WFW advises lenders on BESS project financing for Eku Emergy
Watson Farley & Williams has advised NatWest and SMBC as lenders on a debt financing and an uncommitted accordion facility granted to Eku Energy to finance the construction of its new battery energy storage system in the UK.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
US-China Trade Talks: The Limits Of Diplomacy
Delegations of China and the U.S. pose for a group photo prior to the first meeting of the ... More China-U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism in London, Britain, June 9, 2025. The meeting opened here on Monday. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, attended the meeting with U.S. representatives. (Photo by Li Ying/Xinhua via Getty Images) In early June 2025, officials from the U.S. and China convened in an attempt to to prevent salvage economic ties from spiraling out of control and causing significant damage to both economies. Talks took place in London's historic Lancaster House, as they sought to rescue an earlier negotiated tariff truce and defuse escalating export controls. The negotiations aimed to extend the 90-day pause on punitive tariffs agreed in Geneva, revive cross-border trade flows, and hammer out a framework on rare-earth minerals and high-end technology exports. However, the talks ultimately accomplished few tangible benefits that President Trump sought to originally gain from the implementation of these tariffs, namely to stem the flow of fentanyl, motivate companies to reshore to the US, and close the trade deficit. Instead, he temporarily paused these measures by both sides and returned to the dynamics prior to his 'Liberation Day' and the imposition of tariffs globally. The June 9 to 10 London talks — led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and USTR Jamieson Greer from the U.S. and China's Vice Premier He Lifeng and Commerce Minister Wang Wentao — were convened against a backdrop of deep mutual distrust. Since 2018, the two sides have imposed tit-for-tat duties, with U.S. tariffs on Chinese exports staying around 19-21% from the end of Trump's first term until the beginning of his second, and Beijing following suit with…. After Liberation Day, US tariffs reached a high of 145% before decreasing to 30%, while Beijing imposed a retaliatory tariff of 125% before settling at its current level of 10%.These actions have stifled more than $600 billion in bilateral trade and rattled global markets. At the same time, The Trumps' administration's erratic and inconsistent messaging has also allowed for Wall Street to start pricing in volatility. Moreover a new TACO theory emerged, 'TACO or Trump Always Chickens Out.' This asserts that despite Trumps tough trade policy rhetoric, when markets become too volatile Trump will always reverse course. US Reliance on Critical Rare Earth Metals US Reliance on Rare Earth Imports from China In April 2025, China further escalated tensions by instituting a requirement of export licenses for critical rare-earth minerals, resulting in a 20% year-on-year decrease in shipments to the U.S. and Europe. Due to China's dominance in rare earth exports to the US, this triggered alarms in various industries, most notably in the electric vehicle and aerospace sector. Meanwhile, Washington broadened its export curbs on advanced semiconductors, chip-making equipment, and aerospace components, with a particular intensification after the two countries' Geneva talks, amplifying China's sense of economic siege. Despite the high stakes, negotiators emerged from London with only a modest 'interim framework' rather than a sweeping accord. However, Trump still claimed in a Truth Social post that 'the relationship is excellent.' The enthusiasm from the president is in large part due to China agreeing to temporarily grant export licenses for rare-earth magnets and related components, enabling U.S. automakers such as Ford, GM, and Stellantis to replenish inventories after April's curbs. At the same time, the U.S. stopped short of lifting its tech export restrictions on AI chips and aerospace tools. Commerce Secretary Lutnick characterized the outcome as 'putting meat on the bones' of the May Geneva deal, while Ministry of Commerce spokesperson He Yidong stated the two sides reached a consensus framework to 'implement the important understandings' reached during the June 5 phone call between Trump and Xi. From an economic perspective, the London agreement delivered a short-lived reprieve. Following reports of the rare-earth license concession, global equity markets ticked higher, echoing relief seen after the Geneva truce. Yet core barriers remain firmly in place: U.S. base tariffs on Chinese goods remain near 30%, China's on U.S. exports linger around 10%, and neither side agreed to roll back its export-control regimes. Without a detailed enforcement mechanism or significant new commitments, the framework may merely defer a return to pre-Geneva duties once the 90-day window lapses in August. Current versus pre-Geneva Tariff Levels Geopolitical undercurrents will also further limit any long-term détente. In Washington, a bipartisan consensus has emerged around the need to 'de‐risk' critical supply chains, not merely as a commercial maneuver but as a national security imperative. Policymakers and industry leaders alike fear that overdependence on China for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, rare‐earth minerals, and even basic manufacturing capacity leaves the United States dangerously exposed to coercive economic pressure or abrupt supply shocks. This conviction has translated into a suite of domestic incentives—ranging from the CHIPS and Science Act to expanded Defense Production Act authorities—designed to shore up American production of key inputs and diversify procurement to 'trusted' partners. On the other side of the Pacific, Chinese leadership interprets these U.S. measures as part of a long-standing containment strategy. Official rhetoric in Beijing routinely casts de-risking initiatives as destabilizing 'decoupling' efforts that threaten China's development model and tarnish the mutually beneficial aspects of economic integration. State media and senior diplomats argue that a sovereign nation, particularly one bearing the mantle of a developing‐country status, must safeguard its industrial base against foreign interference. Despite the rhetoric on economic self-reliance, both the U.S. and China have much to lose from a prolonged trade war. According to the military think tank RAND, 'roughly 40 percent of China's exports to the United States fall into categories where China supplies more than half of America's total imports.' Meanwhile, China is eager to gain access to GPUs and CPUs from American companies like NVIDIA and AMD to power its growing AI infrastructure. Even knowing this, leaders on both sides remain committed to showing strength and independence. Trump administration officials are wary of ceding control to China, while Beijing officials do not want to appear weak on the global stage. The talks, while cordial, still have not permanently de-escalated the trade war, with 30% and 10% baseline tariffs remaining on the American and Chinese sides, respectively. Furthermore, China has only agreed to a six-month license for American companies seeking to import rare earth minerals and magnets. Beyond the economic impact, the visa statuses of Chinese students in US universities will continue to remain uncertain as long as the trade war remains unresolved. As the two economic superpowers prepare for the current deadline on a comprehensive trade deal by August 10, the London talks underscore both the value and the limits of diplomacy: they bought time, but a durable resolution remains elusive. Special thanks to Jonah Kim, and Nathaniel Schochet, for their exceptional thought leadership, research, and editorial contributions to this article. Special thanks to Hanah Kim and Artem Valyaev Kunisky for assisting in providing info-graphics.
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Belgium's Credit Rating Cut by Fitch as Budget Concerns Linger
Belgium 's sovereign credit was cut by Fitch Ratings, signaling an increase in uncertainty about the country's ability to rein in years of substantial debt accumulation. The rating company lowered its assessment of Belgium to A+ from AA-, leaving it four notches under the top rating and bringing it one level below Moody's and two levels below S&P. The outlook was revised to stable.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oil Market Long Numb to War Risk Confronts Weekend of Worry
(Bloomberg) -- The past two years of escalating tensions in the Middle East have taught oil traders to be sanguine about the risk of disruption to oil supplies. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? As Part of a $45 Billion Push, ICE Prepares for a Vast Expansion of Detention Space The barrage of headlines has revived memories of the political upheavals and prices spikes of the 1970s — and yet even when oil prices have jumped, it inevitably proved short-lived. As Iran and Israel traded volleys of missiles in April last year and again in October, Middle Eastern oil continued to flow to the global market unaffected. Now, the latest assault by Israel is putting oil traders' nonchalance to the test. There's been no impact on supplies so far, but the strikes have shaken a market that for most of this year has been overshadowed by worries about a looming surplus driving down prices, with OPEC+ quickly unwinding production cuts and output rising elsewhere from Brazil to Guyana, while President Donald Trump's trade war threatens demand. Even if many believe that the oil market may ultimately escape unscathed, the widespread uncertainty over how strongly Iran will respond, whether Israel will launch further attacks, and how the US will react is forcing traders to price in a huge range of possible outcomes. With hours left until the end of the trading week, few were brave enough to risk going into the weekend short. Brent futures spiked as much as 13% early on Friday and settled 7% higher at about $74 a barrel. 'When there's a war on you're not going to be short anything over the weekend,' said Andreas Laskaratos, chief executive officer of energy trading house AB Commodities. 'Although the fundamentals haven't changed you can't trade against the headlines over the weekend.' Traders and analysts began to game out scenarios for possible escalation or de-escalation almost as soon as the first Israeli missiles hit Iran in the early hours of Friday morning. Laskaratos says his Europe-based traders were at their desks by about 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. Read Bloomberg's live blog on the latest from the Middle East Analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. raised their oil price forecasts for the coming months $2-$3 a barrel, but laid out possible scenarios ranging from a surge in prices above $100 a barrel in the worst-case scenario, to a drop below $50 next year in their most bearish scenario. 'The potential of further escalation in the Middle East implies that the short-term risks to our price forecast are now skewed to the upside,' the analysts including Daan Struyven wrote. Still, they maintained their call for prices to drop below $60 by the fourth quarter of this year. A surge of trading in out-of-the money call options showed that many were seeking to hedge against the possibility of a price spike. Among the most traded options were call options that would pay out if prices rise above $85 a barrel by Jun. 25; a measure of the price of WTI call options relative to the price of put options surged to the highest since March 2022, when the market was rocked by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The most worrying possibility for the oil market is a disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of global oil supply flows. Most analysts reckon that's unlikely. 'It is our understanding that it would be extremely difficult for Iran to close the strait for an extended period given the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain,' said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets LLC, and a former CIA analyst. Still, even if small, any increase in the chance of disruption is enough to drive prices. 'The possibility that the Strait of Hormuz closes is such a huge binary event, it makes forecasting balances challenging,' consultancy FGE NexantECA wrote in a report. 'Most market participants we have spoken to are not expecting the Strait of Hormuz to be closed; the consequences are just too great.' Other possible scenarios worrying oil traders include the possibility of strikes on Iran's oil infrastructure – though Israel has so far avoided that – or the potential for sanctions against Iran to be ramped up if Tehran responds to the strikes by accelerating its nuclear program. For now at least, most traders are viewing current events through the lens of recent history. 'For the past decade, events like this have been sell-the-rip situations. They didn't escalate. Fears were worse than what actually happened,' Dan Pickering, chief investment officer at Pickering Energy Partners LP, an energy-focused investment bank in Houston, wrote on X. The strikes may even turn out to be bearish. Trump on Friday called on Iran to make a deal or face 'even more brutal' attacks. If Tehran were to heed his advice, a nuclear deal would likely involve a relaxation of sanctions, potentially lifting Iran's exports. FGE NexantECA said that market participants were 'looking at the recent price action and starting to consider the events as a 'sell' opportunity.' 'However, they acknowledge that taking a short position right now is hard given the risk/expectation of further escalation in tensions in the weeks ahead.' Even if there is a disruption, OPEC+ members Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have significant spare capacity that could be brought on to potentially help cool prices. 'It would take a lot of courage for someone to go against it but that said we can't see this rally being sustained in the long term,' said Laskaratos of AB Commodities. 'We don't believe the fundamentals have changed on supply and demand as things stand.' --With assistance from Anthony Di Paola, Nayla Razzouk, Salma El Wardany, Hayley Warren and Demetrios Pogkas. American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
