TheChek News Flow

Separately, Hunter Biden defies GOP subpoena, says father not involved in his business sffairs

WASHINGTON—The House narrowly approved opening an impeachment probe into President Biden on Wednesday, hours after his son, Hunter Biden, defied a congressional demand to testify on Capitol Hill, marking a sharp escalation in the battle between the White House and Republicans.

The House voted 221-212 along party lines to formally authorize Republicans’ impeachment probe, which party leaders initiated several months ago, hoping to add legal and political muscle to the investigation into the president and his alleged ties to his son’s overseas business dealings.

Democrats criticized the vote as a political stunt and an effort to exact retribution on behalf of former President Trump, who was impeached twice by the House before being acquitted by the Senate. The White House and Democrats have said Republicans have failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden that approaches an impeachable offense.

The White House several weeks ago challenged House subpoenas and demands for transcribed interviews with Biden family members on the grounds that the existing impeachment probe, launched by GOP leaders in September, wasn’t valid because the House didn’t vote to authorize it.

“The impeachment inquiry is necessary now,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) told reporters this week, “because we’ve come to this impasse where following the facts where they lead is hitting a stone wall because the White House is impeding that investigation.”

The House Oversight Committee has been focused on the financial dealings of the president and his family, while the House Judiciary Committee has been investigating what Republicans portray as the weaponization of the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Democrats lambasted Republicans for authorizing the impeachment inquiry, calling it a politically driven waste of time.

“No amount of evidence could convince Republicans that Joe Biden did nothing wrong because they’re not looking for truth, they’re looking for revenge,” Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, said on the House floor ahead of the vote.

Impeachment investigations give Congress additional power by improving the likelihood that a court would authorize access to grand jury materials and boosting the chances of overcoming assertions such as executive privilege. While there is disagreement over whether a formal House vote is needed to authorize an impeachment probe, such a move helps remove legal ambiguity.

Through their monthslong inquiry, House Republicans have searched for evidence backing their allegations that the president accepted bribes and corruptly profited from his family’s business pursuits. While they have obtained testimony that President Biden occasionally met with his son’s business associates, they haven’t uncovered support for those claims or established that he profited from his family’s overseas endeavors.

The vote followed rare public remarks from Hunter Biden at the Capitol earlier Wednesday, when he called the Republicans’ investigation of his family illegitimate as he defied a congressional demand to testify Wednesday behind closed doors.

“Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business,” Hunter Biden said, speaking in front of the Capitol.

The younger Biden has faced congressional and legal scrutiny regarding his overseas business dealings in Ukraine, China and elsewhere as well as alleged tax evasion, and Republicans have sought to show links between Hunter’s work and his father.

While Hunter Biden said he was willing to testify publicly, he rebuffed a subpoena from House Republicans to answer questions behind closed doors on alleged links between his foreign business dealings and his father. “I’m here today to make sure that the House committee’s illegitimate investigations of my family do not proceed on distortions, manipulated evidence and lies,” he said.

The younger Biden had previously said he was only willing to testify publicly so that Republicans couldn’t selectively leak portions of his statements. House leaders said the president’s son couldn’t dictate the terms of his testimony and said they would now initiate contempt of Congress proceedings against Hunter Biden.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said Republicans were disappointed that Hunter Biden didn’t show up. Jordan said the private format better empowers lawmakers to focus on the facts rather than encourage public performances.

“He was just across the way at the Capitol, you’d think he could’ve come here and sat for questions,” Jordan said.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that the president was aware of what his son planned to say at the Capitol. Jean-Pierre said his parents were “proud of him, continuing to rebuild his life.”

House Democrats and the White House have denied any effort to impede the investigation.

Wednesday’s vote ensures that the political controversy around the impeachment inquiry will extend into next year, as the pressures of an election year intensify. Vulnerable Republicans in competitive districts made clear that their support for Wednesday’s procedural step didn’t lock them into voting to impeach Biden at the end of the investigation.

“We need to have a formal inquiry to get the information. And I do not directly think this is going to lead to an impeachment,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R., Neb.), whose district was won by Biden in 2020. He said the current evidence suggested to him that Biden probably hadn’t committed offenses that could be considered a high crime or misdemeanor warranting impeachment.

However, he said, “the American people should know the kind of corruption that was within the family.”

Wednesday’s vote showed how far House Republican leaders have moved since early this year, when then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy(R., Calif.) resisted scheduling such a vote amid reluctance from moderates in competitive districts hoping to keep their seats in 2024. Instead, McCarthy said that he was directing House committees to open an impeachment inquiry, without a House vote.

While casting a future vote to impeach Biden could revive anxiety among Republicans in swing districts, a recent Wall Street Journal poll found essentially no effect on the presidential race if the House impeached Biden because of his involvement with his son’s foreign business affairs.

Trump led Biden in the survey by 4 percentage points, 47% to 43%. When voters were asked how they would vote if Biden were impeached, Trump then held a 5-point lead, 46% to 41%.

Trump has been publicly pressuring Republicans to move more swiftly on Biden. “Either IMPEACH the BUM, or fade into OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO US!” he wrote in a late August social-media post. Aides to Trump say the subject didn’t come up when he met last month with Johnson during a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

“There could be nothing there,” Rep. Dave Joyce (R., Ohio) said of the claims against Biden. “But there have been a lot of allegations made and I think it’s important people have the facts instead of allegations so they can make intelligent decisions.”

For his part, Hunter Biden faces both congressional scrutiny and growing legal peril.

Last week, he was charged with evading taxes on millions of dollars in income from foreign firms, in the second indictment against him in a span of four months. The younger Biden was previously indicted in September on felony charges alleging he lied about his drug use on a federal form he completed as part of a 2018 gun purchase.

The two indictments came in the fallout from the collapse, in July, of a plea deal in which Hunter Biden was set to admit to two misdemeanor tax offenses and avoid prosecution on a gun charge. On Monday, his lawyers urged a federal judge to dismiss the three gun charges, arguing that federal prosecutors had reneged on promises made in that plea agreement.

Sources on both sides of the Atlantic say that if Farfetch doesn't find a new investor in the coming days, it will have to call in administrators in the U.K.

LONDON — Time is running out for the troubled Farfetch, which will likely have a new owner, or cease to exist in its current state, by Christmas.

WWD has learned that there are at least two investors looking to swoop in and rescue Farfetch.

While the identity of one could not be learned, it’s understood to be a company and not a private investor.

The other is Carmen Busquets, known for her savvy, early-stage investments in tech-driven brands. She is looking to raise between $500 million and $1 billion to rescue the company, and has proposed a five-year plan with the aim of driving fast growth and profitability.

Busquets, a businesswoman and entrepreneur, is best known as the majority cofounding investor of Net-a-porter and as a vocal proponent of sustainability. She has invested in start-ups in the U.S. and Britain including Farfetch, Moda Operandi, Flowerbx, Tagwalk, Cult Beauty and the cosmetics brand Dr Jackson’s.

“Fundamentally, I believe in the fashion and technology marketplace sector and I believe Farfetch remains the leading company in the industry. It has driven fundamental change to the distribution of fashion globally over the last 15 years,” Busquets told WWD.

“The industry is cyclical, and Farfetch is navigating a complex environment, made harder with the complexities of managing multiple corporate transactions. Farfetch remains a strategic asset, and given the collapse in market confidence and valuations in the sector there are a number of strategic tie-ups and consolidation opportunities for Farfetch as a leading e-commerce platform for the 21st century,” she added.

In the event that a rescue does not materialize from either investor, Farfetch has already lined up administrators in the U.K., where the head office is based.

If administrators take control, Farfetch assets — including Browns, New Guards Group, Stadium Goods, Farfetch’s $200 million stake in Neiman Marcus and its Platform Solutions IP — would be sold to pay off the principal debt holders, who are mainly institutional investors.

A source close to Farfetch said that whatever happens in the short term, it will be business as usual for the company’s suppliers, customers and partners.

Two of Farfetch’s biggest commercial partners, Compagnie Financière Richemont and Alibaba, are both keeping their distance and are not interested in rescuing the company.

Richemont was in the final stages of a deal to sell a 47.5 percent stake in Yoox Net-a-porter to Farfetch, but has already said it won’t invest in the ailing company. Alibaba is said to have been willing to put money in, but did not want to buy Farfetch outright.

Last month Richemont said it has “no financial obligations toward Farfetch,” and it does not envisage lending or investing in the company. The luxury giant also said it was “reviewing its options in respect of its arrangements with Farfetch,” calling into question the transfer of YNAP.

Richemont said its maisons and YNAP had not yet adopted Farfetch Platform Solutions, which was part of a wider deal forged with the fashion platform in 2022.

Farfetch has a separate partnership with Richemont and Alibaba, for distribution in China.

The Chinese e-comm giant’s president Mike Evans resigned last week from Farfetch’s board, which the luxury platform attributed to the “furtherance of the arm’s-length commercial relationship between Alibaba…and the company.”

An investor who does not hold shares in Farfetch and who spoke on condition of anonymity said that whatever happens, Farfetch needs to find a way to preserve its core tech expertise.

The investor added that Farfetch should build a new, smaller business around its tech IP, “without getting muddled up in fashion, branding or marketing ever again.”

Many say that tech expertise remains Farfetch’s superpower, with founder José Neves and the Farfetch team continuing to help brands strategize about digital retail, customer and shop-floor experiences.

Chanel’s president of fashion Bruno Pavlovsky told WWD last week that while the French brand no longer holds a stake in Farfetch, the two groups still work together.

“We continue to collaborate, brainstorm together and talk about the future of retail and our relationship with the customer. We are talking about many different initiatives to nourish the future of our boutiques, such as AI tools, to better understand the needs of the customer. We might not end up using those tools, but we want to understand what they mean,” Pavlovsky said.

Despite its allure of uniting the luxury world online, Farfech’s business model has always raised eyebrows among investors and industry members. But Neves has been able to turn things around before, by posting a promising quarter or inking a new high-profile partnership with a big luxe name.

Neves, who leads the business as chairman and chief executive officer, was both architect of Farfetch’s grand vision and technology and relentless cheerleader.

In August, after the company axed its push into beauty and said it eliminated $150 million of planned fixed costs this year over a couple months, Neves put a brave face on the situation and, as usual, remained optimistic.

“This company was built from zero, from nothing, and actually launched in 2008, amid a global financial crisis,” Neves told WWD at the time.

“We got our first venture capital money in 2010, so the first three years were just my money, which was no money. And so we really have that DNA of resiliency and frugality and we’ve grown this business from those humble, very humble origins to be a global platform present in all large luxury goods markets in the world.…The North Star of this company remains absolutely intact, which is to be the global platform for luxury.”

Even so, the money-losing operation has seen its valuation steadily shrivel.

While shares rebounded on Wednesday, rising 18.2 percent to close at 74 cents, the stock has still lost more than 41 percent of its value this week alone, and is well off its 52-week high of $8.02.

Earlier this week, Moody’s Investors Service lowered its rating of Farfetch to “Caa2” from “B3,” and put Farfetch on review for a further downgrade. The Moody’s decision came a week after Standard & Poor’s cut its rating on the luxury platform.

According to industry sources, the YNAP deal, which was supposed to close before the end of 2023, will not go through if the company goes into administration, although it could still be resuscitated if a new owner were to take over.

As reported, Farfetch has also been speaking to potential investors including Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group, about Browns and its stock.

Spokespeople for Farfetch and Frasers declined to comment.

French media group controlled by Vincent Bolloré says it will study break-up option to maximise value

French media conglomerate Vivendi is considering splitting itself up into three businesses that would all be listed separately, in what would be a major overhaul piloted by owner Vincent Bolloré.

The Paris-based company said it has begun work with bankers and lawyers to evaluate the feasibility of such a plan, which it said was aimed at maximising its valuation.

“Vivendi has endured a significantly high conglomerate discount, substantially reducing its valuation and thereby limiting its ability to carry out external growth transactions for its subsidiaries,” it said.

“In order to fully unleash the development potential of all its activities . . . [the group will] explore the feasibility of a project to split the company into several entities.”

The announcement comes two years after Vivendi spun out Universal Music Group in a blockbuster initial public offering that handed 60 per cent of the share capital to its shareholders. Since the transaction that hived off Vivendi’s most valuable business, the shares of the remaining slimmed-down group have underperformed, prompting the group to consider the break-up scenario.

The surprise announcement comes only weeks after the group finalised a long-awaited takeover of Lagardère. This added book publisher Hachette and a travel retail business focused on transportation hubs to the Vivendi portfolio that also includes French pay-TV operator Canal+.

It is a sign of how Bolloré, a corporate raider and industrialist who first invested in Vivendi in 2011, continues to change the group he effectively still leads even though he is no longer chair. Controlling the group with a stake of just under 30 per cent of shares, he initially sold off video games and telecoms assets, then folded in another company he owned, the advertising agency Havas, in 2018.

He was replaced by his son Yannick Bolloré as chair in 2018, although informally the patriarch still largely sets strategy.

The lack of cohesiveness and synergies between the group’s various operating businesses has long been an issue for investors and a source of frustration for Vivendi. Yannick Bolloré had been trying to improve the situation since his father officially retired in 2022, and told the Financial Times earlier this year that Vivendi was out to prove it was “a coherent company and not a disparate set of holdings”.

If the break-up were to go ahead, the group said, Vivendi’s biggest business, Canal+, which is its main source of revenue and profit, would become a separate company, as would Havas.

Vivendi would then plan to have a third listed branch as an investment company that would house Lagardère and include other listed and unlisted holdings in media and entertainment companies.

It is expected to take some time to study the implications of the break-up, heralding a period of uncertainty. “This project will have to prove its added value for all stakeholders and include an analysis of the tax consequences of the various contemplated operations,” Vivendi added.

Vivendi’s shares are down roughly 15 per cent since UMG was spun out of the company in September 2021, far underperforming an 18 per cent rise for the French blue-chip CAC 40 index.

Shares in Netherlands-listed UMG — in which Vivendi and the Bolloré family still own a combined stake of about 28 per cent — have risen about 9 per cent since its market debut. It is valued at close to €47bn on the stock market, while the slimmed-down version of Vivendi is worth just over €9bn.

Businesses would be around Canal+, Havas and an investment company

Vivendi VIVHY 10.33%increase; green up pointing triangle will examine a possible split into three businesses around Canal+, Havas and an investment company.

The French digital entertainment and communications company said its management board had proposed a study of the feasibility of a split into publicly-traded entities.

The company said it has “endured a significantly high conglomerate discount” since spinning off its Universal Music Group segment in 2021. A split would allow Vivendi to “fully unleash the development potential of all its activities,” the company said.

One business would be structured around the company’s film and TV producer, Groupe Canal+. The company said the Canal+ segment has a subscriber base of over 25 million people worldwide.

Another business would be structured around Havas, the advertising and communication firm, which Vivendi said had maintained a steady rate of acquisitions in recent years.

The third entity would be an investment company which includes a majority stake in the Lagardère group, a publishing and travel retail company.

Vivendi said a split would allow all three businesses to have the human resources and financial agility essential for development.