AstraZeneca boss mulls New York listing in fresh blow for City: Exodus risks transforming London into a 'global backwater'
AstraZeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot is reportedly weighing what would be a devastating blow to the London Stock Exchange.
The move comes amid growing frustration with the UK's rules on approving new medicines as well as a row over drug prices between the industry and the NHS.
Soriot has spoken privately of his desire to move the FTSE 100 drugs giant's listing on multiple occasions.
He has also considered moving AstraZeneca's headquarters away from the UK as well as its main stock market listing, the Times reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.
Shares have fallen by 17 per cent over the past year. They rose 2.8 per cent, or 282p, to 10,402p following the report.
Soriot, 66, has previously criticised the UK and the rest of Europe for falling behind other countries such as the US and China in developing medicines.
In April, he said that innovation in pharmaceuticals 'has mostly been funded by the US'.
The company has also been heavily investing in China, which Soriot considers to be a major untapped source of sales. AstraZeneca is the largest company on the London Stock Exchange with a value of £158billion.
A move would deal a severe blow to the beleaguered UK market, which has been hit by a number of defections.
It is also likely to fuel fears that other major British firms, including oil giant Shell and miners Glencore and Rio Tinto, all of whom have previously considered moving away from London, could follow suit.
Michael Healy, UK Managing Director at trading platform IG, said: 'Another week, another potential hammer blow to the UK stock market. We're in dangerous waters – London risks becoming a global backwater unless something changes fast.'
Charles Hall, head of research at broker Peel Hunt, said: 'This is another warning shot that we cannot take our capital markets for granted.'
But Soriot is likely to face stiff resistance from members of the company's board of directors as well as from the Government.
Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at broker AJ Bell, said such a move would be 'difficult to pull off' for AstraZeneca, which declined to comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
7 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Discharging patients from hospitals to care homes in the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic was 'the least-worst decision' at the time, former health secretary Matt Hancock has said. Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. Mr Hancock said: 'It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.' The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and that while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. He said it was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'. He said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. The High Court ruled in 2022 that Government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously called this phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. She added: 'He knew at the time that many care homes did not have the ability to isolate the people who would be discharged from hospital and that Covid was airborne. 'It's frankly ridiculous and insulting that he says they tried to throw a protective ring around care homes when his department's policies caused Covid to spread like wildfire amongst society's most vulnerable loved ones. 'Mr Hancock claims the decision to discharge people into care homes was driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, yet the inquiry is not calling him. We would call for this decision to be urgently reviewed.' The CBFFJ group had already written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and Government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Module six of the inquiry is focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
UK accused of hypocrisy at landmark UN foreign aid conference
The UK has been accused of 'hypocrisy' over its lack of high-level participation at a key global development finance summit, on top of cuts to Britain's aid budget – while talking up its role in helping lower-income nations. The accusations have been made at the fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4), a once-a-decade summit happening all week in Seville, Southern Spain, where delegates are aiming to tackle the perennial problem of how to help developing countries access the money they need. Thirty-two African countries currently spend more on debt repayments than on healthcare, and 25 African countries spend more on debt payments than on education, an issue that activists say needs urgent action. Some 50 world leaders are due at FfD4, including Emmanuel Macron of France, Mark Carney of Canada, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. The UK, however, has only sent a government minister in the form of Baroness Chapman, the international development minister. 'A level of ambition from the UK government would have been demonstrated clearly by sending higher level participation such as the prime minister or Foreign Secretary,' Lydia Darby, a senior policy advisor at Save the Children, told The Independent. Ahead of fDf4, writing in The Independent, Baroness Chapman called for a 'new era for global aid and development', that would see developing countries helped in building their own tax systems, and greater investment in developing countries from the private sector, among other measures. Hannah Bond, Co-CEO at ActionAid UK, said that it is 'hypocritical' for the UK to talk about 'fair finance' while cutting overseas aid. 'If the UK truly cares about fair finance, it must honour its overseas aid commitments, tackle unfair debts, and pay its fair share in addressing the climate crisis,' Bond said. 'Without this, talk of fair finance is nothing more than empty PR.' Baroness Chapman's appearance comes off the back of the UK cutting its foreign aid budget from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) - which is expected to reduce foreign aid by £6.2 billion by 2025. Alex Farley, from advocacy group Bond, said that it is 'impossible' to see how the UK can deliver on existing funding commitments, respond to humanitarian crisis, and tackle climate change, following he 0.5 to 0.3 per cent cut. 'Let alone undo the damage these cuts have done to our reputation and credibility with countries,' he added. 'It would be nice to hear the government expressing regret for its cuts to the aid budget, rather than blithely claiming that they are somehow doing developing countries a favour,' Michael Jacobs, from the think tank ODI, told The Independent. Mr Jacobs added that the claim that private sector money can substitute public funds is 'silly at best, disingenuous at worst'. This is because 'the private sector wants returns, while much aid - for health, schools, sanitation, climate adaptation - doesn't make a profit, so is not investable', he said. Catherine Pettengell, executive director of NGO network Climate Action Network UK concurred that the UK had 'failed to sufficiently support developing countries' calls for fairer debt, tax, international cooperation, and climate finance ' in build-up to the conference. 'It's a crushing blow that only compounds the recent UK aid cuts,' she added. Attendees of FfD4 say, however, that it is not all doom and gloom in Seville. The final agreement of the talks - the Compromiso de Sevilla - was in fact agreed to just ahead of this week's conference. According to Save the Children's Ms Darby, there is notably positive language on matters including international tax cooperation and an agreement to initiate an intergovernmental process on debt. 'The document is an important step with plenty to build on in the months and years to come,' Darby said - though she acknowledged it has inevitably fallen short of 'the transformative ambition that civil society and vulnerable communities worldwide had called for'. While the UK, along with the EU, has been accused of watering down key priorities for low-and-middle-come countries, these countries have at least contributed much more positively than the US, which withdrew from talks ahead of the conference over the refusal from the rest of the world to delete the goal of 'sustainable development' from the text.
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Morrisons makes major change to 60 stores as part of restructure
Meat counters at Morrisons are being regenerated to feature largely pre-packed meat, as the group battles to revive its fortunes. Under the new model, butchers at Morrisons will cut meat at the start of the day into a number of different pre-packed sizes, enabling shoppers to select the cuts they want. It is the same range as before, but displayed on a flat bed so customers can help themselves, Morrisons told This is Money. Morrisons claimed the move will help free up butchers' time as they will no longer have to work on creating carefully curated meat displays each day. While most meat at Morrrisons' counters will be pre-packed, butchers will still be available assist shoppers and to cut meat to a specific size or thickness if required. Morrisons has set a target of rolling out the new meat counter format to 100 stores by the end of 2025, with around 60 having already been altered. A Morrisons spokesman told This is Money: 'We are moving at pace with the modernisation of Market Street as part of our Morrisons Magic programme, and following successful trials, we've begun to roll out flatbeds in our butchery departments. 'These showcase the same range, with the freshness and quality that Market Street is renowned for but with a more modern and contemporary look. 'They offer both the convenience of self service for customers that prefer it and the traditional individual service from an in-store butcher. 'Customer reaction has been very positive and we're aiming to have the new look in 100 stores this year.' The supermarket chain said did a trial of the revived meat counter operation at its store in Retford last year that was 'really well received'. What is happening at Morrisons? Morrisons is in the midst of a sweeping cost-cutting drive as chief executive Rami Baitiéh battles to revive the grocer's bottom line. In March, more than 360 Morrisons staff were told they were at risk of losing their jobs amid changes being made to its operations. It announced plans to close 17 convenience stores, 52 cafes, 18 market kitchens, 13 florists, 35 meat counters, 35 fish counters and four pharmacies. Morrisons, which employs 95,000 workers, said its planned closures were in areas where the costs of operation were significantly out of line with usage. On Wednesday, Morrisons became the latest major business to warn that it will be forced to accelerate its cost-cutting plans amid Labour's recent national insurance contribution hike for employers. In the year to 27 October 2024, Morrisons saved £312million in costs. As a result of Rachel Reeve's policy, the grocer's employer national insurance costs will rise by around £75million this year. The chain reported an underlying EBITDA of £344million in the half to 27 April, up 7.2 per cent year-on-year, bolstered by a 4.2 per cent rise in sales to £3.9billion during its second quarter. In January, rival Tesco unveiled plans to axe 400 jobs, affecting mangers at its mobile phone shops and in-store bakery staff. In the same month, Sainsbury's announced plans to cut 3,000 jobs and close all in-store cafes.
