Latest Developments

Europe
BBC Business

Shein aims for almost $27bn valuation in stock market debut

Image source, Getty ImagesByOsmond ChiaBusiness reporterPublished24 August 2026, 02:23 BSTUpdated 1 hour agoFast-fashion giant Shein says it plans to raise up to HK13.86bn (£1.3bn; $1.77bn) when its shares start trading on the Hong Kong stock market on 1 September. In a filing on Monday, external, Shein said it will offer nearly 280 million shares for between HK$47.60 and HK$49.50. At the top of the range, it would value the firm at almost $27bn (£19.8bn). But that is much lower than the $100bn valuation it reached in a round of private fundraising in 2022, reflecting weaker sales growth and higher costs. The long-awaited move comes after failed attempts to list in the US and London due to regulatory challenges amid scrutiny of Shein, which has its headquarters in Singapore but was founded in China. The initial public offering (IPO) is being backed by Wall Street investment giants Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. In July, Shein said it had swung to a quarterly loss as its sales slowed after US President Donald Trump removed an import duty exemption on small packages. The company said it lost $99m in the first three months of the year, compared with a net income of $395m a year earlier. It also came as uncertainty remains over the tit-for-tat US-China tariffs wars, which is currently paused. "In response to the increased duties and taxes, we are pursuing a wide range of options, including increasing our prices in the US market to offset a portion of the increased costs," Shein said at the time. The company also said the Iran war had hit demand, increased costs and caused delays of deliveries in some markets. The first-quarter figures also partly reflected a paper loss of $328m due to an accounting change for special investor shares. The shares can be turned into ordinary stock later, and their value can change before a listing. Since it was founded in 2008, Shein has risen to become one of the world's biggest fast-fashion retailers, with customers in more than 150 countries.

Shein aims for almost $27bn valuation in stock market debut
Europe
BBC Business

Burnham refuses to rule out tax rises in autumn Budget

Andy Burnham has refused to rule out tax rises in the upcoming autumn Budget, saying he "won't be unrealistic" about the "challenging" state of public finances. The prime minister said he would take a "careful approach" to the economy, and defended his previously announced cost of living pledges as funded spending commitments. Burnham became prime minister in July promising to give people breathing space and help with the cost of living, but questions remain over how major policies such as social care reforms will be funded. Experts have previously warned that he and Chancellor John Healey will have little financial room to manoeuvre in their first Budget on 28 October. Speaking during his first visit to Ukraine, Burnham said the policies announced so far including capping bus fares at £2 and cutting VAT on household electricity bills were "the first steps that I've felt able to make", and were doable because he was able to reprioritise funding from elsewhere. "I took the decision early on that digital ID wasn't the top priority for now. And so we've reprioritised funding to other priorities," he said in an interview with ITV. Asked if the public needed to accept some of the new policies would have to be paid for in tax rises, Burnham said they wouldn't necessarily have to accept that. Pushed on whether he would need to raise taxes to cover spending gaps, he said: "I will always take a careful approach to things. I ran Greater Manchester for 10 years and we ran a very tight ship with rock solid finances. "Nothing will change as I come into this role as prime minister. I won't take risks with people's jobs or their livelihoods or their family finances. "I will try to help them in whatever way I can, I have already done some things that will help them." Burnham previously told the BBC he accepts his earlier announcements aimed at tackling the cost of living are not enough on their own and hinted at further support. Speaking during his first official overseas visit on Monday, he said while he would do what he could, "I won't be unrealistic and people really need to understand that.

Burnham refuses to rule out tax rises in autumn Budget
Europe
The Guardian

New York business group sues Mamdani over city-owned grocery stores plan

Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York, speaks during an announcement at a Campaign for Hunger community food distribution center in the Brooklyn borough of New York, on 27 July 2026. Photograph: Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesView image in fullscreenZohran Mamdani, mayor of New York, speaks during an announcement at a Campaign for Hunger community food distribution center in the Brooklyn borough of New York, on 27 July 2026. Photograph: Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesZohran MamdaniNew York business group sues Mamdani over city-owned grocery stores planMulticultural Business Coalition sues New York City mayor, alleging plan for city-run stores will harm smaller grocers A New York City business group sued mayor Zohran Mamdani on Monday over his plan to create five municipally owned grocery stores. The Multicultural Business Coalition, which says it represents hundreds of small supermarkets, filed two lawsuits in New York county supreme court on Monday, arguing that the plan violates the civil rights of smaller, immigrant- and minority-owned businesses. The group argues that smaller stores would be unable to match the discounts offered by the city grocery stores and “therefore, will be put out of business,” according to the lawsuits. During his campaign, which focused heavily on the issue of affordability, Mamdani proposed introducing city-owned, subsidized grocery stores, which he said would help combat rising food costs. The city plans to open five stores by 2029, with one in each borough. Mamdani has said that plans call for the stores to offer some produce, meat and seafood pantry staples, dairy and other refrigerated goods at prices 30% below typical retail prices – and he has said that the program is projected to cut New Yorkers’ “average grocery bill by 15%”. The first lawsuit filed on Monday against Mamdani’s plan argues that the city did not conduct any “serious analysis” of how the new stores could affect smaller neighborhood grocers before launching the initiative. The second, meanwhile, argues that the city does not have the legal authority to create the stores. Speaking to CNN on Monday, attorney Mark Jaffe, general counsel for the Multicultural Business Coalition and president of the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, said: “You cannot expect hard-working small business owners to compete with a supermarket that isn’t going to pay rent, won’t have to pay an electric bill and won’t have to buy their products at full price.” He added: “They cannot possibly compete because no one will be subsidizing them.” Mamdani defended the plan at a news conference on Monday, where he was asked about the lawsuits. “I continue to be fully confident in both the legality and the importance of our initiative to deliver five city-run grocery stores, one in each borough, to the people of our city,” he said. “We are talking about a reflection of a cost of living crisis that has seen grocery prices increase by about 30% over the last few years, and we’re also talking about delivering five city-run grocery stores in a city of 8.5 million people that has more than a thousand grocery stores.” He also said the city has subsidized groceries on Essex Street in Manhattan and Moore Street in Brooklyn. And he argued that they have “not had a negative effect on bodegas around them or on grocery stores around them”. New York City’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC), which is overseeing the stores, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuits on Tuesday.

New York business group sues Mamdani over city-owned grocery stores plan
Asia
The Hindu BusinessLine

Kalpataru Projects arm incorporates Indian subsidiary to boost engineering operations

KPIL shares closed at ₹1,408.40 on the NSE on Tuesday, up 0.54 per cent from the previous close of ₹1,400.90, with a market capitalisation of approximately ₹24,045 crore. | Photo Credit: Jayasri R _12288 Kalpataru Projects International Limited announced on Tuesday that its step-down subsidiary has incorporated a new wholly owned company in India, expanding its operational footprint in the country. Linjemontage I Grästorp AB (LMG AB), a first-level step-down subsidiary of Kalpataru Projects, incorporated LM Operation Center India Private Limited on August 14, 2026. The intimation was submitted after the company received the Certificate of Incorporation from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on September 1, 2026, at approximately 1:02 p.m. IST. The new entity has been set up to establish an operation centre in India to enhance LMG AB’s project and engineering execution capabilities. LM Operation Center India Private Limited has an authorised capital of ₹3 crore, comprising 30 lakh equity shares of ₹10 each. The subscribed capital stands at ₹1.5 crore, with LMG AB and its nominee shareholder subscribing to 100 per cent of the equity shares through cash via banking channels. LMG AB holds the entire 100 per cent shareholding in the new entity. The newly incorporated company is yet to commence business operations and has no turnover history to report. No governmental or regulatory approvals were required for the incorporation. The transaction qualifies as a related party transaction since a step-down subsidiary of Kalpataru Projects has subscribed to the full equity of the new entity. However, the company clarified that the promoter, promoter group, or any other group company does not hold any interest in the target entity. KPIL shares closed at ₹1,408.40 on the NSE on Tuesday, up 0.54 per cent from the previous close of ₹1,400.90, with a market capitalisation of approximately ₹24,045 crore. The stock has returned over 17 per cent year-to-date and more than 114 per cent over three years. Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments. We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

Kalpataru Projects arm incorporates Indian subsidiary to boost engineering operations
Asia
The Hindu BusinessLine

September Bank Holidays 2026: Check full list of dates & closures

Bank branches across India will observe multiple closures throughout September 2026, with the holiday schedule varying from state to state based on regional festivals, local observances, and government notifications. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issues the official calendar, and with scheduled holidays this month, including second and fourth Saturdays and all Sundays, customers are advised to plan branch visits, cheque submissions, and cash requirements well in advance. Digital banking services including UPI, net banking, and mobile apps, along with ATM access, will remain unaffected on all holidays. Note: Please authenticate the dates with the holiday list issued by Reserve Bank of India. Customers in states such as Rajasthan and Kerala should note additional closures this month due to state-specific observances on September 21 and 26 respectively. Those in Sikkim and Haryana will also see regional closures for Indra Jatra and Heroes’ Martyrdom Day. It is worth remembering that September 26 falls on the fourth Saturday, which is already a designated bank holiday under RBI rules, making it a closure nationwide regardless of the regional festivals coinciding that day. For time-sensitive transactions, using NEFT, RTGS, IMPS, or UPI is recommended to avoid delays, these services operate round the clock, including on all gazetted holidays. Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments. We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.

September Bank Holidays 2026: Check full list of dates & closures
North America
CNBC Finance

Why some of America's biggest brands are losing ground in China

China was once one of the most attractive and fastest-growing markets for many American brands. With its population of more than 1.4 billion people and massive opportunities for businesses, companies were racing to take advantage of the boon that China could offer. But in recent years, some consumer brands, including Nike, Starbucks and General Motors, have begun to see the tide turn. With rising geopolitical tensions, a surge in domestic competition and a disconnect from the Chinese consumer, American companies have lost ground in the region that once offered fuel for growth. "China is such a big market. The numbers are so big so quickly when you talk about China that sort of everybody has wanted to try, and that's why all brands went there," Aaron Cheris, head of global retail practice at Bain & Company, told CNBC. Yet those companies haven't adjusted to the local market and its changing structures and needs, he said. "If anything, the question isn't what's going wrong in China — it's why isn't that happening in the rest of the world," Cheris added. Cheris said price premiums for American products are often not worth it for Chinese consumers, and Chinese brands often have a fast innovation cycle and better distribution within the region. "We're just not nearly as developed. Our brands don't necessarily think and develop quite in the same way," Cheris said. The U.S. and China have also been embroiled in geopolitical tensions over the past few years, especially with President Donald Trump's volatile tariff agenda. And while the political backdrop may be disincentivizing Chinese consumers from buying American, it coincides with a rise in pride for domestic brands as consumers look to buy more local. Some of those domestic brands have also disrupted the broader industry, reset innovation cycles and launched price wars. Still, some companies — such as Lululemon, Ralph Lauren and Kentucky Fried Chicken — are finding success in China with their products, a discrepancy Cheris said is due to "the basics" of their business strategies. "Am I coming in with a good value? Did I have a compelling product that felt locally relevant? Am I advertising and making it available in the channels and stores that are winning in that market?" he said. "It really is a blocking and tackling and running your brand right kind of story."

Why some of America's biggest brands are losing ground in China
North America
CNBC Finance

Most Americans aren't anti-vaccine. They're uncertain — and that's a growing public health challenge

Record measles cases and rising childhood vaccine exemptions in the U.S. have fueled concerns that Americans are increasingly turning against vaccines. The biggest challenge for public health officials trying to contain deadly diseases may not be widespread anti-vaccine sentiment or the influencers and political figures who spread it. Only a small share of Americans indicate they firmly believe common myths about the shots, according to a survey released in July by health policy research organization KFF. Many other Americans fall into a large, uncertain middle ground — neither firmly pro-vaccine nor staunchly opposed — where they have questions or anxieties about shots and may be susceptible to conflicting messages about their safety and effectiveness. KFF presented adults with four common vaccine myths. Fewer than 1 in 10 respondents said each claim was definitely true. But at least half fell into a gray area, saying the claims were either "probably true" or "probably false." "What's more true is a lot of people are confused," Drew Altman, KFF CEO and founding president, said in an interview. "They don't know who to believe, they don't know what to believe, and that means that a lot of America is stuck in the middle, unsure and they're up for grabs." That uncertainty could pose a growing public health hazard as the Trump administration reshapes federal vaccine policy and health officials grapple with declining immunization rates for some shots. Vaccine misinformation has a larger megaphone than ever with Trump in the White House: Earlier this month, without evidence, he linked the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to autism, as he called for splitting the routine childhood immunization into separate shots. People who are confused about vaccines may become "paralyzed" and delay or avoid decisions such as whether to immunize their children, Altman said. The majority of Americans still get themselves and their children vaccinated, but "even little dips in that coverage could lead to more of a highly contagious virus like measles circulating," said Jess Steier, a public health scientist and founder and CEO of Unbiased Science, which specializes in making complex scientific concepts understandable. Still, she emphasized that while people with questions about vaccines may be susceptible to misinformation, they can also be reached through clear, evidence-based information and conversations with trusted healthcare providers. "Uncertainty can resolve once people have time, information and access," she added. Vaccine hesitancy is much more complicated than outright opposition to vaccines, Steier said. Social media and the current political environment only fuel more of the confusion, she added. People are often exposed to emotionally charged, alarming content online because social media algorithms tend to amplify it, Steier said. As a result, many people are encountering conflicting messages about vaccines and struggling to determine which sources are trustworthy. Rather than being firmly anti-vaccine, many are simply overwhelmed by competing information, she said.

Most Americans aren't anti-vaccine. They're uncertain — and that's a growing public health challenge
Europe
The Guardian

Top US firms that backed Voting Rights Act donate to groups working to undermine it

People wait to vote in Columbia, South Carolina, in May 2026. Photograph: Sean Rayford/Getty ImagesView image in fullscreenPeople wait to vote in Columbia, South Carolina, in May 2026. Photograph: Sean Rayford/Getty ImagesUS politicsTop US firms that backed Voting Rights Act donate to groups working to undermine itWatchdog data shared with Guardian shows contributions to Republican Attorneys General Association and others Over a dozen US companies that signed a 2021 letter urging Congress to strengthen the Voting Rights Act continue to contribute to state political groups that are actively working to undermine the legislation, according to a campaign finance watchdog. Researchers at the Center for Political Accountability (CPA), a nonpartisan organization that tracks financial disclosures, found that companies – including Airbnb, DoorDash, Target and Zillow – that signed the letter are contributing to groups known as 527 organizations that prop up key state races, according to data provided exclusively to the Guardian. Four longtime donors to these groups, Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft, had either stopped contributing entirely or lowered their contributions to Republican and Democratic groups for the 2022 midterms, but have resumed contributions for the current election cycle. The January 6 insurrection created a brief reckoning among corporate leaders, many of whom criticized Donald Trump’s role in inciting the violence. The Republican Attorneys General Association (Raga), a 527 organization, was under scrutiny after reports revealed the group sent out robocalls to people encouraging them to attend a “Stop the Steal” rally in front of Congress on 6 January 2021 – which preceded the insurrection. Raga leaders later said they had no knowledge of the robocalls. But the companies have resumed their donations to Raga and, in some cases, have become new contributors to the group. Google’s contribution went from $100,400 in the 2018 election down to $50,000 in 2022. So far this election, the company has donated $325,000 to Raga. The donations reflect a broader U-turn trend seen among many in corporate America who were publicly critical of Trump and Republicans after the January 6 insurrection and then did an about-face as soon as he was elected back into office. The 527 organizations are classified as tax-exempt political groups overseen by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They often fly under the radar compared to political action committees (Pacs) that are overseen by the Federal Election Commission, but political experts say these 527 groups have enormous influence on the state level by supporting key swing races – and public corporations tend to be their dominant funders. Compared with their counterparts in Washington, who are often stalled in gridlock, state leaders and legislators often have greater influence in advancing policies that ultimately have a national impact. State attorneys general have been key in fighting cases in front of the US supreme court that overturn decades of precedent. The court gave a Republican attorney general from Alabama a huge victory when it ruled in her favor in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization – the case that overturned Roe v Wade and gave states the power to legislate abortion access. Earlier this summer, the court gave a win to a Republican Louisiana attorney general when it ruled in her favor in Louisiana v Callais that overturned key components of the Voting Rights Act. Raga praised the ruling, saying in a May statement that “no group of elected officials make a bigger impact than Republican AGs”.

Top US firms that backed Voting Rights Act donate to groups working to undermine it
Europe
The Guardian

Washington Post ordered to reinstate opinion writer fired over Charlie Kirk posts

Karen Attiah leads a discussion at the Oslo Freedom Forum on 28 May 2019 in Oslo, Norway. Photograph: Julia Reinhart/Getty ImagesView image in fullscreenKaren Attiah leads a discussion at the Oslo Freedom Forum on 28 May 2019 in Oslo, Norway. Photograph: Julia Reinhart/Getty ImagesBusinessWashington Post ordered to reinstate opinion writer fired over Charlie Kirk postsArbitrator determined the Post improperly fired Karen Attiah, a union-protected employee, over social media posts An independent arbitrator has ordered the Washington Post to rehire the high-profile opinion columnist Karen Attiah, abruptly fired by the news organization last September over comments she made on social media about Charlie Kirk, the then recently killed conservative activist. On Monday, an arbitrator ruled that the Post had violated her rights as a union-protected employee and ordered the newspaper to reinstate her and compensate her for lost wages. “This decision confirms what we’ve said from the start: I was doing my job as an opinion journalist, and doing that job is not misconduct,” Attiah said in a statement. “After spending over a decade of my career at the Post as an editor and an opinion columnist focusing on race, gender and global human rights, I’m relieved to finally have that record set straight … I hope that this win sends a message to journalists and media institutions everywhere that freedom of expression is always worth fighting for.” A Post spokesperson said the company respects the arbitration process but declined to comment further. It’s unclear if the company plans to appeal the reinstatement ruling. Attiah was backed by the union that represents most Post employees, the Washington-Baltimore News Guild, and Democracy Defenders Fund, a legal advocacy group co-founded by Norm Eisen. In his own statement, Eisen called it a “thunderous win” for Attiah and “a landmark decision for every journalist who refuses to be silenced”. The Post had argued that Attiah was fired for cause after violating the company’s social media policy, which dictates that employees “must not harm the editorial integrity or journalistic reputation of The Post”. After Kirk was shot and killed on 10 September 2025, Attiah took to social media and wrote: “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence.” She also posted: “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.” According to the arbitrator’s record of the case, Adam O’Neal, the Post’s opinion editor, had emailed the company’s head of human relations the following morning and said that Attiah’s posts were “beyond the pale- completely unacceptable for someone associated with Opinions”, calling for an urgent meeting. A few hours later, the Post’s top brass, including Will Lewis, then the publisher, met and decided that Attiah’s employment should be terminated because of her social media conduct. O’Neal also testified in the case that Attiah’s posts created security risks for the Post and its journalists. “People were at this intense moment of violence in America, and we didn’t know what was coming next,” he said in a hearing for the case. “And we’re walking into a building that says Washington Post on top of it, and here there’s a columnist at Washington Post on this account that’s making these horrific comments and that was of deep security concern beyond the professional – beyond the publication standards and our policies.” Attiah was emailed a copy of her termination letter – “for gross misconduct” – later that day on 11 September. The union representing Attiah charged that she had not engaged in any kind of misconduct, “let alone gross misconduct”, and that her professional mandate included expressing opinions.

Washington Post ordered to reinstate opinion writer fired over Charlie Kirk posts