Environmental groups blast JBS's US listing approval; Wall Street praises it
SAO PAULO, May 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. financial regulator's approval last month of a proposal by the world's largest meatpacker JBS (JBSS3.SA), opens new tab to list on the New York Stock Exchange is drawing strong criticism from climate and animal rights groups but praise from Wall Street.
In multiple statements after April 22, when Brazil's JBS said the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) greenlit its dual-listing plan to broaden its investor pool and raise its valuation closer to peers, environment activists and animal rights lobbies have unleashed a campaign condemning it.
here.
They cited sprawling criminal investigations into JBS or its controllers in Brazil and in the U.S., as well as concerns over the deforestation of the Amazon and the company's outsized role as a large global emitter of greenhouse gases in the course of its operations.
"Given the company's long rap sheet of illegal and corrupt conduct, it's hard to see how the SEC could have confidence that JBS won't deceive U.S. investors," Glenn Hurowitz, CEO of Mighty Earth, a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group, said in a statement.
JBS was deeply implicated in a bribery scandal in 2017 that shook Brazil's political and economic landscape. In the U.S., the company or related parties were fined millions of dollars in 2020 for corruption in Brazil, opens new tab and for bribery, opens new tab related to its 2009 acquisition of Pilgrim's Pride (PPC.O), opens new tab, another top U.S. meat company.
U.S. lawmakers have also raised concerns over the listing and JBS's criminal and environmental track record.
The SEC did not respond to several requests for comment.
JBS said it believes its U.S. listing presents a compelling investment option and increased opportunities for farmers and ranchers, employees, consumers and the communities where it operates.
The company, which partly funded its aggressive global expansion by issuing bonds traded internationally, pointed out that it has been subject to the information and reporting requirements of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and other U.S. federal securities laws for years.
Global Witness, a London-based organization which investigates industries' links to climate change, called SEC's approval of the listing "a disaster" for both the planet and its people. Other groups have alleged that JBS purchases cattle grazed on deforested areas of the Amazon.
In a statement to Reuters, JBS rejected that claim, citing a "rigorous, zero-tolerance agricultural commodity sourcing policy with strong anti-deforestation measures."
But climate activists are unimpressed.
"Allowing it to list on the world's largest stock exchange —unlocking vast opportunities for expansion and profit— shows the deep failures of the U.S. financial regulatory system," Global Witness said.
SUPER VOTING SHARES
This year, JBS stock rose some 24% on the Sao Paulo Stock Exchange on expectations that the SEC would approve the U.S. listing, something the company has been seeking in various forms since 2009. The company announced the structure of the current listing proposal in July 2023.
For Brazilian investment bank BTG, access to a larger pool of investors after listing in the U.S. would offer JBS "unprecedented firepower to drive growth."
Citi and other banks have repeatedly said the move will close a valuation gap with rivals, like Tyson Foods (TSN.N), opens new tab.
Under the plan, the meatpacker's shares will be primarily listed in New York through a Netherlands-based company, but the stock will also continue to trade in Sao Paulo via Brazilian Depositary Receipts (BDRs), which are certificates representing shares of foreign companies traded in Brazil.
JBS NV, the Dutch company created for the dual listing, will issue Class A and Class B shares. The Class B shares will have 10 times the voting power of Class A shares, and only Class A shares will be publicly traded.
All shareholders will be able to convert Class A into Class B shares through December 2026. That will define JBS' final free float on the NYSE and voting power distribution.
On May 23, an extraordinary assembly of JBS shareholders will vote on the dual listing plan. JBS' second largest shareholder, the equity arm of Brazil's development bank, BNDESPar, said it would abstain from voting.
JBS shares could start trading on the NYSE as soon as June.
After all steps are complete, the controlling shareholders could end up with 85% of voting power in one potential scenario, said Genial Investimentos, a Sao Paulo-based investment firm.
Global Witness said such power concentration would limit opportunities for minority shareholders to steer the company on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
MPs ask ministers whether they will recoup Thames Water executive bonuses
The environment secretary has been asked if he will claw back controversial bonus payments to Thames Water senior executives after it emerged some bonuses had already been paid out. Last month, Steve Reed vowed to block bonuses that Thames Water proposed to pay to managers at the beleaguered company. The firm's chair has been forced to admit that bonuses have already been paid to executives out of a £3bn emergency loan paid by creditors for the purpose of rescuing Thames from financial collapse. In a letter to MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs committee, the chair of Thames Water, Sir Adrian Montague, admitted 21 members of the firm's senior management team received a first payment at 50% of base salary on 30 April 2025. He said 'the board does not intend to recover this money'. The letter says that the 21 individuals who received payments did not include Sir Adrian himself, the CEO Chris Weston, or the CFO Steve Buck. However, he added that Buck would be eligible for a later payment under the plan, which he confirmed is 'paused' pending a review. He added that the bonuses are worth £18.5m in total, spread across three payments over two years – '50% of base salary on 30 April 2025; 50% on completion of [Thames Water's] second restructuring plan or, if earlier, December 2025; and a final payment of 200% of base salary in June 2026'. The parliamentary committee has written to Reed asking 'whether you expect Ofwat to recoup the payments made on 30th April to all 21 of Thames management team?' Alistair Carmichael, the chair of the committee, said: 'We have now learned that 21 members of Thames Water's senior management team, not including their CEO and CFO, received payments additional to their salary, in April 2025, at the not inconsiderable rate of 50% of their base rate of pay. Thames Water have stated in a letter to us that they do not intend to recover this money. They also say that the retention payments scheme has been 'paused'. 'As a committee, we are trying to seek clarity as to whether these payments fall within the remit of the government's ban and will be recouped, given that they were not paid to the company's CEO or CFO and are termed by Thames Water as 'retention payments' rather than bonuses. We are also asking whether Defra and Ofwat were aware of these payments and what undertakings they have received from Thames Water about the pausing or withdrawal of the retention plan. 'Given that the plan includes two further retention payments, including 200% of base salary due to be paid to these 21 individuals in June 2026, it is vital that Thames Water, Defra and Ofwat are clear with us all about what exactly is going on.' In his letter, Montague also apologised for misleading the committee after the Guardian revealed he had wrongly told MPs the large bonuses were 'insisted' upon by creditors. He told the select committee that the lenders said that 'very substantial' bonuses of up to 50% of salary should be paid to company executives from the controversial loan in order to retain key staff. The Guardian revealed that sources with knowledge of the details of the agreement, the term sheet for the loan and court documents suggested that while the bonuses were agreed to by the creditors they were not necessarily proposed by them. He said: 'For complete clarity, I did misspeak. However, I certainly did not intend to mislead. I deeply regret having caused confusion through my appearance.' A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'We wrote to the Efra select committee to apologise for the confusion caused following the recent evidence session and to provide further clarity. 'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP [management retention plan] and has received no payments to date. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator. We will review the requests from the select committee chair and will respond in due course.' Defra has been contacted for comment.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Hainault swordsman ‘smiled after stabbing pedestrian in neck'
An alleged sword attacker smiled after slashing a pedestrian in the neck during a 'brutal string of attacks' that left a 14-year-old boy dead, the Old Bailey has heard. Marcus Arduini Monzo, 37, is on trial accused of murdering schoolboy Daniel Anjorin and attempting to kill four others during a 20-minute rampage in Hainault, north-east London, on April 30 last year. He denies the charges. On Monday, jurors were shown CCTV of the first alleged attack, which showed Mr Monzo's grey Ford Transit mounting the pavement and hitting Donato Iwule, a Co-op security guard on his way to work. The footage shows Mr Iwule screaming as he is struck by the van, before it collides with a house. Mr Monzo is then seen exiting the vehicle and walking after him while brandishing a sword. Giving evidence, Mr Iwule said: 'I thought I was dying.' He told the court that he tried to escape into a nearby garden but was struck on his knee, face and shoulder and knocked to the ground. He said Mr Monzo got out of the van, pulled a sword from a cover 'right in front of my face' and threw the cover aside. Mr Iwule told Tom Little KC, prosecuting: 'I said 'I don't know you'... I said it multiple times. He said 'I don't care – I'm going to kill you'.' He said he tried to defend himself and raised his arms but Mr Monzo swung the sword, catching him on the neck. 'I saw blood coming out of my neck,' he said. 'I pressed my thumb to not bleed out... I shouted 'God is greatest' in Arabic – because I'm Muslim. 'When that happened, he was smiling like it was something that he was happy about.' Mr Iwule said Mr Monzo became distracted and so he jumped over a fence to escape, later shouting at a schoolboy, believed to be Daniel, to go back inside. 'His eyes were black' Shortly afterwards, Nathan Hutchinson, another Co-op employee, arrived at the scene. He told jurors that he saw Mr Monzo emerge from bushes holding a sword with both hands. Mr Hutchinson said: 'He looked a bit mad, like there was nothing there – his eyes were black. He was muttering some words like: 'You are going to die'.' He added that the weapon was held 'upright in a way to strike' and that he fled after seeing how close Mr Monzo was. Under cross-examination, Mr Iwule said he was standing upright when he was struck and could clearly hear Mr Monzo say he was going to kill him. Jurors were also shown CCTV and phone footage of Mr Monzo appearing to stand over Daniel shortly after the fatal attack, holding the schoolboy's backpack in one hand. Footage from a nearby property appeared to show part of Mr Monzo's body as he struck Daniel, but the full encounter was obscured by a house. Another woman could be heard in mobile phone footage saying: 'F---, he just killed that boy,' as Daniel's lifeless body lay on the floor. The scenes prompted a brief suspension of the trial after a juror left the courtroom, visibly affected. Last week, jurors heard that Mr Monzo had skinned and deboned his own cat before carrying out the alleged attacks, and was under the influence of cannabis, which may have led to drug-induced psychosis. However, the prosecution said this does not amount to diminished responsibility. Mitchell Hayes, a witness who was also on his way to work at the Co-op, said he saw the van 'going faster, slowing down, going faster' before the collision. He said he later heard screaming, saw the driver walk around the van and then get back in and reverse away, appearing to hold what looked like a sword. Mr Hayes said he stayed with Mr Iwule, who was holding his neck and bleeding, for 10 to 15 minutes before becoming aware of another incident nearby. He said another colleague, Mr Hutchinson, began shouting that the attacker had a sword and they saw a body on the other side of the road. 'He was running around with it like a maniac,' Mr Hayes said of the man that he believed to be Mr Monzo. Mr Monzo has admitted possessing two swords but denies murder, attempted murder, wounding with intent, aggravated burglary and possession of a bladed article.
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Fined for feeding the ducks and picking up litter. How ‘Stasi-like' councils are ripping off Britain
While serious criminal behaviour all too often goes unpunished, councils across the country are increasingly issuing fines for misdemeanours as innocuous as putting the bins out early or feeding the ducks. After one west London man was penalised with a fixed penalty notice (FPN) for putting his bins out early last month – more on which below – the shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, warned that local authorities were veering into 'Stasi-like control of people's lives'. 'Instead of cracking down on genuine antisocial behaviour, the state tries to reassert itself by punishing well-meaning people for tiny infringements,' he told The Telegraph. 'It's the easy thing to do but it's counter-productive and unfair.' Indeed, on-the-spot penalties – condemned by critics as 'busybody fines' – have been rising for years. Data show such fines soared by 42 per cent in the year to 2023, resulting in nearly 20,000 FPNs being dished out, according to research conducted by civil liberties group the Manifesto Club. Although nominally aimed at cracking down on antisocial behaviour such as loitering and littering (offering local authorities a way to deal with relatively minor offences outside of court), the seemingly heavy-handed use of these penalties in a justice system where people convicted of grave crimes are often handed short or suspended sentences seems ever more unjustifiable. Here are some of the most egregious examples… The widower fined £500 for a fly-away envelope Martin Fielder had given up his job to care for his young children after the death of his wife when he was hit with a £500 fine and the threat of a criminal record in February this year. His misdemeanour? An errant envelope that he suspects flew out of his recycling bin. After the envelope had been found by a council warden 250ft from his house, Fielder was accused of fly-tipping in a letter sent by District Enforcement, a private contractor of Welwyn Hatfield borough council that issues FPNs on commission. The ensuing back-and-forth with the council, he said, has left him in a state of 'constant anxiety'. 'The letter stated that if the fine was not paid within 28 days, the matter would be referred to the magistrates' court, where I could go to prison for up to 12 months or receive a bigger fine, or both,' Fielder told The Guardian newspaper. Fielder explained that strong winds the night before could have caused the packaging to fly out of his recycling bin, and the company downgraded the charge to a £100 littering fine. He is now deciding whether to challenge the penalty in court. As in Fielder's case, the administration of FPNs is often outsourced from cash-strapped councils to third-party contractors, prompting critics to suggest the system is used to replenish local authorities' coffers and wide open to exploitation. Indeed, the Manifesto Club's research indicated that the 39 local authorities which employed private enforcement companies were behind 14,633 of the penalties served in 2023, while 261 councils that did not issued just 4,529 by comparison. 'While councils fire off fixed penalty notices for fly-away envelopes, real criminals are being let off the hook,' says William Yarwood of the TaxPayers' Alliance. 'Taxpayers will be rightly jaded that trivial mishaps are being met with extortionate fines. Councils need to make sure that the private companies they hire don't have skewed incentives that encourage the handing out of fines merely to make a profit.' The five-year-old hit with a £1,000 bill for fly-tipping In November last year, Harrow council issued a five-year-old girl with a £1,000 FPN that claimed she had been 'witnessed by a uniformed officer… committing the offence of fly-tipping'. What had actually happened, according to the girl's father, was that parcel packaging with her name on it had been found on a neighbouring street due to overfilled communal bins. The child was then sent a 'final reminder' letter from the local authority's enforcement team the month after, which advised that it was 'about to instruct the council's legal team to start court proceedings'. Her father branded the fine 'absurd' and, after failing to resolve the issue himself, went to a ward surgery held by his local councillor. The issue was then raised at a council cabinet meeting, after which APCOA, the private contractor used by Harrow council to issue FPNs, apologised and the fine was dropped. The pensioner penalised £150 for feeding the ducks Faye Borg, 82, was in Morden Hall Park, a National Trust property, in August last year when she was fined £150 for feeding the ducks. She was approached by two council wardens, who issued an FPN that said a 'female was seen throwing biscuits' into the River Wandle. Borg alleges that the two wardens, who worked for Kingdom, a company contracted to provide environmental enforcement services to local authorities, followed her to her doorstep, demanding she 'pay the fine on the spot'. Merton council subsequently apologised, sent a senior member to Borg's home with flowers, and said it was 'taking this matter up with our contractor to ensure that it does not happen again'. 'These kinds of absurd fines exist only because the companies are being paid per fine,' says Josie Appleton, the founder of the Manifesto Club. 'The Government is reviewing fining for profit, but it's taking far too long to do something about it. So long as wardens are being paid per fine, this is going to happen, no matter how many regulations are in place.' The west Londoner fined £1,000 for putting out his bins early Hammersmith and Fulham council fined Clyde Strachan £1,000 for 'fly-tipping' in May when he put his bins out a few hours early. The 37-year-old was going away from his home for a few days, so he put his rubbish and recycling out at midday the day before the refuse was due to be collected. 'I deliberately put them out of the way on the pavement, tucked to one side against the wall so they weren't in anyone's way,' he said. 'It meant I had put them out about six or seven hours before… I would normally take them there.' When he returned home, however, he was issued with a £1,000 FPN, reduced to £500 if it were paid early. It stated: 'There was one large box, six bags of waste, and one food bin deposited on the pavement and left. It isn't collection day so it shouldn't be there.' The penalty was cancelled after Strachan appealed. He argued it was 'excessive' given he had made an 'honest mistake'. The man charged £1,224 for cycling in Grimsby town centre Last month, Richard Cameron, 45, was found guilty of four cycling offences for pedalling down Victoria Street in Grimsby town centre, which is subject to a public spaces protection order intended to deal with recurrent antisocial behaviour. In a press release, North East Lincolnshire council said that Cameron had received four FPNs for 'recurrent cycling offences' but 'had not paid the fines and was therefore summoned to Grimsby magistrates' court'. It continued: 'Also being prosecuted that day was Viktorija Kosareva, 28, of Smith Square, Doncaster, who was summoned for not paying an FPN she received for walking her dog on Cleethorpes beach when not permitted to do so… Neither individual attended court and both were proven guilty in their absence.' Cameron was ordered to pay £1,224, consisting of a £660 fine, £264 victim surcharge and costs of £300. The Staffordshire couple fined £1,200 for a cardboard box Rubbish dumped on Veronika Mike and Zoltan Pinter 's street in Stoke-on-Trent had started to attract rats, so they took matters into their own hands. The couple said the area had been blighted with 'disgusting' litter for years and 'just wanted it clean', so collected the refuse into an old cardboard box – addressed to Pinter – that he placed by his bins in the hope that it would be taken away by Stoke-on-Trent city council. 'I couldn't put it in the bins because they were full, so I left it beside them,' he said. A week later, Pinter was issued an FPN for 'an offence of failing to transfer waste to an authorised person', and fined £600. Mike was fined the same, despite her name not appearing on the cardboard box. The couple are paying the penalty in monthly instalments. The woman charged £850 for failing to update her dog's microchip When Violet Cooper, 38, arrived to collect Juliet, her lost chow-chow dog, in August last year, she was issued with a notice requiring her to update the microchip details within 21 days (microchipping has been compulsory for pet cats and dogs since April 2016). Cooper failed to do so, and last month was found guilty at Salisbury magistrates' court of failing to comply with the notice. She was fined £847.59 – a fine of £220, plus £539.59 in costs and an £88 victim surcharge.
