This paper concentrates on the primary theme of Criteria Ratings Pts, Pfizer and Allergan in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 40. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.

BUS 420: Criteria Ratings Pts, Pfizer and Allergan

Instructions:

Pfizer and Allergan
“The proposed combination of Pfizer and Allergan will create a leading global pharmaceutical company with the strength to research, discover and deliver more medicines and therapies to more people around the world,” stated Ian Read, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pfizer.
“Allergan’s businesses align with and enhance Pfizer’s businesses, creating best-in-class, sustainable, innovative and established businesses that are poised for growth. Through this combination, Pfizer will have greater financial flexibility that will facilitate its continued discovery and development of new innovative medicines for patients, direct return of capital to shareholders, and continued investment in the United States, while also enabling its pursuit of business development opportunities on a more competitive footing within the industry…”
Rubric:
Criteria Ratings Pts
Purpose and objective
Exemplary: The purpose and objective of the report is made clear, and the report addresses the objective(s) in a focused and logical manner
5 pts
Satisfactory: The purpose and objective of the report is made clear, and the report addresses the objective(s)
3 pts
Unacceptable: The essay does not clearly address the objective(s)
0 pts
5 pts
Clarity and conciseness: Answers the question, succinct, appropriate complexity
Exemplary:Argument effectively and efficiently conveyed; highly focused on the question; easily understood. insight
15 pts
Satisfactory:Argument reasonably clear; occasionally misses the point but answers the question; not over-elaborate or over-complicated.
10 pts
Main point and/or argument confused/unclear. Irrelevant information, no transition between ideas. Unclear conclusion.
0 pts
15 pts
Conclusions / Recommendations (Both are not always required – this depends on the specific details of the report)
Exemplary:Conclusions are relevant and accurately portray the key results of the document. Recommendations are specific action oriented suggestions, oriented to the problem provided, and organised in a relevant manner. Conclusions/recommendations logically flow from the document in a manner which is evident to the reader. They are presented in a clear, itemised format, with parallel grammatical structure
20 pts
Satisfactory:Conclusions are relevant and portray the results of the document. Recommendations are specific action-oriented suggestions, oriented to the problem provided. Conclusions/Recommendations logically flow from the document but the logic may not always be clear. They are presented in a clear, itemised format, with parallel grammatical structure.
10 pts
Unacceptable:Conclusions/Recommendations do not clearly flow from the document, and/or miss key findings. They are not well organised, and are not presented in a clear, itemised format, with parallel grammatical structure.
0 pts
20 pts
Accuracy of Content
Exemplary:Information (names, facts, etc.) included in the report is consistently accurate
20 pts
Satisfactory:With some minor exceptions, the information (names, facts, etc.) included in the report is accurate
10 pts
Unacceptable:The information in the report is incorrect or unclear to the point of being misleading.
0 pts
20 pts
Depth of Analysis
Exemplary: Results are carefully and objectively analyzed. Interpretations are made using appropriate equations, models, or theories.
15 pts
Satisfactory:The analysis is detailed enough to aid understanding but is not enhanced with equations, models, or theories.
7.5 pts
Unacceptable: The analysis is so sketchy and inadequate that the reader is not able to evaluate the validity of the interpretation of findings.
0 pts
15 pts
Use of Language: Word Choice, Grammar, and Sentence Structure
Exemplary: Sentences are complete and grammatical, and they flow together easily. Words are chosen for their precise meaning.
5 pts
Satisfactory: For the most part, sentences are complete and grammatical, and they flow together easily. Any errors are minor and do not distract the reader. Repetition of the same words and phrases is avoided.
3 pts
Unacceptable: Errors in sentence structure and grammar are frequent enough that they distract the reader and interfere with meaning. There is unnecessary repetition of the same words and phrases.
0 pts
5 pts
Use of Figures: Graphs, Charts, & Drawings
Exemplary: All figures, graphs, charts, and drawings are accurate, consistent with the text, and of good quality. They enhance understanding of the text.
5 pts
Satisfactory: For the most part, figures, graphs, charts, and drawings are accurate, consistent with the text, and of good quality.
3 pts
Unacceptable:Figures, graphs, charts, and drawings are of poor quality, have numerous inaccuracies and mislabelling, or may be missing. There may be no corresponding explanatory text or there may be redundancy with the text
0 pts
5 pts
Use of References
Exemplary: Prior work is acknowledged by referring to sources for theories, assumptions, quotations, and findings. References are exact with author, journal, volume number, page number, and year.
10 pts
Satisfactory:With an occasional oversight, prior work is acknowledged by referring to sources for theories, assumptions, quotations, and findings. With some minor exceptions, references are exact with author, journal, volume number, page number, and year
5 pts
Unacceptable: Little attempt is made to acknowledge the work of others. Most references that are included are inaccurate or unclear
0 pts
10 pts
Use of Appendices Where Appropriate
Exemplary: Information is appropriately placed in either the main text or an appendix. Appendices are documented and referenced in the text
5 pts
Satisfactory: Appendices are used when appropriate. Selection and/or extent of material in appendix may not be optimal.
3 pts
Unacceptable: There is unnecessary inclusion of detailed information in the main body of the text.
0 pts
5 pts
Total Points: 100

Content:

Pfizer and Allergan Deal Insert Name: Institutional Affiliation: Due Date: Introduction Pfizer Inc. (American-based company) and Allergen PLC (Ireland-based company) obtained their top management approval to merge the two companies in what will the biggest ever inversion deal, worth an estimate of $160 billion. That deal is a reverse merger in which Allergan (the smaller company) will acquire Pfizer (the larger company) so that Pfizer can take advantage of reduced tax regime in Ireland (Micklus and Muntner, 2016, p.78). Pfizer will shift its domicile out of the United States to Ireland. The merger is expected to reap a big valuation. Pfizer shareholders will obtain one share in the new combined firm for everyone they are holding currently, whereas Allergen shareholders will obtain 11.3 shares for every Allergen share. That would give Pfizer shareholders an efficient 56% stake in the merged company, and Allergan shareholders 45%. Many stakeholders think that the pending deal between Allergan and Pfizer is positive. Nevertheless, the argument against the plan is that such deal is negative because the risks are more than the perceived benefits. In this paper, I will present the perceived importance of the merger by illustrating arguments for the deal. On the other side, I will show arguments against the merger plan. After going through critical analysis, I realize that the merger deal has more harmful impacts than perceived benefits. I am, therefore, against th...

Criteria Ratings Pts, Pfizer and Allergan

BUS 420: Criteria Ratings Pts, Pfizer and Allergan

Instructions:

Content:

100% Pass Guarantee

STILL NOT CONVINCED?