investors coming in

Why would he let hostile bidders have any day in the direction the company should go. These 'shareholders' are in it for a quick buck. That's NOT in the best interest of consumers, and really shouldn't we be concerned with them, too? It IS a pharmaceutical company after all. Not just a bank account for Valeant to rape!

 

I'm glad to see that someone here understands how the free market system works.

No doubt the shareholders want to see both Pyott's and Valeant's best proposals. Salix is in the process of inverting. If Alergan were to invert through Salix, they need to go to the shareholders anyway. The cash only, non-inverting deal was just a way to avoid the shareholders. It's an inferior deal structured that way.

 

Pyott not only wants to keep AGN independent from Valeant, he's going to see to it that Valeant goes down in flames in the process. This is far from over.

 

Question: How many of Valeant's acquisitions, which have all been for cast, has Pearson put to a shareholder vote? Seems to be a double standard here.

 

Some fairly substantial differences. First one, size of the Aquisitions.

2. None of those were hostile offers.

3. B&L wasn't even a public company when it was purchased. It was owned by Warburg.

4. None of those Aquisition were being made in an effort to avoid being purchased. So the shareholders werenot being prevented from a from a voice on an alternative.

Applesranges

 

I'm no expert, but if stock is issued, the shareholders would need it approve it as it technically dilutes their position. Cash only transactions don't require this. So shareholders were not consented on all deals.

If Valeant had a third of it's shareholders petitioning for a meeting to consider a deal from Pfizer, there would be considerable anger if Pearson perused a Pfizer killing acquisition before the shareholders could have their say. There would likely be legal challenges as well.

 

- Failing/refusing to disclose GAAP metrics during QBR's is not in the shareholders' best interest.
- Dodging questions from your shareholders...wherein they ask the CEO for clarification on the breakdown of price-per-product and sales volume...is not in the shareholders' best interest.
- Allowing Allergan to be purchased by a company that can't afford them on their own...is not in the shareholders' best interest.
- Exchanging one's stock in Allergan for 0.83 shares of Valeant - A company with all the aforementioned attributes - and, who cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're even profitable is not in the shareholders' best interest.