TheChek News Flow

Thirteen companies joined The Crunchbase Unicorn Board in May 2025, including five from Europe, Crunchbase data shows.

The five new unicorns from Europe mark the highest monthly count of new billion-dollar startups since 2023 for the continent. They included the first two from Germany and the first company from Portugal so far this year to be valued at $1 billion-plus. The U.K. also added two companies last month, marking three total this year.

Six companies joined from the U.S., adding up to 31 so far this year. And two companies joined from India, adding up to three companies in 2025 year to date.

Collectively, these 13 companies added $21.7 billion in value to the board in May.

Sales and marketing, and defense tech — sectors impacted by AI — led for new unicorn companies in May, with two each.

Six companies exited the board in May, removing $13.4 billion in value.

They include four unicorn companies that went public last month: Israel-based social trading platform eToro, San Francisco-based digital clinic Hinge Health, India-based electric scooter manufacturer Ather Energy, and Austin, Texas-based advertising platform MNTN. Each of these companies went public at or above their last known valuation, except for Hinge Health which was last valued at $6.2 billion and debuted at $2.6 billion.

Two unicorns were acquired. Coding startup Windsurf, last valued at $1.1 billion in 2024 was acquired by OpenAI for $3 billion. Daily Harvest, a direct to consumer snack company known for its frozen smoothies, valued at $1.1 billion in 2021, was acquired by Chobani for an undisclosed amount.

Here are the 13 newly minted unicorns in May, by sector.

Mark Zuckerberg seems confident! As we reported earlier today, Meta Platforms is on the cusp of taking a 49% stake in Scale AI for $14.8 billion and bringing the AI startup’s CEO, Alexandr Wang, on board to lead a new AI lab. There are echoes in the Meta–Scale AI talks of earlier deals between big tech companies and AI startups, including Google’s agreement with Character.AI and Microsoft’s deal with Inflection.

Both of those deals—which brought the AI startups’ founders to the big tech companies in exchange for cash that went to the startups’ investors—were able to at least initially sidestep the regulatory scrutiny that conventional acquisitions are subject to.

By avoiding taking majority control of Scale AI, Meta appears to believe it, too, can fly under the radar of the feds. Maybe it can. After all, we haven’t heard much lately about a Federal Trade Commission probe into the structure of big tech companies’ investments in generative AI startups. That effort, announced in January 2024, came under the agency’s previous chair, Lina Khan. In contrast, President Donald Trump’s administration has made U.S. supremacy in AI a top priority, and his FTC may not be as keen to pick apart AI deals as its predecessor was.

On the other hand, the FTC and its current chair, Andrew Ferguson, don’t exactly have a lot of affection for Meta. The agency just wrapped up an antitrust trial against the company and is awaiting a verdict in the case, which could result in an order to break up Meta. And in May, Bloomberg reported that the Justice Department is looking into whether Google structured its Character.AI deal to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

An FTC spokesperson declined to comment on the status of the AI probe from last year or whether the agency might look into a Meta–Scale AI deal. But a former FTC official from the last administration told The Information they were confident that if Khan was still in charge of the FTC, it would have prepared a subpoena for Meta and Scale AI once they announced a deal.

Tesla’s Robo Debut

Tesla’s long-anticipated test of its robotaxi service finally got rolling in Austin, Texas. A video clip began circulating on social media Tuesday showing a black Model Y with a robotaxi logo on its door driving through an intersection in the Texas city without a person in its driver’s seat. Tesla executives, including Elon Musk, appeared to confirm the authenticity of the clip by reposting it on their X accounts. “Beautifully simple design,” Musk wrote.

Tesla, of course, has much work to do before it has a functional robotaxi service. In the clip, a second Tesla Model Y without the robotaxi logo followed closely behind the driverless vehicle, leading to speculation that it was a “chase car” keeping tabs on the robotaxi for safety reasons. Having a companion vehicle follow around Tesla robotaxis isn’t going to be practical or profitable for the service in the long term. Or perhaps the second vehicle was simply there to film the robotaxi for promotion on social media. Either way, spotting driverless Teslas in the wild is likely to become a common new pastime in Austin.

World’s biggest aircraft owner set for $1bn payout in Russian planes case

UK court orders insurers to cover losses from jets stuck in country following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine

The world’s biggest commercial aircraft owner AerCap is in line for a payout of more than $1bn after the High Court in London ruled that insurers had to cover losses from planes stranded in Russia, one of the largest sums ever awarded by the English courts.

Insurers including AIG, Lloyd’s of London and Chubb have been told to provide cover for 147 planes, owned by six aircraft leasing companies, that were stuck in Russia following the country’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

AerCap, which owned 116 of the planes, was awarded a payout of $1bn. This was lower than the $2bn the company had sought during the case, which lasted five months and concluded earlier this year.

The judge, Mr Justice Butcher, found that the aircraft should be covered under a “war risks” policy rather than an “all risks” policy, which would have resulted in a higher award.

Other aircraft leasing companies, including Merx Aviation and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, are also set for payouts under the “war risks” policy, although the final sum is yet to be determined.

The case was among the most complex and costly ever heard by the High Court and Wednesday’s ruling has global implications.

Aircraft lessors have demanded billions of dollars from insurers after more than 500 aircraft were stranded in Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Western leasing companies managed to recover some of the aircraft, but most remain in Russia and are still being flown by Russian airlines.

London is a main legal battleground but parallel litigation is proceeding in the US and Ireland.

Several settlements have been reached in the disputes. One of the claimants in the London case, KDAC Aircraft Leasing, reached an agreement with its insurers in the middle of the High Court trial.

Insurers put forward various arguments to limit their liability, including that the assets could yet be recovered if the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is resolved.

A central question in the case was which insurers were liable and under which types of policy. The judge had to rule on the legal “cause” of any loss — whether the aircraft were seized by the Russian state or stolen by the airlines.

In a summary of his judgment on Wednesday, Mr Justice Butcher said the aircraft had been lost in March 2022, when Russian legislation banned the export of aircraft from the country.

The cause of the loss was “an act or order of the Russian government” and should be covered by the “war risks” policy, the judge ruled.

He added that EU or US sanctions did not prevent the insurers from paying out to the leasing companies for the loss of aircraft leased to Russian airlines.

Law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, representing AerCap, said the company had secured a $1.035bn payout “in addition to substantial recoveries achieved in prior settlements”.

AerCap said that following the judge’s decision its total “pre-tax recoveries” relating to the Ukraine conflict came to around $2.5bn.

The company said it would continue to “vigorously pursue” separate, ongoing claims against insurers and reinsurers under other policies.

WhatsApp joins legal action against UK demand for Apple ‘back door’

Meta-owned group becomes first Big Tech company to intervene in the case

WhatsApp has joined a legal challenge against the UK government’s demand to force Apple to create a “back door” in its security systems, as the Meta-owned group becomes the first Big Tech company to intervene in the case.

Will Cathcart, who runs WhatsApp, on Wednesday blasted the UK’s “secret order” that he said undermined the security of British citizens.

“This case could set a dangerous precedent and embolden nations to try to break the encryption that protects people’s private communication,” he said.

The UK Home Office in January issued Apple with a “technical capability notice” (TCN) under the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which would require the iPhone maker to provide customer data from its most secure online backup service.

In response, Apple withdrew that service, called iCloud Advanced Data Protection, from the UK and launched a legal challenge to the TCN.

In March, two human rights campaign groups, Privacy International and Liberty, filed their own legal action protesting against the use of TCNs at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which probes complaints against the UK’s security services.

WhatsApp is seeking to intervene in both Apple’s and the campaigners’ cases, by submitting evidence on the harm such an order could inflict on the encryption technology that secures messaging apps and digital storage services used by billions of people around the world.

“WhatsApp would challenge any law or government request that seeks to weaken the encryption of our services and will continue to stand up for people’s right to a private conversation online,” said Cathcart.

WhatsApp has not received a TCN itself, a spokesperson said. WhatsApp has previously threatened to withdraw its service from the UK if any attempt was made to undermine its encryption.

Caroline Wilson Palow, legal director at Privacy International, said WhatsApp’s intervention “demonstrates the breadth of impact of these orders, which could potentially undermine services used by billions of people.” She added: “This rising tide of dissent cannot be ignored.”

A Home Office spokesperson said it did not comment on ongoing legal proceedings but added: “The UK has robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy and these specific powers are only used on an exceptional basis, in relation to the most serious crimes and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.”

The British government believes that breaking through the shield of encryption of systems is vital to protecting the public from terrorist threats and investigating child sexual abuse.

The UK authorities have demanded that Apple enable law enforcement to tap iPhone backups, people familiar with the matter told the FT in January, a process that security experts say would require it to create a “back door” or secret vulnerability in its encryption system.

Under iCloud ADP, an optional layer of extra security for Apple’s online storage system, customer data is stored using end-to-end encryption so that even Apple is unable to access it.

Reports of the UK’s demand prompted criticism from the US authorities, including President Donald Trump and US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard.

“We have never built a back door or master key to any of our products, and we never will,” Apple said at the time.

Under the Investigatory Powers Act, recipients of a TCN are unable to discuss the matter publicly unless granted permission by the secretary of state. In April, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal rejected an attempt by the Home Office to keep secret the “bare details” of the litigation after privacy and media groups, including the Financial Times, urged the case to be heard openly.

That ruling officially confirmed for the first time the existence of Apple’s legal battle with the UK government. The Home Office had argued that revealing details of the case, including Apple’s involvement, would be “damaging to national security”.

Bojangles Is Exploring a Sale While the Fried-Chicken Market Is Hot

A transaction could fetch upward of $1.5 billion, roughly triple what it sold for in 2019

Bojangles, the fast-food chain that specializes in fried chicken and biscuits, is working with investment bankers to potentially sell itself in a market that’s been craving restaurant and chicken companies, according to people familiar with the matter.

A sale of Bojangles could fetch more than $1.5 billion, roughly three times what it sold for in a 2019 buyout, the people said. A process would be expected to draw interest from both strategic restaurant operators and other private-equity suitors.

It’s also still possible Bojangles will decide against selling after all, they said.

Private-equity firms Durational Capital Management and TJC took Bojangles private in an all-cash deal that valued the restaurant operator at more than $590 million in 2019.

Bojangles, based in Charlotte, N.C., is known for its Cajun-seasoned chicken, buttermilk biscuits and sweet tea.

The company has historically operated mainly across the Southeast but has started to expand to the Northeast, eyeing more locations in New Jersey and New York.

Bojangles is also looking to cash in on the fact that no food is hotter right now than chicken. Last year, total sales at U.S. chain restaurants grew 3%, according to Technomic. Burgers were up 1%, while chicken was up 9%.

At fast-casual chicken chains, such as Raising Cane’s and Wingstop, sales increased by 24% year over year, Technomic found.

There has been a wave of restaurant mergers and acquisitions in recent months, stemming in part from a bigger appetite among private-equity buyers.

Dave’s Hot Chicken agreed to sell to private-equity firm Roark Capital in a roughly $1 billion deal; Blackstone took a majority stake in closely held Jersey Mike’s Subs that valued the company at around $8 billion, including debt; and Sycamore Partners bought Playa Bowls, an açaí bowl chain.

GB Energy handed £2.5bn bill for funding small modular reactors

Financing nuclear projects will leave state-owned company less cash for backing wind and solar technology

Great British Energy, the government’s flagship state-owned energy company, has been handed the £2.5bn bill to support a new generation of small nuclear power plants, cutting the amount it has to spend on wind, solar and other technologies. 

Rolls-Royce’s efforts to develop Britain’s first small modular reactors will be funded by GB Energy’s £8.3bn budget over this parliament, according to measures announced in Wednesday’s spending review. 

Until now it had been unclear which part of the government’s budget would cover the funding for the small modular reactor programme.

One senior government official said the moves amounted to “reprofiling” of spending commitments into GB Energy’s budget that might have previously been funded by the Treasury or energy department. 

It follows months of negotiations between the Treasury and the energy department, led by Ed Miliband, over whether the cash Labour pledged to GB Energy in last year’s election manifesto would be cut, given the tight public finances. 

Earlier this week Rolls-Royce won government backing for its small modular reactor technology, a contest announced by the former Conservative government in May 2024. 

Tory energy minister Grant Shapps said at the time that up to £20bn of public funds could be spent on supporting the development of SMRs, although this money was never officially allocated. 

The extent to which GB Energy’s budget was originally meant to cover nuclear is unclear. In May 2024, a Labour document said the company would “help scale and accelerate the roll out of mature technologies like wind, solar and nuclear”.

However, in its manifesto Labour said GB Energy would receive £8.3bn during this parliament “to install thousands of clean power projects, through a combination of onshore wind, solar and hydropower projects” — with no mention of nuclear in that document. 

Government figures said that since the general election, ministers had made clear that nuclear power would play some role in GB Energy’s activities. For example, in a “founding statement” for GB Energy in late July last year, the government said it would work closely with what was then Great British Nuclear to deliver new nuclear projects. 

The state-owned body set up to provide nuclear power plants, GB Nuclear has also been rebranded, as Great British Energy — Nuclear, to reflect what the government described as a “joint mission” to deliver clean energy. 

“Great British Energy and Great British Energy — Nuclear will together invest more than £8.3bn over the SR in homegrown clean power: two allied publicly owned companies with a shared mission,” according to spending review documents.  

The £2.5bn allocated for SMRs in the spending review will support the Rolls-Royce-led consortium in developing its technology, and the sites where the reactors will be built. 

SMRs typically generate 300 megawatts or less — supporters hope they will be cheaper and faster to roll out than larger-scale plants. Rolls-Royce’s model is relatively large for an SMR, at 480MW. 

Speaking to the Financial Times on Tuesday, Simon Bowen, the interim chair of Great British Energy — Nuclear, said he would have liked to have been able to back more than one developer, but the money wasn’t available. 

“It’s an affordability issue,” Bowen said in an interview with the Financial Times. “I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’ve always said we should do two for resilience and competitive tension, but the reality is we’re in a constrained fiscal environment.”

Agreement that in effect makes territory part of Schengen free-travel zone ends years of post-Brexit uncertainty

The UK has agreed to allow Spanish officials to check passports at Gibraltar’s airport and port in return for an open land crossing into Spain, in a long-awaited deal on the British territory’s status after Brexit.

The concession by London ended one of the last issues created by Brexit, and paved the way for the announcement on Wednesday of an agreement between the UK, EU and Spain on Gibraltar’s frontier.

It came after UK foreign secretary David Lammy flew to Brussels from Gibraltar on Wednesday for talks with his Spanish counterpart José Manuel Albares and EU Brexit commissioner Maroš Šefčovič.

Gibraltar had been in limbo since early 2020 when Brexit came into effect, with London, Brussels and Madrid unable to agree on border issues that had inflamed UK-Spain tensions over the territory’s disputed sovereignty.

The UK — backed firmly by Gibraltar’s chief minister Fabian Picardo — had resisted the presence of Spanish border police on its territory.

However, Spain and the EU insisted Spanish police at the airport were the price the UK had to pay for an open land border between Gibraltar and Spain, which in effect makes the territory part of the EU’s Schengen free-travel zone.

In a joint statement on Wednesday, the UK, EU and Spain said: “For the EU, full Schengen checks will be carried out by Spain. For the UK, full Gibraltar checks will continue to be carried out as they are today.”

Albares, Spain’s foreign minister, said the Spanish police would be able to turn away British passport holders, for example if they had already hit a 90-day post-Brexit limit on the time they can stay in the EU every 180 days. 

“The Spanish police will guarantee the full integrity of the Schengen area and of course Gibraltar is connected with the Schengen zone,” Albares said.

He said the “historic accord” would “benefit above all the 15,000 people who every day move between Gibraltar and [Spain]”.

Lammy said the agreement “protects British sovereignty, supports Gibraltar’s economy and allows businesses to plan for the long-term once again”. 

Referring to the UK’s previous Conservative administration, he said the Labour government “inherited a situation from the last government which put Gibraltar’s economy and way of life under threat. Today’s breakthrough delivers a practical solution after years of uncertainty.”

UK shouldn’t be faulted for its decision to press the button on the Sizewell C project

Technologies to generate green electricity follow one of two trajectories. Some get cheaper, such as solar panels, which are small, modular and factory produced. Others, like nuclear plants, tend instead to be plagued with overruns and delays. Nonetheless, the UK’s decision to press ahead with a new nuclear project, Sizewell C, still makes sense.

Much has been made of the project’s potential cost. Hinkley Point C, its precursor, has a dismal record. It will now be ready at the end of the decade, and cost about £46bn to build.

Even if contractors learn from their mistakes and Sizewell C only requires about £40bn, that would put the cost of electricity it produces over its lifespan somewhere between £170 and £186 per megawatt hour, according to ICIS, a data and analytics company. That looks like a lot. Last September, the UK got developers to bid to build offshore wind power by offering them £89/MWh in 2025 money.

Yet the cost of nuclear power doesn’t necessarily reflect its value. It can be built relatively close to where the electricity will be consumed and, once up and running, produces almost all the time. That saves money on grids, batteries and other power storage devices that are necessary to turn offshore, intermittent wind into reliable electricity.

Aurora Energy, a consultancy, models a “high nuclear” UK net zero energy system, which includes Sizewell C plus a number of additional projects. It concludes that, should the UK be able to reduce the cost of nuclear power to that achieved in Finland, having a lot of nuclear power would be cheaper than relying mostly on renewables.

There are some other real but hard to quantify benefits of having nuclear in the mix. While optimised energy models spit out the lowest cost combination of power generation technologies, it is generally a bad idea to put too many eggs in a single basket.

All that suggests that the UK shouldn’t be faulted for its decision to press the button on Sizewell C. If anything, it should have been more forthcoming on the size and timing of its overall nuclear ambition. A cookie-cutter plant construction programme is the best way of bringing down costs.

As things stand, Sizewell C will still be among the world’s most expensive nuclear projects. And, to get it done, the UK government has had to step in directly and offer investors a guaranteed return on the money they spend. That shunts some of the risk of cost overruns to the consumer, in the form of higher electricity bills. None of this is ideal. But it is still better than letting the UK’s nuclear ambitions decay further.