HDB's $1.5 Billion IPO Points to Strong Appetite For Large Offerings in India
Good morning, this is Ashutosh Joshi, an equities reporter in Mumbai. Local shares could be in for a volatile session, tracking losses in Asian markets as US President Donald Trump refuses to budge on his July 9 deadline for higher tariffs. All eyes will be on HDB Financial as the year's biggest IPO debuts on the bourses. Also in focus will be Asian Paints after the antitrust regulator ordered a probe on the company over alleged abuse of dominant market position.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
BYD Shelves Plans to Build Major Mexico Car Plant Over Trump's Trade War
China's top electric vehicle maker, BYD Co., has shelved plans to build a major plant in Mexico over geopolitical tensions and uncertainty stemming from US President Donald Trump's trade policies. The company remains interested in expanding in the Americas but has no timeline to make a new investment, BYD Executive Vice President Stella Li said in a Tuesday interview in the Brazilian state of Bahia, where the company is opening its first factory outside Asia.
Business Insider
42 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What top people in media and politics are saying about Paramount's settlement with Trump
The worlds of media and politics are buzzing about Paramount's settlement with President Donald Trump. Media giant Paramount said late Tuesday that it had agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump over a "60 Minutes" segment that aired last fall. The lawsuit alleged the CBS News show had selectively edited an interview with Trump rival Kamala Harris. The proposed settlement, which did not include an apology from Paramount, will be allocated to Trump's future presidential library, the company said. Paramount is awaiting government approval of its planned merger with David Ellison's Skydance Media. The company said the settlement was "completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction." Paramount said companies often settle lawsuits to avoid costly, unpredictable legal battles, potential reputational or financial harm, and business disruptions, and move forward without prolonged uncertainty. A spokesperson for Trump's legal team called the settlement "another win for the American people." "CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle," the spokesperson said. (You can find the full statements from Paramount and the Trump team at the end of this story.) Here's what big names in media and politics have been saying in reaction to the Paramount-Trump settlement news: Tina Brown, former editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker: "It's a shakedown, isn't it — it's on Shari Redstone's neck. She can't close the deal without it. It's a tragedy that something as important and serious and meaningful as CBS News is sort of being traded away for this shakedown. "I'd like to think [former Washington Post publisher] Katharine Graham wouldn't have done it. We don't know anything about Ellison. He might be a terrific supporter of newsgathering, but one has become pessimistic with these issues." Sen. Elizabeth Warren: "With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight. Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken. "This settlement exposes a glaring need for rules to restrict donations to sitting presidents' libraries. I will soon introduce new legislation to rein in corruption through presidential library donations. The Trump administration's level of sheer corruption is appalling and Paramount should be ashamed of putting its profits over independent journalism." Marty Baron, former Washington Post executive editor: "Assuming the merger gets approved, the bigger issue will be the posture of new owners toward '60 Minutes' and really all of CBS News. I would hope for respect for the network's heritage, as well as a pledge of journalistic independence and proof that they will honor it. The early indicators aren't all that encouraging." Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America: "Paramount's decision to settle a meritless lawsuit rather than stand behind its journalists at CBS News is a spineless capitulation. "This was a moment to defend press freedom and support reporters targeted by a frivolous legal attack. Instead, Paramount chose appeasement to bolster its finances, sending a dangerous message that media outlets can be pressured into submission if corporate parents find their profits at risk from government action in unrelated areas. "With two major network owners bowing to the president in quick succession, the danger is clear: emboldened politicians and powerful actors will feel more free than ever to weaponize lawsuits and bring regulatory pressure to bear to silence and censor independent journalism." Raymond James analysts Ric Prentiss and Brent Penter (in a note to clients): "Now with the lawsuit settled, we believe the FCC is poised to approve the PARA/Skydance deal, and we feel the deal can close within a couple of weeks after FCC approval. "Our expectation has been a closing (with no material changes to terms) after 1H25 but still in the summer, and we feel that continues to be the case. We think companies, and especially CFOs, like to close deals on the first day of a month (with the first day of a quarter even more preferred, but missed 7/1 in this case). And we expect PARA to be ready to close this chapter of its story soon." Peter Kafka, Business Insider's chief correspondent: "This is the deal we thought we'd see back in January: A Trump-friendly media mogul agrees to pay him millions of dollars, so she can sell her company to a Trump-backing tech mogul. "On the one hand, you can squint and argue that Paramount is a winner here because it didn't have to give up more — like a public apology for something it didn't do. All it had to do is fork over the now-standard payment for media and tech companies that want to operate in Trump 2.0. "On the other hand: These corporate payoffs to the president of the United States should be shocking. My worry is that we're just a few months into this, and we've already accepted them as normal." Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters without Borders USA: "This is a shameful decision by Paramount. Shari Redstone and Paramount's board should have stood by CBS journalists and the integrity of press freedom. Instead, they chose to reward Donald Trump for his petty legal assault against both. A line is being drawn between the owners of American news media who are willing to stand up for press freedom and those who capitulate to the demands of the president. "Today, Paramount's leaders chose to be on the wrong side of that dividing line, but they'd be mistaken to believe appeasing Trump today will stop his attacks in the future. News media owners are much better off standing strong than acquiescing." Jeff Greenfield, former CBS senior political correspondent, on X: "Will this encourage politicians and others to file bogus lawsuits [a]s a way of intimidating news organizations and their corporate boards? Will the correspondents and producers of "60 Minutes" see this as a corporate betrayal of the program in service to a multi billion dollar merger? (Answers to both questions: YES.)" Sen. Bernie Sanders: "The decision by the Redstone family, the major owners of Paramount, to settle a bogus lawsuit with President Trump over a 60 Minutes report he did not like is an extremely dangerous precedent in terms of both the first amendment and government extortion. "Paramount's decision will only embolden Trump to continue attacking, suing and intimidating the media which he has labeled 'the enemy of the people.' It is a dark day for independent journalism and freedom of the press - an essential part of our democracy. It is a victory for a president who is attempting to stifle dissent and undermine American democracy. "It's pretty obvious why Paramount chose to surrender to Trump. The Redstone family is in line to receive $2.4 billion from the sale of Paramount to Skydance, but they can only receive this money if the Trump administration approves this deal. In other words, the Redstone family diminished the freedom of the press today in exchange for a $2.4 billion payday. "Make no mistake about it. Trump is undermining our democracy and rapidly moving us towards authoritarianism and the billionaires who care more about their stock portfolios than our democracy are helping him do it. That is beyond unacceptable." Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media, which specializes in digital media investments: "The fact there was no apology was good, and it makes sense in the grand scheme of things in what they have to do. It's pretty hard to escape the idea that it's political. The Ellisons stayed away from any political statement during the whole process — now we'll see what they do. And there's obviously a job open at CBS News they'll have to fill." Rome Hartman, veteran former '60 Minutes' producer, including on the Kamala Harris segment: "This settlement is a cowardly capitulation by the corporate leaders of Paramount, and a fundamental betrayal of '60 Minutes' and CBS News. The story that was the subject of this lawsuit was edited by the book and in accordance with CBS News standards. Our corporate bosses know that; they know that this lawsuit is completely baseless. But they settled it in order to preserve Shari Redstone's payday. That is shameful." John Harwood, veteran White House correspondent: "It's hard to say which is worse: the craven surrender by a media company that did nothing wrong, the betrayal of one of our finest news outlets, or the lawless extortion by the President of the United States. that it all happened in broad daylight is an appalling measure of the damage Trump has inflicted." Full Paramount and Trump team statements: Here's Paramount Global's statement: "Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable costs of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial or reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause. Settlement offers a negotiated resolution that allows companies to focus on their core objectives rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction." And here's Trump's legal team's: "With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit. CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle. President Trump will always ensure that no one gets away with lying to the American People as he continues on his singular mission to Make America Great Again."
Associated Press
42 minutes ago
- Associated Press
US won't send some weapons pledged to Ukraine following a Pentagon review of military aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. is halting some shipments of weapons to Ukraine amid concerns that its own stockpiles have declined too much, officials said Tuesday, a setback for the country as it tries to fend off escalating attacks from Russia. Certain munitions were previously promised to Ukraine under the Biden administration to aid its defenses during the more than three-year-old war. The pause reflects a new set of priorities under President Donald Trump and came after Defense Department officials scrutinized current U.S. stockpiles and raised concerns. 'This decision was made to put America's interests first following a review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe,' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. 'The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran.' That was a reference to Trump recently ordering U.S. . Pentagon stocks of some weapons found to be low, official says The Pentagon review determined that stocks were too low on some weapons previously pledged, so pending shipments of some items won't be sent, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide information that has not yet been made public. The Defense Department did not provide details on what specific weapons were being held back. 'America's military has never been more ready and more capable,' spokesman Sean Parnell said, adding that the major tax cut and spending package moving through Congress 'ensures that our weapons and defense systems are modernized to protect against 21st century threats for generations to come.' The halt of some weapons from the U.S. is a blow to Ukraine as Russia has recently launched some of its biggest aerial attacks of the war, in an escalating bombing campaign that has further dashed hopes for a breakthrough in peace efforts championed by Trump. Talks between the sides have ground to a halt. The U.S. stoppage was first reported by Politico. To date, the U.S. has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion worth of weapons and military assistance since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022. Over the course of the war, the U.S. has routinely pressed for allies to provide air defense systems to Ukraine. But many are reluctant to give up the high-tech systems, particularly countries in Eastern Europe that also feel threatened by Russia. Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department undersecretary for policy, said officials continue 'to provide the president with robust options to continue military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end.' 'At the same time, the department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach to achieving this objective while also preserving U.S. forces' readiness for Administration defense priorities,' Colby said in a statement. Trump met with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the NATO summit last week and had left open the possibility of sending Kyiv more U.S.-made Patriot air defense missile systems, acknowledging they would help the Ukrainian cause. 'They do want to have the antimissile missiles, OK, as they call them, the Patriots,' Trump said then. 'And we're going to see if we can make some available. We need them, too. We're supplying them to Israel, and they're very effective, 100% effective. Hard to believe how effective. They do want that more than any other thing.' Trump administration shifts outlook on Ukraine military aid Those comments hinted at thinking about providing weapons to Ukraine that's begun to change across the administration in recent months. In testimony before lawmakers in June, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he has moved quickly to quash wasteful programs and redirect funding to Trump's top objectives. Hegseth said a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine, which has been promoted for months by Trump, makes America look strong, even though Moscow is the aggressor in the conflict. He also said the defense budget includes hard choices and 'reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent. And President Trump deserves the credit for that.' The defense secretary told lawmakers last month that some U.S. security spending for Ukraine was still in the pipeline, without providing details. But he said such assistance — which has been robust for the past two years — would be reduced. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' Hegseth said. 'We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' The change comes after Hegseth skipped a meeting last month of an international group to coordinate military aid to Ukraine that the U.S. created three years ago. Hegseth's predecessor, Lloyd Austin, formed the group after Russia attacked Ukraine, and Hegseth's absence was the first time the U.S. defense secretary wasn't in attendance. Under Austin's leadership, the U.S. served as chair of the group, and he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff attended monthly meetings, which were both in person and by video. abandoning the gathering altogether.
