Cross-border acquisitions and shareholders' wealth: The case of the Indian pharmaceutical sector

Wajid, Abdul; Sabiha, Anjim; Akhtar, Shakeb; Tabash, Mosab I.; Nalini Daniel, Linda Article Cross-border acquisitions and shareholders' wealth: The case of the Indian pharmaceutical sector Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Wajid, Abdul; Sabiha, Anjim; Akhtar, Shakeb; Tabash, Mosab I.; Nalini Daniel, Linda (2022) : Cross-border acquisitions and shareholders' wealth: The case of the Indian pharmaceutical sector, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 10, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100437 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274957 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Wajid, Abdul, Anjim Sabiha, Shakeb Akhtar, Mosab I. Tabash, and Linda Nalini Daniel. 2022. Cross-Border Acquisitions and Shareholders’ Wealth: The Case of the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 437. https:// doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100437 Academic Editor: Omar Al Farooque Received: 10 August 2022 Accepted: 20 September 2022 Published: 27 September 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article Cross-Border Acquisitions and Shareholders’ Wealth: The Case of the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector Abdul Wajid 1, Anjim Sabiha 2, Shakeb Akhtar 3, Mosab I. Tabash 4,* and Linda Nalini Daniel 5 1Department of Finance and Commerce, School of Finance and Commerce, Galgotias University, Greater Noida 203201, Uttar Pradesh, India 2School of Commerce, Finance and Accountancy, Christ (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR, Ghaziabad 201003, Uttar Pradesh, India 3School of Business, Woxsen University, Hyderabad 502345, Telangana, India 4College of Business, Al Ain University, Al Ain P.O. Box 64141, United Arab Emirates 5Faculty of Business, Higher Colleges of Technology, Abu Dhabi P.O. Box 41012, United Arab Emirates *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Cross-border acquisitions by Indian companies have increased tremendously, especially during the last two decades, and the pharmaceutical industry is one of the top acquiring industries. This study verifies the relationship between cross-border acquisitions and shareholders’ wealth in the Indian pharmaceutical sector. For this purpose, the data related to acquisitions were acquired from 2005 to 2019 and the event study methodology was applied along with two parametric tests. The findings of the current research prescribe that cross-border acquisitions have a positive and significant impact on shareholders’ wealth. Furthermore, the outcomes also indicate higher positive abnormal returns in the short run when the targets are based in the US and the UK as compared to the positive but insignificant abnormal returns when the targets are based in locations other than the US and the UK. Keywords: pharmaceutical firms; cross-border acquisitions; mergers and acquisitions; abnormal returns; event study methodology; short term gains; India JEL Classification: C58; G34; G14 1. Introduction A merger is a settlement that merges two existing businesses into one new corporation. There are different kinds of mergers and different reasons why corporations’ complete mergers. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are normally done to enlarge a corporation’s reach, increase into new sections, or gain market share. All of these are completed to increase a shareholder’s worth. Frequently, throughout a merger, corporations have a no-shop clause to stop purchases or mergers by additional corporations. M&A are the utmost realistic way to speed up the growth enactment plan of companies. All industries have been using M&A as an aggressive strategy for growth. M&A are not a new notion and burst in M&A has given further space to companies to look for integration for their growth, market coverage, or any other strategic requirement. In the last two decades, a tremendous growth has been noticed in M&A transactions both in developed and emerging markets (Wajid et al. 2020). The following countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, are jointly known as BRICS and often considered as a best representative of emerging market economies. According to Phiri (2018), the BRICS members contribute to nearly 40% of the world’s population and account for 40% of the world’s total foreign reserves which is quite a huge participation. In terms of M&A, the firms from BRICS members collectively represent over 60% of the total M&A in emerging markets (Kinateder et al. 2017). They have also reported huge investments across the borders, especially in developed markets J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100437 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 2 of 17 (Wajid and Singh 2022). This phenomenon is vital for Emerging Market Multinationals (EMMs) as it provides them rapid access to new territories, resources, and capabilities. The growth of multinational firms from emerging markets is a phenomenon that has caught considerable attention by researchers as it has significant theoretical and empirical implications (Buckley et al. 2014). They have been actively engaging in cross border M&A and have made their own internationalization strategy. In fact, scholars emphasized that cross-border acquisitions (CBA) by emerging market corporations are considered as the main and central source of entry into other developing and developed countries (Rani et al. 2016;Tao et al. 2017). There are several studies that have observed and pointed out the motivation and encouragement behind international acquisitions by EMMs. For instance, Hopkins (1999) explained that the growth is the primary motivation behind CBA. Similarly, Aybar and Ficici (2009) deliberated that the emerging market corporates engage in CBA due to aggressive competition from domestic as well as multinational corporations operating in their markets. In addition, Rabbiosi et al. (2012) deliberated that the dire need to have an international experience is a motivation for BRICS members to pursue foreign acquisitions. Similarly, Deng and Yang (2015) found the evidence to suggest that the firms from BRICS members can predominantly enter acquisitions to gain global recognition and they further indicated that the CBA assists in acquisition of critical resources. The corporate sector in India over the past two decades has been drastically restructuring its operations by adopting both organic and inorganic routes (Wajid and Singh 2022). Globalization compelled the companies to look for competitive advantages which are leading to an extraordinary surge in M&A activities. The liberalization of trade policies and removal of trade barriers have acted as facilitators in intensifying consolidation activities in India (Wajid et al. 2019). Today, acquisition across boundaries has become a fundamental attribute of a company. However, the studies on CBA are limited in the Indian context. An incredible development has been observed in M&A deals beyond the borders. Though it has long been understood that globalization for several decades operated by worldwide corporations from developed markets, currently the corporations from developing markets have stated enormous investments across their national borders by acquiring foreign firms. CBA by Indian companies have augmented tremendously, particularly during the last two decades, and the pharmaceutical industry is one of the top attaining industries (Wajid and Singh 2022). The industry CBA by Indian companies is provided below in Figure 1. A total of 19 industries have been classified by the Venture Intelligence database as mentioned in Figure 1. The maximum number of CBA was reported by Information Technology and Information Technology-Enabled Services Industry (IT and ITES) followed by the manufacturing industry (i.e., automobiles, auto components, cement, chemicals, industrial machinery, steel, etc.) and the pharmaceutical industry. A total of 1764 CBA were reported during 2005 to 2017, out of which 197 acquisitions were reported in pharmaceutical industry. It is also observed that the majority of the targets were unlisted companies. The present study is focused on Indian firms, more precisely on the Indian pharmaceutical industry. India is among the fastest growing economies and has been maintaining high growth rates for the last two decades (Paul and Mas 2016). Indian pharmaceutical firms are one of the best representations of “emerging market multinationals” (Bruche 2012). The significance of the Indian pharmaceutical sector is briefly explained under the next section of the study. The Indian pharmaceutical industry represents 10% and 2.5% of the global pharmaceutical industry in volume and value terms (IBEF 2019), respectively. The healthcare sector in India is among the highest growing sectors and is expected to grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate of 17% from 2008 to 2020. 1 The Indian pharmaceutical industry stands tall as a supreme leader in applying for Drug Master Files (DMFs) with the US. India has a competitive edge over the other developed markets because of its significantly low cost of production 2 . The generic drugs have the largest share in the Indian pharmaceutical sector, and it accounted for nearly 70% of revenue. India is the global leader J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 3 of 17 in exporting generic medicines, and accounts for 20% of global generic exports, while the US is the biggest importer of the Indian pharmaceutical sector (Indian Brand Equity Foundation 2017)3. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18 Figure 1. Industry wise CBA during 2005 to 2017. Source: Venture Intelligence database. The present study is focused on Indian firms, more precisely on the Indian pharmaceutical industry. India is among the fastest growing economies and has been maintaining high growth rates for the last two decades (Paul and Mas 2016). Indian pharmaceutical firms are one of the best representations of “emerging market multinationals” (Bruche 2012). The significance of the Indian pharmaceutical sector is briefly explained under the next section of the study. The Indian pharmaceutical industry represents 10% and 2.5% of the global pharmaceutical industry in volume and value terms (IBEF 2019), respectively. The healthcare sector in India is among the highest growing sectors and is expected to grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate of 17% from 2008 to 2020.1 The Indian pharmaceutical industry stands tall as a supreme leader in applying for Drug Master Files (DMFs) with the US. India has a competitive edge over the other developed markets because of its significantly low cost of production2. The generic drugs have the largest share in the Indian pharmaceutical sector, and it accounted for nearly 70% of revenue. India is the global leader in exporting generic medicines, and accounts for 20% of global generic exports, while the US is the biggest importer of the Indian pharmaceutical sector (IBEF 2017)3. In the pharmaceutical industry, the companies can survive only by acquiring capabilities that they do not possess. In the rapidly changing drug discovery industry, the companies secure their future by expanding and redefining competencies in technology and competition (Amir-Aslani and Chanel 2016). Indian pharmaceutical firms can acquire external knowledge and the latest and contemporary knowledge from their alliances and acquisitions in western countries (Bower and Sulej 2006). Synergistic CBA create value through asset sharing, financial diversification, and reverse internalization (Seth et al. 2002). A study by Amir-Aslani and Chanel (2016) expounded that CBA by Indian pharmaceutical companies provide them easy and fast access in other geographical areas, strong balance sheets, and latest know-how of drugs modules. Higgins and Rodriguez (2006) underlined that overcoming deteriorating R&D is the motivation behind pharmaceutical firm’s urge to acquire research-intensive firms. According to Hopkins (1999), the three most important objectives behind acquiring a foreign company are efficiency in operations, managing risks, and innovation. Governance systems also play a significant role in value creation to bidders; bidders of countries with group-oriented governance systems get higher value creation than bidders of countries with marketoriented governance systems (Seth et al. 2002). The current study was undertaken to examine the impact of CBA on the wealth of the shareholders. It has been observed from the review of literature that the studies which 10 41 37 10 57 51 34 31 34 680 371 197 35 47 823 41 38 19 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 No of Acquisitions Figure 1. Industry wise CBA during 2005 to 2017. Source: Venture Intelligence database. In the pharmaceutical industry, the companies can survive only by acquiring capabilities that they do not possess. In the rapidly changing drug discovery industry, the companies secure their future by expanding and redefining competencies in technology and competition (Amir-Aslani and Chanel 2016). Indian pharmaceutical firms can acquire external knowledge and the latest and contemporary knowledge from their alliances and acquisitions in western countries (Bower and Sulej 2006). Synergistic CBA create value through asset sharing, financial diversification, and reverse internalization (Seth et al. 2002). A study by Amir-Aslani and Chanel (2016) expounded that CBA by Indian pharmaceutical companies provide them easy and fast access in other geographical areas, strong balance sheets, and latest know-how of drugs modules. Higgins and Rodriguez (2006) underlined that overcoming deteriorating R&D is the motivation behind pharmaceutical firm’s urge to acquire research-intensive firms. According to Hopkins (1999), the three most important objectives behind acquiring a foreign company are efficiency in operations, managing risks, and innovation. Governance systems also play a significant role in value creation to bidders; bidders of countries with group-oriented governance systems get higher value creation than bidders of countries with market-oriented governance systems (Seth et al. 2002). The current study was undertaken to examine the impact of CBA on the wealth of the shareholders. It has been observed from the review of literature that the studies which examine the impact of M&A activities on the wealth of shareholders were largely based on advanced markets, for example, the US, the UK, and Germany (Rani et al. 2016). Furthermore, a few management studies in India analyzed the short-term abnormal return to shareholders. However, an in-depth study on acquisitions by pharmaceutical firms considering aspects of the deals, specifically mode of deal (Heron and Lie 2002), geographical location of targets (Goergen and Renneboog 2004), and acquisition stake (Chari et al. 2010;Chen 2008) has not received much attention in Indian CBA literature. It would be interesting to analyze these aspects to understand the characteristics and outcomes of deals in a better and up-to-date manner. These kinds of concerns are the motivations to answer the two questions. First, do acquirers of Indian pharmaceutical firms experience positive abnormal returns surrounding the announcement of CBA? Secondly, do shareholders get higher returns when targets are based in developed countries, especially in the US and the UK? These two research questions are answered by considering 24 CBA by Indian pharmaceutical companies during the years 2005 to 2017, only 100% stake through acquisitions J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 4 of 17 and transactions involving a cash payment have been considered for the present study. According to outcomes of the study, there is a direct and significant association between CBA and shareholder wealth. The study has theoretical, practical, and empirical significance. It contributes meaningfully to literature. Similarly, this research finds the affinity empirically between explained and explanatory variables. Moreover, it suggests practical implications which help investors or managers regarding their decisions. The pharmaceutical industry is chosen because of its global nature and extensive engagement in acquisition activities. These firms have been on a CBA spree since 2005 (Srivastava and Prakash 2014;Pathak and Nathani 2021). According to IBEF (2019), the Indian pharmaceuticals were involved in more than 70% of all M&A in India over the last three years. This under-analyzed industry is significantly different from other industries because of its inflated costs of drug development, low rate of success and lastly, this industry tends to engage in acquisitions of companies that have high potential to generate revenue. With all these characteristics, this industry has the potential to have broader applicability (Hassan et al. 2007). The entire study is divided into six sections. Section 1describes the overview of CBA and the Indian pharmaceutical sector. Section 2discusses the theoretical background, review of literature and development of the hypothesis. Section 3deals with the data, research methodology, and variables. Sections 4and 5illustrate the results and discussion, respectively. Section 6draws the conclusion, policy recommendations, limitations, and future scope of the research. 2. Theoretical Background and Review of Literature The theoretical framework of the present study discusses several theories that explain the internationalization of the firms. These theories are previously published on crossborder M&A from the view-point of the acquirer firm, and provide a background on the entry of the firms into foreign markets. Past studies suggest two theories, i.e., Dunning’s Eclectic paradigm and the Uppsala Model, and have contributed immensely towards the theoretical foundation of CBA research (Dunning 1993;Mathews 2006). Dunning’s eclectic paradigm explains that the firm will only engage in foreign deal when it has ownership (O), locational (L), and internalization (I) advantages that are commonly called OLI advantages (Dunning 1993,2000). According to Caves (1971) the ownership advantages are unique, competitive, and monopolistic advantages such as patents, or any other strategic asset, that a firm acquire from domestic markets which can assist it to compete with other firms in the foreign markets. Similarly, locational specific advantages of target firms such as human resources, natural resources, and latest technology make them attractive for investment purposes (Dunning 1993), internalization advantages typically relate to industry, arise from embracing means and practices that internalize the ownership advantages rather than marketing directly to foreign countries. However, the insufficiency of the eclectic paradigm in describing the motivations of the firms originating from emerging markets have been emphasized by many studies (Child and Rodrigues 2005;Mathews 2006). The Uppsala model by Johanson and Vahlne (1977) explains the internationalization phenomenon of the emerging multinational enterprises (EMNE). The theory mainly stresses two concepts on which the company usually tends to internationalize. The first concept says that the firms choose to enter into a foreign market that is close to the domestic market in terms of psychic distance, this helps the firms to overcome their liability of foreignness. Secondly, this theory suggests that the firms internationalize through a stagewise process (Hemais 2004). The study by Mathews (2006) observed that EMNE sometimes leapfrog various stages of internationalization and he further introduced the concept of linkage, learning, and leverage model (LLL). Basically, it was observed that the firms from emerging markets seek to acquire strategic assets by using collaboration activities with foreign firms in form of joint ventures, strategic alliances, etc. to augment their weak ownership advantages. Additionally, bandwagon theory explains that the firms tend to J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 5 of 17 imitate the actions of their close rivals even when the imitation does not lead to value enhancement. This theory is basically focused on external factors and is concentrated on the relationship between the behavior of the close competitors and the behavior of the firm (Pangarkar 2000). The major theories of internationalization of the firms are discussed above. However, in addition to these theories, there are many other theories that explain the internationalization of the firms; for instance, theory of transaction costs, theory of institutional constraints, capabilities driven framework, agency theory, etc. By relating these theoretical viewpoints and taking references from other studies, for instance (Buckley et al. 2007;Pradhan and Singh 2011;Jayanthi et al. 2016), the present study examines the relationship between CBA and shareholder wealth in the Indian pharmaceutical sector. The literature on the short-term changes of shareholder’s wealth surrounding M&A is in abundance. Though most of the studies were done in developed nations, the authors focus on the literature review of studies primarily on the short-term returns to acquirer firm shareholders. According to the results, the studies were separated into two sections. The first section discusses the studies which reported positive abnormal returns to the shareholders on the announcement of the M&A while the second section discusses the studies which reported negative abnormal returns to the shareholders on the announcement of the M&A. If global capital and dominant markets are efficiently consolidated, one could presume there to be no organized variations in the irregular returns to either targets or acquirers in cross border transactions as compared to native acquisitions (Harris and Ravenscraft 1991). In contrast, a hypothesis of efficiently unified markets is questionably impracticable, and there are both theoretical queries and previous empirical indications to recommend that the degree of irregular outputs may fluctuate systematically between cross-border and native acquisitions. The prior work is, however, contradictory, with different queries put forward as to whether CBA can be predictable to increase or decrease the shareholder’s wealth, and whether the wealth influences of cross border transactions will be bigger or smaller than in domestic acquisitions. The beyond-border acquisitions can be anticipated to be vaguer, and thus further expensive and hazardous to execute, than native acquisitions. The capacity for valuation error might be a more severe problem in beyond border than native acquisitions (Conn and Connell 1990). In a recent study, Wajid and Singh (2022) examined the CBA by Indian pharmaceutical firms by taking a sample size of 55 transactions from 2005 to 2019 and found evidence of positive abnormal returns to the shareholders in the short run. Similarly, the CBA by firms of emerging economies create value for the acquiring firm shareholders from the beginning on the day of announcement of the acquisition. Further, the acquirer experiences high returns when there is better corporate governance in the target firms’ country (Bhagat et al. 2010). Likewise, Hassan et al. (2007) examined 405 cross-border M&A deals by US-based pharmaceutical companies from 1981 to 2004. Additionally, their study suggested that there is an increase in shareholder wealth due to M&A. Cakici et al. (1996) examined 195 foreign acquisitions in the US from 1983 to 1992. Moreover, their study found positive and significant returns over ( − 10, 10) event windows to the shareholders of bidder firms. They were also of the view that there was no influence on the abnormal return of bidders due to target or bidder relatedness, overseas exposure, R&D intensity, industry factor, and the foreign currency value. Likewise, Wang and Boateng (2007) explored the performance of CBA by Chinese firms during 2000 to 2004, suggesting that the CBA created value for Chinese bidder firms in the short run. Additionally, Higgins and Rodriguez (2006) examined 160 acquisitions by pharmaceutical companies from 1994 to 2001, stating that on an average there were significant positive returns to the acquirers. The above-mentioned studies help to hypothesize that H1. Indian pharmaceutical acquiring firms’ shareholders experience positive abnormal returns in the short run on the announcement of CBA. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 6 of 17 Aybar and Ficici (2009) explored 433 M&A announcement deals, involving 53 EMMs, using event study methodology concluded that on average, CBA by EMMs were value destroyers for shareholders. Further, they asserted that the difficulties of CBA, i.e., inadequate market information, may be aggravated if the bidding company has no prior processes in the target state, while Conn and Connell (1990) debated that companies from highly competitive dominant markets, such as the US can be projected to have further acquisition knowledge and do better acquisitions. A study done on UK bidders from 1991 to 1996 reported that the shareholders of UK firms experienced negative abnormal returns when UK firms acquired large targets in Europe and the US; however, UK firms experienced positive abnormal returns when they acquired firms in the UK (Aw and Chatterjee 2007). Similarly, Corhay and Tourani (2000) investigated 84 CBA deals by Dutch firms during 1991–1996 and stated weak evidence of the wealth creation aspect of CBA, especially for an acquisition that held in the US. Saini and Singla (2015) analyzed 50 CBA deals of the Tata group of companies from 2000 to 2010, stating a downward trend in shareholder wealth during the 59-day event window. Likewise, Srivastava and Prakash (2014) analyzed 30 cross-border M&A by Indian pharmaceutical firms, indicated that shareholders experience negative returns following the announcement of M&A events, and concluded that the market does not respond positively following the M&A announcement. From the review of literature, it is evident that CBA announcement results on shareholder’s wealth creation vary across countries and industries. However, there are more published studies which support that the acquirers experience positive abnormal returns when pharmaceutical firms engage in CBA (Wajid and Singh 2022;Hassan et al. 2007; Higgins and Rodriguez 2006). Additionally, M&A by Indian pharmaceuticals increased remarkably in the last decade, and they have become an essential feature. It has been observed from the data that most of the acquisitions by Indian pharmaceutical firms are in the developed market more specifically in the US and followed by the UK, therefore the hypothesis is as follows. H2. Acquisitions of US and UK targets generate higher abnormal returns in the short run for the shareholders of Indian acquiring pharmaceutical firms. 3. Research Methodology The acquisition activity in the Indian pharmaceutical industry shows an unprecedented growth from 2005 to 2017, the year-wise distribution of the deals can be seen below in Figure 2. The period of this study was chosen for a few reasons. First, the enactment of the product patent act in 2005; second, there was a sharp increase in the global expansion activities of Indian pharmaceutical firms during the sample period (Srivastava and Prakash 2014); third, the acquisition after 2017, i.e., in 2018 and 2019 did not qualify for the inclusion because they do not fall under the sample as per the sample selection criteria selected for the current study and lastly, after 2019, because of the pandemic (COVID-19), not many cases of CBA were reported by Indian pharmaceutical industry. There was a total of 45 complete acquisition transactions, mostly involving cash as a mode of payment. It is also important to note that most of the acquisitions by Indian pharmaceutical firms were reported in the US followed by the UK during the period of the study. However, only 24 transactions were suitable for analysis, due to data deficiency and other confounding effects (the details are highlighted in the Appendix Aas Table A1 at the end of the paper). The study employs 24 transactions for overall evaluation, 12 transactions involving targets in the US and the UK. The authors restrict the analysis to Indian acquiring pharmaceutical firms. All the target companies that were selected for the study were unlisted companies and were totally cash financed. Additionally, the transactions considered for evaluation were completely acquired. It is also noticed that in several cases, the deal value was not disclosed publicly. Contrary to the domestic acquisitions, stock payments are rarely used for CBA (Rani et al. 2016). The present study used CMIE PROWESS database to compile the data for the study. Event study methodology was utilized to analyze short-run J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 7 of 17 abnormal returns surrounding an announcement of acquisitions considering ( − 10, 10) event window. Short-term event windows were examined since long-term event windows influence the power of statistical tests and may lead to false outcomes (Brown and Warner 1980). Furthermore, there may be a problem related to the control of confounding events (Rani et al. 2016). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18 (Srivastava and Prakash 2014); third, the acquisition after 2017, i.e., in 2018 and 2019 did not qualify for the inclusion because they do not fall under the sample as per the sample selection criteria selected for the current study and lastly, after 2019, because of the pandemic (COVID-19), not many cases of CBA were reported by Indian pharmaceutical industry. There was a total of 45 complete acquisition transactions, mostly involving cash as a mode of payment. It is also important to note that most of the acquisitions by Indian pharmaceutical firms were reported in the US followed by the UK during the period of the study. However, only 24 transactions were suitable for analysis, due to data deficiency and other confounding effects (the details are highlighted in the Appendix A as Table A1 at the end of the paper). Figure 2. CBA by Indian pharmaceutical firms from January 2005 to December 2017. Source: Compiled from CMIE Prowess IQ database. The study employs 24 transactions for overall evaluation, 12 transactions involving targets in the US and the UK. The authors restrict the analysis to Indian acquiring pharmaceutical firms. All the target companies that were selected for the study were unlisted companies and were totally cash financed. Additionally, the transactions considered for evaluation were completely acquired. It is also noticed that in several cases, the deal value was not disclosed publicly. Contrary to the domestic acquisitions, stock payments are rarely used for CBA (Rani et al. 2016). The present study used CMIE PROWESS database to compile the data for the study. Event study methodology was utilized to analyze short-run abnormal returns surrounding an announcement of acquisitions considering (−10, 10) event window. Short-term event windows were examined since long-term event windows influence the power of statistical tests and may lead to false outcomes (Brown and Warner 1980). Furthermore, there may be a problem related to the control of confounding events (Rani et al. 2016). The event study methodology has overwhelmingly widespread usage in modern day financial research. It is one of the most useful instruments to analyze announcementrelated stock price performance (Kliger and Gurevich 2014). The prerequisite of this methodology is to outline an event, the day the event is announced to the public. The authors define Day 0 as the acquisition announcement day, verified from the CMIE PROWESS database. Event study methodology assumes that there should not be any confounding event in the event window, therefore, the authors manually checked and excluded the samples by following criteria: • The announcement of multiple acquisitions in the event window. • Where less than 100% acquisition was done. • Acquisitions by pharmaceutical companies that are not listed on BSE. • Acquisitions that were financed by stock. 18 27 16 22 10 11 9 12 5 13 23 20 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 No of Acquisitions Years Figure 2. CBA by Indian pharmaceutical firms from January 2005 to December 2017. Source: Compiled from CMIE Prowess IQ database. The event study methodology has overwhelmingly widespread usage in modern day financial research. It is one of the most useful instruments to analyze announcement-related stock price performance (Kliger and Gurevich 2014). The prerequisite of this methodology is to outline an event, the day the event is announced to the public. The authors define Day 0 as the acquisition announcement day, verified from the CMIE PROWESS database. Event study methodology assumes that there should not be any confounding event in the event window, therefore, the authors manually checked and excluded the samples by following criteria: •The announcement of multiple acquisitions in the event window. •Where less than 100% acquisition was done. •Acquisitions by pharmaceutical companies that are not listed on BSE. •Acquisitions that were financed by stock. •Firms whose daily price information was not available. Adjusted closing prices of securities were taken from Yahoo finance and Index data were collected from the BSE website. The authors used an estimation period which starts 200 days prior the announcement of the event and ends 21 days prior to the announcement of the event (Uddin and Boateng 2009). The normal return was calculated by the market model (Fama et al. 1969). The basic assumption of this methodology is that prices of securities adjust themselves to any additional information available to the public. The “market model” predicts the normal return of a security, taking into consideration market return and the firm’s prior relationship with the market (Uddin and Boateng 2009). This study employs event study described by (Kliger and Gurevich 2014) and considered a pre-event study period for estimation, which is consistent with many studies concentrated on CBA (Aw and Chatterjee 2007;Conn and Connell 1990). The market model equation to estimate normal return is described as follows: Rj t=∝j+βjRm t+εj t(1) Rj tis the return of stock ‘j’, period t. Rm tis the return from market, period t. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 8 of 17 ∝j&βjare parameters of the model. εj tis the error term. The abnormal return for stock jat period tis calculated as: ARj t=Rj t−αj+βjRt m(2) The ARj tshows the abnormal return of stock ‘j’ for period t. The Rj tmeans return of stock ‘j’ for period t. The Rt mis market return for period t. The αjand βjare estimated parameters. Average abnormal return is defined as AARt= ∑n t=1ARj t N(3) where Ndenotes number of firms. The Cumulative Average Abnormal Return (CAAR) describes the end results of the study and provides values for arriving at a conclusion related to market reaction to the event (Kliger and Gurevich 2014). CAAR from period “s” to “t” is: CAARs,t=∑t τ=sAARτ(4) Test statistics enable to arrive at T-statistics and p-value, it is computed as follows: TS =CAARs,t/ˆ σCAAR s,t(5) This study also demonstrated the use of two parametric tests to assess the robustness of CAARs. First are “Cross Sectional Standard Deviation test” (CSSD) and the other is Patell Z test. A brief explanation of both the tests is given below. 3.1. Cross-Sectional Standard Deviation Test (CSSD) This test considers a daily cross-sectional “standard deviation” and does not rely on sample time series standard deviation (Rani et al. 2016). Further, Brown and Warner (1985) suggested that the “cross-sectional test” is prone to event-induced volatility. The test statistics is given below: Tcross =CAART1,T2 ˆ σCAAR(T1,T2)/√N(6) where the variance of CAAR(T1,T2)is given below: ˆ σ2CAAR(T1,T2)=1 N−1∑N i=1(CARi,T1,T2−1 N∑N j=1CARj,T1,T2) 2 (7) 3.2. Patell Z Test Patell (1976) developed this test, and it is also known as ‘Standardized Residual test’. It assumes constant variance and zero correlation in the abnormal returns. Under this test, first the abnormal returns need to be standardized by the “standard deviation” of the estimation period abnormal returns. For each security, the standardized abnormal returns are calculated as per below equation. SARi,t=ARi,t SARi,t (8) J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 15 of 17 Author Contributions: Data curation, A.W. and M.I.T.; Formal analysis, A.S.; Investigation, S.A.; Methodology, L.N.D. All Authors contributed equally in this research. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Data Availability Statement: The datasets used and/or analyzed during the study are available with the corresponding author on reasonable request. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Cross-border acquisitions considered in the study. Acquirers Targets Date Country Mode Deal Size ($ Million) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Mil Pharm Ltd. 10-02-06 UK Cash Undisclosed Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. TAD Italy IP 24-03-08 Italy Cash Undisclosed Bilcare Ltd. Pro Clinical Inc 15-07-05 USA Cash Undisclosed Bilcare Ltd. DHP Ltd. 19-09-06 UK Cash 5 Bilcare Ltd. Singular ID Pte Ltd. 04-01-08 Singapore Cash 19.58 Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Sentynl Therapeutics Inc. 20-01-17 US Cash 171 Cipla Ltd. Cipla Medpro South Africa Ltd. 21-11-12 S. Africa Cash 512 Dishman Pharma & Chem Ltd. Carbogenamics AG 22-08-06 Switzerland Cash 75 Dishman Pharma & Chem Ltd. Solvay Pharmaceuticals Fine 08-07-07 The Netherlands Cash Undisclosed Dishman Pharma & Chem Ltd. Synprotec Ltd. 20-04-05 UK Cash 3.8 Lupin Ltd. Hormosan Pharma Gmbh 30-07-08 Germany Cash Undisclosed Lupin Ltd. Nanomi B V 03-02-14 The Netherlands Cash Undisclosed Marksans Pharma Ltd. Hale Group 31-12-07 UK Cash Undisclosed Marksans Pharma Ltd. Time-Cap Labs Inc 30-06-15 US Cash 28 Opto Circuits (India) Ltd. Eurocor Gmbh 20-10-05 Germany Cash 11 Opto Circuits (India) Ltd. Criticare System Ind 25-02-08 USA Cash 70 Piramal Health Care Ltd. Avecia Pharmaceuticals 27-10-05 UK Cash 16.9 Sun Pharmaceutical Ltd. Chattem Chemicals Inc 27-11-08 USA Cash Undisclosed Sun Pharmaceutical Ltd. Ocular Technologies SARL 27-10-16 USA Cash 40 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Heumann Pharma Gmbh & Co 27-06-05 Germany Cash Undisclosed Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt France (Holdings) S A S 10-11-16 France Cash Undisclosed Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Niche Generics Ltd. 15-12-06 UK Cash Undisclosed Shilpa Medicare Ltd. Loba Feinchemie 30-06-08 Austria Cash Undisclosed Span Divergent Ltd. Span Diagnostics South Africa Pty. Ltd. 01-12-14 S. Africa Cash Undisclosed Source: CMIE PROWESS IQ. Notes 1 Indian Brand Equity Foundation Report (January 2017). Pharmaceutical Industry report. Published by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Report can be access from https://www.ibef.org/archives/industry/indian-pharmaceuticalsindustry-analysis-reports (accessed on 10 February 2017). 2 Department of Pharmaceutical Annual Report (Department of Pharmaceutical Annual Report 2017–2018). Published by Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India. Report can be access from http://pharmaceuticals.gov.in/document/annualreport-2017-2018 (accessed on 1 January 2018). 3 Indian Brand Equity Foundation Report (July 2019). Pharmaceutical Industry report. Published by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Report can be access from https://www.ibef.org/archives/industry/indian-pharmaceuticalsindustry-analysis-reports (accessed on 21 August 2019). References Amir-Aslani, Arsia, and Mark Anthony Chanel. 2016. Cross-border M&A originating from developing countries (The case of the Indian pharmaceutical industry). Strategic Direction 32: 19–21. [CrossRef] Aw, M. S. B., and R. A. Chatterjee. 2007. The performance of UK firms acquiring large cross border and domestic takeover targets. Applied Financial Economics 14: 37–41. [CrossRef] Aybar, Bulent, and Aysun Ficici. 2009. Cross-border acquisitions and firm value: An analysis of emerging-market multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies 40: 1317–38. [CrossRef] Bhagat, Sanjai, Shavin Malhotra, and PengCheng Zhu. 2010. Emerging country cross-border acquisitions: Characteristics, acquirer returns, and cross sectional determinants. Emerging Market Review 12: 250–71. [CrossRef] Bower, D. Jane, and Julian Sulej. 2006. Social and intellectual capital formation in leading Indian pharmaceutical companies. International Journal of Innovation Management 10: 407–23. [CrossRef] Brown, Stephen J., and Jerold B. Warner. 1980. Measuring security price performance. Journal of Financial Economics 8: 205–58. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 16 of 17 Brown, Stephen J., and Jerold B. Warner. 1985. Using daily stock returns: The case of event studies. Journal of Financial Economics 14: 3–31. [CrossRef] Bruche, Gert. 2012. Emerging Indian pharma multinationals: Latecomer catch-up strategies in a globalised high-tech industry. European Journal of International Management 6: 300–22. [CrossRef] Buckley, Peter J., Stefano Elia, and Mario Kafouros. 2014. Acquisitions by emerging market multinationals: Implications for firm performance. Journal of World Business 49: 611–32. [CrossRef] Buckley, Peter J., L. Jeremy Clegg, Adam R. Cross, Xin Liu, Hinrich Voss, and Ping Zheng. 2007. The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies 38: 499–518. [CrossRef] Cakici, Nusret, Chris Hessel, and Kishore Tandon. 1996. Foreign acquisitions in the United States: Effect on shareholder wealth of foreign acquiring firms. Journal of Banking & Finance 20: 307–29. [CrossRef] Caves, Richard E. 1971. International Corporations: The Industrial Economics of Foreign Investment. Economica 38: 1–27. [CrossRef] Chari, Anusha, Paige P. P. Ouimet, and Linda Tesar. 2010. The value of control in emerging markets. Review of Financial Studies 23: 1741–70. [CrossRef] Chen, Shih-Fen S. 2008. The motives for international acquisitions: Capability procurements, strategic considerations, and the role of ownership structures. Journal of International Business Studies 39: 454–71. [CrossRef] Child, John, and Suzana B. Rodrigues. 2005. The internationalization of Chinese firms: A case for theoretical extension. Management and Organization Review 1: 381–410. [CrossRef] Conn, Robert L., and Fred Connell. 1990. International mergers: Returns to US and British firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 17: 689–711. [CrossRef] Corhay, Albert, and Alireza Tourani. 2000. International acquisitions and shareholder wealth Evidence from the Netherlands. International Review of Financial Analysis 2: 163–74. [CrossRef] Deng, Ping, and Monica Yang. 2015. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions by emerging market firms: A comparative investigation. International Business Review 24: 157–72. [CrossRef] Department of Pharmaceutical Annual Report. 2017–2018. Published by Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India. Available online: http://pharmaceuticals.gov.in/document/annual-report-2017-2018 (accessed on 1 January 2018). Dunning, John H. 1993. Internationalizing Porter’s Diamond. MIR: Management International Review 33: 7–15. Dunning, John H. 2000. The Eclectic Paradigm as an Envelope for Economic and Business Theories of MNE Activity. International Business Review 9: 163–90. [CrossRef] Fama, Eugene F., Lawrence Fisher, Michael C. Jensen, and Richard Roll. 1969. The adjustment of stock prices to new information. International Economic Review 10: 1–21. [CrossRef] Goergen, Marc, and Luc Renneboog. 2004. Shareholder wealth effects of European domestic and Cross border takeover bids. European Financial Management 10: 9–45. [CrossRef] Gubbi, Sathyajit R., Preet S. Aulakh, Sougata Ray, M. B. Sarkar, and Raveendra Chittoor. 2010. Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? The case of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies 41: 397–418. [CrossRef] Harris, Robert S., and David Ravenscraft. 1991. The Role of Acquisitions in Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence from the U.S. Stock Market. Journal of Finance 46: 825–44. [CrossRef] Hassan, Mahmud, Dilip K. Patro, Howard Tuckman, and Xiaoli Wang. 2007. Do mergers and acquisitions create shareholder wealth in the pharmaceutical industry? International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing 1: 58–78. [CrossRef] Hemais, C.A. 2004. The Challenge of Foreign Markets: Theory and Practice in the Internationalization of the Firm. Rio de Janeiro: Mauad Editora Ltd., Volume 1. Heron, Randall, and Erik Lie. 2002. Operating performance and the method of payment in takeovers. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 37: 137–55. [CrossRef] Higgins, Matthew J., and Daniel Rodriguez. 2006. The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Financial Economics 80: 351–83. [CrossRef] Hopkins, H. Donald. 1999. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions: Global and regional perspectives. Journal of International Management 5: 207–39. [CrossRef] Indian Brand Equity Foundation. 2017. Pharmaceutical Industry Report; Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, February 10. Available online: https://www.ibef.org/archives/industry/indian-pharmaceuticals-industry-analysis-reports (accessed on 4 June 2022). Indian Brand Equity Foundation. 2019. Pharmaceutical Industry Report; Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. Available online: https://www.ibef.org/archives/industry/indian-pharmaceuticals-industry-analysis-reports (accessed on 1 January 2020). Jayanthi, Bhargavi, S. N. V. Sivakumar, and Arunima Haldar. 2016. Cross-border Acquisitions and Host Country Determinants: Evidence from Indian Pharmaceutical Companies. Global Business Review 17: 684–99. [CrossRef] Johanson, Janm, and Jan-Erik Vahlne. 1977. The Internationalization Process of the Firm—A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8: 23–32. Kale, Prashant. 2009. The Global Indian Firm: Growth & Value Creation Overseas Acquisitions through. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations 45: 41–53. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 437 17 of 17 Kinateder, Harald, Matthias Fabich, and Niklas Wagner. 2017. Domestic mergers and acquisitions in BRICS countries: Acquirers and targets. Emerging Markets Review 32: 190–99. [CrossRef] King, David, Dan R. Dalton, Catherine M. Daily, and Jeffrey G. Covin. 2004. Meta-analyses of Post-acquisition Performance: Indications of Unidentified Moderators. Strategic Management Journal 25: 187–200. [CrossRef] Kliger, Doron, and Gregory Gurevich. 2014. Event Studies for Financial Research: A Comprehensive Guide. New York: Springer. Mathews, John A. 2006. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 23: 5–27. [CrossRef] Pangarkar, Nitin. 2000. What drives merger behavior of firms? Strategic momentum versus bandwagons. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior 3: 37–72. [CrossRef] Patell, James M. 1976. Corporate forecasts of earning per share and stock price behaviour: Empirical tests. Journal of Accounting Research 14: 246–76. [CrossRef] Pathak, Prateek, and Navita Nathani. 2021. Mergers and Acquisitions in India And Its Impact on Shareholders Wealth. Iconic Research and Engineering Journals 4: 33–40. Paul, Justin, and Erick Mas. 2016. The emergence of China and India in the global market. Journal of East-West Business 22: 28–50. [CrossRef] Phiri, Andrew. 2018. Robust Analysis of Convergence in per Capita GDP in BRICS Economies. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Available online: https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/86936/ (accessed on 1 January 2020). Pradhan, Jaya Prakash, and Neelam Singh. 2011. Business group affiliation and location of Indian firms’ foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy 2: 19–41. [CrossRef] Rabbiosi, Larissa, Stefano Elia, and Fabio Bertoni. 2012. Acquisitions by EMNCs in developed markets: An organizational learning perspective. Management International Review 52: 193–212. [CrossRef] Rani, Neelam, Surendra Singh Yadav, and Pramod Kumar Jain. 2011. Impact of mergers and acquisitions on shareholders’ wealth in short-run: An empirical study of Indian pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness 6: 40–52. Rani, Neelam, Surendra Singh Yadav, and Pramod Kumar Jain. 2016. Mergers and Acquisitions, India Studies in Business and Economics. Singapore: Springer. [CrossRef] Saini, Amarjit, and Ravi Singla. 2015. Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions (A Performance Review of Tata Group of Companies). Indian Journal of Accounting 47: 82–91. Seth, Anju, Kean P. Song, and Richardson R. Pettit. 2002. Value creation and destruction in cross-border acquisitions: An empirical analysis of foreign acquisitions of US firms. Strategic Management Journal 23: 921–40. [CrossRef] Srivastava, Ritu, and Ajai Prakash. 2014. Value creation through cross-border mergers and acquisitions by the Indian pharmaceutical firms. Journal of Strategy and Management 7: 49–63. [CrossRef] Tao, Fang, Xiaohui Liu, Lan Gao, and Enjun Xia. 2017. Do cross-border mergers and acquisitions increase short-term market performance? The case of Chinese firms. International Business Review 26: 189–202. [CrossRef] Uddin, Moshfique, and Agyenim Boateng. 2009. An analysis of short-run performance of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: Evidence from the UK acquiring firms. Review of Accounting and Finance 8: 431–53. [CrossRef] Wajid, Abdul, and Harjit Singh. 2022. Do cross border acquisitions increase shareholder’s wealth? The case of Indian pharmaceutical firms. International Journal of Business Excellence 27: 387–409. [CrossRef] Wajid, Abdul, Harjit Singh, and A. A. Ansari. 2019. Corporate Restructuring Through Mergers: A Case of ICICI Bank. Indian Journal of Finance 13: 38–50. [CrossRef] Wajid, Abdul Wajid, Kashif Hasan Khan, and Harish Handa. 2020. Innovations through Mergers and Acquisitions in the Pharmaceutical Sector. In Technological Innovations for Sustainability and Business Growth. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 91–104. [CrossRef] Wang, Qian, and Agyenim Boateng. 2007. Cross-Border M & As by Chinese Firms: An Analysis of Strategic Motivation and Performance. International Management Review 3: 19–30.