Case Study Of Ranbaxy

The case consists of two major pharmaceutical companies that joint to collaborate their research and pharmaceutical technologies to start a joint venture in India. Both have valuable resources that have benefited both companies during the joint venture. Now both are questioning if there is still any value in maintaining the joint venture in India and will be deciding what will be the best route to take. Ranbaxy Laboratories wants to be bought out, but Eli Lilly is worried of the financial implications of such move.

Economic: Globalization of the pharmaceutical industry is an exciting opportunity to have research and development done at cheaper prices in other countries. However, this could be a double edged sword for companies because it is easy for other countries, such as India, to produce generic versions of the drug in bulk.

Eli Lilly had the right strategy finding Ranbaxy when moving into the Indian market. In 1992, India had loosened restrictions on foreign direct investment to 51%. Both companies had good previous experience and were each considered to be strong players in the industry. Eli Lilly benefitted from the relationship immediately by accessing Ranbaxy’s distribution network including access to difficult international markets such as Russia, getting government approvals, licenses, and low cost supplies. Ranbaxy gained the branding of a foreign name, which suggested ‘good quality’.

U.S. based companies hold rights to most of the world’s rights on new medicines and holds thousands of new products currently being developed. As of 2012, the industry helps support almost 3.4 million jobs in the U.S. economy. It is also one of the most heavily R&D based industries in the world. In the United States, the environment for pharmaceuticals is much friendlier than other countries around the world in terms of pricing ability and regulations. Both the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology industries have experienced significant growth in the past year with year-over-year increases of 13.02% and 34.69% respectively. It is an even more striking when looking at the past five years considering both have beat out the S&P 500 with pharmaceuticals increasing an additional 31.44% and the biotechnology sector besting an astonishing 269.3% more return than the

Each company blindly went into negotiations assuming their senior negotiators would be their best negotiators without taking into account the differences in personalities and culture. Sakari’s lead negotiator and vice-president, Kuusisto should have mitigated these concerns with the opposing Sakari management prior to the initial meetings. If these concerns were outlined with relevant solutions, then the potential of opposition of the deal would have been lessened. Items of Disagreements by both parties Equity ownership Both Nora and Sakari agreed to an initial investment of RM5 million to form the JV but disagreed on the equity share proposed by each side (273). Sakari proposed a 49 -51 percent split between itself and Nora to control the JV, however Nora countered with a 70-30 split between itself and Sakari based on the historical foreign equity regulation set by the Malaysian government. These negotiations were taken place in 2003; approximately 5 years after the Malaysian government adopted new regulations that did not employ these percentages any longer. Despite the new regulations, Nora appeared very inflexible. Each company had significant long-term equity ownership concerns which could have been mitigated if Nora would have negotiated further. Technology transfer Sakari wanted to protect their intellectual property (IP)

The company is so large that no one drug can lift it from its current sales doldrums. In addition, the company was once highly attractive to investors, but its recent stock price fell to 1997 lows. This may put pressure on the company to attempt acquisitions at a time when the company is ill-equipped to integrate a new company into its organization, and it is engaged in a cost-cutting program at a time when it may need to invest even more in research and development (McTigue Pierce, 2005).

Interestingly enough, there were some influences in the external environment that would affect the relationship with Astra. Much like other industries in 1990s and early 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry responded to the challenges of globalization and smaller companies merged to form large conglomerates to create worldwide strength. (Kyriazis and Swayne) Astra merged with Zeneca, increasing the international exposure of the new merger as the seventh largest pharmaceutical company in the world. In such a situation, AstraZeneca had Colazide low on their list of priorities and attempted to return the licensing to Salix. This would require some adjustments and avoidance of legal implications on the part of AstraZeneca, which led to their payment of Salix’s full contract and lending for acquisition of another partner.

The most important issue that can impact Pharm Universe is if any of their formula is stolen by hacking into their information systems. Such an incident will have a negative effect on the company and it won’t be able to meet its goals like increasing market share to 10 percent

The Pfizer case provides an introduction to external analysis. The case highlights the pharmaceutical industry, which has enjoyed extraordinary long-run profitability. The case also demonstrates how broad changes in broad environmental factors (i.e. demographics, technology, culture, etc.) have an impact on industry competition. The case is not especially complex, so it is not overwhelming as a first case.

A company like Teva Pharmaceuticals is subject to all of the factors of the external environment given the nature of its business and global expansion. Pharmaceuticals is an industry where high profits can be achieved, but it is also an extremely challenging business when one considers all of the political/legal aspects involving government regulation and patents. Every country has strict regulation and testing requirements for drugs that affect companies differently depending on their position in the market. Originally, innovative pharmaceutical companies had to obtain patent protection and FDA approval but this would translate to years of protection from the generic competition. Once the

The previous 959.6m Amoco shares will convert into 633.336m shares of BP ADS equivalent, with the previous 965.6m ADS shares, BP shareholders will take part 60% of the new company, still have majority control over the firm. In this deal, we paid for about 20% premium, which is quite standard and normal. Because synergies from revenue and chemical divisions’ combination are not estimated nor not expected to bring benefit, the main synergy from the merge is 2 billion dollars saving of pretax operating cost. The value we create for our shareholders is $14,840.06 million (Amoco stand-alone value $46,430 million+ synergy $2 billion – price paid for Amoco $33,538.94). But this number is quite sensitive to a lot of factors, such as future energy demand, oil and gas price, industry growth potentials, ultimately affecting Amoco’s stand-alone and synergy valuation. Please

Eli Lilly was approached by a leading pharmaceutical firm in India to consider building a joint venture together. Ranbaxy Laboratories began as a family business in the 1960’s, but with strong entrepreneurial skills the company grew to become one of the largest manufacturers for bulk drugs and generic drugs. The two companies considered pursuing a joint venture that would support on another’s products by supplying one other with ingredients to complete company products without having to trade with other companies internationally. The JV would potentially lead both companies, together to become a dominant force in the Indian market.

An AbbVie core competency starts with adaptability which is to maintain effectiveness in different environment and with different tasks and responsibilities. While the second competency is collaboration: where all should work effectively with team or work group even those existing outside formal line of authority in order to accomplish organisational goals. Other competencies are innovation (which is the main tool to generate creative solutions), integrity (to build a trust), customer focus and ending with planning and organizing.

Introduction AstraZeneca PLC (AstraZeneca, AZN:NYSE, AZN:LSE) is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It was formed in 1999 from the merger of Sweden’s Astra AB and UK’s Zeneca Group plc. Core Activities AstraZeneca is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals and biological products for important areas of healthcare: Cardiovascular, Gastrointestinal, Infection, Neuroscience, Oncology, and Respiratory and Inflammation. One of the key benefits of the merger between Astra and Zeneca is seen as their portfolio of new products in development: AstraZeneca call this their 'product pipeline'.

GSK is the 2nd largest pharmaceutical firm in the world, and the largest in the UK by sales and profits, it is responsible for 7% of the worlds pharmaceutical market, and has its stocks listed both in UK and US (O 'Rourke, 2002). The origin of the so called blockbuster model, is partly linked with Glaxo (as it was previously known). In the early 80’s, then Glaxo brought to light their first blockbuster drug, Zantac, which was an anti-ulcer drug, which was very similar to the a pre existing drug Tagamet (first ever blockbuster) sold by Smith Kline & French, their completion at the time (MONTALBAN and SAKINÇ, 2011). The introduction of this drug, brought about an increasing sales force in the US, the company soon became dependent on the drug, because it represented a large part of their profit. In 2002, 8 blockbusters of GSK contributed to $14.240 million sales revenue, taking up 53% of its total ethical sales (Froud et al 2006). However, due to the nature of the pharmaceutical industry, the patent began to expire, in other to avoid the patent cliff, Glaxo merged with Wellcome in 1995, which ensured a growing number of sales force, and with Beecham in 2000 (Froud et al., 2006) this merger, boosted the confidence of investors, by growing the business inorganically. For Big Pharma, this block buster model is very profitable, because with the high cost of R&D, the drugs are able to generate ample profit, to cover the sunk costs