Log has written
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2009

The years have taken their toll. In addition to two of the original parties to the lawsuit dying, today, only 0.35% of PLL is held by minority shareholders. And for Pfizer, the merger of PLL and Parke Davis is pending the resolution of the valuation of minority shares, notes Azfar Hasnain, who has a power of attorney for PLL shares held by his son who is largely overseas.

Because Pfizer was unwilling to respond to specific queries, Mint was unable to ascertain how its business is currently performing in Pakistan or get responses to some of the shareholder assertions. The companies are running in an “efficient manner,” according to Pfizer’s website.

“A similar investment made in other company would be 40 to 50 times more,” says Khan, who holds the 100,000 shares with his brother, Abbas. “That’s the reason I am fighting for this thing. It’s a personal principle.”

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