What in the world would Pfizer want with Allergan? Taxes were it's sole purpose but if new tax breaks are given by Trump they would not even need Allergan for that reason!
Glossary of Hostile Takeover Terms with Discussion
- Thread starter Shoham
- Start date
Nothing. The days of $200 plus are gone. It's the "provebial hits the metal" and for
Good fairh, i am warning you. It will be ugly
There is no reason, Ichan dumped all
His shares. We are in uncharted waters and the truth is that this is a sinking ship. BS doesn't care about you and no one else does either. Earning call in February will
Describe the blood bath. Nothing more to say . It is what it is
December 27,2016
"According to the website MTNewswire, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan PLC (AGN) with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges AGN released materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operational and compliance policies, and financial results." Valaent Lite?
Read more: Allergan Stock Showing Signs of Life (AGN) | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/news/allergan-stock-showing-signs-life-agn/#ixzz4U3rJCqGx
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
http://www.seekingalpha.com/article/4033332
This article is for you, Dan, and those if us you educated on the truth about Valaent and gave us a crash course on M&A these past few years. Hope you're Holidays are going well and bravo on calling a spade a spade!!
Thanks
The article is shit! Guy is a VRX short and Pharma is not in a bubble. As much as VRX is a doomed company, this article is a biased, opinion of one goof who shorts the stock. Nothing New that hasn't already been said and/or written already.
Dan,
What's your take on Valeant's Litigation Management Agreement?
Thanks!
What's your take on Valeant's Litigation Management Agreement?
Thanks!
I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on the SEC letter. If the article referenced above is correct, is it time to sell AGN stock?
I hope my fellow ex-AGN employees have recovered and settled into their new lives by now.
I hope my fellow ex-AGN employees have recovered and settled into their new lives by now.
SEC finally criticizing the usage of non-GAAP earnings.
SEC finally cracking down on the way some companies report non-GAAP earnings.
- Shoham Mar 13, 2017 at 07:26: PM
Shoham
Member
Just a quick news item: Today, after the market closed, Ackman announced that he sold all his Valeant shares (at an epic loss), because it was taking too much of his time. I think the saga is now officially closed. (Well, not entirely, there are still the Insiders Trading class action lawsuits going after the money he made off AGN).
It would be fair to say that he now regrets the whole affair.
Dan.
It would be fair to say that he now regrets the whole affair.
Dan.
True it is over but can't help but think of the devasting cost:
1. Legacy AGN and the specialty focus on unmet patient needs is gone. Legacy AGN products keep a much larger boat afloat and it is not the legacy AGN activities that are given priority.
2. The philosophy of a well funded and valued internal research balanced with outside acquisitions. Sometimes it seems we actually prefer "not made here" warts and all.
3. Loss of jobs.
4. Loss of a profitable American, California based company.
5. Loss of opportunity for those of us that are no longer based in a headquarters but rather take our commands from back east. Often little to no respect for legacy AGN opinion/expertise (note representation at bold awards, global/cross-site leadership positions, promotions). I am not saying legacy AGN are more qualified than others but are our qualifications so deficient relative to others to explain the lack of representation...seems hard to believe.
6. VRX employees 401k and security in their jobs.
7. Legacy company pipelines destroyed by VRX and those patient needs that will not be met anytime soon.
8......and much more....
Seeing what could have happened to AGN, it is hard not to see what a "blessing" the ACT acquisition was but make no mistake there is a fair argument to make regarding would it be better to have remained an independent company.
1. Legacy AGN and the specialty focus on unmet patient needs is gone. Legacy AGN products keep a much larger boat afloat and it is not the legacy AGN activities that are given priority.
2. The philosophy of a well funded and valued internal research balanced with outside acquisitions. Sometimes it seems we actually prefer "not made here" warts and all.
3. Loss of jobs.
4. Loss of a profitable American, California based company.
5. Loss of opportunity for those of us that are no longer based in a headquarters but rather take our commands from back east. Often little to no respect for legacy AGN opinion/expertise (note representation at bold awards, global/cross-site leadership positions, promotions). I am not saying legacy AGN are more qualified than others but are our qualifications so deficient relative to others to explain the lack of representation...seems hard to believe.
6. VRX employees 401k and security in their jobs.
7. Legacy company pipelines destroyed by VRX and those patient needs that will not be met anytime soon.
8......and much more....
Seeing what could have happened to AGN, it is hard not to see what a "blessing" the ACT acquisition was but make no mistake there is a fair argument to make regarding would it be better to have remained an independent company.
From someone who did lose their job after being a legacy AGN for over 25 years, there is no question in my mind that AGN would be performing much better with Pyott at the helm and being independent. Saunders has tried to project a growth Pharma model to Wall St and so far has failed miserably. The stock is down over 30% from it's all time highs and it's still to be seen whether it can reach even $250-260 by the end of 2017. This is a game between the good ole boys. Nothing more than money exchange for top brass while the rest of the employees suffer. Shareholders too! M &a A should be written in the business history books as the downfall of employee loyalty and pride in their jobs. In the event of mergers, the buying company should be obligated to contribute to all layer off workers their SS and Medicaid taxes at that employees last highest salary. Currently that's another ding on a layer employee! Your SS payout gets smaller if you don't find a comparable job with pay soon after layoffs. All right- I'm done bitching! I just hope Ackman falls of a cliff with Pearson soon!
I agree with all that has been said.
Allergan was an awesome place to work. Where I work now is also not bad by any stretch but I'm one of the luckier ones. Pharma in Southern California is pretty limited.
It is sad to see such a great research organization decimated by greed.
I hope that all have recovered by now as far as the many Allergan layoffs.
Ackman - I hope he falls off a cliff as well (but only after he goes bankrupt and has to eat a big serving of humble pie).
Allergan was an awesome place to work. Where I work now is also not bad by any stretch but I'm one of the luckier ones. Pharma in Southern California is pretty limited.
It is sad to see such a great research organization decimated by greed.
I hope that all have recovered by now as far as the many Allergan layoffs.
Ackman - I hope he falls off a cliff as well (but only after he goes bankrupt and has to eat a big serving of humble pie).
Dont forget the insider trading lawsuits - I hope whatever money ackamn and Pearson have left go to pay all the people they swindled
- Shoham Mar 18, 2017 at 12:05: AM
Shoham
Member
The lawsuit is a remaining thread that has the potential to doom Pershing Square (Ackman's hedge fund) altogether.
When the first suit was filed (by Allergan), the proper response should have been to set up a contingency reserve against it (an accounting lingo for declaring less profits on account of the possibility that some of that profit would be taken away through legal action). Later on, when Ackman cashed out with the Actavis merger, he should have created an escrow account to hold those profits. Anyone cashing out of his fund would have some of their cash-out money (the portion attributable to the legally-at-risk profits) held in the escrow account until the legal matter is settled. Investors will be allowed to sell their interest in the escrow fund to each other, but not take money out of it.
But he didn't. It would have amounted to an admission that there is a possibility he would lose the suit, and his pride -- if I may speculate motivations -- wouldn't allow it. Not the first time hubris got in the way of proper practices for him.
So, what happened? As soon as the Valeant implosion got started, all the smart money bailed on his fund. It went from high-$20's billions to about $11B now. Only about $4B of that decline is due to VRX (and maybe another $1B for Herbalife); the rest is because investors were cashing out (some of the money is in "permanent capital" -- meaning it can't cash out until the fund closes; but most can be cashed out, but with long lead time). Those investors who cashed out got their share of the fund assets without being made to leave behind an escrow in case the Insider Trading law suits succeed. They cashed the assets and left this big liability behind for the remaining investors to absorb.
Assuming this liability turns out to be in the $2-3B range (which is how much money Pershing made off the Insiders' Trading), that amount would have been about 10% of the fund at the time it happened; but it is over 20% now. The poor soul investors who are still in Pershing Square are saddled with this liability when it finally hits.
But Ackman is still not setting up a reserve or escrow, opening up the door to a death spiral situation. Existing investors can still bail out and take all their money (at whatever the fund is worth now), leaving the liability to fully rest on the shoulders of those who stay. For every $1.00 an investor is not taking out today, over $0.20 is already spoken for (assuming the class action succeeds, as readers of this column know I'm anticipating; eventually). Even if PS were to start being a superstar performer tomorrow, that's a huge barrier to overcome. It needs to have a rate of return of 25% (from $0.80 back to $1.00) just to compete with keeping money in a safe deposit box. And, every time an investor cashes out of PS, as death spirals go, the liability -- which doesn't get smaller -- now rests on the shoulders of a smaller fund; making the barrier proportionally larger and creating a greater incentives for others to cash out.
Dan.
Thank you Dan for restoring my faith that sometimes if you have patience the bad guys lose! The management of PS/VRX were horrible so it seems just that they go down although like the AGN fiasco I am sure there will be a lot of innocent bystanders who lose too.
It will be good though to see that obnoxious ackman humbled through this ....
It will be good though to see that obnoxious ackman humbled through this ....
- Shoham Mar 20, 2017 at 08:19: PM
Shoham
Member
Today's New York Times front page has an article on Ackman's VRX disaster, prominently mentioning the unfinished business of the Insider's Trading lawsuit (which was certified as Class Action last week by Judge Carter. Long-time readers of this thread may remember extensive discussions of his prior rulings on the matter, which the media described as VRX victories, but, in fact, set the stage for the current situation).
At this stage, the continued failure to create a provision against losses against earnings (in layman terms: failing to put some money aside, in case the suit loses), in my opinion, should not be acceptable to the auditors of either VRX or PS.
Dan.
PS: Apparently, I couldn't post the link to the NYT article because of a new CP rule requiring that there be a like ratio of at least 1% (I have so many posts, many before the like option even existed, that the ratio is below that; so if you like what you read, please like the posts so I can post links...)
At this stage, the continued failure to create a provision against losses against earnings (in layman terms: failing to put some money aside, in case the suit loses), in my opinion, should not be acceptable to the auditors of either VRX or PS.
Dan.
PS: Apparently, I couldn't post the link to the NYT article because of a new CP rule requiring that there be a like ratio of at least 1% (I have so many posts, many before the like option even existed, that the ratio is below that; so if you like what you read, please like the posts so I can post links...)
- mbryan Mar 20, 2017 at 08:54: PM
Dan,
I think the issue with posting links was the result of a software update that included some new default configurations. I think you should be able to post links now.
Please let us know if you are still having problems posting links.
Michael
- Shoham Mar 20, 2017 at 09:35: PM
Shoham
Member
Thanks, Michael;
Here is the NYT link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Dan