TheChek News Flow

Permission to offer credit cards to 11mn British customers still pending as fintech nears 1st anniversary of becoming a bank

Revolut has yet to receive the green light from UK financial regulators to provide consumer credit services to its 11mn customers in Britain, marking the latest hurdle for the $45bn fintech to become a full-service UK bank.

The group is still awaiting authorisation from the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority after applying for a consumer credit licence last year, which would enable it to offer credit cards and other services in the UK, according to people familiar with the matter.

The consumer credit licence is separate from Revolut’s UK banking licence, which it secured last year from the PRA with restrictions. However, the restrictions limit the deposits Revolut’s banking unit is allowed to accept to a tiny £50,000 total.

The credit application highlights that Revolut is still awaiting several regulatory permissions to become a fully fledged lender in the UK.

The company already offers consumer credit services in several EU markets, including credit cards and the ability for customers to pay in instalments in Ireland, Poland and Lithuania. It plans to launch similar services in the UK, but has accepted this is likely to be delayed until after it receives its full banking licence.

Some elements of the consumer credit licence would be useful for other products, such as credit scoring, which Revolut is using to offer quick approvals on mortgages in Lithuania, with plans to expand this service into Ireland soon. Revolut already has a pan-EU banking licence from authorities in Lithuania.

The fintech secured a UK banking licence with restrictions last July following a protracted — and sometimes fraught — three-year process with regulators, delivering a boost to the group’s expansion plans in its home market.

The restrictions — in place as long as Revolut remains in the PRA’s so-called mobilisation stage — mean that in addition to the £50,000 total deposit limit insured by the UK’s guarantee scheme, the fintech cannot extend loans to customers. It needs to meet certain requirements to exit mobilisation and operate as a bank.

The PRA says that the mobilisation period “cannot continue indefinitely and should take no longer than 12 months”. But it accepts “there may be some circumstances that are beyond a new bank’s control” in its ability to meet the deadline.

Revolut declined to say if it would exit mobilisation by the 12-month deadline on July 25, with one person familiar with the process saying that it was “not a statutory limit”. Executives believe Revolut’s banking licence was always likely to take longer than usual given the company’s greater size compared to a typical applicant.

In its latest annual report, the group said that its aim was to exit mobilisation “during 2025”.

Revolut said: “Our ambition has always been to make Revolut the bank of choice for UK customers, offering products and services that improve their financial lives, including consumer credit.

“As part of this ambition, our UK bank has applied for a consumer credit licence. We’re continuing to work closely with UK regulators as we build towards launching our UK bank, and look forward to introducing new products to our UK customers once that process is complete.”

The FCA and PRA declined to comment.

Takeover would put ‘significant chunk of essential infrastructure under the control’ of UMG, executives complain

More than 200 executives from independent labels and trade associations have written to EU regulators to complain that Universal Music Group’s $775mn acquisition of music services company Downtown poses a “clear threat” to competition and growth in the industry.

In a letter sent on Friday evening to Teresa Ribera, the EU’s competition chief, the groups urged the European Commission to carry out a more detailed investigation of the deal, which they argue will give Universal too much power. 

The commission is currently probing the deal, which is being carried out by Universal’s Virgin Music group division, with a decision expected this month about whether to clear the purchase, demand concessions or open a more detailed investigation.

Signatories of the letter include independent label chiefs such as Martin Mills, chair of Beggars Group, Jeremy Lascelles, chief executive of Blue Raincoat Music, Martin Goldschmidt, chair of Cooking Vinyl, Darius Van Arman, co-owner of Secretly Group, and Tony Kiewel, co-president of Sub Pop.

UMG is the world’s largest music company, while Downtown operates leading distribution platforms FUGA and CD Baby, as well as service providers Curve and Songtrust. 

Independent labels, publishers and artists rely on such services to distribute their music to streaming platforms, track royalties, manage rights and get paid.

The letter warns that the deal would place “a significant chunk of essential infrastructure under the control of the market leader”, forcing independent companies to rely on their biggest rival to reach fans.

Executives are concerned that larger labels are buying up rival independent labels, which they argue will stifle competition and innovation.

The letter raises “serious concerns” about the proposed deal given Downtown’s “distribution, royalty accounting, and rights management capabilities — services used by thousands of companies and artists across the independent sector”. The deal would “further entrench [UMG’s] already significant market power”, signatories warn.

In a statement, Virgin said that “independent entrepreneurs have an abundance of choice for how they access resources and capital that they require for success”.

It added: “We respect the decision of certain entrepreneurs who choose not to work with Virgin or other major-affiliated partners. But the artist and label services market should not be designed around the personal preference of a minority of the label community, especially when dozens of other viable routes to market exist.”

This week, the co-chief executives of Virgin sent a memo to staff, seen by the Financial Times, explaining that they planned to invest in and expand the wide range of services to independent labels by Downtown. They said that Virgin would uphold and strengthen Downtown’s data privacy policies to safeguard its clients.

The commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter’s contents on Sunday evening.

Magic Seas appears to be first commercial vessel hit by rebel group since December

The crew of a Greek-owned cargo ship was forced to abandon the vessel in the Red Sea on Sunday after the first suspected attack by Yemen’s Houthis this year on a commercial vessel.

If confirmed as the work of the Houthis, the attack on the Magic Seas, a dry bulk carrier owned by Greece’s Stem Shipping, would be the first on a commercial vessel since December by the group, which is backed by Iran.

Michael Bodouroglou, Stem Shipping’s chief executive, told the Financial Times the crew had been left “terrified” by the multiple waves of attacks, which started with an assault by men in skiffs and left the ship taking on water.

“They didn’t know whether they were pirates or Houthis but then it became obvious they were Houthis because there were more and more, and there were missiles,” Bodouroglou said.

Martin Kelly, head of advisory for marine security company EOS Risk Group, said the attack marked a “huge shift in intent” by the Iran-backed group, both because it was the first in so long and because of the scale of the attack.

Pointing to the apparent use of skiffs, uncrewed surface ships and missiles fired from drones, Kelly said: “They meant to sink this ship.”

The vessel was carrying a mixture of steel products and fertiliser from China to Turkey, said Bodouroglou. He insisted the current voyage had no links to Israel — the reason usually cited by the Houthis for attacking ships — but acknowledged his vessels sometimes called at Israeli ports.

Bodouroglou said missiles had started fires in the forecastle near the ship’s bow and in its second hold. The vessel’s fuel tanks were damaged and the engine room hit, leaving it taking on water.

The crew was in the course of abandoning ship, he said, adding that the vessel might sink.

“The good thing is no crew member has been hurt,” Bodouroglou said.

The UK’s Maritime Trade Operations office subsequently confirmed the entire crew had left the ship and were “awaiting assistance”. The vessel was 51 nautical miles south-west of Hodeidah, the Houthis’ main port, at the time of the attack, the office said.

The Houthis did not immediately claim responsibility. However, no other group has mounted similar attacks in the Red Sea in recent years.

The Houthis have said they are attacking ships in support of Gaza’s Palestinians. Their first attack — on the car carrier Galaxy Leader — took place in November 2023, shortly after Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.

The group stopped attacking commercial vessels in the run-up to the start of a ceasefire in Gaza in January and had not resumed them since then, despite the collapse of that truce in March.

The group has instead focused on firing missiles repeatedly at targets in Israel, such as the country’s main airport.

In May US President Donald Trump said the US would stop its bombing campaign against the Houthis in response to assurances from the Iranian-backed group that it would halt its attacks on ships.

The Houthis’ previous attacks on commercial ships sank two vessels, set fire to another three and killed at least four mariners. The attacks prompted many shipowners to redirect vessels away from the Red Sea and Suez Canal and to sail round the Cape of Good Hope.

Crude oil and product tankers had slowly begun returning to the Red Sea following this year’s lull in attacks, said Clarksons, the maritime information provider. However, owners of container ships and some other vessel types have continued to avoid the area.

Bodouroglou said he would reassess whether to go via the Red Sea on future voyages in light of the attack on the Magic Seas

Le tribunal de commerce de Paris a validé ce 4 juillet la reprise de la marque de sport par l’homme d’affaires franco-suisse Dan Mamane. Un revers pour l’offre concurrente, portée par le fonds Neopar, mais aussi par le futur ex-PDG Marc-Henri Beausire, qui prévoit déjà des recours. Retour sur deux mois de bataille violente.

premium-iconArticle réservé aux abonnés

Guillaume Echelard

4 juillet 2025 à 17h19

LECTURE 6 MIN

C’est la fin d’une âpre bataille de sept mois. Ce vendredi 4 juillet, l’offre de reprise du Coq sportif portée par l’homme d’affaires franco-suisse Dan Mamane a été validée par le tribunal de commerce de Paris. Elle l’emporte sur l’offre concurrente, portée par la famille Poitrinal et son fonds Neopar, associé au groupe Iconix (Lee Cooper) et à l'ex-PDG, Marc-Henri Beausire (Airesis). Mais ce dernier ne lâche pas l’affaire et annonce d’ores et déjà préparer un recours. Un final à l’image de ce combat entre les deux offres : acharné et impitoyable. « C’était le far-west ! », s’exclame une source proche du dossier. Récit.

Lire aussi

Comment les jeux Olympiques ont mené le Coq sportif tout droit au redressement judiciaire

Retour en novembre 2024. Acculé par les pertes (28 millions d’euros en 2023) et les dettes (258 millions), le fournisseur officiel de l’équipe de France olympique aux 121 millions d’euros de chiffre d’affaires est placé en redressement judiciaire. L’administratrice judiciaire, l’emblématique Hélène Bourbouloux, se voit attribuer une « mission 3 ». Cette clause, rarement utilisée, permet aux administrateurs judiciaires d’assumer un rôle de gestion et de représentation de la société durant la période de redressement judiciaire. « Pour la justifier, les administrateurs ont voulu montrer que Marc-Henri Beausire était dépressif », raconte l’un des créanciers de l’entreprise vieille de près de 150 ans. Beausire tente alors de démontrer l’inverse, certificat médical à l’appui. « Dans tous les cas, on utilise cette clause dans des situations hors normes, juge un avocat. Peut-être y avait-il des anomalies fortes dans les comptes, par exemple ». Par conséquent, le PDG, qui a racheté le Coq sportif il y a 20 ans avec son fonds Airesis, se voit freiné dans son projet de présentation d’une offre de continuation avec le groupe Iconix (à la tête de Lee Cooper).

« Volonté délibérée d’exclusion »

En décembre 2024, face au besoin urgent de trésorerie du Coq, Iconix propose de financer la période d’observation. Les besoins en trésorerie sont alors estimés à 12 millions d’euros. Finalement, ces derniers sont réévalués à 16 millions, et sont apportés par Dan Mamane, qui se positionne pour la reprise. Grâce à un taux d’intérêt de 12 % sur un an, ce dernier touche des bénéfices importants sur ce prêt. « Iconix a été incapable de mettre de l’argent ! », estime-t-on dans son entourage. Dans le camp adverse, on juge que les délais donnés à Iconix pour trouver l’argent étaient impossibles à respecter, et qu’il s’agissait donc là « d’un premier signal fort d’une volonté délibérée d’exclusion ». Le bras de fer s’envenime déjà entre le camp Beausire et Iconix, et le camp Mamane.

Début 2025, c’est la veillée d’armes. Chaque camp affine son offre, lève des fonds, et s’écharpe sur l’accès à la data room. En mai, les deux offres sont révélées publiquement. D’un côté, Beausire, Neopar et Iconix s’adjoignent un casting cinq étoiles (Xavier Niel, Teddy Riner, la famille Camuset - fondatrice de la marque). Certains saluent cette équipe de choc, d’autres y voient un coup de communication. « Sur les 60 millions que veut mettre cette offre, Niel et Riner ne mettent que 100 000 euros », relativise une source proche du dossier. De l’autre, Dan Mamane, plus sobre, s’allie au fonds Mirabaud Patrimoine Vivant (Renaud Dutreil), actionnaire minoritaire du Coq, et recrute Alexandre Fauvet (ex-Fusalp). Mais ne débauche pas de noms célèbres, même si celui d’Amélie Oudéa-Castéra circule quelques semaines. Cédric Meston (Happyvore), repreneur de Tupperware, s’invite aussi dans la danse, discutant d’abord avec Marc-Henri Beausire et ses associés, avant de rejoindre le camp Mamane.

Accusations de copinage

Au-delà de la forme, chacun fait valoir ses arguments. Côté Neopar, on explique vouloir préserver 20 emplois supplémentaires, maintenir la dimension populaire de la marque, ou encore l’internationaliser. L’accent est aussi mis sur l’origine des fonds de l’offre, essentiellement tricolores, là où l’offre rivale tire essentiellement ses financements des Emirats arabes unis, de Suisse ou de Malaisie. Côté Mamane, on assume une nécessaire montée en gamme, à l’image de Lacoste, pour atteindre les 300 millions d'euros de chiffre d'affaires, et on explique mettre au moins 10 millions d’euros de plus sur la table (ce que conteste l’autre camp), parmi lesquels 20 seront destinés aux créanciers. L’offre défendue par Alexandre Fauvet - futur directeur général - critique aussi le choix de Neopar de vendre la licence d’exploitation de la marque le Coq sportif aux Etats-Unis à Iconix, ce qui déposséderait l’entreprise de cet actif clé. Le clan soutenu par Teddy Riner réplique que Mamane chercherait lui déjà à vendre l’intégralité de l’entreprise pour 75 millions d’euros - ce que conteste ce dernier.

Très vite, au fil des débats, l’offre de Dan Mamane devient la grande favorite. Le CSE du Coq Sportif se prononce en sa faveur. Les administrateurs, les créanciers - qui y seraient mieux traités -, tout comme l’Urssaf semblent y être plus sensibles. « C’est la première fois qu’il y a l’unanimité contre une offre », sourit une source proche du camp Mamane. En face, on s’agace, et on s’estime mis sur la touche. « Il y a beaucoup de conflits d’intérêts, pointe un des détracteurs de Mamane. Alexandre Fauvet est un ancien de la marque de ski Fusalp, Mirabaud y a aussi investi… Or, le président du tribunal de commerce, Patrick Sayer, est un investisseur de Fusalp ! Il y a des copinages ! »

« Traque personnelle »

Marc-Henri Beausire, déjà scandalisé par sa mise à l’écart via la « Mission n° 3 », ne supporte pas de voir l’offre qu’il aurait soutenue en tant qu’actionnaire minoritaire (avec 7 % du capital) balayée de la sorte. Une lettre du cabinet August Debouzy est alors envoyée, demandant la réouverture de débats jusqu’ici biaisés, et mettant publiquement en cause la neutralité d’Hélène Bourbouloux. Cette dernière dénonce dans la foulée auprès du Monde une tentative de déstabilisation. « Ceux qui pensent qu’on peut instrumentaliser Hélène Bourbouloux, ils n’ont jamais pris un verre avec elle », sourit une connaissance de la plus célèbre des administratrices judiciaires françaises. Et la même source de glisser que Marc-Henri Beausire s’était déjà brouillé avec Joanna Rousselet, la précédente administratrice en charge du dossier.

Du côté des alliés du PDG d’Airesis, l’initiative musclée - restée sans réponse du tribunal des affaires économiques - ne fait pas l’unanimité. « Ce n’est pas le consortium qui a voulu faire ce courrier, on ne voulait pas aller jusque-là, estime une source. Même si l’on rejoint ce constat, on ne sait pas trop quels résultats peut avoir ce type de courrier ». Visiblement, en tout cas, la missive n’aura pas fait trembler le tribunal des affaires économiques. L’entourage de Marc-Henri Beausire, lui, persévère, et menace d’ores et déjà de faire appel et de divers recours. Son avocat, Edouard de Lamaze, estime : « Il a été spolié après avoir investi pendant des années des dizaines de millions d’euros dans le Coq sportif ! » Une autre connaissance dénonce « une traque personnelle ». Ses adversaires s’agacent : « Marc-Henri Beausire a un problème d’appréhension de la réalité, il est dans le déni ». Sans doute les débats risquent-ils, encore, de continuer devant les tribunaux.

Treasury secretary’s warning comes as 90-day pause on steep levies is set to expire on Wednesday

Scott Bessent has warned that US tariffs on imports from some countries will “boomerang” back to the steep levels set by Donald Trump in April unless they quickly offer concessions and strike deals with Washington.

The US Treasury secretary’s comments came ahead of Wednesday’s end to a 90-day pause in the higher levies which has helped soothe markets and left room for talks between the US and its top commercial partners.

However, Trump has so far only struck three trade pacts during this period — with the UK, China and Vietnam — leaving the rest of the global economy, including top US allies such as the EU, Japan and South Korea, in limbo and facing renewed threats of high tariffs.

Speaking to CNN on Sunday, Bessent said Trump would inform countries that failed to reach agreements with the US that higher levies on their imports would take effect next month, a plan the president had floated last week.

“I’m not going to give away the playbook. We’re going to be very busy over the next 72 hours,” Bessent said. “President Trump is going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don’t move things along, then on August 1st, you will boomerang back to your April 2nd tariff level.”

Bessent said he expected Trump’s approach would lead to a flurry of dealmaking with top trading partners, but that about “100 letters” would also be going out to smaller countries with little US trade, setting their tariffs at 10 per cent.

Speaking to ABC on Sunday, Stephen Miran, chair of the White House council of economic advisers, said he was hearing “good things” about the negotiations with Europe and India. “The president will decide later this week, and in the time following, whether or not the countries are doing what it takes to get access to the American market like they’ve grown accustomed to,” Miran said.

The Trump administration’s initial pause on the higher levies three months ago was forced by a fiercely negative reaction from both US equity and bond investors, who feared that American ultra-protectionism would lead to both slower growth, if not a recession, and higher inflation. However, after Trump U-turned on the higher levies, equity markets rebounded strongly while bond markets eventually stabilised.

The possibility of a rapid return to exceedingly high tariffs on many countries could reignite those concerns, but investors have shown signs of adjusting to Trump’s trade regime of on-and-off negotiations with most big countries. Meanwhile, economic data has been relatively benign, with the labour market holding up in the first months of the administration, and inflation not showing signs of rapid re-acceleration because of the tariffs.

The trade talks that will dominate the coming weeks follow a period when Trump’s attention has mostly been on passage of his signature domestic policy bill — a package of tax cuts, spending reductions to the social safety net, and new funding to crack down on immigration. With that legislation passed by Congress and then signed by Trump on Friday, the White House focus can shift back to trade and tariffs.

Billionaire investors have proven their talents over the years by producing big returns for clients and for themselves. They don't all make the same moves at the same times, though -- and sometimes they pivot in completely opposite directions. For example, in the past year, Stanley Druckenmiller of the Duquesne Family Office sold all of his Nvidia shares -- but in the first quarter of 2025, Chase Coleman of Tiger Global Management added to his Nvidia position.

Both decisions could be winning ones: Druckenmiller locked in his gains on a position he had held for a while; Coleman is positioning himself to potentially benefit from Nvidia's next wave of growth. So, investors don't have to take the exact same path to win in investing.

But, in some cases, billionaires do have similar ideas, and this brings me to the subject of Michael Platt and Warren Buffett. Recently, Platt -- the managing director of giant European hedge fund BlueCrest Capital Management -- made an investment move that the "Oracle of Omaha," as Buffett is often called, would applaud. This particular investment is one Buffett himself has held in the recent past -- and one he recommends to every investor.

The U.K.'s wealthiest hedge fund manager

First, though, a quick note on Platt, who oversees $86 billion in assets at BlueCrest and is the U.K.'s wealthiest hedge fund manager. He co-founded the firm back in 2000, and it has operated as a private partnership -- taking no money from outside investors -- for almost a decade. The fund has been very successful, last year recording a 38% gain after delivering a 20% return in the previous year, according to press reports.

Platt has been known to anticipate market shifts and effectively take action. For example, in 2007, concerned about a potential market crash, he sold BlueCrest's bank shares -- a move that was key to the firm successfully navigating the financial crisis. He also invests across asset classes, and this diversification has helped him minimize risk and maximize profit over the long term.

Now, let's consider one of Platt's recent moves. In the first quarter, the billionaire bought shares of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY 0.84%), an exchange-traded fund that tracks the performance of the S&P 500 index. This is a new holding for Platt, and he bought 117,163 shares, for a position that represented 2.8% of his portfolio, based on the 13F form he most recently submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Managers of more than $100 million in U.S. securities must file those forms on a quarterly basis.

Buffett's thoughts on S&P 500 investing

So, what does Buffett have to say about such an investment? The billionaire has held this ETF in his portfolio in the past, and has even said that he has requested that, upon his death, the trustee of his estate should put most of the cash he leaves to his wife into just such an ETF. Buffett likes S&P 500 ETFs because they allow investors to easily bet on the best U.S. companies as a class -- and he's a big believer in their ability to deliver great returns over time.

"American business has done wonderfully over time and will continue to do so (though, most assuredly, in unpredictable fits and starts)," Buffett once wrote in a letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders.

The SPDR S&P 500 fund is the perfect way to benefit from the growth of American companies because it mimics the index's composition -- and the index includes the top American companies of the moment. I say "of the moment" because the index adjusts its components quarterly, adding and removing members as companies that are driving the economy rise into the ranks of the nation's largest and others drift out. The fund then makes the same moves in its holdings in order to properly track the benchmark index's performance.

An easy investment

So, with one simple purchase, Platt -- and other investors in this ETF -- gain exposure to America's finest businesses, and investors don't have to make any adjustments over time. Thanks to the index's regular moves, investors know they'll always have stakes in the most compelling companies of the moment.

Platt's purchase of the SPDR S&P 500 fund in the first quarter suggests he expects more gains for the broad market, and considering his solid track record of predicting market trends, there's reason to be confident about that. We could view this as a vote of confidence in American companies.

Even better, though, no matter what direction the index takes in the short term, over the long term, it has always advanced. Despite the fact that it has down periods on a regular basis, it has delivered an average annual return of 10%. That means this Buffett-approved investment isn't only a potential winner for Platt -- but it could be a winner for you too, if you buy and hold on for the long haul.