Pramod Thomas is a senior correspondent with Asian Media Group since 2020, bringing 19 years of journalism experience across business, politics, sports, communities, and international relations. His career spans both traditional and digital media platforms, with eight years specifically focused on digital journalism. This blend of experience positions him well to navigate the evolving media landscape and deliver content across various formats. He has worked with national and international media organisations, giving him a broad perspective on global news trends and reporting standards.
ACCOUNTANCY firm Ernst & Young (EY) has told the High Court that close connections to Sheikh Mansour, the UAE royal and owner of Manchester City club, protected two businessmen accused of helping to cause the collapse of NMC Health.
In its submission, EY alleged that the administrators of NMC Health, Alvarez & Marsal, were “influenced by political connections” when they agreed to a “remarkably soft” settlement with Emirati brothers Saeed and Khalifa bin Butti, reported the Telegraph.
The pair, along with company founder B R Shetty, have been accused of hiding around $4 billion (£3bn) in secret debts from the London-listed healthcare group.
The auditor said the administrators “soft-pedalled” their pursuit of the Bin Buttis because of their reported ties to Sheikh Mansour, claiming the brothers acted as proxy shareholders for him.
It argued that the decision to drop a potential claim against them was “inexplicable” and that the 2022 settlement – which saw assets returned to NMC – was “highly convenient” for Abu Dhabi authorities.
According to EY’s lawyers, the deal avoided “embarrassing litigation against individuals with close political connections to the state” and was influenced by ADCB, an Emirati bank owned by Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund Mubadala, which Sheikh Mansour chairs.
The Big Four firm made the allegations as part of its defence against a £2bn lawsuit brought by Alvarez & Marsal, which accuses EY of negligence in its audit work for NMC Health.
Lawyers for Alvarez & Marsal dismissed the claims as “baseless”, telling the court that administrators had acted reasonably in the wake of a “massive fraud” and during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the priority was to keep hospitals open.
“The joint administrators, who are officers of the court, acted in the best interests of creditors,” their submission said. “They reasonably decided that a guaranteed return of assets was better than uncertain litigation that could have disrupted medical operations across the UAE.”
Both Saeed and Khalifa bin Butti declined to comment on the latest proceedings. Khalifa bin Butti has previously “categorically” denied any wrongdoing.
NMC Health, founded by Indian entrepreneur Shetty, was once one of the Middle East’s largest private healthcare companies. It listed in London in 2012 and entered the FTSE 100 index five years later. However, it collapsed in 2020 after billions of dollars in undisclosed debt were uncovered.
Shetty has said he was himself the “victim of a large-scale fraud.”
The High Court, presided over by Dame Clare Moulder, has heard earlier claims that NMC’s political and royal ties shielded it from scrutiny, with banks allegedly ignoring warning signs and continuing to lend money.
Simon Salzedo KC, representing Alvarez & Marsal, accused EY of “shocking” negligence, saying auditors approved accounts between 2012 and 2017 without full access to company records. He claimed EY staff reviewed transactions on “a small screen” controlled by NMC management and failed to demand wider access.
An EY spokesperson said evidence at trial showed NMC had been subject to a “complex and coordinated” fraud involving more than 80 individuals, including senior management and shareholders.
“The fraud was deliberately concealed and designed to bypass audit checks,” the spokesperson said. “We remain clear that responsibility for this fraud lies entirely with the perpetrators, who diverted billions from the business for personal gain and have not been properly pursued by the administrators.”
Veterinary practices ordered to publish price lists and disclose corporate ownership under new CMA proposals.
Pet healthcare costs have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation, investigation finds.
CVS Group shares surge 18 per cent as market welcomes lack of direct price controls on medicines.
Watchdog pushes for price transparency
Britain’s competition watchdog has provisionally ordered veterinary practices to publish price lists and disclose corporate ownership, aiming to give pet owners greater transparency in a sector where costs have risen at nearly twice the rate of inflation.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said on Wednesday (15) that pet owners are often unaware of prices or not given estimates for treatments that can run into thousands of pounds.
Under the proposed measures, vet businesses must publish prices for common procedures and make clear which practices are independent and which belong to large corporate chains. The watchdog also plans to cap prescription fees and ban bonuses linked to specific treatments.
“We believe that the measures we are proposing would be beneficial to the sector as a whole, including vets and vet nurses,” the CMA stated in its provisional decision report. “Providing better information for pet owners will increase their confidence in vet businesses and the profession.”
Industry reactions
The announcement triggered immediate market reactions. Bloomberg reported Shares of CVS Group, a British veterinary services provider, rose as much as 18 per cent in early London trading before paring gains, whilst Pets at Home traded up to 4.9 per cent higher. Both companies had underperformed since the CMA launched its investigation.
“While the tone of the CMA’s report is sharp, we see few surprises versus our expectations,” said Jefferies analyst Andrew Wade to Bloomberg. “The lack of pricing controls on services notably medicines must be viewed as a positive.”
The veterinary profession offered cautious support for the reforms. Dr Rob Williams, president of the British Veterinary Association, said: “At first glance, there’s lots of positives in the CMA’s provisional decision that both vets and pet owners will welcome, including greater transparency of pricing and practice ownership."
However, animal welfare charities warned of the consequences when pet owners delay treatment due to cost concerns. Caroline Allen, the RSPCA’s Chief Veterinary Officer, told BBC “Our frontline officers sadly see first-hand the consequences when people delay or avoid seeking professional help, or even attempt to treat conditions themselves."
The proposed remedies package also includes requirements for vet businesses to improve complaint processes and conduct regular customer satisfaction surveys comparing large groups with independent practices. Additionally, practices would find it easier to terminate out-of-hours contracts with third-party providers if better alternatives exist.
The CMA emphasised that vet businesses failing to comply, or those pressuring veterinarians to act in certain ways or sell specific treatments, could be in breach of the Order.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.