March’s US M&A calendar was defined by concentration rather than breadth. Fewer transactions were getting signed across the wider market, but the ones that broke in March were large, strategically explicit, and hard to miss. That made it a month less about exuberance than conviction.
Early second-quarter data helps explain why. Global M&A topped $1.2tn in the first quarter of 2026, up 26% year-on-year even as deal count fell 17%, with 22 transactions above $10bn marking a quarterly record. At the same time, the S&P 500 was on track for its worst quarter since 2022, as higher oil prices, yield pressure, and geopolitical disruption unsettled investors.
March’s US-linked deals therefore read as targeted responses to pressure, not a return to indiscriminate buying. Food groups pursued scale to offset slower growth and shifting tastes, infrastructure investors chased power assets tied to AI demand, insurers looked for retirement heft, and drugmakers kept paying for pipeline depth.
The five deals that defined March
McCormick and Unilever food business — $65bn combined company
On 31 March, McCormick agreed to merge with Unilever’s food business in a transaction that would create a company worth about $65bn and value the food unit at nearly $45bn. Unilever and its shareholders will retain a 65% stake in the combined company and receive $15.7bn in cash, making it the second-largest food transaction in history.
The size matters. Reuters’ quarter-end analysis said McCormick’s deal ranked second globally in the first quarter behind Amazon’s OpenAI investment, a rare result for a consumer company. That alone tells you how unusual March was: two US consumer deals made the global top 10 in the same quarter for the first time since 2015.
The strategic logic is equally clear. Unilever has been reshaping itself around faster-growing household and personal care categories, while McCormick is buying reach, brands, and distribution at a moment when consumer companies are contending with tariffs, slower growth, and changing eating habits.
BlackRock GIP, EQT, and AES — $33.4bn
On 2 March, a consortium led by BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and EQT agreed a $33.4bn deal, including debt, to buy AES. The cash offer valued AES equity at $10.7bn and underlined how aggressively capital is moving toward power and utility assets.
This was one of March’s clearest signal deals. Reuters tied the transaction directly to rising electricity demand from AI infrastructure and data centres, a theme already reshaping utility valuations and investment priorities. In that context, AES was not simply an energy target. It was a route into long-duration power demand.
Sysco and Jetro Restaurant Depot — $29bn
On 30 March, Sysco said it would buy Jetro Restaurant Depot in a $29bn deal, expanding the largest US food distributor’s reach among price-conscious independent restaurants. Jetro’s cash-and-carry warehouse model gives Sysco a different channel and a more direct link to smaller operators managing tighter budgets.
The strategic case is sensible, but March also showed how quickly investors can push back. Sysco shares fell as much as 14.8% after the company said it would fund the transaction with $21bn in new and hybrid debt, plus $1bn in cash and equity. The market accepted the logic, but questioned the structure.
Equitable and Corebridge — $22bn
Financial services added a different kind of scale story. On 26 March, Equitable and Corebridge agreed an all-stock merger that would create a $22bn retirement, life insurance, and asset management group with more than $1.5tn in assets under management and administration and more than 12 million customers.
Here the driver was breadth rather than spectacle. The combined company expects to originate $75bn to $80bn in retirement liabilities annually, while moving $100bn of Corebridge assets to AllianceBernstein over time. In a sector where distribution, asset origination, and balance-sheet mix matter, March’s insurance deal looked like deliberate platform building.
Eli Lilly and Centessa — up to $7.8bn
Healthcare’s biggest March story was more targeted. On 31 March, Eli Lilly agreed to buy Centessa Pharmaceuticals for up to $7.8bn, paying $38 a share in cash plus a contingent value right worth about $9 a share. The deal pushes Lilly into sleep disorders and gives it exposure to orexin-based treatments through Centessa’s lead drug, cleminorexton.
This was not scale for its own sake. It was pipeline diversification. Lilly has grown into a trillion-dollar company on the back of metabolic medicines, and Reuters noted that the Centessa deal was its biggest acquisition since Loxo Oncology in 2019. March’s point, again, was precision: companies were still willing to spend, but usually on clearly defined capability gaps.
What March’s deals reveal —
Taken together, March’s biggest US M&A stories point to a market that is active, but highly selective. Boards were still prepared to pursue transformative combinations, yet the strongest deals shared one trait: each solved a specific strategic problem, whether that was consumer scale, power exposure, retirement heft, or drug pipeline depth.
The month also showed that execution risk is being priced immediately. Unilever and McCormick shares fell after their announcement, while Sysco’s sell-off reflected concern about leverage and deal structure. That leaves March looking less like a broad rebound and more like a market in which confidence has to be earned transaction by transaction.
Leadership implications —
Four lessons stand out for business leaders. First, waiting for calm is no longer a strategy in itself; dealmakers are moving in volatility rather than around it. Second, strategic clarity matters more than headline value. Third, financing and structure now shape reception as much as the asset being bought. Finally, the strongest deals are anchored in operating logic — distribution, infrastructure, or capability — not in abstract scale alone.
March did not produce a frenzy of US transactions. It produced a narrower, more revealing deal set: acquisitions built around resilience, category depth, and the search for durable growth. For leadership teams watching the market, that is probably the more useful signal.
You must be logged in to post a comment.