Log has written
MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2008 3:05 PM IST
Drug giant Pfizer Inc. says it will appeal a court ruling in Pakistan that has called its behaviour “oppressive” and sided with a small group of investors who had alleged that the multinational systematically drained the coffers of its local operations through artificially high prices for drug ingredients.
The eight investors—two others died waiting for the verdict—are part of a dwindling group of shareholders who now own less than 0.5% in Pfizer Laboratories Ltd (PLL), which is the current version of Pfizer’s operations in Pakistan that has origins in a manufacturing facility opened in 1961. Some of the shareholders who have been fighting Pfizer in court maintain that their original holdings are investments that their parents made in a company called Dumex, acquired by Pfizer in 1959.
At its core, the legal battle is fairly simple. The shareholders allege that Pfizer has deliberately contributed to poor results at its Pakistan operations, thus continuously diluting the value of the minority stakeholders’ shares in an attempt to get 100% control of the business for a lot less than what it is worth.
Interwoven into this saga is a larger issue of “transfer pricing,” a common system under which related but separate companies assign prices for goods or services transferred from one company to the other. Because these are negotiated prices, there can be a potential for one company, especially the parent or majority shareholder, to take advantage of a unit.
Governments and regulators in the developing world, including India and Pakistan, have been particularly wary of opaque transfer pricing mechanisms as they fear that a foreign parent company could use such transactions to drain resources away from the local unit to a foreign parent. That is precisely what happened with PLL, say these minority shareholders who allege that Pfizer sold raw materials at huge markups. They say because Pfizer took equity in return for the cash it pumped into the struggling operation, the drug giant ended up with a growing share of PLL at the cost of minority investors whose equity only fell over time.
According to a court ordered examination of PLL’s practices done by Ernst & Young, Pfizer exported drug raw materials to the Pakistani unit at prices that were, in some cases, up to 70 times those charged by alternative providers. For example, the court papers show, amlodepine besylate, the active ingredient in high-blood pressure medicine Norvasc, was sold at $30,000 per kg while alternative sources could have provided it for as little as $500 per kg. Another example was of piroxicam, used in arthritis drug Feldene, which was allegedly imported by PLL at $8,750 per kg, compared with $125 per kg in the market. Another ingredient, doxycycline, found in antibiotic Vibramycin, was imported by PLL at $700 per kg though it could have been purchased for $60 per kg.
1  2 3 4 
Tags - Find More Articles On:
READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
Mumtaz Said:


Pfizer in Pakistan As a businessman I am unable to fathom the business strategy of Pfizer’s operations in Pakistan. The facts as reported in the Judgment are: a)Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. has accumulated losses of Rs 930.3 million till 2002; b) its two main products are being sold at gross loss – which means that increase in sales would result in greater losses; c) the company is presumably paying taxes thereby increasing these losses further – I know that Tax authorities have their own system of assessing ‘true’ profits and take a careful look at inter-company transactions disallowing what they deem to be any excess loading; and finally d) the parent company is financing these losses by injecting equity capital which would clearly be classified as ‘dead’ investment at their end and would have to be written off as ‘bad’ investment in due course. But as the parent company is selling the raw materials: in case of Amlodepine Besylate at 60 times [US$ 30,000 per kg vs. US$ 500 per kg] and Piroxicam at 70 times [US$ 8,750 vs. US$ 125 per kg] their respective market prices –these numbers are just incredible- the parent company or the affiliated company must be earning and showing very good margins in their own books. So, the question is that does the write-off of their investment balances the net earnings from sale of raw materials? Forgetting the plight of minority shareholders for a minute, one supposes that must be so for all this to make any sense. But then earnings are a profit and loss [‘above the line’] item whereas write-off is a ‘below the line’ item – which in lay terms means ‘window dressing’ as current earnings get inflated to be reduced subsequently when investments are written off.. This sounds sinister as this was precisely what Enron – the largest collapse in US corporate history- was accused of doing. As a shareholder in Pfizer U.S. I am alarmed that the parent company is condoning such actions and perhaps Securities & Exchange Authority needs to b

Posted On 7/27/2007 4:35:33 PM
khalid Said:


i must congrutulate u fr showing the ugly face of the multinationals and exposing the nefarious methods of downright robbing the people of the thirld world. minority shareholders may be compensated, but what about the millions of patients like myself(i am taking norvasc),what remedy is available to me. exploitation by pharmaceuticals is a world wide menace to mankind.

Posted On 7/27/2007 4:47:16 PM
Javed Said:


Leela Parker has been quite resourceful in digging up the affairs of Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. Pakistan.Norvasc, Feldene and Vibramycin are marketed by Pfizer as Amologard, Dolonex and Vibazene in India.We now know the price at whichPfizer Pakistan is buying the active ingredients from its parent company.I think Leela Parkershould find out how much Pfizer India is paying for the same raw materials.Readers would certainly be interested as it will throw light on how multinational pharmaceutical companies organise their operations particularly in third world countries.

Posted On 7/28/2007 2:11:37 PM
Ejaz Said:


Having read your article and the Court ruling a number of questions arise. 1. The last line of Court ruling states “disposed off” and Pfizer’s Company secretary states the issues sub-judice and a appeal is planned. This is a contradictory position. A employee is always going to find it difficult to defend unfair policies of his employer. 2. Why did court ordered examination by Ernest & Young find different then Company’s accountants KPMG? Was KMPG looking the other way as Arthur Anderson did in the Enron case. 3. In my opinion multinational pharmaceutical companies operations in thirld world countries should be monitored very tightly with respect to abuse of Intellectual Property Rights, financial & trade operations and corrupting of local human resources.

Posted On 7/28/2007 3:23:06 PM
Faizan Said:


As a Pakistani it is alarming to learn about one of the pioneer multinationals in the country,and leading worldwide,such as Pfizer.It is anybody's guess now why prices of their drugs are hurting patients.I commend Leela Parker to have uncovered such a story specially on eve of my firs year of MBA.

Posted On 7/30/2007 10:45:50 PM
Faizan Said:


As a Pakistani it is alarming to learn about one of the pioneer multinationals in the country,and leading worldwide,such as Pfizer.It is anybody's guess now why prices of their drugs are hurting patients.I commend Leela Parker to have uncovered such a story specially on eve of my firs year of MBA.

Posted On 7/30/2007 10:48:08 PM