Latest News
-
Nina Penlington on the suit's continued relevance
Oliver Griffin Nina Penlington, a former civil servant in Britain, switched careers to become an apprentice at top tailors. She then stitched her name into the fabric of London’s Savile Row. The historic street is regarded internationally as the gold mile of tailoring. Since the 19th century, bespoke menswear was crafted by icons such as Charles Dickens, Winston Churchill, and Elton John. She's launched her own bespoke tailoring company, named after herself, since leaving London in 2024. Penlington, who is preparing for her second U.S. Trunk Show in February, spoke from her attic in Budleigh Salterton in southwest England. She talked about her experience on Savile Row, the future of suits and why it's important to dress for yourself. This conversation has been edited to make it more concise and clear. What initially attracted you towards tailoring? I took a funny route, which was kind of slow and strange. I grew in North Wales, in a town on the coast that was a little bigger and less salubrious than Budleigh Salterton. When I was just three years old, my mum taught me how to sew. We used to use a hand-crank sewing machine. I worked as a civil service employee for about five years after graduating from university. I worked as a minister in the House of Lords. That's a little crazy. I felt that I was in the incorrect place. I was miserable. I quit my job, and went back to London College of Fashion. They used to have a hand tailoring one-year course. The course was a great way to learn all the little bits and pieces, and also determine if you have an aptitude. The opportunity to sew again was great, but I soon realized that it wasn't the sewing itself that I was interested in. The pattern cutting was what really attracted me. After I completed the course, I was fortunate enough to be offered an apprenticeship with Dege & Skinner in Savile Row. This was a great opportunity because these jobs are so rare. You've worked with many of Savile Row’s top?tailors. Who has the most influence on your style been? While I was in New York, I did a little bit of study at Parsons School of Design. I also heard about this job back in Savile Row as a cutter for Davide Taub at Gieves & Hawkes. Davide Taub is my favorite?living cutter. He's definitely my biggest influence on how I view my work. What was it like to launch your brand? I feel that I have built relationships over the past few years with people who want to support me. I have also had customers find me or refind me and were determined to assist me through the difficult stages of starting a business. I don't even have any branded covers or hangers for that stuff. My customer was laughing and said, "I'm glad that you weren't too extravagant in your spending. You could ruin yourself if you tried to be too shiny." How did you develop the "Get Back" suit and rock 'n' roll Western suit styles inspired by The Beatles? Let's begin with the "Get back" suit. It's a West End suit from the 1960s. For me, this is a true classic. I made this suit for a client around the time of Peter Jackson's documentary "The Beatles: Get back". Paul McCartney often wears the suit with a collarless Granddad shirt. It's a classic suit that McCartney wears very well. There's nothing special about it. It's also a great way for me to tell customers that I have a classic suit. It's an easy way to communicate the idea of a classic suit that could be worn in a worn-out way. The Western Suit is made from Western shirts I have collected over the years. They were given to me by a wonderful lady working out of Salt Lake City. I had this idea for the suit in my head for a long time. I couldn't decide what fabric to use. Only when I discovered this overcoating weave did it all come together. Once I found a 15-ounce twill that is rugged and refined, everything came together. What do you think about the difference between dressing for the male and female gaze when it comes to suits and tailoring, according to your opinion? Since I launched my label, I have been relearning all of this because I felt for so long that none of these things mattered. Tailoring allows you to dress how you want. In terms of sales, I have to know who is looking at it and who wants to purchase it. As a person I do not buy into this. When I wear a suit I do so because I want to look and feel powerful. If I want to be more feminine, I have another part of my closet for that. You can mix the two. If someone is coming to me the first time, and they are unsure of what they want, then I will ask them to look in their wardrobe to see what suits they already have and what else they could wear with this suit. This way, you don't need to buy anything new to wear this suit. What is the future of tailoring and Savile row? The same article is published in the same spot every five years. It's basically the same as "Savile Rows dead, suits have died" and this was long before the pandemic or working from home. Savile Row, and tailors around the world, have done a great job. Fashion and garment production is moving much faster than it used to. I thought we were a little slow to adapt trends in Savile Row. But now, people are creating overshirts and other items that can be worn in a more casual manner. We've never been in fashion, but we promote the craft and sustainability. The high-end luxury items (and) department store merchandise are not as well made as the tailoring we offer. I think that people are beginning to realize that spending three grand for a suit at a brand name is not worth it. It's different from coming to someone to spend a bit more on a bespoke item that's uniquely yours. News does not necessarily endorse the perspectives of Culture Current. (Editing by Yasmeen serhan and Aurora Ellis).
-
FT reports that EU is moving to phase out Chinese suppliers of key infrastructure.
Financial Times reported that the European Union wants to ban companies like Huawei and ZTE, which manufacture equipment made in China, from telecommunications networks and solar energy systems. The report cited unidentified officials as saying that the cybersecurity proposal for the zone is likely to make the existing system of restricting high-risk vendors mandatory?for EU countries. Some large telecom firms in markets like Spain and Germany had resisted such measures. The report said that the proposal would be presented on Tuesday. The timetable for phase-out depends on the risks to the bloc, the sector and will take into consideration the cost and availability of alternatives suppliers. The report could not be verified immediately. The European Commission, China’s Commerce Ministry, Huawei, and ZTE have not responded to our requests for comment. Huawei is considering the future for a newly completed?plant? in eastern France. This was reported in December. It comes amid the hardening of some governments' stances on the use of Chinese equipment? and the slow rollout of 5G across Europe. The United States has banned the approval of new telecommunications gear from Huawei and ZTE by 2022, and encouraged European allies do the same.
-
UN Biodiversity Treaty comes into force and aims to protect 30% oceans by 2030
On Saturday, a landmark global treaty to preserve biodiversity on the high seas went into effect. It provides countries with a legally-binding framework to tackle threats like overfishing and achieve a 30% target for the ocean environment by 2030. After 15 years of negotiation, the U.N. Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction Treaty (BBNJ) was finalised in March of 2023. It will create a global "marine protection area" network in previously unregulated ocean ecologies in international waters. At a press briefing, Adam McCarthy, the first assistant secretary of the Australian Foreign Ministry and co-chairman of the treaty’s preparatory comittee, said: "It is two-thirds (and) half of the surface of our planet, that will for the first have a comprehensive law regime." On September 19, last year, the treaty had reached 60 national ratifications. This meant that it would?become officially operational within 120 days. Since then, the number of ratifications is now more than 80. China, Brazil, and Japan have added their names to the list. Other countries, such as Britain and Australia, will likely follow suit soon. The United States signed the treaty under the previous administration, but have not yet ratified. The High Seas Alliance is a coalition of environmental organizations. Director Rebecca Hubbard said, "While we only needed to reach 60 ratifications for the treaty to enter into effect, it's important for its implementation to be as efficient as possible and to have global or universal ratification." We're really hoping that all UN member countries ratify this treaty. The treaty requires that countries conduct environmental assessments on activities that impact ocean ecology. The treaty will also establish mechanisms that allow nations to share in the benefits of the "blue economic" including "marine genetic resource" used by industries like biotechnology. Environmentalists claim that?more than 190,00 protected areas will be needed to achieve the "30 by 30-" goal of bringing 30% of oceans under formal protection by 2030. Only 8% of the oceans - 29 million square kilometers (11.2 million sq miles) – are protected. The treaty has little effect on the one thing that conservationists consider to be the biggest threat to the marine environment: the desire to mine mineral resources from ocean beds. McCarthy stated that "BBNJ has a lot of ambition, but it also has some limits." The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is responsible for mining on the seabed or the substratum. The BBNJ has no role in this.
-
Southern California Edison sueded Los Angeles County and others for the Eaton Fire
Southern California Edison filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County, Southern California Gas, and water agencies on Friday. They allege that they are responsible for the deadly Eaton Fire, which devastated thousands of homes and businesses last year. SCE, which is owned by Edison International, filed complaints in the Los?Angeles Superior Court where more than 1,000 lawsuits were filed by business and residential owners to hold SCE accountable for the destruction of property that occurred. The Eaton Fire erupted on January 7, 2025 and tore through Southern California. It killed 19 people, destroyed more than 9,400 homes, and destroyed other buildings. SCE acknowledged that circumstantial evidence suggests that one of its idled transmission lines that were high-voltage could have ignited a fire at Eaton amid winds as high as 100 mph. SCE has said that numerous analyses and reports have identified additional factors which likely contributed to the severity of the fire. The report cites the failure of Los Angeles County and other government agencies to send timely evacuation alerts. It also cites a lack of water and overgrown brush in public land, as well as a failure to allocate enough?resources to fire suppression. SCE claims that if the county and its agencies had acted with care, "most of those injured and killed in the Eaton Fire, as well as the damage to property, could have either been prevented or reduced significantly." SCE claims that the risks and defects within the natural-gas distribution network of SoCalGas - a subsidiary company of Sempra - contributed to the spread. In the lawsuit, SoCalGas claims that it knew its system was a fire risk but failed to implement mitigation measures. SCE claims that this caused?gas fires, explosions, and re-ignitions of fires in the early stages of Eaton Fire. Sempra and Los Angeles County have not responded to comments. SCE is facing 998 lawsuits from businesses and individuals, as well as suits by government entities and insurance companies. In September, the U.S. Department of Justice sued SCE for damage to National Forest System land. SCE has received nearly 2,000 claims through its Wildlife Recovery Compensation Program. It has made 95 offers worth $42.8 million. The company reports that more than half of these offers were accepted. David Eisenhauer, spokesperson for SCE, said: "We are committed to helping the communities recover from the fires of January." (Reporting and editing by William Mallard in Boston, with Nate Raymond reporting from Boston)
-
Sources say that Venezuelan banks are set to receive $300 million in oil money for them to exchange on the market.
Two financial sources and a market analyst reported that four Venezuelan banks received a notification this week from the country's government that it would split $300 million in oil revenue deposited into an account in Qatar. This will allow them to sell dollars for Venezuelan companies who need foreign currency to pay materials. The U.S. seizes Venezuelan oil tanks and hits the country's main revenue stream. Venezuelan companies that need to import raw materials are forced to exchange their local bolivars, which they have earned through oil sales or transactions with foreign credit cards in the country, for dollars held at the central bank. Delcy Rodriguez said that the Venezuelan interim president would channel oil revenues through the central banking system. She said, "They will reach the private banks via the foreign exchange market mechanism." The U.S. announced this week that it has completed the first $500,000,000 in?sales from Venezuelan oil. This is part of the $2 billion agreement signed this month after the ouster of the?President Nicolas Maduro, and the swearing-in of the?interim leader Rodriguez. The administration of U.S. president Donald Trump has stated that Venezuela will sell 30 to 50 million barrels. A source in the industry familiar with the plan has confirmed that the main account used for the transactions is located in Qatar. Rodriguez, who submitted to the country's parliament a proposal to reform the hydrocarbons laws, which aims to boost oil investment, said that a part of the revenue would go to infrastructure and social projects. The two sources say that authorities told four local financial institutions on Thursday, who all have correspondent banks abroad, they would receive $75 million from oil revenue each in the next few days. Sources?added that the dollars could be sold by central bank guidelines to Venezuelan companies. The central bank and the finance ministry did not respond to comments. "Some $500,000,000 has already been deposited into the Qatar trust." "Some $500 million has already been deposited in the Qatar trust," Alejandro Grisanti of local analyst 'firm Ecoanalitica wrote on X Friday. Venezuelan authorities began to allow the use of dollar-linked crypto currencies like USDT on the exchange markets in the second half of 2025 after the U.S. granted Chevron an export license with restrictions but prohibited payments to the Venezuelan government. One source said that even crypto flows into the private sector have fallen. She added that if there are more dollars coming in from crude oil sales, crypto allocations will likely decline. The bolivar fell 83% by 2025, which led to a rapid increase in prices. (Reporting and Editing by David Gregorio).
-
US and Slovakia sign civil nuclear energy agreement
On?Friday, the United States and Slovakia signed an agreement to further cooperation in the country's nuclear energy program. They said that this would reduce Slovakia's reliance on Russian designed reactors. The agreement calls for the construction of a 1,200 megawatt state-owned nuclear unit, designed in the U.S. Since?last year, Slovakia has been in talks with Washington to build a large nuclear plant with Westinghouse, a nuclear developer. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said at an event held at the headquarters of the agency in Washington, "Today's Civil Nuclear Agreement reflects our shared dedication to strengthening European energy sovereignty and security for decades to come." Robert Fico, Slovakia's Prime Minister, said that the agreement sent a "clear message" that Slovakia and the United States share a common strategic vision for the future of energy, including its sustainability, safety and technological maturity. Westinghouse's owners are Canada-based Cameco, and Brookfield Asset Management. (Reporting and editing by Cynthia Osterhage, Timothy Gardner and Valerie Volcovici)
-
US Supreme Court will hear Bayer's request to limit Roundup cases
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that it would hear Bayer’s request to limit lawsuits claiming the Roundup weedkiller caused cancer. This could potentially save billions of dollars in damages. The justices heard Bayer's appeal against a lower court ruling in a case filed by a man who claimed he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma following years of exposure Roundup. The Missouri Court of Appeals has upheld a $1.25-million verdict awarded by a St. Louis juror to the plaintiff John Durnell over his cancer diagnosis. Bayer's shares rose almost 5% after the news broke that the court will hear the case. The court has not yet announced when it will hear arguments. Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer, said in a statement that the court's ruling was "an important part of our multi-pronged approach to effectively contain this litigation." Anderson stated that it was time to ensure that state laws do not punish companies for adhering to federal warning label requirements. A request for comment from an attorney of the plaintiff was not immediately responded to. The Missouri Court of Appeals has rejected the German pharmaceutical company's argument that federal law governing chemicals bars claims made under state laws. Bayer faces similar claims in state and federal court proceedings in the United States from about?65,000 plaintiffs. Roundup is one of the most commonly used weedkillers across the United States. In December, the administration of President Donald Trump urged Supreme Court to hear Bayer's appeal. U.S. In a brief submitted to the court, U.S. D. John Sauer, the Solicitor-General of the United States, stated that Bayer's interpretation of the relevant law is correct. Bayer argues that consumers should not be allowed to sue the company under state law because it failed to warn them that Roundup increased cancer risk, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found no such risk. Bayer argued federal law prohibits it from adding any warning to its product beyond that approved by the EPA. The company's strategy for managing the claims has been to make the U.S. Supreme Court an important part of it, since a ruling that federal laws preempt claims brought under state laws would close down the vast majority. Durnell's lawyers had asked that the Supreme Court dismiss Bayer’s appeal. Durnell's lawyers argued that Durnell relied heavily on Bayer advertising, not just the label, when he decided to use Roundup. They also claimed the marketing of Bayer failed to warn the public about the risks. The company paid $10 billion in settlements to most Roundup lawsuits pending by 2020. However, it failed to reach a deal that would cover future cases. Since then, new lawsuits continue to flood in. Plaintiffs claim they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other cancers after using Roundup at home, on the job or in their garden. Bayer, who acquired Roundup in 2018 as part of the $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto, an agrochemicals company, has stated that studies over decades have proven Roundup, and its active ingredient glyphosate are safe for use by humans. Sauer stated in the brief of the administration to the Supreme Court that "EPA has repeatedly 'determined that glyphosate does not appear to be carcinogenic to humans. And the agency has approved Roundup labels which did not include 'cancer warnings. The company's record in court has been mixed. Bayer has won a number of Roundup lawsuits, but in recent years it's also been hit with large jury verdicts, such as a $2.1 Billion verdict in Georgia, U.S.A. in 2025. Bayer had asked the Supreme Court in the past to review the Roundup litigation, but it was denied by the court in 2022. In a break from other appeals judges, a federal appeals court has sided with Bayer since then. Bayer has threatened withdrawal of Roundup from the U.S. Market as it battles the litigation. Bayer replaced glyphosate with other weed-killing chemicals in its U.S. consumer product line.
-
US Supreme Court will hear Bayer's request to limit Roundup cases
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s request to limit lawsuits claiming the Roundup weedkiller caused cancer. This could potentially save billions of dollars and prevent millions of dollars in damages. The justices heard Bayer's appeal of a lower-court ruling in a case filed by a man who claimed he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma following years of exposure Roundup. The Missouri Court of Appeals has rejected the German pharmaceutical &?biotechnology firm's argument that federal law governing insecticides prohibits lawsuits relating to pesticides brought under state laws. Bayer faces similar claims in state and federal courts in the United States from 65,000 plaintiffs. Roundup is one of the most commonly used weedkillers across the United States. In December, the administration of President Donald Trump urged Supreme Court to hear Bayer's appeal. U.S. In a court brief, U.S. D. John Sauer, the Solicitor-General of the United States, stated that Bayer's interpretation of the relevant law is correct. Bayer argues that consumers shouldn't be able sue the company under state law because it failed to warn them that Roundup "increases cancer risks" as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found no such risk, and therefore did not require a warning. Bayer argued federal law did not allow them to 'add any warnings to the product other than the EPA approved label. The U.S. Supreme Court is a crucial part of the company's strategy to manage claims. A ruling that federal law preempts state-law claims would end the vast majority. Monsanto stated that different courts have taken opposing sides on the issue. The Missouri Court of Appeals has upheld a $1.25-million verdict awarded by a St. Louis Jury to plaintiff John Durnell for his cancer diagnosis. Durnell's lawyers had asked the Supreme Court not to hear Bayer’s appeal. Durnell's lawyers argued that Durnell relied heavily on Bayer's advertisements and not only the label to make his decision to use Roundup. They also claimed the marketing of the company failed to warn the public about the risks. The company paid $10 billion in order to settle the majority of Roundup lawsuits as of 2020. However, it failed to reach a settlement that would cover future cases. Since then, new lawsuits continue to be filed. Plaintiffs claim they have developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma or other cancers after using Roundup at home or in the workplace. Bayer, who acquired Roundup as part of its $63 Billion purchase of Monsanto, an agrochemicals company in 2018, said that studies over decades have proven Roundup, and its active ingredient glyphosate are "safe for human usage". Sauer, in the brief of the administration to the Supreme Court, said: "EPA has repeatedly determined glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans. The agency has approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings." The company's record in court has been mixed. Bayer has won a number of Roundup lawsuits, but in recent years it's also been hit with large jury verdicts, including $2.1 billion in a 2025?case from the U.S. State of Georgia. Bayer had asked the Supreme Court in the past to take the Roundup litigation into consideration, but it was rejected by the court in 2022. In a break from other appeals judges, a federal appeals court has sided with Bayer since then. Bayer has warned that it will withdraw Roundup products from the U.S. marketplace as it battles the lawsuit. In the U.S., the company has replaced glyphosate with other weed-killing chemicals. Diana Novak Jones, Chicago; Andrew Chung, Additional Reporting; Will Dunham, Editing
American CEOs retaliate on Trump... mildly
Suzanne Clark, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, spoke in a dimly-lit ballroom Thursday. She urged executives to "be fearless" when defending free markets against government control. The U.S. should remain "open to all, to the global exchange of ideas, goods, talent, and innovation."
Comments by the president of the largest U.S.-based business lobby could be interpreted as a mild 'pushback' against President Donald Trump who has been more involved in business than any other U.S. leader. He has ordered the U.S. government to invest in tech companies, claimed 'control' over corporate equity structures, imposed tariffs and advanced immigration policies that are opposed by the Chamber.
This month, other CEOs such as Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan and Darren Woods from Exxon Mobil have also offered tempered critiques on certain Trump agenda items. They focused their comments on sectors in which they had an interest - Venezuelan oil and the U.S. Federal Reserve - while Clark didn't mention Trump or his policies.
Corporate governance experts have said that the statements and omissions are in line with an underlying fear among business leaders, who believe his administration will punish any dissent. This is a significant change from Trump's initial term when business leaders split with him over his handling of the white nationalist rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. They also spoke out more publicly against other policies.
Richard Painter is a University of Minnesota professor and former ethics lawyer to George W. Bush. He said that business leaders have been remarkably mute in their response, even as masked agents confront U.S. Citizens in Minneapolis, and Trump contemplates securing Greenland. This could cut off American companies from European markets.
Painter stated that Trump's authoritarian economic policies are in stark contrast to Bush’s free-market economic policy.
Painter commented on Clark's remarks, "I would like to see the Chamber take a more aggressive position here." "A lot executives may have voted Trump but they must speak out against any coercion. Whether it is directed at a protester on the street or at a CEO that doesn't do what the president asks them to.
Mark Levine is a Democrat and the new New York City Comptroller, who oversees public pension funds with stakes in some of the biggest U.S. corporations. He said that CEOs had taken "baby steps" by speaking out only when Trump’s actions directly affected their businesses.
Levine stated, "I do not think capitalism is effective if we let a president who has autocratic tendencies?dictate' the behavior of all companies in America."
TRUMP GETS "LACKLUSTER" RATINGS IN ECONOMY
A Chamber spokesperson was asked for comment. He cited a Friday briefing Clark gave to reporters, in which Clark stated that "we are against government interference in business, regardless of which party suggests it." She also said that CEOs are doing "quiet" work behind the scenes to promote sound policies and not "rushing to outrage."
Neil Bradley, chief policy officer of the Chamber, said in August that the group wanted to respond to Trump nonpartisanly, to maintain support for the free market.
Trump's economic approval rating is currently at 36%. This is below his 41% overall rating, even though he claims that his policies are successful by conventional measures.
Trump said in Detroit, Michigan, on Tuesday, "Under my administration, the growth is exploding. Productivity is soaring. Investment is booming. Incomes are increasing. Inflation is defeated. America is respected like never before."
Some of the most prominent CEOs in the world have publicly questioned his actions.
Woods, an Exxon executive, told Trump on January 9 that Venezuela was "uninvestable", undermining the White House's messaging regarding the future of the industry in the country. Woods said he had confidence in Trump's plans, and that Exxon could dispatch a team of technical experts to assess the conditions there soon. Two days later, Trump suggested that he may not allow Exxon to participate in future deals with the country.
"I didn't enjoy their response." "They're too cute," Trump said to reporters.
A representative of Exxon declined to comment on this story.
JPMorgan Dimon stated on January 13 that he supported the independent of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. This was days after the Administration opened a criminal probe into Powell's behavior. Dimon said that Trump's interference in the Fed may cause inflation. Trump said he didn't care about Dimon's remarks.
JPMorgan declined to comment on this article.
Albert Bourla was upset by Robert F Kennedy Jr.'s decision to backtrack on vaccine recommendations for kids a day earlier. He told reporters in San Francisco, "I am seriously frustrated because the current situation has no scientific basis."
Pfizer representatives didn't respond to any questions.
'LOBBYING IS NOW DIFFERENT'
This week, The Conference Board released a study that showed uncertainty to be the greatest risk factor for U.S. chief executives in 2026. Dana Peterson is the chief economist of the Conference Board. She said that the survey did not ask specifically about Trump but that the executives she spoke with understood that lobbying was different today.
Gary Clyde Hufbauer is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He said that CEOs could be adjusting their remarks to avoid backlash and to position themselves to benefit from Trump’s policies or interests.
Hufbauer warned that if companies do not push back on this, it could lead to more regulation after Trump leaves the White House.
Hufbauer stated that "my guess is (CEOs think) the actions are just a passing trend." He said that since state capitalism appeals to both progressive Democrats and some MAGA Republicans alike, investors and executives could be sleeping at the switch.
(source: Reuters)