logo
Brookfield eyes $100 bn portfolio in India; explores opportunities in nuclear power projects

Brookfield eyes $100 bn portfolio in India; explores opportunities in nuclear power projects

Time of India22-05-2025
Brookfield Asset Management
Ltd., one of the largest investors in India's infrastructure sector, plans to cross the $100 billion investment mark in the country in the next five years and is open to backing nuclear power projects, a segment that has seen a policy push in recent months, said a senior company executive.
The New York-headquartered firm also aims to double its nearly $1 trillion assets under management during this period.
'We are believers in nuclear (energy). We do think it provides clean, dispatchable baseload power and that is beneficial to the stability and growing demands for energy around the world. We are invested in the nuclear sector on a global basis,' Connor Teskey, president, Brookfield Asset Management, said on Thursday.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
She Was The Dream Girl In The 90s, This Is Her Recently
WomenSportOnline.com
Learn More
He said the demand for clean energy, including natural gas as a transition fuel and nuclear (energy), would only go up in the near future.
In the US, Brookfield owns Westinghouse Nuclear, a major player in the nuclear energy sector, providing nuclear power plants, fuel and services to utility customers worldwide.
Live Events
'More than half the nuclear power generation assets around the world run on Westinghouse technology. We are a global supplier to the nuclear power generation sector. And as there are opportunities in different markets around the world, we assess those on an individual basis," Teskey said.
Terming the firm's investment strategy '3Ds' – decarbonisation, digitalisation and deglobalisation – he said these trends, which have driven a significant amount of growth in the past five years, will continue to offer a 'multi-decade runway in terms of growth opportunities'.
Since 2014, the firm has deployed about $30 billion in the country in transactions such as the acquisition of ATC Towers, the telecom towers of Reliance Jio and the East-West Pipeline (formerly Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure) from
Reliance Industries
. Of this, $12 billion each has been invested in infrastructure and real estate, another $3 billion in renewable power and transition, and $3.6 billion in private equity and Brookfield Special Investments.
Teskey said a combination of growth prospects in
clean energy in India
, the number of quality players and the government's ambition makes India poised to be the next clean energy superpower. 'We are keen on areas such as digital infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, utilities and power generation as well. We will look to invest in India very much in the same themes and focuses that we invest in around the world,' he said.
The firm has invested heavily in data centres, telecom towers and fibre networks.
'When it comes to other commodities, we're investors in midstream assets and utilities and transmission lines. And all of that will continue to be enhanced and built out in India as the economy continues to grow, both due to domestic demand and the growing role that it can play around the world,' Teskey said.
Additionally, Brookfield will focus on financial services and manufacturing sectors in India in the near future. 'India's rapidly growing middle class is a large consumer market. I would say those are probably where we will continue to focus. Most of the leading global multinationals do have large and growing presence in the country. We can build our own or operate assets to serve that corporate demand,' Teskey said.
In real estate, Brookfield is among the largest office owners and operators in India, with more than 55 million square feet across top nine office markets. It also owns Leela Hotels chain, which comprises 3,553 keys across 13 operational hotels, and is gearing up for a Rs 3,500 crore initial public offering.
Teskey ruled out major business disruptions due to the ongoing tariff wars and the consequent geopolitical uncertainties. 'We want to own high quality critical assets in markets that have strong tailwinds and the key themes and dynamics that we are investing in today completely overwhelm any short term uncertainty or headline noise,' he said. 'There has been some level of uncertainty around the world to start 2025, but it has had absolutely no impact on our willingness to deploy capital. That completely overwhelms any short-term noise."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia Univ over confusingly similar merchandise
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia Univ over confusingly similar merchandise

Business Standard

time9 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia Univ over confusingly similar merchandise

For decades, T-shirts, sweatshirts and other clothing under the Columbia Sportswear brand and clothing emblazoned with the Columbia University name coexisted more or less peacefully without confusion. But now, the Portland-based outdoor retailer has sued the New York-based university over alleged trademark infringement and a breach of contract, among other charges. It claims that the university's merchandise looks too similar to what's being sold at more than 800 retail locations, including more than 150 of its branded stores, as well as its website and third-party marketplaces. In a lawsuit filed July 23 in the US District Court for the District of Oregon, Columbia Sportswear, whose roots date back to 1938, alleges that the university intentionally violated an agreement the parties signed on June 13, 2023. That agreement dictated how the university could use the word Columbia on its own apparel. As part of the pact, the university could feature Columbia on its merchandise provided that the name included a recognisable school insignia or its mascot, the word university, the name of the academic department or the founding year of the university 1754 or a combination. But Columbia Sportswear alleges the university breached the agreement a little more than a year later, with the company noticing several garments without any of the school logos being sold at the Columbia University online store. Many of the garments feature a bright blue colour that is confusingly similar to the blue colour that has long been associated with Columbia Sportswear, the suit alleged. The lawsuit offered photos of some of the Columbia University items that say only Columbia. The likelihood of deception, confusion, and mistake engendered by the university's misappropriation and misuse of the Columbia name is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill symbolised by Columbia Sportswear's registered mark Columbia and the reputation for quality it embodies, the lawsuit alleged. The lawsuit comes at a time when Columbia University has been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support. Last week, Columbia University reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was cancelled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. Under the agreement, the Ivy League school will pay a $200 million settlement over three years, the university said. Columbia Sportswear aims to stop all sales of clothing that violate the agreement, recall any products already sold and donate any remaining merchandise to charity. Columbia Sportswear is also seeking three times the amount of actual damages determined by a jury. Neither Columbia Sportswear or Columbia University couldn't be immediately reached for comment. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

US defense bill proposes examination of Apple display supplier
US defense bill proposes examination of Apple display supplier

Time of India

time18 minutes ago

  • Time of India

US defense bill proposes examination of Apple display supplier

A measure added into a massive U.S. defense spending bill in recent weeks will, if passed, ask the Pentagon to determine whether one of Apple's display suppliers should be listed as a Chinese military company . Being on the list does not block companies from doing business in the U.S. but will in coming years block them from being part of the U.S. military's supply chain. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Technology Data Analytics healthcare Artificial Intelligence Digital Marketing Product Management CXO Data Science Project Management Finance Leadership MCA Design Thinking Others Degree Public Policy Management Healthcare Cybersecurity PGDM MBA others Data Science Operations Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Weeks MIT xPRO CERT-MIT XPRO Building AI Prod India Starts on undefined Get Details The bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act , was approved in July by key committees in both houses of the U.S. Congress. The final bill, considered a "must-pass" because it funds the U.S. military, is expected to become law later in the year. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Twins in The World! Undo When the bill was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, a newly added amendment for the first time asked the U.S. Defense Department to consider whether BOE Technology Group Co, listed on Apple's official suppliers list, should be added to a list of firms that allegedly aid China's military. BOE and Apple did not respond to requests for comment. Live Events Craig Singleton, a China expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think-tank, said Beijing had offered billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks and loans to help firms such as BOE dominate global panel production. "This creates a single-source vulnerability that could be easily exploited to disrupt or degrade U.S. military operations, not to mention undermine commercial supply chains, during a conflict or period of heightened bilateral tension with Beijing," Singleton added. A study published last month by New York-based NERA Economic Consulting and commissioned by BOE's U.S. subsidiary found that the display industry, which includes major Korean players such as Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, remains highly competitive, with no single player capable of significantly affecting global prices. "There is no credible risk of a supply chain disruption by mainland China display manufacturers," the report said.

Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case
Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case

Time of India

time36 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case

A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk 's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Artificial Intelligence others Cybersecurity Project Management Others Finance Digital Marketing MCA Degree Design Thinking Data Analytics MBA CXO Healthcare Technology Data Science Operations Management Data Science healthcare Public Policy PGDM Leadership Product Management Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India Starts on undefined Get Details The decision ends a four-year-long case remarkable not just in its outcome, but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo "This will open the floodgates," said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. "It will embolden a lot of people to come to court." The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo . They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. Live Events "We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective," said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. "Justice was achieved." Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. "Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, "and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology," They said the plaintiffs concocted a story "blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility." In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. "It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry," said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities . "It's not a good day for Tesla." Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like "driver assist" and "copilot" to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. "Words matter," Schreiber said. "And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts." Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods, where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. "I trusted the technology too much," said McGee at one point in his testimony. "I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes." The lead defence lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel, yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: "The cause is that he dropped his cellphone." The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla's liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behaviour would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store