Name change also proposed if Syngenta merger goes ahead

Monsanto is thinking of changing its name and setting up in the UK if its proposed merger with Syngenta goes ahead.

A word of warning to Monsanto.

Changing your name won’t fool anyone. The people will not forget your crimes against humanity, which include Agent Orange, PCBs, and the 80% of GM crops that are grown with the “probable” carcinogen Roundup and absorb it into their tissues, ready to be eaten by humans and farm animals.

And while the Westminster government’s and the BBC’s shameful attempts to cosy up to the GMO industry might make you think the UK is a sympathetic environment for you, nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of the British public don’t want you, your GMOs, or your toxic chemicals.

Meanwhile in the US farm belt, the proposed merger is worrying farmers, who fear that further consolidation would eliminate a top competitor of Monsanto and boost prices for seeds and pesticides.
—

Monsanto plans to move headquarters from US to UK

Simon Bowers
The Guardian, 8 June 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/08/monsanto-move-headquarters-us-uk
* Agrochemicals group proposes ‘corporate inversion’ deal with Swiss rival Syngenta that would involve creating new parent company registered in Britain

Monsanto, the US seed and agrochemicals group known for its genetically modified crops, wants to switch its headquarters from the US to the UK as part of a complex merger deal designed to unlock tax savings for shareholders.

The group, which was founded in St Louis, Missouri in 1901, is circling Swiss rival Syngenta with a so-called “corporate inversion” proposal that would involve setting up a new UK company.

Such inversions have been closely associated with aggressive tax planning, although sources close to Monsanto claimed tax was not the company’s main motivation.

Syngenta on Monday rejected the proposal — which it values at $45bn (£30bn) — claiming Monsanto was offering “the same inadequate price” as it had done in an approach in April.

Under the terms of Monsanto’s plan, investors in the Swiss company would end up with a holding of about 30% in the new company, with the US firm’s shareholders taking the rest. Syngenta shareholders would also receive some cash.

Monsanto has been talking about a deal with Syngenta since April, but correspondence released by the Swiss company on Monday set out details of the US firm’s proposal for a new company, registered in the UK.

“A new parent company, domiciled in the UK, would demonstrate that our merger will create a new global enterprise … [and] provide additional synergies,” wrote Monsanto chief executive, Hugh Grant. “We would also propose a new name for the combined company to reflect its unique global nature.”

The UK has seen an influx of multinationals — among them Aon, Fiat Industrial, and Starbuck’s European operations — seeking tax advantages through the optimal location of the often small number of headquarters staff.

The wave of companies establishing an HQ in the UK follows the move by George Osborne to cut the headline corporation tax rate to 20% and establish generous rules on the taxation of the often complex overseas subsidiary structures of UK-headquartered groups.

A rush of tax-motivated inversion deals in 2014 prompted the US president, Barack Obama, to set out measures last September to crack down on what he has called the “unpatriotic” trend. Monsanto is confident its proposals to join forces with Syngenta would not be captured by Obama’s new rules.

Last year, there was a spate of inversion deals under discussion in the drugs industry, with America’s Pfizer targeting the UK’s AstraZeneca and US rival AbbVie exploring a deal with Ireland’s Shire. Neither materialised, but other tax-driven deals were successful, such as the $43bn takeover of Covidien by fellow medical device maker Medtronic.

The commercial difference between Monsanto’s latest proposal to Syngenta and the plan put forward in April is a promise to pay the Swiss firm $2bn should the deal be blocked by competition regulators.