Fresh blow to the City as money transfer group Wise votes to move listing to New York
The money transfer group's exit will make it the latest UK-listed firm to up sticks for the US.
In a fresh blow to the City, 90.5 per cent of Class A shareholders and 84.6 per cent of Class B shareholders backed the proposal.
Bosses have said the move is due to the US having the world's biggest capital markets, enabling more investors to buy shares.
But the fintech firm has said it will continue hiring and investing in the UK, as well as keeping a secondary listing in London.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Chelsea have spent eye-watering £360MILLION on defenders in three years – but how many of them were worth it?
THE arrival of £37million Jorrel Hato takes Chelsea's spending on defenders under their new owners past a record-shattering £360m. Yet the Blues back four which lines up against Crystal Palace on the opening weekend of the new season may well include just one player who cost a fee. Marc Cucurella, who came in from Brighton three years ago in a deal worth up to £62m, is the biggest success of Chelsea 's hit-and-miss defensive recruitment. The signing of Hato is a major coup for the Blues, with Liverpool and Arsenal among the other major clubs who wanted the talented and versatile teenager. The young Dutchman is the 12th defender brought in since the consortium led by Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly took over the club in May 2022. But Cucurella, a Euro 2024 winner with Spain, is the only member of the current Chelsea back four that you would describe as world class. And if Chelsea are to win domestic and European titles, they will need more defenders to reach that level. To be fair, Enzo Maresca 's side can already claim to be world champions. To beat a flair-filled Paris Saint-Germain side 3-0, just weeks after they had spanked Inter Milan 5-0 in the Champions League final, was an impressive achievement. The back four which started the Club World Cup final was left back Cucurella, homegrown centre backs Levi Colwill and Trevoh Chalobah, and right back Malo Gusto. The Frenchman, now 22, could end up costing Chelsea £30.7m after signing from Lyon in January 2023 and spending the rest of that season on loan back at the French club. Gusto has done a decent, sometimes very good, job at right back. He covered for the long injury-related absences of Reece James over the last two seasons and kept his place when James was employed in midfield - as he was against PSG. 8 8 But if you believe Moises Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez will start the biggest games in front of the defence, and James will mostly play as an inverted right back when he is fit, then Gusto will not be in Enzo Maresca's strongest 11. Chalobah did well after returning from half a season on loan at Crystal Palace, but could yet find himself being sold this summer. As a product of the Chelsea Academy, he would generate pure profit for financial rules purposes and there could be clubs willing to pay £40m for him. If Chalobah left, his replacement as right-sided centre back at the start of the season would almost certainly be Tosin Adarabioyo. The free transfer from Fulham last summer has carved a niche for himself off the pitch as well as on it. At just 27 he is one of the senior members of the squad, and plays an 'Uncle Tosin' role to the youngsters, enjoying a particularly close relationship with fellow Mancunian Cole Palmer. But no-one, not even Tosin himself, would claim that he is one of Europe's best defenders. If Wesley Fofana is able to put his injury hell behind him and rediscover his previous form, he could yet meet those standards and become a Chelsea stalwart for years to come. Fofana, still just 24, has made only 34 appearances for the Blues since arriving from Leicester in the summer of 2022 in a deal worth up to £75m. He is the most expensive of all Chelsea's defensive signings and that means, through no fault of his own, he has also been the biggest let down. But only just. The Blues really have had trouble finding a settled and satisfactory centre back pairing. Within weeks of the 2022 takeover, Kalidou Koulibaly became the new regime's first defensive signing. The Napoli star's £35m fee felt a little steep for a player about to turn 31, but the Senegal international was highly-rated and on the radar of other big clubs. Koulibaly failed to live up to his billing, although he could point to the chaos of playing under three different managers and a hamstring injury as decent explanations. He was offloaded after just one season to Saudi Pro League side Al-Hilal - and played for them in this year's Club World Cup. When Chelsea set a new record for winter window spending in early 2023, Benoit Badiashile 's £35m arrival from Monaco went a little under the radar in the wake of massive deals for Enzo Fernandez and Mykhailo Mudryk. The Frenchman did fine in a struggling team in the remainder of the 22/23 season, but not well enough to seal his spot. And when injury kept Badiashile out of the start of the following campaign, Colwill took his chance after returning from loan at Brighton. 8 8 8 Meanwhile the unfortunate Fofana had suffered the second major knee injury of his short Chelsea career in the summer of 2023. Within weeks, the Blues had gone back to Monaco to bring in Axel Disasi for another £38m. The France international was a first choice under Mauricio Pochettino for much of the 2023/4 season. But new boss Maresca did not fancy Disasi, and he was sent on loan to Aston Villa for the second half of last season. The signing of Hato, 19, fits Chelsea's current transfer philosophy of signing the best young players and trying to turn them into superstars. If they fail, they can usually be sold on for a profit, as is likely to be the case with Renato Veiga. The versatile Portuguese was signed only last summer, did well enough to earn a loan to Juventus for the second half of the season and could find himself joining Atletico Madrid for a chunky fee. In addition to Veiga, Chelsea signed two teenage defenders last summer in centre back Aaron Anselmino and left back Caleb Wiley. The latter has now returned to Watford for a second season on loan, while Anselmino may well also leave on a temporary deal after recovering from injury. Mamadou Sarr, 19, is likely to be loaned back to Strasbourg after the Blues paid £12m to their sister club. Hato is also 19 but at a fee of £37m, he will surely need to deliver for Chelsea this season. The Blues will probably ease him in, perhaps initially as cover for left back Cucurella. In the longer term, Hato should end up challenging Colwill for that left-sided centre back slot or forming a partnership with the England international. And finally, after spending more on defenders than any club, Chelsea could end up with a world-class back four to show for it. 8
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Divorced man awarded only 0.5 per cent of wife's $80million fortune wins 'gender bias' appeal
A city trader who claimed his divorce settlement was 'gender prejudice' after being handed $450K of his ex-wife's $80million family fortune has won an appeal case to have the arrangement reviewed. Simon Entwistle's three-year marriage to Jenny Helliwell ended in 2022 but he was awarded just 0.5 per cent of her fortune. He blamed gender bias for the decision and has won his case at the Court of Appeal in London, meaning his settlement will now be considered again. Appeal judges ruled Jenny had engaged in 'fraudulent' behavior by not declaring almost $64milllion of her £personal fortune whilst making a prenuptial agreement. The couple had a lavish wedding in Paris in August 2019 and Entwistle 'enjoyed the trappings of being married into a family of exceptional wealth,' it was said. They were living in a luxury villa in Dubai gifted to Helliwell by her father, businessman Neil Helliwell. But when they split up, Helliwell got her lawyers to order her husband out of the family home with just 48 hours' notice in August 2022. The pair, both 42, then went to court, with Entwistle asking for $3.3million from his interior designer ex-wife's personal fortune. Entwistle claimed he needed $48K a year for flights and $35K a year 'on a meal plan just for himself' because he said: 'I can't even cook an omelet. The judge told him: 'Being married to a rich person for three years does not suddenly catapult you into a right to live like that after the relationship has ended.' He was left with a 0.5 per cent share of the pot after the judge upheld a pre-nuptial agreement the pair had signed promising they would each keep their own assets in the event of a split. Appealing that ruling, Entwistle said he was a victim of 'gender prejudice' and that the prenup had been invalidated by Helliwell having failed to disclose assets worth almost $64milllion- amounting to 73 per cent of her wealth. Now, Lady Justice King has ruled that the nondisclosure by the heiress amounted to 'fraudulent' behavior which had invalidated the prenup. She allowed Entwistle's appeal and sent the case back to the divorce courts, ordering it to be recalculated as if the pre-nuptial agreement did not exist. The judge said: 'Willful or fraudulent breach of that agreement such that the disclosure made bears no resemblance to the true wealth of a capable of being material non-disclosure, as it deprives the other party of the information that they have agreed is necessary in order for them to decide whether to agree to a pre-nuptial agreement. 'Since the husband in the instant case was deliberately deprived of information which it had been agreed that he should have, in my judgment, the agreement cannot stand.' Challenging the judge's ruling at the Court of Appeal, Deborah Bangay KC, for Mr Entwistle, said: 'The judge was warned against gender prejudice, but failed to heed that warning. 'Had the positions been reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have so ungenerously assessed the needs of a wife after a six-year relationship.' She also argued that the prenup, which had been key to the husband's low award, was invalidated by Helliwell's failure to disclose her full wealth. Lady Justice King, giving her ruling, made no finding on the gender prejudice argument but said: 'The husband and wife entered into the agreement on the day they married, July 12, 2019. Upon divorce, each party would retain their own separate property and split any jointly owned property as to 50 per cent each. 'At the heart of the dispute is whether the wife's undoubted failure to disclose the majority of her substantial wealth should have the consequence that the agreement should not be upheld by the court. 'In the present case, the non-disclosure of the majority of her assets by the wife was undoubtedly deliberate.'
