SlimFast-owner gets into shape with launch of dieting brand sell-off
Sky News understands that Glanbia, the Irish-based company, is working with bankers at Houlihan Lokey on a process to exit its weight management portfolio.
Dubbed Project Lego, a sale would come more than 45 years after SlimFast was founded.
Glanbia has owned the brand since 2018, when it paid $350m for the business.
Announcing the decision to sell SlimFast in February, Mark Garvey, Glanbia's chief financial officer, said: "We've decided to move on.
"There is a significant change in how weight management is being managed by consumers."
Dieting brands such as SlimFast have been hit hard by the rise of weight loss drugs Wegovy and Ozempic in recent years.
Sources said that Glanbia's advisers were marketing the SlimFast business based on a pipeline of new product developments and brand positioning.
A sale is expected to be finalised later this year, depending upon the price offered by prospective buyers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US court reopens Citgo parent auction for bids, winner to be recommended this month
HOUSTON, Aug 18 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Monday authorized a court officer overseeing an auction of shares in the parent of Venezuela-owned refiner Citgo Petroleum to receive and negotiate improved bids this week before confirming or changing the winner recommendation he made last month. A final winner recommendation in the complex court-organized auction is expected to be submitted by the end of this month, Judge Leonard Stark said in a hearing.
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Row could collapse Cityjet rescue plans, court hears
A row over demands by contractors involving a potential investor in the refinancing of debt-ridden airline Cityjet, over proposed upfront payment terms for future maintenance work, could collapse rescue plans for the company which is currently in examinership, the High Court was told on Monday. Now the joint examiners to the carrier, Kieran Wallace and Andrew O'Leary, of specialist firm Interpath Advisory, are to ask the High Court on Wednesday for declarations that the attempted modification of maintenance contracts is invalid. Advertisement Barrister Stephen Byrne, counsel for the examiners, told Ms Justice Eileen Roberts that the effect of the proposed contractual amendments would have a material impact on Cityjet's ability to continue in examinership. Mr Wallace, in written evidence grounding the application, told Judge Roberts that the new demands could cause the examinership to fail. The court granted the joint examiners short service to bring a notice of motion regarding the new issues before the court on Wednesday. Cityjet's sole shareholder, Strategic Alliance of Regional Airlines (SARA), which itself is 80 per cent owned by Air Investment Valencia (AIV), has significant service contracts with sister entities and subsidiaries of SARA. The court heard that a key condition for the joint examiners to any reinvestment by the shareholder entities was a renegotiation of the company's various maintenance contracts in order to facilitate the survival of the company, as outlined by the joint examiners and an independent expert. Advertisement Mr Wallace stated that since his and Mr O'Leary's appointment, they have had regular engagement with certain shareholder entities in respect of potential reinvestment in the company as outlined in an earlier report to the High Court. He said it had become clear that the SARA shareholder entities would not make sufficiently significant concessions on contracts such as would be required to ensure a reasonable prospect of the survival of Cityjet as a going concern. Demands had been made by the contractors for payments to be made up front on a monthly basis with almost immediate effect. Mr Wallace said he and Mr O'Leary had decided to pursue alternative investment proposals from other interested parties, and another investment proposal had already been agreed and entered into by the company. Mr Byrne said that in correspondence with SARA legal representatives, the joint examiners had stated their view it was impermissible for any contracts to be varied. The matter comes up again before Mr Justice Quinn who initially appointed the joint examiners.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I just wanted to buy a home - but the real estate agent blew up the deal with a wild cash demand before I could even make a bid. Here's the real reason WHY they did it though…
A Melbourne real estate agent has sparked outrage amid claims it demanded $2,000 from a home buyer before they would be allowed to bid at an auction. The potential buyer claimed on Reddit that a real estate agent for Local Expertz Realty, in Melton, west of Melbourne, demanded the 'deposit'. He insisted he had attended auctions previously without having to pay any such fee. 'They always make you fill out the same bidder registration form with all your personal details, along with a copy of your driver's licence, which all makes sense to me,' the post read. 'Today however, after filling out the bidder registration form, I get a call from the agent saying I need to deposit $2000 into their company's account.' The buyer claimed he was told by the agent it was 'standard practice'. 'They tried to reassure me by saying that the money will be refunded if I don't win the auction, but I wasn't having it,' the buyer posted. 'There is absolutely no need for such a ridiculous stipulation. He told me it was a company rule and there was nothing he could do about it. 'I simply refused and said I'd just look elsewhere before hanging up.' But Local Expertz Realty director Jesse Singh hit back at the claims, telling Daily Mail the buyer planned to call in his bids over the phone. 'We do not ask a potential bidder to pay any deposit to attend an auction,' Mr Singh told the Daily Mail. 'However, if a potential bidder wishes to bid over the telephone and we've never met or transacted with the individual previously, we may ask the bidder to deposit $2000-$5000 in our trust account to validate that we're dealing with a genuine bidder to protect the owner's interest and avoid facing a false bidding situation. 'The deposit sits in our trust account which is a non-interest bearing account and the money is fully refunded the next business day if the potential bidder does not win the bidding or chooses not to bid at all. 'This is permitted by Consumer Affairs to filter out a false bidding situation. 'It becomes tricky for the public when someone is telling part of a story. 'That buyer obviously didn't mention on Reddit that he wanted to bid over the phone and he was interstate.' The original poster mentioned that detail in a later post near the end of the Reddit thread, although it was almost hidden among the hundreds of comments on his post. 'I only preregister because I don't live in the area and can't attend the auction in person,' he noted. A spokesperson for Real Estate Institute of Victoria told Daily Mail the practice was legal, adding: 'Some agents may use this as a way to confirm the validity of a bidder. 'The legislation does not prohibit this. The key is that it is fully refundable and held in the agent's trust account,' the spokesperson said. Reddit users slammed the little-known practice and questioned if this was now considered 'normal'. Many noted the actual seller was likely unaware potential buyers were being put off even bidding due to the 'refundable deposit'. 'Lots of people out there looking to find a home would be attending more than one auction,' one said. 'When we were looking, we planned out a weekend with six auctions (fortunately, we found and "bought" a place before we needed to go through that...) 'Having to front up with a deposit for EVERY auction they plan to attend is really cutting down on the amount of potential buyers.' Some readers suggested other real estate agents across Australia have demanded similar deposits. 'I had one tell me today I had to pay a $2,000 deposit to put in an offer,' they posted. 'It's my first time going as far as wanting to put in an offer so have no idea if this is normal or not, but I thought they had to present the owner with all offers, so I don't see why I'd need to pay a $2,000 deposit. 'You got off easy, I was asked last year for a $5,000 deposit to make an offer. That was for a real estate agent in Eltham, VIC,' another person claimed. 'I would think it's to make sure they're only dealing with legit buyers; if you don't have $5,000 then how can you possibly afford the property. 'Didn't have that experience when looking at any other properties.' Other Victorians have shared similar stories on Reddit over the past year. One posted seven months ago that the home buyer needed to transfer a $2,000 holding deposit into the agent's trust account and send a screenshot when it had been made. 'We have registered for a few auctions and never had to do this before,' the poster claimed. 'The text also said that if we are successful, the $2,000 will go towards our deposit, or if we're unsuccessful it will be transferred back to us within 24 hours.' 'In Victoria there is no requirement to register for an auction, unlike in other Australian states,' one reader responded. 'You are better off not replying to this and just showing up at the auction and bidding if you feel like it.
