Lilly to try again to remove poison-pill provisions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shareholders of Eli Lilly and Co. will once again take aim at the drugmaker’s tough poison-pill provision against unwanted buyers.

Lilly’s board is recommending removal of an 80-percent approval threshold for hostile takeover bids during Lilly’s annual meeting of shareholders April 16 at the company’s Indianapolis headquarters.

To pass, the proposal itself must receive support from the owners of 80 percent of Lilly’s shares. It has fallen short each of the past two years, receiving 74 percent and 73 percent of all shares, respectively.

If passed, the proposal would require just a bare majority of shareholder votes to approve key moves commonly used in hostile takeovers.

The supermajority vote requirement dates from the 1980s, the heyday of “corporate raiders” making unsolicited bids to buy public companies. Lilly’s board, which has been fiercely independent during multiple waves of consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry, finally began to support removing the high threshold in 2010 because shareholders began favoring lower barriers.

“The board also considered that even without the supermajority vote, the company has defenses that work together to discourage a would-be acquirer from proceeding with a proposal that undervalues the company and to assist the board in responding to such proposals,” declared Lilly’s directors in its annual proxy statement, filed Monday with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. “These defenses include other provisions of the company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws as well as certain provisions of Indiana corporation law.”

Indeed, Indiana laws raise some of the highest hurdles in the country for slowing down and thwarting hostile takeovers.

Investors typically favor low barriers to hostile takeovers because an acquiring company almost always pays a premium price to entice shareholders to approve such mergers. But the votes of the past two years were hindered because the owners of 13 percent or more shares did not vote on the measure.

Some investors suggest Lilly could be vulnerable to a takeover in the near future because its major patents expired late last year on its bestselling drug, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, allowing cheaper generic copies to rapidly drain the medicine’s $5 billion in annual revenue.

Zyprexa was the second in a string of five blockbuster Lilly drugs that lose patent protection between 2010 and 2014, sapping the company of more than $10 billion in annual revenue.

Lilly’s research-and-development efforts have produced little new revenue since a string of drugs were launched from 2002 to 2004. Investors are hoping a new Alzheimer’s drug, solanezumab, pans out and becomes a huge seller.

But if it doesn’t, Lilly may be forced to sell, wrote Nino Armienti, an options trader who holds Lilly shares.

“Lilly's bloated expenses ripen it for a buyout,” Armienti wrote in a blog post Monday. “In the 10 years ended December, the Indianapolis-based drugmaker spent $35 billion on research development. Yet, it hasn't produced a significant, internally developed new chemical since antidepressant Cymbalta won approval in August 2004.”

Armienti suggests Lilly would be attractive to United Kingdom-based AstraZeneca plc, which has pipeline problems just as bad as Lilly, or Canada-based Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.

Armienti thinks Lilly could be purchased for as little as $44 billion and as much as $75 billion, but most likely for about $60 billion. At that price, Lilly shareholders would receive nearly $52 per share, a 32-percent premium to Monday’s closing price of $39.13.

Lilly CEO John Lechleiter has repeatedly rejected the notion of a mega-merger, and he has constantly argued that Lilly’s pipeline eventually will start producing new drugs—and badly needed revenue.

But, added Armienti, “sometimes reality forces a change of plans. Failure of solanezumab almost certainly prompt Lechleiter to smash the glass container housing Plan B.”



  • lilly board sells out
    The liily board is the problem at lilly. 1st they sell out there employees by re-allocating/firing them and sending jobs to china. Cutting wages, and for the last 2 years trying to make a buyout/merger put a death nail in the rest of the jobs here in indiana. the 1st thing that happens when merged is more firings and gutting of what left of the company.
  • Year 2000 Scare
    Lilly CEO John Lechleiter has repeatedly rejected the notion of a mega-merger, yet his Board of Director have asked for the removal of poison-pill provisions repeatedly for the past two years?

    Reminds me of the 1999 speech from newly minted CEO Sidney Taurel to the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce in which outline industry challenges and questioned Eli Lilly's future in Indiana.

    The shock waves resulted in the creation of BioCrossroads to boost Indiana Life Science industry and a $214 Million local/state incentives deal in which Eli Lilly executive Mitch Daniels promised $1 Billion in new investments and 7,500 new jobs.

    Times Up, the future is now.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.