layoffs

Just heard from an inside source, certain groups will be more "at risk" than others (i.e. metabolic very high risk, oncology low-to-zero risk, epilepsy high risk) but there will be deep cuts and not just in pardon the pun, fat areas.

Meanwhile, all that can be done is to insure Belviq outshines Contrave, Qsymia from now on and forever. That's the only thing preventing the ax from hitting the chopping block.

thoughts?

 

epilepsy way beyond high risk for ax to fall- soon
Belviq high risk not far behind Epilepsy
Oncology low risk
Eisai sucking in the future and being no more in US- HIGHLY Probable.
Can you say sayonara?

 

I can say Sayonara . also can say Arigato

but seriously,I think its more probable that Eisai sheds all non oncology franchises including all established brands to raise capital and focus strictly on Oncology supportive care, solid tumor, while looking to a brighter future with Biogen-Idec JV endeavor on alzheimers disease state.

Freeing up all the human capital tied in support of Epilepsy and Metobolics should ultimately save this once great and proud company.

Frankly, its been a long time overdue......

 

I thought established brands were solid? Isn't MR over established brands? From what I hear she is God.

 

What established brands? Most if not all have been sold to plug up the holes for the last two years on budget shortfalls.

 

"Turn out the lights, the parties over"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2940526-arenas-belviq-slows-at-a-bad-time?auth_param=ffks6:1aemfvj:0bc4f74c6dd7b828f76c9feec014a668&uprof=46

 

not totally. at least not yet.......

 

We treat Belviq like it is a totally side effect friendly drug...it's not. More use of Belviq will show more complaining patients and doctors will look the other way regardless of our lower price. Come to think of it, our competition will feast on this point by saying that we had to lower the price to make us look better in the eyes of the market place. We are not better. And now we're screwed.

 

I thought giving the crap away was supposed to help.

 

Wait, there's still two moore months left in fiscal yr. Q4, plenty of time to recoup loses.

 

http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/2943716-arena-belviq-television-ads-resume-after-1-week-hiatus

And now we're spending less money...cough...saving money...cough-cough...in time for the layoffs.

 

Yeah, this doesn't make Eisai look like complete idiiots.

 

Nice lady MR, but God? no!
An opportunist and a check the box double down diversity candidate/employee- Yes
She will get promoted due to both.
As for EPCS- selling off assets it not a savior, it is not expertise in operations.
It is easy to sell assets, just ask your broker

 

So much for great momentum. This thing is over.
Too bad we could not execute the way other companies have.
Sayonara! See you at another company, Belviq be done

 

April 1. Cuts to specialty. Fact.

 

This is so fricking frustrating. Another lost opportunity. The story of Eisai.

 

Metabolic, epilepsy or both?

 

Anyone heard if there will be layoffs in RTP, Baltimore and Andover?

 

So was Shaji's email on Feb. 3rd the 60 day warning?

Notification Period


With three exceptions, notice must be timed to reach the required parties at least 60 days before a closing or layoff. When the individual employment separations for a closing or layoff occur on more than one day, the notices are due to the representative(s), State dislocated worker unit and local government at least 60 days before each separation. If the workers are not represented, each worker's notice is due at least 60 days before that worker's separation.


The exceptions to 60-day notice are:


(1) Faltering company. This exception, to be narrowly construed, covers situations where a company has sought new capital or business in order to stay open and where giving notice would ruin the opportunity to get the new capital or business, and applies only to plant closings;


(2) unforeseeable business circumstances. This exception applies to closings and layoffs that are caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would otherwise have been required; and


(3) Natural disaster. This applies where a closing or layoff is the direct result of a natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, drought or storm.


If an employer provides less than 60 days advance notice of a closing or layoff and relies on one of these three exceptions, the employer bears the burden of proof that the conditions for the exception have been met. The employer also must give as much notice as is practicable. When the notices are given, they must include a brief statement of the reason for reducing the notice period in addition to the items required in notices.



Form and Content of Notice


No particular form of notice is required. However, all notices must be in writing. Any reasonable method of delivery designed to ensure receipt 60 days before a closing or layoff is acceptable.


Notice must be specific. Notice may be given conditionally upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event only when the event is definite and its occurrence or nonoccurrence will result in a covered employment action less than 60 days after the event.


The content of the notices to the required parties is listed in section 639.7 of the WARN final regulations. Additional notice is required when the date(s) or 14-day period(s) for a planned plant closing or mass layoff are extended beyond the date(s) or 14-day period(s) announced in the original notice.



Record


No particular form of record is required. The information employers will use to determine whether, to whom, and when they must give notice is information that employers usually keep in ordinary business practices and in complying with other laws and regulations.



Penalties


An employer who violates the WARN provisions by ordering a plant closing or mass layoff without providing appropriate notice is liable to each aggrieved employee for an amount including back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to 60 days. The employer's liability may be reduced by such items as wages paid by the employer to the employee during the period of the violation and voluntary and unconditional payments made by the employer to the employee.


An employer who fails to provide notice as required to a unit of local government is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for each day of violation. This penalty may be avoided if the employer satisfies the liability to each aggrieved employee within 3 weeks after the closing or layoff is ordered by the employer.



Enforcement


Enforcement of WARN requirements is through the United States district courts. Workers, representatives of employees and units of local government may bring individual or class action suits. In any suit, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.



Information


Specific requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act may be found in the Act itself, Public Law 100-379 (29 U.S.C. 210l, et seq.) The Department of Labor published final regulations on April 20, 1989 in the Federal Register (Vol. 54, No. 75). The regulations appear at 20 CFR Part 639.


General questions on the regulations may be addressed to:



U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Office of Work-Based Learning
Room N-5426
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 219-5577

The Department of Labor, since it has no administrative or enforcement responsibility under WARN, cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.

 

Unofficially yes but not sufficient for an official WARN notification.