Background of the deal
On February 5, 2015, Pfizer Inc, Hospira Inc., Hospira and Perkins Holding Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer) entered into an agreement and Plan of Merger. As per the agreement, Perkings would merge with and into Hospira, with Hospira surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer.
As per the agreement, each share of Hospira’s common stock (par value $0.01 per share) which was issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger (the “Effective Time” is nothing but the date and time on which the Merger becomes effective) will be converted into the right to receive $90.00 in cash.
Consummation of the Merger was subject to customary conditions, including:
(i) approval of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Hospira
…show more content…
Hospira has agreed to various covenants and agreements, including among other things: (i) to conduct its business in the ordinary course of business during the period between the execution of the Merger Agreement and the closing of the Merger and not to solicit alternative transactions to the Merger.
(ii) Pfizer has agreed to various covenants and agreements, including among other things to take actions that may be required in order to obtain antitrust approval of the Merger.
Motivation for the
In the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, the respondent brought an antitrust action against Abbott Laboratories claiming that they had violated the Robinson-Patman Act. The pharmaceutical manufacturers had sold drugs to not-for-profit hospitals at lower prices then to the commercial pharmacies (Showalter, pg 452). The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, which was an amendment to the Clayton Antitrust Act (Elfand, n.d.), had made it unlawful to discriminate by placing a pricing difference between buyers of similar goods, when “the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). As the petitioners, Abbott Laboratories claimed that the price
This was a distributive negotiation whereby Hormel’s primary interest throughout the negotiation with P9 was to reduce wage bills. Hormel’s management were aware that they had the upper hand in negotiations owing to the existing business situation in America that favored corporate rights to labor. In the process of creating a new contract, there existed little legal recourse against the company if they chose to terminate/not hire current workers, reduce wages, or replaced existing workforce with cheap labour. To add on, Hormel had all of the power in this negotiation due to their market position, control of financial resources, and ability to shift production facilities to another location. Local P9 had exactly contradicting interests as Hormel.
Today, the skyrocketing number of health care providers that enter the industry in both public and private organizations create a highly competitive market. For this reason, it is necessary for every provider to become competitive to attract customers and overcome the competitors in order to survive in the industry. However, the role of competition is still much debated since the pieces of evidence are mixed and contested (Goddard, 2015). The Kaiser Permanente is one of the healthcare providers that is standing still in the current competitive market since its establishment in 1945. It is established by industrialist and physician named Henry Kaiser and Sidney Garfield, respectively.
Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920) U.S. Sup. Ct. Facts: 1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used.
Support the recruitment and retention of underrepresented student populations by creating coordinating, and managing the two tiered Diversity Achievement Program: the Secrets to Success Transition Program alongside the Diversity Peer Mentoring Program § Create, maintain, and schedule various diversity and inclusion related initiatives such as the Social Justice Speaker Series, the Diversity Dialogue Series, Soup & Substance Luncheons, and Cultural Heritage Months § Recruit, train, and supervise undergraduate student workers and student mentors for the Diversity Peer Mentoring Program § Taught three sections of the First Year Seminar for 25 first year students § Work with, train, and supervise a graduate assistant from the master 's program in
When major companies decide to merge, for example, the proposed merger will be carefully examined to ensure it will not harm the rest of
Under that rule, `an acceptance must be coextensive with the offer and may not introduce additional terms or conditions.” (McLaughlin v. Heikkila 2005) The offeree in this case McLaughlin did not sign, or write an acceptance letter to the counteroffer Hekkila
• Legal courts might not like unfair non-compete agreements which constrain an individual’s right to work. Even if the non-compete agreement was clearly violated, this can make employers difficult to win the court battle. • In many cases, non-compete agreements may be seemed to be unnecessary since confidentiality and related clauses may already prohibit using any proprietary information in the future. Initiating a non-compete agreement could cause unnecessary apprehension among employees and reduce employee satisfaction without actually improving employer
This is regarding passing the Voltage token to anyone outside of the Walgreens. Profitect was receiving hash RSA credit card information from Walgreens Asset Protection team. Moving forward the Asset Protection will only have the Voltage token to pass. There was a call late week and Ed Yousif thought it was OK to pass the token, however, he wanted to confirm it with Crowe. Below is the response from Crowe stating token can be send out side of the Walgreens.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable have recently struck a deal. The two cable companies are waiting for their merger application to be approved by the Federal Communications Commission, the government agency that regulates communications through the media. Both Comcast and Time Warner claim that this merger is more to the benefit of their consumers, increasing services provided by the companies. However, this “merger” is nothing more than a takeover by Comcast, the company trying to increase the monopoly it is becoming.
Pfizer has a significant amount of cash on hand and investments held overseas. Changes to the US corporate tax system now means overseas cash is taxed at 15%. This means Pfizer can more easily access funds with less penalty. Human Resources Management. • Staff Recruitment • Training
Investment Banking Report “Mergers and Acquisitions” Student Names and Numbers Despo Michaelidou - Ioanna Panayiotou - Mikaella Savva - 20140213 Katerina…. Svetlana…. Introduction Back in 2006, a merger & acquisition agreement between two well-known companies set the basis for the continuation of the evolution in the animation industry. Being partners for more than a decade, Disney and Pixar eventually merged, after a number of unsuccessful attempts.
Many mergers tend to fail and many others succeed. A merger is the combining of assets and operations, usually between two similar sized companies, in an agreement to join together. Mergers can cause bankruptcy, job losses, less choices, and even a breakup. On the other hand, they have many advantages such as, increased market share, lower cost of production, and higher competitiveness. Most mergers can be highly risky but with the presence of knowledge and intuition they can be successful.
Kraft Heinz Case Study Executive Summary Problem Statement The focal problem that Kraft Heinz Company (KHC) faces is the decrease in demand of packaged-foods, while trying to increase revenue. Analysis This analysis studies Kraft Heinz Company’s strategy, competitive position in the market, problems being faced, and the company’s financials.
Aaron Salomon was successful leather merchant that specializes in the manufacture of leather shoes, for many years ran his job as a trader and sole. At the time, it was a legal requirement for inclusion at least seven people participate as members, partners of the company. Mr. Salomon, CEO himself. Mr. Solomon owned 20,001 of the 20,007 shares of the company - with the participation of the remaining six individually among six shareholders (wife, daughter and four sons).