Interra Resources had not breached foreign sanctions in Myanmar, legal advisor says
The advisor's report follows allegations from activist group Justice for Myanmar that Interra had helped supply the country's ruling military with oil and contributed to war crimes.
The company said in a statement that the risk of financial impact resulting from any potential violations of sanctions will also be minimal.
Myanmar has been in turmoil since the military overthrew the elected civilian government of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021, triggering pro-democracy protests that morphed into a widening armed rebellion that has taken over swathes of the country.
Interra holds a participating interest of about 60% in Goldpetrol Joint Operating Company (GJOC), according to its website. GJOC operates two of the onshore producing oil fields in Chauk and Yenangyaung in central Myanmar.
GJOC secured the production-sharing contract for oil exploration and production with Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), Myanmar's state oil and gas enterprise, in late 1996. It was extended for 11 years in April 2017.
In February, Interra had said production-sharing contract between its subsidiary and Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise was extended years before the military seized power in 2021.
After the military's coup in 2021, the United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on MOGE.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on global inequality: the rising tide that leaves most boats behind
This year's global wealth report by the City bank UBS confirms what is self-evident but rarely confronted: while riches are accumulating, their distribution remains starkly unbalanced. In the 56 countries and economic areas surveyed, the report says global personal wealth grew 4.6% in 2024. However, not all boats have been lifted by this tide. The gap is growing between those who hold assets and those who don't. The figures are shocking: just 60m of the world's adults – 1.6% of the population – have net personal wealth of $226tn, or 48.1% of all the world's riches. At the other extreme, four in 10 adults – 1.57bn people – have only $2.7tn, or just 0.6% of all the world's personal wealth. Economists now argue that inequality is no longer a by-product of growth but a condition of it. In the US, soaring bond markets and tech stocks have benefited the ultra-rich and deepened inequality. Nine households, it was reported, control 15% of wealth in Silicon Valley. By contrast, UBS says British median wealth rose while average wealth fell. This is a rare divergence, probably caused by prosperous households in London taking a hit from interest rate hikes as house prices dropped and debt costs rose. This wasn't a sign of shared prosperity but of paper losses at the top, while ordinary workers held steady. Unlike wages, wealth reflects not just income but also access to assets, favourable institutional conditions – such as low interest rates – and public policies like low taxes and housing shortages. In other words, wealth depends on political choices in ways that income currently does not. It's not just the inequality itself that is the issue but the erosion of mechanisms that once constrained it. As the report notes, wealth and income inequality are linked. But where wages have stagnated and collective bargaining has weakened, capital income – derived from profits, rents and interest – has been boosted by design. Productivity gains, once expected to feed through to broader living standards, now primarily serve to enhance returns to wealth. Taxes on wealth are necessary to make societies more equal. Unfairness is aiding far-right autocrats whose rise brings the risk of democratic collapse. In July seven Nobel laureates issued a powerful call for a minimum tax on the ultra-rich. Brazil, Spain and South Africa have demanded a global tax on the super-rich, placing the issue on the G20 agenda. Pioneering work by economists such as Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez led to the French national assembly passing a law this year for a 2% minimum tax on wealth over €100m. The legislation, regrettably, has not proceeded past the senate. Progressive taxation is necessary, but it doesn't address a core problem in many economies: when capital income outpaces labour income, redistribution may ease the symptoms of neoliberalism, but it leaves the underlying condition untreated. High inequality suppresses consumption, deters investment and slows growth. The gap between rich and poor is not just unfair – it's economically unsustainable. Without strong domestic demand, economies increasingly rely on debt, speculation and asset bubbles to fuel growth. Changing this would take more than fiscal transfers. It would require policies that boost wages: full employment, stronger labour unions and public investment. Private ownership itself may need to be reconceived – less perhaps in the sense of expropriation, and more in terms of widening access to productive assets and social wealth. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Times
8 hours ago
- Times
LVMH suffers steep drop in fashion sales as the rich cut spending
LVMH's core fashion and leather goods division suffered a steep slowdown in quarterly sales, a fresh warning sign for the wider luxury sector as even affluent shoppers cut their spending amid the global uncertainty. Shares in the world's largest luxury group fell 2 per cent after the division behind Louis Vuitton, Dior and Givenchy reported a 9 per cent drop in organic sales over the past three months to €9 billion. That compared with a 5 per cent decline in the previous quarter and marked the sharpest fall among LVMH's business lines, which span alcohol, watches and jewellery. For the first half, sales in the fashion and leather goods division were down 7 per cent on an organic basis to €20.7 billion, while profit from recurring operations fell 18 per cent to €6.6 billion. The Paris-listed group said tough comparatives had contributed to the decline, noting the first half of 2024 had been boosted by strong tourist spending, particularly in Japan. Group-wide sales fell 4 per cent on an organic basis to €19.5 billion in the second quarter, in line with analyst forecasts. First-half sales declined 3 per cent to €39.8 billion, also in line with consensus. Operating income before non-recurring items dropped to €9 billion, from €10.65 billion a year earlier. The wine and spirits division, home to Moët and Hennessy, also posted a fall in revenue and profit, citing the impact of trade tensions on customers in key markets such as the United States and China. • How will LVMH and its luxury competitors cope with tariffs? LVMH, led by the billionaire Bernard Arnault, noted continued weak demand for cognac, although it said trends for champagne had improved in the second quarter. Revenue in the division fell 4 per cent over the three months, bringing the first-half decline to 7 per cent. The French group, which owns 75 luxury brands and has a market capitalisation of €233 billion, has faced challenges across the board this year. A broader slowdown in the US and in China, where a property crisis continues to weigh on consumer sentiment, has hit revenues in its main divisions. This mirrors broader weakness across the luxury sector. Its Swiss rival Richemont has also struggled, although a stronger performance in luxury jewellery helped offset softer sales in watches and fashion during the second quarter. At LVMH, the jewellery arm recorded flat sales over the same period. Cécile Cabanis, LVMH's chief financial officer, acknowledged the macroeconomic environment was 'full of uncertainty' but said she remained 'rather confident' about the rest of the year. She pointed to potential good news from trade talks between the European Union and the Trump administration. Asked how LVMH would respond to a possible 15 per cent general tariff on US-bound exports, Cabanis said such a move would be 'an overall good outcome for the general mood of our clients'. She added that, with the exception of wines and spirits, several LVMH labels still had pricing power to help offset any impact from tariffs. The company announced plans to open a factory in Texas by 2027 in light of President Trump's tariff regime. Separately, Cabanis said the company would not keep any brands in its portfolio that were unprofitable, citing recent stake disposals of Off-White and Stella McCartney. Shares in LVMH, down 28 per cent over the past year, closed 9.7 cents, or 2 per cent, lower at €470.25.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on global inequality: the rising tide that leaves most boats behind
This year's global wealth report by the City bank UBS confirms what is self-evident but rarely confronted: while riches are accumulating, their distribution remains starkly unbalanced. In the 56 countries and economic areas surveyed, the report says global personal wealth grew 4.6% in 2024. However, not all boats have been lifted by this tide. The gap is growing between those who hold assets and those who don't. The figures are shocking: just 60m of the world's adults – 1.6% of the population – have net personal wealth of $226tn, or 48.1% of all the world's riches. At the other extreme, four in 10 adults – 1.57bn people – have only $2.7tn, or just 0.6% of all the world's personal wealth. Economists now argue that inequality is no longer a by-product of growth but a condition of it. In the US, soaring bond markets and tech stocks have benefited the ultra-rich and deepened inequality. Nine households, it was reported, control 15% of wealth in Silicon Valley. By contrast, UBS says British median wealth rose while average wealth fell. This is a rare divergence, probably caused by prosperous households in London taking a hit from interest rate hikes as house prices dropped and debt costs rose. This wasn't a sign of shared prosperity but of paper losses at the top, while ordinary workers held steady. Unlike wages, wealth reflects not just income but also access to assets, favourable institutional conditions – such as low interest rates – and public policies like low taxes and housing shortages. In other words, wealth depends on political choices in ways that income currently does not. It's not just the inequality itself that is the issue but the erosion of mechanisms that once constrained it. As the report notes, wealth and income inequality are linked. But where wages have stagnated and collective bargaining has weakened, capital income – derived from profits, rents and interest – has been boosted by design. Productivity gains, once expected to feed through to broader living standards, now primarily serve to enhance returns to wealth. Taxes on wealth are necessary to make societies more equal. Unfairness is aiding far-right autocrats whose rise brings the risk of democratic collapse. In July seven Nobel laureates issued a powerful call for a minimum tax on the ultra-rich. Brazil, Spain and South Africa have demanded a global tax on the super-rich, placing the issue on the G20 agenda. Pioneering work by economists such as Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez led to the French national assembly passing a law this year for a 2% minimum tax on wealth over €100m. The legislation, regrettably, has not proceeded past the senate. Progressive taxation is necessary, but it doesn't address a core problem in many economies: when capital income outpaces labour income, redistribution may ease the symptoms of neoliberalism, but it leaves the underlying condition untreated. High inequality suppresses consumption, deters investment and slows growth. The gap between rich and poor is not just unfair – it's economically unsustainable. Without strong domestic demand, economies increasingly rely on debt, speculation and asset bubbles to fuel growth. Changing this would take more than fiscal transfers. It would require policies that boost wages: full employment, stronger labour unions and public investment. Private ownership itself may need to be reconceived – less perhaps in the sense of expropriation, and more in terms of widening access to productive assets and social wealth.
