06:40 GMT07 March 2021
Listen Live
    Get short URL

    The potential Monsanto-Syngenta megamerger could turn the already-domineering biotech seed producer Monsanto into a monopolist.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Swiss agrochemical and seed producer Syngenta has considered the unsolicited merger proposal from its US rival Monsanto, found it "inadequate" and sees no reason for further negotiations, Syngenta CEO Michael Mack said Thursday.

    "On the one hand we took a look at this proposal, because we must — it is a public company. But on the other hand, it is woefully short across all the important dimensions for us to give it further serious consideration," Mack told CNBC.

    In May, Syngenta’s board unanimously rejected Monsanto’s $45-billion takeover bid, which represented a 43-percent premium on the Swiss company’s share price at the time. In June, Monsanto offered to add a $2-billion termination fee – but this offer was also rejected by Syngenta.

    Earlier on Thursday, the Financial Times wrote on the subject that Monsanto is continuing to apply pressure on Syngenta and it "doesn’t look like the US company is going away."

    "Syngenta is an immediate answer to their [Monsanto’s] really long term problems. I don't think it's incumbent on us to solve Monsanto strategic problems," Mack said.

    Numerous critics of the potential Monsanto-Syngenta megamerger said it would turn the already-domineering biotech seed producer Monsanto into a monopolist.

    Late in May, Monsanto’s President and Chief Operating Officer Brett Begemann said that his company had an alternative plan in place to build relations with other chemical companies, should it fail to acquire Syngenta.


    France Bans 'Probably Carcinogenic' Monsanto Herbicide for Home Gardeners
    London or Bust: Monsanto Eyeing Merger and Move to the UK
    World Rallies Against Monsanto Over Company’s Weedkillers, GMOs
    Global Rally Against GMO Giant Monsanto Reaches North America
    merger, GMO, Syngenta, Monsanto, Michael Mack, US, Switzerland
    Community standardsDiscussion