‘It’s sad’: is the UK real living wage under threat as Capita and BrewDog pull out?

Heather Stewart

The Guardian
Tue, 6 February 2024

Brewdog founders Martin Dickie and James Watt say they can no longer afford to pay the real living wage to staff.

Photograph: Alan Richardson/The Guardian

The outsourcing company Capita has become the second high-profile business to inform employees it would be dropping its commitment to the real living wage.

The independently calculated rate, born out of a grassroots campaign to improve the lives of the UK’s poorest citizens, is meant to ensure the lowest-paid can afford the basic necessities of a decent life.

But after two years of 10% increases, as inflation ripped through the economy, Capita has joined the brewer and bar operator BrewDog in telling staff it could no longer afford to pay the real living wage, which increased to £12 an hour. Unions fear more companies may be preparing to follow.

Related: BrewDog faces staff backlash after dropping real living wage pledge

At Capita, the Communications Workers Union (CWU), which represents many of the staff – who work on contracts for a range of customers including Virgin Media and Tesco Mobile – is consulting its members about the next steps.

Tracey Fossey of the CWU said: “It’s sad: these are the lowest earners and it makes a big difference to them. Capita are saying that they can’t continue it: that they don’t have the funds to support it – which we don’t agree with, when the CEO can take home more than £1.7m in 2022.”

A spokesperson for Capita said: “Our lowest-paid employees will all receive an above-inflation pay rise. We remain committed to our people and will revisit this decision when appropriate, as part of our continuing review of our cost base.”

In 2015, the then chancellor, George Osborne, rebranded the statutory minimum wage, which all companies must pay, as a “national living wage” in a backhanded tribute to the living wage campaign, which had pushed for better wages, among other demands, including regular hours and fewer antisocial shifts.

But the “real living wage” campaign, as it renamed itself, continues to commission research and set its own, higher wage floor, based on the cost of living for low-paid workers, and to encourage firms to pledge to pay it.

Katherine Chapman, the director of the Living Wage Foundation, which is the guardian of the standard, said she was “disappointed” about Capita and BrewDog’s decisions to drop it, but insisted the movement was still going strong.

“We’ve had two years of significant increases in the rates, because of what has happened to the cost of living. But we’ve had 3,000 employers signed up in the last year alone,” she said.

Chapman argues that consumers and investors are increasingly conscious of firms’ treatment of their employees, and signing up to pay the real living wage is one way they can differentiate themselves. “From what we’re seeing, and from the businesses we’re talking to, there is still growth in the network, and there is a compelling case for this,” she says.

It’s not just the real living wage that has risen sharply to reflect the soaring cost of living – the mandatory “national living wage” is also poised to increase by 10% in April, to £11.44 an hour, as the government continues to pursue a policy of lifting it towards two-thirds of the median rate across the economy.

Neil Carberry, the chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation , says two chunky rises in a row have caused disquiet among some companies.

“I’m getting more on the wires from members about it this year than I’ve ever had before,” he says. “They’re very concerned with, yes, affordability for them, but also fairness across the workforce.”

He adds: “If last year, settlements were 5-8% in the private sector, a 10% minimum wage and living wage increase didn’t feel massively outside the tent. A second one this year means you’ve basically gone up 20% on entry-level wages in two years. What I’m hearing is a lot of concern about fairness across the workforce.”

But Nicola Smith, the director of economics at the TUC, flatly rejects the idea the national living wage is becoming unaffordable. “The TUC continues to call for a minimum wage of at least £15 an hour,” she says. “We’ve got a strong evidence base over the last decade that during some really economically challenging periods, it’s been possible to raise the minimum wage for the lowest paid people in our jobs market with absolutely no negative labour market effects at all.”

In total, 14,000 employers are committed to paying the £12 an hour real living wage (£13.15 in London). Jean-Sébastien Pelland, the executive director of Eland Cables, is one of them. He says as an owner-manager who works alongside his staff, it is “absolutely the right thing to do, both morally, but also economically”.

“I think treating the people well, and looking after them, really makes sense from an economic point of view,” he says. “It requires us to spend less time and money on recruitment. We can build on developing a wider range of skills rather than starting over with the basics over and over again. And it makes Eland Cables a better place to be.”

Mike Turner, the co-founder of Bird & Blend Tea Co, based near Brighton, another company committed to the real living wage, concedes that this year’s 10% rise was costly – particularly once the knock-on impact further up the income scale is taken into account.

Of the approximately 180 staff across the firm’s 17 shops and warehouse, he estimates that about 100 are on the real living wage. “Part of me thinks, yeah, it would have been nice if it was lower, but if it was lower, it wouldn’t be doing what it’s for,” he says. “There’s no point in signing up for a scheme like that if when it starts to bite and have an impact, you pull out of it.”

Coca-Cola HBC follows McDonald’s in feeling the heat of Israel-Gaza war boycotts

Laura McGuire
Tue, 6 February 2024 

Coca-Cola HBC reports strong growth in third quarter results

Shares in Coca Cola HBC edged down this morning amid warnings from analysts that the bottler of the iconic fizzy drink could be the latest to feel the financial pain of boycotts linked to the Israel’s Gaza war.

Today’s forecast comes just one day after fast-food chain McDonald’s missed key sales targets due to customers steering clear of its restaurants because of their perceived support of Israel.

This comes after Hamas, which is designated as a terror group by the UK, launched an attack on Israel on October 7.

Israel’s response in Gaza has led to at least 25,000 being killed, including many children, while hundreds of Israeli hostages are still in captivity. Recently, Israel was taken to the International Court of Justice, accused of genocide.

On Monday, the American chain said global sales across its stores grew 3.4 per cent in the fourth quarter below analyst expectations of 4.7 per cent. While revenue reached $6.41bn (£5.11bn) down 0.7 per cent from estimates of $6.45bn (£5.41bn).

It further solidified the impact boycotts are having on high street favourites after chief Chris Kempczinski said the move had “meaningful business impact”.

In a LinkedIn post last month, the US boss said the giant was “continuing to stand in solidarity with communities around the world”.

“McDonald’s trends are often a good indicator for Coke’s global volume growth,” analysts at Jefferies said.

“We believe that there is likely to be some modest impact towards the end of the fourth quarter from the Middle East conflict with risk of boycotting of western brands, ” they said.

Ahead of the FTSE 100 firm’s trading update next week, analysts agreed that volumes would trade slightly below the market consensus of 1.2 per cent and instead come in 1.0 per cent.

They also predict that for 2024 EBIT growth will come in at 8.7 per cent compared to a consensus reading of 10.9 per cent. However, Jefferies said it believes the business is in a better position to “absorb volatility”.

In October, the bottler announced “strong organic growth” as part of its third-quarter trading update today, with organic revenue being up 15.3 per cent.

Despite criticism and push back from protestors shares in the firm are trading 17 per cent higher than they were a year ago.

Chief Zoran Bogdanović has been quietly trying to rebuild the brand’s reputation after questions were raised about the extent of Coca Cola HBC’s operations in Russia after it pledged it would withdraw from the country following the war. A claim the company disputes.

McDonald’s and Coca-Cola are not the only global brands to be criticised amid the conflict in the Middle-East.

Last week coffee chain Starbucks cut its annual sales forecast due to boycotts impacting sales.

The world’s biggest coffee chain was also forced to call for peace late last year after its stores were vandalised.

Boss Laxman Narasimhan, said: “We see protestors influenced by misrepresentation on social media of what we stand for.”

“We have worked with local authorities to ensure our partners and customers are safe. Nothing is more important. Our stance is clear. We stand for humanity.”

Some $11bn (£10bn) has been wiped off the coffee outfit’s market value amid calls for a boycott.

It’s ‘national sickie day’ – is ill-health holding back the UK economy?

The first Monday of February is apparently the most popular day for employees to call in sick, 

Larry Elliott

THE GUARDIAN
Mon, 5 February 2024 

The first Monday in February is supposedly the day on which the most staff call in sick compared with the rest of the year. Photograph: Jozef Polc/Alamy

The first Monday of February is apparently the most popular day for employees to call in sick, so the timing of the latest labour market health check by Britain’s number crunchers could scarcely have been better.

According to the latest evidence the UK has an even bigger problem with inactivity due to long-term sickness than previously thought.

Fresh figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest there are now 2.8 million people classified as not looking for work because of health issues – up from the 2.6 million previously estimated and a one-third increase on the 2.1 million before the Covid-19 pandemic.

Related: The Observer view on the nation’s poor health | Observer editorial

The ONS has rejigged its view of what has been happening to employment, unemployment and inactivity in order to take account of the fact the size of the UK’s population has been revised up. Its tentative conclusions are that the labour market is bigger, sicker and tighter than the old data suggested.

While the ONS was at pains to caution against reading too much into its new estimates, they show that employment is 170,000 higher than was thought but there are more prime age (16- to 64-year-old) people not working or looking for jobs, and long-term sickness now accounts for more than 30% of inactivity.

Hannah Slaughter, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation thinktank, said: “Tackling rising ill-health is a huge social and economic challenges that we’ll be facing throughout the 2020s, as will getting the UK employment back up to and beyond pre-pandemic levels.”

The ONS view of recent short-term developments has also changed. It believes unemployment stood at 3.9% in the three months ending in November last year, lower than its previous 4.2% estimate.

The Bank of England is closely monitoring the labour market for signs of an easing of pay pressure. Analysts said the new ONS estimates might make Threadneedle Street’s monetary policy committee more cautious about cutting interest rates.

“The new figures show that the labour market is tighter than believed previously. Furthermore there is no evidence that conditions have loosened recently,” said Philip Shaw of Investec.

James Moberly of Goldman Sachs said: “The reduction in the unemployment rate suggests that progress on labour market rebalancing may have stalled, which has somewhat hawkish implications for the Bank.”

The reason the ONS warned against reading too much into the new data is that it lacks a complete picture of the labour market after suspending statistics from what had been its main gauge of developments – the Labour Force Survey – on the grounds that weak response rates made the results unreliable.

The LFS was replaced by an experimental series based on a range of sources including the claimant count and PAYE data. It will take until September before the ONS is ready to announce its replacement for the LFS.

Samuel Tombs, the chief UK economist at Pantheon Macro, said the ONS still had “little faith” in the quality of its figures and was only willing to say that unemployment rate “may have fallen”. He said more recent evidence, including rising redundancy notifications, showed rising unemployment.

With UK dividends disappearing overseas, it’s time to resurrect employee ownership


Bartek Staniszewski
Mon, 5 February 2024 

Aardman Animation, makers of the iconic Wallace and Gromit films, is an employee-owned British company

Promoting employee ownership is an opportunity to empower Brits and boost the economy, writes Bartek Staniszewski

Buying British can be a little, everyday expression of patriotic fervour. By buying British products, the thought process is that one is helping British companies and the plucky Brits that run them. This desire is so strong that, recently, both Aldi and Morrisons added a ‘buy British’ section to their respective websites; around two-thirds of Brits are more inclined to buy a product if it is UK-made. Alas, today, increasingly many UK companies are British in name only.

Over the last few decades, the profits made by UK companies have increasingly gone not into the hands of locals, but to overseas investors. Currently, over 57 per cent of shares in UK firms are held by overseas investors, and increasing. As such, the brand of many UK firms may be British, but the ultimate beneficiaries are not. It is a relatively recent phenomenon; as recently as 1981, the same was true for only 3.6 per cent of UK-quoted shares.

This is not merely a disappointment for civic patriotism, but also a problem for the UK economy. Any profits that end up overseas instead of in the UK will most likely also be spent overseas. Money that could otherwise have gone to a UK greengrocer will instead fuel the retail sector in another country, and investment made from such profits will likely strengthen an economy overseas instead of helping the very country that produced them.

UK individuals, in particular, have lost out. It is they who, once upon a time, owned the majority of UK-quoted shares. In 1963, 54 per cent of shares in UK firms were held by UK individuals. Today, they own less than 11 per cent. The remaining 89 per cent belongs to financial institutions.

But it is UK individuals who need UK shares the most, especially now. Today, about a third of the UK population have less than £1,000 saved. About two-thirds would not be able to last for three months without borrowing money. Savings in the form of shares would be a natural means of remedying that. Dividends from said shares would also boost incomes, and individuals, unlike financial institutions, are overwhelmingly likely to spend said income locally, boosting the local economy.

Conversely, financial institutions are much more likely to spend the profits they derive from dividends abroad. Even when they do spend them in the UK, it is often either to pay their already relatively well-paid staff, or to make investments that are not always beneficial for Britons. Speculative investment in property, for example, has the potential to price out families looking for a home to live in.

The government should attempt to change the situation, but the firms that sold their shares to overseas investors presumably did so because it benefitted them. Any attempt at fixing the issue would have to offer firms some other benefit.

A win-win solution would be for the government to resurrect its effort to promote employee business ownership. Such efforts were made, most recently, by the coalition government, and could allow millions of UK employees to own shares in the businesses they work for. They then benefit from the extra income and savings, while the firms that employ them benefit from as much as 12 per cent extra productivity, superior innovation and much-improved resilience to economic downturns.

Employee ownership would be particularly valuable in sectors where average pay is relatively low – the resultant boost in otherwise low-paid employees’ savings and incomes could go a long way to improving the UK’s wealth and income inequalities, killing two birds with one stone.

Whoever ends up in Number 10 at the end of this year must not let the employee ownership opportunity go amiss.

UK
Failure to deliver insulation and clean tech ‘cost households on energy bills’

Emily Beament, PA Environment Correspondent
Mon, 5 February 2024 



A lack of investment in home insulation and green tech cost households up to £1,900 on their energy bills last year, a report has suggested.

Greater investment and faster moves on insulation, solar panels, renewables, heat pumps and electric cars over the last decade could have delivered savings totalling £70 billion by 2023, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) said.

The UK would have saved £56 billion in the first two years of the gas crisis in 2022 and 2023, as insulation and clean tech would have reduced demand for expensive oil and gas, the study from the think tank said.


But successful policies for boosting home insulation and solar were scrapped over the past decade and there has been slow progress and delays on measures for new homes, heat pumps, electric cars and renewables, the ECIU said.

A household with all the available technologies would have saved £1,900 on their bills in 2023, the report calculates.

If Government support schemes for energy efficiency, which were cut in 2013, had been maintained, an extra 10 million homes would have received insulation upgrades, saving £12 billion on bills over the decade, it said.

The average property with a Band D energy efficiency rating would have saved £320 in 2023 if their home had been upgraded to Band C, reducing the impact of soaring costs of the energy crisis.

Almost three quarters of the extra cost hit households, and the remainder was paid by the Government’s price freeze, the report said.

Maintaining solar panel installation rates at their 2011 peak, and speeding up the deployment of renewables such as offshore wind, electric vehicles and heat pumps would also have saved billions of pounds in energy costs.

Dr Simon Cran-McGreehin, head of analysis at the ECIU, said: “Investment in these net zero technologies brings returns in the form of lower energy bills, reduced vulnerability to volatile international gas markets and the prospect of real energy independence for the UK.

“A lack of investment leaves families colder and poorer and has left the country in a real hole in the gas crisis at a cost of tens of billions of pounds.

“Had billions been invested in insulation and renewables, not only would huge savings have been made for the bill and tax-payer, but these savings would continue into the future at a time when the gas price is expected to remain high.”

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “We do not recognise these highly speculative figures, they ignore the fact the proportion of homes in England with an EPC rating of C or above has risen from just 14% in 2010 to almost half today.

“We are helping families to make changes, increasing the boiler upgrade scheme by 50% – making it one of the most generous in Europe. Our plan is working and applications are now up by nearly 50% compared to last year.

“The UK is also a world leading renewables sector – home to the five largest operational wind farms in the world, with renewables accounting for over 40% of our electricity, up from 7% in 2010.”

Around 400 jobs at risk as British electric van maker Arrival falls into administration

Guy Taylor
Mon, 5 February 2024 

FILE PHOTO: A fully electric test van by British bus maker Arrival Ltd, due to start production in 2022

A British-based electric van maker which aimed to become a leader in EV manufacturing has filed for administration, placing around 400 jobs at risk.

In a statement, joint administrators EY said they were now exploring options for a sale of the business and its assets, including its “electric vehicle platforms, software, intellectual property and R&D assets, for the benefit of creditors.”

“The Group’s liquidity position has been impacted by challenging market and macroeconomic conditions resulting in delays in getting the Group’s products to market,” EY said.

The formerly Nasdaq-listed company had been struggling for cash for months and received a notice in January from the exchange warning it was not in compliance with the listing rules.

Shares had fallen by over 95 per cent in the last year, with the company’s market capitalisation at around $20m, having been valued at around $5.4bn on its first day of trading.

EV firms that went public during the pandemic benefitted from soaring investor demand. However, they have since faced high interest rates, inflation, supply chain issues and problems down the production line.

Rival Volta Trucks filed for insolvency in October while Essex-based Tevva Motors has also struggled for cash and explored a move to the US.

Arrival, whose research and development facility is based in Banbury, Oxfordshire, had aimed to build cutting-edge electric vans, taxis and other vehicles. It slashed around 800 jobs in 2023 as it cut costs and increased its focus on US markets.

Lloyds and Santander accused of providing accounts for Iranian front companies

Kalyeena Makortoff 

Banking correspondent
Mon, 5 February 2024 

Santander and Lloyds could face penalties if they are found to have in any way helped Iran’s Petrochemical Commercial Company evade US sanctions.

Photograph: Raheb Homavandi/Reuters

Two of the UK’s largest lenders, Santander UK and Lloyds Banking Group, allegedly held bank accounts for front companies that helped Iranian entities evade US sanctions, according to reports.

The news has rattled investors, who sold off shares in the two banks on Monday morning, amid fears that the lenders could face penalties if they are found to have in any way assisted Iran’s state-controlled Petrochemical Commercial Company (PCC).

The Tehran-controlled company has been accused by US officials of raising hundreds of millions of dollars for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards al-Quds Force, and working with Russian intelligence agencies. PCC and its British subsidiary have been under US sanctions since November 2018.

PCC is alleged to have moved money through a Santander UK business bank account by using a front company registered to a detached house in Surrey, according to documents seen by the Financial Times.

It also used a separate front company to move money through an account at Lloyds Banking Group, the newspaper claimed.

The report will raise fresh concerns about how the UK’s financial system could be being used to launder cash or hide illicit payments.

“This is, frankly, a shocking failure to act in lockstep with our allies to shut down the financing of a hostile regime,” said Liam Byrne, Labour MP and chair of the business and trade committee. “It beggars belief that a business sanctioned by the US is freely trading in London.”

He wrote on the X platform that MPs on the committee would be “cross-examining ministers, Companies House, National Crime Agency, HMRC & SFO [Serious Fraud Office] to explain how the hell this happened” when it holds an evidence session on economic crime on Tuesday morning.

The news took a toll on the share price of the two lenders, with Lloyds tumbling as much as 2% in morning trading, before recouping some losses to trade lower by 0.4% by early afternoon. Shares in Santander, which is listed in Spain, fell by more than 3%.

Santander said it had not broken any rules. “Santander is not in breach of US sanctions based on our investigation. We have policies and procedures in place to ensure we comply with sanctions requirements and will continue to engage proactively with relevant UK and US authorities.”

Lloyds is also pushing back against the claims outlined in the FT report.

“We believe we have met all legal and regulatory obligations and, based on our own investigation, we do not believe we have breached any sanction requirements,” the banking group said in a statement.

Santander and Lloyds reportedly helped Iran-backed oil firms evade UK sanctions

Chris Dorrell
Mon, 5 February 2024

The Financial Times reported that both Lloyds and Santander provided accounts to British front companies owned by Petrochemical Commercial Company (PCC).

UK banks have provided bank accounts to holding companies linked to a state-backed Iranian petrochemicals company which has been under western sanctions since 2018, according to reports.

The Financial Times reported that both Lloyds and Santander provided accounts to British front companies owned by Petrochemical Commercial Company (PCC).

PCC is a sanctioned Iranian petrochemicals company accused by the US of helping to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and of working with Russian intelligence agencies.

Both PCC and its subsidiaries have been under UK and US sanctions since 2018.

The company has continued to operate out of an office in Grosvenor Gardens by using a web of holding companies that are not sanctioned, the report suggests.

According to the FT, PCC has used these companies to receive funds from Iranian front entities in China while concealing their real ownership.

One of these companies, Pisco UK, used a business account with Santander UK. Another, called Aria Associates, has an account with Lloyds.

A Santander UK spokesperson said the bank was “unable to comment on specific client relationships” but stated the bank “abides by its legal and regulatory obligations, and we are highly focused on sanctions compliance.”

“Where we identify sanctions risks, we will investigate and take appropriate action,” they said.

A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson said: “The group’s business activities are conducted to ensure compliance with applicable sanctions laws. We are committed to adhering to all legislative and regulatory requirements as they relate to economic crime.”

“We are not permitted to comment on individual customers. In addition, due to legal restrictions, we cannot comment on the submission of suspicious activity reports to relevant authorities when and if they occur,” they continued.

The revelations come as tensions continue to rise between the west and Iran. The US carried out further airstrikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis on Sunday.

The UK government has been approached for comment.

Santander, Lloyds' shares hit by report Iran used accounts to evade sanctions

Mon, 5 February 



By Jesús Aguado and Iain Withers

MADRID/LONDON (Reuters) -Santander and Lloyds shares fell on Monday after the Financial Times (FT) newspaper reported that Iran used accounts held at the banks in the United Kingdom to covertly move money around the world in a sanctions-evasion scheme backed by Iran's intelligence services.

Lloyds and Santander UK provided accounts to British front companies allegedly secretly owned by a sanctioned Iranian petrochemicals company based in London, the FT reported citing documents the newspaper had obtained.

Shares in Madrid-based parent Santander fell as much as 6.1% and were down 4.9% at 1503 GMT, wiping off around 3 billion euros in value from the euro zone's second biggest lender by market capitalisation, according to data from LSEG, while shares in Lloyds declined 0.5%.

Santander shares rose more than 6% last week following 2023 earnings that beat forecasts.

"The market must be realising that they may be fined," said Nuria Alvarez, an analyst at Madrid-based broker Renta 4.

Santander and Lloyds said in separate statements that they believed they were not in breach of sanctions, based on their own investigations.

"We have policies and procedures in place to ensure we comply with sanctions requirements and will continue to engage proactively with relevant UK and U.S. authorities," a Santander spokesperson said.

A Lloyds spokesperson said the group was committed to adhering to economic crime laws and regulations, adding it could not comment on individual customers.

British regulator the Financial Conduct Authority said it was in contact with the banks and with the UK's Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI).

The U.S. Treasury Department and Britain's foreign ministry did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

European lenders, such as Unicredit and Standard Chartered, have been hit with large penalties over Iran sanctions in the past, with the Italian lender paying $1.3 billion to U.S. authorities to settle probes.

Standard Chartered agreed to pay $1.1 billion in 2019 to U.S. and British authorities over financial transactions that violated sanctions against Iran and other countries.

According to the FT, the Iranian state-controlled Petrochemical Commercial Company was part of a network that the United States accuses of raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and of working with Russian intelligence agencies.

Both PCC and its British subsidiary PCC UK have been under U.S. sanctions since November 2018, the FT said.

One of its alleged front companies, called Pisco UK, is registered to a detached house in Surrey and used a business account with Santander UK, the FT report said.

A person with knowledge of the situation said that Santander has closed Pisco's account.

Santander declined to comment on specific client relationships.

Alicia Kearns, chair of Britain's foreign affairs committee, said she had repeatedly raised concerns about the need to shut down "cut-outs" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps operating in the UK, adding that the FT report suggested more needed to be done.

(Reporting by Jesús Aguado and Iain Withers, Additional reporting by Daphne Psaledakis in Washington; editing by Louise Heavens, Jason Neely and Emelia Sithole-Matarise)

Santander UK and Lloyds deny breaching US sanctions over links to Iranian firms

Anna Wise and August Graham, PA Business Reporters
Mon, 5 February 2024 

Lloyds and Santander UK have denied breaching US sanctions after new reports claimed the banks had provided accounts to British holding companies linked to an Iran-backed petrochemicals firm.

Petrochemical Commercial Company (PCC), which is linked to the Iranian state, used a web of front companies in the UK to discreetly move money around the world, according to documents seen by the Financial Times (FT).

Lloyds and Santander UK provided bank accounts to two of those companies, the report revealed.

PCC UK has been subject to US economic sanctions since 2018. Sanctions, which can include the restriction of exports, are a tactic employed by governments to stop other countries acting aggressively or breaking international law.

PCC UK has links to Aria Associates, a company registered to a residential address on the banks of the Thames in central London.

Documents first reported by the FT and also seen by the PA news agency suggest Aria Associates had a bank account with Lloyds.

Aria Associates is not itself subject to sanctions and PCC UK is not sanctioned by the UK Government.

The business is majority-owned by Mohammad Ali Rejal, Companies House filings show.

Mr Rejal has held a senior position at PCC UK and has had communications with company officials in Iran, in emails reported by the FT and also seen by the PA news agency.

Meanwhile, Pisco UK is a company registered in Surrey which documents suggest had a Santander bank account.

The company is majority-owned by British national Abdollah Siavash Fahimi, who the FT reported is running the company on behalf of PCC.

The FT reported that Pisco UK and Aria Associates are fully owned by PCC UK, although the PA news agency was not able to independently confirm this.

A spokeswoman for Santander UK said the bank is “not in breach of US sanctions based on our investigation”.

“We have policies and procedures in place to ensure we comply with sanctions requirements and will continue to engage proactively with relevant UK and US authorities.”

Lloyds also said it has not breached any sanctions, with a spokeswoman saying: “The group’s business activities are conducted to ensure compliance with applicable sanctions laws.

“We are committed to adhering to all legislative and regulatory requirements as they relate to economic crime. We are not permitted to comment on individual customers.

“In addition, due to legal restrictions, we cannot comment on the submission of suspicious activity reports to relevant authorities when and if they occur.”

Shares in Madrid-listed Banco Santander were down more than 4% on Monday and FTSE 100-listed Lloyds shares were down about 1%.

UNRWA
At the end of this month, we may have to stop our humanitarian aid operations.


Photo by Ashraf Amra.


With the announcement of funding suspensions, and as war rages on in the Gaza Strip, there is so much at stake:

Shelters for those who have lost everything;

Nutritious meals for empty stomachs;

Warm blankets to fight the cold

Medicines to cure, vaccines to protect;

This is what we do at UNRWA thanks to the unwavering support of many donors.

People in Gaza depend on UNRWA as their irreplaceable lifeline

No other entity can deliver the scale and breadth of assistance that 2.2 million people in Gaza urgently need now.

“Over 100 days of war, and we are still providing services to Palestinians...and we will continue.”   UNRWA worker in Rafah, south of Gaza

Did you know UNRWA supports millions of Palestine Refugees outside of Gaza, too? The suspension of funding will have significant implications in the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan:

Education for 250,000 children;

Vocational training for 6,000 students;

Access to health care for almost 2 million patients;

Cash assistance for over 900,000 people.

With your support, we will be able to continue our indispensable work to support the people of the Gaza Strip and all Palestine Refugees across the region.

Ours is an appeal for support from the heart. Please help us ensure that our lifesaving assistance continues. No amount is too small. Any contribution you can give will make a difference.


Keep UNRWA Working

#DonateToUNRWA Now


With immense gratitude,

UNRWA Digital Fundraising Team


I want to help now

UK
Reneuron issues administration warning as biotech firm puts jobs at risk

Jon Robinson
Mon, 5 February 2024

ReNeuron Group's shares have been suspended on the London Stock Exchange's AIM.

Biotech business Reneuron Group has warned it could enter administration and is preparing to make redundancies as its shares were suspended from trading.

The AIM-listed company, which is headquartered in Pencoed, Wales, is in a “highly constrained financial position” and that it requires additional financing “urgently, in order to continue as a going concern”.

Reneuron Group added that it has found itself in this position after not being able to secure a “validating, revenue generating industry partnership” or additional equity funding.

As a result, the company said it now needs to put staff at risk of redundancy, initiate discussions with its creditors and establish the precise solvency status of the business.

Shares in Reneuron Group were trading at 3.38p before they were suspended at 2.30pm on Monday, February 5, giving it a market capitalisation of just under £2m.

In a statement issued to the London Stock Exchange, Reneuron Group said: “As also announced in the interim results, potential corporate actions that were under consideration by the board included raising additional equity financing and/or securing a financing facility and/or entering into M&A discussions.

“The group also noted in the interim results that as at 30 September 2023, the group had cash, cash equivalents and bank deposits of £5.1m and that the group’s latest internal projections (assuming no new revenues or funding) meant there was a cash runway to April 2024, ahead of which point further revenues and/or a capital injection would be required.

“In the intervening period, despite great scientific progress having been made in further developing and exemplifying the CustomEX exosome delivery platform and progressing several ongoing third-party business development discussions, the group has not yet been able to conclude a validating, revenue generating industry partnership nor been able to secure additional equity funding.

“Accordingly, throughout the period the group has been carefully managing its working capital, but it is now in a highly constrained financial position and requires additional financing urgently, in order to continue as a going concern.

“In the absence of any additional financing being available in the immediate term, the group now needs to take steps to preserve and maximise value for its creditors.

“Whilst the group continues to explore a number of corporate options, including seeking to realise value for its physical and intellectual assets, the board recognises that in the absence of an immediate injection of capital and in view of the current financial uncertainty, it needs to put staff at risk of redundancy, initiate discussions with its creditors and establish the precise solvency status of the business.

“Should the company fail to achieve a solution in the short term, the board would have no option but to place the company into administration.

“Should administrators be appointed, it is not known how much, if any, value would be returned to shareholders.”

In Reneuron Group’s interim results, for the six months to September 30, 2023, its revenue stood at £157,000 while its pre-tax losses were £3.2m.

For the year to March 31, 2023, its revenue was £530,000 and its pre-tax losses were £6.6m. According to those accounts, the company employed 34 people during that financial year.

Self-proclaimed bitcoin inventor denies forging documents to support claim

Sam Tobin
Tue, February 6, 2024 

Australian computer scientist Craig Wright at the High Court in London


By Sam Tobin

LONDON (Reuters) -An Australian computer scientist who says he invented bitcoin told a London court on Tuesday he had never forged documents to try to prove his hotly-disputed claim, as he began his evidence in a legal battle over ownership of the cryptocurrency.

Craig Wright says he is the author of a 2008 white paper, the foundational text of bitcoin, published in the name "Satoshi Nakamoto".

But the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) has taken Wright to court, it says to stop him suing bitcoin developers and to preserve the open-source nature of the world's best-known and most popular cryptocurrency.

COPA is asking London's High Court to rule that Wright is not Satoshi. It says he has repeatedly forged documents to substantiate his claim, before changing his story when the alleged fabrications are spotted.

Wright, however, denies relying on fake records and has blamed others, including former lawyers and associates, for any inauthentic documents.

The 54-year-old began the first of six days of evidence on Tuesday at a high-stakes hearing which is the culmination of years of speculation about the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

COPA's lawyer, Jonathan Hough, asked Wright: "Have you ever forged or falsified a document in support of your claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto?" Wright replied: "No."

"Have you ever knowingly presented a forged or falsified document in support of your claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto," Hough asked. Wright replied: "I have not."

Hough put numerous alleged forgeries to Wright, including an academic paper with handwritten notes which Wright has claimed prompted his decision to use the name Satoshi Nakamoto.

COPA says the document contains a forged timestamp with numbers in visibly different fonts to make it look as if it pre-dates the bitcoin white paper.

Hough said to Wright: "This is a document forged by you as part of the origin myth."

Wright said he did not forge the document, adding: "If I forged that document, it would be perfect."

(Reporting by Sam TobinEditing by Ros Russell)