Ex-Barclays boss Staley loses bid to overturn UK ban over Epstein ties
LONDON — The former chief executive of Barclays Bank, Jes Staley, lost a legal challenge Thursday against a 2023 decision by Britain's financial regulator to ban him from holding senior financial roles in the United Kingdom for misleading it over the nature of his relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
JD Sports, M&S and Sainsbury's to face shareholder pressure over low pay
Major high street retailers are set to face pressure from shareholders over low pay in their workforce, including third-party contractors. ShareAction, which campaigns for responsible investment, has put forward resolutions on the issue, which will be voted on by shareholders at M&S and JD Sports' annual general meetings (AGMs) on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively. While the group is not filing a resolution at Sainsbury's, shareholders will directly question the board about pay transparency at the supermarket's AGM on Thursday. The companies are facing questions over wages that do not meet the 'real living wage' of £12.60 per hour nationally and £13.85 per hour in London for those aged 21 and over. These wages, which are set by the Living Wage Foundation to reflect the true cost of living, exceed the 2025/26 legal minimum wage of £12.21 set for the whole country including London. ShareAction argues the real living wage boosts stability, productivity and brand value, and has long been campaigning on the issue across the retail sector. Catherine Howarth, chief executive at ShareAction, said: 'We urge investors to support the shareholder resolutions going to a vote at the AGMs of M&S and JD Sports. 'Votes in support will endorse good governance and risk management whilst recognising the workers who keep these businesses running.' The resolutions ask M&S and JD Sports to disclose information on the number of employees earning below the real living wage and staff turnover rates as well their approach to setting base pay for contracted staff and a cost/benefit analysis of setting the real living wage across their workforce. While M&S pays direct employees at least the real living wage, it argues that third-party contractors are independent and set their own pay. M&S's board is recommending shareholders oppose the resolution, citing its recent investments in employee compensation of more than £285 million since 2022 and an increase to the standard hourly rate by more than 26%. On third-party contractors, it also said the vast majority of colleagues are paid at or above the real living wage. At the AGM, M&S could also be questioned about the major cyber attack it suffered earlier this year, which halted website orders, disrupted contactless payments, left some shelves empty and saw personal customer data taken by hackers. The company said the incident is likely to drag its group operating profits down by around £300 million this year but it expects this to be reduced through cost management, insurance and other reactions. For JD Sports, the activists argue that the firm only guarantees the legal minimum wage and lacks transparency on contractor pay. The board has advised shareholders to vote against the proposals, saying the firm complies with legal requirements and has invested more than £75 million over the last three years in removing the age banding as well as enhancing the remuneration and benefits of lowest-paid workers. Further reporting adds no value, reduces flexibility, raises costs and may harm competitiveness, the retailer said. Pensions & Investment Research Consultants (PIRC), which is Europe's largest independent shareholder advisory consultancy, is supporting the resolution at both companies' AGMs. PIRC said that while M&S has made progress on pay, there is still room to improve in formally committing to wage standards and increasing transparency for contractor pay. For JD Sports, the consultancy argues that legal compliance is not best practice and that pay transparency is needed to assess risks and resilience. It follows an identical resolution filed at Next in May, which gained the support of over a quarter of shareholders. While not legally binding, support for shareholder resolutions can put pressure on business leaders to respond to the matters raised, and more than 20% of dissent against the board can be considered a rebellion. During Sainbury's AGM, shareholders plan to stand up and ask the board to commit to disclosing the composition and pay of their workforce, employee turnover, and the feasibility of paying the real living wage for all staff, including all third-party contractors. An M&S spokesperson said: 'In addition to paying the real living wage, we offer an industry-leading range of benefits which, when taken with hourly pay, is worth up to £15.40 an hour. 'In regards to on-site third party contractors, which we use for specialist roles and to support the inherent seasonality in retail, a vast proportion of colleagues are paid at or above the real living wage and we go to great lengths to ensure they are all treated as part of the M&S family. 'While we support and act on the principle that all M&S-related colleagues should be paid well, we do not believe it is right to divest responsibility for setting pay and benefits away from businesses and their shareholders to a third party, as ShareAction would propose.' A JD Group spokesperson said: 'Our highly competitive UK colleague package is specifically designed to address the needs of our predominantly young workforce. 'We remain committed to providing fair wages and acting in the best interests of all stakeholders and have been engaging with shareholders ahead of our AGM on July 2 to outline our holistic approach to reward and benefits and are grateful for their supportive response. 'We are proud of our role as one of the UK's largest employers of young people, often giving them their first jobs and teaching them skills and disciplines that stand them in good stead for the rest of their working lives, including long-term opportunities with JD.' The PA news agency has contacted Sainsbury's for comment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
COSOL Limited's (ASX:COS) Stock's On An Uptrend: Are Strong Financials Guiding The Market?
COSOL (ASX:COS) has had a great run on the share market with its stock up by a significant 27% over the last week. Given that the market rewards strong financials in the long-term, we wonder if that is the case in this instance. Specifically, we decided to study COSOL's ROE in this article. Return on equity or ROE is an important factor to be considered by a shareholder because it tells them how effectively their capital is being reinvested. Put another way, it reveals the company's success at turning shareholder investments into profits. AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. ROE can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for COSOL is: 12% = AU$8.9m ÷ AU$75m (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024). The 'return' is the amount earned after tax over the last twelve months. Another way to think of that is that for every A$1 worth of equity, the company was able to earn A$0.12 in profit. Check out our latest analysis for COSOL We have already established that ROE serves as an efficient profit-generating gauge for a company's future earnings. Depending on how much of these profits the company reinvests or "retains", and how effectively it does so, we are then able to assess a company's earnings growth potential. Assuming all else is equal, companies that have both a higher return on equity and higher profit retention are usually the ones that have a higher growth rate when compared to companies that don't have the same features. To start with, COSOL's ROE looks acceptable. And on comparing with the industry, we found that the the average industry ROE is similar at 12%. Consequently, this likely laid the ground for the impressive net income growth of 26% seen over the past five years by COSOL. We believe that there might also be other aspects that are positively influencing the company's earnings growth. For instance, the company has a low payout ratio or is being managed efficiently. We then compared COSOL's net income growth with the industry and we're pleased to see that the company's growth figure is higher when compared with the industry which has a growth rate of 7.0% in the same 5-year period. Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. What investors need to determine next is if the expected earnings growth, or the lack of it, is already built into the share price. This then helps them determine if the stock is placed for a bright or bleak future. If you're wondering about COSOL's's valuation, check out this gauge of its price-to-earnings ratio, as compared to its industry. COSOL has a three-year median payout ratio of 47% (where it is retaining 53% of its income) which is not too low or not too high. This suggests that its dividend is well covered, and given the high growth we discussed above, it looks like COSOL is reinvesting its earnings efficiently. Additionally, COSOL has paid dividends over a period of four years which means that the company is pretty serious about sharing its profits with shareholders. Our latest analyst data shows that the future payout ratio of the company over the next three years is expected to be approximately 50%. Therefore, the company's future ROE is also not expected to change by much with analysts predicting an ROE of 14%. In total, we are pretty happy with COSOL's performance. In particular, it's great to see that the company is investing heavily into its business and along with a high rate of return, that has resulted in a sizeable growth in its earnings. Having said that, the company's earnings growth is expected to slow down, as forecasted in the current analyst estimates. To know more about the latest analysts predictions for the company, check out this visualization of analyst forecasts for the company. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Aston Martin sues Italian supplier for freezing deliveries
Aston Martin has sued a key supplier that halted deliveries fearing that the carmaker would not pay its bills. Warwickshire-based Aston Martin has been forced to take legal action against IMR Industries after the Italian manufacturer stopped deliveries of vital components. IMR, which also supplies the likes of Ferrari and Maserati, is understood to have ceased shipments because of concerns that Aston Martin's financial troubles would leave it unable to pay for the parts delivered. A source close to Aston Martin insisted the company always paid its suppliers on time. It comes as Aston Martin, which is overseen by billionaire Lawrence Stroll, battles to stem years of losses and get debts under control. Like other carmakers, the luxury marque has also been buffeted by Donald Trump's tariffs on vehicle imports, which prompted the company to temporarily suspend deliveries to the US this year. IMR is understood to have stopped delivering parts to Aston Martin around a fortnight ago. Production has so far been unaffected by the disruption thanks to sufficient stockpiles. However, Aston Martin has now taken legal action against IMR, filing a lawsuit for breach of contract in the UK's High Court on June 19. An initial hearing was held last Thursday, where the case was adjourned while IMR builds its defence. But a High Court judge issued a temporary injunction ordering IMR Industries to restart deliveries. Aston Martin has received supplies in the days since. The carmaker is now seeking a permanent injunction to force IMR Industries to continue making deliveries for the remaining period of the contract. Aston Martin has enlisted lawyers from City firm Gowling WLG to make its case. A spokesman for Aston Martin said: 'In keeping with Aston Martin policy, we do not comment on ongoing litigation.' IMR Industries and Gowling WLG were contacted for comment. IMR was founded 60 years ago and has two sites based near Milan and Pescara in southern Italy. The manufacturer, which employs around 1,300 staff across six plants, makes exterior parts used on luxury cars as well as interior leather trims. Clients include Bentley, Ferrari, Maserati, BMW and Porsche. Aston Martin has a multi-year contract with IMR to supply components, including both body and interior parts. The clash comes as Aston Martin struggles to find a firm footing for its business. Shares have lost more than 90pc of their value since the company first listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2018 and Aston Martin has been through a succession of chief executives, each of whom has struggled to find a path to profitability. Aston Martin issued back-to-back profits last year, blamed on issues with its supply chains and an economic slowdown in China. The company lost £289m last year and saw its debts jump by 43pc to £1.1bn. It has also been severely affected by Mr Trump's 25pc tariffs on all cars and car parts imported into the US. The levies caused Aston Martin to temporarily pause all shipments to America, a key market, for a month. In February, Aston Martin outlined plans to cut 170 jobs in a bid to reduce its costs by £25m a year. It has also outlined plans to sell its stake in the Aston Martin Aramco Formula One Team for £125m to help reduce its debts. The British carmaker, which was founded in 1913 and is known for its association with James Bond, is aiming to turn around its performance by ironing out issues with production that have dogged the business. Adrian Hallmark, the chief executive who formerly ran Bentley, said this year his focus was on 'operational execution and delivering financial sustainability'. Mr Hallmark was appointed last year by Mr Stroll, the Canadian tycoon who seized control of Aston Martin in 2020 through a bailout. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
