So news of two more big company demergers today, hot on the heels of the three-way break-up of 129-year-old US industrial giant General Electric announced on Wednesday, suggests that “doing the splits” is being looked at anew by company boards.
Toshiba, one of the best known companies in Japan, announced that it is breaking itself up – also splitting itself into three separate businesses.
Image: One division will be focused on Toshiba’s electronics devices
The 146-year old company said one of the them would be focused on infrastructure, including products and services such as water treatment, trains, power turbines and nuclear-plant maintenance.
A second will be focused on electronic devices such as power semiconductors.
Advertisement
The third business, which will retain the Toshiba name, will manage the company’s stake in the flash-memory company Kioxia Holdings and other assets.
The move follows an accounting scandal six years ago – after which activist shareholders urged the company to break itself up.
More from Business
The measure, however, may not go far enough with those investors that had wanted Toshiba to go private.
It received – and rejected – a takeover proposal in April from CVC, the private equity group, valuing it at $20bn.
Image: General Electric announced a break-up earlier this week
Toshiba’s move attracted a good deal of interest since it has echoes of the GE announcement which, in turn, was at least partly inspired by similar moves two years ago by the German industrial stalwart Siemens.
Hot on the heels of that news came the announcement that Johnson & Johnson, the $429bn healthcare and consumer goods giant that is America’s 12th largest public company, is to split itself in two.
J&J, the world’s biggest healthcare company by both sales and market value, will hive off its consumer health business, the owner of brands such as Band-Aid, Listerine, Tylenol, Neutrogena and the eponymous Johnson’s baby oil, into a separate company.
The core J&J business will retain the company’s existing pharmaceuticals and medical devices businesses.
The consumer health business will be the smaller of the two but will still be a substantial company, with annual sales of $15bn a year, in its own right.
Like Toshiba, J&J has had a difficult few years, becoming embroiled in a costly legal battle with the US state of Oklahoma over its past sale of painkillers.
More recently it has been dogged by allegations – furiously denied – that its talcum powder caused cancer.
But Alex Gorsky, J&J’s chief executive, insisted that the demerger – due to take place during the next 18 to 24 months – was nothing to do with that.
Image: Johnson & Johnson denies allegations about its talcum powder Pic: AP
He told the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story: “The best path forward to ensure sustainable growth over the long term and better meet patient and consumer demands is to have our consumer business operate as a separate healthcare company.”
As with Toshiba and GE, J&J is a stalwart of its country’s business scene.
It dates back some 135 years to when three brothers, Robert Wood Johnson, James Wood Johnson and Edward Mead Johnson, launched a business selling surgical dressings, supposedly after hearing a speech by the British surgeon and pathology and antisceptic pioneer Joseph Lister.
J&J sold the world’s first commercial first aid kits and the world’s first women’s sanitary products.
It moved into pharmaceuticals in 1959 and the more predictable cash flow from its consumer goods businesses helped finance research and development into the more up-and-down, but potentially more lucrative, drugs and medical devices businesses.
More recently, though, some investors have become unhappy at the relatively sluggish performance of the consumer goods arm.
Its sales rose by 1.1% last year while the pharmaceuticals arm grew by 8%.
Shareholders these days prefer to focus on specific sectors.
Image: J&J boss Alex Gorsky said the demerger was the “best path forward to ensure sustainable growth”
An investor in J&J seeking exposure to its pharmaceuticals business will not, necessarily, want exposure to its consumer goods arm.
Activist investors such as Elliott, ThirdPoint, ValueAct and Starboard are now mighty beasts in the investment world, unafraid to take on some of the world’s largest companies.
No chairman or chief executive wants to see them popping up on their shareholder register.
Taking pre-emptive action, for example a demerger, is one way of avoiding costly, draw-out and debilitating battles with such investors.
J&J’s move is also in keeping with those of other big pharmaceuticals companies.
The German drugs giant Merck sold its consumer healthcare business, which owned brands including the hay fever remedy Claritin and the sun tan lotion maker Coppertone, to Bayer seven years ago.
Pfizer announced at the end of 2018that it was merging its consumer healthcare business, the maker of Chapstick lip balm, Centrum multi-vitamins and Advil painkillers, with the consumer healthcare arm of Britain’s GlaxoSmithKline.
GSK emerged in effective control of the business and, in February last year, said it would demerge it.
Image: J&J is going down a path previously trodden by GSK
That move effectively is the road that J&J now plans to go down.
But, as with GSK, it is not without risk.
Without the predictable cash flows of consumer healthcare products, the research and development arms of the stand-alone pharmaceuticals businesses will have to be more disciplined, channelling their resources only into work where a positive outcome can be guaranteed.
It was why Sir Andrew Witty, GSK’s former chief executive, always refused to break up the company.
His successor, Dame Emma Walmsley, decided something more radical was required.
Mr Gorsky, at J&J, has clearly reached the same conclusion.
One thing is clear: with three gigantic and storied companies – GE, Toshiba and J&J – all announcing break-ups within days of each other, demergers are very much back on the business agenda.
Shares in Elon Musk’s Tesla have reversed sharply over renewed concerns about his focus on the company’s recovery as he plots against Donald Trump.
Shares in the electric car firm plunged by more than 7% at the start of trading on Wall Street – taking about $71bn (£52bn) off its market value.
The stock has often come under pressure since Musk started his association with the president, latterly helping bring down federal government costs through a new department known as DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency).
But it is now suffering as their political relationship has soured.
Musk has publicly opposed the so-called “big, beautiful bill” – Mr Trump’s flagship tax cut and spending plans that received Congressional approval last week – since he left his DOGE role.
Musk wrote in a post on his X platform on 30 June: “It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!”
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Once the bill was passed, he created a poll on X, asking people if they would want him to launch the America Party.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:32
Musk v Trump: ‘The Big, Beautiful Breakup’
He wrote on 4 July: “Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!”
The vote ended with 65.4% in favour of creating the party.
The formation of the America Party was announced the following day.
“By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.”
“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,” Musk posted.
Trump responded on his Truth Social account: “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks.
“He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States – The System seems not designed for them.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Trump threatens to ‘put DOGE’ on Musk
Trump has previously threatened to go after Tesla‘s government subsidies and contracts through the DOGE department to save “big” as their relationship deteriorated.
Such threats have also pressured the share price at Tesla.
It has suffered throughout Trump 2.0 and, in fact, has trended lower since last December – shortly after Mr Trump’s election win was confirmed.
The possibility of tariff hits to the business, followed by actual tariff disruption, along with a consumer and investor backlash against Musk’s previous DOGE role have contributed to a 35% decline on the December peak.
The very absence of Tesla’s CEO dragged on the shares.
Tesla sales suffered globally as the trade war ramped up due to the imposition of tariffs by a government he supported, until the public row between him and the president began in early June.
Musk had only just renewed his 100% focus on Tesla and his other business interests by that time.
Tesla sales were down during the presidential election campaign last year and continued to decline, on a quarterly basis, during the first half of 2025.
Neil Wilson, UK investor strategist at Saxo Markets, said of the company’s share price woes: “Investors are worried about two things – one is more Trump ire affecting subsidies and the other more importantly is a distracted Musk.
“Investors had cheered Musk stepping back from frontline politics but are now worried he’s going to sucked back in and take his eye off Tesla.”
Post Office scandal victims are calling for redress schemes to be taken away from the government completely, ahead of the public inquiry publishing its first findings.
Phase 1, which is due back on Tuesday, will report on the human impact of what happened as well as compensation schemes.
“Take (them) off the government completely,” says Jo Hamilton OBE, a high-profile campaigner and former sub-postmistress, who was convicted of stealing from her branch in 2008.
“It’s like the fox in charge of the hen house,” she adds, “because they were the only shareholders of Post Office“.
“So they’re in it up to their necks… So why should they be in charge of giving us financial redress?”
Image: Nearly a third of Ms Hamilton’s life has been dominated by the scandal
Jo and others are hoping Sir Wyn Williams, chairman of the public statutory inquiry, will make recommendations for an independent body to take control of redress schemes.
The inquiry has been examining the Post Office scandal which saw more than 700 people wrongfully convicted between 1999 and 2015.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
Sub-postmasters were forced to pay back false accounting shortfalls because of the faulty IT system, Horizon.
At the moment, the Department for Business and Trade administers most of the redress schemes including the Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme and the Group Litigation Order (GLO) Scheme.
The Post Office is still responsible for the Horizon Shortfall scheme.
Image: Lee Castleton OBE
Lee Castleton OBE, another victim of the scandal, was bankrupted in 2007 when he lost his case in the civil courts representing himself against the Post Office.
The civil judgment against him, however, still stands.
“It’s the oddest thing in the world to be an OBE, fighting for justice, while still having the original case standing against me,” he tells Sky News.
While he has received an interim payment he has not applied to a redress scheme.
“The GLO scheme – that’s there on the table for me to do,” he says, “but I know that they would use my original case, still standing against me, in any form of redress.
“So they would still tell me repeatedly that the court found me to be liable and therefore they only acted on the court’s outcome.”
He agrees with other victims who want the inquiry this week to recommend “taking the bad piece out” of redress schemes.
“The bad piece is the company – Post Office Limited,” he continues, “and the government – they need to be outside.
“When somebody goes to court, even if it’s a case against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), when they go to court DBT do not decide what the outcome is.
“A judge decides, a third party decides, a right-minded individual a fair individual, that’s what needs to happen.”
Image: Pic: AP
Mr Castleton is also taking legal action against the Post Office and Fujitsu – the first individual victim to sue the organisations for compensation and “vindication” in court.
“I want to hear why it happened, to hear what I believe to be the truth, to hear what they believe to be the truth and let the judge decide.”
Neil Hudgell, a lawyer for victims, said he expects the first inquiry report this week may be “really rather damning” of the redress claim process describing “inconsistencies”, “bureaucracy” and “delays”.
“The over-lawyeringness of it,” he adds, “the minute analysis, micro-analysis of detail, the inability to give people fully the benefit of doubt.
“All those things I think are going to be part and parcel of what Sir Wynn says about compensation.
“And we would hope, not going to say expect because history’s not great, we would hope it’s a springboard to an acceleration, a meaningful acceleration of that process.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:28
June: Post Office knew about faulty IT system
A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said they were “grateful” for the inquiry’s work describing “the immeasurable suffering” victims endured.
Their statement continued: “This government has quadrupled the total amount paid to affected postmasters to provide them with full and fair redress, with more than £1bn having now been paid to thousands of claimants.
“We will also continue to work with the Post Office, who have already written to over 24,000 postmasters, to ensure that everyone who may be eligible for redress is given the opportunity to apply for it.”
A British fintech which counts Standard Life among its key clients is close to finalising one of the industry’s biggest funding rounds so far this year.
Sky News understands that Hyperlayer, which is run by the former Morgan Stanley executive Rob Rooney, is lining up a major equity injection led by CDAM, a UK-based investment firm, and several new institutional investors.
City sources said this weekend that the new capital from CDAM and other backers could total at least £30m.
The funding round is expected to take place at a post-money valuation of about £160m.
Hyperlayer, which operates a consumer-facing digital wallet called Hyperjar, intends to use the new funding as growth capital to finance the development of new partnerships with global banks and asset managers.
The company provides smart account technology on existing client infrastructure, and is said to work with a number of the world’s 10 largest banks – although it has not publicly disclosed their identities.
Its work with Standard Life involves the future launch of a consumer money app aimed at people approaching or in early retirement.
Hyperlayer’s consumer-facing platform sees customers organise their money in what the company calls “digital jam jars”, enabling them to earn rewards which give them access to partner brands such as Asda, Morrisons and Starbucks.
IKEA and the John Lewis Partnership are among the other merchant partners with which Hyperlayer is working to develop distinctive loyalty-based initiatives for its financial institution clients.
Founded in 2006 by Adam Chamberlain and Scott Davies, CDAM has $1.5bn in assets under management and is an experienced investor in financial services technology.
Mr Davies has had a seat on Hyperlayer’s board for several years.
Mr Rooney, who was a prominent Wall Street executive for years, ultimately serving as Morgan Stanley’s technology operations, joined the company as CEO in 2023.
The new capital injection led by CDAM is understood to be subject to approval by Hyperlayer’s shareholders.