Connect with us

Technology

UK government orders investigation into Nvidia’s $40bn Arm takeover | Arm

Published

on

The UK government has stepped in to order an investigation of Nvidia’s $40bn takeover of the Cambridge-based chip designer Arm, citing potential national security concerns.

Oliver Dowden, the UK culture secretary, has written to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) instructing it to begin a “phase one” investigation into the deal, which was announced in September.

The competition regulator will prepare a report by the end of July with advice on jurisdictional and competition issues, as well as a summary of any representations on potential national security issues that arise from its consultation.

The government said it would examine the national security issues alongside the CMA’s process.

“Following careful consideration of the proposed takeover of Arm, I have today issued an intervention notice on national security grounds,” Dowden said. “We want to support our thriving UK tech industry and welcome foreign investment but it is appropriate that we properly consider the national security implications of a transaction like this. The phase one investigation will ensure specific considerations around competition, jurisdiction and national security are assessed.”

Dowden, who has quasi-judicial powers to intervene in certain mergers on public interest grounds, has the power to clear the deal, approve it subject to certain undertakings or ask the CMA to launch a more detailed phase two investigation.

Arm Holdings, which employs 6,500 staff including 3,000 in the UK, is a global leader in designing chips for smartphones, computers and tablets. California-based Nvidia, a graphics chip specialist, announced its plan to buy the British tech group from SoftBank in September.

SoftBank had acquired Arm for $32bn (£23bn), when the Japanese company took advantage of the fall in value of the pound after the Brexit vote. Arm is based in Cambridge but has operations in a number of UK locations, including Manchester, Belfast and Warwick.

In January, the CMA said it would look to investigate the possible effect of the deal on competition in the UK and whether Arm had an “incentive to withdraw, raise prices or reduce the quality of its intellectual property licensing services to Nvidia’s rivals”.

A spokeswoman for the CMA said: “In light of the government’s decision to issue a public interest intervention notice, the CMA will now [also] seek input from interested parties on national security public interest grounds.”

In October, Hermann Hauser, the co-founder of Arm, wrote to the House of Commons foreign affairs committee arguing that if the deal was allowed to proceed, the combined business would become the next US tech monopoly alongside companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon.

He has argued that because Nvidia is one of more than 500 users of Arm’s designs worldwide – which include Apple, Samsung and Qualcomm – becoming the Cambridge-based business’s parent company will destroy Arm’s “even-handed” model and ultimately kill the world-leading British tech company.

He also told the BBC last year that the deal would be “an absolute disaster for Cambridge, the UK and Europe”, adding that Nvidia would inevitably decide to relocate Arm to the US, leading to lost jobs.

Guardian business email sign-up

Hauser has said that the government should use its powers to prevent the takeover, but has also backed indefinite legally binding conditions as an alternative. These include a guarantee to keep Arm’s staff in Cambridge, Belfast, Manchester and Warwick, and a promise that Nvidia does not get preferential treatment on new versions of the designer’s chips.

Arm’s neutral role in the production and supply chain has previously led it to be described as the “Switzerland” of the semiconductor market.

The shadow business secretary, Ed Miliband, has also expressed concerns about the deal, and had called on the government to intervene to prevent parts of Arm being moved out of the UK.

In the US, the Federal Trade Commission is looking at the takeover on competition grounds.

Source link

Technology

The internet’s not all bad: how a tweet led my dad to his dream job at Costco | Life and style

Published

on

Nearly a year after he’d been laid off because of Covid, my dad – a jubilant, always-smiling, 58-year-old Michigander best known for befriending everyone he meets – told me he wanted to go back to work.

Specifically, he wanted to work at Costco.

“OK,” I said, thinking: that is weirdly particular. “You’ll need a résumé. And, God, a different email. Not that Yahoo one you’ve had since before I was born.”

“I want to work on my feet,” he told me. “I want to work somewhere that appreciates me until I can retire. Can you help me apply?”

We’d been in Florida for a week, caring for my grandparents, and I’d started waking up at ungodly hours to accompany him on his five-mile morning walk. It had been six years since I’d moved out, and I missed him. Helping him find a job felt like the least I could do.

After a year of unemployment, Dad had hunted, fished, landscaped and DIYed himself to death. He was bored. He had worked all his life – first as a newspaper delivery boy, then a grocery store clerk, an automotive plant supervisor, a janitor and, for the past decade, a materials coordinator for a local hospital, until last April, when the hospital initiated mass layoffs facing a budget deficit from Covid.

There were other places that seemed ideal to him: delivering packages for UPS or FedEx, he reasoned, meant he’d get to move around. But he’d grown up only 15 minutes from our local Costco, and had heard their reputation for treating their employees well. With no college degree and a lifetime of working thankless jobs, a big-box store offering healthcare, paid time off and a decent work culture sounded like the dream.

“OK,” I promised. “We’ll apply tonight.”

And then I opened Twitter. I fired off a few funny tweets explaining my dad had been laid off due to Covid and really, really wanted to work for Costco.

In retrospect, I probably should’ve asked my dad if it was all right to tweet his job-hunting status.

I was hoping people would get a kick out of it. At best, maybe someone might have connections to a local store. I added a few more tweets to the thread, fondly joking about needing to fix his resumé, and included a picture of him in all of his Costco-hopefulness.

And then I forgot about it.

Until I logged into Facebook, and had a message request from an unfamiliar name.

A manager of a local Costco had contacted me. The company’s chief executive, Craig Jelinek, had somehow found my dad’s tweets, emailed several Michigan stores, and suggested they bring him in for an interview.

He ran a store 40 minutes away, but, he said, if my dad wanted to work at a different location, he’d be happy to give their store manager a call.

I freaked out.

I called my dad, who didn’t answer, texted him a screenshot, and called him again. As someone who only FaceTimes by accident, he didn’t really understand why I was freaking out. The sheer ridiculousness of a random tweet making it to the desk of the Costco chief executive mostly escaped him.

“Dad,” I said. “This is nuts. They’re going to hire you.”

“Maybe,” he said. “I’m not sure. But I’ll keep my fingers crossed.”

The next day, while jumping between meetings and client work, I refreshed my phone obsessively. When I got a text from my dad, I leapt on it, hoping to hear interview news. He had an interview.

“And do me a favor,” he said. “Don’t put that in a tweet.”

I laughed and promised I wouldn’t.

He called me after, bubbling over with excitement. It’d gone well, he thought. He was impressed by the fact that many of the staff had stayed on for years. He told me – somewhat maddeningly – that he’d avoided the subject of the tweets because he “didn’t want to get into all that” which was Dad-speak for “I am still very confused by that part, so I figured I’d best leave it alone”.

I congratulated him, and in his trademark style, he said: “Well, I might not get the job. But at least I tried.”

They called him in for a second interview, and then we heard nothing. But last Tuesday, a text from my dad popped up from my phone. It was just a picture, and the words: thank you. A picture of his new Costco badge.

He’d been hired part-time, starting in two days. I asked his permission to share on Twitter.

“Sure,” he said. “Not sure why people would care, though. It’s just a job.”

The social media explosion that followed was surprisingly pleasant. Some expressed that their parents had also, after a lifetime of working, found joy in working for big-box stores where they had the freedom to move around and talk to customers. A few hundred informed me the story made them cry. Some asked for his walleye fishing spot. (They’re out of luck, because he won’t even tell me.)

Mostly, after a nightmare year of record unemployment rates and unprecedented grief, it seemed people were just happy to share in a moment of weird, collective joy on a website often aptly described as a cesspool.

During his break on his first day, he called to tell me it had gone well. He liked his co-workers, and was looking forward to having a job working on his feet. The past year has not been a kind one to my family; like many, we didn’t emerge from the pandemic without the loss of loved ones. It’s a gift to have this odd, wonderful, weird spark of joy amid a time of grief and chaos.

It’s extra lovely that it happened to my dad.

Before he went back to work, Dad had one more detail for me. He laughed as he said it. He said towards the end of his first shift, during a tour of the store, a bakery employee had off-handedly mentioned: “I wonder when they’ll hire the Twitter guy.”

To my dad’s utter delight, he got to say: I am the Twitter guy.



Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

‘Right’ to substitute didn’t mean he could, say judges • The Register

Published

on

An IT contractor has lost an appeal [PDF] which found he was an employee in the eyes of HMRC, with the judges agreeing he fell under the new IR35 off-payroll tax rules.

Robert Lee, working as a contractor under the company name Northern Light Solutions, had challenged an earlier First-tier Tribunal ruling which found his work for the Nationwide Building Society to be “employment” for tax purposes.

But his appeal in the Upper Tribunal on 6 and 7 May failed, partly because his legal team did not convince the judges that the clauses in his contract suggesting he and the agencies had the “right” to offer a substitute IT professional did in fact mean such a substitution could happen.

The ruling meant Lee would have to pay an additional £74,523 in income tax and National Insurance Contributions.

The tribunal found Lee, under the terms of the “hypothetical contract”, was paid a “day rate in the region of £450 and required to work a professional week, which for the Clarity Contracts is specified to be 7.5 hours a day.”

A contractor or agency’s right to substitute their work to another person of equivalent skill has been held as a key signal that the contractor is self-employed, rather than a “disguised employee”, and thus can be considered as falling outside of the IR35 rules.

Reforms to the IR35 off-payroll working rules, which critics argue classes contractors as paid employees without the employment benefits, were introduced in the private sector in April this year, after a year’s delay due to COVID-19. The new rules put certain liabilities on employers and make it more difficult for contractors to place themselves outside the revamped tax laws. Some employers – including BAE systems – have introduced blanket bans on contractors working outside IR35.

Lee worked for Nationwide through his Northern Light agency, which contracted with another agency, AxPO, which in turn contracted with the building society itself between 2012 and 2014.

What is IR35?

IR35 is a tax reform that was unveiled in 1999 by the UK tax authorities. The latest regulation change will force medium and large private sector businesses in the UK to set the tax status of their contractors and freelancers. Previously this was set by the contractors themselves.

Those workers found to be within the scope of the legislation – i.e. inside IR35 – will have to pay more tax than they might expect, despite not receiving benefits enjoyed by full-time employees, such as holiday or sick pay, pension, or parental leave.

The reforms are part of the government’s crackdown on so-called “disguised employment,” where workers behave as employees but avoid paying regular income tax and national income contributions by billing for their services through personal service companies (PSCs), which are taxed at lower corporate rates.

Critics say that being inside IR35 is essentially “no-rights employment,” meaning techies are paid and taxed similarly to regular employees but do not receive any of the security or protections that go along with permanent employment.

Contractors within IR35 can be hired and fired at will and without reason. The measure came into effect in the public sector in 2017. The British government hoped the reforms would recoup £440m by bringing 20,000 contractors in line.

The implementation in that area has been described as an “utter shambles.” HMRC reckons that only one in 10 contractors in the private sector who should be paying tax under the current rules are doing so correctly. It estimates the reforms will recoup £1.2bn a year by 2023.

Barrister Michael Collins, acting for Lee, had earlier argued that the “right of substitution meant that the hypothetical contracts could not be a contract of employment.”

Although the First-tier Tribunal had found that there was a right to provide a substitute in these contracts, this right was qualified. The tribunal found that Nationwide would have had to agree to a substitution, and that it was under “no obligation to accept such a replacement if in [its] reasonable opinion such replacement was not wholly suitable.”

The ruling said that “in practice it would be impractical for [Nationwide] to accept substitutes due to the necessary restrictions on access to [Nationwide’s] systems and restricted site access. Any substitute would need to go through vetting checks and an interview and get up to speed on the project.”

The Justices found a hypothetical contract – one that would have described the agreement between Lee and Nationwide – showed that his relationship with the building society was one of employment and the tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Lessons from the case include the need to effectively describe and communicate working practices at an early stage in the relationship, according to Dave Chaplin, CEO of ContractorCalculator, a firm advising contractors on their IR35 status.

Chaplin also claimed HMRC’s evidence from the notes of meetings, which underpinned several aspects of the ruling, appears to frame the facts relating to substitution in a manner that does not align with what really happens on the ground in IT projects. It was therefore important to keep a good, evidenced audit trail on projects to establish off-payroll working, he said.

“Lee’s contract did include a legitimate unfettered right of substitution, but it was never exercised, and the client never gave witness evidence to back it up as a genuine right. The judges chose to disregard those substitution clauses. Substitution is no silver bullet to definitively proving a worker is not employed unless it has taken place,” Chaplin said. ®

Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

Stripe investors cash in on $1bn worth of shares

Published

on

The Wall Street Journal reported that some existing shareholders in the fintech company sold their shares to other investors.

Stripe shareholders recently sold off around $1bn in shares, according to media reports, as more investors seek a stake in the company.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Collison brothers’ company ran a tender offer for existing shareholders to sell their stakes.

It received bids up to $4bn from investors but around $1bn was sold in the end. The company has not commented on the investments.

Shopify, Sequoia Capital, Silver Lake and Capital Group purchased stakes in the company as part of this latest transaction, according to the report. In some cases, these investors increased their existing holdings in the fintech giant.

Meanwhile long-standing employees may have sold their shares in the company before their share options expire, which is typically a 10-year window.

Support Silicon Republic

Rumours and speculation continue to swirl around Stripe going public with 2022 touted as the year that the company makes the leap, 12 years after it was founded. For shareholders, a Stripe flotation could make for a hefty payday. For now, investors are looking to shore up bigger stakes in the company.

Stripe raised $600m in an investment round in March that valued it at $95bn.

The company’s recent moves give some indication of the broad plans that the company has.

Seemingly every week the company is rolling our new or expanded products that go beyond its core payments processing functions. On Monday (14 June), it released Stripe Identity, an AI-powered tool for verifying a person’s identity in a payment transaction and last week it released Stripe Tax to automate businesses’ calculation and collecting of VAT and sales taxes.

Stripe has a mission to be an all-encompassing payments and banking infrastructure company. It has become a frequent investor in fintech start-ups in recent years as well, keeping tabs on what might be the next big thing in finance, payments and banking tech.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates 
directly on your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!