Allergan

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Fortune 500

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Employees

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

Get insights into Allergan including business profile, stock information, news, and rankings from Fortune.

Allergan Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

allergan

Companies

Allergan | Fortune

Allergan Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings | Fortune

 What a year for big mergers for the drug industry. And especially that huge deal between Pfizer and Allergan. What does that deal mean for your industry? If you look at it from our point of view, it has no impact on us at all. We don't compete with any of those products. It doesn't really change anything from our perspective. I think what we are much more focused on are what's happening in the companies who are developing technologies which could develop products which are more of a threat to us, and how do we compete with those. If I'm honest with you, this kind of transaction doesn't really change that territory. You're saying that the Pfizer Allergan combination doesn't pose more of a competitive threat at all for Glaxo? I don't think this makes a big difference to our competitive landscape. Our big competitors are companies like Gilead in HIV for example, or AstraZeneca Respiratory. Those are the companies that we tend to be focused on. There have been reports that Pfizer approached GlaxoSmithKline about a possible takeover. Obviously they were turned away. Tell us why. Well, we don't talk about any kind of conversations that we may or may not be involved in or have been involved in anemone for obvious reasons. So unfortunately, that's the one question I'm not going to be able to give you any kind of comment on. Given all the deal making that's going on in your industry and companies getting bigger and bigger, can Glaxo really go it alone and still compete in this very competitive environment? Absolutely. I mean, we're a huge company. We've got over 100,000 employees. We operate in 130 countries around the world. But do you think it's just a matter of time that Glaxo is going to have to partner up with somebody, whether you're a buyer or seller? No, I don't think it is. We've just done a transaction with Novartis to build up the two areas we wanted to strengthen. We feel like those areas have got tremendous growth. We're signaling a very strong optimism for the growth of consumer and vaccines over the next five years. I prefer that. Why? Because it's more focused. I haven't put the whole company in play. I can only spend three or four years going through a massive integration. It's something we can do in a very targeted way, it's very focused. That's a great game plan for us over the next several years. We're very happy with that. And it doesn't matter to us that we're the biggest or not in the sector. We're big where we need to be big, we lead where we need to lead. As you know, the Pfizer and Allergan deal has really stirred up debate about these so-called tax inversions. I'd like to get your view on these so-called tax avoidance tactics in the context of the overall industry. Is it helpful or harmful? As far as the overall industry's concerned, the industry unfortunately over the last several years has attracted too much controversy for a variety of reasons. What we all have to focus on as members of this industry is to get the message across about the great things that the industry develops, the great work that our research scientists are doing. And we need to try and figure out ways to solve problems to improve the reputation of the industry. Pfizer's CEO Ian Read has said that this decision is good for the country. Our fortune editor-in-chief thinks otherwise and says it's a bad decision. It's going to have long lasting impact for the industry and for the country. And he calls it Pfizer's desertion. I mean, where do you stand on this? In our case, we're a British company. We've been a British company for 300 years. This year's our 300th anniversary. But because we're a British company, we focus on working with the British government to try and improve the environment so that we can invest more in Britain, create more research in Britain, as a consequence, generate more exports. 98% of my sales are outside of Britain. So Britain is not important to GSK as a market, but it's a critical important center for R&D and manufacture, and we're a critically important company to Britain for tax and job creation. I do think companies, just like individuals, have a role to play in society. We can't be separate from it. Having a role to play in society it doesn't mean just take, it means pay back, it means contribute, it means helping to build and evolve a better system. So my overall view is much better to take that assertion, that commitment, and then work through problems with people to make it better for everybody. 

Why GlaxoSmithKline Won't Do A Merger

Leadership

CEO Andrew Witty explains to Fortune's Susie Gharib.

Brent, it's been a few months since you finally closed this huge deal between Allergan and Actavis. $ 66 billion, how's it going? It's going really well. We have settled out the management team. We have picked the R and D projects that we want to move forward. We picked the markets for investment. It's a big learning, we still have some work to do. But overall I'd say it's been a really A plus integration of two really different companies with a common objective. We're now hearing that Allergan and Pfizer have confirmed that you're in friendly talks of for. Possible merger. I know it's in the very early stages but what I'm wondering is, given all this good stuff that's going on with your company, I mean what more could you gain from joining forces with Pfizer that you don't already have? Yeah so to be clear we're very early preliminary discussions but We are in a really strong position as a stand alone company and we evaluate buying R and D assets, buying other companies, or combining with other companies all of the time. What is different here is because of Irish code when it was leaked we had to confirm it. So it is adding the public. But we're always looking at what makes sense for the future and I think when you think about combining with somebody, regardless of who it is, one of the things you look at, can you do more innovation, do you have more scale, can you sell more? Can you acquire better talent or more talent? And so those are the things, is you look at all these, but by no means is anything set in stone or certain. Well I mean there's been so much consolidation going on, that's been the theme of this year. Besides your big deal, Walgreen's, Rite Aid, [ UNKNOWN ], Humana, Sigma, [ UNKNOWN ], And the rationale for a lot of these deals is that size and scale are important. Given that [ UNKNOWN ] is already so big, is getting bigger gonna be better for your company, or is there are point at which bigger doesn't really make that much of a difference? Yeah, so size was never a goal for us or for me, and when you look at the pharmaceutical industry It is still fragmented, and that's what's so interesting here. We still have 30 companies of five billion in size or more. And ultimately, I do think as this industry continues to need to make big bets on innovation, for example Alzheimer's, a multiple billion dollar bets to solve for Alzheimer's. We're going to need more scale, and so, much like the airlines or telecommunications or technology companies, banks, telecommunications, you name it, we're going to get down to a very large global companies, perhaps 4 to 6 And then a bunch of really small, science based companies that have platform science that gets leverage by the big guys. And you're supportive of that? Well, I think it's the right thing. We're now moving into the age of biology, and as we move into the age of biology, the risks and the bets on the science are massive. And we need to take them, and we need to take them in a way that we can mitigate that risk over a broader base. And so that's the only area where I think size does really matter. One of the things that we've been hearing from Pfizer's CEO is that high U. S. corporate taxes are making American companies at a competitive disadvantage with other companies. And this is one of the reasons that they're talking to you about locating outside of the United States. Are you supportive of more and more companies doing these so- called tax inversions ?>> Well I think we should step back from that for one second and say why are companies doing it? Why are companies looking at inversion versus other tax mitigation? Strategies and it has a little bit to do with rates, but it mostly has to do with the territorial nature of the U. S. tax system. And the United States and perhaps, North Korea, are one of the few countries that have a territorial system. France, the U. K ., China, Japan, all have global tax systems. And so, the fact that we are trying to tax our corporations as if they're a US company, no matter where they operate, is really anti- competitive. And I think that's the thrust of what I've heard from the Pfizer CEO. And that's the part that I think is Putting American- based corporations at a competitive disadvantage versus global companies. So, let's say for some reason, magically, corporate tax rates came down dramatically, do you think that you would still be talking to Fizer about doing a deal? Is this about tax benefits or is this because it makes good business sense? Yes, so I think about any combination as strategic first. Can you increase your commercial presence? Do you get access to markets you wouldn't have had otherwise for your products? Do you get Stronger capabilities for your people. And once you have that, then you start to look at all the other cost synergies and the like that make the deal valuable. [ BLANK_AUDIO ]

Brent Saunders sits down with Fortune's Susie Gharib to discuss buying Actavis and his merger talks with Pfizer.

Allergan CEO Talks Mergers and Acquisitions Past and Future

Saunders on buying Actavis and merger talks with Pfizer.

Allergan CEO Talks Mergers and Acquisitions

Let's talk a little bit about drug prices. As you know, there's a lot of concern in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail about the sky rocketing prices that consumers have to pay for life saving drugs. What's your take on the pricing environment right now for drugs? You know, what's interesting is in the United States for Mainstream companies doing mainstream types of activity. There is a lot of negotiation over direct pricing. I think a, there, there's this fallacy that we can just set a price and that's the price. Even in a Medicare Part D plan most of those are administered by commercial health insurers [ UNKNOWN ], I mean a United or, or humanity They negotiate those prices. They have committees that evaluate whether to put the drug on formulary, what the pharmacol economic benefit is, and then they manage the price in the form of rebates and the like. There is a very competitive environment around pricing today. That being said I think we can always use more transparency in pricing. And I think that we have to always balance access and need and price. And that's something that we have to work with, not just ourselves, but the health insurance industry and others to do. I mean, one of the solutions that's being talked about is maybe linking the price To patient outcomes and the quality of the drug's performance. What do you think of something like that? I think that's actually a really interesting idea and I think we're starting to see some pilots where we're testing that. And I think that could lead to a possible good policy and / or framework. For drug pricing. What's interesting though in drug pricing is as an industry a few companies have solved a disease, Hepatitis C, with a cure. Something that was unimaginable just a few years ago. And we're still having that debate on pricing even when it comes to a cure, and I think the reason is it's personal. And there's no question that those Hepatitis C drugs are miraculous, but they're also very expensive. Some of them are $ 1, 000 a pill, and that is what is appalling for not only the politicians in Washington but for the consumers that have to pay them. But that's the issue right? So, one of the companies that did that went out and spent. $ 12 billion plus another few billion dollars to get to that cure. And they're charging roughly the same price for that cure as what the old therapies use to cost. And so, what other industry do you have where you have a major innovation after a company made a massive investment and on any pharmacoeconomic scale or benefit The price of curing Hepatitis today is a good debt for health insurance companies. The problem is the health insurance companies don't want to pay for it and so the patient gets stuck on the short end of the stick, and that's what's so unacceptable. As you know Congress and now even the Justice Department are doing investigations about the high prices of prescription drugs. What changes if any do think is going to come out of that. I don't think a lot. I I think the most important change that will come out of this is attention. And it's good I think for the pricing issue to get attention. There are have there have been bad actors who have really exploited loopholes or situations in the pricing environment and I'm hopeful that this will put A real stop to that. [ BLANK_AUDIO ]

Brent Saunders sits down with Fortune's Susie Gharib to explain.

Allergan

Allergan in Fortune Rankings

Videos