Pfizer, AstraZeneca deal may be dead in the water

Pfizer, AstraZeneca deal may be dead in the water

Tax inversions have been covered heavily in financial media in recent months, causing a significant stir of public opinion regarding corporate tax rates and some discussion of government action.

One of the most significant inversions to be considered is the one between Pfizer, the second largest global pharmaceutical company, and AstraZeneca, the eighth, according to the BBC. A merger between the two companies would serve to significantly reduce Pfizer’s tax liabilities by allowing it to redomicile in Europe, and cause the new company to be the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. Pfizer’s 2013 revenue came in at $52 billion, AstraZeneca’s was $26 billion and Johnson & Johnson led the world’s drug companies at $71 billion.

The possible merger between these two companies led to calls for action on the corporate tax rate from both sides of the U.S. political aisle. Politicians are split, however, as to whether litigation should limit inversions or lower the corporate income tax rate.

The public may not have to worry about this specific merger going through, however, as the smaller company has rejected Pfizer’s final offer of £69 billion, according to The Guardian. Leif Johansson, chairman for AstraZeneca, said that Pfizer’s offer of £55-a-share fell short of the price that the U.S. company was told was necessary.

Pfizer said May 16 that it would pay £53.50 per share, an offer that AstraZeneca rejected, the news source reported. The latter company said that weekend that the price would need to be at least 10 percent higher, leading to a valuation of £74 billion. Pfizer raised its offer to £55 per share, and raised the cash portion of its bid to 45 percent from a previous 33 percent. The rest of the offer is payable in Pfizer shares.

While inversions remain problematic in the world of U.S. corporate tax law, it seems that this particular merger is unlikely to happen. Pfizer has already said that it will not be pursuing a hostile takeover.