CHICAGO — Shares of Abbott Laboratories advanced 2.37% on Wednesday to $109.87, gaining $2.54, as investors continued to respond positively to the healthcare company’s solid second-quarter performance and increased full-year earnings guidance.

The stock extended its recent recovery, trading higher after Abbott reported results on July 16 that exceeded expectations and lifted its profit forecast for 2026. The shares have climbed notably since the earnings release, reflecting renewed confidence in the diversified medical products maker’s growth trajectory across diagnostics, devices and other segments.

Abbott, based in Abbott Park, Illinois, posted second-quarter sales of $12.59 billion, an increase of 13.0% on a reported basis and 4.8% on a comparable basis that adjusts for acquisitions, divestitures and foreign exchange. GAAP diluted earnings per share came in at $0.53, while adjusted diluted EPS, which excludes specified items, reached $1.31.

The company reaffirmed its full-year 2026 comparable sales growth guidance of 6.5% to 7.5% and raised its adjusted diluted EPS outlook to a range of $5.45 to $5.60, up from the previous $5.38 to $5.58. Abbott returned $2.1 billion to shareholders in the second quarter through dividends and share repurchases.

“Our second-quarter results reflect the momentum we are building,” said Robert B. Ford, chairman and chief executive officer. “We expect this momentum to continue and drive accelerating sales and earnings growth in the second half of the year.”

The results were supported by broad-based contributions. Medical Devices, Abbott’s largest segment, delivered solid comparable growth led by electrophysiology, rhythm management, diabetes care and heart failure. Continuous glucose monitoring systems, including the FreeStyle Libre franchise, continued to expand in the U.S. and international markets.

Diagnostics sales rose sharply on a reported basis, boosted by the March 2026 acquisition of Exact Sciences Corporation for approximately $20.6 billion. The deal added leading cancer screening and diagnostic products such as Cologuard and Oncotype DX to Abbott’s portfolio, establishing a stronger position in oncology diagnostics. Comparable diagnostics growth was more modest once the acquisition was factored into prior-period comparisons.

Nutrition showed signs of stabilization and sequential improvement after earlier challenges related to pricing and volume. Established Pharmaceuticals also contributed positively in key emerging markets.

Pipeline progress provided additional support for the outlook. Abbott completed enrollment in its TECTONIC U.S. pivotal trial evaluating an investigational Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy system for treating severe calcification in coronary arteries. The company also completed its FDA submission seeking approval for the Amulet 360 left atrial appendage device. In May, the American Cancer Society updated colorectal cancer screening guidelines that reaffirmed Cologuard and Cologuard Plus as preferred options for average-risk adults age 45 and older.

Management pointed to four areas expected to drive much of the anticipated second-half acceleration: Nutrition, Electrophysiology, Core Laboratory diagnostics and Cancer Diagnostics. Visibility into demand drivers in these businesses has improved, according to company commentary on the earnings call.

Foreign exchange was slightly better than expected in the quarter. Adjusted gross margin expanded, and cash generation remained strong, supporting both pipeline investment and capital returns. Third-quarter adjusted EPS was guided to a range of $1.38 to $1.46.

The Exact Sciences acquisition, completed in late March and funded largely with new long-term debt, has begun contributing to results. Integration is progressing, and early performance in cancer diagnostics has helped ease some investor questions about the strategic fit and near-term dilution.

Abbott operates across a range of healthcare categories, from diabetes management and cardiovascular devices to diagnostics, nutrition and established pharmaceuticals. This diversification has historically provided resilience through varying market conditions. Procedure volume trends in hospitals and the competitive landscape for continuous glucose monitors and structural heart products remain areas of focus for investors.

The stock has experienced volatility over the past year, trading in a 52-week range from the low $80s to the high $130s. Recent gains have recovered ground lost earlier in 2026 amid broader medtech concerns and questions surrounding the Exact Sciences deal and nutrition volumes.

Analysts have generally maintained constructive views following the second-quarter report, citing the raised guidance, sequential improvement and pipeline milestones. Consensus price targets sit above the current trading level, though individual firm targets vary.

Looking ahead, investors will monitor execution on the second-half acceleration, the ramp of newly acquired cancer diagnostics products, regulatory progress on key devices and any further updates to guidance. Demand for healthcare products and services is expected to remain supportive longer term, driven by demographic trends, chronic disease prevalence and technological advances in diagnostics and monitoring.

Abbott’s combination of established franchises and newer growth platforms positions it to benefit from these trends. The second-quarter results and guidance increase have provided a clearer picture of near-term momentum after a period of investor caution.

Wednesday’s share price advance reflected ongoing digestion of the positive earnings update and confidence that the company can deliver on its raised outlook. With several catalysts still ahead in the second half, including potential product launches and further data on acquired businesses, attention remains on operational delivery and sustained growth across the portfolio.

Most businesses can tell you when the boiler was last serviced, when the fire alarm was last tested, and when the lift was last certified. Ask when the mature beech at the edge of the car park was last inspected by someone qualified to assess it, and the answer is usually a pause.

Trees occupy an odd position in commercial risk management. They are conspicuous, they are often the most valuable landscape feature on a site, and they are almost never on the maintenance schedule. Then a limb comes down on a parked car, or a whole tree fails across a footpath, and the question of who was responsible for knowing it was going to happen becomes a very expensive one.

The duty is not optional and it is not passive

If your business occupies land with trees on it, you owe a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to anyone lawfully on that land, and a lesser but real duty under the 1984 Act even to trespassers. Where a tree overhangs a road or footpath, the Highways Act 1980 gives the highway authority powers to compel action and to recover costs.

The important word in all of this is reasonable. The law does not require that trees never fail. Trees are living structures and some proportion of them will shed limbs regardless of what anyone does. What the law asks is whether the occupier had a reasonable system in place for identifying foreseeable risk, and whether that system was actually followed.

Courts have consistently framed the test around inspection. Not around outcome, and not around whether the defect was obvious in hindsight, but around whether a landowner had arranged for someone competent to look at the trees at sensible intervals, and whether that person would have spotted the problem. Where a business can produce records showing a periodic inspection regime by a suitably qualified person, the defence is strong even when a tree has failed. Where there are no records at all, the position is weak even when the failure was genuinely unforeseeable.

The absence of a paper trail is, in practice, the liability. This is why arboricultural contractors such as Red Oak Tree Care are increasingly asked for written condition surveys rather than a verbal quote to take a tree down. A quote is a commercial document. A survey is evidence.

What a defensible regime actually looks like

The National Tree Safety Group, whose guidance is widely treated as the reference point in this area, sets out an approach based on proportionality rather than blanket inspection. The core idea is straightforward. Assess trees according to the likelihood that a failure would hit somebody.

A tree in the middle of a fenced field poses a negligible risk to people regardless of its condition. The same tree, in the same condition, standing beside a school gate or a busy loading bay, requires a different level of attention. Zoning a site by target occupancy is the first step, and it is the step that keeps the cost of the whole exercise proportionate.

For most commercial sites, a workable regime looks like this. An informal walkover by a member of staff who has been briefed on the obvious warning signs, carried out a few times a year and particularly after severe weather. A formal inspection by a qualified arboriculturalist at intervals determined by the risk zoning, typically somewhere between one and five years. A written record of both, retained.

The warning signs a non specialist can be trained to spot are not subtle. Fungal fruiting bodies at the base or on the stem. Cracks or splits in major limbs. Cavities and decay pockets. Soil heaving or lifting on one side of the root plate. Sudden leaf loss out of season. A distinct lean that was not there last year. None of these confirms a tree is dangerous. All of them justify a call to someone who can tell you.

The insurance dimension people forget

There is a second financial exposure that has nothing to do with falling branches.

Across much of southern England, and particularly on the shrinkable clay soils that run through Surrey and the surrounding counties, tree roots are implicated in a significant share of subsidence claims. Clay expands when wet and contracts when dry. A large tree drawing moisture from beneath a shallow foundation during a dry summer can cause differential movement in a building, and the resulting cracking is expensive to remediate.

Where a claim is made against a neighbouring landowner whose tree is alleged to be the cause, the question of whether that landowner knew, or ought to have known, about the risk becomes central. Insurers examine tree management records. A business that has been actively managing its trees, with crown reductions carried out at appropriate intervals and documented, is in a materially better position than one that has left everything to grow unchecked for twenty years.

The inverse problem also exists. Remove a mature tree that has been drying out clay soil for decades, and the ground can rehydrate and heave, lifting foundations upward. This is why the reflexive answer to a tree near a building is not always to fell it, and why the decision should not be made by whoever happens to be holding the chainsaw.

Development sites and the cost of finding out late

For anyone acquiring or developing commercial property, trees carry a distinct category of risk that surfaces at exactly the wrong point in the transaction.

Tree Preservation Orders and conservation area designations restrict what can be done to trees regardless of who owns the land. A protected tree standing where the access road needs to go is a planning problem, a programme problem, and occasionally a deal breaker. Breaching a preservation order is a criminal offence, and sentencing takes account of any financial benefit the offender obtained, which means the calculation that it might be cheaper to fell the tree and pay the fine has been closed off deliberately.

BS 5837, the British Standard covering trees in relation to design, demolition and construction, sets out how an arboricultural impact assessment should be produced and how root protection areas should be calculated. Planning authorities expect to see it. Commissioning that work at the feasibility stage, before the design is fixed, costs a fraction of redesigning around a constraint discovered at planning committee.

Where businesses go wrong

Three failures account for most of the exposure.

The first is treating tree work as a grounds maintenance line item to be awarded on price. The gap in competence between a certificated arboriculturalist and a two person outfit with a chainsaw and a van is enormous, and it is invisible until something goes wrong. Ask for NPTC or equivalent certification covering the specific operations involved, and ask for the public liability certificate rather than accepting an assurance.

The second is failing to keep records. An inspection that happened but was not written down provides no protection whatsoever in a claim.

The third is reacting rather than planning. Emergency tree work carried out after a storm, at short notice, in poor conditions, costs several times what the same work would have cost as a scheduled operation, and it happens at the moment when every contractor in the region is fully booked.

A modest suggestion

Trees are assets. They raise property values, they contribute to biodiversity commitments that increasingly appear in reporting frameworks, and they do things for the experience of a workplace that no amount of interior design achieves. They are also structures that can kill people, and the law treats them accordingly.

Put them on the risk register. Establish who is responsible for them. Get a qualified survey of anything large enough to hurt someone. Keep the paperwork. The cost of doing all of that, for a typical commercial site, is smaller than most organisations spend annually on the coffee machine.

Cbiz shareholders will receive $55 per share, a 17.8% premium to the stock’s previous close. The shares rose 17.5% in premarket trade after the announcement.

The deal will make Grant Thornton the fifth-largest provider of professional, tax and advisory services in the US, behind Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC. The combined platform will have a presence in more than 20 countries and territories and generate nearly $7.5 billion in revenue.

“By combining our multinational platform with CBIZ’s strong market presence, we’re broadening our ability to support businesses through every stage of growth — from early development to global scale,” Grant Thornton Advisors CEO Jim Peko said.

The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2026. It includes a “go-shop” period that allows CBIZ to seek competing offers until August 27.

Live Events

Goldman Sachs advised CBIZ on the transaction. Deutsche Bank is the lead financial adviser for Grant Thornton Advisors.
Also Read: Vertiv shares crash 14% in pre-market after Q2 revenue misses estimatesDeal overshadows mixed earnings

The acquisition announcement came alongside CBIZ’s second-quarter results, which showed a clear earnings beat but weaker-than-expected revenue.

For the quarter ended June 30, 2026, CBIZ reported adjusted diluted earnings per share of $0.91, above analysts’ estimate of $0.8046. Revenue came in at $682.2 million, about 3.2% below the $704.9 million expected by analysts.

Revenue was down 0.2% from a year earlier, hurt by a similar decline in the company’s core financial services business. Adjusted EBITDA fell 14.3% year-on-year to $103.1 million. Adjusted EBITDA margin narrowed to 15.1% from 17.6%.

On a GAAP basis, net income dropped 55.6% to $18.6 million, or $0.31 per diluted share. The decline reflected higher operating expenses and acquisition-related costs tied to the integration of Marcum, which CBIZ bought in 2024.

The CBIZ deal is another sign of consolidation in the US accounting industry, where mid-tier firms are trying to build scale and narrow the gap with the Big Four.

Baker Tilly and Moss Adams combined last year in a $7 billion deal. CBIZ had also expanded through acquisitions, including its $2.3 billion purchase of accounting firm Marcum in 2024.

Grant Thornton has been expanding since receiving investment from a consortium led by New Mountain Capital in 2024. New Mountain is making a fresh investment to support the CBIZ transaction, which the companies said is the largest deal of its kind in more than 25 years.

Bitcoin traded at $63,860.26 as of Wednesday afternoon, up a modest $13.14, or roughly 0.02%, as cryptocurrency markets settled into a holding pattern ahead of a Federal Reserve interest rate decision that traders across both traditional and digital asset markets have described as unusually difficult to predict.

Bitcoin opened Wednesday at $63,853.49, up 0.2% from Tuesday’s opening price, before climbing as high as $64,244.18 during the morning session, according to pricing data. The cryptocurrency’s relatively flat overall movement Wednesday followed a volatile stretch earlier in the week, including a sharp pullback Tuesday when bitcoin opened 2.5% lower than the previous day, dropping to around $63,327 as investors broadly reduced exposure to riskier assets ahead of the Fed’s two-day policy meeting.

The Federal Reserve’s rate decision, due later Wednesday, has emerged as the dominant catalyst shaping crypto market sentiment this week. According to data from the CME Group’s FedWatch tool, market participants assigned a 35.8% probability to a rate increase following the meeting’s conclusion, up sharply from 25.7% just a week earlier. Separate estimates cited by CoinDesk showed a somewhat different split, with roughly a 70% probability assigned to rates remaining unchanged and a 30% chance of a surprise quarter-point increase. Some analysts have characterized the meeting as among the hardest Fed decisions to forecast in recent years, given the unusual combination of economic signals policymakers are currently weighing.

Ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market value, moved somewhat more sharply than bitcoin during the same period. Ethereum opened Wednesday at $1,919.73, up 1.5% from Tuesday’s opening price, before slipping back to $1,904.82 by mid-morning, according to pricing data. Bitcoin and ether moved in opposite directions for stretches of Wednesday’s session, a divergence that market watchers attributed to renewed airstrikes in the Middle East combined with the approaching Fed announcement, both of which have added competing sources of uncertainty for crypto investors this week.

Broader cryptocurrency market data showed modest overall improvement heading into Wednesday. The total global cryptocurrency market capitalization rose 0.4% to reach approximately $2.28 trillion, recovering from a 1.6% decline recorded the previous day, according to data from CoinMarketCap. Bitcoin’s dominance within the broader crypto market held steady at approximately 56.3%, while ether accounted for roughly 10.2% of total market value. Despite the modest recovery in headline prices, a widely tracked measure of investor sentiment, the Fear and Greed Index, remained in “fear” territory at a reading of 28 to 29, reflecting continued caution among traders even as prices stabilized somewhat.

Institutional flows into bitcoin exchange-traded funds showed signs of softening in recent sessions. Spot bitcoin ETFs recorded a net outflow of $11.6 million on July 27, ending a streak of seven consecutive sessions of net inflows, with asset managers BlackRock and Fidelity leading the pullback, according to data on ETF flows. Even so, some corporate treasury activity continued during the same window, with Hyperscale Data disclosing a bitcoin treasury holding of 1,106 bitcoin, valued at approximately $71.7 million, as of July 28, signaling that at least some institutional accumulation of the cryptocurrency has continued despite broader market softness.

Macroeconomic factors beyond the Fed decision have also weighed on crypto sentiment this week. Rising oil prices, driven by renewed hostilities between the United States and Iran, have added to broader inflation concerns across financial markets, a dynamic that traditionally creates headwinds for risk assets including cryptocurrencies. At the same time, a strengthening U.S. dollar has added further pressure, with analysts noting that the combination of higher oil prices and dollar strength has increased overall macro-volatility risk heading into the Fed’s announcement.

Trading data suggested bitcoin has largely oscillated within a defined range in recent sessions, generally trading between roughly $62,700 and $65,500. Some market analysts have pointed to that range as a key technical zone to watch in the near term, with the lower boundary near $62,700 serving as a support level and the $64,500 to $65,500 zone acting as resistance that bitcoin has struggled to convincingly break through in recent trading.

Beyond bitcoin and ether, individual cryptocurrency tokens showed more significant divergence Wednesday. Jupiter, a decentralized finance token, rose nearly 6% to lead gains within a broader recovery among DeFi-focused tokens, while artificial intelligence-linked tokens continued to struggle, with Fetch.ai falling more than 4% on the day as AI-related crypto tokens continued unwinding gains posted the previous month.

Bitcoin’s current price level remains well below its all-time highs reached earlier in the cryptocurrency’s price cycle, though the asset has still posted substantial gains compared with prior years, with its market capitalization standing at approximately $1.27 trillion to $1.33 trillion depending on the specific pricing snapshot used, maintaining its position as by far the largest cryptocurrency by market value, well ahead of ether’s market capitalization of roughly $233 billion.

With the Federal Reserve’s decision expected to be announced later Wednesday, crypto traders and analysts broadly expect increased volatility to follow the announcement, regardless of whether the central bank opts to raise rates, hold steady, or signal a different policy path than markets currently anticipate, given how closely digital asset prices have tracked broader shifts in monetary policy expectations throughout the past several weeks of trading.

The cloud services arm of e-commerce giant Amazon had posted net profit of Rs 23.1 crore in FY25.

​Its consolidated revenue from operations grew by about 21 per cent to Rs 20,225.6 crore in FY26 from Rs 16,744.9 crore in FY25.

AWS, however, reported a decline of around 14 per cent in standalone net profit to Rs 242.4 crore in FY26, compared to Rs 281.5 crore in FY25.

The company’s revenue from operations on a standalone basis grew by 21.4 per cent to Rs 20,225.6 crore during the period under review from Rs 16,659 crore in the year-ago period.

Live Events

“The company’s total expenses for the fiscal were reported at Rs 19,888 crore (on a standalone basis),” Tofler said.

The initial costs are expected to be recouped through ticket prices

Heathrow will be allowed to pass the enormous bill it has accumulated in preparing its third runway bid on to passengers, the aviation watchdog has confirmed, in a ruling that looks set to cement the airport’s status as the costliest in the world.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) ruled that Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) will be entitled to recoup the £320m it has already spent competing to secure the megaproject contract by increasing the fees attached to travellers’ air fares.

Rival bidder Heathrow West was also granted permission to recover the £4.2m it has so far spent on its own proposal.

The two operators have been competing fiercely to persuade ministers to back their respective third runway plans, assembling extensive planning documents and feasibility studies, while also enlisting the services of expensive third-party advisers to bolster their bids.

For incumbent HAL, that investment has already stretched into the hundreds of millions, the CAA noted, with the hub previously arguing it needs to cover its early outlay if the expansion is to remain financially attractive, reports City AM.

In its ruling, the aviation regulator said without the design and planning efforts both bidders have undertaken to develop credible expansion proposals, the timely delivery of the third runway project would have been put at risk.

It added that both parties would need to demonstrate their claims had been independently scrutinised line by line before being permitted to pass on the costs.

“Our decision strikes a balance between supporting the delivery of benefits to consumers through timely progress on Heathrow expansion, whilst also protecting them from undue increases in costs,” said Tim Johnson, the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s director of consumers and markets.

“The costs Heathrow can recover are capped, independently scrutinised and subject to efficiency reviews, helping ensure that passengers only pay for efficient costs that are justified.”

Under the compensation scheme, agreed following a consultation held last year, HAL will be permitted to add 10p to every passenger fare over the next 20 to 25 years. It will also be responsible for recouping Heathrow West’s more modest costs, should the rival bid led by hotel magnate Surinder Arora fail to succeed.

The CAA reached its decision alongside a wide-ranging review of Heathrow’s overarching regulatory framework, in which it will determine whether rival operators will be permitted to own and run key infrastructure within the airport.

Airlines operating at the hub have grown increasingly frustrated with the exorbitant charges they are forced to pass on to passengers, and – in lockstep with Arora – some have established a pressure group lobbying for a wholesale shake-up of red tape at the airport.

At £28.80, the airport’s charges are already the costliest in the world, and are anticipated to climb by as much as £50 once the full expenditure of the third runway is factored in.

Wednesday’s CAA ruling will see the airport charge per passenger rise by approximately 15 pence in 2028, climbing to 30 pence in subsequent years.

The initial costs incurred by bidders are expected to be recouped through ticket prices over a period of roughly 20 to 25 years.