Pharmacia & Upjohn Case Study

Climbing from $146.9 million in 2007 to $528.8 million in 2013, the net cash provided by operating activities has almost tripled and reached a CAGR of 23.79%.

• Sales fluctuate due to the frequently cyclic nature of the industry but they aim to remain above 3 million annually.

Pharmaceutical companies are provided with temporary monopoly rights on the production of new drugs which result in a higher cost on consumers. If competing companies were allowed to produce generic forms of those drugs, consumers will be able to afford those medications even in cases where those consumers have no insurance coverage. The company responsible for developing and inventing the original medication could be offered incentives to invent in the future by either obtaining tax breaks or NIH funding for future research. They could even be offered a percentage of the sales of the generic drugs. Economist Gary S. Becker advocates dropping many FDA requirements that, in his opinion, provide no additional safety measures but rather delay the development of new drugs.[12] Betamethasone, for example, has been part of the standard prenatal care in Europe since the late 1970’s while it got adopted in the U.S. after 1997. On many occasions, the FDA ignores all scientific evidence concerning certain drugs because the manufacturer did not follow their mandated bureaucratic standards.

They have also attacked patent listings in the Food and Drug Administration “Orange Book” and have alleged monopolization through fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office and sham litigation. Yet other cases have condemned distribution agreements as unlawful exclusive dealing. These government actions have led to substantial private class action litigation against the pharmaceutical industry. The FTC has also challenged numerous mergers and acquisitions in the industry over the last decade. One common feature in all of these cases is the need to define a relevant market. In nonmerger cases, the FTC and private plaintiffsgenerally allege narrow markets, limited to a single drug and its generic equivalent in some cases and to generic drugs excluding the bioequivalent “brand-name” drug in other cases. In its merger challenges, on the other hand, the FTC has alleged markets ranging from those based upon a particular chemical compound, to broader markets based upon various drugs’ manner of interaction or dosage form, to still broader markets of all drugs used to treat a disease or condition. In numerous pharmaceutical merger challenges, the government has included in the market not only currently marketed drugs but also other drugs under development, alleging “innovation markets.”

Total profit show a positive increase from 18% in 2013 to 31% in 2015, far reaching the brothers’ preference of $1.1 M in 2015, Appendix 3 showed $1.4 M net profit

Net income on the income statement: $2,377,000,000 ($5.37 per share), which is an increase of 15% compared to 2014.

Actual sales = 1686 (in million €) and Break even sales = 1126.61(in million €)

Liedke’s projected revenue growth of 3% is not accurate I feel, as when I take an average of the revenue growth (2005/2004=5%,

From 1976 to 1982 the compound annual growth in net sales was 18.5% and the compound annual growth of after tax profit was 25.9%. Therefore, a 10% net sales growth shown in the proforma financial data seems reasonable.

Sales took the most percentage of total revenue. The revenue of sales increased gradually from $ 214,934 (in thousands) in 2010 to $ 260,832 in 2012 while the figure of royalties reduced gradually from $ 873 in 2010 to $ 681 in 2012 (in thousands). The revenue of other income increased from $ 1,286 to $ 1,325 during this period and then the figure decreased dramatically to $ 533 in the financial year 2012. In addition, in the financial year 2012, a new resource of revenue called membership was developed with the figure of $54.

Current funds allocated to advertising and sales promotion is 3% of net sales ($80,000,000) = $360,000

years, sales had increased at a 7% compound rate, while earnings, benefiting from substantial cost

| The company generates 8.83 cents in net income for every $1 sales, quite good for a low profit margin business.

While this case is literally full of negative aspects, we will only focus on the main points for both arguments. Pharmaceutical companies want to be sure that the products they spend years and millions of dollars to create are not easily reproduced and sold at discount prices. The profits pharmaceuticals make of their patented products are supposed to refinance new research. So taking away their exclusive distribution rights and allowing other manufacturers to just copy the product and sell it at

net sales: $1,000,000 cost of goods sold: $700,000 rent: $20,000 wages: $100,000 other operating expenses: $50,000 net sales – all operating expenses = 530,000