Case Incident: DAVID OUT-NEGOTIATING GOLIATH: APOTEX AND BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB



Case Incident: DAVID OUT-NEGOTIATING GOLIATH: APOTEX AND BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB

Note: All content provided in this post is for informational purposes only. If you believe this was accurate and useful plz rate or vote it. If you think something was wrong or missing plz post it as comment.

1.  What principles of distributive negotiation did Sherman use to gain  his advantage? 

Ans. Sherman use making of aggressive first offer principle of distributive negotiation to gain his advantage.  Sherman try to extract an agreement from Bristol-Myers that would position Apotex favorably should the FTC reject the deal. Sherman inserted a clause in the deal that would require Bristol-Myers to paly Apotex $60 million if the FTC rejected the deal. Sherman try to get maximum of pie from Bristol-Myers.

2. Do you think Sherman behaved ethically? Why or why not?    

Ans. I think Sherman did not behaved ethically. Privately , Sherman was betting that FTC would not approve the non compete agreement the two parties negotiating, and his goal in negotiation was to extract an agreement from Bristol-Myers. Sherman misrepresentation of facts seams like un ethical.

3. What does this incident tell you about the role of deception in negotiation? 

Ans. Evidence indicates that deception in negotiations can produce short-term advantage’s. But in this case deception produce long-term advantage’s. Deception in all acceptable in all kinds of negotiations. It has risk factor which may leads to lost trust and further negotiations.

2 thoughts on “Case Incident: DAVID OUT-NEGOTIATING GOLIATH: APOTEX AND BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB

Leave a Reply