assuming that AZ have a contractual commitment under the UK-AZ agreement to supply the first 100m doses produced in UK directly to the UK government (that agreement isn't public), then I don't see any way for the Commission to force AZ to breach that agreement by delivering doses from UK factories to EU.

The Commission's real leverage is whether it stops export of the separate Pfizer vaccine to the UK.

But it could be shooting itself in the foot for the reasons discussed elsewhere on this thread.

ThePanjandrum

Deleted User wrote: »

eh? Why would the contract talk about the EU's obligations to get other vaccines from other manufacturers.

I was rather hoping that you'd looked at the APA. If you had, in the place referenced, you would see that it says:

If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the Participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, CMOs within the EU capable of manufacturing the Vaccine Doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU.

You would also see, if you read my comment, that I said nothing about "other vaccines." The point is that if there is not sufficient capacity then the Commission should be looking for spare capacity in other CMOs which can be used.

Pete_Cavan

Bit cynical wrote: »

When is it the production issues started?

**** knows but you would have to think they were there from the beginning seeing as last week they said they would deliver less than a third of Q1 target delivery.

brickster69

Wolf359f wrote: »

Britain this, Britain that.... Why does poor aul Northern Ireland get left out? Why can't it be a UK vaccine, UK funded etc...

I would find it hard to believe that AZ or any other vaccine company would allow any excess stock held by a country to be sold by that country to another.

It is in the contract that they can. Just not make a profit from it.

oharach7

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That's not what I am saying. My point is that will have to prove that they made Best Reasonable Efforts. It doesn't just mean they can turn around and say "you'll get what you get". Some post that phrase as if it absolves AZ of any wrongdoing.

Correct, and that's going to be highly fact specific - not something that any lawyer or anyone on this thread is going to be able to give a conclusive answer on without seeing all the correspondence between AZ and EU and the internal production records of AZ.

Phibsboro

Full retraction of the Article 16 threat from the EU. Took them long enough! What a complete f*!k up.
https://twitter.com/georgvh/status/1355284820541239296/photo/1

Wolf359f

hmmm wrote: »

I'm happy for the EU to fight our side, and not roll over on this. We want the vaccines we paid for. The border is a complete sideshow.

If the EU are worried about the vaccines entering Ireland and transiting into NI, we should intercept them.

Could they not have been shipped direct to NI?
I'm not 100% sure if it's an EU export ban, EAA export ban, customs union export ban etc... because of Brexit, there could be some legal reason why NI could be outside the ban. Without article 16, it could have been impossible to restrict etc...
And I say ban loosely, it's more an export declaration to provide transparency.
But of course could be banned. Would have been less messy, if EU countries agreed to notify the commission of all vaccines leaving their country, instead of the EU as a whole. So shipments from Belgium to France would be notified etc...

It's a right ****ing mess regardless. I'd love to know has there been much vaccine shipped outside the EU, and that's why they are pissed off so much.

Pete_Cavan

oharach7 wrote: »

Correct, and that's going to be highly fact specific - not something that any lawyer or anyone on this thread is going to be able to give a conclusive answer on without seeing all the correspondence between AZ and EU and the internal production records of AZ.

Just to confirm, that is the point I am making. Some posters throw out "shur it was only Best Reasonable Efforts", it's not that simple. If it were up to me, that phrase would be banned as it doesn't mean what some want it to mean.

ThePanjandrum

Wolf359f wrote: »

Britain this, Britain that.... Why does poor aul Northern Ireland get left out? Why can't it be a UK vaccine, UK funded etc...

I would find it hard to believe that AZ or any other vaccine company would allow any excess stock held by a country to be sold by that country to another.

Britain or British is commonly used as a synonym for United Kingdom or citizens of the United Kingdom. You probably use "Brits" yourself sometimes instead of "Northern Irish."


It's a bit like Taosche or Prime Minister, Eire or Republic of Ireland. People like to be precious sometimes.

The_Brood

The government's action once again really does not make sense to me.

They don't want a hard border, but practically with Brexit there already is. It is fantasy land to pretend as if Brexit hasn't tainted the Good Friday Agreement already. You can't have Northern Ireland be part of the UK and out of EU, yet not at the same time. That is not politics, it is nonsense.

The one and only way out of this is to have an immediate vote in Northern Ireland about whether they want to join the Republic or not (but accept they will be met with lack of social services for a good while, it is the sacrifice for freedom from the UK). The question has to be settled for good. If they choose the UK, then you build a wall, put in border control. We have to learn to live without them. Let the past be in the past. This grey area unsettled question will only create continued frustration and uncertainty for all involved.

Wolf359f

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

Not one bit happy if the EU create a border on OUR island. Not one bit.

It's ours, not something for some Belgian bureaucrat to decide.

It would have been a vaccine border no, like the tax, health, law border we already have, not a physical border as you may imply?
It maybe our island, but the EU's border, or I guess we share it with them!
I'm sure there's plenty of EU countries who share their border with the EU, so it's something we may have to live with.