SmithKline denies split over reviving merger plans
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.SmithKline denies split over reviving merger plans
SMITHKLINE Beecham denied weekend reports that its directors were split over whether to revive its plans to merge with its rival, Glaxo Wellcome. A SmithKline spokesman said the report had no foundation. "We said at the beginning of this process that our management team was united, as a board, rock solid and unanimous in its decision to break off talks. That remains our current position."
It was reported that non-executive directors were split over whether they should offer up sufficient in the way of management concessions to allow the merger to proceed. Sir Richard Sykes of Glaxo has demanded that Jan Leschly, chief executive of SmithKline Beecham, stand aside as a condition of the merger. However, SmithKline said it wanted to scotch suggestions that Mr Leschly's position might be negotiable. All the non-executives were fully involved in the decision to break off talks, the spokesman said.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments