CrunchBase : The Week’s Biggest Funding Rounds: Chainguard And Supabase Top Big

The Week’s Biggest Funding Rounds: Chainguard And Supabase Top Big Week

There may have been no big billion-dollar rounds this week, but there were lots of good-sized financings for a variety of startups. Everything from messaging to fintech took home some cash, with the biggest round going to cybersecurity.

1. Chainguard, $356M, cybersecurity: Software supply chain security startup Chainguard raised a massive $356 million Series D at a valuation of $3.5 billion as companies look for ways to secure software development. The new funding was co-led by new investor Kleiner Perkins and existing investor IVP. The new valuation is a more than threefold increase from the $1.12 billion valuation the company received after a $140 million Series C led by IVP, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Redpoint. Chainguard allows companies to securely build software, providing guarded open-source software and eliminating threats in the software supply chains. The Kirkland, Washington-based company has grown its annual recurring revenue to $40 million and plans to reach more than $100 million in ARR before the end of fiscal year 2026. Founded in 2021, Chainguard has raised $612 million, per the company.

2. Supabase, $200M, database: Database developer Supabase raised a $200 million Series D led by Accel at a $2 billion valuation. The San Francisco-based startup is the developer of an open-source relational database — also called Supabase — for AI app development and competes with Google’s database Firebase. Founded in 2020, the company has raised $396 million, per Crunchbase.

3. Electra, $186M, industrial: Clean iron startup Electra locked up a massive $186 million Series B led by Capricorn Investment Group and Temasek Holdings. Boulder, Colorado-based Electra’s process produces pure iron from iron ore using renewable energy — cutting down the 10% of global CO₂ emissions from steelmaking. The company will use the new funding to support the construction of its demonstration plant in Colorado, starting later this year. Founded in 2020, Electra has raised $214 million, per the company.

4. Altruist, $152M, fintech: Altruist raised big this week, locking up a $152 million round led by GIC that values the wealth management startup at $1.9 billion. Last May, the company raised a Series E that valued it at more than $1.5 billion. The Los Angeles-based startup is a self-clearing brokerage for investment advisers, offering a platform for account opening, trading, reporting and billing. Founded in 2018, the company has raised $601.5 million, according to Crunchbase.

5. Manychat, $140M, messaging: Investors are in love with agentic AI and chatbots right now. The most recent example of that infatuation is Manychat’s $140 million growth capital raise led by Summit Partners. The Palo Alto, California-based company provides conversational AI and automation tools for businesses across social and messaging platforms. The startup says it sends “billions of messages annually” on Instagram, TikTok and other platforms, for more than a million businesses. The company, which has been profitable, will use the new cash to accelerate its global expansion, invest in R&D, enhance marketing and customer support, and advance AI agent features across new and existing channels. Founded in 2015, the company has raised $163 million, per Crunchbase.

6. Electra.aero, $115M, aerospace: Electra.aero — commonly referred to as Electra — raised a $115 million in Series B led by Prysm Capital. The Manassas, Virginia-based aerospace company is developing a hybrid-electric ultra-short aircraft which can take off and land in 150 feet. The company will use the money to enter the pre-production and certification phase for its EL9, and says it already has secured more than 2,200 pre-orders valued at over $10 billion for the aircraft. Founded in 2020, this is the company’s first raise with an announced amount, per Crunchbase.

7. (tied) Biolinq, $100M, biotech: San Diego-based Biolinq, a biotech startup developing multi-analyte biosensors for metabolic health, raised a $100 million Series C led by Alpha Wave Ventures. Founded in 2012, the company has raised $276 million, per Crunchbase.

7. (tied) Dataminr, $100M, analytics: It was just in March when Dataminr last made this list. The company had secured $85 million in new funding from HSBC and NightDragon through a combination of convertible financing and credit. This week it’s back with another $100 million convertible financing from funds managed by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group. The New York-based company has a real-time platform for detecting events, risks and critical information from public data signals, and is approaching $200 million in annual recurring revenue. Founded in 2009, the company has raised $1.2 billion, per Crunchbase.

7. (tied) Flow, $100M, real estate: Adam Neumann’s residential real estate startup Flow raised more than $100 million at a $2.5 billion valuation, Bloomberg reported. Investors included a16z, which supported the Miami-based company back in 2022 with $350 million.

10. Endor Labs, $93M, cybersecurity: Palo Alto, California-based Endor Labs, an application security startup, raised a $93 million Series B funding round led by DFJ Growth. Founded in 2022, the company has raised $188 million, per Crunchbase.

Big global deals
The biggest raise this week outside the U.S. again came from China.
  • Shanghai-based Qianxun Spatial Intelligence, a high-precision positioning service provider, raised a Series B worth approximately $137 million.

The Information : The NFL Loves Netflix. But Does Netflix Want to Love the NFL?

The NFL Loves Netflix. But Does Netflix Want to Love the NFL?
The assumption has been that the streamers will need sports as much as the leagues need the streamers. The reality is more complicated.

A couple weeks ago, a steady stream of media and sports heavyweights could be found at the white-marbled Breakers hotel in Palm Beach, Fla., where the NFL was hosting its annual owners’ meetings. The conclave is a big deal for the league—an occasion for it to hash out its multibillion dollar business deals and discuss what the future may hold.

The latest gathering, which lasted over four days, had a notable first-time guest: Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix. He came for a panel discussion about sports on streaming-video services like Netflix, and there the league revealed that Netflix would air two Christmas Day games in 2025 just as it did in 2024.

Everyone knew Netflix would do at least one Christmas game as part of a three-year deal that began with a pair of Christmas matches last year, the first NFL games ever broadcast on Netflix. But the deal only requires Netflix to air one game per year. The media world saw the decision to have two games again as Netflix’s acknowledgment that it’s interested in nurturing its nascent relationship with the league, after decades of resisting live sports.

For the league’s part, it couldn’t be happier. “We’re now in a world where there are some platforms that by doing one deal, you tap into global scale,” the NFL’s chief media and business officer, Brian Rolapp, told me last week. “Netflix is one of them. Amazon is certainly becoming that, and YouTube is certainly becoming that.”

Right now the league is trying to find a marquee home for an opening-week game on Sept. 5 in Brazil, and while it might go with a TV network, a streamer like Netflix is probably more likely, since those companies have a greater interest in international audiences and more money to spend.

“That is a change in the sports world that’s upon us,” Rolapp added. “And for us, it comes at a good time as we think about global distribution.”

That world looks nothing like it used to. The league once relied on traditional TV to air games, but those businesses are cratering. The cable subscription and advertising revenues that helped companies such as Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global afford expensive sports rights have plummeted as viewers spend more time on streaming services.

The NFL and other sports leagues have assumed they could steer more and more of their business over to the streamers, figuring those platforms would want to add sports to bring in subscribers and advertisers. The NFL has had some wins there. In the last few years, the NFL has put Thursday games on Amazon Prime, switched its Sunday Ticket package to YouTube from its longtime home on DirecTV—and struck the deal with Netflix, long seen as a reluctant partner for live sports. These came after a substantial amount of wooing across Silicon Valley.

But it’s not clear the streamers will always have as much appetite for sports as the leagues and media executives have long assumed they would—if Netflix’s cautious approach to the NFL is any measure. It could put the NFL and other leagues in an uncomfortable position: They might get forced to take less they’d want from the streamers because the traditional cable companies can’t afford much of anything.

As my conversations with more than a dozen current and former NFL, Netflix, sports media and streaming executives revealed to me, the league’s interest in Netflix goes back much further than most people may realize. League executives tracked Netflix’s ascension into a global streaming powerhouse through the 2010s and envisioned a day it would begin bidding for live games, according to current and former league executives. As one of the executives joked to me, Netflix was on the league’s radar as soon as it went public in 2002. Its emergence over the next two decades or so as the most profitable, deep-pocketed streamer has only enhanced its desirability as a partner for the league.

For now, though, the NFL and Netflix are like casual friends, at least compared to other tech giants such as Amazon and YouTube that have gotten hitched to the league through multibillion-dollar licensing deals. Amazon and YouTube are interested in the Brazil games, for instance, while it’s not clear yet if Netflix is, according to people familiar with the matter. But at least in the eyes of many in the NFL, an eventual marriage between America’s No. 1 sports league and its No. 1 subscription streamer is all but inevitable.

The reordering among media and sports leagues goes far beyond the NFL. Every major league and every streaming service faces the same question: Sports may be essential to traditional TV, but will it ever be essential to streaming?

The NFL has played the long game when it has come to winning over the tech giants.

When I spoke with Rolapp, he recalled several decades of annual trips to Silicon Valley with league commissioner Roger Goodell. At the beginning, they were eager “not only to establish relationships but just get smart on where the world was going,” Rolapp recalled. We’ve been deliberate about spending time in their world for as long as I’ve been here.”

In 2007, Rolapp and Goodell had a meeting with Steve Jobs and Apple executives, around the time the first iPhone launched. Jobs told Rolapp and the NFL executives they would need to enable all of its stadiums with Wi-Fi—something that wasn’t then obvious to the league. “Of course, in my own cynical brain, I thought he was just trying to sell iPhones, but he was 100% right,” said Rolapp, acknowledging that he may have slightly underestimated how ubiquitous smartphones would become. (The meeting with Jobs also included Jonathan Kraft, a New England Patriots executive and son of team owner Robert Kraft.)

Two years later, the NFL struck its very first agreement with YouTube—then just a few years old and freshly acquired by Google—to supply the site with game clips and highlights. The footage wasn’t exclusive to YouTube, but it needed a rights deal to have any official content at all, and YouTube knew it required the more professionally produced content that advertisers coveted.

Rolapp felt like it was a first good step into Silicon Valley. Both YouTube and the NFL needed some time to figure each other out. “They weren’t ready for live games, and we weren’t ready to license live games digitally,” he said.

Around the same time, Rolapp met Sarandos and another top Netflix executive, Robert Kyncl (who later went to YouTube and is now Warner Music’s CEO). Meanwhile, Goodell worked to get closer to Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, then its CEO, including over numerous conversations at places like the annual Allen & Co. Sun Valley Conference in Idaho for the tech, media and finance elite. (Netflix declined to make executives available for this story.)

Until recently, though, Netflix exhibited no interest in live sports. That’s largely because it didn’t need any extra content to attract subscribers. But as the league made inroads with YouTube and Amazon, Netflix’s reluctance became even more glaringly apparent—and puzzling, even to some of its own executives.

During an early 2022 meeting among senior Netflix executives to discuss new business and revenue opportunities for the future—Netflix conducts these meetings pretty regularly—the topic of why the company had not embraced live sports came up during a breakout session, said an executive who attended the meeting. Perhaps, said another attendee, the answer was fairly straightforward: Partly it was just because neither Sarandos nor Hastings was widely known to be a hardcore fan of any sports teams (though, as another Netflix executive acknowledged, Hastings is an avid snowboarder and skier, while Sarandos recently went to WWE’s WrestleMania and Raw events in Las Vegas). Others familiar with Netflix executives’ thinking insist the company wanted to make sure its investments in live sports were economically and technologically feasible for the company.

July 2023 proved to be an important milestone in the relationship between Netflix and the NFL. “Quarterback”—a documentary series following three NFL quarterbacks including superstar Patrick Mahomes—premiered on Netflix that month and caught on with its audience. A second season filmed in 2024 and will come out later this year (and another series on the Dallas Cowboys, “America’s Team: The Gambler and His Cowboys,” is highly anticipated).

“The NFL has been interested in Netflix’s approach to storytelling: They like the portrayal of the league in a very cinematic way,” said Ian Schafer, a longtime entertainment and advertising executive who has worked with sports leagues and streaming services.

What about live sports, though? Rolapp said he knew Netflix could become a serious bidder when the company announced in April 2022, after its subscriber growth stalled, that it was getting into the ads business. The shift meant that business incentives would propel Netflix to finally embrace live sports, which it could use to attract both subscribers and advertisers.

For years, the league had been thinking about playing more games on Christmas Day. It also saw an opportunity to separate out a new package of games for streaming companies and TV networks to bid on.

At last year’s owners’ meeting at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando, Fla., the NFL announced it would move forward with that plan. Netflix reached out, according to people familiar with the matter. And the league and the streamer struck a deal for the Christmas Day games in May.

Not everyone was ecstatic. Amazon sports executives were upset about not getting a chance to bid on those games, according to an executive affiliated with an NFL team. They felt that the NFL had singled out Netflix as the company it wanted to do a deal with for that package, these Amazon executives told the team executive.

Similarly, NBCUniversal sports executives were miffed and felt Netflix had been allowed to “cherry-pick” a package of holiday games, said one NBC Sports executive. That seemed like a slight to the league’s longtime cable partners, who felt like they deserved to at least get asked to bid.

On Netflix’s Christmas broadcasts last year, the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Pittsburgh Steelers 29–10, while the Baltimore Ravens trounced the Houston Texans 31–2—a sports contest largely overshadowed by Beyoncé’s half-time performance. The games formed the biggest streaming audience ever for the NFL, attracting more than 30 million viewers each, on average, globally.

For both the NFL and Netflix, the games were a smash hit.

Those kinds of results added to the bounty of evidence the NFL now has that fans will show up for exclusive streaming games. Amazon, which completed its third season of “Thursday Night Football,” grew its average viewership by 38% from its first season. Meanwhile, the playoff game on NBCUniversal’s Peacock streaming service ranks as Peacock’s largest single day ever as of that point, in terms of the total number of time users spent on the service.

Nonetheless, Sarandos has been insistent that Netflix won’t throw endless money at sports. Sarandos’ stance could mean the NFL will have a hard time ever talking Netflix into a deal for a full season of games.

“We’re going to be mindful of the bottom line,” Sarandos said during an earnings call just a month after the Christmas games. “And it’s really important that those economics do work and that the big league sports’ full-season economics are very hard to make work.”

But Netflix has also shown a willingness to make an about-face when the business situation calls for it—as it did by introducing ads, which Hastings had been loath to add to Netflix. And while sports, media and entertainment executives generally believe Netflix executives when they say the company wants to focus on a handful of bigger live sports events, they also think one day Netflix will need sports more than it currently does: Things could change, once again, if it experiences another slowdown in revenue growth.

“If the advertising business stalls, you’ll see them get more into sports,” said one former Netflix content executive. “Netflix has religion until they don’t.”

The strength of the NFL’s position will be fully tested relatively soon. When the league announced its current full-season deals in 2021, they included opt-out clauses that would allow it to end the partnerships in 2029. The NFL added the clauses deliberately to give itself the opportunity to reconsider the media world and assess whether it might make sense to move more of its programming from traditional TV to streaming.

“It was us recognizing that the world was changing from a consumer standpoint, and the companies who were serving those consumers were changing,” said Rolapp. “To have some flexibility, when you don’t know what the future looks like, is certainly nice to have.”

Pretty much every league or sports media and industry executive I spoke to thinks the league will definitely exercise that clause, though the NFL hasn’t made any official decisions on the matter.

The league is almost certainly encouraged by the luck the NBA experienced last year when it tripled the total value of its media contracts in fresh negotiations. Theoretically, the NFL could see even greater gains, since it commands a far larger audience. But a nagging question troubles all the leagues: Will the number always go up—or is there a ceiling for sports rights costs?

“While it feels like there must be a cap to just how high the cost of major sports rights can go, we have clearly not reached it yet,” said Marc DeBevoise, a longtime media executive and investor and former chief digital officer of CBS’s parent company, which now goes by Paramount Global.

And as much as the streamers may seem like a great idea for the NFL, the new relationships have brought at least a little tension. For instance, the streamers don’t have a history in producing live sports broadcasts. Netflix had to hire CBS to produce its Christmas Day games last year and also faced criticisms for a glitchy boxing event it hosted a month prior to those games. The same is true of Amazon: While the tech giant now has its own production team, filled with former sports media and production executives, for “Thursday Night Football,” that wasn’t originally the case.

Some current and former league executives told me they still have qualms about working with tech companies and are keeping an eye on which companies are willing to make the investment to produce the games in the way the NFL is accustomed to. These tech giants are also generally led by executives with product and engineering backgrounds, they said. That inherently creates a different type of relationship dynamic than with TV networks staffed by media and business people who have been in and around sports for often decades.

Yet the NFL’s ever-increasing asking prices from its media partners means the league is likely to put up with a lot of headaches from tech rookies.

“You have to fish where the fish are,” said David Levy, founder and co-CEO of Horizon Sports and Experiences and former longtime president of Turner Broadcasting, arguing that sports leagues will need to go where viewers are increasingly spending their time watching entertainment.

And that landscape is heading more and more in the direction of the tech giants. Levy said he’s had discussions with various sports league executives about this evolution. “If you close your eyes and think what media companies will be around in the next 10 years, Google, Amazon and Netflix would be at the top of the list,” Levy said.

WSJ : FDA Asks Vaccine Maker to Complete New Clinical Trial for Delayed Covid-19

FDA Asks Vaccine Maker to Complete New Clinical Trial for Delayed Covid-19 Shot
A new randomized study could cost Novavax tens of millions of dollars, vaccine experts say

Key Points
  • The FDA is requesting that Novavax conduct another clinical trial for its Covid-19 vaccine.
  • Appointees under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. intervened in Novavax’s Covid-19 shot approval.
  • A new trial could cost millions, but the FDA may allow smaller study.

Federal regulators are asking Novavax NVAX -6.15%decrease; red down pointing triangle to complete an additional randomized clinical trial on its Covid-19 vaccine after previously delaying approval, people familiar with the matter said, a request that could be so prohibitively expensive the company might not be able to fulfill it.

The Maryland-based company was asked by the Food and Drug Administration to show its vaccine is effective with another randomized study after appointees under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. intervened in the approval process, the people said. The additional step goes beyond what other Covid-19 vaccine makers had to do to win approval, and could be an early sign of new challenges for drugmakers hoping to get approvals.

The company’s shot already showed 90% efficacy in a 30,000-person, placebo-controlled trial, and it is already available in the U.S. under an emergency use authorization and has won full approval in Australia, Europe and Japan.

A new randomized trial with enough participants to judge the vaccine’s ability to prevent disease could cost tens of millions of dollars, vaccine experts said.

The FDA’s request for new data gives Novavax room to negotiate for a smaller, less expensive study, perhaps costing only a few million dollars, a person familiar with the matter said. The company responded to the agency earlier this week, the person said. Negotiations will need to move quickly for the company to have time to adjust its vaccine to the strain of the virus most likely to dominate in the fall and request approval for an updated shot tweaked to match.

A health department official said that the department is committed to safe products and gold-standard science.

The agency asked the company to promise further study of its shot after it wins approval—a sign to some that the FDA will likely give the company a green light. Shares of Novavax got a boost Wednesday after it reported that the FDA had requested a postapproval commitment to generate additional data. The company didn’t specify that it had been asked to do a randomized trial.

New FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and his principal deputy commissioner, Dr. Sara Brenner, were involved in the decision to hold off on the approval for the vaccine. The agency had set a goal date of April 1 for the decision and missed that deadline.

The FDA has long tried to avoid even the appearance of political interference in drug and other product approvals, allowing career staff in almost all cases to make those judgments.

Since Kennedy was confirmed, vaccines and the processes around their approvals have come into the limelight. Kennedy, known for his vaccine-skeptical views, promised during his Senate confirmation that he would work within current vaccine-approval systems. He also said he doesn’t aim to take vaccines away.

In a recent CBS interview, he said the government is “looking at” Novavax’s vaccine approval because shots similar to it—those targeting a single antigen—“have never worked” for respiratory illnesses. The comment baffled scientists who pointed to other shots for Covid-19 and RSV as examples of similar vaccines that work.

WSJ : The New Status Watch? One With Personality and Soul.

The New Status Watch? One With Personality and Soul.
With restrained details and vintage designs, the watches that offer bragging rights nowadays prioritize character and understated cool.

Photo: Elizabeth Coetzee/WSJ; Prop styling by Catherine Campbell Pearson

Traditionally, pricey “status watches” have been the purview of guys who reel off Rolex reference numbers and use the word “timepiece” without an ounce of irony. But such a narrow take on what constitutes status can make men default to snoozy, predictable tickers. It’s tempting to just fall back on one of the usual boldface-name watch brands, says vintage watch expert Mike Nouveau. “I know men who are interested in fashion, design and art but then have some garbage watch on.”

Fortunately, whether you’ve got $700 or north of $70,000 to spend, a number of buzzy, in-the-know brands have made it easy to find a statement piece that doesn’t feel by-the-numbers flashy.

Where to start if you want to invest in a watch with character? To snag a charming ticker that whispers, not shouts, it helps to look beyond the usual circular or rectangular case shapes. At the cheaper end of the spectrum is Anoma Watches, a London-based brand that specializes in triangular cases with rounded corners. These watches are “sculptural objects,” said Stephen Pulvirent, 35, a longtime watch-lover in Los Angeles. “They’re unusual in a way that invites you to look at them.”
From left: Anoma A1 Slate, $2,300; Dennison ALD Collection Midnight Aventurine Dial, about $690

With its asymmetrical shape and wonky hands, the Mirage by Berneron (which ranges in price from about $65,000 to $78,700) clearly takes inspiration from the “melted” look of the Cartier Crash, a crazily in-demand watch that has become, according to Pulvirent, “essentially unobtainable.” Less wild—and expensive—but still plenty playful is the Disco Volante (“flying saucer” in Italian) from Swiss brand Furlan Marri, a vintage-inspired ticker that costs about $3,100 and sports a distinctive hubcap-style case. It’s attention-grabbing without being showy.
From left: A Rare Vintage Cartier Crash 'Paris' Circa 1991, about $250,000 at Menta Watches; Furlan Marri Disco Verde, about $3,100

That aligns with a growing trend in the watch market. “We’re definitely going into a subtler era,” says Mark Cho, 41, the founder of menswear brand the Armoury, which has stores in New York City and Hong Kong. Cho has seen firsthand demand for understated watches from the Japanese brand Naoya Hida & Co. skyrocket. Indeed, the clamor is so deafening that Hida now uses a lottery system to allocate the pieces, whose prices range from around $18,000 to nearly $62,000. During the most recent release, Cho says, he received roughly 1,000 applications for around 50 watches.
Louis Vuitton Tambour Convergence Watch, $33,500

Sometimes small details pack the most personality. An eye-catching light-blue ring encircles the dial of the stripped-back RP2, a new design from independent Swiss watchmaker Raúl Pagès that costs just about $108,000. Meanwhile, the Tambour Convergence from Louis Vuitton ($33,500) reimagines the dial entirely; a small sculpted window in its polished pink-gold case reveals the time. “I really love what LV is doing right now,” said Cho, of the brand’s “daring” designs.

All of Naoya Hida & Co. watches feature charming touches, like hand-engraved and -enameled numerals, but the NH TYPE3 series takes it to another level: The watchmakers hand-carve a smiling face into the gold moon on the lapis-lazuli disc of the moon phase. Benjamin Clymer, the founder of Hodinkee, a New York City-based watch media company, “ordered one on the spot” a few years ago after seeing the watch in person. The quirky details, he says, give it the feel of a vintage piece.
Naoya Hida & Co. NH Type 3B-1, $31,400 at the Armoury Photo: Elizabeth Coetzee/WSJ; Prop styling by Catherine Campbell Pearson

Another option: Literally look to the past. As Cho puts it, “If you want something with personality for not too much money, vintage is your best bet.” Nick Reed, 44, who works for a global asset manager in Denver, owns a small but impressive array of watches (including a Ulysse Nardin and a NOMOS Glashütte), but he’d love to add what he calls “a proper vintage watch that aligns with my passion for skiing.”

His “grail watch” would be a Rolex chronograph famously worn by Jean-Claude Killy, a French skier from the 1960s, he said. “There’s a sea of sameness out there, [but] vintage pieces have stood the test of time and have all sorts of quirks.”

In the hit Apple TV+ show, “Severance,” watches play a subtle role in character development. As protagonist Mark Scout (Adam Scott) enters his sterile office, he swaps an unusual ticker that has a green dial—which fans quickly clocked as a quirky old Vostok (a brand with roots in the U.S.S.R.)—for a yawn-inducingly minimalist one.

Nouveau suggests rookie vintage-hunters start by looking at models from the ’70s and ’80s, when cheaper quartz watches flooded the market and traditional watchmakers grew more experimental. You can pick up Cartier’s square-ish Ceinture (meaning “belt” in French) for around $7,000; expect to pay a bit more (upward of $20,000) for the long, arched Cartier Tank Cintrée (meaning “curved”). “There’s also a ton of interesting Patek [Philippe] shapes from the 1970s,” said Nouveau. While some can decimate savings, persistent shoppers can find, for instance, the idiosyncratic octagonal REF 3729/1 for under $15,000.

“You can get a unique watch that most people have never even seen before,” Nouveau said, “as long as you’re willing to consider brands that might not exist anymore and stuff from forgotten eras.”

FT : Deliveroo opens door to £2.7bn meal deal with DoorDash

Deliveroo opens door to £2.7bn meal deal with DoorDash
UK food delivery group valued at £7.6bn in London listing four years ago

Deliveroo, the food delivery company that listed in London with a £7.6bn valuation in 2021, is set to be the latest UK company swallowed by a US rival after San Francisco-based DoorDash made an indicative £2.7bn bid.

The takeover talks between the two popular takeaway apps come as consolidation gathers pace in the sector. Earlier this year, Prosus struck a €4.1bn deal to take Europe’s leading food delivery group Just Eat Takeaway private.

Founded by Will Shu in 2013, Deliveroo went public in a hotly anticipated IPO four years ago. But the listing proved a debacle as shares lost more than a quarter of their value on the first day of trading.

The company has struggled to perform since. Its stock stood at £1.47 at market close on Friday, down more than 60 per cent on its £3.90 listing price. Competition intensified when Uber Eats launched in the UK in 2016 alongside retail giant Amazon starting grocery delivery the same year.

Deliveroo said in a statement on Friday that its board “would be minded to recommend” DoorDash’s offer of £1.80 a share if a firm approach were made.

Deliveroo operates a food delivery app in nine countries, and booked its first full annual profit in its 2024 results last month.

In February, Deliveroo was forced to deny speculation that Shu was set to step down as chief executive this year, adding that he remained “relentlessly focused on the long-term future” of the company.

DoorDash, which was co-founded in 2013 by Tony Xu, operates in more than 30 countries and posted $10.7bn in revenues last year. A spokesperson for the company declined to comment.

DoorDash first made an approach for Deliveroo at roughly the same valuation last summer, according to a person with knowledge of the deal. The companies will continue talks and due diligence but there is no guarantee a deal will materialise, Deliveroo added in its statement.

The offer from DoorDash values Deliveroo’s shares at a more than 20 per cent premium to its closing price on Friday. The company will have to make an offer by May 23 under UK takeover rules.

DoorDash operates in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and does not overlap with any of Deliveroo’s markets, which the companies hope will mean the deal does not get blocked by competition regulators, according to the person with knowledge of the talks.

Both companies have been expanding into grocery and retail delivery, while developing their advertising businesses to boost profitability.

FT : Dan Loeb’s Third Point builds stake in maker of Tylenol and Neutrogena

Dan Loeb’s Third Point builds stake in maker of Tylenol and Neutrogena
Johnson & Johnson spin-off Kenvue may become takeover target as activists circle the consumer health group

Dan Loeb’s Third Point Capital has built a stake in Tylenol and Neutrogena maker Kenvue, becoming the third activist hedge fund to target the $43bn consumer health group in recent months, said people familiar with the matter.

Third Point’s position in Kenvue may add pressure on the company’s management, which has increasingly been viewed as a takeover target after it was spun out of healthcare group Johnson & Johnson in 2023.

In March, Kenvue named Jeff Smith, chief executive of activist investor Starboard Value, to its board alongside two other directors, averting a possible proxy fight. But since then, rival activist investor Toms Capital Investment Management has also amassed a stake, pushing for a sale or break-up of the company, said other people familiar with the matter.

The size of Third Point’s stake and the extent to which the hedge fund has engaged with Kenvue could not immediately be established. Third Point and Toms declined to comment.

Kenvue on Friday refused to comment on individual shareholder discussions and said it was committed to acting in the best interests of the company, adding: “We remain focused on accelerating sustainable, profitable growth and enhancing shareholder value.”

Kenvue’s brands include mouth wash Listerine, smoking cessation product Nicorette and skincare product Johnson’s Baby. The company’s skincare business has been shrinking as it faces stiff competition from independent brands tailored to younger consumers. Kenvue’s net sales totalled $15.5bn this year, flat with last year.

Shares in Kenvue stood at $22.65 on Friday and are up 6 per cent this year, but practically unchanged from the company’s listing price when it separated from J&J.

Third Point, which has targeted corporations including Walt Disney and Shell in recent years, has a history of collaborating with Toms on activist campaigns in the consumer sector. In 2022, both hedge funds built stakes in Colgate-Palmolive and agitated for a sale of its Hill’s Pet Nutrition division.

Third Point, which manages roughly $11.5bn, also followed Starboard into software company Salesforce, which resulted in a brokered peace and a board seat for another activist investor — Mason Morfit, co-chief executive of hedge fund ValueAct Capital.

FT : Donald Trump claims to have received call from Xi Jinping and to have cut ‘

Donald Trump claims to have received call from Xi Jinping and to have cut ‘200 deals’ on trade
Beijing says there are no active talks and Washington should ‘stop creating confusion’

Donald Trump said Chinese President Xi Jinping had “called” him, despite denials from Beijing that talks to ease trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies had started.

The US president also made the claim that he had sealed “200 deals” on trade, even though no such pacts have been announced.

“You have to understand, I’m dealing with all the companies, very friendly countries. We’re meeting with China. We’re doing fine with everybody. But ultimately, I’ve made all the deals,” Trump said in an interview with Time Magazine published on Friday.

Trump said of the Chinese president: “He’s called. And I don’t think that’s a sign of weakness on his behalf.”

However, several people familiar with the situation in Washington and Beijing said Xi had not called Trump. The Chinese embassy in Washington did not comment.

In his Time interview, the US president also insisted that “100 per cent” he had done 200 trade deals with countries across the globe, even though none have been announced. But he also suggested that they could be unveiled in the next month. “Over the next three to four weeks . . . we’re finished, by the way,” he said.

On Friday morning, as he left Washington for Rome to attend the funeral of Pope Francis, Trump was asked to clarify whether he had spoken to Xi since the US imposed bruising tariffs of up to 145 per cent on Chinese imports, triggering a trade war that has rattled financial markets.

“I don’t want to comment on that, but I’ve spoken to him many times,” Trump said.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has made multiple claims about contacts between the US and China that have later been questioned.

Trump said last month that Xi was planning to visit the US and would be “coming in the not too distant future”. But people familiar with the matter said there had been no conversations between Washington and Beijing about a summit.

On multiple occasions Trump has also referred to trade talks between the countries, even though these are yet to take place, according to people in Washington and Beijing.

“China and the US are NOT having any consultation or negotiation on #tariffs. The US should stop creating confusion,” the Chinese foreign ministry posted on X on Friday.

Chinese officials have also stressed that any trade negotiations in the future would have to be held at the working level and that the two countries would have to reach some kind of tentative agreement before Beijing would agree to set up a phone call or meeting with Xi. 

When asked what Xi had told him in the conversation that Trump claims happened, the US president referred to the power he had as gatekeeper for the US consumer market. “It’s a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there. And on behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set prices, and I’ll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay,” Trump told Time.

FT : Toyota chair proposes $42bn buyout deal for carmaker’s biggest subsidiary

Toyota chair proposes $42bn buyout deal for carmaker’s biggest subsidiary
Japanese company has come under investor pressure to simplify its web of interconnected companies

Toyota’s chair has proposed a ¥6tn ($42bn) deal to take the company’s biggest subsidiary private as he seeks to cement control over the world’s largest carmaker and streamline its notoriously complex governance structure. 

In recent years, Japan’s most powerful company has faced increasing investor pressure to simplify its web of interconnected equity holdings that the group holds across tens of suppliers and affiliate automakers.

Akio Toyoda, the grandson of Toyota’s founder, is considering investing his personal money to lead a buyout of Toyota Industries, which makes industrial equipment and vehicles, with financing from the country’s three biggest banks, according to four people with knowledge of the talks. 

The proposal values Toyota Industries at about ¥6tn, including debt. The listed subsidiary has a market capitalisation of ¥4.3tn at present.

The same people warned that the talks, which were first reported by Bloomberg, could still collapse. Toyota, which with its affiliates has a 40 per cent stake in Toyota Industries, is considering whether to participate in the take-private deal, the people said. It is unclear how advanced those discussions are or if the carmaker will follow through, they added.

Private equity groups have also explored participating in a buyout or buying sections of the business carved out as part of the deal, according to one person with knowledge of the talks.

In recent years, Japan’s government and regulators have pushed companies to rapidly improve corporate governance. The Tokyo Stock Exchange is also trying to reform so-called parent-child listings, where a large company controls a listed subsidiary.

Shareholder approval for Toyoda fell to a record low of 72 per cent last year, prompting the carmaker to increase the number of non-executive directors on its board ahead of this year’s annual meeting.

Within the carmaker’s sprawling empire, Toyota Industries is considered one of the most important suppliers for the group since it owns a 9.1 per cent stake in the carmaker and was intimately tied to the founding of the company. 

Toyota Industries did not respond to a request for comment. Toyota declined to comment. 

Japan’s auto suppliers, and Toyota’s in particular, have also become a target for activist investors who are betting both that corporate governance reform will force carmakers to buy in their subsidiaries and that competition will demand changes to their supply chains.

A number of Toyota’s smaller suppliers have already been targeted by funds linked to Yoshiaki Murakami, the country’s most notorious activist.

Toyota has previously made other automobile body suppliers into fully owned subsidiaries such as Toyota Auto Body and Kanto Auto Works in 2012.