Walgreens Boots Alliance sold to private equity firm Sycamore Partners
Why you can trust Sky News
The owner of high-street pharmacy chain Boots is being bought by a private equity firm, and it will no longer be a public company listed on a stock exchange.
Walgreens Boots Alliance had agreed to a $23.7bn (£18.37bn) deal with private equity firm Sycamore Partners, as first reported by Sky News.
It means the business will no longer be a company with publicly traded shares listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York.
Instead, for the first time in nearly a hundred years, it will be under the private ownership of the private equity firm, which specialises in retail.
In return, shareholders will get $11.45 (£8.86) per share with the possibility of receiving another $3 (£2.32) per share if other business sale conditions are met.
Private equity firms acquire businesses, invest to improve financial performance and seek to then sell them for a profit.
Other high-street businesses, such as Morrisons and Asda supermarkets, have been acquired by private equity.
It's unclear what the impact of the deal will be on Boots shops in the UK but a sale of that part of the business by new owners could be triggered.
The chain has struggled in recent years, announcing the closure of 300 stores in 2023 while Walgreens Boots Alliance shed 90% of its share price value since 2015.
A sell-off of the Boots arm of the business from the Walgreens Boots Alliance had been considered but was abandoned in 2022 amid torrid conditions in debt-financing markets.
Boots was acquired by Walgreens in 2014
Walgreens Boots Alliance was founded by John Boot in 1849, who sold herbal remedies.
It employs about 51,000 people in the UK in 1,800 pharmacies and opticians.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Coin Geek
2 hours ago
- Coin Geek
Coinbase loses fight to control ‘coinbase' trademark in the EU
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The EU General Court has slapped down the latest attempt by Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) to have a Japanese exchange's trademark over the word 'coinbase' revoked. Coinbase was appealing an earlier decision that found that the U.S.-based exchange had failed to prove that bitFly, the Japanese exchange, had secured a trademark over the word in bad faith. This week, the court agreed that Coinbase had failed to prove its claims. It's the most recent decision in a long-standing legal fight between Coinbase and bitFlyer. bitFlyer, a Japanese digital asset exchange, obtained a trademark over the word in 2015. The trademark was granted in relation to five specific classes of goods and services only. Coinbase filed with the European Intellectual Property Office, asking to have the trademark ruled invalid. It asked for this on two bases: first, the trademark risked confusion with an earlier trademark already granted to Coinbase in 2013 because that trademark related to three of the five classes of goods and services contained in bitFlyer's 2015 trademark. More substantially, Coinbase also argued that bitFlyer's trademark of the word 'coinbase' had been filed in bad faith on the basis that it was relevant to goods and services not directly tied to its business and that it was aware of the overlap with Coinbase's previously granted trademark. Coinbase primarily relied on Article 52(1)(b) of the EU's community trademark regulation no 207/2009, establishing grounds for revoking trademarks in cases where the applicant filed in bad faith. In particular, it argued that bitFlyer was aware of the pre-existing trademark as well as the overlap between three of the five categories referenced in bitFlyer's trademark application and, therefore, was made in bad faith. Coinbase initially secured a partial victory before the European Intellectual Property Office's Cancellation Division, which agreed that there was a risk of confusion concerning three categories of goods and services that were common between the two trademarks. However, it refused revocation in relation to the non-overlapping categories, rejecting Coinbase's argument that they had been sought in bad faith for lack of evidence. In other words, Coinbase had succeeded in revoking the trademark with respect to those goods and services that overlap with those provided by bitFlyer; the remaining two categories survived. Coinbase appealed this to the Office's Fourth Board of Appeal. The appeal was rejected. The Board decided that the appeal must be limited to examining whether there was bad faith behind the two remaining categories of goods and services in the trademark because the lower court had already ruled in Coinbase's favor with respect to the three overlapping categories. Coinbase then successfully appealed this ruling to the EU General Court. It argued that the lower court was incorrect to consider that it should only examine the non-overlapping categories in determining whether bitFlyer had acted in bad faith. Instead, Coinbase argued that the court was required to look at the totality of bitFlyer's behavior. The EU General Court agreed. The practical result of Coinbase's successful appeal was that the decision was sent back to the Board of Appeal for reassessment, this time with the mandate that the court should look at the totality of the events surrounding the trademark application in determining whether bad faith exists. The Board did so but ruled the same way: it found that Coinbase had not presented sufficient evidence that bitFlyer had acted in bad faith. Coinbase again appealed to the EU General Court. This month, the court ruled substantially against Coinbase. Though it again agreed that there was a risk of confusion with Coinbase's earlier patent about the overlapping categories of goods and services, it found that the U.S. exchange had still failed to prove that bitFlyer had registered the trademark in bad faith, noting that even if a trademark application is made in respect of goods and services not then being provided by the applicant, there still may not be sufficient grounds for finding bad faith. 'In any event, in light of all the foregoing assessments, the applicant [Coinbase] has not submitted relevant and consistent evidence to show that the holder of the contested international registration had filed the application for registration, not with the aim of engaging fairly in competition, but with the intention of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties,' reads the judgment. No doubt the court's commentary on the case will be examined carefully by IP lawyers worldwide. The question of precisely what amounts to a bad-faith trademark application under the regulation has received much attention, with more clarity being provided each time it comes before courts. However, there is no hard-and-fast threshold for what conduct will amount to bad faith. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the fact that Coinbase has already successfully challenged the trademark's validity in Singapore, where it was originally granted. There, the Singapore court took a dim view of bitFlyer's registration of a mark identical to that of a competitor without providing a clear explanation of why. It was also more skeptical of bitFlyer's attempt to trademark the word 'coinbase' with respect to goods and services it wasn't actually providing at the time than the EU court would turn out to be. Timeline: December 6, 2013: Coinbase trademarks the word 'coinbase' in classes 9, 36 and 42 December 18, 2015: bitFlyer trademarks the word 'coinbase' in classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42 June 29, 2018: Coinbase files with the European Intellectual Property Office, seeking revocation of bitFlyer's patent on the basis of confusion and bad faith June 26, 2020: EUIPO's Cancellation Division rules in favor of Coinbase on confusion with respect to the overlapping classes, but rejects the argument of bad faith with the non-overlapping classes August 26, 2020: Coinbase files appeal of June 2020 decision April 29, 2021: The Board of Appeal dismisses the appeal, finding there is insufficient evidence of bad faith June 29, 2021: Coinbase appeals to the General Court, arguing that the Board of Appeal did not take into account all necessary circumstances March 22, 2023: The EU General Court agrees with Coinbase, sending the case back to the lower court for reassessment on the bad faith point November 29, 2023: After reassessing the decision, the Board of Appeal comes to the same conclusion January 16, 2025: Coinbase appeals the reassessed decision June 11, 2025: EU General Court dismisses Coinbase's appeal, agreeing that there is still not enough evidence for bad faith Watch: Teranode is the digital backbone of Bitcoin title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
What is the Strait of Hormuz - and why does it matter to global trade?
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈 Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's busiest oil shipping channel, in retaliation for the US strikes on its nuclear facilities. How might the global economy be affected, including the price of oil? On today's episode, Dominic Waghorn is joined by Sky News economics editor Ed Conway to discuss the consequences of Iran's next move.
Sky News
5 hours ago
- Sky News
Industrial strategy targets short-term pain for long-term gain
The government's industrial strategy aims to harness the best of British business, from automotive to video gaming via the City and life sciences, in order to deliver the economic growth on which all else depends. A year in the planning with a 10-year horizon for delivery, in its final months it was hijacked by a very short-term issue; how to give industries battered by the highest electricity prices in the world a chance of competing now, never mind the 2030s. The answer, as reported by Sky News last week, is a significant cut to bills not just for "energy intensive users" such as concrete and chemicals that already enjoy support, but to 7,000 manufacturers for whom energy is a high proportion of costs. They will receive around 15% off their bills from 2027, at an estimated cost of £500m a year. Exactly who benefits will be decided after consultation but the mechanism for delivering discounts, and how they will be paid for, is already decided, and the answer tells us an awkward truth about the UK's energy market. To make industrial energy prices more competitive, qualifying businesses will be exempt from paying some of the taxes and levies added to bills to incentivise the building of renewable energy sources. These so-called "policy-costs", which make up around 15% of energy bills, have been fundamental to the massive expansion of wind and latterly solar power, supported by successive governments over the last two decades. This race for renewables is intended not just to lower emissions but to deliver more stable and, say Labour, cheaper bills by reducing our exposure to volatile gas prices. The UK has been hugely successful in the first part, and green technologies are one of the eight high-growth sectors favoured in this industrial strategy. Yet by choosing to discount "green levies", the government appears to be acknowledging that taxes intended to bring down bills tomorrow are driving prices up and making the UK uncompetitive today. It also raises the prospect that the heaviest energy users will pay less for the expansion of renewables intended to reduce emissions. Ministers say that, unlike previous industrial discounts, the cost of this one will not be passed on to other business or domestic customers. Instead, they say the funding will come from "headroom" created by extending price guarantees offered to renewable suppliers (known as Contracts for Difference) from 10 years to 15, and a "windfall" expected from linking UK carbon pricing to the EU system. If that sounds like the work of Treasury officials desperate to keep an unfunded £2bn off the books it may well be, but Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Sky News the scheme is compatible with the country's long-term energy goals. He said: "You can do both things together, you can have ambition on climate and be competitive. These changes mean no one is going to have a higher bill to pay for this, no one will have to pay higher taxes to pay for this, but how those costs are represented in the system will change over time to make sure we have competitive industries. "There'll be no higher borrowing, no higher taxes and no higher bills from anyone else. And ultimately if we get the increase in investment and business activity I believe this could bring about, that produces a stronger economy overall."
