UK's Spectris rejects second KKR takeover approach in favour of Advent's $5 billion proposal
June 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Spectris (SXS.L), opens new tab said on Friday it has rejected a second takeover proposal from private equity firm KKR, days after the scientific instruments maker backed a possible competing $5 billion bid from Advent.
Spectris did not provide details on KKR's proposal, noting only that it was the second proposal by the PE firm it had rejected.
The company, which provides hardware and software solutions to sectors such as pharmaceuticals, steel and automotive, said on Monday it would accept private equity firm Advent's proposal of 37.63 pounds per share if a formal offer was made.
Advent and KKR did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. The competing proposal by KKR was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Friday.
Spectris is the largest takeover target this year in Britain, a country that has attracted overseas buyers in recent years due to relatively cheap valuations.
Under UK takeover rules, KKR has until July 11 to make a formal offer or walk away.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: Florian Wirtz's new salary at Liverpool ahead of record-breaking £116million transfer from Bayer Leverkusen... so, where does youngster rank compared to Mo Salah and Virgil van Dijk?
Florian Wirtz is set to become one of Liverpool 's highest-paid players after sealing a sensational £116million move from Bayer Leverkusen. Mail Sport revealed earlier this week that the Premier League champions had finalised terms on the record-breaking transfer, agreeing an initial £100m fee that could rise to £116m based on performance-related bonuses — including winning the Champions League and Premier League with Wirtz playing a key role. And while the 22-year-old's medical is expected to take place once he returns from holiday, Mail Sport understands that personal terms have already been agreed, with Wirtz choosing Liverpool over Bayern Munich, Manchester City and Real Madrid weeks ago. According to Sky Sports, Wirtz will earn a base salary of €12million (£10.21m) per year — roughly £195,000 a week. That could reportedly rise to €15m (£12.77m) — more than £245,000 a week — if individual and team bonuses are triggered. Those figures puts him near the top bracket of Liverpool's earners — but still behind the club's two biggest stars. Wirtz will secure a significant pay-rise when he finally swaps Bayer Leverkusen for Liverpool Mail Sport can reveal that Mohamed Salah's new deal, signed in April, is worth £380,000 per week. The Egyptian, now 32, remains central to Liverpool's plans under Arne Slot and committed to a fresh contract amid speculation linking him with a move to Saudi Arabia. But Virgil van Dijk is now the club's highest earner. The Dutch defender signed a two-year extension, also in April, worth around £400,000 per week. Wirtz is expected to slot into a No 10 role under Slot but can also play wide, deeper in midfield, or as a false nine. He registered 10 goals and 12 assists in the Bundesliga last season and was instrumental as Leverkusen pushed Bayern Munich all the way in the title race — a year on from their league and cup double. He has already held talks with Slot and even viewed properties in Cheshire in preparation for the move. Those close to the player say he is ecstatic about the chance to play alongside stars like Salah and has described the move as a 'done deal' in recent days. Wirtz will become only the 10th footballer in history to command a nine-figure fee. He joins Neymar, Kylian Mbappe, Philippe Coutinho, Joao Felix, Enzo Fernandez, Antoine Griezmann, Jack Grealish, Declan Rice and Moises Caicedo on that list. But Liverpool do not see Wirtz as a vanity signing.
The Sun
33 minutes ago
- The Sun
Cheapest new cars to insure in UK are revealed – including £237-a-year hatchback, compact SUV & ‘Tardis on wheels'
CAR insurance has skyrocketed as the cost of living keeps soaring. The average annual premium rose by £284 in 2024 – a 43% increase year-on-year – taking the typical cost to £941. While that figure from is far from affordable for many motorists, there are still several new cars on the market that are relatively inexpensive to insure. We've pulled together a list of the cheapest new cars to insure, ranked on the most competitive insurance quotes available, using consistent criteria to ensure a fair comparison. Topping the list is the Skoda Fabia, currently the cheapest new car to insure in the UK. The rest of the rankings are largely made up of superminis and hatchbacks, with a small number of compact SUVs also making the cut. Encouragingly, there are signs that premiums may be beginning to ease. Over the past year, average quotes have gradually fallen, with the latest figure standing at around £834. The Skoda Fabia comes with an annual insurance premium of £237.94. Bought new, these nippy little motors will set you back around £19,410. According to Autocar, the Fabia rides better than some luxury cars do and is kitted out with a user-friendly interior. The downfalls were its hard, scratchy interior plastics. The Seat Ibiza is second on the list and has remained a firm favourite for drivers since it first launched six years ago. The annual insurance premium is £240.84, and the car costs £19,795. According to Autocar's road tester, Illya Verpraet, the Seat is a "brilliantly modern compact car". The car boasts impressive technology that helps to make your journeys comfortable. Coming in at third place is the Hyundai i10 which is the cheapest of the three at £16,380. The annual insurance premium is £259.91. It's a Tardis of a car, offering up a surprising amount of space for passengers. It's one of the best city cars available thanks to its size and state-of-the-art technology. 3
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Aukus will cost Australia $368bn. What if there was a better, cheaper defence strategy?
As Australia's nuclear submarine-led defence strategy threatens to fray, strategists say it's time to evaluate whether the military and economic case of the tripartite deal still stacks up. The defence tie-up with the US and UK, called Aukus, is estimated to cost up to $368bn over 30 years, although the deal could become even more costly should Donald Trump renegotiate terms to meet his 'America first' agenda. The current deal, struck in 2021, includes the purchase of three American-made nuclear-powered submarines, the construction of five Australian-made ones, as well as sustaining the vessels and associated infrastructure. Such a price tag naturally comes with an opportunity cost paid by other parts of the defence force and leaves less money to address societal priorities, such as investing in regional diplomacy and accelerating the renewable energy transition. This choice is often described as one between 'guns and butter', referring to the trade-off between spending on defence and social programs. Luke Gosling, Labor's special envoy for defence and veterans' affairs, last year described Aukus as 'Australia's very own moonshot' – neatly capturing both the risks and the potential benefits. Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute's international security program, says there are cheaper ways to replicate submarine capabilities, which are ultimately designed to sink ships and destroy other submarines. These include investing in airborne capabilities, more missiles, maritime patrol aircraft and naval mines, he says. 'If you imagine a world without Aukus, it does suddenly free up a massive portion of the defence budget,' says Roggeveen. 'That would relieve a lot of pressure, and would actually be a good thing for Australia.' Roggeveen coined the term 'echidna strategy' to argue for an alternative, and cheaper, defence policy for Australia that does not include nuclear-powered submarines. Like the quill-covered mammal, the strategy is designed to build defensive capabilities that make an attack unpalatable for an adversary. The strategy is meant to radiate strength but not aggression. 'The uncertainty that Aukus introduces is that we are buying submarines that actually have the capabilities to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles on to an enemy land mass,' says Roggeveen. 'That is an offensive capability that's ultimately destabilising. We should be focusing on defensive capabilities only.' Those advocating for a more defensive approach, including Albert Palazzo from the University of New South Wales, point out that it is more costly to capture ground than it is to hold it. The argument has been bolstered by Ukraine's ability to stall the advance of a larger adversary, aided by its use of relatively cheap underwater and airborne drones. On the question of alternative uses for the submarine money, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments recently asked teams in Washington and Canberra to consider how Australia might rebalance its defence force structure over the next decade. In the experiment, four out of the six teams – including all three Australian teams – opted to cancel the nuclear submarine deal, citing concerns about British industrial capacity, complexities of the program and the delivery timetable. Total defence funding is forecast to nearly double in dollar terms over the next decade, from $56bn in this financial year to $100.4bn in 2033-34. The increase in defence spending as a share of the economy is less pronounced, but still marked: from 2% now to 2.4% over the same period. Saul Eslake, an independent economist, says higher defence spending is coming at a time of substantially higher demands on the public purse across a range of areas, from aged care, to disability services and childcare. Eslake says government spending is now 1.5 to 2 percentage points higher than the average through the decades leading up to the pandemic, the equivalent of $55-70bn a year in today's dollars. At some point, Australians will need to grapple with how to pay for this extra spending, or to find areas where programs can be cut. 'The consensus across the political divide, and whether the public wants it or not, is that there will be more spending on defence,' Eslake says. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email While expert opinion divides over whether nuclear-powered submarines are the best strategic option for Australia's long-term defence strategy, there's a separate question over whether the submarines will be delivered. There is a substantial risk associated with a project that spans three countries over three decades and involves huge sums of money. The Aukus costing recognises some of this: of the $368bn estimated cost over 30 years, $123bn is classed as 'contingency'. In other words, an extra 50% has been added to the cost estimate to try to account for the risk of cost blowouts, which is more than 10 times the usual contingency on big projects. Australia may find it needs to draw on that contingency sooner than expected should terms be renegotiated with Trump in the US's favour. As part of the agreement, Australia has already committed billions of dollars to help build up the manufacturing capacity of the US and UK. The financial cost of the nuclear-powered submarine program is so high that Marcus Hellyer, from Strategic Analysis Australia, has described it as the country's 'fourth service', sitting alongside the navy, army and air force. Hellyer says many of the risks linked to the deal, including questions over US submarine production capability and whether Australia will have enough nuclear-qualified submariners, still remain almost four years after the agreement was struck. 'There are serious risks around this and the risk picture is not a particularly comfortable one at the moment,' he says. Hellyer says the heavy investment in traditional assets, including submarines, leaves Australia with a limited ability to invest in emerging defence technologies. 'We don't have a lot of flexibility because so much of our investment budget is tied up,' he says. 'Unfortunately, it's tied up in things that won't be delivered for a decade or more.'
