TheChek News Flow

Kalshi isn’t having a very good week. On Tuesday, the attorney general of Arizona filed a 20-count criminal complaint against the online prediction market, accusing it of running an illegal gambling business. Now, another southwestern state has taken a big swing at the company: A judge in Nevada has temporarily banned the service from operating there as part of an ongoing court case brought by state regulators.

Nevada, on behalf of its Gaming Control Board, sued Kalshi in February in an effort to block the prediction site from operating. Officials maintain that Kalshi has failed to acquire the appropriate gaming licenses that would cover the kind of betting activity its users are engaged in and that, by allowing users under the age of 21 to use its services, it violates state law.

Earlier this month, the state requested a temporary restraining order against Kalshi as part of its ongoing case. In a state court on Friday, Judge Jason D. Woodbury granted the state’s request and scheduled a hearing on the restraining order for early next month, court documents show.

In his order, Woodbury wrote that Kalshi was not licensed under the Nevada Gaming Control Act and that, given Kalshi’s policy of taking a commission from contracts purchased through its system, it was clearly operating a “percentage game” (which the state defines as gambling).

Kalshi has argued that, due to its registration with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, it is under that federal agency’s exclusive regulatory domain, which should exempt it from state laws, court documents show. However, Woodbury noted that the issue of whether federal law overrides state law is still unsettled for now, but the courts have not been leaning in that direction.

Kalshi declined to comment on the development when reached by TechCrunch. Wired first reported on the judge’s decision. Reuters reports that Nevada had previously convinced judges to ban Kalshi competitors like Coinbase and Polymarket.

The Nevada case in which the prediction market finds itself is but one in a growing number of state cases across the country that seek to argue that sites like Kalshi and Polymarket are illegal operations that skirt state gambling laws.

Conversely, current federal officials have positioned themselves as protectors of the prediction industry. Case in point: Following Arizona’s decision to file criminal charges against Kalshi earlier this week, the CFTC’s chairman, Mike Selig, came out swinging against the decision, posting online: “The Arizona Attorney General today filed criminal charges against one of our registered exchanges related to prediction markets. This is a jurisdictional dispute and entirely inappropriate as a criminal prosecution. The @CFTC is watching this closely and evaluating its options.”

The increasingly hostile posture of state officials and the lenience of the CFTC have all but guaranteed a regulatory battle between states and the federal government over prediction markets and their future.

In insecure times, security looks like an appealing sector for investment. That’s one interpretation of this week’s tally of the largest startup funding rounds.

The size of the largest U.S. deals was smaller than in recent weeks, and heavily featured cybersecurity- and privacy-focused startups. This includes the week’s biggest round — a $375 million Series B for consumer privacy and security platform Cloaked. Other areas that attracted good-sized financings included AI infrastructure, biotech, healthcare, and robotics.

1. Cloaked, $375M, privacy: Cloaked, a provider of consumer privacy and security tools, raised $375 million in Series B funding led by General Catalyst and Liberty City Ventures. Founded in 2020, the Massachusetts-based company sells monthly subscriptions for individuals and families.

2. Frore Systems, $143M, AI infrastructure: Frore Systems, a developer of integrated cooling architecture for AI computing and networking hardware, announced that it closed on $143 million in Series D funding. MVP Ventures led the financing, which set a $1.64 billion valuation for the 8-year-old, San Jose-based company.

3. (tied) XBow, $120M, cybersecurity: Seattle-based XBow, a provider of autonomous security testing technology, picked up $120 million in Series C funding. DFJ Growth and Northzone led the round, which values the 2-year-old company at over $1 billion.

3. (tied) Oasis Security, $120M, cybersecurity: Oasis Security, a developer of identify security tools with a focus on AI agents, secured $120 million in a funding round backed by Craft Ventures, Cyberstarts, Sequoia Capital and Accel. The 4-year-old company, which is headquartered in New York and has a presence in Israel, has raised $195 million to date, per Crunchbase data.

5. (tied) Imperative Care, $100M, medical devices: Imperative Care, a medical device company focused on treatment for stroke and vascular diseases caused by blood clot formation, secured $100 million in convertible note financing. Elevage Medical Technologies and Perceptive Advisors led the investment for the Campbell, California-based company.

5. (tied) Bluesky, $100M, social media: Seattle-based social network Bluesky disclosed this week that it raised a previously unannounced $100 million Series B round that closed last spring, led by Bain Capital Crypto.

5. (tied) Cape, $100M, privacy and security: Cape, a recently launched privacy-focused mobile network, landed $100 million in Series C funding. Bain Capital Ventures and IVP led the financing, which set a $900 million valuation for the Arlington, Virginia-based company.

8. Latent, $80M, healthcare AI: Latent, an AI platform aimed at helping move patients from clinical decision to therapy, picked up $80 million in a Series A round. Spark Capital and Transformation Capital led the financing for the San Francisco-based company.

9. Crossbow Therapeutics, $77M, biotech: Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Crossbow Therapeutics, a biotech startup focused on developing new antibody therapies to treat a broad range of cancers, raised $77 million in Series B funding. Taiho Ventures and Arkin Bio Ventures led the round, which will support a Phase 1 clinical trial of the company’s lead program.

10. RoboForce, $52M, robotics: RoboForce, a startup focused on developing AI-enabled robot labor for industrial environments, said it picked up $52 million in fresh funding, bringing its total raise to $67 million. YZi Labs led the financing for the Milpitas, California-based company.

HMRC ‘unlikely to be lenient’ with tax exiles fleeing Dubai, advisers warn

Returning Britons could face hit from both income tax and capital gains tax

Tax experts are warning British people who fled Dubai following war in the Middle East that they could still face higher tax bills, despite an attempt by the United Arab Emirates to soothe concerns.

The FT reported this week that authorities in the UAE, which levies no personal taxes, had privately signalled they would allow people who have left the country to spend more time abroad without losing their tax residence. However, several tax experts said the countries that UAE exiles had chosen to relocate to were unlikely to be equally accommodating.

Returning Britons are also unlikely to qualify for HM Revenue & Customs’ emergency tax rules, the advisers added.

“Unfortunately, tax ‘leniency’ in a low‑ or nil‑tax jurisdiction does not change how other states determine taxing rights,” said Fernando Del Canto, a Spanish lawyer and barrister based in London.

“Countries are sovereign and they don’t want their tax base to be eroded; they don’t want their tax [rights] to fly to the emirates.”

He suspected the Spanish and UK tax authorities would challenge people who had fled the UAE if they stayed in their countries long enough to become tax residents.

Charlie Sosna, head of private wealth and tax at law firm Mishcon de Reya, said that while the UAE’s private assurances offered “some comfort on paper”, it did not “eliminate the underlying tax risk”.

Returning Britons could face unexpected liabilities for both income tax and capital gains tax, if they become UK tax resident.

Nikita Cooper, director in the tax team at Price Bailey, an accountancy firm, said: “People may have sold UK businesses or second non-UK homes while tax resident in Dubai and could now face paying UK capital gains tax at 24 per cent. For many, that could amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds.”

Advisers report many affected British people are seeking to prevent triggering tax residency in the UK by spending time in third countries. However, Del Canto said, depending on how long the war continued, people could face the same tax residency problem in these temporary residences.

Each country has its own tax residency rules, with an individual’s residence first defined using these domestic laws. Spending more than 183 days in a year in a country typically results in becoming tax resident in most nations.

Many countries have also entered double tax treaties — agreements between two countries aimed at preventing double taxation of income or capital.

But experts cautioned that the treaties do not prevent individuals from becoming tax resident in more than one country; they simply allocate which country gets the right to tax in that eventuality.

“In the case of the UK and UAE treaty, it is narrowly drafted . . . A taxpayer might have a residence in the UAE and the UK and could still find themselves paying UK tax on their worldwide income,” said Nimesh Shah, chief executive of tax adviser Blick Rothenberg.

In the UK, individuals become tax resident based on the number of days they spend in the country and how many ties they have to the UK under rules known as the Statutory Residence Test (SRT).

Shah said that a tax certificate from the UAE saying an individual was considered tax resident there, even though they were currently based outside the country, would probably be of “of very limited benefit for them, from a UK perspective”.

Advisers also warned Britons returning from the UAE to not rely on an “exceptional circumstances” rule of the SRT. This allows individuals who find themselves stranded in the UK for unavoidable reasons an extra 60 days in the UK before they become tax resident.

“HMRC hardly did it during Covid,” said Del Canto. “I don’t think they’re going to be very lenient.”

When asked directly by the FT if the exceptional circumstance rule applies to those returning from Dubai, HMRC said only that individuals stranded in the UK from countries where the Westminster government has recommended against all travel can rely on the exceptional circumstances applying.

The Foreign Office (FCDO) currently advises against all travel to Iran, Israel, Iraq and parts of Lebanon. As of this week, it advises only against “all but essential” travel to UAE.

According to the FCDO, 70,000 British nationals had returned to the UK since the start of the war, as of March 13.

Martin Muhleder, tax partner at immigration advisers Vialto Parners, warned he “wouldn’t expect the exceptional circumstances to apply” to anyone coming to the UK from countries not on the FCDO’s do not travel list, unless there were significant other factors that made their circumstances “exceptional”.

HMRC said: “The existing rules already take into account exceptional circumstances, such as people being affected by war, while following the basic principle that those living in the UK should pay tax in the UK.”

Brand still has global cachet but it is finding life tricky as a tiny luxury-car maker

Aston Martin, symbol of British automotive heritage and James Bond’s wheels of choice, is better known in capital markets for driving itself into a dead end. Since listing eight years ago, Aston Martin Lagonda’s market capitalisation has shrunk to £373mn, less than a tenth of its IPO valuation. The company — whose shareholder group includes Canadian billionaire Lawrence Stroll, Chinese carmaker Geely, Mercedes-Benz and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund — has taken a whole host of wrong turns along the way.

The first was to chase speedy growth. At the time of its IPO — which raised no new money for the company — Aston Martin was producing about 5,000 cars a year. Seeking to impress public-market investors, its prospectus promised to scale that to 14,000 in the medium term. The hoped-for swarm of new fans failed to materialise. And the company’s brand was dented as dealers were forced to offer discounts to shift excess inventory.

Second, it poured too much money into bets that failed to pay off. Depreciation and amortisation charges were about a quarter of annual revenue last year. At Porsche, by comparison, it is in the mid-single digits as a percentage of revenue, on S&P Capital IQ figures. Despite equity injections, by the end of 2025, net debt had reached £1.38bn, a precarious 12.8 times its adjusted ebitda.

The road ahead is filled with potholes. Analysts at JPMorgan think that Aston Martin will burn about £140mn in cash both this year and next. The company needs to raise another £150mn to keep the engine running, and it isn’t expected to be free cash flow positive until 2028, according to Bernstein estimates.

Even then, Aston Martin would find life tricky as a tiny luxury-car maker. Such entities are saddled with costs and need to be able to charge a lot for their cars in order to make their numbers stack up. Indeed, Lex calculates that, assuming Aston Martin continued to sell the same number of cars it did in 2024, roughly 6,000 units, with similar product and operating costs, it would need to jack up revenue per car by about 15 per cent to make ebitda margins comparable to those that Porsche has achieved. It isn’t easy to see how it might do so. Indeed, last year, its average total selling price declined by 15 per cent as it delivered fewer “special” models.

Aston Martin’s best bet is to stop driving solo. As the high-end accessory of a larger automotive group, it could share R&D, capex and costs. The brand, helped by the eponymous F1 team, still has global cachet, but the question — also given the difficulties many carmakers face — is whether it could persuade a bigger partner to hop on board.

UK lets US use British bases to strike Iranian missile sites targeting Strait of Hormuz

Donald Trump says London should have acted faster after it agreed to help efforts to curb attacks on shipping

The UK has confirmed it will allow the US to use British air bases to conduct strikes on Iranian missile sites and other military capabilities that are targeting ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

While the move is a significant broadening of London’s policy on the Iran war, it was met with criticism by US President Donald Trump, who said Britain should have “acted a lot faster”.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer met with ministers on Friday to discuss Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping and its blocking of the strait, as well as Tehran’s strikes on civilian infrastructure in the Gulf, including oil and gas facilities.

Ministers confirmed that an agreement “for the US to use UK bases in the collective self-defence of the region includes US defensive operations to degrade the missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz”, a Downing Street spokesperson said.

The British bases being used by the US in its war with Israel against Iran are RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Starmer’s decision is the most significant step he has taken to widen his policy, confirmed one day into the war, for the US to use UK bases to attack missile storage depots and launchers inside Iran.

London views this as defensive activity to protect British nationals and interests in the region as well as support Gulf allies that have borne the brunt of retaliatory attacks by Iran.

Number 10 insisted the announcement on Friday did not represent a change to Starmer’s stance of the UK not getting drawn into a wider conflict and stressed the British government viewed the move as being in line with international law.

It came after Trump rebuked Nato “cowards” who “complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz” in a post on his Truth Social platform.

The US president lashed out again after the Downing Street announcement. “It’s been a very late response from the UK”, Trump said, adding it was “a surprise because the relationship is so good”.

Trump reiterated his criticism of the UK’s deal to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, to Mauritius. The agreement, under which the UK will lease back the military base, is paused while British officials engage with Washington.

Earlier on Friday, UK foreign secretary Yvette Cooper spoke with her Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi. 

She condemned Iran’s “reckless attacks” and said Britain’s operations were a response to Tehran’s strikes in the region, according to a Foreign Office statement.

She also cautioned the Tehran regime against targeting UK bases, territory or interests, it added. 

Araghchi said on X that the vast majority of Britons did not want any part in the “Israel-US war of choice” and by “ignoring his People, Mr. Starmer is putting British lives in danger by allowing UK bases to be used for aggression against Iran”. Tehran “will exercise its right to self-defence”, Araghchi added.

London was working with international partners to develop a viable plan to safeguard international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, Downing Street said.

In addition, RAF F-35 and Typhoon fighter jets are flying sorties across the Middle East, and counter-drone units are active, attempting to intercept Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles.

The Conservatives, who argue Britain should have let the US use UK bases to carry out its initial strikes on Iran, said Starmer had dithered in his response to the war and had shown “weak and indecisive” leadership.

Tory shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said: “After weeks of dither and finger pointing, the prime minister has once again changed his mind and performed yet another screeching U-turn.”

A Number 10 official dismissed the Tories’ criticism, saying the opposition party did not seem to understand the government’s policy.

The Liberal Democrats also censured the government over its latest move and renewed calls for a parliamentary vote on the war.

Calum Miller, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesperson, said: “We have warned from the start that the UK has to avoid being dragged into another war in the Middle East with no obvious end.”