Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Apr 28, 2014.
Rick Perry has been out there making the pitch
Liberal utopia begins its death spiral.
The states with the highest tax rates have the highest unemployment rate, only to get higher.
Well, of course another California company moves to Texas. In other news: water is wet.
Quick question: which phenomenon has seen fewer official sitings, Bigfoot or an unemployed person in Texas ?
and Pfizer is considering moving their HQ to London to reduce taxes. The largest drug maker in the US would no longer be paying US taxes. Our system is broken and will only encourage multi-nationals to leave the US. The prosecution of executives for bribing foreign officials is going to hasten the process. In some places in this world you don't get work unless you pay the correct people so the US companies are fighting with both hands behind their back trying to get contracts in parts of the world with the promise of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads
Valient Pharmaceuticals buys companies and then moves them to tax sheltered Bermuda. Look at the chart for VRX. They bought Bausch & Lomb recently and are trying to buy Allergen (botox) in conjunction with Bill Ackman whou bought a bunch of Allergen and then convinced VRX to make an offer. Talk about insider trading. wow. 15% bump in a couple of weeks with Ackman knowing that VRX was looking at Allergen
What happens if America’s largest drug company, Pfizer PFE +3.9%, and America’s drug store, Walgreen's WAG +1.2%, both execute deals that mean they no longer will be domiciled in America, and as a result will pay far less in American taxes? Could mergers done for the sake of dodging taxes become a key issue in the upcoming midterm elections?
That’s a key question for all investors this morning as New York’s Pfizer, the largest drug company in the U.S., publicly detailed a bid to purchase AstraZeneca AZN +11.96% for $100 billion, 70% of it in stock and the rest in cash. Pfizer says the deal is being driven by the complementary nature of the two drug giants’ stables of products and by the costs it could cut, but it would also move its tax domicile to a holding company in the U.K. and therefore pay a significantly lower tax rate. This is known as a “tax inversion.”
“It would be very detrimental to the deal to bring in AstraZeneca’s profits into the U.S. which are domiciled in the UK,” Pfizer Chief Executive Ian Read said on a call with journalists. Pfizer would maintain its corporate headquarters in New York.
Moves overseas to escape the high U.S. corporate tax rate have been a growing trend among pharmaceutical companies. Valeant Pharmaceuticals, domiciled in Bermuda, has made a strategy of buying companies and moving them to its lower-tax domicile while also brutally cutting research and development spending. Last May it purchased Bausch & Lomb, the fabled eyecare company, for $8.7 billion. Last week it launched a hostile takeover of Allergan AGN -1.27%, the maker of Botox, along with Bill Ackman’s Pershing Capital.
16 states have an unemployment rate lower than Texas, per the BLS
From Business Week:
In the American pantheon, there’s baseball, apple pie, and a Walgreens (WAG)drugstore on nearly every other corner. Yet an investor group wants to persuade the Midwestern stalwart to relocate to Europe as a way to reduce its corporate tax burden.
Three hedge funds and a Goldman Sachs (GS) investment fund want the 113-year-old pharmacy chain, based in suburban Chicago, to consider a tax “inversion” and move to Europe, as the Financial Times reported today, citing unnamed sources. Walgreen Chief Executive Greg Wasson and the company’s chief financial officer met in Paris last week with a hedge fund group that wants the company to leave Illinois for what would most likely be Switzerland, which has lower tax rates."
Regardless, that's not too shabby. If you look a many of the states ahead of Texas nobody lives there.
The bolded part above perfectly describes Perry's Texas.
Yes, but how many Bigfoot sightings do those states have?
Texas has been the job-producing engine for the US for a number of years. US would be a banana republic without it. And some of you yahoos didn't care whether or not it seceded.
It's not that I didn't care. I'm just not compelled by petulant foot stomping.
If you ever give your wife cause to leave you I hope you don't just toss it off as petulant foot stomping. Of course if she's like Texas you could never afford to let her go.
I've heard a lot of things, but this is one of the first times I have seen someone legitimately criticize FCPA enforcement as being a major factor in driving companies away. Not least of all because, absent taking some very drastic steps, the company would likely remain subject to the FCPA even after a move (covered persons extends a long way beyond just companies domiciled in the US). And, perhaps more importantly, even if you can escape the FCPA, a multinational would have major potential problems avoiding the conclusion that they have "carried on business" in the UK and subjected themselves to the Bribery Act, which is more restrictive than the FCPA anyhow.
it is only more restrictive if it is enforced.
It only went into effect less than three years ago. They brought their first major case last year (a number of minor charges had already been brought) and the SFO reportedly has a number of other major international investigations pending. On top of that, there's been talk of expanding it to cover all serious financial crimes and to add EU-wide public contract debarment as a penalty for it.
Even without getting into the Bribery Act aspects, though, escaping FCPA coverage is quite difficult. In addition to domiciling outside the US, speaking generally you would potentially also need to restructure to make the company not be an issuer or filer with the SEC and to avoid having ADRs traded on US exchanges, and even that would still leave personnel who are US residents or citizens potentially covered by the FCPA even if the company wasn't, as well as foreign entities potentially covered where some aspect of the acts occurred in the US (potentially including acts as remote as sending messages that pass through US mail or computer networks, or wire transfers that route through US banks). Getting out of the US and the UK's international corruption laws is, intentionally, a really difficult proposition.
there are a LOT of EU, Greek, ME, Russian, and Chinese multi-nationals that are not concerned. How is GE supposed to compete with Chinese company offering similiar product (probably stolen from GE) and suit cases full of cash?? If US and Britain are serious they need to slap severe sanctions on any company accepting bribes and shut them out of US banking..
DOJ has recently gotten much more assertive in asserting jurisdiction over foreign nationals on the sole basis of transfers passing through the US banking system.
The big bribery concern jurisdictions (where DOJ is particularly focused on bribes being paid) are the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China), but monitoring and enforcing over interests with the sole jurisdictional tie being acts in furtherance occurring within the US (such as the US banking system transfers or communication over US wires) requires a lot of enforcement resources. The US's FCPA practices are certainly moving in that direction, but there's definitely still a ways to go on that front.
In that regard, I think the UK making the Bribery Act amendment to include EU-wide debarment that they have been discussing would further those efforts, but I haven't been following that discussion that closely.