Investment trust battles Fuji Media Holdings over sex assault scandal
A London-listed investment trust that branded a Japanese TV group embroiled in a sex assault scandal 'a total disgrace' has stepped up its campaign for the entire board to be replaced.
Nippon Active Value Fund (NAVF), with its ally Los Angeles-based Dalton Investments, upped their stake in Fuji Media Holdings from 7.19 per cent to 7.51 per cent last week before the proxy fight on Wednesday.
The shareholder revolt follows a scandal at the broadcaster that triggered public outrage and the departure of Masahiro Nakai, its star presenter, and is seen as a key test for the push to more accountable and shareholder-friendly governance standards in Tokyo-listed companies.
Paul ffolkes Davis, chairman of Rising Sun Management, which manages NAVF, urged other shareholders in Fuji to vote against the company's 11 proposed board candidates and back instead its own slate of 12 nominees.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
America's favorite automaker is the latest to announce dealer-wide price hikes from Trump's tariffs
Toyota has confirmed it will raise prices on new vehicles starting in July. The average sticker price will climb by $270, while its luxury brand Lexus will tack on an average of $208 per car. The Japanese automaker, which consistently ranks highest in US consumer confidence, has been warning of looming price increases since late May. Facing an expected $1.3 billion tariff bill from the US government, Toyota says it has little choice but to pass some of that cost onto buyers. '[Business is] not sustainable longer term without significant price increases,' Mark Templin, Toyota's chief operating officer for North America, said in a recent event with Ward's Auto. 'And the industry already has an affordability problem.' A company spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about pricing and tariffs. Toyota is just the latest in a growing list of automakers hiking prices in response to the Trump administration's tariff policy. In March, President Donald Trump slapped a 25 percent tariff on all vehicles and car parts entering the US market. The policy was slightly eased a month later to give companies time to shift production to US soil — but the regulatory back-and-forth has created whiplash in the industry. 'The problem is, no one knows what will happen to tariffs,' Neil Saunders, a retail expert at GlobalData, said. 'The policy has been erratic and remains uncertain.' Carmakers now say the instability is making it nearly impossible to set pricing with confidence. 'It's too early to talk about pricing,' an American CEO, granted anonymity to speak freely, told during this year's New York International Auto Show. 'There isn't enough clarity [about tariffs] to know what we can ask our customers to pay.' So far, manufacturers have responded with modest — but stacking — price bumps. Ford was first to move, raising prices by $2,000 on the Mustang Mach-E, Maverick, and Bronco Sport. All three models all made in Mexico. Toyota's CEO, Koji Sato, has led the company to huge sales heights - the company snatched the crown for world's best-selling automaker Toyota has ranked among the most respected consumer automakers in the US The company blamed the hikes on mid-cycle design refreshes, not tariffs, though analysts remain skeptical. Subaru has also announced price hikes between $750 and $2,055, depending on the trim. BMW is raising the price of its gas-powered 2026 models by 1.9 percent. Mitsubishi Motors said prices will rise by 2.1 percent. '[The increase] is based on our most recent evaluation across the industry,' Jeremy Barnes, a spokesperson for the company, told 'There will be no adjustments to vehicles already in dealer inventory.' Previously, Mitsubishi had held back vehicles at US ports while weighing whether to release them to dealers. The flurry of price hikes arrives as Americans are already facing a one-two punch on vehicle affordability. First, the average price of a new car in the US topped $49,000 last month — hovering near record highs. Second, insurance premiums are skyrocketing to match those ballooning sticker prices. And automakers are feeling the pressure, too. GM says it expects to spend between $4 billion and $5 billion on tariffs this year. Ford projects a bill between $1 billion and $2.5 billion.
Coin Geek
an hour ago
- Coin Geek
Coinbase loses fight to control ‘coinbase' trademark in the EU
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The EU General Court has slapped down the latest attempt by Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) to have a Japanese exchange's trademark over the word 'coinbase' revoked. Coinbase was appealing an earlier decision that found that the U.S.-based exchange had failed to prove that bitFly, the Japanese exchange, had secured a trademark over the word in bad faith. This week, the court agreed that Coinbase had failed to prove its claims. It's the most recent decision in a long-standing legal fight between Coinbase and bitFlyer. bitFlyer, a Japanese digital asset exchange, obtained a trademark over the word in 2015. The trademark was granted in relation to five specific classes of goods and services only. Coinbase filed with the European Intellectual Property Office, asking to have the trademark ruled invalid. It asked for this on two bases: first, the trademark risked confusion with an earlier trademark already granted to Coinbase in 2013 because that trademark related to three of the five classes of goods and services contained in bitFlyer's 2015 trademark. More substantially, Coinbase also argued that bitFlyer's trademark of the word 'coinbase' had been filed in bad faith on the basis that it was relevant to goods and services not directly tied to its business and that it was aware of the overlap with Coinbase's previously granted trademark. Coinbase primarily relied on Article 52(1)(b) of the EU's community trademark regulation no 207/2009, establishing grounds for revoking trademarks in cases where the applicant filed in bad faith. In particular, it argued that bitFlyer was aware of the pre-existing trademark as well as the overlap between three of the five categories referenced in bitFlyer's trademark application and, therefore, was made in bad faith. Coinbase initially secured a partial victory before the European Intellectual Property Office's Cancellation Division, which agreed that there was a risk of confusion concerning three categories of goods and services that were common between the two trademarks. However, it refused revocation in relation to the non-overlapping categories, rejecting Coinbase's argument that they had been sought in bad faith for lack of evidence. In other words, Coinbase had succeeded in revoking the trademark with respect to those goods and services that overlap with those provided by bitFlyer; the remaining two categories survived. Coinbase appealed this to the Office's Fourth Board of Appeal. The appeal was rejected. The Board decided that the appeal must be limited to examining whether there was bad faith behind the two remaining categories of goods and services in the trademark because the lower court had already ruled in Coinbase's favor with respect to the three overlapping categories. Coinbase then successfully appealed this ruling to the EU General Court. It argued that the lower court was incorrect to consider that it should only examine the non-overlapping categories in determining whether bitFlyer had acted in bad faith. Instead, Coinbase argued that the court was required to look at the totality of bitFlyer's behavior. The EU General Court agreed. The practical result of Coinbase's successful appeal was that the decision was sent back to the Board of Appeal for reassessment, this time with the mandate that the court should look at the totality of the events surrounding the trademark application in determining whether bad faith exists. The Board did so but ruled the same way: it found that Coinbase had not presented sufficient evidence that bitFlyer had acted in bad faith. Coinbase again appealed to the EU General Court. This month, the court ruled substantially against Coinbase. Though it again agreed that there was a risk of confusion with Coinbase's earlier patent about the overlapping categories of goods and services, it found that the U.S. exchange had still failed to prove that bitFlyer had registered the trademark in bad faith, noting that even if a trademark application is made in respect of goods and services not then being provided by the applicant, there still may not be sufficient grounds for finding bad faith. 'In any event, in light of all the foregoing assessments, the applicant [Coinbase] has not submitted relevant and consistent evidence to show that the holder of the contested international registration had filed the application for registration, not with the aim of engaging fairly in competition, but with the intention of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties,' reads the judgment. No doubt the court's commentary on the case will be examined carefully by IP lawyers worldwide. The question of precisely what amounts to a bad-faith trademark application under the regulation has received much attention, with more clarity being provided each time it comes before courts. However, there is no hard-and-fast threshold for what conduct will amount to bad faith. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the fact that Coinbase has already successfully challenged the trademark's validity in Singapore, where it was originally granted. There, the Singapore court took a dim view of bitFlyer's registration of a mark identical to that of a competitor without providing a clear explanation of why. It was also more skeptical of bitFlyer's attempt to trademark the word 'coinbase' with respect to goods and services it wasn't actually providing at the time than the EU court would turn out to be. Timeline: December 6, 2013: Coinbase trademarks the word 'coinbase' in classes 9, 36 and 42 December 18, 2015: bitFlyer trademarks the word 'coinbase' in classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42 June 29, 2018: Coinbase files with the European Intellectual Property Office, seeking revocation of bitFlyer's patent on the basis of confusion and bad faith June 26, 2020: EUIPO's Cancellation Division rules in favor of Coinbase on confusion with respect to the overlapping classes, but rejects the argument of bad faith with the non-overlapping classes August 26, 2020: Coinbase files appeal of June 2020 decision April 29, 2021: The Board of Appeal dismisses the appeal, finding there is insufficient evidence of bad faith June 29, 2021: Coinbase appeals to the General Court, arguing that the Board of Appeal did not take into account all necessary circumstances March 22, 2023: The EU General Court agrees with Coinbase, sending the case back to the lower court for reassessment on the bad faith point November 29, 2023: After reassessing the decision, the Board of Appeal comes to the same conclusion January 16, 2025: Coinbase appeals the reassessed decision June 11, 2025: EU General Court dismisses Coinbase's appeal, agreeing that there is still not enough evidence for bad faith Watch: Teranode is the digital backbone of Bitcoin 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="">
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
India prioritises national interest in US trade talks, trade ministry source says
NEW DELHI, June 23 (Reuters) - Protecting India's interest remains "supreme" in bilateral trade talks with the United States, a senior Indian trade ministry source said on Monday, as New Delhi pushes to finalise a deal before the expiry of the pause on steep reciprocal tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. India is resisting U.S. demands to open its markets for wheat, dairy and corn imports, while offering lower tariffs on high-value U.S. products such as almonds, pistachios and walnuts. An Indian delegation will travel to Washington soon for further negotiations, with the aim of signing an interim trade agreement that could include tariff cuts and enhanced market access for key products from both sides, another trade ministry official told reporters. "The dates for the visit are being finalised," the official said, adding India is keen to conclude a limited deal ahead of the July 9 deadline. However, the official also cautioned that progress hinges on the offers made by both sides. 'For us, in every trade negotiation including with the U.S., national interest is supreme,' the trade ministry source said. India has asked the U.S. to revoke its 10% base tariff and consider steel tariff cuts as part of an interim deal, while offering to address non-tariff barriers and customs rules in the first phase of a broader trade pact likely by autumn of 2025, sources said. Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had agreed in February to conclude a bilateral trade agreement by autumn 2025 and to more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. "The outcome of talks depends on what is offered by both sides," the Indian official said, when asked about the possibility of the deal not materialising by Trump's July 9 deadline.
