Showing posts sorted by date for query MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, December 02, 2025

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M
Prada completes acquisition of flashy rival Versace


By AFP
December 2, 2025


Now owned by Prada - Copyright AFP/File Ed JONES

Italian fashion group Prada announced on Tuesday it had completed its acquisition of smaller rival Versace, announced earlier this year for 1.25 billion euros (now $1.45 billion).

Prada Group said in a statement that the deal with Capri Holdings, the US group which owned Versace, had “received all required regulatory clearances”.

Lorenzo Bertelli — the son of designer Miuccia Prada and chief marketing officer — will become executive chairman of Versace following the takeover.

Versace’s lustre had been waning in recent years, unlike that of the Prada Group, which is in robust health, fuelled by strong sales of its younger Miu Miu Line.

Prada Chief Executive Andrea Guerra told journalists during a factory visit that Versace was “extraordinarily different from our other brands in the portfolio”.

The flashy label “invented fashion as we know it today”, bringing it closer to popular culture, and as such “strikes a different aesthetic and appeals to a different consumer”, he added.

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Diana Shipping to Continue Dry Bulk Consolidation with Offer for Genco

dry bulk vessel
Dania seeks to further consolidate the dry bulk sector by merging with Genco (Dania Shipping)

Published Nov 24, 2025 8:14 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Dania Shipping, which bills itself as a leader in the dry bulk sector, is seeking to continue the market consolidation as it finally made a move to acquire US-based Genco Shipping & Trading. Genco bills itself as the largest U.S.-headquartered dry bulk shipowner, and combined, they would have a fleet of approximately 80 vessels with approximately 9 million dwt.

Diana’s Chief Executive Officer, Semiramis Paliou, highlighted that the offer, which came in the form of a non-binding indicative proposal, is in keeping with “what we consider to be an opportune time of the cycle” for the dry bulk sector. He said the combination would use Diana’s operating platform and increase the scale and flexibility of the fleet while enhancing leverage to the market.

The letter sent to the board of Genco proposes $20.60 per share or a total valuation of approximately $890 million for the stock. Diana has already acquired 14.8 percent of the stock outstanding, making it the largest shareholder in the company, since July 2025. It points out that the offer is “in line with the 10-year-high price for Genco’s shares.” It is a 15 percent premium to the recent share price, a 21 percent premium to July when Diana disclosed it had bought shares of Genco, and a 23 percent premium to the 30 and 890 day trading averages.

Diana highlights that it would provide Genco shareholders with a means to realize immediate value in cash at a premium price. The valuation appears to be in keeping with other recent deals. 

The sector has already seen two major consolidations recently. Star Bulk completed its merger with Eagle Bulk in April 2024. This year, CMB.TECH acquired Golden Ocean in a merger completed in August 2025. 

Genco issued a brief statement acknowledging its board has “just received” Diana’s non-binding indicative proposal and has not made any decisions. Genco’s Board of Directors said in consultation with its financial and legal advisors, it will carefully review and evaluate the non-binding indicative proposal to determine the course of action.

Two weeks ago, Genco reported its board had amended its shareholder rights plan. They said the purpose was to reduce the likelihood that, through open-market accumulation or other tactics, there could be a change of control in the company. The plan was extended to September 30, 2026.

Both companies have emphasized the opportunities they see emerging in the dry bulk sector. Genco last week announced it was spending $145.5 million to acquire two 2020-built 208,000 dwt scrubber-fitted Newcastlemax vessels. It emphasized its view of the opportunities, especially for Capesize and Newcastlemax sectors. Genco currently has a fleet of 45 vessels, with an average age of 12.5 years and a total capacity of just over 5 million dwt, including the recent acquisitions.

Dania highlights that it currently has approximately 4.1 million dwt with a weighted average age of 12 years for its fleet. It has 36 vessels plus two Kamsarmax methanol dual-fuel vessels on order. Both companies operate with a broad range of commodities, including iron ore, coal, grain, steel products, bauxite, cement, nickel ore, and other commodities. Dania, however, said it would seek to optimize the combined fleet and balance sheet with selective asset divestments if the deal is completed.

While the investment community had speculated that an offer might be in the works, it was still pleased with the news. Shares of Dania were up nearly 6 percent while Genco’s share price rose more than 7 percent, but closed at $19.19, below the $20.60 per share indicated in the letter.

Dania said it hopes to engage with the board of Genco to expeditiously complete the transaction.

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

‘Colossally Wrong Decision’ as Facebook Parent Company Wins Instagram-WhatsApp Antitrust Case

“This court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side.”


A mobile phone screen displays Meta logo and a digital screen displays founder of Meta Mark Elliot Zuckerberg in the background in Ankara, Turkey on October 28, 2025.
(Photo by Arda Kucukkaya/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Nov 19, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Anti-monopoly advocates are warning that a federal judge’s ruling in favor of Facebook parent company Meta in a major antitrust case will have negative repercussions for US consumers by allowing Facebook to continue wielding monopoly power in the social media marketplace.

Judge James Boasberg in the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that the company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp did not violate US antitrust policy.


RECOMMENDED...



‘Blunt Corruption’: Trump DOJ Hands Google an Antitrust Win After Tech Giant’s Ballroom Donation

Boasberg found that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had not proven Meta holds monopoly power in the personal social networking market, “largely because he folded TikTok and YouTube into the same market and concluded that their popularity reduces Meta’s share below illegal levels,” said the American Economic Liberties Project (ALEP).

John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, argued that Boasberg’s ruling demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about the economics of the social media market.

“The court’s opinion reflects a view of the market that is at odds with how digital-platform power operates today,” he said. “Meta systematically acquired emerging competitors precisely because direct, head-to-head competition threatened its dominance. Meta’s consolidation strategy deprived consumers of innovative services and prevented the development of a truly competitive social-networking ecosystem.”

Nidhi Hegde, executive director of ALEP, described the ruling as a “colossally wrong decision” that “turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it.”

“These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family,” she said. “By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side.”

Hegde added that it should now fall upon US Congress to “step in and break up Big Tech, prohibit addictive surveillance algorithms, and create the conditions for building a better future.”

Open Markets Institute policy counsel Tara Pincock said Boasberg’s ruling was “profoundly misguided,” and accused the judge of blocking the FTC from reversing a mistake it made last decade when it signed off on Meta’s purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp.

“Judge Boasberg erred in concluding that Facebook competes with TikTok and YouTube,” said Pincock, a former state assistant attorney general in Utah. “I was part of the bipartisan coalition of states that brought this case alongside the FTC in December 2020, and the court’s framing misrepresents what is at stake. This case has never been about generic ‘time and attention.’ It is about how people connect, communicate, and build communities—and about how a powerful company abused its dominance to protect itself from competition.”

Friday, November 07, 2025

America, Incorporated: The Era Of The Portfolio State – Analysis

STATE CAPITALI$M BY ANY OTHER NAME





 Foreign Policy Research Institute
By Mohammed Soliman


(FPRI) — For much of the last century, the American state has intervened directly in the economy only in times of extraordinary crisis. During World War II, Washington commandeered entire industries to serve the war effort. In 2008, it took ownership stakes in banks, automakers, and insurers to stabilize the financial system. These interventions were temporary, emergency-driven, and designed to unwind once the immediate danger had passed.

What is happening today is different. The state is no longer waiting for crisis. It is proactively buying into the commanding heights of the 21st-century economy. This shift is not simply about regulation or subsidy, but about ownership. America is beginning to look less like the free-market exemplar of the neoliberal era and more like a strategic shareholder, assembling a portfolio of national assets across semiconductors and minerals that will expand to energy and biotechnology, and other industries of interest.

A few months ago, something unprecedented happened: The US government quietly bought an equitystake in Intel. This was done using pre-allocated subsidies from the CHIPS and Science Act, and it occurred without any sort of emergency. A few weeks before the Intel deal, the then Department of Defense, now Department of War, also acquired a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, positioning the company as a rare earth national champion. These decisions are not isolated events. They reflect the birth of a new industrial paradigm: the Portfolio State.

The End of the Neoliberal Consensus

For 40 years, American industrial policy was guided by market fundamentalism. The private sector was the engine of innovation, while the state served as a light-handed regulator and an enabler of globalization, providing market access for geopolitical alignment. Silicon Valley flourished. Capital moved freely. Manufacturing was offshored in pursuit of financial returns with Washington effectively outsourcing its industrial base to the invisible hand of the market. But that model has begun to crack. Recent events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the semiconductor shortage, and the rise of China as the techno-industrial superpower exposed America’s deep vulnerabilities. Chief among them is its lack of industrial scale in strategic sectors, areas where volume, speed, and competitiveness are required for national resilience and preserving a leading global position. This shortfall reflects a broader American tendency to assume that our perceived sense of technological superiority—which is already eroding vis-à-vis China—can compensate for material and industrial deficiencies, a belief at odds with industrial reality.

Industrial Policy in Historical Perspective

This is not the first time the United States has abandoned laissez-faire orthodoxy in favor of direct state intervention. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson established the War Industries Board to coordinate the allocation of raw materials and standardize production to support the war efforts. The government nationalized railways and exerted control over telegraph networks to guarantee reliable transport and secure communication for the war efforts against Imperial Germany.

By World War II, Washington’s role was even more sweeping. President Theodore Roosevelt’s War Production Board converted entire sectors of the civilian economy to military use—automobile plants churned out tanks and aircraft, rubber and gasoline were rationed, and steel was funneled into shipbuilding. The government also imposed price controls and even nationalized industries such as coal mining when strikes threatened production. The United States became the “arsenal of democracy” by producing a massive amount of military goods. This extraordinary mobilization raised real GDP by 72 percent between 1940 and 1945, and at its peak, a large portion of US economic activity was managed or steered by federal authorities to sustain the war effort.

In the late 1980s, facing competition from Japan’s semiconductor industry, the US government and 14 tech companies formed a public-private consortium called SEMATECH. Funded by the Department of Defense and its members, SEMATECH’s goal was to improve US semiconductor manufacturing, a collaboration that helped the United States regain its leadership position by the mid-1990s. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government intervened at an unprecedented scale. Through Operation Warp Speed, it directly funded the development and manufacturing of vaccines, and it also guaranteed airline payrolls, injected liquidity into markets, and authorized the Federal Reserve to purchase corporate bonds.

The through line is clear: when national security or systemic stability is at risk, the United States has never hesitated to use the full weight of the state to direct markets, sustain industries, or even seize assets in the name of the national interest. The difference today is not whether Washington intervenes, but how. First came export controls on advanced chips to China in October 2022. Then came the CHIPS and Science Act, allocating over $52 billion to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing. Next came targeted loan programs, tax credits, and partnerships for critical minerals. These steps reflected a strategy of de-risking—not full decoupling, but reducing dependence on China while restoring industrial sovereignty.

And now, under the Trump administration, there is a shift from subsidies to equity—from carrots to ownership. The United States is no longer just underwriting industry—it is becoming a shareholder in it. This marks the clearest break yet with the neoliberal consensus and the strongest signal that a new model is emerging—a model this piece will later define as the Portfolio State.

Intel and MP Materials: From National Champion to National Stake

Intel once defined American semiconductor leadership. Under pioneers like Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove, the company invented the modern microchip, scaled it, and dominated global computing. By the 2000s, Intel’s dominance began to slip, largely due to a series of strategic miscalculations. The company missed the fundamental shift to mobile computing, as its chips weren’t designed to compete with the low-​power ARM architecture that powered the smartphone revolution. At the same time, it failed to recognize the emerging market for artificial intelligence (AI), allowing rivals like NVIDIA to become the leaders in specialized chips for AI data centers.

These setbacks were compounded by internal challenges. Intel fell behind in manufacturing, struggling with costly delays in developing its next-generation technology while competitors, such as Taiwan’s TSMC and South Korea’s Samsung, pulled ahead in advanced chip manufacturing. This shift was particularly dangerous as TSMC came to dominate an estimated 90 percent of the market for the most advanced AI chips. As the AI compute wave hits, the world’s dependency on these chips will only increase, making the need for a domestic alternative like Intel a top priority for national security. In a world where compute is foundational to technological supremacy, this was an unacceptable strategic liability. The Biden administration began with subsidies and procurement contracts, but the Trump administration went even further: it bought in.

This is why, in August, the US government acquired approximately a 10 percent equity stake in Intel—an $8.9 billion investment funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in CHIPS Act grants and $3.2 billion from the Secure Enclave program. This investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has already received, bringing total federal support to $11.1 billion. This stake in Intel signals more than confidence in one company. It is the scaffolding for a new model of techno-industrial policy where the state doesn’t just fund innovation—it holds shares in it.

On the other side of the technology stack lies the raw material: rare earths. MP Materials operates the Mountain Pass mine in California. Rare earth elements are critical to everything from electric vehicles and wind turbines to precision-guided missiles and smartphones. Yet for decades, the United States ceded this sector to China, which now has a monopoly over global processing capacity. In February, the Department of Defense announced a $35 million cost-sharing agreement with MP Materials to design and build a facility to process heavy rare earth elements at the company’s Mountain Pass site in California. This partnership expanded even further: the Department of Defense is now MP Materials’ largest shareholder, holding a 15 percent stake in the company as part of a multibillion-dollar package to accelerate domestic magnet production.

What’s different this time is the logic. This is not just a loan or subsidy. It is a deliberate move to reassert sovereign control over a key input in the technology, defense and energy transition supply chains. In its own way, MP is the mining equivalent of Intel: a national asset operating in a strategic bottleneck. It is not hard to imagine a future where the US government, or a coalition of industrial funds, acquires equity stakes in critical mineral producers.

The Portfolio State


What unites Intel and MP Materials is not sector or technology, but logic. The United States is no longer just subsidizing innovation but also building a portfolio of national assets—companies that sit at the apex of geoeconomic power. It is a Portfolio State: not a command economy in the Chinese mold, but a shareholder model in which public capital is deployed to achieve both commercial success and national interest. This new approach is finding a consensus between the populist left and the populist right. The Trump administration’s shift toward state intervention, most notably with the Intel deal, is being openly supportedby progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had previously advocated for a similar approach as an amendment to the CHIPS Act.

Of course, industrial policy is not new to America, but the modern Portfolio State is different. It is shaped not only by geopolitical competition and techno-industrial urgency, but also by the growing influence of venture capitalist culture on American politics and, by extension, technology policy. As David Sacks put it when discussing the Intel deal, “if you are going to hand out billions of dollars to these companies, you’re better off at least again getting something for it, having the taxpayers have some upside in it, allowing the government to recoup and creating the right incentive for these companies.” That logic—placing bets, managing risk, and demanding returns—is straight out of Sand Hill Road.

Sacks made the point even sharper: “We don’t really want our companies going to the federal government to try and get bailed out. And at least if they have to give up equity or warrants, things like that, there’s a cost to it. We would rather that these companies get financed privately. But that didn’t happen here.” In other words, Washington is beginning to act like a venture capital firm by providing capital, but also demanding equity, and seeking geopolitical and commercial upside.

This shift is reinforced by personnel. Vice President JD Vance is a venture capitalist. Sriram Krishnan, a former Andreessen Horowitz partner, serves as an AI advisor in the Trump White House. The number of senior officials drawn directly from the venture capital ecosystem, or from its broader circle of influence, is unprecedented. Personnel is policy. And in this administration, the policy reflects the worldview of venture investors: scale fast, take equity, export your stack.

This logic is already visible in America’s AI Action Plan, which makes scaling and exporting the American AI stack the centerpiece of national strategy. Commercial success is now the core of America’s geopolitical position. Within this line of thinking, if American firms dominate the infrastructure and application layers of AI, then Washington can set the terms of global technological competition and its broader geopolitical position. In that sense, the United States is leveraging commerce itself as a geopolitical instrument.

The Case for an American Wealth Fund

That raises a larger question: If Washington acquires more and more equity stakes in companies, how should these stakes be managed? It makes little sense to allocate shares in Intel or future strategic firms on an ad hoc basis. Instead, to build a fully integrated model for this era of industrial policy, the United States should consider managing them through a sovereign wealth fund—one that aligns financial firepower with national priorities and blends commercial returns with strategic statecraft.

A US sovereign wealth fund could institutionalize the Portfolio State and link investment flows directly to government priorities: AI, biotechnology, materials science, space, and energy technologies. Rather than treating each crisis as a one-off bailout, Washington could operate with foresight and discipline—turning public capital into a long-term lever of national strategy.

Intel and MP Materials are just the bookends of this emerging model. The US government’s equity stake in these companies signals something deeper: America’s techno-industrial playbook, filtered through the grammar of venture capital and, potentially, the architecture of a sovereign wealth fund. This is the Portfolio State.


About the author Mohammed Soliman is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow in the National Security Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also the director of the Strategic Technologies and Cyber Security Program at the Middle East Institute and a visiting fellow with the National Security Program at Third Way. He can be found on X at @Thisissoliman.


Source: This article was published by FPRI

Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute

Founded in 1955, FPRI (http://www.fpri.org/) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests and seeks to add perspective to events by fitting them into the larger historical and cultural context of international politics.

Tuesday, November 04, 2025

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

SM Energy, Civitas Resources Announce $12.8 Billion Merger

SM Energy and Civitas Resources announced an all-stock merger valued at about $2.8 billion in equity, or $12.8 billion including debt, creating one of the largest independent U.S. shale producers by output and acreage. 

Bloomberg reported that under the agreement, Civitas shareholders will receive 1.45 shares of SM Energy for each share of Civitas they own, giving Civitas investors about 52% of the combined company and SM shareholders 48%.

According to Reuters, the combined firm will operate under the SM Energy name and be headquartered in Denver, overseeing roughly 823,000 net acres across the Midland, Delaware, and DJ basins. Management projects more than $1.4 billion in 2025 free cash flow and up to $300 million in annual cost synergies through consolidated drilling programs, logistics, and overhead savings.

SM Energy CEO Herb Vogel will lead the merged company, with an 11-member board composed of six SM directors and five from Civitas. The companies expect the transaction to close in the first quarter of next year, pending shareholder and regulatory approvals. Additional merger details and capital-return guidance were outlined in the joint company statement.

The combination marks one of the year’s largest shale-sector consolidations, following a slowdown in 2024 M&A activity. 

Analysts note that mid-cap producers are again turning to scale-driven mergers to strengthen balance sheets, improve capital efficiency, and secure longer-life drilling inventories across U.S. basins. Financial Times coverage places the deal among a new wave of upstream consolidations seeking to stabilize production costs under volatile oil-price conditions.

Prior to the announcement, merger discussions between the two shale operators had been circulating for several weeks, with Civitas reportedly exploring strategic options to expand its Permian footprint. In late October, reports noted that the company was assessing potential tie-ups with regional peers to enhance drilling inventory and scale in the basin, including the prospect of an all-stock structure to align shareholder interests.

By Michael Kern for Oilprice.com

Saturday, November 01, 2025

Chicken and chips in Seoul - for Nvidia, Samsung and Hyundai

Chicken and chips in Seoul - for Nvidia, Samsung and Hyundai
/ Gabe Pierce - Unsplash
By bno - Busan Office October 31, 2025

In a low-key fried chicken shop in southern Seoul, the leaders of Nvidia, Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motor held an informal meeting on the evening of October 30, Korea JoongAng Daily reports. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Samsung Electronics Executive Chairman Lee Jae-yong and Hyundai Motor Executive Chair Euisun Chung met ahead of major announcements expected during Huang’s visit for the APEC CEO summit. Their discussion reportedly centred on reinforcing semiconductor supply networks, advancing AI infrastructure and exploring collaboration in robotics.

The chosen venue,  a branch of the well-known Korean fried chicken franchise Kkanbu Chicken, was handpicked by Huang, who enjoys trying local eateries during overseas trips and specifically wanted to try out Korea’s “chimaek” culture, a combination of fried chicken and beer.

Once the gathering became known, the quiet street quickly drew a crowd. More than a thousand onlookers, journalists and company staff filled the area. Police eventually stepped in to control the crowd and set up barricades as the scene overflowed onto the road.

The meeting took place just before Nvidia is expected to finalise large AI chip supply agreements with four major Korean conglomerates — Samsung, SK, Hyundai Motor and Naver — deals estimated to be worth several trillion won.

According to Korea JoongAng Daily, Samsung revealed during a conference call that it is supplying Nvidia with its latest high-bandwidth memory (HBM3E) chips and has already begun sending samples of its upcoming HBM4 line to clients. The company stated that the new chips can exceed speeds of 11 gigabits per second while remaining energy-efficient, and that it has secured orders for increased HBM production next year.

SK hynix, another major memory manufacturer, announced that its 2026 memory supply is already sold out and that it plans to significantly expand investment in memory production. The company expects to begin supplying HBM4 chips to key clients in the fourth quarter.

Hyundai Motor and Nvidia already partnered earlier this year on software-defined vehicles, robotics, autonomous technology, digital twins, smart factories and infotainment.

Later on October 31, Huang is expected to travel to Gyeongju to speak at the APEC CEO Summit and meet SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won. Lee and Chung will also return to attend a dinner involving China’s President Xi Jinping. A casual meal may look ordinary, yet it signals how future technology alliances are increasingly forged through informal, human moments rather than traditional boardroom ritual.


Cenovus Energy raises MEG Energy offer, wins Strathcona support

By The Canadian Press
Updated: October 27, 2025 


Cenovus Energy logos are on display at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, Alta.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

CALGARY — Cenovus Energy Inc.’s takeover of MEG Energy Corp. appears poised to win shareholder approval later this week after the oilsands giant raised what it had said was its “best and final” offer and secured the support of one-time rival Strathcona Resources Ltd.

“Heading into this week, we thought there was going to be the potential for some fireworks,” said Patrick O’Rourke, managing director of institutional equity research at ATB Capital Markets.

Monday’s news “probably gave most a sense that this transaction should be able to get across the goal line,” he added.

The sweetened offer, made up of half cash and half stock, is worth $30 per share based on Cenovus’ closing stock price on Friday. Earlier, it had offered $29.50 in cash or 1.240 of a Cenovus share, worth $29.65 as of Friday.

MEG shareholders are to vote on the offer, which has the support of that company’s board, on Thursday. The meeting had been scheduled for last week, but was delayed after it appeared the approval vote might have fallen short of the required two-thirds majority.


But Strathcona, which recently dropped its own hostile all-stock offer for MEG, now says it intends to vote its 14.2 per cent stake in favour of the new Cenovus bid.

“With Strathcona’s support, MEG currently expects that approximately 79 per cent of the MEG shares represented by proxy or expected to be voted in person at the meeting are for the approval of the improved Cenovus transaction,” MEG said in a statement.

Strathcona executive chairman Adam Waterous declined to comment further on Monday.

Cenovus and MEG have side-by-side oilsands properties at Christina Lake, south of Fort McMurray, Alta., and the companies have touted the cost-savings and efficiencies that would result from joining forces. Strathcona also has steam-driven operations in the region.

“We’ve got a pretty high degree of confidence in (Cenovus’) ability to operate these assets, given the results we’ve seen at their offsetting Christina Lake property,” said O’Rourke.

“I think that the outlook for the combined asset and achieving the synergies they’ve noted is pretty reasonable.”

The deal would add 110,000 barrels of daily oilsands production to Cenovus’ portfolio, bringing it to 720,000 boe/d. Cenovus has said output could grow to 850,000 boe/d in 2028.

Also Monday, Cenovus announced the sale of its Vawn thermal heavy oil operation in Saskatchewan and certain undeveloped land in western Saskatchewan and Alberta to Strathcona for $150 million including $75 million in cash paid on closing and up to $75 million more, depending on future commodity prices.

At about 5,000 boe/d, the properties are more meaningful to a smaller company like Strathcona than they are to Cenovus, where they would not get a lot of attention, said O’Rourke.

He noted that at one point, the assets achieved more than twice that level of production.

“So we know that there’s latent facility capacity there and the ability to increase the efficiencies.”


This is the second time Cenovus improved its offer after asserting it wouldn’t. Its initial bid was made up of 75 per cent cash and 25 per cent equity and had an implied value of $28.48 before it was sweetened on Oct. 8.

The saga began in April when Strathcona approached the MEG board with a cash-and-stock takeover bid. Strathcona was rebuffed and took the offer directly to MEG shareholders weeks later.

In June, MEG’s board called the bid “opportunistic” and urged shareholders to reject it as it launched a review to find a superior offer. Waterous had accused MEG of refusing to engage and taking an “anyone but Strathcona” stance.

In August, MEG announced its board had accepted the first friendly takeover offer from Cenovus. The following month, Strathcona amended its offer to be based entirely on stock, arguing that structure would give investors greater opportunity to benefit from future growth.

Cenovus upped its bid and offered a greater equity share in early October, and the companies agreed to allow Cenovus to buy up to 9.9 per cent of the target company’s stock ahead of the shareholder vote.

Strathcona abandoned its bid a few days later, saying the conditions of its offer could no longer be satisfied, while some MEG shareholders decried what they saw as unfair tactics to lock up the deal with Cenovus.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 27, 2025.


Investor Outlook: Parkland profit climbs as Sunoco takeover nears completion

By BNN Bloomberg
Published: October 27, 2025 

Ernest Wong, head of research at Baskin Wealth Management, joins BNN Bloomberg to discuss the impact of the Parkland-Sunoco deal on M&A.

Parkland posted a rise in third-quarter profit as it prepares to finalize its acquisition by U.S.-based Sunoco. The Calgary fuel and convenience retailer, which owns brands such as Ultramar, Chevron and Pioneer, said the transaction is set to close by Oct. 31.

BNN Bloomberg spoke with Ernest Wong, head of research at Baskin Wealth Management, who said the results were largely overshadowed by the pending deal. He added that the transaction signals a broader wave of consolidation in the fuel and retail space and shows promise for future foreign investment in Canada’s energy sector.
Key TakeawaysParkland’s third-quarter profit rose as it prepares to finalize its sale to Sunoco by Oct. 31.
Few Parkland shareholders chose to take Sunoco stock due to unfavourable U.S. tax treatment.
The deal highlights ongoing consolidation in the fuel and convenience store sector, leaving Couche-Tard as Canada’s key consolidator.
Wong said the fast regulatory process and commitments to Calgary jobs signal investor confidence in Canada.

The smooth approval could encourage more cross-border mergers in Canada’s energy and resource industries.

Ernest Wong, head of research at Baskin Wealth Management

Read the full transcript below:

LINDSAY: Parkland has reported its third-quarter profit is up from a year ago as it prepares to complete its deal to be acquired by Sunoco. Calgary-based Parkland owns the Ultramar, Chevron and Pioneer gas station chains, as well as several other brands in 26 countries. For more on this, we’re joined by Ernest Wong, head of research at Baskin Wealth Management.

It’s good to have you. Thanks for taking the time.


ERNEST: Thanks for having me.

LINDSAY: So, beating expectations. But do the results really matter? Are they noteworthy, given this deal that’s going to go through soon?

ERNEST: Well, I think the market liked the results, and you’re seeing that reflected in the stock price of Sunoco. Given that a large chunk of this deal involves Parkland shareholders receiving Sunoco stock, that’s probably why you’re also seeing Parkland shares move up.

The one thing that was notable was that we now have clarity about when the deal will close — by Oct. 31. At that point, Parkland will cease to exist as a standalone company.

LINDSAY: So we’re getting more details on the deal. What stands out to you between these two companies?

ERNEST: What’s interesting is that there was very limited interest among Parkland shareholders in taking Sunoco Corp. units as part of the deal. That makes sense, given that most Parkland investors owned it for the dividend and have little interest in holding a U.S. dividend taxed at an unfavourable rate.

If we zoom out, this is part of a broader consolidation trend in the fuel distribution and convenience store space. In Canada, Alimentation Couche-Tard is now the only major consolidator left in the sector.

LINDSAY: Do you think Parkland’s deal with Sunoco is good for Canada?


ERNEST: Yes, I think it’s good news for investment in Canada. The regulatory process was very quick — shareholders approved the deal in June, Investment Canada Act approval came in October, and now it’s closing by the end of the month.

Initially, there were concerns about an American company acquiring strategic assets such as the Burnaby refinery and Canadian gas stations. But Sunoco committed to maintaining investment in the refinery and keeping its headquarters and jobs in Calgary. The quick approval process is encouraging and bodes well for future investment in Canada.

LINDSAY: We’re also seeing trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada. Could that weigh on this deal?

ERNEST: Maybe a little, but overall, we’ve been encouraged by what the prime minister has said about promoting investment in Canada — especially in diversifying markets for oil and gas. Over the weekend, Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Petronas to discuss investments for phase two of LNG Canada. That’s another positive sign for the energy sector.

LINDSAY: Do you think this deal could encourage more mergers and acquisitions in Canada?

ERNEST: Yes, especially given that most M&A activity in the commodity space has involved Canadian companies buying each other. A U.S. company being able to acquire a Canadian firm with a smooth approval process bodes well for foreign investment in the energy sector going forward.

LINDSAY: What about more mergers in the gas station and convenience store space?

ERNEST: In Canada, that sector is already quite consolidated, so we’re unlikely to see many large deals here. It’s a different story in the U.S., where the market is more fragmented. We own Alimentation Couche-Tard partly because it’s been a strong consolidator in the U.S. gas station space, and there’s still room for more growth there.

LINDSAY: Interesting. Ernest Wong, head of research at Baskin Wealth Management, appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.

---

This BNN Bloomberg summary and transcript of the Oct. 27, 2025 interview with Ernest Wong are published with the assistance of AI. Original research, interview questions and added context was created by BNN Bloomberg journalists. An editor also reviewed this material before it was published to ensure its accuracy and adherence with BNN Bloomberg editorial policies and standards.


Toronto Blue Jays fans strike out on fair prices during World Series

By Anam Khan
Updated: October 30, 2025 

It’s not just supply and demand that is driving up the price of Toronto Blue Jays tickets, it’s the fact that fans are deprived of a fair chance to snag a ticket in the first place, and that’s unfair, says a consumer watchdog.

With the Blue Jays in the World Series for the first time in three decades, tickets to watch the game at home in the Rogers Centre are highly sought after.

But when fans flood the officially licensed and authorized seller, Ticketmaster, to get a ticket, they are allegedly beaten by bots who scoop up the tickets and re-sell them for thousands of dollars.

Toronto Blue Jays World Series Tickets go on sale on Oct. 21, 2025. (Ticketmaster)

“The first come first served doesn’t work as well when we’re clicking and refreshing when you’re in that digital queue, and a couple of minutes later, suddenly all the tickets are gone,” Vass Bednar, managing director at the Canadian Shield Institute for Public Policy told BNN Bloomberg.

“It’s really this element of Ticketmaster formalizing the resale market so that they can sell a ticket one or two or three times, and also using their technology and software to proxy that demand.”

With three wins against the Los Angeles Dodgers under their belt, the Blue Jays are one win away from winning the World Series.

On Ticketmaster, verified resale tickets for Game 6 on Friday are selling for around $2,500 for nosebleed seats.

Field level seats range from $4,000 to $11,000. A StubHub ticket behind home plate is $112,953.



Toronto Blue Jays pitcher Trey Yesavage (39) celebrates a diving catch for an out by right fielder Addison Barger (not shown) during sixth inning Game 5 World Series playoff MLB baseball action against the Los Angeles Dodgers in Los Angeles on Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn


Restricting resales

Bednar supports some jurisdictions’ proposals to restrict the rate of resale, which means verified resales should re-sell the tickets back at face value, or at a set profit.

Last week, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said his government is looking into legislation to cap ticket resale prices while thousands of Blue Jays fans can’t afford to watch their team play in the Rogers Centre.

A price cap was already in place in 2017 by the previous Ontario Liberal Government. The Ticket Sales Act limited ticket resales to 50 per cent over their original value.

But the Ford Government scrapped that legislation after taking office in 2019 citing difficulty in enforcement.

Earlier this week, the Ontario Liberal Party introduced an amended version of their previous bill, now called, Stop Ripping Off Fans Act, to reinstate the cap of ticket resale to 50 per cent over their original value.

Ticketmaster under investigation

In September, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and seven states sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster for “tacitly coordinating with brokers and allowing them to harvest millions of dollars worth of tickets in the primary market.”

The FTC says the firms misled both artists and fans through bait-and-switch pricing, advertising lower prices than what consumers ultimately paid, and by falsely claiming to enforce strict ticket limits that brokers routinely exceeded.

Last week, the company announced it is shutting down its Trade Desk platform limiting professional resellers to one account.

“It’s hard to understand, based on my reading of the Internet, what makes people more mad. Is it Ticketmaster writ large, who, by the way, is under another investigation by the FTC? Or is it, you know, the fact that there are potential solutions proposed at its core,” said Bednar.

“We don’t have to take these trends as being inevitable.”


Anam Khan

Journalist, BNNBloomberg.ca

Sunday, October 19, 2025

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Hindustan Zinc posts quarterly profit rise on strong metal prices

Credit: Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

India’s Hindustan Zinc reported a nearly 14% rise in second-quarter profit on Friday, as silver prices hit record high levels and zinc prices climbed steadily, amid resilient demand.

India’s top refined zinc producer said consolidated net profit rose to 26.49 billion rupees (about $301 million) in the quarter ended September 30 from 23.27 billion rupees a year ago.

Hindustan Zinc is the world’s third-largest silver producer and the largest integrated silver player in India, which is the world’s biggest consumer of silver.

Demand for the precious metal in the country shot up in the September quarter as consumers looked to silver as an investment alternative for gold after silver prices hit record highs, and due to industrial needs.

Analysts had estimated that the price rise could be between 32% and 39% on a year-on-year basis.

Meanwhile, zinc prices are could have risen close to 2% in the period, as per analysts’ estimates.

Local demand for zinc, which is commonly used to coat steel to prevent corrosion, remained strong as manufacturing activity in the country advanced.

Hindustan Zinc, which has cornered nearly three-fourths of the domestic zinc market, said revenue from its zinc operations grew about 2% and that from silver operations rose 10% during the quarter.

Total revenue from operations rose 3.6% to 85.49 billion rupees.

($1 = 87.9300 Indian rupees)

(By Manvi Pant; Editing by Janane Venkatraman)

Tuesday, October 14, 2025

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Caterpillar to acquire Australia’s RPMGlobal for $728 million

Image from RPMGlobal.

Australian mining software firm RPMGlobal said on Monday that it has struck a deal to be acquired by heavy machinery giant Caterpillar for a total equity value of A$1.12 billion ($728.22 million).

The news comes after Caterpillar had offered to buy the Australian company at A$5 per share in early September. RPM shares had jumped to a high of near A$4.80 after the news but are last trading at A$4.75.

RPMGlobal, the last remaining mining software company listed on the ASX, is set to vanish from public markets following its acquisition by Caterpillar.

The move comes after rival Micromine was snapped up by the Weir Group in an A$1.3 billion deal, marking the end of an era for Australia’s homegrown mining tech players.

The deal would be closely scrutinized by the Foreign Investment Review Board and Australia’s competition regulator and would also require approvals from RPMGlobal’s shareholders.

($1 = 1.5380 Australian dollars)

(By Rishav Chatterjee; Editing by Diane Craft)

Monday, October 06, 2025

A Market Economy Coexisted With Totalitarianism Under Stalin, An Arrangement That Continues In Putin’s Russia – OpEd

STATE MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Moscow, Russia. Photo Credit: step-svetlana, Pixabay

By 

Most people see a market economy and totalitarianism as antithetical phenomena and believe that where one exists, the other cannot. But in fact, even in the darkest days of Stalin’s totalitarian system, a kind of market economy existed albeit not in its own name; and a similar arrangement now exists in Putin’s Russia, Dimitry Savvin says.


The editor of the Riga-based conservative Russian portal Harbin points to the case of Nikolay Pavlenko who created a private construction firm which operated in the USSR between 1948 and 1952, a case described by Russian historian Oleg Khlevnyuk in a 2023 Moscow book, The Corporation of Imposters (harbin.lv/algoritm-rynochnogo-pererozhdeniya).

What Pavlenko did was criminal “only” in the official Soviet understanding, Savvin says. In fact, what he did was to “establish a private construction enterprise masked as a military institution and over the course of several years successfully conduct commercial activity” in a totalitarian state.

As “phantasmagorical” as that may seem, he continues, “in essence, the mechanisms of coexistence with a totalitarian state and a private commercial enterprise which Pavlenko developed are in many respects typical” and were later employed “not only in the Soviet Union” but also in North Korea and since the 1990s by entrepreneurs in Russia.

Shortly after the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, Pavlenko, “suddenly discovered” that if one had the write papers and stamps, one could operate as a kind of covert free market player. He ran one such business during the war and established a second in 1948, when he was routinely sought out by officials because of his good and speedy work.

Eventually the party leadership caught up with him; and in 1952, hie operation was shut down and he was shot. But his operation, which was certainly far from unique, dis played four characteristics that help to explain why such things reemerged in some other communist countries, the post-Soviet USSR, and especially in Putin’s time.


First of all, Pavlenko’s organization was not political but commercial in the purest sense. Second, his organization mimicked state institutions; third, he did nothing criminal except for operating as a private firm in a system that denied that possibility; and fourth, if the leadership hadn’t been obsessed with defending socialism, what he did might have continued.

            “We see that little islands of market arrangements are natural for man and humanity” and emerge in communist and other totalitarian states, Savvin says, a pattern that requires us to recognize that with the proper masking, free market phenomena can and will exist under totalitarianism rather than being totally excluded by it.  

Savvin’s observation carries with it another implication that he doesn’t discuss but that is critical for those who want to overcome totalitarianism. In the 1990s, many Western leaders believed that if they got the economy right in the Russian Federation, totalitarianism would be precluded. But in fact that was not true.

Had such leaders focused more on democratic procedures and laws and worried somewhat less about the economy which they expected would do all the heavy lifting Russians and the world might have been spared the rise of the new totalitarianism under Vladimir Putin now.


Paul Goble

Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy. Earlier, he served as vice dean for the social sciences and humanities at Audentes University in Tallinn and a senior research associate at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu in Estonia. He has served in various capacities in the U.S. State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the International Broadcasting Bureau as well as at the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Goble maintains the Window on Eurasia blog and can be contacted directly at paul.goble@gmail.com .


Russia’s Most Powerful Weapon: Lies – OpEd

 Spreading disinformation. Photo Credit: Phạm Nhật, Unsplash fake news propaganda

By 


The Kremlin’s Disinformation War  

The recent discovery of a massive, foreign-linked telecom network in New York—packed with over 100,000 SIM cards and capable of crippling cell service across the city—is a stark reminder of how modern conflict is waged. This new frontier of warfare operates not with bombs, but with invisible threats that target the very infrastructure of society.


Yevhenii Dorohanov, from the National Police of Ukraine, has a good idea of what may be the reason.

“The disinformation you see online,” he says, “is well-planned, carefully targeted, and meant to sow division and anger. The goal is to destroy the fabric of society.”

Dorohnov’s job is to track how the Kremlin pushes propaganda and also to counter the disinformation that has almost certainly reached you, likely without your knowing it.   Read on for an unusually candid look at how Russia’s disinformation machine works.

Russia’s Strategy: Divide and Distract

Here’s an example of how Russian information warfare works in Ukraine. The Russians post a false report on Facebook or Telegram that a village has been captured by Russian troops. Since the people in the area are avid for information, the report will spread to all the surrounding towns and villages within minutes.

 “The result is panic,” Dorohanov explained. “Civilians from the neighboring towns now believe that the front line of the war is about to come to their village. They flee from their area, with the result that supply chains freeze, and commanders waste time correcting what never happened. The disruption ripples across every layer of society.”


The same tactics work in the West, only the narratives differ. “Before elections,” he says, “Russian propagandists focus on spreading false information on corruption or misuse of funds, or anything that undermines people’s faith in their leaders.”

Yevgeniy didn’t comment on the assassination of Charlie Kirk but he did say that the purveyors of Russian disinformation will move instantly in cases of a national tragedy.  They’ll swing into action, spreading conspiracies and amplifying distress and anger. “The point isn’t persuasion,” he said. “The point is to create discord, anger, and chaos.”

I pressed him on the mechanics. “How,” I asked, “do Russian operatives spread their messages?” 

The answer is fake accounts on social media. They use SIM cards to create fake identities.  A SIM card, by the way, is the small chip in your smartphone that stores a mobile phone’s subscriber identity and allows it to connect to a cellular network. With a SIM card, you can open an account on Facebook or TikTok, or other social media.

The Russians use SIM cards on an industrial scale to create fake identities on social media. In a recent operation, Ukrainian police confiscated over 150,000 fraudulent SIM cards that were used to create fake identities on social media.  

“One SIM card can register multiple accounts,” Yevgeniy explained. “And with e-SIMs, which are contraband, entire farms of fake accounts can be created automatically. In the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, there’s even a market where thousands of ordinary people are recruited to buy SIMs in bulk.”

“The fake accounts are trained to act like humans,” Yevgeniy continued. “The fake accounts will do things like click on memes, leaving harmless comments. Facebook’s algorithms see them as real people. Then, when those same bots choose to like or share disinformation, the system thinks the disinformation is popular and pushes it to the top of your feed.”

It doesn’t take thousands of bots. Sometimes a few dozen, deployed strategically, are enough to convince the algorithm that a topic is trending. “The goal is to make disinformation unavoidable and everywhere,” he said.

The Russians who do this work are called “trolls,” and the areas where they work are called “troll farms.” We in the West don’t know how many troll farms Russia has, but estimates are that there are thousands of them, and they’re there to spread disinformation.  

Online, some pose as patriots, others as critics. It’s a full-time job, and it’s guided by intelligence services that study exactly which communities are most vulnerable, whether it’s people angry about police violence, fearful about immigration, or suspicious of elites. It’s a good guess that Russian troll farms are doing everything they can right now to get Americans at each other’s throats over Charlie Kirk’s memorial service.

The troll farms have a rapid response approach. As Dorohanov says, “When a major event breaks, they mobilize within minutes. Multiple narratives appear at once, each designed to inflame a different group.”

I asked how effective this kind of information campaign is compared to bombs. His answer surprised me. “In democracies, once citizens stop trusting their leaders-or each other-you don’t need to fire a shot.”

As our interview drew to a close, I asked what advice he would give to people in the West who want to protect themselves.

“Be skeptical,” he said. “Ask yourself: who benefits if I believe this? Check with reliable sources. And above all, don’t share unless you know it’s true.”

Yevgeniy’s final words lingered with me: “The danger isn’t that you’re lied to. The danger is that you stop believing in truth at all.”


Mitzi Perdue

Mitzi Perdue is a public policy advocate and co-founder of Mental Help Global.