River Island on brink of collapse in weeks as 33 stores face closure
The debt-riddled chain could run out of money by August if plans to shut 33 stores and slash rents on 71 are not approved by the High Court.
The shops would have the shutters pulled on them in January, including branches in Gloucester, Beckton and Hereford.
If rejected, the company would be 'unable to pay its debts as they fall due' and 'will not be able to continue trading as a going concern'.
River Island told creditors the company 'would be subject to administration or other insolvency proceedings', according to The Telegraph.
But if the three quarters of the retailer's creditors give the troubled brand's plans the green light, it will be offered a loan from River Island's billionaire founders, the Lewis family, to pay its bills.
Beckton
Bangor Bloomfield
Wrexham
Edinburgh Princes Street
Hereford
Surrey Quays
Didcot
Sutton Coldfield
Aylesbury
Burton-Upon-Trent
Northwich
Taunton
Workington
Falkirk
Cumbernauld
Kirkcaldy
Gloucester
Hartlepool
Brighton
Lisburn
Norwich
Oxford
Poole
Kilmarnock
Hanley
Barnstaple
Grimsby
Leeds Birstall Park
Rochdale
Great Yarmouth
St Helens
Stockton On Tees
Perth
River Island's advisers, PwC, said in an 800-page restructuring plan that three-year rent cuts of between 75% and 25% for the remaining branches are being considered.
Landlords of shops not facing closure will be asked to accept zero rental payments.
River Island, which employs 5,300 staff in its stores and head office in west London, has struggled as online shopping booms and the cost of living crisis continues.
The company made a £33.2million pre-tax loss in the year ending December 30, 2023, according to a strategic report.
Fierce competition in an industry dominated by fast-fashion chains, supply chain issues caused by the Russia-Ukraine war and 'evolving threats to cybersecurity' were cited as the main risks River Island faces.
Many other fashion chains have also taken a beating in recent years, including Ted Baker, Topshop and New Look.
Other high street giants, such as Poundland and Santander, have handed the keys back to dozens of their stores. More Trending
And they won't be the last, with the Centre for Retail Research predicting that more than 17,000 shops will close this year, up from 13,500 in 2024.
A River Island spokesperson confirmed it gave a restructuring plan to creditors on June 20.
They said: 'In combination with the company's ongoing Transformation Strategy, the Plan is a proactive measure to place the company on a firm footing.
'We have been having positive conversations with key stakeholders and are confident that we will achieve approval of the Plan in the next few weeks.'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: This is where to shop the Lionesses' England Euro 2025 kit before Sunday's final
MORE: Obsessed with Charli xcx's mini wedding dress? These are the best affordable alternatives
MORE: Pub chain collapses into administration and closes six sites for good
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How Denmark raised its retirement age without sparking protests
Planning an early retirement? You're out of luck if you live in Denmark. The Nordic country recently raised the state pension age to 70, a change that will kick in by 2040. The new legislation means that Danes are on track to become the oldest workers in Europe. It is just the latest in a series of increases after the Scandinavian country linked its retirement age to life expectancy in 2006 and legislated that it should be reviewed every five years. The welfare agreement of 2006 attempted to protect the country's finances and set pensions spending on a sustainable path. Without action, there were concerns that the cost of the state pension could spiral out of control as Danes lived longer but paid the same amount of lifetime taxes. It could be a glimpse into Britain's future. Here, the state pension age is currently 66 and scheduled to gradually rise to 68 by 2046. But calls are growing louder for the retirement aged to be raised further and faster. Without action, the cost of the expensive triple lock on pensions will balloon and force either higher taxes or cut backs elsewhere. 'I don't think we can really afford to [wait to the 2040s], to be frank,' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told The Telegraph last week. 'If there is a sudden economic miracle, then it might change that. But it does not look to be happening any time soon.' Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, announced a review into the state pension age last week in an effort to address the problem. 'There's kind of cross party consensus that ... we need to increase the state pension age to deal with the rising cost of the state pension system,' says Heidi Karjalainen, an economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Such changes are controversial. In 2023, Jeremy Hunt, the then chancellor, shelved plans to lift the state pension age after a slump in life expectancy left ministers struggling to justify the change. In France, attempts to raise the retirement age have bought people out onto the streets in the thousands. Raising the retirement age to 70 has not led to fiery demonstrations on the streets of Copenhagen, however. The increase 'hasn't come as a surprise to anyone' given the 2006 legislation, says Damoun Ashournia, the chief economist at the Danish Trade Union Confederation. Denmark is one of nine OECD countries that currently links the retirement age to average life expectancy, effectively maintaining a fiscal brake on pension spending. The Nordic nation legislates that an average of 14.5 years should be spent in retirement. For every year increase in life expectancy in Denmark, the retirement age also rises by one year. Wouter De Tavernier, a pensions economist at the OECD, says the link prevents governments having to rerun difficult political debates every five or 10 years and helps countries maintain financial stability with their pensions system. 'It avoids having to restart the same discussions over and over again, and therefore making long term financial sustainability dependent on political decisions and political calculations about what might or might not be popular in the elections.' Yet even in Demark, there are limits. 'When we ask workers, the vast majority, 75pc, are against this increase,' says Ashournia. 'They worry that they won't be able to work until the retirement age, when we increase it by such an amount.' Karjalainen says asking people to retire at 70 is as much a psychological challenge as it is an actual problem. It is a new decade and one that feels far older to most people. 'I think the higher the state pension age goes, just kind of psychologically, people think of someone aged 65 and someone aged 70 as kind of very different types of people,' she says. However, it is not just about what voters will bear. There are physiological differences between 65 and 70. For instance, in the UK the rate of dementia stands at 1.7pc for those aged 65 to 69 years old but climbs to 3pc for 70 to 74-year-olds. 'We can't just keep increasing the retirement age forever, because it becomes unrealistic for workers to work for so long,' says Ashournia. The Danish Trade Union Confederation now wants the 2006 agreement to be softened, with the retirement age only rising by nine or 10 months for every year the life expectancy increases. Mette Frederiksen, Denmark's prime minister, has conceded that the policy may be at its limit. 'We no longer believe that the retirement age should be increased automatically,' she said in August last year. 'You can't just keep saying that people have to work a year longer.' Britain's costly dilemma In the UK, the bigger concern in policy circles is whether the Government can afford not to make people retire at 70. Spending on the state pension is only forecast to grow as a result of the costly triple lock, which guarantees annual increases by the highest of either average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5pc, whichever is highest. The UK is estimated to have spent 4.9pc of its GDP on the state pension for the 2024/25 financial year. On the current trajectory, the cost is forecast to reach 6.3pc of GDP by 2054/55. A 2023 independent report into the state pension age carried out by Baroness Rolfe recommended that the government should cap pension spending at 6pc of GDP to prevent overspending. It recommended raising the state pension age to 69 to ensure financial sustainability. However, a later retirement age raises questions about fairness. While the average life expectancy in the UK stands at 78.8 years for men and 82.8 years for women, there is significant variation across the country. Men in Blackpool and Glasgow city have some of the lowest rates of life expectancy in the UK, at 73.1 years and 73.6 years respectively. Any move to bring the state pension age in line with Denmark is likely to be met with significant pushback in the UK. Yet De Tavernier believes retirement at 70 will eventually reach Britain if life expectancy continues to rise. 'I think the discussion is more about in which time frame this will happen, and how do you get there? Do you get there by politics deciding on a time frame? Do you get there by linking a retirement age to life expectancy?' he says. The nation's pensions are heading towards a 'big fiscal challenge' that needs to be addressed, says David Sinclair, the chief executive of the International Longevity Centre. 'The fact that our politicians are too scared to talk about what retirement is like, and how we might need to be supporting work longer, and how we might need to be healthier, just feels like an utter failure of our entire political classes.' Ashournia says 'the vast majority' of Danish Trade Union Confederation members 'want to be working until the retirement age [and] even longer, if possible.' 'But today, two thirds retire prior to the retirement age because they cannot continue, or they choose to retire because they have saved sufficient funds. So the challenge for us is: how do we ensure that workers are able to continue to work until the retirement age – that's under the current retirement age, which is 67 today. 'When we increase the retirement age in the future, this problem is just going to be become bigger.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Inside the Australian port at the heart of China-US power struggle
Down a sandy, dirt road on the outskirts of Darwin in Australia's Northern Territory lies one of the US and Australia's most important military assets – but there's a catch. Written in large letters high above the entrance are the words 'Landbridge Darwin Port' in Chinese. One part of the harbour here – the largest in Australia's largely uninhabited northern coast – hosts the key naval base HMAS Coonawarra, where some of the world's largest warships have docked, including, most recently, the UK's HMS Prince of Wales. The other part, however, is occupied under a 99-year lease by Landbridge Group, a Chinese company whose billionaire owner, Ye Chang, has close ties to the ruling communist party. The Australian government has been working behind the scenes to bring the port under domestic control amid growing fears of a war in the Indo-Pacific. It would be central to any future conflict between China and Taiwan. And as one UK defence source told The Telegraph this week, threat levels in the Indo-Pacific are the 'highest in the world'. A Telegraph request to visit the commercial port was denied by the Chinese owners. When we approached the gates and asked to enter, we were turned away. The ownership of the commercial port has been embroiled in controversy since the lease was signed in 2015. Successive Australian governments have highlighted the risks of a Chinese company controlling such a strategically important military asset, and have vowed to bring it back under Australian control, but to little avail. The presence of a Chinese company with prying eyes stationed so close to the naval base has meant the US and Australia have been concerned about expanding their military operations at Darwin. They don't want to run the risk of classified intelligence or military assets – such as fighter jet parts - being handled by a Chinese-owned port operator. For now, China, maintains the upper hand over the port through Landbridge. That, however, hasn't stopped the US and its allies from building up their presence elsewhere in Darwin as part of a greater strategy to spread out and reinforce troops across the Indo-Pacific. 'Darwin is the front door for Australia and our military into the region,' Michael Shorbridge, a former Australian intelligence officer, said. Location key to preventing war Darwin's strategic role in the Indo-Pacific has long been on display during Australia's annual military exercises known as Talisman Sabre. This year, the drills were the largest yet, with tens of thousands of troops involved from 19 countries, including the US and the UK. Vice Admiral Justin Jones, the chief of joint operations with the Australian Defence Force, said over the weekend that one of the objectives of the exercises was to 'test our posture' by 'force flowing all of those 42,000 people and assets into the country and out again'. Darwin's significance isn't only hypothetical – building up capabilities in Darwin and elsewhere in the region could be key to preventing a war over Taiwan altogether. China, which claims sovereignty over Taiwan, has threatened to use force to 'reunify the motherland'. The government in Taipei strongly rejects Beijing's claims, but persistent threats and increasing use of coercion by Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, have turned the Indo-Pacific into one of the world's most highly anticipated flashpoints. 'A key part of the foreign policy… is to stop a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the first place by deterring it and all the bases throughout the Pacific are a means of providing that deterrent effect,' said Neil James, the executive director of the watchdog organisation Australia Defence Association. However, if deterrence doesn't work, Darwin's strategic location would make it invaluable to the US and its allies in a potential conflict. While US bases in Japan, the Philippines and Guam would be closer to any such conflict, it would not be advantageous to have all assets stationed close to the front line. 'Darwin is one of a string of pearls for the US and allies to use…There isn't one magical answer. The strategy of dispersal is to complicate China's planning by having multiple ports and bases to operate from,' said Mr Shoebridge, who now works as director of Strategic Analysis Australia, a think tank. While Darwin is closer to the Indo-Pacific than the continental US or Europe, at close to 3,000 miles from the Taiwan Strait, it is still far enough away to remain protected in a conflict. It would also provide an optimal base from which the US and allies could resupply and refuel. 'If you think about a protracted war, the United States needs military assets and supplies that are further away from north-east Asia, and Australia would be the centre of the depth and strategy that the US and allies need to have,' said John Lee, a senior fellow at the US-based Hudson Institute and a former Australian national security adviser. US marines prepare for escalation With its location at the southern tip of the Indo-Pacific, The US has long recognised the strategic value in Darwin's location at the southern tip of the Indo-Pacific. Since 2012, the US military has partnered with Australia's military to host a programme known as Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D). US marines are deployed to Darwin for half the year to train in the Pacific alongside Australian counterparts and better prepare for any conflict. At a static training session at Robertson Barracks, about a 30-minute drive from central Darwin, The Telegraph watched as the marines learned how to use different guns, including mortars, machine guns and Sabre missile systems, that can fire as far as 4,500 metres. It's a rare opportunity for marines from different platoons to learn how to use weapon systems that they wouldn't normally employ. Normally, platoons are only taught how to operate one type of weapon until much later on in their service. This training – being taught for the first time this year – is unique to MRF-D and a testament to the US military's investment in Darwin. 'It's about making sure that all the facilities, the customs and port and government arrangements that allow US forces to operate easily through Australia are in place and smooth and practised,' said Mr Shoebridge. 'So that they're not doing it for the first time during a conflict or crisis.' MRF-D started with the deployment of only 200 marines but it has grown to a deployment of 2,500 personnel with a full command element, which is indicative of the 'shift towards the Pacific', said Capt Johnny Fischer, MRF-D's director of communication strategy and operations. While Capt Fischer isn't able to speak about specific scenarios or conflicts, he told The Telegraph that this year was the first time that the marines had a 'persistent presence in the Philippines', further evidence of the pivot to the Indo-Pacific. MRF-D participated in both Balikatan and Kamandag, two joint US-Philippines major military drills held annually in the Philippines, and has also been expanding its joint training with Philippine Marine Corps as well as Japan's Ground Defence Forces. 'This is the most dynamic, complex and forward-postured MRF-D in the 14 years that the rotation has been coming out here,' said Capt Fischer. China watching closely While efforts are being made by the US, Australia and allies to build up Darwin's capacity and capabilities, experts say that it remains inherently limited by China's involvement in the critically important port. However, there have been several government-led reviews into the risk level and so far all have determined that the 'there is a robust regulatory system in place to manage risks' and it is therefore 'not necessary to vary or cancel the lease'. Terry O'Connor, the non-executive director for Landbridge in Australia, told The Telegraph that these reviews 'reaffirm our position that there is no basis for security concerns given the port is operated as a commercial enterprise in accordance with Australian law and the port transaction documents'. Military veterans stress, though, that these investigations tend to only look at factors such as espionage and surveillance, and don't account for the ability to develop the port as well as its use in a potential conflict. 'This is not about sneaky, nefarious people crawling around the port in Darwin. This is about the opportunity cost to Australia's military and our military partners and allies in not being able to use this piece of prime port real estate in the middle of Darwin harbour,' explained Mr Shoebridge. While Darwin harbour is not as large as other ports in Australia, it's the largest on the north coast and the commercial portion that is operated by Landbridge is in deeper waters and therefore more strategically valuable. 'Our partners and allies don't want to risk classified items being subject to handling by a Chinese-owned port operator, so we're not able to use the best port facility in Darwin to maximum effect,' said Mr Shoebridge. 'If you've got parts for an F-35 that are coming in via ship and you're going to move them through the port, you've got a chain of custody problem with who handles these highly controlled, top secret items. The last thing you want to do is give potential insights to a potential adversary like the Chinese military.' Those in favour of Landbridge's management, have also pointed out that Australian law stipulates that in the event of a war, the government is able to take back control of the port, but Mr James notes that this would be too little, too late. 'If we decide that Chinese control of the port is not a good idea and we try to rescind the lease, that is going to be escalatory,' he said. 'We're better off taking the port back as soon as we can to avoid that future escalatory risk.'
Coin Geek
9 hours ago
- Coin Geek
Russia looks to Kyrgyzstan's crypto industry to evade sanctions
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... A new report has indicated that Russian actors are using Kyrgyzstan's digital asset ecosystem to evade international sanctions and purchase dual-use goods for its ongoing war in Ukraine. According to research from U.K.-based blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs, published in a July 21 blog post, Kyrgyzstan-registered exchanges have 'repeatedly facilitated transactions linked to sanctioned Russian entities.' It noted that 'many of these virtual asset service providers (VASPs) show indicators of being shell companies — including the reuse of identical residential addresses, founders, and contact information across multiple entities.' The report also found that several of these Kyrgyz exchanges exhibited similar on-chain heuristics to Garantex, a Russian digital asset exchange that was the subject of an international operation to disrupt its operations due to facilitating terrorist financing and sanctions violations. 'The high-risk exchange Grinex—likely a rebranded successor to Garantex—was also registered in Kyrgyzstan,' said the report. 'On-chain analysis suggests that Grinex and other Kyrgyz-based exchanges may have played a role in moving funds after the takedown, underscoring Kyrgyzstan's growing importance as a conduit for post-sanctions Russian financial activity.' TRM Labs observed increasing instances of Russia-linked actors exploiting Kyrgyz-registered exchanges to circumvent international sanctions and move funds. Some of these exchanges, said the report, 'display behavioral heuristics similar to the sanctioned Russian exchange Garantex and appear to have served as conduits for funds following law enforcement action against Garantex in 2025.' This pattern was found in several other entities as well, according to the report. Russia's route out of its sanctions hole Russia has been the subject of massive and unprecedented international sanctions since its illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, making it the most sanctioned nation on Earth. With an ailing economy—some suggesting it is on the brink of collapse—and in the face of such severe restrictions as being shut out from the international financial messaging system, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), Russia has increasingly turned to the digital asset space for a reprieve. The appeal to a heavily sanctioned nation of being able to exchange and transfer funds instantaneously via an anonymous (or pseudonymous) and decentralized peer-to-peer network, not controlled by any antagonistic nation, is obvious. However, the ability to track and trace funds on the blockchain and the increasing legitimization of the digital asset space have made this route to international monetary freedom more difficult. Many popular exchanges and crypto-companies, such as and LocalBitcoins, and Kraken, have felt the need to comply with international sanctions against Russia, including European Union-mandated bans on all digital asset wallets, accounts, or custody services to Russian entities and accounts. Suspiciously booming Kyrgyzstan industry The TRM report noted that, since Russia invaded Ukraine, its economic ties with Kyrgyzstan have deepened significantly. While Russia-linked activity accounted for almost all of Kyrgyzstan's digital asset industry after the invasion, before February 2022, it was 'virtually nonexistent.' In January 2022, Kyrgyzstan passed digital currency-friendly legislation which, amongst other measures, recognized digital assets as property and established a registration regime for virtual asset service providers (VASP). Since then, the Central Asian Republic, formerly part of the USSR, has rapidly emerged as a crypto hub. According to TRM Labs, 'by October 2024, Kyrgyzstan had issued 126 VASP licenses, fueling a sharp rise in digital asset activity. Transaction volume by licensed VASPs surged from USD 59 million in 2022 to USD 4.2 billion in just the first seven months of 2024.' This booming industry would not be a problem, were it not for the fact that VASPs registered in Kyrgyzstan shared 'suspicious' on- and off-chain overlap with Russian entities, including identical registration addresses at private residences, phone numbers and emails tied to freight companies or other VASPs, named founders linked to multiple other providers, no discernible background in business or digital currency, and/or no functional user registration processes. As well as the example of Garantex and Grinex, the report pointed to the Kyrgyz exchange Envoys Vision Digital Exchange (EVDE), which registered a digital currency wallet address tied to the Rusich Group, a Russian paramilitary organization sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in 2022 for its involvement in the war in Ukraine. 'Beyond its on-chain exposure, the exchange also shows several off-chain links to cross-border logistics firms and a Chinese financial institution, suggesting a wider support infrastructure that warrants further scrutiny,' said TRM Labs. Plugging the hole? In terms of what can be done about this sanction loophole that Russia appears to have found, TRM Labs recommended several measures. If Kyrgyzstan is being exploited rather than complicit, the report suggested implementing stronger ownership requirements, such as mandating the physical presence or local residency of company principals, which would raise barriers for foreign bad actors. Similarly, increasing transparency around funding sources would reduce the appeal of Kyrgyzstan as a destination for shell entities.' However, if Kyrgyzstan is an equal partner in facilitating Russia's sanctions evasion, 'governments and law enforcement agencies seeking to counter Russia's sanctions evasion toolkit need to urgently engage directly with Kyrgyz authorities on compliance.' Without proactive intervention, argued the report, the model Russia has implemented in Kyrgyzstan can be easily exported: 'If left unchecked, Russia could replicate these same playbooks in neighboring jurisdictions — further weakening the global sanctions regime and enabling the continued flow of funds to fuel aggression, procurement, and destabilization.' Watch | Tech of Tomorrow: Diving into the impact of tech in shaping the future title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""> Garantex Kyrgyzstan Russia Sanctions SWIFT TRM Labs Ukraine
