Category: 3. Business

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world

New York City’s top finance official has urged three of the city’s biggest pension funds to drop BlackRock as a manager of more than $42bn, as the metropolis looks to use its weight in markets to tackle climate change.

Brad Lander, the city comptroller, on Wednesday said BlackRock and two other asset managers, Fidelity and PanAgora, had failed “to address climate risk with the seriousness we expect” as he recommended the pension funds begin reviewing new financial advisers to manage their stock portfolios.

Lander, a Democrat, joins a broadening group of elected officials who are seeking to influence environmental and social causes through the investment choices of their pension plans, putting giants such as BlackRock and State Street in their crosshairs.

His push aims to counter gains that conservative activists made over the past three years as campaigns to divest from asset managers that sought to limit their investments in coal and oil and gas entities took shape.

Texas in 2022 blacklisted several asset managers, including BlackRock, for what it called a fossil fuel “boycott”. Last year the state’s attorney-general alongside 10 Republican-led states sued the three largest US index fund managers over their coal investment policies.

Lander said BlackRock was “unable” to meet several of the pension systems’ climate expectations, including encouraging portfolio companies to take “concrete” actions, such as setting net zero goals and adopting clear transition plans.

The outgoing New York City comptroller, who campaigned alongside mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani ahead of his victory this month, is considering a run for US Congress.

As part of his recommendation, Lander criticised BlackRock’s interpretation of guidance from the US Securities and Exchange Commission in February, which he said was more conservative than rival asset managers. The SEC guidelines were viewed as an attack on the use of environmental, social and governance factors in investing and prompted some money managers to cancel meetings they had with companies.

“[BlackRock CEO] Larry Fink has said out loud climate risk is financial risk,” Lander told the Financial Times, labelling the decarbonisation plan BlackRock submitted to the city as “inadequate”.

Lander said he did not “buy” BlackRock’s interpretation of the SEC guidelines and pointed out that State Street, which is the New York City pension systems’ second-largest manager, was demonstrating it was possible to meet the city’s climate expectations.

“Whether [BlackRock is] scared of the Trump administration or looking for an excuse, what I do know is climate risk is financial risk . . . and we need asset managers who attend to the long-term risks in our portfolio,” Lander told the FT.

The recommendation from Lander’s report does not affect about $9bn of holdings BlackRock manages for the city’s pensions, which include investments in mortgage, private and Treasury markets.

Armando Senra, who runs BlackRock’s institutional business in the Americas, said the company had met with the city’s pension investment team and provided it with more extensive climate engagement options.

“You accused BlackRock of abdicating its financial duty and putting New York City’s pensions at risk,” Senra said. “These statements are another instance of the politicisation of public pension funds, which undermines the retirement security of hardworking New Yorkers.”

A spokesperson for comptroller-elect Mark Levine said he “appreciates the work reflected in the Net Zero Implementation Plan update and will review these recommendations with the trustees”.

Fidelity and PanAgora did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In light of the information published regarding the launch by the company Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP), with whom the club recently formalised a sponsorship agreement making the company the Club’s Official Cryptographic Protocol Partner, FC Barcelona wishes to clarify the following:

• FC Barcelona has no connection whatsoever with the company’s token.
• The club has no responsibility for, or involvement in, the issuance or management of this token, nor does it use the associated technology. 
• Neither the existence nor the issuance of this token formed part of the sponsorship agreement previously signed with the club.

FC Barcelona reaffirms its commitment to transparency and to respecting its institutional agreements, and will announce any relevant updates as soon as conclusive information is available.

What you’ll learn: 

The “Quantum Index Report 2025” analyzes business interest in quantum computing and public awareness of the new technology. Among its findings: 

• An analysis of 58,070 corporate communication documents from 2022 to 2024 revealed increasing references to quantum computing.
• Corporate interest in quantum technologies is growing, rising from just four mentions in earnings calls in Q1 2016 to 25 mentions in Q1 2024 — a more than sixfold increase.
• Most survey respondents were at opposite ends of the knowledge spectrum: They were either very familiar or very unfamiliar with quantum computing. 

---

As quantum technologies evolve from theoretical concepts to tangible technologies flush with promise, both the public and private sectors are becoming increasingly interested in opportunities to develop commercial applications.

Quantum computing is now mentioned far more regularly in company documents and earnings calls than it used to be, indicating that the technology is on the radar of industry and government leaders, according to a new report from the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy. Leaders are trying to figure out the relevance of emerging quantum technologies for business use, much like they’ve done in recent years with artificial intelligence.  

“There is strong evidence that curiosity into quantum computing among senior leaders of corporate America is rapidly increasing,” said Jonathan Ruane, a research scientist at MIT IDE and editor-in-chief of the “Quantum Index Report 2025,” which delves into the state of the quantum landscape to educate nonexperts and business leaders. The report was co-authored by researchers Elif Kiesow and Johannes Galatsanos from MIT IDE, and Carl Dukatz, Edward Blomquist, and Prashant Shukla from Accenture. 

“The fact that many senior business leaders are taking quantum seriously indicates the rapid progress and the belief that we are on the cusp of important breakthroughs,” Ruane said.

The report highlights several trends that showcase rising business interest in quantum and the growing potential for commercial use cases.

Corporate mentions of quantum computing surge 

An analysis of 58,070 corporate communication documents — such as company reports, transcripts of interviews with experts, and research documents — from 2022 to 2024 revealed increasing references to quantum computing, suggesting an expanding awareness of quantum and its inclusion in mainstream business discussions, not just technical discourse, the researchers found. News-related corporate communications content saw particularly pronounced increases.

References to quantum computing in corporate communications more generally escalated in 2024, with each quarter showing substantial increases in mentions across all forms of company documents. “While research documents naturally maintain high levels of quantum computing references, the significant increase in mentions across other document categories … might suggest a growing understanding of the technology’s presence in corporate communications,” the researchers write.

Market projections are on the rise

References to quantum technologies are also becoming more common in corporate earnings calls, growing more than sixfold from 2016 to 2024. Much of the heightened attention can be associated with major players actively integrating quantum computing into their strategic roadmaps — for example, IBM expanding its quantum facilities and launching new initiatives and AI powerhouse Nvidia announcing partnerships with quantum startups.

As quantum technologies are more frequently discussed in C-suite and financial circles, markets are taking notice. A Technavio report estimated that the global quantum computing market will grow by $17.34 billion from 2024 to 2028, achieving a compound annual growth rate of 26%. Startup investment is also on the rise, evidenced by a $300 million equity infusion for quantum computing company Quantinuum in 2024. 

Public awareness of quantum computing varies 

Public engagement and trust are crucial to quantum technologies moving from research lab initiatives to practical applications driving mainstream business. 

In a survey of 1,375 U.S. residents conducted by the research team in October 2024, half of respondents had some level of knowledge about quantum computing, compared with 25% who said they were not at familiar with the technology at all. Most of the survey respondents were at opposite ends of the knowledge spectrum: They had either had minimal exposure to quantum technology or had invested significant time in understanding it. Given that the largest group is those who are “somewhat familiar” with the technology, it makes sense that a wave of recent exposure through media coverage or educational initiatives has had some influence, the researchers write.  

Although companies are talking and markets are listening, public understanding of quantum technologies is still relatively nascent, providing plenty of opportunity for education and awareness-building. At the same time, quantum computing itself is still evolving, and there is work to be done in several areas, such as advancing error correction, increasing the reliability of qubits, and generally improving the performance of quantum hardware, Ruane said.

“We can see from the data that interest amongst the business community is increasing, but many people are still hungry for more informed insights and nuanced perspectives,” he said. “There’s still an enormous amount of learning that needs to happen across industries, and we’ll continue to see the trend for many years.”

Read the Quantum Index Report 2025 

---

This story is based on work co-authored by MIT researchers Jonathan Ruane, Elif Kiesow, and Johannes Galatsanos. Jonathan Ruane is a senior lecturer in global economics and management at MIT Sloan and a research scientist at the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy. His research interests are at the intersection of digital technology, entrepreneurship, advanced computing, and international markets. Elif Kiesow is a research affiliate at the MIT IDE who specializes in transatlantic and global governance strategies. Johannes Galatsanos is a researcher at the MIT IDE who focuses on delivering transformation with data, AI, quantum computing, and quantum sensing. 

A recap on the essentials: the regime’s scope and approach

Our previous alert took you through the new rules and their impact. As a reminder, here are five key questions and answers about the regime.

1. Who is caught by the rules?

The regime primarily targets non-EU investors acquiring or increasing stakes in Greek-incorporated businesses or entities “otherwise subject to Greek law” active in “sensitive” or “highly sensitive” sectors.

Among the “sensitive” sectors are energy, transport, digital infrastructure, and healthcare. “Highly sensitive” sectors include defense, dual-use items, cybersecurity, AI, and certain tourism assets in border areas.

In highly sensitive sectors, the regime can also catch EU-incorporated acquirers if a non-EU person holds at least 10% of their capital or voting rights or can exert comparable influence (including via significant funding).

2. What are the thresholds?

The regime introduces a two-tiered approach, based on the target sector sensitivity: (i) for “sensitive” sectors, the threshold is 25% or more of shares, voting rights, or equivalent participation by a non-EU investor, and (ii) for “highly sensitive” sectors, the threshold is 10% by non-EU acquirers or 10% influence upstream for EU acquirers.

Subsequent add-on acquisitions require a new notification if 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 75% ownership is reached or exceeded.

Greek authorities can also review non-notified, in-scope deals on their own initiative. However, they cannot call in out-of-scope transactions, even on national security grounds.

3. Are there exemptions?

Exemptions are narrow. A portfolio exemption applies only to natural persons acquiring shares purely as a financial investment, with no intention or ability to influence management or control. Institutional investors and legal entities are excluded, even for passive holdings. Internal restructurings may qualify for exemption in certain cases.

4. What is the notification process?

The regime is mandatory and suspensory, meaning investors must notify and obtain clearance before implementation.

Failure to notify can result in administrative fines of up to EUR100,000, and a completed transaction may be unwound under certain circumstances.

Pre-notification is available but serves mainly to check the completeness of a filing.

5. Who carries out the review and what is the timing?

Screening is entrusted to a newly constituted committee supported by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Interministerial Committee for the Screening of Foreign Direct Investments (FDISIC).

The initial review period (phase 1) can last up to 30 calendar days. An in-depth investigation (phase 2) can last up to a further 140 days.

Further guidance on the notification process

The Decision offers practical guidance on the notification process, including the submission procedure and supporting documentation. It also includes a notification template that closely mirrors the European Commission’s standardized notification form under EU FDI Screening Regulation.

Strict procedure for filing

Foreign investors must submit a notification file to the General Protocol of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, either in person or by registered post.

The file must include both paper and digital (USB) versions. Within five days of submission, the FDISIC checks completeness and confirms whether the investment is notifiable.

Heavy documentation requirements

Foreign investors must submit an extensive list of documents, including:

• application by the foreign investor in Greek and English, based on the template notification form
• formal declaration that the investment falls within the scope of FDI screening, in Greek or English, again based on the template form
• copy of the investment contract (or, if not yet signed, a letter of intent or other documents certifying the investment plan) and related agreements, including the investment table
• documentation relating to the target undertaking, e.g., recent commercial registry extracts and shareholding structure information
• documentation relating to the foreign investor, such as authorizations for legal representatives or proxies, recent commercial registry extracts, a summary of the articles of association, shareholding structure and diagram, published financial statements for the last three years, a declaration of the ultimate beneficial owner (or the Greek UBO register), CVs of the main shareholders/management, a “politically exposed person” declaration, and a declaration of non-involvement in terrorist activities.

Documents issued abroad must be translated and apostilled or certified as required.

The application form itself requires core details on the investor(s), target and transaction, including:

• investor identification (both “global ultimate owner” and ultimate beneficial owner(s)—a distinction that is not always straightforward)
• investment specifics: value, completion date and funding sources
• economic activities of both the target and the investor
• sanctions compliance and government funding
• competitor lists at national, EU, and global levels for both investor and target.

In line with the EU standardized form, the application also includes sections on greenfield investments and parallel scrutiny in other jurisdictions (e.g., merger control or FDI screenings in other EU member states).

The Decision provides guidance to assist investors in completing the application, including clarifying key concepts such as “turnover calculation” and “control.”

Key takeaways

• Greece’s new FDI regime signals a clear political will to protect critical assets. Transactions falling within the regime’s scope must be notified. The process is highly formalistic: extensive supporting documentation, dual paper-and-digital submissions, and delivery in person or by registered post, with certain documents needing apostille or certification.
• Given the absence of clear substantive assessment criteria and the heavy formality requirements, investors (including passive funds) should assume notifiability for acquisitions in Greek strategic sectors where thresholds are met, build FDI screening analysis into early-stage deal planning, and reflect regulatory conditions in transaction documents.
• The administrative framework is still evolving. A ministerial decision on procedures for imposing and collecting administrative fines is pending, and further guidance is expected on key definitional and reporting issues, including the meaning of “otherwise subject to Greek law,” the narrow scope of portfolio exemptions, and the distinction between “global ultimate owner” and ultimate beneficial owner in the application template.
• Since Greece introduced its regime, the two remaining EU jurisdictions, Croatia and Cyprus, have also established FDI screening frameworks. Croatia’s regime took effect in October 2025. In Cyprus, the rules have been adopted and are expected to enter into force in April 2026. From April 2026, all 27 EU member states will have FDI screening regimes in place.

Marc Castagnède and Jules Lecoeur, partners at A&O Shearman, said: “This acquisition would mark a significant step in the consolidation of the European logistics market, at a time of profound operational, technological, and environmental change. We are delighted to support the Jacky Perrenot group in this ambitious project, which is fully aligned with its growth plan and its ambition to build a European leader in sustainable transport and logistics.”

The transaction remains subject to clearance by the relevant merger control and foreign investment authorities.

The A&O Shearman team is led by partners Marc Castagnède and Jules Lecoeur, with associate Alexia Monne, Yasmine Benhmida and Aresse Chegra on M&A aspects, partner Charles Del Valle and associate Thibault Faivre-Pierret on tax aspects, partner Florence Ninane and counsel Roxane Hicheri on antitrust aspects, as well as counsel Luc Lamblin and associate Vianney Leroux related to FDI aspects.

The Paris team is also supported by the Amsterdam office, with partner Kayleigh Sanders and associate Isabel Rutten on M&A aspects, partner  and consultant Suzanne Kampijon on employment aspects, and partner Sophie Roozendaal and associate Kaoutar Laachir on notarial aspects.

The maker of ChatGPT has said the suicide of a 16-year-old was down to his “misuse” of its system and was “not caused” by the chatbot.

The comments came in OpenAI’s response to a lawsuit filed against the San Francisco company and its chief executive, Sam Altman, by the family of California teenager Adam Raine.

Raine killed himself in April after extensive conversations and “months of encouragement from ChatGPT”, the family’s lawyer has said.

The lawsuit alleges the teenager discussed a method of suicide with ChatGPT on several occasions, that it guided him on whether a suggested method would work, offered to help him write a suicide note to his parents and that the version of the technology he used was “rushed to market … despite clear safety issues”.

According to filings at the superior court of the state of California on Tuesday, OpenAI said that “to the extent that any ‘cause’ can be attributed to this tragic event” Raine’s “injuries and harm were caused or contributed to, directly and proximately, in whole or in part, by [his] misuse, unauthorised use, unintended use, unforeseeable use, and/or improper use of ChatGPT”.

It said that its terms of use prohibited asking ChatGPT for advice about self-harm and highlighted a limitation of liability provision that states “you will not rely on output as a sole source of truth or factual information”.

OpenAI, which is valued at $500bn (£380bn), said its goal was to “handle mental health-related court cases with care, transparency, and respect” and that “independent of any litigation, we’ll remain focused on improving our technology in line with our mission”.

The blogpost added: “Our deepest sympathies are with the Raine family for their unimaginable loss. Our response to these allegations includes difficult facts about Adam’s mental health and life circumstances.

“The original complaint included selective portions of his chats that require more context, which we have provided in our response. We have limited the amount of sensitive evidence that we’ve publicly cited in this filing, and submitted the chat transcripts themselves to the court under seal.”

The family’s lawyer, Jay Edelson, called OpenAI’s response “disturbing” and said the company “tries to find fault in everyone else, including, amazingly, by arguing that Adam himself violated its terms and conditions by engaging with ChatGPT in the very way it was programmed to act”.

Earlier this month, OpenAI was hit by seven further lawsuits in California courts relating to ChatGPT, including an allegation it acted as a “suicide coach”.

A spokesperson for the company said at the time: “This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we’re reviewing the filings to understand the details. We train ChatGPT to recognise and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress, de-escalate conversations, and guide people toward real-world support.”

In August, Open AI said it was strengthening the safeguards in ChatGPT when people engage in long conversations because experience had shown that parts of the model’s safety training might degrade in these situations.

“For example, ChatGPT may correctly point to a suicide hotline when someone first mentions intent, but after many messages over a long period of time, it might eventually offer an answer that goes against our safeguards,” it said. “This is exactly the kind of breakdown we are working to prevent.”

Cardiologists and trainees hold varied views of their professional culture and climate, with half desiring change, according to a national online survey conducted by the ACC and published in JACC. These findings “provide granular support for continued targeted interventions and are essential to enhancing the effectiveness of efforts to improve cardiovascular educational, research, and practice environments,” said the authors led by Kevin L. Thomas, MD, FACC, and Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, FACC.

The survey of roughly 1,500 cardiologists spanning all career stages, including Fellows in Training (FITs), asked questions about professional climate in the following four areas: 1) cardiology workforce related to diversity; 2) respect; 3) primary workplace climate; and 4) workplace effectiveness. Nearly 75% of survey respondents were men, 90% were heterosexual/cisgender, and a little more than half self-identified as white, while 23% identified as Asian. Approximately 60% of survey participants were born in the U.S., while 20% arrived before or during training.

Participants were classified into four different profile groups (A-D) based on their responses. Profile A (n=441), representing 29% of respondents, perceived the CV professional climate as empowering, inclusive and no change being needed. Profile B (n=501), representing 33% of participants, felt the professional climate was inclusive, but needed change. Those in Profile C (n=293), making up 19% of survey respondents, perceived the climate as stifling but were unsure about change. The 18% of respondents who made up Profile D (n=278) felt the climate was stifling, exclusionary and in need of change. Across all profile groups, the majority of survey participants (77%) reported experiencing incivility, harassment or discrimination, while 29% reported feeling burned out.

Thomas, Mehta, et al., noted that Profile A was independently associated with Whites and males who were later in their career and with no mistreatment, while in contrast Profile D was associated with families, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or other race individuals, in their early to mid-career who had experienced mistreatment. In other findings, higher proportions of older career cardiologists and those born in the U.S. or who had immigrated prior to training were in Profiles A and B. Burnout was greatest among those in Profile D at 43%, compared with 25% in Profile A and B and 32% in Profile C.

While mistreatment was high across all groups, specific types of mistreatment were reported up to 3 times more frequently by those in Profile D compared with Profile A and varied by role. For example, among those in Profile D doing clinical work, delayed professional advancement (55% vs. 18%), differing clinical work expectations (43% vs. 16%), hiring practices (36% vs. 11%), and compensation (40% vs. 12%) were common mistreatments. Among those in academic settings, common mistreatments among those in Profile in D included delayed professional advancement (34% vs. 14%), compensation (32% vs. 20%) and access to research opportunities (35% vs. 11%).

“These findings, plus perceptions of organizational ineffectiveness, support a call to action to improve the cardiology climate and identify a need to incorporate climate assessments in national and local efforts to address critical challenges,” write the authors. “Fostering an inclusive and civil climate in cardiology requires systematic action to ensure that positive values are more closely translated into a positive lived experience among the workforce, improved well-being and optimal patient care.”