Former AstraZeneca chief executive attacks Pfizer deal

praying mantis

Sir David Barnes was the chief executive of AstraZeneca until 2000 and deputy chairman until 2002. He oversaw the merger of Astra and Zeneca in the late 1990s which was at the time one of the largest pharmaceutical deals in Europe.

Sir David now says that any Pfizer/AstraZeneca deal would not be in the best interests of patients or Britain's science base. Speaking to the BBC, he said that he feared for the future of AstraZeneca worldwide if the bid goes through.

He told me that, for Pfizer, "tax was one of the key drivers of the deal" rather than a long term commitment to research and development.

"That is a very narrow basis on which to base such a massive task," Sir David told me.

"The risk is that the past history of Pfizer has shown that they tend to extract destructive synergies, they have done that in the past.

"I have a great concern that they will act like a praying mantis and suck the lifeblood out of their prey."

Sir David said that if Pfizer wanted to take advantage of the UK's tax laws and "patent box" - which gives tax breaks for research - it should invest in the UK itself and not attempt to do it via a takeover of AstraZeneca.

"They should be building their own labs in Cambridge," he said.

Sir David argued that the government should make clear its concerns about the deal and that shareholders should give the opinions of ministers "weight".

He said he wasn't necessarily convinced that the government should take on increased powers over takeover deals - a position put forward by Lord Heseltine in an interview with the BBC last week.

Sir David has written to Chuka Umunna, the shadow business secretary, outlining his concerns. In the email, seen by the BBC, he said:

"There is no significant advantage to be gained from the proposed acquisition. Indeed, for the financial arithmetic to stand up, there will need to be significant reduction in the combined activities.

"There is danger in becoming too big. There will be extended lines of communication, greater centralisation of decision taking and increased bureaucracy - none of these consequences is in the interests of patients or shareholders."

He continued: "The pipeline of new products for AstraZeneca is regarded as being much more exciting [than Pfizer's] and as such has formed part of the Pfizer case for acquisition.

"This reasoning, namely the need to make good the shortcomings in Pfizer innovation, was also used by Pfizer to justify the earlier acquisitions of Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia and Wyeth Laboratories. The result? A further reduction in the discovery of new products and a reduction of some US$3bn per annum in the aggregate former R&D expenditure."

Mr Umunna told me that the case against the deal was increasing. He said: "This is a highly significant intervention by a person who knows AstraZeneca well.

"Sir David clearly shares the same reservations as Labour and many in industry, science and the City about this deal. The priority should be long term investment and enhancing UK R&D when many of the signs are that this deal is being driven by short term concerns and not the long term interest of a great British company and a key industrial sector."

This is now a highly political story, with Vince Cable due to make a statement to the Commons this afternoon. Sources tell me the business secretary will say there are significant powers the government has to delay any deal without resorting to new legislation on a "national interest" defence.

Mr Cable will say that the government is acting in the best interests of jobs and investment and that it does not favour any side in the deal.

Mr Cable did reject Lord Heseltine's proposals on a national interest defence in 2012 and though a review could be on the cards, there are certainly parts of the government (the Treasury for example) that are against any move that could be construed as "closing the UK" to foreign investment.

Kamal Ahmed Article written by Kamal Ahmed Kamal Ahmed Business editor

Lloyds’ results will focus on the dividend and pay

The chief executive’s remuneration has been sparked by the success of the bank.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Kamal


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 37.

    JohnS @36
    "Profit is all

    When a business is 'too important to fail', at stake the future of owner & creditors, workers & customers, their many & varied 'higher visions' for the community maybe, then whether 'going down' to a truly better competitor or to simply a cut-throat spoiler, temptation comes to either race to the bottom or get out. The problem is in lack of universal partnership.

  • rate this

    Comment number 36.

    Profit is all that matters in any business today, make money fast and get out quick.

    Until this attitude changes, business, politics, lives will continue to suffer, as well as people and the environment as everything else is put behind profit.

    MPs should not be allowed to own shares in any business, it just leads to corruption, also ban lobbying.

  • rate this

    Comment number 35.

    Pfizer established a site near Sandwich in the 1950's, which grew to a size of around 5 000 employees at it's largest. This was due to UK legislation restricting the importation of some medicines from abroad. In 2007 Pfizer announced the closure of this site. There are now around 650 employees left.

    It's obvious what will happen to the 7000 Astra Zenica employees if Pfizer takes over.

  • rate this

    Comment number 34.

    Sir David Barnes may have used a better simile than he realised. While they don't suck blood, the larger (female) praying mantis DOES bite the head off the smaller (male), after ******* it ...

  • rate this

    Comment number 33.

    AfA @32

    Irrespective of ever-changing 'answers' to questions on global commitment, absolute or relative, a 'democratic market' - all players free to follow conscience - would generate sensible rules for geographical / cultural / approach mix AND pace of change, NOT to see either prolonged redundancy of efforts or reckless discard of skills, of staff not transferable or without better destination.


Comments 5 of 37


Features & Analysis

From BBC Capital


  • BatteriesClick Watch

    More power to your phone - the lithium-ion batteries that could last twice as long

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.