TheChek News Flow

How Bordeaux’s irrigation issue came to a head at Château Lafleur

What compelled one of Pomerol’s most celebrated wines to abandon its appellation?

With an average price of about £650 a bottle, Château Lafleur is one of the most expensive wines of Bordeaux. It’s produced from less than five hectares of Cabernet Franc and Merlot vines on the plateau of Pomerol just next to Petrus, the most expensive bordeaux of all.

Few announcements in the world of wine could cause such a stir as the one made by Lafleur’s owners, the Guinaudeau family, late last month on the eve of this year’s extraordinarily early harvest. They announced that, after nearly 90 years, they have decided to leave the warm embrace of the Pomerol appellation for the wild and woolly Vin de France category, one more readily associated with the sort of quirky wines you find in wine bars in eastern Paris.

From the 2025 vintage onwards, Ch Lafleur labels won’t give any precise indication of the wine’s geographical origins, nor suggest that Pomerol’s regulations have been obeyed. Instead, it will join the swelling but decidedly heterogeneous group of wines made by people who have decided to turn their backs on France’s beloved Appellation Contrôlée system.

The initial announcement, perhaps foolishly, provided no explanation and was rushed out just before the first Lafleur 2025 grapes were harvested. Social media went mad. Baptiste and Julie Guinaudeau had to turn off their phones on the first day of their Merlot harvest.

Despite having to work until midnight overseeing the reception of the first lot of Lafleur grapes from the exceptionally hot, dry summer of 2025, they realised they would have to issue a second statement. This time, it was a very detailed, three-page missive clarifying that their decision to exit the appellation was essentially driven by its ban on irrigation or, as they put it, not being allowed to practise “assisted, early soil recharge” with water.

Although irrigation is allowed and widely practised in most wine regions, in France it has long been outlawed for most Appellation Contrôlée wines, except for newly planted vines which need water to establish themselves. Historically, this has been because the authorities were worried that growers would use added water to swell the grapes, increasing yields and potentially diluting the quality of the wine.

Since 2006, French vignerons have been allowed to request special permission to irrigate in their appellation, though the process is convoluted. In Pessac-Léognan, where the sandy gravel retains little water, growers were permitted to irrigate in 2022 and 2025. The punishingly dry summer of 2022 finally compelled the Pomerol authorities to permit a derogation, but, issued in July, it came too late to save many of the vines from sunburn and the grapes from shrivelling to raisins. When temperatures reach 30C (86F), the vines’ stomata close, abruptly halting photosynthesis and therefore grape ripening, so the vine can concentrate its energy on survival. The resulting wines are typically high in tannin and low in flavour.

It was the heatwave vintage of 2003 that signalled a turning point for Baptiste, Julie, and Baptiste’s parents, Jacques and Sylvie Guinaudeau (and many other French vine growers). And that was only the start of these hotter, drier summers.

Since 2012, the Guinaudeaus have been monitoring humidity in their soil and their vines, learning to distinguish between heat stress and water stress and, defiantly, experimenting with adding water early in the growing season when it is most needed. They established a few small reservoirs, and in 2021 dug a 142m borehole to Bordeaux’s aquifer. After much trial and error, they also developed a tractor that can inject water 15cm below the surface and then restore the soil to minimise evaporation — an important consideration in these hot summers.

The Lafleur news is just sinking in for other Pomerol producers but Fiona Morrison, Master of Wine and wife of Jacques Thienpont, whose Le Pin Pomerol sells for almost as much as Petrus, was the first neighbour to congratulate them on their stance. Asked whether her husband might irrigate too, she texted that he is “considering it for the future but not ready to stick his neck out!”

Christian Moueix, who for many years ran Petrus, told me he had discussed irrigation at length with Baptiste Guinaudeau and added “his decision will force all of us to attack the problem without delay”. His son Edouard Moueix agreed: “We now have to make sure the general rules of the appellations evolve with the climate.”

Gavin Quinney’s property Ch Bauduc is 20 miles south-west of Pomerol in Bordeaux’s less glamorous Entre-Deux-Mers region, but he is a prolific reporter on the whole Bordeaux wine scene. He wrote to me: “My reaction over Lafleur was ‘good for them!’ At the very least it opens the debate about irrigation — not just to help the vines cope but to manage alcohol levels.”

For a Burgundian view, I asked Guillaume d’Angerville of Volnay, one of the region’s most thoughtful and respected wine producers. He is against using what he views as technological tools or devices, such as most anti-frost measures and anti-hail nets, to fight the vicissitudes of nature, preferring to encourage differentiation between vintages. “Will irrigation alter the character of the terroir, or of the wines produced from this terroir? Intuitively, I would say yes, as it will make the vines lazier since they would be provided with water that they would normally have to find by growing deeper.” But he does admit that summers are becoming hotter and drier. This year at Domaine Marquis d’Angerville, for instance, they most unusually started picking in August, as they did in 2020 and 2022.

He is keener on the supplementary measures adopted by the Guinaudeaus, such as training the vines lower so that there is less evaporation and encouraging more leaves on the vine to protect the grapes from heat stress and sunburn.

Professor Edmund C Penning-Rowsell, the son of my late predecessor as FT wine correspondent and an academic specialising in water, points out that it would not be easy to find sufficient sources of suitable irrigation water in either Bordeaux or Burgundy. In Bordeaux, the Gironde is too saline, and levels in the rivers leading into it have been falling steadily because of decreased snowfall on the Pyrenees. New reservoirs would have to be built and expensively lined to avoid leakage through the gravel below. The limestone that underlies the most famous vineyards of Burgundy presents the same sort of challenge, and in both regions land costs are high.

Even in those regions where irrigation is permitted, water is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive, not least in Australia, where some of the inland wine regions responsible for the country’s mass-market wine are on the verge of collapse because rivers are drying up. Meanwhile in California the new badge of honour among growers is to boast that their vines are “dry-farmed”. There’s a certain irony in this while their European counterparts move ever closer towards irrigation.

Stop talking about wealth taxes — make these reforms instead

Any sane discussion of changes that both right and left could agree on is being crowded out by tax populism

I recently sat down with tax policy wonks from across the political spectrum. There was a startling consensus on tax reform. Yes, those on the left wanted a higher level of overall tax than those on the right — they were never going to agree on that. But there was common ground on a series of reforms that would improve the UK tax system. The problem? Not a single one of them is ever heard in the political debate.

The issue is that any sane discussion of tax, let alone tax reform, is being crowded out by tax populism. The tax populism of the right is that we can cut tax without anyone (or at least anyone the populists care about) being hit by cuts in services or benefits. There’s a magic money tree of government waste that can be harvested without consequence. The tax populism of the left is that we can fund services without anyone (or at least anyone these populists care about) being hit by increased tax. There’s another magic money tree, where trade-offs don’t exist.

The absolute apotheosis of this is talking up wealth taxes. It ticks the populist boxes — only taxes people with £10mn of assets, raises a gargantuan amount (£20bn or more). So how come nobody’s ever implemented such a tax, applying only to a tiny number and raising such a large amount? The reason is simple: the hit to investment, jobs and growth. Credible models of similar US and German proposals suggest a long-run hit to GDP of 2 per cent to 5 per cent.

But what’s the only tax mentioned in the Labour deputy leadership race so far? Wealth tax.

The UK is never going to have a wealth tax. But the left’s obsession with it means that this parliament isn’t going to see any serious tax reform either. Here’s what we should do instead.

Reform inheritance tax. The measures in the last Budget risk breaking up family farms and businesses while leaving popular tax avoidance strategies untouched. We could fix both problems with a recent proposal from the CenTax research centre, which retains a 100 per cent exemption for farms and small businesses forming 60 per cent or more of an estate’s assets. And, handily, raises at least as much revenue for the Treasury.

Reform capital gains tax — and cut income tax. UK capital gains tax is currently too high and too low. Long-term investors are overtaxed, paying 24 per cent on inflationary gains, meaning sometimes 100 per cent or more on real gain. Short-term investors are undertaxed, as are people who’ve artificially rebadged labour income as capital gains. The answer: align the CGT rate with income tax, but only tax the real return. The proceeds would be enough to raise large sums and cut income tax.

Reform land taxation. Stamp duty is among our most destructive taxes: it makes people miserable, keeps them in the wrong homes and misallocates labour. Replace it with a modest, broad-based land value tax assessed on site value, not buildings. Yes, there are hard questions around deferral (for the “cash poor, asset rich”) and transition (so people don’t get hit twice), but the prize is big enough that we should try to answer them.

Reform corporation tax. When I was a junior lawyer, we sniggered at the useless, overly complex Italian tax system. The Italians had the last laugh. Today the Tax Foundation scores their corporate tax system as more competitive than the UK’s — even though our overall rate is lower. Why? Because of the spiralling complexity of UK corporate tax. Pull out those old Office of Tax Simplification reports and implement them.

Reform national insurance. The tax system taxes employment as if it’s a sin. Scrap employee national insurance and roll it into income tax. Make the change fiscally neutral — so most people get a tax cut (with the notable exception of landlords and retirees). Then begin the really hard task of working out how to cut employer NI over time. Absolutely, definitely, don’t put it up again.

Reform penalties. In the past five years, 600,000 HMRC late-filing penalties have been issued to people whose incomes are so low they don’t owe any tax. This is not something any sane tax system should be doing.

Reform VAT. The UK has the leakiest and most complex VAT system in the world. Our patchwork of zero rates and exemptions looks compassionate but ends up subsidising £2,850 Dolce & Gabbana dresses because they are in kids’ size. Scrap most exemptions. Use some of the revenue to protect low-income households directly (through benefits and targeted credits); use the rest to cut the standard rate.

None of this is easy. Every change upsets someone and requires careful design. But these are pro-growth reforms that could be legislated and implemented within one term of government. There would be political “cover” from think-tanks across the spectrum. The question is whether our political class has the courage to dump the slogans and embrace the art of the complicated. And to stop talking about a wealth tax.

Nestlé investors call for chair to step down over executive turmoil

Paul Bulcke has presided over chaotic period culminating in sacking of CEO Laurent Freixe for undisclosed affair

Nestlé investors have called for chair Paul Bulcke to step down over the departure of a second chief executive in just over a year, blaming him for a period of instability and poor performance at the embattled Swiss group.

The consumer goods giant last week sacked chief executive Laurent Freixe, who was appointed by Bulcke just one year ago, over an undisclosed romantic relationship with a direct subordinate.

Shareholders told the FT that the appointment of Freixe and the way investigations into his conduct were handled have exacerbated their concerns over governance at Nestlé, and led them to question Bulcke’s decision making.

“It’s a matter of decency and respect that [Bulcke] resigns from the position and not wait until April next year,” said one top-30 Nestlé shareholder, referring to the chair’s scheduled departure date. “Bulcke has lost the respect and the trust of investors.”

Nestlé ousted Freixe with no severance pay and swiftly replaced him with the head of the company’s Nespresso business, Philipp Navratil. 

The Frenchman became the second chief executive to be ousted in just over a year after Bulcke, a Nestlé veteran of 46 years, and the board pushed out his predecessor Mark Schneider in August last year.

“Given [CEO appointments] have gone wrong twice, I think it is time for decisive leadership at Nestlé,” said Christopher Rossbach, portfolio manager at J Stern, a long-term shareholder.

Rossbach added that he would like to see chair designate Pablo Isla assume the role now, to coincide with Navratil’s appointment.

A Nestlé spokesperson said the two CEO departures were “entirely unrelated”, pointing out that Freixe’s conduct was a “clear breach” of its code of conduct.

The maker of KitKats and Nescafé announced in June that former Inditex chief Isla, who currently serves as Nestlé’s lead independent director, would replace Bulcke in April 2026. Isla was already actively involved with decision making, said a person close to the company, including in the latest CEO change.

Bulcke became Nestlé chief executive in 2008, before being appointed chair in 2017, in line with the company’s long-standing and unconventional approach to succession.

“I don’t think Bulcke will move on before April but he should have left when Mark Schneider was forced out,” said Alexandre Stucki, founder of AS Investment Management, which represents founding family investors in Nestlé.

“It is the board who makes these appointments,” he added. “They need to wake up and look at the share price . . . I am very worried about the company’s immediate future”.

At the company’s last annual general meeting, in April, 9.7 per cent of shareholders voted against Bulcke’s re-election, while 5.4 per cent abstained.

Investors in Nestlé, which also owns Maggi noodles and Perrier water, were once accustomed to steady growth and sound governance.

However a series of scandals and sluggish sales, as well as mounting concerns over governance, have combined to drive down Nestlé’s shares, which have slumped by 40 per cent since 2022.

Nestlé said the board acted immediately to investigate claims about Freixe’s conduct, launching a probe in the spring on the back of reports made through its internal whistleblowing channel.

After it failed to substantiate the claims — and Freixe denied the affair — the company received more detailed complaints from whistleblowers. The board then initiated a second investigation involving external counsel, which found evidence of the relationship.

J Stern’s Rossbach said it was “deeply concerning” that it took a second investigation to uncover the relationship. Nestlé said its values and governance “are the foundation of the company”.

Several former and current Nestlé executives the FT spoke to questioned how Bulcke could have been unaware of Freixe’s affair, which they characterised as an open secret.

“If it turns out that the chair knew more than he admitted, it will become clear that the company is suffering from weak governance and poor oversight,” said Kai Lehmann, senior analyst at Nestlé shareholder Flossbach von Storch. 

Others questioned whether incoming chair Isla, who has served on the board since 2018, represents a fresh start.

“The board is weak and the new chairman is part of that legacy,” said one Swiss institutional investor. “They need change, someone external . . . to stop this dynamic”.

The battle for Armani: will his anointed suitors swoop on late designer’s empire?

Giorgio Armani’s will outlined hopes for one of three European giants to buy into his fashion group. But a deal may prove complex

Giorgio Armani repeatedly vowed he would never sell his eponymous Italian fashion empire to a French conglomerate, and in 2016 the designer even went as far as establishing a foundation to shield it from break-ups or takeovers.

Yet in advance of his passing this month, aged 91, Armani’s resistance had melted away.

In his will, drafted in March and published on Friday, Armani tasked the Giorgio Armani Foundation with selling a stake in the company he started in Milan 50 years ago.

Many in the Italian fashion industry were shocked to learn that two of his three preferred suitors — LVMH, L’Oréal and EssilorLuxottica — are French and that Bernard Arnault, the French billionaire who controls LVMH, had the opportunity to pounce on a coveted Italian asset.  

Armani’s will has fired the starting gun on a potentially extraordinary battle to buy into a fashion institution, which analysts estimate could be worth at least €7bn.

Getting hold of a piece of Armani — one of the world’s largest privately owned luxury groups — has long been regarded as a major prize in an industry with a limited number of viable targets.

Friday’s announcement was met with effusive responses from Armani’s anointed suitors.

Cosmetics giant L’Oréal, which has produced Armani’s popular beauty line for almost 40 years, said it was “touched and honoured” to be considered. Meanwhile, EssilorLuxottica, the Milan-based eyewear group EssilorLuxottica, which plans to move its global headquarters to Paris, said it was “proud” to be named and would carefully consider the opportunity.

Yet insiders at both companies cautioned that despite those warm words they were unlikely to attempt to buy Armani outright.

For LVMH, the luxury industry’s dominant force, it’s a different story. Industry executives in Milan and Paris told the Financial Times that Armani could be a welcome addition to Arnault’s vast stable of brands. The French magnate has had an eye on Armani for some time, according to people close to LVMH, and would take an interest.

Arnault said he was “honoured” his company was named as a potential partner by the late designer and drew parallels to the talent of Dior founder Christian Dior.

“If we were to work together in the future, LVMH would be committed to further strengthening [Armani’s] presence and leadership around the world,” Arnault said.

Three luxury executives in Milan expressed surprise that Armani had mentioned LVMH in his will.

One person mentioned the 2023 documentary Milano. The Inside Story of Italian Fashion, which features Armani ruling out a sale of his group to the French. “It’s just unthinkable that only a few years later, out of all people he mentioned Arnault as his preferred buyer,” the person said.

Armani’s will also instructs his heirs, which include right-hand man Leo Dell’Orco and members of his family, to consider other groups “of the same standing” as potential buyers, and to prioritise those that already “entertain partnerships” with the fashion house.

An initial 15 per cent stake is to be sold within 18 months from his death, with an additional 30-54.9 per cent going to the same buyer in three to five years, according to a copy of the will obtained by the FT.

According to the will the Giorgio Armani Foundation — in which Dell’Orco, nieces Roberta and Silvana, nephew Andrea Camerana and sister Rosanna own stakes — will always own at least 30 per cent of the group.

For those who wish to own the rest, Armani’s lucrative licenses, particularly its highly successful beauty deal with L’Oréal, are likely to be attractive assets.

The Armani Privé fragrance line, launched in 2004, retails for about €300 a bottle. Meanwhile, Acqua di Gio, which has been on the market since 1996, is one of the best-selling men’s perfumes of all time.

But with the beauty licensing deal with L’Oréal set to run until 2050, potential buyers are unlikely to be able to capture all of the value.

The breadth of Armani’s product range — which spans its EA7 sportswear line, through to its accessible casual wear label Armani Exchange and the high-end Armani Privé line — may also act as a deterrent to buyers.

Some luxury executives believe the variety of products bearing the Armani name serves to dilute the brand and confuse consumers. As well as beauty and fashion, the Armani group owns restaurants, hotels and a high-end home design line. 

Pierre Mallevays, co-head of merchant banking at Stanhope Capital, said a standalone Armani group “works very well, but it’s hard to see a big strategic buyer being genuinely interested in all of its operations”.

While LVMH is viewed in the luxury industry as the most likely buyer, the group’s upmarket positioning implies it will have little interest in the more affordable lines in the Armani stable, which contribute a significant portion of its €2.4bn annual revenue.

LVMH also tightly controls product distribution to enable it to charge higher prices, while Armani products, which are distributed through wholesalers, are often discounted.

One leading Italian executive said it was hard for any strategic investor to buy an asset and “sit on it” for a while before “deciding what to do with its various parts in the longer term”.

“That’s what the prospect of buying Armani would look like,” they said.

In his will Armani raised the possibility of a public listing of the business if plans to sell a stake failed. That would see Armani follow in the footsteps of other Italian family-owned fashion brands, such as Prada, Cucinelli and Moncler, which have gone on to list on the public markets. In each case the brand’s family owners have retained a controlling stake.

In several interviews with the FT, the late designer, who led his company until his passing this month, said his priority was to protect his legacy. 

Armani’s executive committee said in a statement after the will was made public that the foundation would act “as a permanent guarantor of compliance with the founding principles”.

Two industry executives said Armani might have named LVMH, L’Oréal and EssilorLuxottica because they have the scale and financial clout to secure the group’s future and his legacy going forward.

Armani’s desire to sell a stake to a larger group makes sense, according to Bernstein analyst Luca Solca, because there is a “lot of work to be done to ensure the continuation of the Armani brand legacy”.

“[Armani] liked to run his own business and there is an element of vanity when you are a very, very important designer — you don’t want to be part of a much bigger group. [But] today we are seeing a more rational side”.

Pop Mart’s elflike doll has its rivals but the greatest threat may be the temporary nature of viral toy crazes

The global mania for Labubu dolls has given parent company Pop Mart a huge boost. The Hong Kong-listed stock has shot up 470 per cent over the past 12 months. With a market cap of HK$367bn ($47bn), Pop Mart is now worth more than Mattel, Hasbro and Japan’s Sanrio combined.

The profitability of the toothy elflike creature and Pop Mart’s “blind box” business model has given rise to a host of would-be competitors, such as Wakukus — launched by Chinese retailer Miniso — and Lafufus, as the fake Labubus flooding the market are called. Fears that they could take a bite out of Pop Mart’s colossal success, however, look misplaced. 

Miniso looks like the chief challenger. The launch of Wakuku dolls drew long lines at its flagship stores across China, and the group has a far bigger physical presence than Pop Mart itself, with 7,900 retail stores worldwide against Pop Mart’s 443 stores and 2,437 vending machines. While Miniso is best known for selling budget-friendly knick-knacks such as home goods, toys, snacks and fashion accessories, it has form in selling products licensed from brands such as Disney and Marvel.

Yet the $42bn-a-year global collectable toy market is vast and can accommodate both Labubus and the nascent Wakuku. And striking viral toy gold is easier said than done. Pop Mart’s doll only became the fashion accessory du jour after K-pop singer Lisa of Blackpink posted about her collection to her 100mn followers on social media.

Rather than Wakuku sales, a better indication of longer-term demand for Labubu may be the resale market. What started as a $22 toy was regularly being flipped for three or four times that. Speculative buying appears to be cooling, with anecdotal evidence suggesting resale prices are falling. But a healthier secondary market may actually make it easier for Pop Mart to expand Labubu’s fan base.

Pop Mart has made a mint from its success. A gross margin of 67 per cent last year puts it on a par with luxury groups such as LVMH, rather than traditional toy companies. At 26 times forward earnings, too, the group now trades at a premium to the luxury behemoth.

Trouble is, viral toy crazes have less durable appeal than buttery-soft handbags. This means that Pop Mart has to keep releasing new products to keep its star brand relevant, while also developing its next superstar. The risk for Pop Mart is not that consumers will prefer a different toothy doll. It is that they will eventually lose their taste for them altogether.

Immigration "parole" had been granted under Biden

Judge in April faulted Trump's homeland security chief

BOSTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court rejected on Friday a challenge by immigrant rights advocates to the decision by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States.

The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned, opens new tab a ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who had decided that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the discretion to end the immigration "parole" granted to about 430,000 migrants under Democratic former President Joe Biden.

The U.S. Supreme Court in May put Talwani's April ruling on hold, allowing the parole terminations to take effect while the litigation played out.

Judge Gustavo Gelpí, writing for a three-judge 1st Circuit panel, said Noem's action forced parolees who entered the United States lawfully to have to choose suddenly between returning to the dangers in their home countries or staying in the United States and risk being detained and deported.

But Gelpí said lawyers for a class of migrants pursuing the case had failed to make a strong showing that Noem lacked authority under a law called the Immigration and Nationality Act to categorically end their parole. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents.

The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. His administration in 2023 expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans.

Between October 2022 and January 2025, about 532,000 people received grants of parole through those programs. But in March, Noem moved to terminate the parole programs, affecting about 430,000 migrants.

Esther Sung, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the immigrant rights group Justice Action Center, called Friday's ruling "devastating" but narrow, adding that "there's still room for us to prevail as the litigation continues and moves to final judgment."

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Justice Department, in asking the 1st Circuit to overturn Talwani's decision, pointed to the Supreme Court's action staying her ruling and urged the appeals court to "reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court."

If the five most-valuable U.S. technology companies want to buy startups, they can certainly afford to do so.

Today, the Big Five — Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon — have a combined market capitalization of more than $16 trillion. They’ve also got close to $400 billion in cash on the books between them.

Even with that massive spending power, however, the largest tech companies have not bought many startups this year. Per Crunchbase data, they’ve disclosed just 10 deals to purchase private seed or venture-funded companies.

This doesn’t reflect a change in M&A appetite. Rather, It’s a continuation of a trend toward fewer acquisitions that’s persisted for a few years, as charted below.

Before we push the slow M&A narrative any further, however, it would be remiss not to mention that this year’s tally does include the largest planned startup acquisition of all time. That would be Google’s agreement, announced in March, to buy cloud security provider Wiz for $32 billion in cash.

It’s not a done deal, as the transaction still faces scrutiny from antitrust regulators. It may help that Google is planning to buy a cybersecurity company, and not, say, a giant acquisition of a search engine or advertising platform. But still, the sheer dollar size means some pushback is likely.

Meanwhile, among the rest of this year’s disclosed Big Five startup acquisitions, listed below, none comes with a reported price.

Some deals without disclosed prices still do involve companies that previously raised quite a bit of funding and likely sold for good-sized sums.

For instance, Gretel, a synthetic data platform for AI, raised about $68 million in seed and early-stage funding before selling to Nvidia in March. And Axio, a Bangalore-based fintech startup, raised more than $200 million in debt and equity before selling to Amazon early this year.

In other cases, the Big Five snapped up companies still in seed stage. This spring, for instance, Google snatched up design startup Galileo AI, which had raised a few million in seed funding. And Amazon snagged Bee, the seed-backed developer of an AI-enabled wearable.

It’s also likely there were more acquisitions we haven’t heard about. It’s not impossible for a tech giant to pick up a seed-stage or stealth startup without an announcement or attracting attention, if it so desires.

Also, because the Big Five are so valuable, they may not have to disclose details for acquisitions that might qualify as significant and require reporting for a smaller company.

Of course, tech giants don’t need to buy a company to have a stake in it or otherwise benefit from its success.

All of the Big Five are prolific startup investors. That includes leading several of the larger GenAI financings and taking equity stakes as well as forming partnership agreements.

They’re also big acquirers of talent and have ways to pursue this goal without buying companies outright. Last year, for example, Microsoft drew headlines when it lured two co-founders of GenAI startup Inflection AI away from the company, hired most of its 70-person staff, and licensed its technology.

If something that looks like a trend or cycle persists long enough, it’s logical to conclude that it might instead be the new normal. This is one interpretation of the persistent slow pace of startup acquisitions by the Big Five.

While a couple decades ago, getting acquired by one of the top tech giants was an oft-discussed startup exit path, that strategy now looks passé. After all, the Big Five have plenty of reasons not to do an acquisition, including regulatory and compliance burdens and the prospect of antitrust pushback. Additionally, they can pay whatever it takes to simply license a technology or lure top talent.

So far, there’s zero indication that public markets care about the Big Five’s slow M&A pace. Companies don’t get valuations in the trillions because investors are pessimistic about their prospects.

The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: A Busy Week For Big Financings, Led By Databricks And PsiQuantum

This past week was a busy period for mega-sized funding rounds, with all 10 of the largest U.S. financings exceeding the $100 million mark. Topping the list were billion-dollar financings for AI data platform Databricks and quantum computing startup PsiQuantum. Overall, we saw robust investor interest across AI, healthcare, spacetech and fintech.

1. (tied) Databricks, $1B, AI data platform: Databricks said it raised $1 billion in Series K funding co-led by Andreessen Horowitz, Insight Partners, MGX, Thrive Capital and WCM Investment Management. The financing sets a valuation of over $100 billion for the San Francisco-based company, which says it has surpassed a $4 billion revenue run-rate and is growing over 50% year over year.

1. (tied) PsiQuantum, $1B, quantum computing: Palo Alto, California-based PsiQuantum, which is hoping to build the “world’s first commercially useful, fault-tolerant quantum computers,” announced that it secured $1 billion in Series E funding. BlackRock, Temasek and Baillie Gifford led the round, which set a $7 billion valuation for the company.

3. Cognition, $400M, AI: AI coding startup Cognition locked up over $400 million at a $10.2 billion post-money valuation. Founders Fund led the financing for the 2-year-old, San Francisco-based company.

4. Strive Health, $300M, kidney care: Denver-based Strive Health, a care provider for patients with kidney disease, closed on $300 million in Series D equity funding led by New Enterprise Associates. Strive also raised $250 million in debt financing led by Hercules Capital.

5. Odyssey Therapeutics, $213M, biopharma: Odyssey Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical startup focused on autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, picked up $213 million in Series D funding from a long list of new and existing investors. Boston-based Odyssey filed to go public in January but withdrew the planned offering in June.

6. (tied) Perplexity, $200M, GenAI: GenAI startup Perplexity reportedly secured $200 million in fresh capital at a $20 billion valuation. To date, San Francisco-based Perplexity has raised $1.5 billion in known funding, per Crunchbase data.

6. (tied) Torus, $200M, modular power plants: Utah-based Torus, a provider of modular power plants for utilities, data centers and other customers, announced a $200 million investment by Magnetar Capital. The company is also now preparing to open GigaOne, a 540,000-square-foot manufacturing campus in Salt Lake City.

6. (tied) Apex, $200M, spacetech: Los Angeles-based Apex, a manufacturer of satellite products, landed $200 million in Series D funding led by Interlagos Capital. The round reportedly brings Apex’s valuation to $1 billion.

9. Harbour Health, $130M, health care and insurance: Harbour Health, a provider of primary care services and coverage, picked up $130 million in new funding co-led by General Catalyst, 8VC and Alta Partners. To date, the 4-year-old, Austin, Texas-based company has raised over $255 million in known funding.

10. Speedchain, $111M, fintech: Atlanta-based Speedchain, a provider of credit cards and expense management tools for businesses, secured $111 million in equity and debt funding. Community Investment Management extended the debt financing, while GTMfund, Village Global, TTV Capital, K5 Global, Tandem Ventures and Emigrant Bank provided the equity.