Thus, the primary driver of the antitrust required divestitures (or JVs or outlicensings) -- in any such a deal -- would be the European Competition Commission, not the US FTC/DoJ Antitrust Divisions (though these too, would have to have a Hart-Scott say). In Europe, AstraZeneca and Pfizer compete head to head in many markets and therapies. And untangling these potentials for monopolist power, by geography, and by therapy -- is no small notion, in a mythical $100 billion deal that gives No. One or No. Two (or No. Four, depending on how you measure Pfizer) control of No. Seven (or No. Nine), in Europe.
Suffice it to say that should such a presently-mythical deal get annouced, it would be tough to close. And it would, with near certainty, result within a few years in a combined entity that scantly resembled the constituent companies. The number of required divestitures, joint ventures and licenses to preserve "robust competition," in the view of the relevant EU authorities, at least, would take several years to complete, and might end up gutting the best of the two companies, as stand-alones -- leaving only the weaker parts of the then combined new "whole".
So, on balance, never say never -- but even Ian C. Read isn't so mindlessly patrician as to try to unilaterally impose his whims on the EU Competition Commission. As I said yesterday, this deal never gets done as a hostile -- and thus very likely never gets done -- at all. AZ has declined to acquiesce -- and no additional talks are scheduled or are contemplated.
Here effectively endeth the rumor. Or at least our dissection of it. Have a great Monday, one and all!
