TheChek News Flow

Co-founders John Overdeck and David Siegel stepped down as co-CEOs in 2024. They’re still fighting over their successors.

A vendetta between the billionaire founders of Two Sigma Investments flared up last month, prompting a new leadership battle at their $70 billion hedge-fund firm.

John Overdeck and David Siegel have been feuding for years at the quant-trading powerhouse they started 25 years ago. In August 2024, they stepped down as co-chief executives after their fights had reached a point where Two Sigma couldn’t make key decisions about management and governance, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.

Trying to insulate Two Sigma from their strife, they settled on a new leadership structure where each of them got to name one member to the firm’s two-person management committee.

Overdeck chose a Two Sigma veteran, Carter Lyons, and Siegel selected a former Lazard executive, Scott Hoffman. The two picks were named co-CEOs while Overdeck and Siegel remained Two Sigma’s principal owners and co-chairmen, maintaining indirect control over the firm.

That fix has broken down.

First, Overdeck last year retook Lyons’s seat on the management committee, though Lyons remained co-CEO.

Then, last month, Hoffman resigned, citing “ongoing governance challenges since Mr. Overdeck’s return” according to a regulatory filing this week. Siegel designated Seth Platt, a former executive at activist hedge-fund firm Sarissa Capital, to take Hoffman’s spot on the management committee.

Platt moved to fire Lyons “given his view that the current co-CEO undermined his authority,” according to the filing. Overdeck stepped in to halt Lyons’s dismissal, which he viewed as “imprudent and baseless,” and insisted it go to a dispute-resolution process, the filing said. There is a question over whether Platt’s appointment automatically made him the co-CEO and gave him the authority to fire Lyons, the filing said.

“We are grateful to Scott for his contributions to Two Sigma and excited to welcome Seth, who brings nearly three decades of investment management experience to the firm,” a Two Sigma spokesperson said in an email. “We are focused on sustaining our positive momentum and providing differentiated returns for our investors.”

Succession drama is common at hedge funds moving on from their founders. Ray Dalio blew past his own 10-year timeline to give up control of Bridgewater Associates and went through numerous heirs apparent.

Few are as rancorous as what has gone on at Two Sigma. Before stepping down as co-CEOs, Overdeck and Siegel rarely appeared together at firm events and frequently sniped at each other in meetings, the Journal previously reported. Two Sigma’s original operating agreement stipulated the duo had to agree on key decisions.

Even after the 2024 pact, Overdeck and Siegel quarreled over whether either of them breached their contracts or fiduciary duties, a fight that went into arbitration last year. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed, the filing said. Arbitrators declined to award any relief and found that Overdeck’s and Siegel’s “over-the-top efforts to assert claims against each other” hurt their credibility.

Despite Two Sigma’s “undeniable success, the Co-Chairmen’s ongoing disputes and differing views on corporate governance have caused management dysfunction,” the arbitration panel found, according to the filing.

Overdeck, a mathematician, and Siegel, a computer scientist, met while working at quant hedge-fund pioneer D.E. Shaw Group in the 1990s and founded Two Sigma in 2001. The firm uses computer-driven strategies to trade based on patterns and signals it sniffs out in markets and big data sets.

So far, investors have focused more on the firm’s strong performance than on the infighting. Its Absolute Return Enhanced fund, gained about 3% in March and is up 3.7% so far this year, a person familiar with the matter said. Its Spectrum fund gained 3.1% in the first quarter, the person added.

“Our investment strategies continue to deliver strong, consistent performance, assets under management remain at record levels and we are investing in our people and our platform,” the Two Sigma spokesperson said.

Besides ChatGPT, relatively few AI consumer apps have become breakout hits. But one app maker’s experience suggests there are plenty of lucrative consumer niches to be served.

Seoul-based Wrtn Technologies says it’s generating more than $8 million in revenue a month from operating AI storytelling apps for hardcore anime and game fans in South Korea and Japan. Wrtn (pronounced “written”) is about to expand to the U.S. with a similar app called OOC, or “out of character,” a common term in the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game.

Wrtn says its two existing AI storytelling apps, Crack in South Korea and Kyarapu in Japan, have less than 500,000 monthly active users combined. That implies its revenue per user is about $17 a month. That’s in line with what video streaming services cost and it suggests these apps’ users regard them as a regular source of entertainment.

That makes sense: Wrtn’s apps enable users to create anime-like characters and stories by interacting with an AI chatbot. The plot develops in real-time based on prompts they suggest to the chatbot, and vice versa. Users pay for tokens that allow them to write text prompts so they can keep exploring stories in all kinds of settings, from romance to adventures. The AI chatbot generates both text and images. (The apps don’t sell ads, but the company isn’t ruling out ads in the future.)

Wrtn says it uses Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini models to power the apps.

Djay Lee, a co-founder and chief product officer at Wrtn, said the company’s AI apps have high revenue per user because the target audience is “otaku,” a Japanese term for obsessive fans of certain anime and games. Even though such consumers are a small subculture, they tend to allocate a lot of their time and money to these hobbies. Some users of Crack and Kyarapu spend more than $1,000 a month on those apps, according to Lee.

While businesses need to justify the cost of AI for workers, hardcore anime fans are driven by a different kind of motivation.

“It’s not logic,” he said. “We are not selling efficiency. We are selling emotions, fun and excitement.”

Lee said he was inspired by the global success of Genshin Impact, one of the world’s highest-grossing mobile games developed by China’s miHoYo. The game, which is immensely popular among anime fans around the world, has generated billions of dollars in annual revenue, proving how lucrative this subculture can be.

Founded in 2021, Wrtn Technologies worked on an app that helped users improve their writing before shifting to AI storytelling. It launched Crack in 2024 and Kyarapu in 2025.

Now the startup wants to export its playbook to the U.S. with the launch of OOC. Like South Korea and Japan, the U.S. has an established market for otaku that overlaps with the Dungeons & Dragons players. Americans who subscribe to Crunchyroll, a streaming service owned by Sony that specializes in anime and Asian content, are among the potential target customers for OOC, Lee said.

Competition will be fierce. In the U.S., AI roleplay chat apps including Character.AI and Talkie allow people to interact with AI characters. Some of these roleplay chat apps are popular among teenagers, who don’t necessarily have a lot of money to spend. (Most users of Wrtn’s apps in South Korea and Japan are in their 20s, 30s or older, Lee said.)

Wrtn aims to double its annualized sales to $200 million by the end of this year, with the U.S. accounting for about 15% of its revenue.

The company said its gross profit margin at the end of last year was more than 30%. Apart from the cost of AI models, the startup’s expenses also include some payouts to Apple, which take a cut of the apps’ revenue from in-app purchases. Its gross margin figure is lower than that of Anthropic and OpenAI as well as smaller startups such as AI music app Suno and enterprise AI firm Cohere, though it’s higher than the gross margins of some coding assistant apps.

Wrtn aims to turn a net profit by the first half of 2028, Lee said.

OpenAI’s shuttering of Sora wasn’t meant to be the end of its adventures in video generation, it turns out. Instead of using AI to generate videos, OpenAI wants to use videos to drive AI adoption.

That’s one way of looking at the company’s rather startling decision on Thursday to buy TBPN, the Silicon Valley talk show that specializes in schmoozy interviews with tech CEOs. The purchase is confounding in a couple of ways—so much so that some OpenAI employees thought it was a late April Fools’ joke, as we reported in this story. But it may not be as crazy as all that.

To be sure, the timing isn’t ideal. Just a couple of weeks ago, OpenAI senior executive Fidji Simo was telling staffers OpenAI wanted to pursue fewer “side quests” so it could focus more on business customers. In announcing this deal, Simo steps on her own message, even if you accept that this is a one-time purchase that won’t distract management or consume resources the way Sora did (one apparent example of a sidequest).

Simo’s justification for the deal was a little silly, to put it mildly. As she explained it, OpenAI needs TBPN’s help in communications, including getting the word out about how AI will change the world. Hmmm. If there’s one thing you wouldn’t think OpenAI needs, it’s help communicating. After all, the company gets more attention than anyone in the tech business world right now. While there's a lot of chatter about its spending and its missteps in areas like shopping, its core vision about the benefits of AI definitely gets a lot of airtime.

Still, if you can look past those two quibbles, you can see why the deal might make sense. Simo certainly got it right when she praised TBPN’s “amazing comms and marketing instincts.” TBPN isn’t like The Information, or The Wall Street Journal, or Bloomberg. It’s not a journalism outfit. It is much closer to John Collison’s “Cheeky Pint” podcast—where the Stripe co-founder talks to other tech heavyweights over a beer—or the “All-In” podcast. And as a schmoozefest, TBPN has been an amazing success, becoming the go-to forum for top executives just 18 months after launching.

For the same reason, OpenAI’s promise of editorial independence for TBPN is irrelevant. Independence for what purpose? Can you imagine TBPN doing a hard-hitting piece on OpenAI? It’s not in the show’s DNA.

That’s fine. There’s a place for techies to talk with other techies. Reporters, let’s face it, often have too much of a gotcha mentality and too little understanding of tech (or business). Tuning in to hear John Collison talking with Elon Musk can be both entertaining and illuminating. Ditto with TBPN.

Even so, public investors would be better off if CEOs were willing to face real reporters, to answer inconvenient questions away from podcast safe spaces. Avoiding those won’t help either shareholders or executives navigate the world.

The U.S. tech company is teaming up with Japanese companies including SoftBank

Microsoft MSFT 1.11%increase; green up pointing triangle plans to invest $10 billion in Japan over the next four years to develop artificial-intelligence infrastructure with partners and strengthen cybersecurity initiatives.

The U.S. technology giant said Friday that the investment plan is aimed at helping advance Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s goal of improving the nation’s economic security and promoting growth investments in advanced technologies.

Microsoft said it would team up with internet services providers SoftBank Corp. 9434 1.21%increase; green up pointing triangle and Sakura Internet 3778 19.58%increase; green up pointing triangle to consider jointly developing AI services to support the development of domestic large language models and other applications. The companies aim to create platforms that compute and store data in Japan, while allowing clients to access the platforms through Microsoft’s Azure cloud services.

The U.S. company said it would strengthen a tie-up with the country’s cybersecurity office and help the government and businesses detect cyberattacks early or preempt them. Microsoft also said it would help train one million engineers and developers by 2030 in cooperation with Japanese companies.

The announcement came just days after Microsoft disclosed investment plans for Singapore and Thailand.

Earlier this week, Microsoft said it was on track to invest $5.5 billion in cloud and AI infrastructure in Singapore through 2029 as demand for AI computing continues to grow. The U.S. tech giant also said it planned to invest more than $1 billion in Thailand over the next two years.

Microsoft, which competes in the cloud and data-center space with the likes of Alphabet, Amazon and Alibaba in Asia, has been ramping up its cloud services in response to a continued AI computing boom.

The tech company’s surprise purchase of the web program underscores its efforts to help shape the narrative about AI

For weeks, OpenAI’s top new executive had been buzzing about a talk show making the rounds in Silicon Valley.

When she appeared on the online video show “TBPN” in December to discuss the release of a new artificial-intelligence model, it was clear the hosts understood the message OpenAI was trying to get out into the world.

“We’re feeling the AGI here,” host John Coogan said with a smile, before saluting goodbye to Fidji Simo, OpenAI’s newly anointed chief executive officer of applications.

Simo recently rebranded her role to “CEO of AGI deployment,” a reference to artificial general intelligence—or AI that is smarter than humans. In February, she decided to reach back out to Coogan and his co-host Jordi Hays. This time, she came with an offer to buy their company.

The acquisition is an unexpected move by Simo early in her tenure at OpenAI, where she oversees its product and business functions. (News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, has a content-licensing partnership with OpenAI.)

When rumors began floating about the impending acquisition Wednesday, some OpenAI employees thought it was an April Fool’s joke. Simo had just told staffers in an all-hands meeting three weeks earlier that they had to cut back on “side quests” and refocus the company on winning the AI coding wars.

In a fast-changing media environment—one whose evolution has been accelerated by OpenAI’s popular chatbot, ChatGPT —Simo felt that the company needed to think outside of the box when it came to promoting its vision. Chris Lehane, the architect of OpenAI’s political messaging, had often described the approach as getting into “the room where it happens,” an apparent reference to the Broadway show “Hamilton.”

“TBPN,” shorthand for Technology Business Programming Network, treats technology news with the seriousness of a sportscaster describing a winning play. It is widely followed by tech enthusiasts, from industry practitioners to AI-curious young people.

OpenAI is trying to change long-established habits around how people interact with technology, and fight growing anxiety about the impact that AI will have on the workforce and society writ large. Within Silicon Valley, it is battling for mind-share among young startup founders, software engineers and tech executives whose perceptions are largely shaped by what they see on social media—specifically X.

That is where “TBPN” comes in.

The talk show began in October 2024 and quickly became all the rage among the Silicon Valley tech crowd.

Episodes of “TBPN” span three hours, with content ranging from interviews with the likes of Mark Cuban and Apple’s Eddy Cue to riffs on the day’s tech and business news. It is all delivered, with frat-bro-like gusto, by co-founders and hosts Hays and Coogan. There is even a gong, which is used to celebrate business milestones, new funding rounds or anything else worth marking with a ceremonial bang.

The show’s nontraditional approach—a mix of clever analysis and laudatory commentary—has allowed it to nab high-profile interviews with executives, some of whom rarely speak to legacy media outlets. The daily, live video podcast is now a favorite stop for the power players at the center of the tech orbit.

Simo, who also leads OpenAI’s communications team, had been talking to CEO Sam Altman about finding a way to own the messaging around not just their company, but AI more generally.

She doesn’t have time to watch the full show—most people don’t—but devours the snippets that go viral on X. Simo specifically wanted to reach terminally online people to help OpenAI tell its story, and felt that Hays and Coogan were plugged in to technology’s pulse.

The show has about 59,000 YouTube subscribers—a following dwarfed by the likes of Joe Rogan (20.8 million) and Lex Fridman (4.96 million). But clips from the show often make waves on social media, and have a way of changing how the tech crowd thinks about the issues of the day.

OpenAI said “TBPN” would keep its editorial independence. Still, executives from AI companies such as Meta Platforms and Anthropic might now think twice before appearing on a show owned by their rival.

OpenAI executives are hoping that, by giving Hays and Coogan access to the company’s latest research and culture, they will be able to absorb OpenAI’s messaging into their content.

Coogan co-founded the meal-replacement drink company Soylent over a decade ago, and counted Altman among his early investors in 2013. His second company, called Lucy, was backed by Y Combinator, the venture firm that Altman ran at the time. Coogan met Hays, another repeat startup founder, a few years ago.

The tech world’s ambitions to shape media are nothing new. MSNBC was launched as a joint venture with Microsoft. Amazon.com, which started as an online bookstore, now has an expansive media operation that includes movies, television shows and streaming. The investment giant Andreessen Horowitz tried to build out its own media arm, called Future, a few years ago, though it isn’t currently active.

Tech companies and venture-capital firms have long tried to make and own their own media, said Kara Swisher, co-host of the “Pivot” podcast, which is part of New York magazine owner Vox Media’s podcast network. “Most have ended up, well, ended without a trace,” she said.

While OpenAI hopes the “TBPN” deal will help shape the narrative around the company and AI, Simo and top executives have also told employees they have to focus on improving the company’s key products.

“We really have to nail productivity in general and particularly productivity on the business front,” she said during her all-hands meeting last month. “Everything else is going to have to take a back seat to those priorities.”

Tesla and others turn to suppliers in China for components in an industry seen as strategic by Washington and Beijing

SINGAPORE—In March, Nvidia NVDA 0.93%increase; green up pointing triangle Chief Executive Jensen Huang showed off a robot version of Olaf, the snowman from the movie “Frozen.” Robotic Olaf brings together three of America’s best-known companies, with artificial-intelligence know-how from Nvidia and Google powering the Disney character.

But Olaf is also a showcase of China’s prowess. It couldn’t waddle or sway without components from Chinese robot maker Unitree that power the motion of its neck and legs, according to a research paper by Disney.

Chinese companies are moving to cement their place in the supply chains for humanoid robots, which Huang and Tesla’s TSLA -5.42%decrease; red down pointing triangle Elon Musk say are the next big thing in technology. While the U.S. controls the best chips and other technology for robot brains, China holds an unrivaled grip on the manufacturing ecosystem for humanoids’ bodies.

China’s “microelectronics, their motors, their rare earth, their magnets—which is foundational to robotics—they are the world’s best,” Huang said in a podcast in March. “The world’s robotics industry will have to rely a lot on it.”

Tesla is building a team in China to work with suppliers for its Optimus humanoid robot, and Tesla employees have visited Chinese makers of sensors, motors and other parts, people familiar with the project said. That is in preparation for mass production of Optimus, which Musk predicted in November would become “the biggest product of all time, by far.”

American tech companies have long relied on manufacturers in China to make products such as the iPhone. But some U.S. policymakers are uneasy about how Chinese companies are already taking a central role in the supply chain for humanoids, which could have military and other sensitive uses.

In February, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers proposed legislation for a commission to examine America’s competitiveness in robotics, citing supply-chain risks and manufacturing challenges.

Beijing itself is treating the robot supply chain as an area of strategic importance. China has identified embodied AI—the fusion of artificial intelligence with physical systems—as one of six future industries expected to drive the economy over the next five years.

China said in 2023 that it aimed to develop a resilient domestic supply chain for humanoid robots by 2027, aiming to insulate the country from external shocks and dependence on nations such as Japan and Germany that have expertise in robot parts. In February, the country released its first set of national standards for humanoids spanning crucial technologies and components.

With so many sophisticated parts available at home, Chinese makers of complete humanoid robots are able to get to market faster. Last year, Chinese companies brought out 28 humanoid models, nearly three times as many as those introduced by American companies, according to Morgan Stanley.

Government subsidies and rising public attention—fueled by robot sport games and television performances—have encouraged early adoption and helped Chinese firms secure financing.

Unitree, one of the leading makers of both full robots and robot parts, seeks to raise about $610 million in an initial public offering in Shanghai set for this year. Unitree said it shipped more than 5,500 humanoids in 2025, for uses including research, education and public performances, dwarfing U.S. competitors.

“Large-scale production has further strengthened our bargaining power with upstream suppliers, creating a sustained cost advantage,” the company said in its IPO filing.

Morgan Stanley estimated the Chinese supply chain could cut the cost of making a humanoid robot by as much as two-thirds. The components that control the humanoid’s motions, including specialized motors and gears, account for around 55% of a robot’s total cost, according to research firm TrendForce.

“The advantage of Chinese humanoid startups is the access to their broad supply chain,” Kei Onishi, chairman of Yamaha Motor Ventures, a Silicon Valley-based unit of the Japanese motorcycle maker, said last year. “China has the market to test lots of different applications, and suppliers are willing to take the risk.”

Still, U.S. robot makers have an edge in access to Nvidia chips and other American AI technology. That is why Chinese companies are also angling for business as parts suppliers.

From Singapore and Tokyo to Riyadh and Las Vegas, Chinese component makers in the past year have become frequent attendees at robot-industry fairs, while companies including UBTech and Unitree have hired local distributors to help reach overseas buyers.

In March, first lady Melania Trump walked side-by-side with the latest humanoid robot developed by Silicon Valley-based Figure AI during a summit on education she hosted at the White House. “I’m Figure 03, a humanoid built in the United States of America,” the robot told the audience. In earlier models, Figure AI has used Chinese suppliers for robots’ joints, sensors and motors, according to HSBC analysts and people familiar with the matter.

While some humanoid robot parts are repurposed from industrial robots, cars and consumer electronics, Tesla is attempting to design and develop many parts on its own. That will give it more control over the technology and optimize compatibility between software and hardware—but it also means depending on Chinese suppliers that can provide custom-made parts at a good price.

Tesla’s dependence on China became clear last year when it had to reduce the use of rare-earth magnets in Optimus after China tightened export restrictions, according to people familiar with Tesla’s supply chain.

Last year, Musk said Tesla planned to build a million-unit Optimus production line that could start operations by the end of 2026.

This year, Tesla has spoken with some Chinese suppliers about placing orders for components that would be enough to make thousands of Optimus units, people familiar with the discussions said. The components include sensors, so-called coreless motors that power precise high-speed movements and speed reducers often used in joints to mimic human motions.

Some suppliers have prepared manufacturing capacity in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries for Tesla, partly to avoid U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, the people said.

Some Chinese products still lag behind in quality compared with foreign rivals. People in the business said certain Chinese precision parts wear out more quickly than counterparts from Japan. Still, Chinese suppliers are narrowing the gap and often offer lower prices.

One Chinese manufacturer of screws, a critical component for robotic movements, is racing to match Tesla’s higher lifespan standard. The company, which has supplied several Chinese robot makers, faced a strict set of demands from Tesla: Shrink the design, boost durability by a quarter and still undercut European pricing by 25%, according to a marketing manager at the Chinese supplier.

“Once we close the gap,” the manager said, “our cost structure will become an unbeatable advantage.”

How US anti-vaxxers found they were not immune to pushback

Recent setbacks for the movement signal a potential turning point for the vaccine makers as the market picks up

At a recent conference at Washington’s Willard Hotel, allies of health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr had a goal in mind: to keep up the pressure against vaccination.

Perhaps they were rattled. A year after Kennedy and fellow vaccine sceptics descended on Washington, the movement has suffered a string of setbacks.

In March, a district court judge ruled against the US health secretary and halted changes to the childhood immunisation schedule that had been announced in January. These had cut US recommended childhood vaccines from 17 to 11.

The judge also blocked Kennedy’s 13 appointments to a key vaccine advisory committee, as well as any further action on votes taken by the committee in the past year.

Separately, Vinay Prasad, the US Food and Drug Administration’s chief medical and scientific officer, is leaving the agency for the second time in a year. This time, after the FDA reversed his unexpected decision to block a new flu vaccine made by Moderna.

Legislation in Congress that would remove legal protections for vaccine makers, adopted in 1986 to encourage the development of new immunisations, has also stalled.

For investors, the recent setbacks for vaccine sceptics mark a potential turning point for manufacturers, which have had to contend with falling demand, rising public hesitancy and a much more unpredictable environment in the US.

“We think there are some attractive opportunities where we are positive and it is safe for investors to wade back in,” said Kyle Rasbach, head of research at Bellevue Asset Management, a healthcare investment firm.

Jacob Glanville, founder of vaccine company Centivax, which recently raised $37mn from investors including Sam Altman and Stripe founders Patrick and John Collison, agreed the outlook had improved. “I don’t want to overly declare victory right now, but it already looks like the political pendulum is starting to [swing] in the other direction.”

There are signs of optimism in the market. Moderna, one of the world’s biggest vaccine makers, was among the most shorted companies in the S&P 500 last year. But so far this year, its shares are up 66 per cent and it is the eighth-best performer in the index.

Shares in Vaxcyte and Novavax, smaller US vaccine makers, are up 24 and 15 per cent respectively this year.

Moderna and Vaxcyte declined to comment. Novavax did not respond to a request for comment.

As well as Moderna, other major pharma groups in the US vaccine market include Pfizer, GSK, Merck and Sanofi. Australia’s CSL, which has a significant vaccines division, said in February its sales have fallen sharply partly because of lower vaccination rates in the US.

Two of Pfizer’s best-selling drugs are vaccines — against Covid and pneumococcal infections. Together, these two accounted for 17 per cent of its total revenue in 2025.

Although vaccines generally account for a relatively small share of sales for the pharmaceutical companies that make them, they are important cash generators.

Unlike complex biologics, cancer drugs and many other medicines, they are relatively inexpensive to produce and benefit from steady demand. They also have strong insurance coverage requirements, underpinning sales, said Jason Schwartz, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health.

However, support for vaccination has waned since the Covid-19 pandemic, which appears to have amplified existing hesitancy and scepticism.

In 2024, just 69 per cent of Americans said it was extremely or very important for parents to have their children vaccinated, according to polling from Gallup. Just half of Americans said the government should require vaccinations, down from 81 per cent in 1991.

A low point came earlier this year, when Prasad — who has previously claimed without evidence that Covid vaccines killed at least 10 children — refused to consider Moderna’s new flu vaccine for FDA approval, criticising the design of scientific trials that the agency had previously agreed.

But then days later, after Prasad’s boss FDA commissioner Marty Makary was summoned to the White House, the agency reversed its decision against Moderna.

The US Department of Health and Human Services said the FDA met Moderna after its flu vaccine application was initially rejected. “Discussions with the company led to a revised regulatory approach and an amended application, which [the] FDA accepted.”

One way pharmaceutical companies have responded to rising scepticism is through a familiar Washington strategy: hiring lobbyists with ties to the White House.

Vaxcyte last year hired external lobbyist Doug Davenport, a 2024 campaign manager for Donald Trump. Novavax last year hired Brian Ballard, another well-known Trump lobbyist. Alumni from Ballard’s firm include Trump cabinet members Susie Wiles and Pam Bondi.

Jeff Miller, another prominent pro-Trump figure, last year started lobbying against changes to vaccine liabilities for Pfizer. The company spent $12.7mn on lobbying last year. Pfizer declined to comment.

Still, some investors say uncertainty around vaccines persists, despite recent setbacks for sceptics.

“We’re still in an environment of rising hesitancy, where a non-trivial share of parents is delaying or skipping routine shots,” said Daniel Barasa, a portfolio manager at Gabelli Funds.

“Layer on to that a noisy backdrop at the FDA, which has been reassessing and, at times, walking back prior guidance in ways that make it very hard for companies and investors to anticipate the rules of the game.”

Glanville said Centivax was testing its vaccines in both the US and UK partly because of the regulatory uncertainty in America.

“We, as well as many other companies, are now having to create defensive strategies because of . . . inconsistency at the FDA,” he said.

“We’re an American company, we want to make universal vaccines available in the US,” he added. “But we have to make these secondary plans.”

Recently, the White House seems to have steered Kennedy away from vaccines and towards diet, another pillar of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. HHS said that Kennedy “speaks about a broad range of issues”.

But Washington insiders have said that outbreaks of measles, which is highly contagious but preventable with a vaccine, in Republican-leaning states that Trump won in 2024 are partly responsible for the change in emphasis.

Hundreds of cases have been confirmed in Florida, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, government data show. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2025 the US had 2,285 confirmed cases of measles. This is the highest figure since 1991. As of March 26 this year, 1,575 cases had been reported.

How Nelson Peltz chalked up another corporate break-up at Unilever

‘Unbelievably pushy’ activist investor backed $66bn carve-out of century-old food business

Unilever’s decision to combine its food business with US sauce and spice maker McCormick in a $66bn deal has gone down badly with plenty of shareholders. But one of them got just what he wanted.

Activist investor Nelson Peltz, who joined Unilever’s board in 2022, has spent years agitating for a break-up of the soap-to-sauces conglomerate.

With Peltz’s backing, Unilever chair Ian Meakins pushed the Hellmann’s mayonnaise maker towards a sale of its century-old food business, according to two people familiar with the boardroom dynamics.

Trian, Peltz’s investment fund, has been “unbelievably pushy on this, without a doubt”, said one of the people.

Despite a sale being widely expected — Unilever had already confirmed it was in advanced talks with McCormick — its announcement on Tuesday sparked a 7 per cent drop in the FTSE 100 company’s shares when investors saw the terms.

Unilever shareholders will own about 55 per cent of the new company — which will have net debt of about four times its ebitda — with McCormick owning a 35 per cent stake. The consumer goods group plans to begin selling down its 9.9 per cent stake a year after the deal has completed, creating the risk of an overhang on the shares.

“The feedback [from Unilever investors] is that it’s not very attractive,” said Jefferies analyst David Hayes. “They say: ‘Why would I want this food company? We are stuck with a food business now and we can’t even vote on it.’”

The McCormick deal was “a unanimous decision by the board, which firmly believes it is in the best interests of Unilever’s shareholders. It will enhance the group’s structural growth profile, simplify the portfolio and unlock long-term value,” Unilever said.

Unilever, formed in 1930 by the merger of Dutch margarine maker Unie with British soap business Lever Brothers, has become the latest in a series of consumer conglomerates that Peltz has helped prise apart.

The activist, whose investment fund Trian owns about 1 per cent of Unilever shares, spurred burger chain Wendy’s to sell coffee chain Tim Hortons in 2006.

The following year he lobbied Cadbury to sell off its drinks business and in 2011 successfully pushed Kraft, which had acquired Cadbury, to spin off its international snacks business. Trian declined to comment.

Another top Unilever shareholder said they had been calling for a carve-out of its food business for years but had been told repeatedly that a separation would be too costly and complex. Management stressed that mega brands Hellmann’s and Knorr were powerful cash generators.

But shareholders, most notably Peltz, intensified the pressure. And in Meakins, a steely boardroom veteran who was appointed chair in 2023, Unilever’s strategic direction was placed in the hands of somebody willing to make the bold decisions Peltz desired.

Meakins appointed current chief executive Fernando Fernández, a former president in Unilever’s beauty business and a willing collaborator in the mission to sell off its food business.

A person close to Unilever’s board said a separation of its food business had “been in the making for many years”.

Calls for Unilever to sell the division began after it rejected a $143bn hostile bid from Kraft Heinz in 2017. Paul Polman, Unilever’s boss at the time, appeased shareholders by selling its spreads business to private equity firm KKR for £6bn.

Successive Unilever CEOs have sliced off chunks of the food and drink portfolio since: Alan Jope, who ran the group between 2019 and 2023, sold Unilever’s tea business to CVC for €4.5bn.

During the tenure of his successor, Hein Schumacher, Unilever announced the spin-off of its ice cream division.

Schumacher’s dismissal in February last year was made in part because of his resistance to a full separation of the food division, according to two people familiar with the matter. The people added that the Dutchman was wary of pushing so much change through the organisation in a short period of time.

“After ice cream [the board] wanted a complete break-up of the company very quickly,” one of the people said. But the paucity of potential buyers complicated their efforts.

Unilever recently held talks with Kraft Heinz over a potential deal, but people familiar with the discussions said the US company’s weakened state would have made a combination unpalatable for Unilever shareholders.

“The only real option for separating foods in a strategic partnership was McCormick,” said the person close to Unilever’s board, adding that the cash-and-stock deal could not have been done earlier because of the relative valuations of the companies.

Before this week’s declines, McCormick shares had dropped by about 40 per cent over the past three years, whereas Unilever’s had risen by about 20 per cent.

“For the first time in years it was possible to strike a deal with a very attractive valuation,” the person said.

Another person close to the deal said Peltz was not the main driving force behind the transaction, although his broad desire for a split was clear.

McCormick’s leaders had long eyed a merger with Unilever’s food business and it was the US company’s “dream deal”, said one person familiar with the matter. After McCormick made its approach a few months ago, the deal came together at a “sprint”, according to a person close to the talks.

The deal unveiled this week will unite Unilever brands like Hellmann’s, Marmite and Maille mustard with McCormick’s red-topped spice brands and Cholula hot sauce in a single portfolio bringing in $20bn of annual revenue.

Its New York listing means a chunk of Unilever’s UK shareholders could be forced to sell their shares because of restrictions over their investment mandates.

The $15.7bn in cash that Unilever will receive from McCormick will be used to offset tax and separation costs, as well as to fund a €6bn share buyback over the next three years.

While McCormick said that the cash flow of the enlarged food business would help reduce net debt to three times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation within two years, Barclays analyst Warren Ackerman said some investors remained wary over its finances.

He added that there was a risk that a decline in McCormick’s shares — which have fallen by about 9 per cent since the deal’s announcement —

will erode the new company’s value. A recent watering-down of UK listing rules means Unilever can push through the disposal without holding a shareholder vote.

Once the deal completes, Unilever will become a faster-growing beauty and personal care specialist with more cash to buy up brands in those higher-margin categories.

Analysts have long speculated that selling its food business would pave the way for a large acquisition in home and personal care. Proposed targets include Reckitt or Haleon, the consumer healthcare business that Unilever tried to buy in 2022.

Fernández moved to temper those expectations during a call with shareholders on Tuesday, saying that he intended to stick with previously announced plans to make about £1.5bn of bolt-on acquisitions a year.

Hayes at Jefferies said his comments failed to clarify how a slimmed-down Unilever would create value for shareholders.

While some investors may be unhappy about the terms of the break-up, others are relieved the issue has finally been put to bed.

David Samra, portfolio manager at Artisan Partners, a top-10 Unilever investor, hailed the deal as the “conclusion of a decades-long process” to normalise Unilever’s structure.

“Unilever is like the British empire,” said another major investor. “It’s so big, so complex . . . it had to break up.”