Pfizer Boss in charm offensive as MPs movee to protect Astrazeneca

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/azn/10796357/Pfizer-boss-in-charm-offensive-as-MPs-move-to-protect-AstraZeneca.html

I hope the MPs succeed, Britain has sold more family silver as Harold Macmillan famously remarked on the sale of the Railways.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/10805460/AstraZeneca-Pfizer-Neil-Woodford-supports-bid-rejection.html

Apparently pfizer is only doing this for tax purposes

However, Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, said there is serious concern in the life sciences industry about a deal.

The Life Science is the jewel in the Crown of AstraZeneca and I sincerely hope Cameron and Willetts keep their noses out of this and that the shareholders refuse to sell under any circumstance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/10809761/AstraZeneca-Pfizer-top-ten-investor-backs-Milibands-public-interest-test.html

Does Cameron seriously think pfizer wants to buy AstraZeneca without making any changes???

Panda wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10810081/Boris-Johnson-If-I-was-PM-I-would-look-very-very-hard-at-AstraZeneca-deal.html

It looks as though Cameron, yet again, has shown poor judgement, why on Earth did he not meet with the Astrazeneca Board to discuss this before basically giving the go-ahead for the deal.

Doesn't look like anyone really cares panda !

I think the Cadbury fiasco shows just how much we can trust our American friends to uphold their side of a bargain. It would be interesting to see just who in parliament and industry holds large amounts of shares in bothe Pfizer and Astrazeneca......

Long gone are the days when we could trust the unbiased judgement and decisions of our leaders.

malena stool wrote:I think the Cadbury fiasco shows just how much we can trust our American friends to uphold their side of a bargain. It would be interesting to see just who in parliament and industry holds large amounts of shares in bothe Pfizer and Astrazeneca......

Long gone are the days when we could trust the unbiased judgement and decisions of our leaders.

Yes malena, Osborne is not squeaky clean either, I remember when he was caught out on a Yacht in the Med with some Russian Oligarky. Of course , if the Board of Astrazenica have any loyalty they will refuse to sell as would the shareholders. Maybe because there is some resentment to this bid , it will not go through , I hope that's the case.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/10824633/Pfizer-says-AstraZeneca-commitments-are-binding.html

Apparently a Swedish Chemical Firm taken over by Pfizer was promised the same consideration , but 90 % of the Firm has been reduced .

















a

So only 10% would be left ! Thats not a lot then ?

Would they be able to compete at that level for much longer that is the question ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27382927

It's looking increasingly likely that this bid won't go through , Pfizer is meeting with Cameron, I hope Cameron has taken note from from the Swedish Company and now this Professor .

There is a debate at the moment and Vince Cable tried to say if Government tried to interfere it might be Illegal. He was quickly shouted down by an MP who said that was nonsense A Spokesman for the Swedish Company which was bought out by Pfyzer a few years ago said his firm suffered badly, many workers made redundant and no effort by Pfyzer to rejuvenate the Company. Pfyzer Chief Executive admitted that if the takeover took place research and development would lessen., and there was Cameron ready to give the go-ahead .......he really must go, his judgement is dreadful.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/10832030/Pfizer-research-boss-calls-on-top-UK-scientists-to-support-Astra-deal.html

What a b***dy cheek!!!!! I hope shareholders won't be tempted to take the money and Cameron has the guts to call this a hostile bid and denounce this latest action by Pfizer.

It's about time not only Cameron but the entire parliament developed some Gonads and put a stop to this rush to sell off British interests to all and sundry.

The latest I heard yesterday was that the Land Registry Office is being 'privatised'.

This is our country these chinless b@stards are selling off... And they never put this into the mandate they were elected on.

Roll on the election, we need a clear out of the sticky fingered shitehawks!
rant over..... ms

malena stool wrote:It's about time not only Cameron but the entire parliament developed some Gonads and put a stop to this rush to sell off British interests to all and sundry.

The latest I heard yesterday was that the Land Registry Office is being 'privatised'.

This is our country these chinless b@stards are selling off... And they never put this into the mandate they were elected on.

Roll on the election, we need a clear out of the sticky fingered shitehawks!
rant over..... ms

Morning malena, I think Cameron will go down in History as the Prime Minister who never was !!! He jumps on every band wagon , thinks he can help Britain by staying in the EU when it is patently obvious that Britain has no say in what goes on in the EU. Stop donating AT ONCE to the EU coffers until the Human Rights Bill is scrapped for Britain , Annual accounts to be given to EU Members for discussion on where cuts can be made., Each Country to determine it's own policy on immigration........that would be a step in the right direction for any prospective PM voted in next year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/10838725/Pfizer-EU-would-overrule-AstraZeneca-public-interest-test.html

Well if this wasn't enough to leave the EU, I don't know what is.!!!! Shame on you Cameron for delaying the Referendum by years.

Latest news..........Astrazeneca Board have rejected the latest and last offer worth £69 Billion from Pfizer, but some of the major shareholders have said they were never consulted by the Board and may contest this.No word from Cameron but Ed Milliband has said he would block any sale .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27466278

http://news.sky.com/story/1264321/astrazeneca-boss-says-no-deal-before-deadline

Apparently some of the largest Shareholders felt they should have been consulted because AstraZeneca has not been doing very well of late and their share price has dropped significantly since the announcement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/10842317/Pfizer-looks-to-AstraZenecas-investors-to-keep-deal-alive.html

I think the shareholders should remember what happened in Sweden, so many workers lost their jobs . The video is quite interesting and the shareholders should not be so quick to look for the quick Buck at the expense of the Labour Force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/opinion/pfizers-ploy-and-the-porous-tax-laws.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=


Continue reading the main story
Pfizer’s $119 billion offer to buy AstraZeneca, the British drug company, is driven largely by its desire to cut its tax bill. It is a ploy made possible by porous tax laws in the United States that encourage corporate tax avoidance and by laws in Britain and elsewhere that abet it.

Even if the bid fails — the deadline is May 26 — Pfizer’s action has drawn the attention of officials in Washington who, quite rightly, have vowed to tighten laws that, when exploited by companies like Pfizer, result in higher taxes for everyone else or reduced government services.

The Pfizer move is called an inversion, in which an American company is able to incorporate abroad by acquiring a foreign company. The buyer, in effect, becomes a subsidiary of a foreign parent — even though American shareholders own most of the merged company and the company’s headquarters and top executives stay in the United States. Incorporating in one country and being based in another creates opportunities to play the tax laws of one nation off against another’s; conceivably, profits might not be taxed in any country. Some 25 companies have used inversions since 2008.

The White House wants to block the practice, and legislation to do so has been introduced by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. But until Congress actually changes the law, inversions will continue, reducing revenues and undermining the whole notion of tax fairness.

To take one example, an inversion makes it easier for a company to shift profits earned in the United States to a foreign parent in a lower-taxed country. The top corporate rate in the United States, for instance, is 35 percent, versus 20 percent in Britain starting next year.

But shifting profits earned in America to Britain — or Ireland, or the Netherlands, or other relatively low-tax nations — is only part of the game. Inversions can also facilitate income shifting to havens where the rate is zero. That’s because the complicated structure of inverted companies can put their profits beyond the reach of American rules against tax havens.

CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
10
COMMENTS
Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS

David Underwood 1 hour ago
So the question is,who gets to share in the higher profit due to the lower tax rate?What is the money used for, is it to pay higher wages,...
Peter Villax 2 hours ago
"The alternative is a race to the bottom, in which tax revenues are eroded everywhere." Well isn't that called competition? I am glad states...
D D 2 hours ago
How much will it take to be enough billions in their pockets? Avoid the tax man at any cost. Is that the game? Unpatriotic. The corp...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
An inversion can also make it easier for a company to deploy earnings that are stashed, untaxed, in foreign accounts. Under current law, the money would be taxed when repatriated to the United States. But by creating new ways to move income around, inversions could free up foreign cash without first having to repatriate it and pay tax.

Technically, it would not be hard to curtail inversions. Congress could stop most of them by prohibiting a company from incorporating abroad whenever the ownership share of the merged company is more than 50 percent American. But a permanent fix would require an agreement among nations to end the use of tax breaks to lure businesses from each other. The alternative is a race to the bottom, in which tax revenues are eroded everywhere.

Eliminating corporate taxes, as some have suggested, would be the wrong way to go. It would be undesirable as tax policy, because it is better to have multiple forms of taxation that backstop one another and spread the burden. And it would be injurious as social policy, because adequate taxation of corporate capital is key to fighting income inequality. Granted, the corporate tax has not worked well for years. But that owes less to the complexity of global capital than to a lack of political will among policy makers and legislators to regulate finance, raise taxes, and anger corporate constituents and contributors.