Category: 3. Business

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

EU ships could face having to travel more slowly and use more fuel than their Asian competitors because of Brussels’ failure to authorise an innovative paint for ship hulls that prevents barnacles becoming stuck by making them hyperactive.

Medetomidine has long been allowed for human and veterinary use as a sedative, but scientists in Sweden discovered it has the opposite effect on barnacles, which become temporarily excited when they come into contact with the substance and so cannot settle on a surface.

While each barnacle is small, a build-up of the crustaceans can vastly increase a ship’s drag in the water, increasing fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

I-tech, the start-up that patented the medetomidine biocide with 40mn krone ($4.3mn) of support from the Swedish government, estimates that if 10 per cent of a hull is covered with barnacles, fuel consumption increases by 40 per cent if the same speed is maintained.

Anti-fouling paints are also an important means of stopping invasive species travelling between continents. But although the EU itself has also funded I-tech, it has not approved its paint for use 16 years after the company first applied.

Magnus Jönsson, chief executive of I-tech, said the paint was “a non-lethal way of stopping the barnacles settling on the surface”.

I-tech applied for authorisation to the European Commission in 2009 for consideration under its biocidal products regulation. While medetomidine itself has received temporary approval, long bureaucratic processes and checks on the safety of the substance have meant it has not been approved for use in any biocide products.

The European Chemicals Agency last year recommended that the temporary approval of medetomidine be ended because it is “persistent, toxic, and identified as an endocrine disrupter”. Its opinion was largely based on a Norwegian study, which I-tech argues is flawed.

Member states are due to vote on its ongoing authorisation in the coming months, allowing the commission to take a decision early next year.

Despite the lack of approval for its products, I-tech has received €670,000 of funding from the EU and €1.3mn in conditional loans from the Swedish Energy Agency to scale up.

More than 90 per cent of its sales are made outside Europe. It has gained market share of about 50 per cent in Japan and South Korea, as well as a foothold in China, where it competes with traditional antifouling paints.

“Anti-fouling remains a serious challenge for international shipping . . . We need more antifouling options available on the European market and we should really welcome new products like this,” said a Norwegian shipping representative, who asked not to be named.

The commissions said it would “consider all elements and information, including from stakeholders, when making its decision” on the substance’s authorisation.

Two major reports on the EU’s waning economic competitiveness issued last year pointed to a failure to scale up domestic start-ups. The European Commission has vowed to improve the regulatory framework for start-ups and small businesses, and to simplify legislation for industry.

I-tech argues its product could help European ships cut emissions in line with the bloc’s ambitious climate goals. It says covering a ship’s hull with its antifouling paint can reduce carbon emissions by 15 per cent.

Didier Leroy, technical and regulatory affairs director at CEPE, the industry body for paint, printing ink and artists’ colours, said the EU had “such severe chemical legislation that they discourage investment and innovation”.

“If there is no more sufficiently efficient antifouling paint on the EU market then ships will not dry-dock any more for repair and maintenance and this will be done outside the EU,” he said, adding that this would harm other parts of the EU economy.

When Mark Constantine, 73, started cosmetics brand Lush, he was still recovering from bankruptcy, despite the triumphant sale of his first venture to The Body Shop for £9mn in 1991.

Yet Lush, launched in 1995, is now a global group, renowned for its bath bombs, operating more than 850 shops worldwide with an annual turnover in 2024 of £703mn, according to the company’s latest accounts. 

Constantine, the chief executive, and his wife Mo still own more than 50 per cent of the company, and are estimated to be worth £249mn, according to the latest Sunday Times Beauty Rich List — all the more remarkable for a man who was homeless in his teens.

His obsession with cosmetics was cemented as a young hairdresser. He started mixing shampoos in the 1970s alongside a small team, and pitched them to The Body Shop founder, the late Anita Roddick, who had just opened her second branch. She gave him his big break and their partnership over the coming decade laid the foundations for what would later become Lush.

Having vowed never to retire, Constantine still works from the same building in Poole, Dorset, where he launched Lush 30 years ago alongside his co-founders. “We’ve got more ideas now than we ever know what to do with,” he says. The self-proclaimed “hippy soapmaker” is also a notable philanthropist. 

Where did your business career begin? You didn’t start Lush until you were in your forties
I was still in my early twenties, making products in my bedroom, when The Body Shop started accepting my ideas. It was quite a power trip. It was a hell of an opportunity and I was so fortunate.

I learned a lot from Anita over the 15 years we worked together. She was dynamic and epitomised charisma. But we would argue constantly. If you didn’t argue back, Anita would think you hadn’t made much of an effort. Once she called me “unprofessional”, and I told her I’d prefer she called me a “wanker”. Five minutes later, a bunch of flowers arrived, with a note that just said — “Wanker”. That was the way we did business.

We were partners until 1991, when she bought the rights to our formulas for £9mn.

But I blew it all on my next company, Cosmetics To Go, within a few years. It was a mail order catalogue of beauty products (the non-compete agreement meant we could only sell via mail order). With Cosmetics To Go, we lost £1 every time we sent out an order, which was a problem because we were really popular. The one consolation was that all the products and inventions in that catalogue were ones that Anita had rejected, such as the bath bombs.

How did you recover from bankruptcy in January 1994?
I was quite ashamed of myself. I’d never felt so alone after going bankrupt. When I met the bankruptcy receiver and put my hand out to shake his, he wouldn’t take it. There was definitely shame. I would go through the back door of the shop because I just couldn’t face going through the front. I wanted to stay at home with a bag over my head.

I then had to figure out how I would turn things around. We had three mortgages, including our family home, a factory, and the Poole store/office, and three kids to support. I’d already had to sell another house in Swanage, Dorset, at a 50 per cent loss. That sale left us with £43,000 in cash. That was all we had left by the mid-1990s. So I used that money to start Lush. 

Did you or your wife hesitate about putting money into another business after the bankruptcy?
Well, no one was going to employ me. I was unemployable. I hadn’t — and haven’t — been employed full-time by anyone else since 1973.

I do remember I had to persuade Mo and my other business partner, Liz Weir, that perhaps we should put what was left into something new. I don’t know what exactly my wife thought about me betting on another business. But we’d been together a long time, so I think she just knew what I was like. I’m just really into the game. We both are. 

Saying that, my seven-year-old son at the time did corner me one day and asked: “Do you think you ought to get a proper job?” I had to explain to him that I thought I could market my skills better than in a “proper job”.

How do you feel about your wealth after your success with Lush?
I’m never very comfortable when the Sunday Times Rich List comes out, mainly because you never actually have the money. Everyone assumes you have all that cash, and you don’t — it’s the asset. I still live in the same house we bought 40 years ago.

Ultimately, wealth gives you a great opportunity to do a whole lot of things for others. That’s what I’m proud of. I was really touched by the kindness I experienced when I was homeless, living in a tent in a forest after being kicked out of the family home at 16. People invited me for dinner and let me stay. That’s always stuck with me.

What are your views on the government’s tax policy?
In general, I think wealthy people obsess too much about tax. They do all sorts of things that mess up their lives because it’ll save them some money. It just complicates your life to get caught up in moving, such as non-doms or sailing around in big yachts to avoid tax days.

Lots of people who read the FT will disagree with me but, personally, I believe in paying tax. I don’t like it — I do think it’s important, though.

Saying that, my opinion on tax policy from a business point of view is that you should concentrate on growth. Businesses can get distracted by worrying about tax instead of growth.

Family businesses are the backbone of this country. They don’t generate news though, so politicians don’t understand them. The government thinks business is just The City, which is basically the betting house.

But we just have to live with the government’s decisions on tax. I’m not going to move to Switzerland or anything because of tax. I’m just hoping to live long enough to see the next government come in.

Will you leave the business to your children?
My children have worked their butts off in this business for 20 years. So yes, I would like to leave it to them. Do I want to leave them a huge tax bill? Not particularly. But the plan is for our three children to inherit our shares.

I love spoiling people, including my kids. And family businesses, by their nature, involve some kind of nepotism. But at the same time, the kids are building skills and going through all the tough stuff you have to go through. 

What’s your philosophy on business today?
The reality is that entrepreneurs aren’t balanced people. I’ve had to manage my mental health my whole life, including panic attacks and anxiety. 

But I don’t like the image of business that TV portrays, such as The Apprentice or Dragons’ Den. I don’t like programmes where the jeopardy makes people cry. I don’t like the idea of needing to make a pitch in three minutes. Business can be done in beautiful ways — politely and kindly. That’s why I co-wrote The Poetry Business School. Poetry can teach you so much. 

I now see a business coach each week. We’ll talk about weak spots, such as how my judgment of men isn’t so good. I’ve turned a blind eye to some people I shouldn’t have. On the flip side, I think working with women is a secret weapon. As soon as you listen to them, that’s when you start getting successful.

Fundamentally, I believe in capitalism, but motivation should be shared around. At Lush, we’re partly family-owned and partly staff-owned [all external investors were later bought out]. That feels better than one or two people, then selling and taking all the money.

We’ve also given away £100mn in charitable giving over the past three decades. Yes, profit is still more important than policy, but not by much.

KARACHI – Gold prices in Pakistan massively decreased after hitting record high in local market on Saturday, September 11, 2025.

According to the Saraffa Association, the opening price of 24-karat gold per tola stood at 420,178 while the rate for 10 grams stood at Rs360,597.

Gold is a valuable commodity widely traded in global markets. Known for its rarity and durability, gold has been used for centuries as a store of value and hedge against inflation. It is traded in various forms, including physical bullion, futures contracts, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Investors often turn to gold during economic uncertainty, as it tends to retain value when other assets decline. Major trading centers include London, New York, and Shanghai. Gold prices are influenced by factors like interest rates, currency strength, and geopolitical events, making it a crucial component of diversified investment portfolios.

In international market, the gold price also remained stable and now stood at historic high of $3,995 per ounce.

Today Gold Rate in Pakistan

City	Gold Price	Silver Rate
Karachi	420,178	Rs5,100
Lahore	420,178	Rs5,100
Islamabad	420,178	Rs5,100
Peshawar	420,178	Rs5,100
Quetta	420,178	Rs5,100
Sialkot	425,178	Rs5,100
Hyderabad	420,178	Rs5,100
Faisalabad	420,178	Rs5,100

Meanwhile, the rates of per tola and ten gram  recorded an increase and stood at Rs5,100 and Rs4,372 respectively.

Market experts attribute the ongoing volatility to uncertain trends in global bullion trading and the fluctuating value of the Pakistani rupee against the US dollar.

A decade after Volkswagen sent shockwaves through the automobile industry by admitting it had cheated on emissions tests, 13 of the world’s biggest carmakers are gearing up to defend a multibillion pound lawsuit over whether they all deceived regulators about harmful gases produced by diesel vehicles.

Hundreds of thousands of motorists in the UK are suing manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Peugeot/Citroën, Renault and Nissan over claims they installed “defeat devices” to manipulate tests for nitrogen oxide emissions. The claimants are hoping for thousands of pounds each in compensation.

The lawsuit, which barring a last-minute settlement will go to trial next week at the High Court in London, is among the most aggressive attempts in the world to widen liability for “dieselgate” beyond Volkswagen. It will be one of the largest collective actions in English legal history.

The Germany-based carmaker admitted in 2015 to installing software in 11mn vehicles worldwide to make them appear more environmentally friendly than they were. The dieselgate scandal has since cost VW more than €30bn and four of its former executives have received jail terms.

VW is not one of the “lead defendants” in the first part of the case beginning on Monday — although it is part of a larger group of defendants that could be affected by the eventual ruling.

Among the claimants is Adam Kamenetzky, who bought a Mercedes-Benz diesel car in 2018. While he had some scepticism given the earlier admissions by VW, the 45-year-old in south west London said he went ahead with the purchase, reassured by its emissions figures.

But he began having suspicions after encountering several technical issues including problems with its nitrogen oxide sensors. Though the sensors were repaired for free after he made a complaint, he said the value of the vehicle has dropped due to the unpopularity of diesel.

“I wanted to see justice,” said Kamenetzky, who joined a claimant committee that represents motorists to raise public awareness.

A defeat for the carmakers would once again shake trust in the auto industry, just as it is trying to draw a line under the dieselgate scandal.

While some manufacturers other than VW have reached settlements over allegations of diesel emissions manipulation in the US, they have mainly done so without admitting liability. All the manufacturers deny the claims against them in the London court case.

The scale of the claims in part reflects a boom in diesel car sales in the UK after tax breaks introduced by former Labour chancellor Gordon Brown favoured vehicles with lower carbon dioxide emissions.

But the sales surge came to an abrupt end after the 2015 emissions scandal brought to the fore concerns about nitrogen oxides, which are linked to health conditions including asthma, and can form smog.

From a peak share of 51 per cent of the UK’s new car market in 2012, diesel vehicles now account for only 3 per cent last year, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, a trade body. New sales of these cars are to be banned from 2030.

A total of 1.6mn vehicle owners have brought claims against the 13 carmakers, though those against only five of the companies — covering 846,500 claimants — are going to trial next week.

The lawsuit epitomises a new breed of mass claims in the UK, financed in part by hedge funds and other specialist litigation funders.

“Law firms and funders have invested hugely in this case,” said David Greene, head of commercial disputes and class actions at law firm Edwin Coe, who is not involved in the case. “If it were to be lost, I think that would be quite a blow.”

The court selected the five carmakers as “lead defendants” in an attempt to narrow what one defendant lawyer in the highly complex case said would otherwise be “unmanageable” litigation. The findings on law by the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, will establish precedent to apply to the other manufacturers.

Various other carmakers have long faced allegations around the world that they cheated on emissions tests, albeit not on the scale of VW.

In the US, Daimler, since renamed Mercedes-Benz, settled outstanding cases for roughly $2.2bn in 2020. Fiat Chrysler, now part of Stellantis, has paid out about $800mn in 2019 to resolve civil claims and another $300mn in 2022 in criminal penalties.

Carmakers have also faced litigation in Europe. Diesel emissions cases are pending in the Netherlands, Portugal and Germany. 

Yet the lawsuit in England and Wales would be one of the most consequential in Europe.

“We certainly accept that VW was an extreme example” of cheating on tests, said Martyn Day, co-founder of Leigh Day, the lead claimant solicitor firm on the case. “But we expect the judge to find that there were defeat devices in each of the vehicles.”

The value of the lawsuit has not yet been formally quantified, though claimant lawyers have said compensation could come to several thousands of pounds per vehicle owner — amounting to a total bill to the car industry running into billions.

The first part of the trial, to be heard over 10 weeks, will examine whether the manufacturers installed defeat devices, contrary to the law.

Even if liability is established, another trial would need to go ahead before the size of any payouts can be determined. The industry would be likely to contest the degree to which the misleading of regulators about emissions necessarily translates into financial losses for car owners.

Next week’s trial will even feature sample vehicles — 20 in total, across the five defendant manufacturers. Examiners at various testing centres across England have assessed how nitrogen oxide emissions compare during different conditions.

The tests that regulators originally conducted were carried out under particular conditions — at set inclines and driving speeds, for instance. The claimants argue that the “defeat devices” were designed to reduce emissions under these circumstances.

In court documents, claimant lawyers contend the manufacturers programmed the vehicles to detect when they were being examined. Nitrogen oxide emissions were “materially higher” during normal vehicle operation than the levels recorded in official tests, they maintain.

VW is among the wider group of defendants in the case, despite having earlier reached a £193mn settlement in the UK in 2022.

The settlement covered a different engine and concluded with no admission of liability. In relation to the latest case, VW said it “continues to hold the view that these claims are not justified, regrets that they have been made, and intends to defend them robustly”.

Lawyers for other carmakers are expected to argue in court that the claimants are seeking erroneously to associate the rest of the industry with the VW dieselgate scandal.

Carmakers are set to argue that the claimants have misunderstood the vehicles’ emission control systems and that their case is fundamentally flawed.

Mercedes-Benz, which is facing the largest number of claims in the case, said it has voluntarily been carrying out software updates on certain types of its diesel vehicles to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

“We continue to take steps to mitigate the impact of vehicle emissions and to further climate protection and air quality,” it said.

The German group has also said it would “vigorously defend” itself against the claims which it believed were without merit.

Ford, Nissan, Renault and Stellantis, the European group behind Peugeot and Citroën, also said their vehicles and engines were all compliant with applicable standards, and that they would defend the claims.

But Kamenetzky said he was “kind of stuck with” his Mercedes-Benz, given the decline in diesel car values.

“I’m needing the payout — to be able to purchase a car that actually does have sufficient technology to be clean.”

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

First Brands Group’s chief executive may step down from the bankrupt car parts maker as lenders push for his removal in the face of mounting losses on billions of dollars in debt, according to people familiar with the matter.

A spokesperson for Patrick James said the First Brands founder was considering “relinquishing his role” atop the embattled group in response to questions from the Financial Times.

“Patrick James has always put the interests of First Brands Group ahead of his own and is evaluating his best path forward to help maximise value for its customers, suppliers, employees and lenders,” the spokesperson said.

The potential departure of James would cap a tumultuous few weeks for the low-profile executive, whose company has borrowed from some of the biggest institutions on Wall Street to finance a breakneck acquisition spree.

Its swift collapse has prompted an inquiry from the US Department of Justice, the Financial Times reported earlier this week. Federal prosecutors are in the early stage of looking into alleged financial irregularities.

James could be pushed out in the coming days, one of the people noted. The company is at the mercy of its lenders to fund its operations through bankruptcy.

Creditors have agreed to lend $1.1bn to stabilise the company’s business through bankruptcy, capital that is contingent on First Brands hitting milestones. Advisers to the company estimate it will burn through more than $900mn between its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September and late December.

James’ brother, Edward, stepped down from his senior role at the company, the people said.

Charles Moore, an executive from turnaround advisory firm Alvarez & Marsal, took the reins as chief restructuring officer as part of the bankruptcy. Stakeholders kept Patrick James in place for his co-operation during what has been a chaotic sprint to file for bankruptcy protection and keep the business operating, the people said.

A First Brands representative declined to comment. Alvarez did not respond to a request for comment.

Michael Baker, who served as First Brands’ chief corporate strategy officer, has also stepped down, said people familiar with the matter. His LinkedIn profile shows his work in the position ended in September. Baker joined First Brands in 2021 from law firm Paul Hastings, where he had served as a partner for a decade.

First Brands’ rapid downfall alongside the collapse of subprime car lender Tricolor at the start of the month has raised concerns of significant losses for some of the best-known players on Wall Street, as well as the potential for a wider fallout across debt markets.

The company, which makes Michelin-branded windshield wipers in Europe and Carter fuel pumps in the US, has amassed nearly $12bn of debt and off-balance sheet financing. Its roughly $5.5bn of term loans is now quoted at cents on the dollar, with an implied loss of more than $4bn.

The company was also a heavy user of off-balance sheet financing, selling customer invoices at a discount to funds owned by units of the investment bank Jefferies, Swiss bank UBS and Katsumi Global, a financing company owned by Japan’s Mitsui & Co and Norinchukin Bank.

One of its lenders earlier this week claimed as much as $2.3bn has “simply vanished”, and First Brands’ advisers said they are unable to locate the related collateral.

Meanwhile, BlackRock and Morgan Stanley have sought to redeem their stakes in a Jefferies fund that extended $715mn in credit to First Brands’ customers, said people familiar with the matter. The redemption requests were reported earlier by Bloomberg.

Morgan Stanley, BlackRock and Jefferies declined to comment.

In the 2000s, James, 61, acquired industrial businesses, including Columbus Component Group, an Indiana-based car parts manufacturing business. After several of these companies experienced financial difficulties during the 2008 financial crisis, James and other companies linked to him were sued by two lenders alleging fraudulent conduct had exacerbated their losses. James denied the allegations and the cases were dismissed after they ended in settlement.

James established Crowne Group, which in 2014 acquired Michigan-based Trico Products, a manufacturer of windscreen wipers. The combined group then pursued further debt-funded acquisitions, rebranding as First Brands Group.

Edward James played a key role in raising First Brands’ invoice and inventory financing, according to several specialists in the area who said they met with him to negotiate loans.

First Brands described Edward James as having held various roles at the company including in “finance, accounting and working capital solutions”, in a 2023 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Additional reporting by Sujeet Indap, Kate Duguid and Joshua Franklin in New York

Reuters

Getty Images

AFP via Getty Images