Latest News
-
The US terrorist label could increase business costs for Brazil's gangs
As of Friday, the U.S. designated Brazil's largest criminal groups as "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (FTOs). This is likely to increase risks and costs of doing business in Brazil where gangs are well-established. Comando Vermelho (CV), and Primeiro Comando da Capital, both of the 'biggest Brazilian crime gangs, began in prisons during the 1970s. Since then, they have grown to dominate drug trafficking in South America and their money laundering operations have spread into the far corners of Brazil’s mainstream economy. Investigators have recently discovered that both groups are deeply embedded in sectors like fuel distribution, real-estate and finance. They also commit fraud while laundering billions of dollars from drug profits. The designation of the gangs as terrorists announced last week in Washington and'rejected' by Brazil opens the way for U.S. heavy sanctions, criminal investigations and civil liability for companies that deal with them 'indirectly. In a recent?note, Pinheiro Neto Advogados, a Brazilian law firm, said that asset freezes, bank restrictions, and increased regulatory scrutiny were also possible. Rodrigo Caldas de Carvalho Borges is a partner at the law firm CBA Advogados. He said that "the U.S. Policy internationalizes a threat that the Brazilian Financial Sector was already obliged to manage." The most immediate effect will be the intensification of due diligence and increased demands from international partners. Risks and costs associated with compliance extend well beyond the financial services industry. Few sectors of the Brazilian economic system have been spared the money-laundering schemes of gangs. A major police operation in August revealed that a scheme was being used to move 52 billion reais (about $10,3 billion) from 2020-2024 through PCC-controlled fuel distributors and gas stations. A second phase of investigations, conducted last week, found that fintechs and funds located along the Avenida Faria Lima in Sao Paulo (the heart of Brazilian finance) were involved in the laundering of $5 billion over a period of four years. In recent years, the lower barriers to entry for Brazil's fintech companies and a looser regulatory oversight have made them an attractive?channel for laundering drug money. This could mean that larger lenders who have stricter controls on?governance can avoid the worst. Washington closed down only?two smaller commercial bank and a brokerage in Mexico after U.S. terrorist designations were made for drug traffickers. Fitch Ratings said that the small market share of the institutions affected, as well as the swift regulatory response, had helped to limit the risk for a wider market disruption. Reporting by Luciana Magnhaes and Ricardo Brito, Editing by Brad Haynes & Stephen Coates
-
California will decide in the near future whether to seek to block Paramount deal
In an interview, Bonta said that he would decide soon whether or not to sue Paramount to stop its $110 billion purchase of Warner Bros. He added that he believes corporate pledges to address antitrust issues are 'better' when they are backed by divestitures. Bonta's Office has been evaluating the deal to determine if it violates U.S. Antitrust Law. Movie?theater owners and Hollywood actors have all expressed concern that the deal would reduce competition in the film industry and lead to higher prices, lower wages and fewer choices for consumers and content purchasers. According to a source with knowledge of the situation, European antitrust authorities are expected to make a decision by early July on whether or not to approve the deal. The U.S. Department of Justice will likely reach a similar conclusion soon. Once the review is complete, the deal may close, placing pressure on Bonta’s office. This agency, seen as most likely to challenge the deal, will have a short time frame. Bonta, in an interview with a reporter in Oakland (California), said that there was not much time before they would need to act. Hollywood is concerned about the possibility of fewer films being produced if two major U.S. studios merge. Bonta stated that his office heard from many industry workers and their concerns raised "even more flags." Antitrust enforcers may challenge mergers which would harm competition in a significant way, including the competition between employers for specialized workers. Bonta stated that "we think we can play a major role in protecting jobs in Hollywood in relation to the proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers." Paramount's spokesperson stated that the company had "every economic incentive" to increase production following the merger to increase subscriptions to streaming services. Paramount CEO David Ellison pledged that the combined company would release 30 films per year in theaters. In court documents, the company stated that theatrical releases are key to marketing its streaming services. Bonta, when asked whether Paramount could be forced to spin-off any part of its business in order to protect the competition, said that behavioral remedies (where companies agree to certain actions) are not always sufficient. "Can they contribute to a solution?" Maybe. If they are pursued, should they be backed by a structural remedy if the results are not satisfactory? I would say yes. "That's the way I think about it," said he. Makan Delrahim, Paramount's Chief Legal Officer, said that while the company "is always prepared to remedy violations of antitrust laws that are articulated and legitimate," it believes that this deal does not present any such violation. STATES JOIN FOR ANTITRUST ACTION California's Department of Justice is home to the largest antitrust division of any state in the nation, with just over 50 employees. Bonta stated that the state will be adding eight additional attorneys and eight support staff this year. California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed to add $14.3 million for Bonta's antitrust work. Two people with knowledge of the matter said that a number of states are in talks with California about a possible joint challenge to the "deal". There was no sign that the states had agreed on their respective approaches. Sources said that the potential costs if California hired an outside attorney could be a consideration for states. Bonta responded when asked whether the state is prepared to take action independently. "The full spectrum of options is?on the desk and available, and are fully resouced no matter what we choose." California has previously worked with both Democratic- and Republican led states in major antitrust cases, including the recent victory against Live Nation. Bonta stated that it is important to work together now because the Trump administration "picks winners and losers based upon who their friends are." Antitrust lawsuits can cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. This raises questions as to how many major lawsuits states could bring without federal support. Bonta stated, "We'll find a solution, whether we go back to ask for more funds, or we all contribute enough resources. We'll also hire an outside lawyer, whatever is necessary." "I believe that the people in our states, as well as the people across the country, want this and deserve it." (Reporting from Jody Godoy, Nathan Frandino and Dawn Chmielewski; editing by Christopher Cushing).
-
The US Supreme Court supports federal regulators FCC and SEC in their victories
In a pair?of rulings reaffirming the power of federal agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed limitations it had previously imposed on government regulatory agencies but rejected attempts by?challengers? to push these constraints into new territories. The court, with a conservative majority of 6-3, handed down decisions in two cases on Thursday that were in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Securities and Exchange Commission. The court ruled against the challenges made to the FCC system of levying fines, and to?the?SEC?s broad powers to recover illegal profits through a financial remedy known as disgorgement. The court has challenged the "administrative state", the government bureaucracy which regulates so many aspects of American life and business, in several recent major cases. However, the justices of Thursday backed the two agencies. Georgetown University Law Professor David Super described these rulings as a "small, mostly technical win" for the FCC. Super stated that "these cases should be understood to mean the court is telling Congress and the administrative agencies, if the adhere to the strict limits on public regulations in its previous decisions, it will not return and move the goalposts." In both cases, the administration of President Donald Trump defended agencies. AT&T AND VERIZON LOSE In the FCC's case, the court ruled in favor of the agency 8-1, rejecting a challenge from wireless?carriers AT&T or Verizon. This was the latest case to examine whether an internal enforcement system at a federal agency violates the right to a trial by jury. The Supreme Court curbed in-house proceedings in the SEC case in 2024. The Justices rejected on Thursday the argument of AT&T, Verizon and that the Jarkesy decision should dictate an outcome similar to the FCC case. The court stressed that the financial penalties imposed by the agency - also known as forfeiture orders - do not prevent parties from challenging the fines imposed by the agency. The court did not expand its previous decision in Jarkesy but it stressed that companies are under no obligation to comply with FCC forfeiture orders, until a jury rules on the case. University of Michigan Law School Professor Daniel Deacon stated. Deacon stated that he wasn't surprised by the result or the fact that Trump's government had defended the agency’s power. Deacon stated that the Trump administration is aware of its ability to use the administrative state in its own interests, but it hasn't always opposed agency claims of authority. DISGORGEMENT AUTHORITIES The 9-0 decision of the court, which supported a broad interpretation of the SEC’s disgorgement power, strengthened one of its key powers. The dispute was about whether the agency had to prove that victims had suffered economic damage, also called pecuniary losses, before it could seek to surrender illegal profits. Ongkaruck?Sripetch, a defendant in the case of Liu v. SEC, asked the court for clarification on a prior ruling. He was challenging a court order that had been issued by the SEC requiring him to pay back more than $3,000,000 in ill-gotten gain and interest relating to a financial crime case. In a case called Liu V. SEC, the 2020 ruling limited the amount of disgorgement that could be requested to the net profit of the conduct in question. The court stated on Thursday that the Liu decision didn't bolster Sripetch in his case against the SEC. Jose Lopez, a former SEC attorney and an attorney with the law firm Dorsey & Whitney, said that the court's decision "preserved the SEC's strongest weapon in its enforcement arsenal." In several important rulings, the court reined federal agencies in. The court has, in recent years, formalized the doctrine of major questions, a conservative legal principle that allows judges to invalidate actions taken by executive agencies that are "of vast economic and political importance" unless they can be deemed clearly authorized by Congress. The court, in 2024, overturned another precedent from 1984 that gave deference to U.S. government agencies when interpreting the laws they administer. The "Chevron doctrine" had long been opposed by conservatives and business interests. Brianne Gorod is the chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center. A liberal legal group that backed the SEC and FCC, she called the rulings on Thursday a victory for regulators, and "everyone" who benefits when these agencies are able to perform their duties. Gorod stated that "while this court has had a long history of favoring the interests of big business and making it harder for federal agencies to perform their duties, today's rulings are a reminder it is not always possible to anticipate what this court will decide."
-
Indonesian smelters reduce production due to lower nickel ore quota
Indonesia's Nickel Industry Group FINI reported that production capacity utilisation in?rotary kiln-electric furnace (RKEF smelters) in the country has dropped from 84% last yea after nickel ore quotas?were cut. Indonesia's 'energy ministry' has cut the 'nickel 'ore production quota for 2026 from 320 million to 260 millions metric tons. This is below FINI estimates of 340 to 350 million tons in demand this year, and the 320 to 270 million tons produced last year. Arif Perdana kusuma, FINI's chairman, said that "several lines of production" in South Sulawesi & Central Sulawesi... essentially reduced production to less than half capacity. Arif explained that the smelters keep production down to avoid completely shutting?down their furnaces, as this would be expensive and take several months to restart. Septian Hario?Seto, member of the National Economic Council said that the production quota is necessary because the nickel price was pushed down by an oversupply in the past. Seto stated that if we do not control production, we may create the largest surplus on the nickel market in history in 2026. LME nickel increased to $20,000 per ton on 6 May, the highest level since May 2024. This was mainly due to concerns about reduced supplies from top producer Indonesia. Seto stated that a nickel price between $18,000 and $20,000 per ton would be "sweet spot". We would like to see a price increase in this direction. He said that he did not expect the 'nickel price' to rise significantly above 20,000, because he thought it would create problems for the end-users of nickel. Weda Bay Nickel is the Indonesian unit of Eramet that has ceased nickel ore production. It ran out of quotas at the end May, and it plans to apply for a new quota. (Reporting and editing by Elaine Hardcastle; Bernadette Christopher)
-
Iron ore prices fall as steel margins decline, causing a fourth-week loss
Iron ore prices are headed for a fourth consecutive weekly loss even though they were mixed on Friday as declining margins for steelmakers' in the world's largest consumer, China, curbed buying appetite for this key ingredient. The most-traded contract for iron ore on China's Dalian Commodity Exchange closed daytime trading down 0.91% to 766 yuan (113.07 dollars) per metric ton. This marked a 2.1% weekly drop. The contract reached its lowest level in over a year at 760.5 Yuan during the session. As of 813 GMT, the benchmark July iron ore traded on Singapore Exchange was trading at $101.9 per?ton. This is a decline of 3.2% for this week. It reached its lowest since March 6, at $100.85, earlier. Analysts say that steel margins are being squeezed due to rising coal prices and a decline in domestic demand. Mysteel, a consultancy, reported that 59% of Chinese steelmakers operated at a profit on June 4. This was down from a high of 64% nine months earlier on May 14. Data showed that the average daily hot metal production, which is a measure of iron ore consumption, fell 0.1% from the previous week to a new low for three weeks at 2,41 million tons. "Softer-than-expected seasonal steel demand in ?China, affected by persistent rainfall and unusually high temperatures, has weighed on iron ore consumption at a time when global supply is ?rising," analysts at shipping tracker Kpler said in a note. Other steelmaking ingredients such as coking coal and?coke have increased by 2.6% and 0.2% respectively on the backs of reduced supplies. Several mines in Shanxi Province, a key production hub, remain closed following a fatal mine accident that killed at least 80 people. The benchmarks for steel on the Shanghai Futures Exchange have been moving sideways. Rebar slipped 0.03%. Hot-rolled coils fell 0.15%. Stainless steel declined 1.22%. Wire rod grew 0.45%.
-
Copper prices set to rise this week as demand offsets macro-headwinds
The copper price was set to rise despite the drop on Friday, as tighter supplies and a bullish mood helped counteract wider macroeconomic concerns linked to 'the Iran War' and 'inflation. Benchmark -three-month copper at the London Metal Exchange fell 1.34%, to $13,745 per metric ton as of 0700 GMT. The week-over-week increase was 0.7%. The Shanghai Futures Exchange's most active copper contract fell by 0.46%, to 105150 yuan (15,521.90 dollars) per tonne. Daniel Hynes is a senior commodity analyst at ANZ. He said that copper has been resilient to macroeconomic headwinds. "Structurally driven demand offsets cyclical 'weakness,'" he wrote in a report. ANZ stated?on Friday that it expects the copper price to rise to $14,000 a tonne by year's end, with demand growing from?the AI infrastructure and energy transition in the medium-term. On Thursday, there were large orders placed to remove copper from LME's warehouses. This trend has been continuing for the past few months. LME copper inventories The COMEX Copper stocks in the U.S. fell to their lowest level since April 2 at 379,975 tonnes. The number of short tons (642,709 tons) rose to 642,709 tons. Hynes stated that "non-U.S. copper exchange inventories (LME, SHFE, etc.) have actually been decreasing over the last few months." Investors were also waiting for a possible recommendation by the Department of Commerce of the United States on tariffs that could be imposed on imported refined copper. This is due at the end of this month. Hezbollah, a militia backed by Iran, rejected a ceasefire on 'Thursday in Lebanon, sapping the optimism that had been generated earlier that day when Israel and Lebanon were reported to have agreed to a ceasefire. Aluminium fell by 0.56% on the LME, while zinc dropped by 0.81%. Lead dropped by 0.45% and nickel was down 0.9%. Tin dropped 2.59 %. Aluminium fell 0.33% on the?SHFE. Zinc lost 0.88%. Lead lost 0.42%. Nickel dropped 1.64%. Tin plunged 5.35%.
-
Gold to fall by a week's worth on fears of rate hikes and tensions in the Middle East
Gold prices dropped on Friday and were set to?have a weekly loss? as tensions in Middle?East dampened hopes for a U.S. - Iran peace deal amid fears of rising inflation and rate hikes. As of 0718 GMT, spot gold was down by 0.3%, at $4,461.28 an ounce. It has dropped about 1.6% this week. U.S. Gold Futures for August Delivery fell by 0.4% to $4487.90. Israel has said that it will not withdraw its troops from Lebanon, despite the rejection of a ceasefire by Hezbollah's?militia. This undermines President Donald Trump’s efforts to stop fighting in Lebanon to reach a peace agreement with Tehran. Nicholas Frappell is the global head of institutional market at ABC Refinery. He said that some pessimism about the outcome of the Iran conflict was negative for gold. "I believe the trend is for tighter interest rates, which is also weighing down on gold." Kansas City Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Schmid stated on Thursday that U.S. Central Bank's options are to be patient and hold interest rates constant or raise rates in order to curb inflation, which has been higher than target for many years. Mary Daly, the San Francisco Fed president, said that the U.S. interest rate path would depend on how the economy develops. She added that the Fed's monetary policy was "in a great place" and it is ready to respond in "either direction." Gold is often viewed as a hedge to inflation. However, rising interest rates can weigh down on the non-yielding gold. According to CME Group's FedWatch, the markets are pricing in an increase by the Fed before year-end. A 51% chance is that it will happen by December. Investors will now be awaiting the U.S. nonfarm payrolls for May, which is due later today, to gauge the Fed’s monetary policies. India's gold demand this week was relatively low as buyers were on the sidelines because of volatile foreign?prices. Premiums in China also eased. Silver spot fell by 1.8%, to $72.53 an ounce. Platinum dropped 0.8%, to $1.885.83. Palladium also declined 0.8%, to $1.309.91. All metals are headed to a loss for the week. (Reporting by Pablo Sinha in Bengaluru; Editing by Subhranshu Sahu)
-
Top iron ore miners seek Canberra's assistance in price war with China
Senior government officials revealed on Friday that major miners and their representatives have asked Canberra to help them push back against China's attempts to get better terms for their iron ore. They also raised the possibility of a single selling desk, Australia's largest commodity export. China Mineral Resources Group, the state-owned iron ore buyer in China, has used increasingly aggressive tactics to gain better deals for its steel mills and to consolidate its position on the $132 billion market by sea. CMRG had blacklisted BHP's Iron Ore for 7 months during protracted contract negotiations. CMRG also warned some steelmakers to avoid discussions with Fortescue regarding a new iron ore 'product. Australia is China's largest supplier of iron ore, with more than half of its imports. According to estimates, Canberra closely monitors this market as China is the biggest trading partner of Australia and iron ore is the most profitable commodity export. A senate panel asked officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on Friday if they had received a demand for government support or intervention in relation to CMRG and Iron Ore Pricing. Steven Yates confirmed that they have. Yates declined to provide more details out of concern for commercial confidentiality. He said: "We have regular contact with Australian miners and I do my best to help them continue to export iron ore at the best possible price." The Senate panel asked for a reply "to the proposal raised in industry circles, that Australia needs some kind of export-side coordination to cover a single state buyer." George Mina, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, said that earlier plans to coordinate supply in the agricultural sector had not been well received by trading partners. But this case is different because "there's already an established buyer". Mina said: "There's no doubt that these questions are important for a long-term strategic plan." BHP, Rio Tinto and Fortescue & Hancock declined comment. An investor said that an executive of a leading iron ore miner had told him they had raised the issue with the government, but Canberra had been trying to repair their relationship with China and might not want to fight this battle right now. BHP and CMRG reached a deal in April that included some sales denominated in yuan. China is currently in contract negotiations with Fortescue, and will begin annual contract discussions with Rio Tinto at the end of this year.
A Swiss gold company allegedly inflates revenue by $159 billion for an Indian gold firm
A recent Indian official investigation of gold company Rajesh exports has alleged the company overstated the revenue of its Swiss refinery unit Valcambi by $159 billion. This is a figure that's never been seen in any of the country's previous accounting investigations.
The extent of alleged misreporting released by the'markets regulator' on Wednesday has raised questions about how investors and analysts could have missed it, especially since India's state run insurance giant LIC owned 11% of the firm.
Rajesh Exports denies any wrongdoing. In a Friday exchange statement, Rajesh Exports said that "the main point misinterpreted in regard to revenues of the Company is totally misplaced." LIC didn't respond to questions.
Valcambi has declined to comment on the matter, stating that it does not have any information regarding its controlling shareholder.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), has released some preliminary findings.
VALCAMBI AND REVENUE INCLARATION
Valcambi was one of the largest refiners in the world of precious metals. It was owned by European Gold Refineries up until 2015, when it sold to Rajesh Exports for all cash.
SEBI stated that Rajesh Exports had allegedly inflated its reported India revenue by 15.15 trillion rupees (158.93 billion dollars) between April 2025 and March 2025. SEBI stated that Valcambi was the main operating company of the group, and its revenue was almost all attributed to it. However, its separate?accounts only showed revenue between $70 million and $100 million.
Rajesh Exports chairman Rajesh Mehta didn't comment on the?difference?between Valcambi?s revenues and Indian?unit?s financials, but he said that all disclosures are correct.
There seems to be a miscommunication and a lack of information with SEBI. Mehta stated that "the financials are perfect" and added that the company will continue to cooperate.
Rajesh Exports, a Mumbai-listed company, has seen its shares fall 10% following SEBI's orders.
What does RAJESH Exports do?
In 1989, Rajesh Mehta founded Rajesh Exports with his brother in Bengaluru.
The company has expanded into 12 countries and calls itself "a global leader in the gold industry," from refining through to retailing.
After its acquisition of Valcambi in 2015 for $400 million, the company has gained international prominence.
Missing Mines in Africa
SEBI claims that Rajesh exports "disclosed" to Indian exchanges its investment of 10.35 billion Indian Rupees into gold mines in Africa.
According to SEBI, an analysis of its financial statements revealed no "supporting documentation" proving the alleged gold mining investment in Africa.
Rajesh Exports responded to SEBI by saying that it had made investments in gold mines through foreign subsidiaries, and that the figures "tally and are correct", as the order shows.
FICTITIOUS TRADE
SEBI stated that Rajesh Exports had recorded "fictitious revenues" in its dealings to a local broker. More than 114 billion rupies were recorded as sales and purchases, despite the lack of evidence or banking connections.
In 2024, SEBI began its investigation into the company after receiving a complaint about large outstanding trade receivables.
SEBI said that it appointed a forensic auditor who was only able to verify a fraction (of the reported numbers) due to the lack of documentation.
(source: Reuters)