Category: 3. Business

The European Commission has fined Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe over 157 million euros for anti-competitive pricing practices

MILAN — MILAN (AP) — The European Commission has fined luxury fashion houses Gucci, Chloé and Loewe over 157 million euros (nearly $183 million) for anti-competitive practices restricting independent retailers’ ability to set prices for their luxury goods.

The commission said the companies’ fixing of resale prices breached the bloc’s competition rules, and harmed consumers.

“The decision sends a strong signal to the fashion industry and beyond that we will not tolerate this kind of practice in Europe, and that fair competition and consumer protection apply to everyone, equally,’’ Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera said in a statement on Tuesday.

Gucci owner Kering acknowledged the decision “related to past commercial practices” and said in a statement that “a cooperative procedure” allowed “for a swifter resolution of the case.” Gucci’s fine was cut in half to nearly 120 million euros for its cooperation revealing additional breaches, the commission said. Kering said funds were set aside for the fine in the first-half of 2025.

Chloé owner Richemont and Loewe owner LVMH did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Loewe’s fine was halved to 18 million euros for its cooperation and Chloé’s fine was reduced by 15% to nearly 20 million euros.

The commission said that the three brands restricted the ability of independent retailers to set their own prices for high-end apparel, leather goods, footwear and accessories sold both online and in physical stores.

The brands required the retailers to stick to recommended retail prices, set maximum discount rates as well as periods for sales, mirroring practices in the brands’ own direct sales channels.

The practices “deprived the retailers of their pricing independence and reduced competition between them,” the commission said.

UK regulators will speed up bonus payouts for high-earning bankers, watering down another key change introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Since 2015 senior bankers have had to wait eight years before receiving their full bonuses to ensure individuals could be held financially accountable for any wrongdoing that came to light years later, or even after they left the bank.

On Wednesday the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said they were halving that to four years.

The watchdogs also went further than a previous consultation, saying they would now require a much smaller proportion of bonuses to be withheld from high-earning staff over the period. From Thursday, only 60% of the payout that falls above £660,000 will have to be deferred.

The decision, which will be welcomed by the City, marks yet another rollback of post-financial crisis rules after the UK formally scrapped a banker bonus cap two years ago that limited bonuses to two times bankers’ salaries.

The FCA and the Bank’s Prudential Regulation Authority, which have argued that the reduced deferral periods still provide enough time for any problems to surface, said the change would bring the UK “more closely in line with many other major jurisdictions”. In the EU, bankers’ bonuses are typically deferred for three to five years, while the US has no such restrictions.

The PRA’s chief executive, Sam Woods, said: “These new rules will cut red tape without encouraging the reckless pay structures that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. These changes are the latest example of our commitment to boosting UK competitiveness.”

Deferred bonus rules have been used to punish high-profile cases of wrongdoing in the City. Barclays froze and later cancelled £18m worth of pay and bonuses for its former chief executive Jes Staley, who resigned in 2021 after the FCA launched an investigation into his links to Jeffrey Epstein. Staley was later found to have misled the watchdog over his relationship to the former financier and sex offender.

Efforts to relax bonus rules are part of a wider drive to cut red tape across the City, with the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, having claimed in her Mansion House speech in July that regulations were acting like as a “boot on the neck” of businesses and risked “choking off” innovation.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

She has put pressure on watchdogs, including the Bank and FCA, to further loosen rules in hopes of boosting economic growth.

• Initial data from the CLARITY study are first to compare acceptability and tolerability of single-dose cabotegravir (CAB) and lenacapavir (LEN) long-acting injections, in 63 HIV-negative adults
• Sixty-nine percent of individuals found CAB injections to be ‘totally or very acceptable’ versus 48% for LEN injections, and 90% of participants and 86% of healthcare providers preferred CAB injections over LEN
• Findings could help inform expectations and decision-making when initiating long-acting HIV injectables

GSK plc (LSE/NYSE: GSK) announced ViiV Healthcare, the global specialist HIV company majority owned by GSK, with Pfizer and Shionogi as shareholders, today announced data from the phase I CLARITY open-label, crossover study, showing clinically relevant differences in injection site reaction (ISR) acceptability and tolerability, with 69% of HIV-negative adults finding cabotegravir long-acting (CAB LA) injections to be “totally or very acceptable” vs 48% for lenacapavir (LEN) injections. Data presented at the 20^th European AIDS Conference (EACS) in Paris, France, also showed 90% of HIV-negative adults and 86% of healthcare providers (HCPs) preferred CAB LA injections over LEN injections after a single dose, and ISR events were more frequent and visible with LEN than with CAB LA.¹

Jean van Wyk, MBChB, MFPM, Chief Medical Officer at ViiV Healthcare, said: “We believe long-acting innovations will play a critical role in the global response to ending HIV and AIDS and understanding potential differences in acceptability and tolerability of options is an important consideration when choosing between long-acting injectables. The CLARITY study showed that after receiving a single dose of each, more individuals and healthcare professionals preferred cabotegravir over lenacapavir injections. These early findings provide valuable insights into long-acting injectable options to help empower individuals and their healthcare providers to make fully informed choices.”

In the open-label crossover study, 63 HIV-negative participants were randomised to receive one medicine at Day 1, followed by the other at Day 15 – either CAB LA (a single intramuscular injection) or LEN (two subcutaneous injections). The primary endpoint was local reaction acceptability assessed seven days after each injection, and results showed clinically relevant differences in ISR acceptability. After a single dose of CAB LA and LEN, 69% (n=42/61) of individuals found CAB injections to be “totally or very acceptable” vs 48% (n=29/60) for LEN injections, which was statistically significant in a post hoc analysis (p=0.019).

Key preference data from the study:

• Ninety percent (n=54/60) of healthy HIV-negative adults and 86% (n=6/7) of HCPs preferred CAB LA and 10% (n=6/60) and 14% (n=1/7) preferred LEN, respectively.
• The four most common reasons cited by participants for why they preferred CAB LA (n=54) were less pain during injection administration (n=40/54), less pain or soreness after injection administration (n=33/54), how long the injection nodules or swelling last (n=31/54), and the size of the injection nodules or swelling (n=30/54).
• The four most common reasons cited by participants for why they preferred LEN (n=6) were less pain or soreness after injection administration (n=5/6), how long the injection nodules or swelling last (n=3/6), the size of the injection nodules or swelling (n=3/6), and fewer number of side effects (n=3/6).
• The three most common rationales for HCP preference for CAB LA (n=6) included fewer number of reported side effects (5/6), less severe side effects (4/6), and less pain during injection (4/6). One HCP preferred LEN (n=1) due to ease of injection preparation.

Key ISR data from the study:

• Single doses of CAB LA were administered as one injection and single doses of LEN as two injections per product labeling, therefore 63 participants were administered a total of 124 LEN injections and 61 CAB injections during the study. Three participants received only one of the doses, all due to non drug-related reasons.
• Following administration of both injectables, 4.4 times more ISR events were observed with LEN (n=538) than with CAB LA (n=123) and more participants experienced visible ISR events with LEN (n=221 LEN; n=36 CAB LA).
• Pain was the most commonly reported ISR for LEN in 82% (n=51/62) of participants vs 80% (n=49/61) of participants receiving CAB LA (Relative Risk [RR] 0.98 [0.82, 1.16]).
• There was a significantly higher risk of palpable and/or visible ISRs with LEN versus CAB:
• Induration 87% (n=54) vs 18% (n=11) (RR 0.21 [0.12, 0.36])
• Nodules 74% (n=46) vs 33% (n=20) (RR 0.44 [0.30, 0.65])
• Erythema 57% (n=35) vs 12% (n=7) (RR 0.20 [0.10, 0.42])
• Swelling 58% (n=35) vs 34% (n=21) (RR 0.59 [0.40, 0.89])
• No serious adverse events or discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events were reported.

These findings underscore the importance of individual choice and informed decision-making in choice of long-acting injectable HIV therapy or prevention options. Further results and additional analyses from the study will be presented at a future medical congress.

About Apretude (cabotegravir long-acting)

Apretude is a medicine used for preventing sexually transmitted HIV-1 infection (pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP) in adults and adolescents weighing at least 35 kg who are at high risk of being infected. Individuals must have a negative HIV-1 test prior to initiating Apretude (with or without an oral lead-in with oral cabotegravir) for HIV-1 PrEP. It should be used in combination with safer sex practices, such as using condoms. Apretude contains the active substance cabotegravir.

Please consult the full Summary of Product Characteristics for all the safety information: Apretude 600 mg prolonged-release suspension for injection

Trademarks are owned by or licensed to the ViiV Healthcare group of companies.

About ViiV Healthcare

ViiV Healthcare is a global specialist HIV company established in November 2009 by GSK (LSE: GSK) and Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) dedicated to delivering advances in treatment and care for people living with HIV and for people who could benefit from HIV prevention. Shionogi became a ViiV shareholder in October 2012. The company’s aims are to take a deeper and broader interest in HIV and AIDS than any company has done before and take a new approach to deliver effective and innovative medicines for HIV treatment and prevention, as well as support communities affected by HIV. For more information on the company, its management, portfolio, pipeline, and commitment, please visit viivhealthcare.com. 

About GSK   

GSK is a global biopharma company with a purpose to unite science, technology, and talent to get ahead of disease together. Find out more at gsk.com.

Cautionary statement regarding forward-looking statements

GSK cautions investors that any forward-looking statements or projections made by GSK, including those made in this announcement, are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Such factors include, but are not limited to, those described in the “Risk Factors” section in GSK’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for 2024, and GSK’s Q2 Results for 2025.

References

1. J. Boles, et al. Cabotegravir Injections Are More Acceptable Than Lenacapavir Injections Following a Single Dose: Results From CLARITY, a Randomized Crossover Study of Long-Acting Injectable Antiretrovirals. Presented at the European AIDS Conference (EACS 2025), 15-18 October, Paris, FR.

Join Watson Farley & Williams and SBR-net Consulting AG at our webinar on “The Future of Municipal Infrastructure – Cooperation, Partnerships and Investments in Fiber Optic Networks” on Thursday 6 November 2025.

The economic expansion and operation of high-performance fibre-optic networks is increasingly presenting municipal utilities with strategic, economic and structural challenges. Given the high investment costs, complex legal frameworks and limited scalability, it is becoming clear that independent expansion and operation by individual municipal utilities is no longer economically viable in many cases.

As a result, cooperation, partnerships and investment models are becoming increasingly important. They make it possible to share risks, leverage synergies and sustainably improve the profitability of fibre-optic projects. At the same time, such models place high demands on legal structuring, technical implementation and economic evaluation.

Against this backdrop, we would like to discuss current developments, challenges and possible solutions with you.

SPEAKERs:

• Christian R. Schindler, Partner at Watson Farley & Williams (Corporate/M&A, Hamburg);
• Rebecca Trampe-Berger, Counsel at Watson Farley & Williams (Regulatory, Düsseldorf); and
• Dr Ernst-Olav Ruhle, CEO at SBR-net Consulting AG.

We are delighted to welcome an experienced practitioner to the webinar: Dieter Lindauer, Managing Director of Stadtwerke Neustadt a. Rbge. GmbH, who will share insights into the challenges and experiences from a municipal utility’s perspective.

AGENDA:

• current market transactions – using Stadtwerke Neustadt a. Rbge. as an example;
• practical insights from a municipal utility’s perspective;
• legal structuring of transactions (share deal, asset deal);
• regulatory requirements depending on the business model;
• specifics of subsidised networks;
• economic evaluation and scalability potential of municipal infrastructures; and
• technical challenges and success factors in implementation and integration into existing utility structures.

Please note: the event will be held in German. We kindly ask you to register your interest via the ‘Register your interest’ button by 5 November 2025.

By registering for the webinar, your data will be shared with Watson Farley & Williams and SBR-net Consulting AG. Your data will be used exclusively for the purposes of this webinar.

Skip to Content

The Invesco QQQ exchange traded fund — the primary vehicle for investors that want to track the technology-heavy Nasdaq 100 index — is easily the most lucrative ETF in the world.

The combination of its $385bn size and chunky 20 basis fee means that it spurts out $770mn of revenue annually, beating the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) into second place in Morningstar’s global ranking.

In fact, “Triple-Q” alone generates almost four times as much as Vanguard’s flagship S&P 500 ETF (VOO), which manages a record $774bn. The Invesco ETF’s revenues are greater than the profits of Schroders, Janus Henderson or Franklin Resources.

Its success has feathered many nests. Nasdaq was paid $205mn last year alone in licensing fees, according to QQQ’s annual report. Bank of New York Mellon, its trustee, was handed a cool $109mn. A bewildering array of US sports teams, leagues and festivals have also enjoyed a QQQ windfall, thanks to the ETF’s extensive marketing — $175mn’s worth last year alone.

But one company has notably missed out on this bonanza: Invesco. This is because of QQQ’s unusual structure as a “unit investment trust” — a relic of the ETF industry’s origin in the primordial soup of the 1990s — rather than the now far more commonplace open-ended ETF format.

Under this weird structure, any revenues left over after paying expenses such as licensing and trustee fees can only be used for marketing purposes.

This is immensely frustrating to Invesco. Given that the near-$2tn asset manager only generated net income of $538mn last year, an annual payout in line with the handouts to Nasdaq or BONY Mellon would deliver a healthy boost to its bottom line. Instead, Invesco has had to resort to selling a series of cheap knock-offs of its own flagship fund — like QQQM, QQQS, QQJG and QQMG — where it can at least pocket the full fees.

As it happens, Christmas may come two months early for Invesco, with a vote due next week that could correct this anomaly (and deliver a modest bonus for investors to boot). 🎉

This could prove such a big deal that the asset manager’s share price soared when it proposed to change QQQ’s structure.

However, let’s first take a quick look at QQQ’s genesis story and how it ended up at Invesco, before we dig into the coming vote and what it means.

The unit investment trust issue probably didn’t matter much to the creators of QQQ, Nasdaq Stock Market Inc, which launched the fund in 1999 largely as a means to promote its flagship index. (Fun fact — it wasn’t even listed on the Nasdaq exchange but on the rival American Stock Exchange, then the world leader for all things ETFy). Here’s a discussion of QQQ’s birth with its main progenitor, former Nasdaq chief marketing officer John Jacobs:

QQQ’s perambulations began in 2004 when it was licensed to Chicago’s PowerShares, then a flashy up-and-coming ETF boutique, and upped sticks to the Nasdaq exchange.

Two years later Invesco snapped up PowerShares, in the process absorbing the Qs — as some fans call it — the jewel in PowerShares’ crown with a whopping (for the time) AUM of $27bn.

Since then QQQ has became synonymous with the success of American technology stocks, and has ballooned 14x in size. It is now bigger than the entire stock markets of Thailand, Norway, Poland or Malaysia.

Invesco’s missing sponsor fee has similarly mushroomed over those years. But that could potentially soon change. On October 24, QQQ’s shareholders will vote on converting the fund into a more modern open-ended ETF.

The switcheroo would also allow QQQ to reinvest dividends prior to distribution and to engage in securities lending for the first time, both activities outlawed for unit investment trusts. As a sweetener, Invesco is also proposing to trim the fee paid by investors from 20bp to 18bp.

The biggest winner would, of course, be Invesco, which would no longer have to spaff the excess revenue on marketing, but could grab the lucre for itself, turning the Qs into a cash cow. Its filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission “to modernise and optimise” the ETF shines a light on this:

Under the Advisory Agreement any marketing of the Trust would be paid out of Invesco’s unitary fee, inherently lowering Invesco’s revenue (and potential profits). 

Accordingly, although Invesco anticipates that it will continue to market the Trust to potential shareholders to the extent it believes appropriate and beneficial to both the Trust (in the form of increasing the Trust’s scale) and Invesco (in the form of increasing the assets of the Trust on which Invesco will earn a fee), Invesco will nonetheless have an embedded disincentive to do so, particularly in comparison to the Trust’s current state. 

Accordingly, it is likely that the overall extent of the marketing of the Trust (and potential benefits of such marketing to existing shareholders) will decrease significantly. However, Invesco believes that at the Trust’s current size and scale, any potential negative impacts associated with less marketing of the Trust will be more than offset by the benefits realized by Shareholders through the lower expense ratio (0.18% as compared to 0.20%).

The filing says that Invesco envisages roughly halving the current marketing budget from the 5-6 basis points of assets to about 2-3 bps — or $60-100mn.

In other words, around $100mn a year will be stripped from the likes of college football, baseball, the women’s basketball Hall of Fame, financial literacy, and . . . chefs. Nor will we probably have ads like this any more:

As Invesco’s CFO Allison Dukes told a conference last month: “The marketing budget had just become so large that it’s hard to efficiently spend”. Which is a nice problem to have, but Invesco would prefer to spend the money elsewhere.

The major obstacle is ensuring that at least 50 per cent of shares are voted on October 24, which is necessary to reach quorum and change the structure.

Little wonder that Invesco has therefore peppered investors with emails imploring them to vote and retained Sodali Fund Services “to assist in any additional proxy solicitation”.

Alphaville wonders if State Street Investment Management is paying close attention. Both SPY, with its $661bn of assets, and the sister $40bn SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF Trust are among the handful of other ETFs still structured as unit investment trusts.

SPY’s annual report does reveal $81mn of marketing expenses in the past financial year, out of total expenses of $473mn. State Street has, though, already found a canny way of keeping much of the revenue in-house.

Its trustee gobbled up $232mn last year, almost half of the total. Who is that mystery trustee, you ask? Well, none other than State Street Global Advisors Trust Company.