Global Payments to sell payroll unit for $1.1bn
0
The divestiture is the latest step Global Payments has taken to position itself as a pure play merchant solutions provider, shedding non-core businesses.
In April it agreed a blockbuster deal to buy Worldpay from GTRC and FIS for $22.7 billion while offloading its Issuer Solutions business to FIS for $13.5 billion. Last year, it also sold its medical software business AdvancedMD for $1.13 billion.
"I am pleased with the progress we are making with our transformation program as we move aggressively to simplify our business and enhance value for shareholders," says Cameron Bready, CEO, Global Payments.
In connection with the payroll transaction, Global Payments has entered into a mutual referral agreement and long-term commercial partnership with Acrisure in which it will continue delivering human capital management and payroll offerings to its merchant customers.
Proceeds of the deal - set to close the second half subject to regulatory approval - will be used to return capital to shareholders.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed to and what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
India will buy Russian oil despite Trump's threats, NYT reports
Aug 2 (Reuters) - Indian officials have said they would keep purchasing oil from Russia despite the threat of penalties that U.S. President Donald Trump said he would impose, the New York Times reported on Saturday. Reuters could not immediately verify the report.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump steps up attacks on Fed's independence amid interest rates row
Donald Trump called on top Federal Reserve officials to seize control from its chair, Jerome Powell, if he fails to cut interest rates, stepping up his extraordinary attacks on the central bank's independence. The US president called Powell 'a stubborn MORON' in a series of critical social media posts on Friday, days after the Fed held rates steady for the fifth consecutive time. It comes as Trump faces heightened questions over the impact of his aggressive economic policy, and the White House presses forward with plans for a fresh wave of tariffs next week. Hours before the federal government released data which underlined a significant deterioration in the jobs market, Trump again broke with precedent to pin blame on the Fed – and urge it to change course. 'Jerome 'Too Late' Powell, a stubborn MORON, must substantially lower interest rates, NOW,' Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social network. 'IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE, THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!' The Fed chair does not unilaterally set interest rates, which are decided by its rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee. Presidents typically respect its independence, leaving the central bank to make an objective decision – without political interference – about the best policy on interest rates for the US economy. 'Too Little, Too Late. Jerome 'Too Late' Powell is a disaster,' Trump wrote, minutes after Friday's lackluster jobs report. 'DROP THE RATE! The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Powell has repeatedly argued that the best approach for the Fed right now is to wait and see the impact of Trump's aggressive tariff strategy before cutting rates. But Trump has increasingly used the Powell, whom he appointed during his first term, as something of a piñata – repeatedly accusing him of damaging the US economy. Two members of the Fed's rate-setting committee dissented from its other policymakers' call to hold rates steady this week, and – to the president's delight – published their reasons on Friday. 'STRONG DISSENTS ON FED BOARD,' Trump wrote, claiming: 'IT WILL ONLY GET STRONGER!' By Friday evening, however, Trump's tone appeared to have changed as he told Newsmax during an interview that Powell will 'most likely' stay in his position. Trump said he would remove Powell 'in a heartbeat' and said the Fed's interest rate was too high but added that others have said Powell's removal would 'disturb the market'. 'He gets out in seven or eight months and I'll put somebody else in,' Trump said. On Friday afternoon, another member of the committee abruptly resigned. Adriana D Kugler, whose term was set to expire in January, announced she would step down next week. She did not provide a reason for the move, and will return to Georgetown University as a professor in the fall. 'I am especially honored to have served during a critical time in achieving our dual mandate of bringing down prices and keeping a strong and resilient labor market,' Kugler said in a statement. Her resignation creates a vacancy for the White House to fill. Reuters contributed reporting
