DOCSLIB.ORG

Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan Amgen Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington D.C. 20549 FORM 11-K (Mark One) ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number 000-12477 AMGEN RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN (Full title of the plan) AMGEN INC. (Name of issuer of the securities held) One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, California 91320-1799 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Table of Contents Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan Financial Statements and Supplemental Schedules Years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 Contents Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 1 Audited Financial Statements: Statements of Net Assets Available for Benefits at December 31, 2009 and 2008 2 Statements of Changes in Net Assets Available for Benefits for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 3 Notes to Financial Statements 4 Supplemental Schedules: Schedule of Assets (Held at End of Year) 16 Schedule of Assets (Acquired and Disposed of Within Year) 40 Signatures 41 Exhibits 42 Table of Contents Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Amgen Inc., as Named Fiduciary, and the Plan Participants of the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan We have audited the accompanying statements of net assets available for benefits of the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan (the Plan) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of changes in net assets available for benefits for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Plan’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Plan’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Plan’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the net assets available for benefits of the Plan at December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the changes in its net assets available for benefits for the years then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Our audits were performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying supplemental schedules of assets (held at end of year) as of December 31, 2009 and assets (acquired and disposed of within year) for the year then ended are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial statements but are supplementary information required by the Department of Labor’s Rules and Regulations for Reporting and Disclosure under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. These supplemental schedules are the responsibility of the Plan’s management. The supplemental schedules have been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audits of the financial statements and, in our opinion, are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP Los Angeles, California June 23, 2010 1 Table of Contents Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan Statements of Net Assets Available for Benefits December 31, 2009 2008 Assets Investments at fair value $2,034,202,397 $1,519,345,106 Receivables – due from broker 12,262,379 16,496,533 Total assets 2,046,464,776 1,535,841,639 Liabilities Derivative investments at fair value 389,415 60,801,216 Other – principally due to broker 26,233,913 40,288,931 Total liabilities 26,623,328 101,090,147 Net assets reflecting investments at fair value 2,019,841,448 1,434,751,492 Adjustment from fair value to contract value for interest in fully benefit-responsive investment contracts (3,744,082) 3,791,063 Net assets available for benefits $2,016,097,366 $1,438,542,555 See accompanying notes. 2 Table of Contents Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan Statements of Changes in Net Assets Available for Benefits Years ended December 31, 2009 2008 Additions (deductions) to net assets: Employer contributions $ 147,003,121 $ 141,521,690 Participant contributions 126,536,394 120,903,404 Rollover contributions 7,437,455 5,487,770 Interest and dividend income 21,729,237 16,113,707 Net realized/unrealized gains/(losses) 376,331,466 (649,987,702) Transfer from Amgen Mountain View Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan — 481,592 Benefits paid (101,482,862) (262,641,022) Net increase/(decrease) 577,554,811 (628,120,561) Net assets available for benefits at beginning of year 1,438,542,555 2,066,663,116 Net assets available for benefits at end of year $2,016,097,366 $1,438,542,555 See accompanying notes. 3 Table of Contents Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2009 1. Description of the Plan The following description of the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan (the Plan) provides only general information. Participants should refer to the Plan document for a more complete description of the Plan’s provisions. General The Plan was established effective April 1, 1985 and was most recently amended and restated effective January 1, 2010. The Plan is a defined contribution plan covering substantially all domestic employees of Amgen Inc. (the Company or Amgen) and participating subsidiaries. The Plan, as amended, is intended to qualify under sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) (see Note 5, Income Tax Status) and section 407(d)(3)(A) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Contributions Subject to certain limitations (as defined in the Plan), participants may elect to contribute up to 30% of their eligible compensation in pre-tax elective contributions, Roth elective contributions, after-tax elective contributions or a combination of these types of contributions. A participant’s combined pre-tax elective contributions and Roth elective contributions (exclusive of catch-up contributions discussed below) are subject to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Plan limits and could not exceed a maximum of $16,500 in 2009 and $15,500 in 2008. Participant after-tax elective contributions are subject to IRS and Plan limitations and could not exceed a maximum of $8,000 in 2009 and $7,500 in 2008. Unless an employee has voluntarily enrolled in the Plan or has declined to participate in the Plan within the first 30 days of employment, all newly eligible participants are automatically enrolled in the Plan and contributions equal to 5% of their eligible compensation are withheld and contributed to the Plan as pre-tax elective contributions; such contributions are automatically increased by 1% per year until their contributions reach 10% of their eligible compensation. Participants may elect to adjust, cease or resume their contributions at any time. Participants who are at least age 50 by the close of the Plan year may also make certain additional contributions, referred to as catch-up contributions, that are subject to IRS and Plan limitations and could not exceed $5,500 in 2009 and $5,000 in 2008. Catch-up contributions can be made as pre-tax elective contributions, Roth elective contributions or a combination of these types of contributions. Participants may also contribute pre-tax and after-tax amounts representing certain distributions from other defined benefit or defined contribution plans qualified in the United States or certain individual retirement accounts (IRAs), referred to as rollover contributions (as defined in the Plan). Each pay period, the Company makes a non-elective contribution for all eligible participants, whether or not they have elected to make contributions to the Plan, equal to 5% of each participant’s eligible compensation (Core Contribution). In addition, the Company makes a contribution of 100% of up to 5% of eligible compensation contributed by the participant as pre-tax elective contributions or Roth elective contributions, including such contributions designated as catch-up contributions (Matching Contribution). 4 Table of Contents Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Also, the Company can, in its discretion, make a special non-elective contribution on behalf of each participant who is in his or her initial year of employment with the Company and who could not make the maximum participant contribution permitted under the Plan because in the same Plan year he or she previously made pre-tax salary deferrals under a prior unrelated employer’s qualified plan. Participants select the investments in which their contributions, including Core Contributions and Matching Contributions (collectively, Company Contributions), are to be invested, electing among various alternatives, including Amgen Inc. common stock (Amgen stock). Effective October 1, 2008, participants may direct a maximum of 20% of contributions to be invested in Amgen stock; prior to October 1, 2008, participants could direct a maximum of 50% of contributions to be invested in Amgen stock.
Recommended publications
  • Understanding the FTC's Monetary Equitable Remedies Under Section

    Understanding the FTC's Monetary Equitable Remedies Under Section

    Understanding the FTC’s monetary equitable remedies under Section 13(b) for antitrust violations By Gerald A. Stein, American Bar Association — Fall 2019 Until recently the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to seek monetary equitable remedies (particularly disgorgement and restitution) for alleged antitrust violations— whether ongoing, impending, or stale— went virtually unchallenged. After it first gained statutory authority under Section 13(b)1 of the FTC Act to bring suit in federal district court to preliminarily enjoin conduct that “is violating, or is about to violate” the antitrust laws, the FTC successfully convinced many federal courts that Section 13(b) also impliedly allowed the FTC to seek standalone permanent injunctions and monetary equitable remedies regardless of whether a defendant’s alleged anticompetitive conduct was ongoing or completed long ago.2 The FTC brought few antitrust cases in the years following the enactment for alleged antitrust violations pursuant to Section 13(b) where the alleged of Section 13(b) in 1973, and the agency formalized its conservative anticompetitive conduct was neither ongoing nor imminent. Next, in approach in its unanimously approved 2003 Policy Statement on Monetary FTC v. Credit Bureau Center LLC,5 the Seventh Circuit vacated an award for Equitable Remedies in Competition Cases. In 2012, however, the FTC restitution in a consumer protection case based on its determination that abruptly, and without providing an opportunity for public comment, Section 13(b) authorizes only restraining orders and injunctions. And, in a withdrew its 2003 Policy Statement, asserting that it created “an overly third case that is still pending, FTC v.
  • Responding to Mylan's Inadequate Tender Offer

    Responding to Mylan's Inadequate Tender Offer

    Responding To Mylan’s Inadequate Tender Offer: Perrigo’s Board Recommends That You Reject the Offer and Do Not Tender September 2015 Important Information Forward Looking Statements Certain statements in this presentation are forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events or the Company’s future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements of the Company or its industry to be materially different from those expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or other comparable terminology. The Company has based these forward-looking statements on its current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections. While the Company believes these expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections are reasonable, such forward-looking statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, including future actions that may be taken by Mylan in furtherance of its unsolicited offer. These and other important factors, including those discussed under “Risk Factors” in the Perrigo Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended June 27, 2015, as well as the Company’s subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange
  • Health Industry Business Communications Council

    Health Industry Business Communications Council

    Health Industry Business Communications Council Registered Labelers: Accredited Auto-ID Labeling Standards Argentina New MedTek Devices Pty Ltd Oxavita SRL Norseld Pty Ltd. Novadien Healthcare Pty Ltd The following companies Odontit S.A. (and/or their subsidiaries/ PAMPAMED S.R.L. Numedico Technologies Pty Ltd divisions) have applied PATEJIM SRL Opto Global Pty. Ltd. for a Labeler Identification Orthocell Limited Code (LIC) assignment with Austria Prolotus Technologies Pty Ltd HIBCC*. By doing so, they afreeze GmbH Red Milawa Pty Ltd dba Magic Mobility have demonstrated their AMI GmbH SDI Limited commitment to patient safety Bender Medsystems GmbH Signostics Ltd. and logistical efficiency for BHS Technologies GmbH Sirtex Medical Pty Ltd their customers, the industry Metasys Medizintechnik GmbH Smith & Nephew Surgical Pty. Ltd. and the public at large. PAA Laboratories GmbH Staminalift International Limited Safersonic Medizinprodukte Handels The Pipette Company Pty. Ltd. Any organization that is GmbH Thermo Electron Corporation interested in using the HIBC W & H Dentalwerk Burmoos GmbH Vush Pty Ltd uniform labeling system may apply for the assignment of VUSH STIMULATION Australia one or more LICs. William A Cook Australia Pty. Ltd. Adv. Surgical Design & Manufacture, Ltd. Last updated 9-21-2021 AirPhysio Pty Ltd Belgium Annalise-AI Pty Ltd 3M Europe Apollo Medical Imaging Technology Pty Advanced Medical Diagnostics SA/NV Ltd Analis SA/NV Benra Pty Ltd dba Gelflex Laboratories Baxter World Trade Bioclone Australia Pty. Ltd. Bio-Rad RSL Candelis, Inc. Bio-Rad Lab Inc Clinical Diag. Group DePuy Australia Pty. Ltd. Biosource Europe SA For more information, please dorsaVi Ltd Cilag NV contact the HIBCC office at: EC Certification Service GmbH Coris Bioconcept Fink Engineering Pty Ltd Fuji Hunt Photographic Chemicals NV 2525 E.
  • 2020 Annual Report Products

    2020 Annual Report Products

    Products 2020 Annual Report From the CEO Dear Fellow Shareholders, Perrigo’s transformation to a pure-play Consumer Self-Care Company has come a long way LQMXVWWZRVKRUW\HDUV:HKDYHUHVWRUHGVXVWDLQDEOHWRSOLQHJURZWKGHOLYHUHGRQRXU¿QDQFLDO SURPLVHVUHFRQ¿JXUHGRXUSRUWIROLRRIEXVLQHVVHVXSGDWHGWKH,7LQIUDVWUXFWXUHDQGSURFHVVHV of the Company, expanded capacity, upgraded leadership talent, installed business intelligence capabilities, built a new product pipeline of over $500 million and re-instilled a sense of pride and energy among our 11,000 team members. Making this even more remarkable, is that we kept the WUDQVIRUPDWLRQRQWUDFNLQWKHIDFHRIWKHJOREDO&29,'SDQGHPLF,KRSH\RXDUHDVSURXGRI3HUULJR¶VJOREDOWHDP DV,DPIRUKRZWKH\ZRUNHGWRNHHSHDFKRWKHUVDIHNHSWRXUHVVHQWLDOSURGXFWVÀRZLQJDQGNHSWRXUWUDQVIRUPDWLRQ to a consumer self-care company on track through all of the personal and professional uncertainty that came their way LQ7KH\DUHKHURHV As a result of their efforts, Perrigo delivered strong net sales growth for the second year in a row in 2020 and World-wide Consumer sales reached a new record high. Equally important, the team stabilized adjusted operating income after a few years of decline even as we invested over $50 million in our business and overcame $35 million RIXQSODQQHGKHDGZLQGVGXHSULPDULO\WR&29,'UHODWHGVDIHW\FRVWVDQGEXVLQHVVLPSDFWIURPWKHZHDNFROG FRXJKDQGÀXVHDVRQUHODWHGWR&29,'¶VLPSDFWRQSXEOLFOLIH$OOLQDOOZHKDGDYHU\VWURQJ\HDU Our transformation efforts reached an essential milestone after the year closed when we announced the sale of RXU3UHVFULSWLRQ3KDUPDFHXWLFDOVEXVLQHVVWR$OWDULV&DSLWDO3DUWQHUV//&7KHWUDQVDFWLRQUHLQIRUFHVRXUDELOLW\
  • Pharma Pricing, Non-Profit Ties Get Increasing Scrutiny from Prosecutors

    Pharma Pricing, Non-Profit Ties Get Increasing Scrutiny from Prosecutors

    REGULATORY UPDATE REGULATORY UPDATE CONSUMER DRUGS Pediatric Rare Disease Voucher Japan Wants EMA To Stay In Digital Marketing: Health Care Brands’ Program Faces Expiration, p. 12 UK Post-Brexit, p. 15 Window Into Consumers’ Lives, p. 20 Pharma intelligence Pinkpink.pharmamedtechbi.comSheetVol. 78 / No. 38 September 19, 2016 informa Mylan NV was subpoenaed for material Pharma Pricing, Non-Profit Ties Get about the pricing of its generic doxycycline and communications with competitors. And Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. is Increasing Scrutiny From Prosecutors facing several probes about its pricing and BRENDA SANDBURG [email protected] patient assistance programs (see chart, p. 5). Mylan’s doxycycline price increases were called out by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., in October 2014 when they sent letters to 14 generic drug makers about the pricing of their prod- ucts. They noted that from October 2013 to April 2014, the average price charged for a 500-count bottle of 100 mg tablets had risen from $20 to $1,829, an 8,281% increase. Mylan is now under fire for repeatedly rais- ing the price of its severe allergy treatment EpiPen (epinephrine), which has increased from about $100 for a two-pack in 2008 to more than $600. Members of Congress sent a flurry of letters to the company requesting an explanation for the price hikes. And on Sept. 6, New York Attorney Gen- Shutterstock: blvdone Shutterstock: eral Eric Schneiderman announced that his office has begun an investigation into rug makers have been unable to programs, contractual agreements with Mylan with regard to EpiPen, saying a pre- shake free of government inves- pharmacy benefit managers, support of liminary review revealed that Mylan may Dtigations of their marketing and non-profit organizations, and calculation have inserted potentially anticompetitive sales practices.
  • Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission's Post-Trial Brief

    Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission's Post-Trial Brief

    Case 2:14-cv-05151-HB Document 403 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Case Number: 2:14-CV-5151-HB v. ABBVIE INC., et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF Armine Black Daniel S. Bradley Rebecca L. Egeland Jordy J. Hur Garth W. Huston Hannah Lamb Heather M. Johnson Thomas D. Mays Patricia M. McDermott Markus H. Meier Kara L. Monahan Lauren Peay Peter J. Taylor Matthew B. Weprin James Weingarten Attorneys for Plaintiff FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 (202) 326-2569 [email protected] Case 2:14-cv-05151-HB Document 403 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ ii KEY PERSONNEL ...................................................................................................................... vi I. Defendants’ objectively baseless lawsuits used the governmental process as an anticompetitive weapon .................................................................................................... 2 A. Defendants enjoyed substantial benefits from the collateral injuries their baseless lawsuits inflicted on Teva and Perrigo ...................................................... 3 B. The evidence at trial supports liability even under Defendants’ erroneous view that PRE requires proof that Defendants knew their lawsuits were baseless .........
  • I4i Makes the Patent World Blind Michael J

    I4i Makes the Patent World Blind Michael J

    COMMENTS i4i Makes the Patent World Blind Michael J. Conway† All patents receive a presumption of validity pursuant to 35 USC § 282. Courts have traditionally put this presumption into practice by requiring inva- lidity to be established by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this understanding of the presumption in Microsoft Corp v i4i Ltd Partnership. District courts have divided, however, on whether to require clear and con- vincing evidence when the challenger seeks to invalidate a patent for covering inel- igible subject matter. The conflict originates from a concurrence written by Justice Stephen Breyer in i4i, in which he stated that a heightened standard of proof—like the clear and convincing standard—can apply only to issues of fact, not issues of law. Because subject-matter eligibility has traditionally presented an issue of law, some courts hold that subject-matter-eligibility challenges cannot be subjected to the clear and convincing standard. Other courts agree with that sentiment but would apply the clear and convincing standard to resolve any underlying issues of fact. Still others maintain that subject-matter-eligibility challenges must be estab- lished by clear and convincing evidence. This Comment resolves this ambiguity by showing that subject-matter- eligibility challenges must be established by clear and convincing evidence. It com- pares subject-matter-eligibility challenges to two other patent validity challenges: the on-sale bar and nonobviousness. These two comparisons show that patent law has consistently failed to confine the clear and convincing standard to issues of law. In fact, the standard has been imposed without regard for the distinction be- tween issues of law and fact.
  • Healthcare & Life Sciences Industry Update

    Healthcare & Life Sciences Industry Update

    Healthcare & Life Sciences Industry Update August 2011 Member FINRA/SIPC www.harriswilliams.com What We’ve Been Reading August 2011 • The biggest story from inside the Beltway over the last month was the battle and eventual deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling to avoid an impending August 2nd default. The Budget Control Act of 2011 will raise the debt ceiling by $2.1-$2.4 trillion, while reducing spending by approximately $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In an interesting post-deal analysis, Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times notes that despite the protracted negotiations over a broad spectrum of cost-cutting measures, healthcare was not raised as a primary issue. Some have found this especially concerning, considering the outsized portion of the Federal Budget currently allocated to healthcare spending, which is forecast to rise in the coming years. A recent article in The Economist, entitled “Looking to Uncle Sam” makes this point and goes further to suggest that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) actuaries may be underestimating future increases in Medicare and Medicaid spending. • One potential reason CMS actuaries may be underestimating the future costs of Medicare and Medicaid relates to healthcare reform’s effect on employee benefits, and specifically, the 2014 switch to subsidized exchange policies. A recent report by McKinsey & Company estimates that approximately 30% of employers will stop offering employer- sponsored insurance (ESI) when this switch is made, as opposed to the 7% estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. An ESI exodus of this magnitude could cause substantial strain on an already robust government healthcare budget.
  • Perrigo Board of Directors

    Perrigo Board of Directors

    Perrigo Company plc Board of Directors and Their Compensation (as of August 7, 2019) Bradley A. Alford, 62, has been a director of Perrigo since February 2017. Mr. Alford joined Advent International Corporation, a global private equity firm, in 2014 as an Industry Advisor and moved to Operating Partner in March of 2016. From 2006 to 2013, Mr. Alford was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé USA. Mr. Alford also served as CEO and President of Nestlé Brands Company. He currently serves as a director of Avery Dennison Corporation since April 2010 and previously served as a director of Conagra Brands, Inc. from July 2015 to September 2018. Throughout his career, Mr. Alford has been focused on developing brands, initiatives to improve processes and facilitate best practices across an organization. Rolf A. Classon, 73, has been a director of Perrigo since May 2017. Mr. Classon served as Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of Hillenbrand Industries, a global diversified industrial company, from May 2005 until March 2006. From 2002 until June 2004, Mr. Classon served as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Bayer Healthcare AG, a subsidiary of Bayer AG. Mr. Classon served as President of Bayer Diagnostics from 1995 to 2002 and as Executive Vice President from 1991 to 1995. Prior to 1991, Mr. Classon held various management positions with Pharmacia Corporation. Mr. Classon serves as a director of Fresenius Medical Care AG and Co. since May 2012, and Catalent, Inc. since July 2014. Mr. Classon also served as a director of Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., from July 2001 to March 2018, Aerocrine AB, Stockholm from May 2013 to July 2015 and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals from July 2005 to January 2015 and served as a director of Tecan Group, Ltd.
  • View Annual Report

    View Annual Report

    A Proven Formula for Delivering Superior Shareholder Value A A Proven Formula for Delivering Superior Shareholder Value Corporate Profile From its beginnings in 1887 as a packager of generic home remedies, Perrigo Company plc, headquartered in Ireland, has grown to become the world’s largest manufacturer of over-the-counter (OTC) products and supplier of infant formulas for the store brand market, and is now a top five global OTC consumer goods and pharmaceutical company. In addition to receiving royalties from Multiple Sclerosis drug Tysabri®, the Company is also a leading provider of branded OTC products and generic extended topical prescription products. Perrigo provides Quality Affordable Healthcare Products® across a wide variety of product categories and geographies, primarily in North America, Europe, and Australia, as well as in other markets, including Israel and China. Perrigo 1 Fellow Shareholders, On behalf of the Perrigo management team and the over 13,000 Perrigo employees worldwide, I am extremely proud to report our tenth consecutive year of record earnings. By effectively executing our ‘Base Plus Plus Plus’ strategy, we continued our consistent track record of delivering superior shareholder returns, with a total shareholder return of over 970% since 2007. Joseph C. Papa Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Over the past eight years, we have transformed Perrigo I also want to address the recent attempts by Mylan N.V. into a top five global OTC pharmaceutical company. (Mylan) to acquire Perrigo. As we have consistently In fiscal 2015, we took significant steps to build on this maintained since April, we believe Mylan’s offer platform through three highly strategic acquisitions that substantially undervalues Perrigo and is not in the best further strengthened our global scale and distribution interests of our shareholders.
  • Perrigo Annual Report 2020

    Perrigo Annual Report 2020

    Perrigo Annual Report 2020 Form 10-K (NYSE:PRGO) Published: February 27th, 2020 PDF generated by stocklight.com UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the year ended December 31, 2019 or ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _____ to _____ Commission file number 001-36353 Perrigo Company plc (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Ireland N/A (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) The Sharp Building, Hogan Place, Dublin 2, Ireland D02 TY74 +353 1 7094000 (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Ordinary shares, €0.001 par value PRGO New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None (Title of Class) Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 of Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
  • Healthcare Conference

    Healthcare Conference

    25th Annual HEALTHCARE CONFERENCE Healthcare Westin St. Francis San Francisco January 8–11, 2007 JPMorgan cordially invites you to attend the 25th Annual Healthcare Conference, January 8 –11, 2007, at the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco. JPMorgan’s premier conference on the healthcare industry will feature more than 260 public and private companies over four days of simultaneous sessions. In addition, the conference will host topical panel discussions featuring leading industry experts. Preliminary List of Invited Presenting Companies Actelion Ltd Baxter International Inc. Cooper Companies Aetna Incorporated BD (Becton, Dickinson) Coventry Affymetrix, Inc. Beckman Coulter, Inc. Dade Behring Holdings, Inc. Alcon, Inc. Bioenvision, Inc. DaVita Inc. Align Technology, Inc. Biogen Idec deCODE genetics, Inc. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. Biomet, Inc. Digene Altana Boston Scientific Corporation Digirad Corporation — US American Medical Systems Holdings Inc. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Diversa Corporation Amerigroup Corp. Cambrex Corporation DJO Incorporated AmerisourceBergen Cardinal Health, Inc. Dyax Corp. Amgen, Inc. Caremark Rx, Inc. Eclipsys Corporation AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. Celgene Corporation Edwards Lifesciences Corporation AmSurg Corporation Cell Genesys Elan Corporation, plc Anadys Pharmaceuticals CENTENE Corporation Eli Lilly and Company Applied Biosystems Group Cephalon, Inc. Emdeon Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cerner Corporation Emergency Medical Services Corporation AstraZeneca Group plc Charles River Laboratories,