11th November 2026
Perhaps one of the most interesting examples is easyJet, the airline founded in Britain in 1995 which grew from a small low-cost operator into one of Europe's best-known airlines.
In August 2026, American investment group Apollo Global Management agreed a recommended £5.7 billion cash acquisition of easyJet. Its offer of £7.15 per share represented a substantial premium over the airline's share price before takeover speculation began.
This followed earlier approaches from another investment group, Castlelake, which had also been interested in buying the airline.
The easyJet board unanimously recommended Apollo's offer to shareholders. The transaction is being pursued through a court-approved scheme of arrangement, with shareholder approval and regulatory requirements to be satisfied before completion.
The proposed takeover is particularly interesting because easyJet is not simply a struggling company being rescued by an investor. It is an established airline with a major European presence, valuable airport slots, a recognised brand and an established customer base.
Apollo says it wants to support easyJet's existing strategy, including modernising its fleet, developing its holiday business and strengthening its commercial operations. It has also indicated that the easyJet brand, headquarters and existing operating licences will remain in place.
However, there are questions about the financial structure of the deal.
Recent reporting has highlighted concerns about the additional debt and financing arrangements associated with the acquisition. There are also questions about the longer-term implications for employment and investment once any initial commitments expire.
EasyJet has separately begun consulting on around 50 head-office job reductions. The airline says these are unrelated to the takeover, while Apollo says it is not involved in those proposed cuts.
This illustrates an important distinction. A company can retain its name, headquarters and much of its existing workforce while its ultimate ownership and financial priorities change considerably.
It is also worth remembering that the airline's future will matter to British travellers, airports, tourism businesses and the wider aviation supply chain.
The figures reveal a wider trend
The easyJet deal is part of a much larger pattern.
The Office for National Statistics reported that foreign acquisitions of UK companies were worth £25.4 billion in the second quarter of 2026, compared with £9.7 billion in the same quarter of 2025.
There were 162 completed foreign acquisitions during the quarter. Interestingly, that was actually fewer than the 203 recorded a year earlier. This suggests that the increase in takeover activity by value is being driven by some particularly large transactions rather than simply more companies changing hands.
PwC also reported that the value of UK mergers and acquisitions reached £124.2 billion in the first half of 2026, an increase of 107%, despite the number of announced deals falling by 13%. Just ten transactions accounted for almost two-thirds of the total value.
The Financial Times has highlighted the longer-term trend, reporting that more than 300 UK-listed companies worth over £500 billion have been acquired by foreign buyers over the past decade. It also points to the declining role of British pension funds in supporting UK-listed companies.
Why aren't British investors buying these companies?
This is perhaps one of the most important questions.
British pension funds once played a much larger role in investing in British businesses. Their investments helped provide companies with capital and gave them a domestic shareholder base.
However, pension fund investment strategies have changed. More money has moved into overseas shares, bonds and other investments. The proportion of pension fund assets invested in UK-listed equities has fallen to around 3%.
This matters because pension funds are potentially natural long-term owners of British businesses. They have obligations to meet over decades, rather than necessarily seeking to sell an investment after a few years.
If British pension funds are not prepared to invest in domestic companies, overseas investors and private equity firms have more opportunities to acquire them.
There is a further complication. When a British company receives a takeover offer at a substantial premium, its shareholders may understandably decide to accept. It is difficult to argue that individual investors should turn down a potentially attractive financial return simply because the company has a British identity.
But the cumulative effect of thousands of individual investment decisions can be significant for the national economy.
What does this mean for workers and local communities?
A change of ownership does not automatically mean job losses or factory closures. Some foreign owners invest heavily in their acquisitions and create additional employment.
However, communities can become vulnerable when important decisions are made elsewhere.
A new owner may decide to consolidate operations, move research and development, close a regional office or transfer production. Even when a company retains its British headquarters, important decisions about investment and future expansion may be taken overseas.
There is also the question of taxation and where profits ultimately go.
A profitable British business owned by an overseas investment group may continue employing British workers and paying UK corporation tax, but dividends and other investment returns can flow to shareholders elsewhere.
That is not necessarily wrong, but it does mean that a proportion of the wealth created by British workers and customers may leave the country.
Scotland has reasons to pay attention
This issue is particularly relevant to Scotland.
Scottish businesses are often smaller and may have fewer opportunities to raise substantial investment capital. A successful company can become an attractive acquisition target for a larger overseas organisation.
The concern is not simply that ownership changes. It is whether the expertise, employment, investment and decision-making remain in Scotland.
For areas such as Caithness and Sutherland, where the economy depends on a relatively small number of major employers, the consequences of corporate decisions taken elsewhere can be particularly important.
A business may continue trading locally while decisions about expansion, procurement, recruitment and future investment are made in another country.
Scotland needs investment, but it also needs businesses capable of growing into substantial employers in their own right.
Should Britain change its approach?
There is no simple answer.
Britain benefits from an open economy and should not discourage genuine overseas investment. Nor should every takeover be treated as a threat.
However, there is a strong argument for looking again at how British businesses obtain long-term investment.
Pension funds could potentially play a greater role in supporting domestic companies. Government could examine whether existing arrangements encourage British institutional investors to put more money into productive businesses at home.
There is also a case for greater scrutiny of acquisitions involving strategically important industries, particularly where energy, infrastructure, defence, technology or critical manufacturing are concerned.
The government should also be interested in what happens after a takeover, not just the immediate financial benefits.
Promises to retain jobs and headquarters are welcome, but the longer-term investment strategy matters just as much.
[b]Are we selling the family silver?[b]
Britain has produced some remarkable businesses over the years. Many started with entrepreneurs taking risks, employing local people and gradually building companies that became internationally recognised.
Yet there is an uncomfortable question about whether Britain is increasingly creating businesses for somebody else to own.
The easyJet takeover illustrates the scale of the issue. A British-founded airline with a major European presence is set to pass into the ownership of an American investment group, subject to completion of the agreed transaction.
The shareholders may receive an attractive financial return. The new owners may invest and expand the business. But the ultimate control of the company will no longer rest with its existing shareholders.
That is not an isolated development. It is part of a wider change in British corporate ownership.
The government should not stand in the way of every foreign takeover. But neither should it assume that every deal is automatically good for Britain's long-term economic interests.
A country needs more than successful entrepreneurs and profitable companies. It also needs the financial institutions, investors and long-term capital to retain ownership of the businesses it creates.
Otherwise, Britain risks becoming increasingly dependent on overseas investors to own, finance and ultimately control some of its most successful companies.
And that is a much bigger economic question than the price paid for any individual takeover.