The full publication of the European Union’s contract with AstraZeneca reveals that the Commission and EU countries waived the right to sue the drugmaker over any delays in coronavirus vaccine deliveries — a provision that takes any bite out of threats to file a lawsuit against the company over its failure to deliver to the Continent.
While the contract doesn’t give the Commission much cover on lawsuits, it does confirm that AstraZeneca grossly overpromised how many doses it could supply to the EU.
The company said it could supply between 30 million and 40 million doses to the EU at the end of 2020, 80 million to 100 million doses by the end of the first quarter of 2021, and the total 300 million doses by the end of June.
The order form — which each EU country filled out — offered a month-to-month breakdown of those doses: 30 million by the end of 2020; 40 million in January 2021; 30 million in February; 20 million in March; 80 million in April; 40 million in May; and 60 million in June.
Jillian Deutsch
As expected, the contention around AstraZeneca and their conflicting obligations to the UK and EU continued. The newly uncovered information shed the company in a worse light than before, contradicting earlier statements of their CEO. He blamed their manufacturing issues partly on a Belgian plant that supposedly did not meet its deliveries – but the company operating that plant publicly contradicted him, declaring they have complied with all the contractual requirements with AstraZeneca. He kept insisting that the UK signed their contract much earlier that the EU, but that argument has also been disproven when journalists uncovered the redacted contract signed… a day after the contract with the EU!
AstraZeneca’s contract with the EU is essentially the same as the UK’s in terms of language, with some differences to reflect that the EU was procuring on behalf of 27 nations, according to David Greene, a senior partner at the law firm Edwin Coe, who has read the two redacted contracts, and has not seen the unredacted versions.
There are many similarities between these two contracts, including the best reasonable efforts terms. It’s hardly surprising because they were made at the same time, he said.He explained that the term “Best Reasonable Efforts” was essentially an escape clause to offer some legal protection to AstraZeneca in the event it could not deliver to its agreed schedule.
Angela Dewan
However, what they can’t do, on the face of it, is choose one contracting party over another. So they can’t say to the EUI’m not going to deliver to you because I’m going to deliver to the UK, and similar. That’s always been the case.
Pascal Soriot then shifted his public message, claiming the company is acting based on an even earlier contract between Oxford University and the British government that it ‘inherited’ when they signed the manufacturing deal with Oxford University. Naturally, this raises more questions, like why the company did not mention this prior engagement when negotiating with the European Commission, or why did they feel the need to sign a second contract in August if the first one was binding. But I’m sure that, if this alleged May contract is ever made public, he will suddenly remember an even earlier commitment justifying his decisions.
These issues have been subject of a hearing in the European Parliament last week that did not significantly moved things forward, but underlined the growing distrust over AstraZeneca’s shifting promises. Personally, I suspect the CEO of AstraZeneca is not actively involved in the manufacturing, and the company is not treating this order as a priority, because they promised to sell the vaccines at cost – there is no profit incentive here, therefore no drive to move fast and solve lingering supply issues. As for the UK… I’m sure there is still much to learn about their secret arrangements with the company, much that has been promised to AstraZeneca behind closed doors, similar to other questionable contracts for pandemic supplies.
Post a Comment