IBJNews

Pfizer pulls plug on push to buy AstraZeneca

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Pfizer said Monday that it does not intend to make a takeover offer for British drugmaker AstraZeneca, pulling the plug for now on what would have been the largest deal in the industry's history.

The announcement came a week after AstraZeneca's board rejected a $119 billion buyout proposal from Pfizer, the world's second-biggest drugmaker by revenue.

The decision ends a bid that had raised concerns about the prospect of job cuts, facility closings and losing science leadership in the U.K. , where London-based AstraZeneca is the second-biggest drugmaker behind GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Because Pfizer still needs to find new avenues to grow, some analysts think the halt means only a temporary lull.

Pfizer had until 5 p.m. local time in London on Monday to extend a firm offer for AstraZeneca or declare its intent not to do so. Under U.K. law, Pfizer now cannot make another offer for six months, although the company can do so as soon as 90 days if AstraZeneca invites another offer.

Pfizer's offer came amid a surge of other deals this year as drugmakers look to either grow or eliminate noncore assets to focus on their strengths. Those deals include Switzerland's Novartis AG agreeing to buy GlaxoSmithKline's cancer-drug business for up to $16 billion, to sell most of its vaccines business to GSK for $7.1 billion, plus royalties, and to sell its animal health division to Eli Lilly and Co. of Indianapolis for about $5.4 billion.

Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor and Viagra, has been courting No. 8 AstraZeneca since January, saying their businesses would be stronger together.

Last week, it raised its stock-and-cash offer for a third time this year, to $93 per share. But AstraZeneca rejected the bid just hours later, saying it undervalued the company, which has promising new drugs in the pipeline.

On Monday, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Ian Read reiterated that Pfizer's last offer "was compelling and represented full value for AstraZeneca, based on the information that was available to us," he said.

Pfizer has said it would not mount a hostile takeover bid. The company had previously said that its proposed offer could not be increased unless AstraZeneca engaged in discussions and recommended the deal to its shareholders before Monday's deadline.

In a statement, AstraZeneca Chairman Leif Johansson acknowledged Pfizer's decision.

"We welcome the opportunity to continue building on the momentum we have already demonstrated as an independent company," Johansson said.

A Pfizer-AstraZeneca combination would have represented the richest acquisition ever among drugmakers and the third-biggest deal in any industry, according to figures from research firm Dealogic.

AstraZeneca repeatedly rejected Pfizer's offers, insisting they significantly undervalued the company and its portfolio of experimental drugs.

"For Pfizer, this now puts them in a position where they went out there to become the super pharmaceutical company in one fell swoop, and now that's not going to happen," said Steve Brozak, president of WBB Securities. "Now the question becomes, do they look for another target or rethink their strategy?"

Pfizer's decision is likely just a temporary strategic retreat, said Erik Gordon, a professor at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.

That's because Pfizer still needs to strengthen its new product pipeline and also minimize the high U.S. taxes it pays on overseas income — two goals an AstraZeneca acquisition could help fulfill.

Gordon expects that Pfizer's next move will be to push the institutional investors who own large blocks of AstraZeneca shares to help persuade the company's board to open up deal talks with Pfizer after 90 days and share more details on its slate of potential new drugs that could justify a higher offer.

"I'd be surprised if AstraZeneca doesn't hear from Pfizer again," he said.

Pfizer slipped from the world's largest drugmaker to No. 2 last year, behind Novartis AG, mainly because Lipitor got generic competition at the end of 2011, wiping out several billion dollars in annual sales.

Pfizer also has sold off a couple parts of its business and reorganized as part of preparations to possibly break off another part of the company, something analysts have been urging it to do.

Still, it's developed a track record for flexing marketing muscle and pulling off mega mergers, which together have repeatedly propelled it to the top.

Since 2000, it's done three acquisitions that vaulted the company to No. 1 in revenue. It paid $111.8 billion for Warner-Lambert Co. in 2000 to get the rights to Lipitor, then $59.8 billion for Pharmacia Corp. in 2003 and $68 billion for Wyeth in 2009, according to Dealogic.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Great article and post scripts by Mike L (Great addition to IBJ BTW). Bobby's stubborn as a mule, and doubt if he ever comes back to IU. But the love he would receive would be enormous. Hope he shows some time, but not counting on it.

  2. When the Indiana GOP was going around the State selling the Voucher bill they were promising people that the vouchers would only be for public charter schools. They lied. As usual.

  3. I am Mr. Morris Ray, a Legitimate And a Reputable money Lender. We lend funds out to individuals in need of financial assistance, we give loan to people that have a bad credit or in need of money to pay bills, to invest on business. Have you been looking for loan? you have not to worry, because you are in the right place i offer loan at low interest rate of 2% so if you are in need of a loan i want you to just contact me via this email Address: morris_ray123@outlook.com

  4. Jim, your "misleading" numbers comment is spot on. This is the spin these posers are putting on it. News flash, fans: these guys lie. They are not publicly traded so no one holds them accountable for anything they say. The TV numbers are so miniscule to begin with any "increase" produces double digit "growth" numbers. It's ridiculous to think that anything these guys have done has awakened the marketplace. What have they done? Consolidate the season so they run more races on consecutive weekends? And this creates "momentum." Is that the same momentum you enjoy when you don't race between August and March? Keep in mind that you are running teams who barely make ends meet ragged over the summer to accomplish this brilliant strategy of avoiding the NFL while you run your season finale at midnight on the East Coast. But I should not obfuscate my own point: any "ratings increase" is exactly what Jim points to - the increased availability of NBC Sports in households. Look fans, I love the sport to but these posers are running it off a cliff. Miles wants to declare victory and then run for Mayor. I could go on and on but bottom line for God's sake don't believe a word they say. Note to Anthony - try doing just a little research instead of reporting what these pretenders say and then offering an "opinion" no more informed than the average fan.

  5. If he's finally planning to do the right thing and resign, why not do it before the election? Waiting until after means what - s special election at tax payer expense? Appointment (by whom?) thus robbing the voters of their chance to choose? Does he accrue some additional financial advantage to waiting, like extra pension payments? What's in it for him? That's the question that needs to be asked.

ADVERTISEMENT