Legal & General unveils hefty shareholder returns as earnings lift
Legal & General has announced a £500 million share buyback under aims to return more than £5 billion to shareholders within three years, after posting higher earnings.
The insurance and pensions giant reported a 6% rise in core operating profits, excluding its corporate investments division, to £1.62 billion for 2024.
Pre-tax profits jumped to £542 million from £195 million in 2023.
In a boost for investors, L&G revealed plans to buy back £500 million worth of shares in 2025 and said it will return more than £5 billion – or 40% of its entire stock market valuation – to shareholders within three years via dividends and buybacks.
Chief executive Antonio Simoes has been leading an overhaul of the company after taking over as group chief executive from Sir Nigel Wilson last year.
L&G has sold the group's housebuilding division, Cala, for £1.35 billion and its US protection arm for £1.8 billion, while also forming strategic tie-ups.
The group is now focusing on its three core businesses – institutional retirement, asset management, and UK retail pensions and protection.
It has also created a corporate investments division which houses parts of the business earmarked for sale or offloading.
'We now have a plan in place for the disposal of each of the remaining assets in our corporate investments portfolio as we continue to simplify our business and unlock value to redeploy into our strategic businesses,' the group said.
As part of Mr Simoes' new strategy, the company has also merged LGIM, its under-performing asset management arm, with L&G Capital, which is focused on infrastructure investment.
Mr Simoes said: 'We are seeing positive commercial momentum as we execute our strategy with rigour and pace.'
He added: 'We stated at our Capital Markets Event that we intended to return more to shareholders and that is exactly what we are doing.
'Our clear capital allocation framework supports our plan to return over £5 billion over the next three years, through dividends and buybacks.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Coin Geek
2 days ago
- Coin Geek
SEC accused of fraud on court in explosive filings
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... Embattled digital asset influencer Reggie Middleton has accused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of fabricating evidence and lying to the courts in the regulator's securities case against his company, according to a series of bombshell legal filings. In what the filing calls a 'profound betrayal of the judicial process,' the SEC is accused of fabricating and concealing evidence to secure an asset freeze against Middleton's company Veritaseum—a freeze which ultimately forced Middleton to prematurely settle the case. Middleton, was originally sued by the SEC along with his firm Veritaseum in 2019 over their VERI coin offering, calling it an unregistered securities offering and based on false and misleading statements made to investors. Veritaseum's business accounts were frozen early in the litigation. Following the asset freeze, Middleton and Veritaseum settled with the SEC for $9.5 million in 2019. $7,891,600 of this was disgorged profits, which was then topped up by $582,535 in interest and a $1,000,000 penalty applied to Middleton personally. The court also granted a series of injunctions that practically banished Middleton from the digital asset industry. SEC lied to the court about money transfers That would have been the end of the matter, but now Middleton has asked the court to vacate the 2019 settlement on the basis that the SEC has 'committed fraud on the court through a calculated scheme that undermined judicial integrity.' When it initially took action against Middleton and Veritaseum, the SEC demonstrated the urgency of the case by claiming that Middleton was secretly dissipating investor assets to his personal accounts. According to Middleton's latest filings, this was a complete fabrication. At the freeze hearing following the SEC's initial enforcement action, SEC attorneys pointed to monetary transfers worth $2 million that were made by Middleton to what they said were personal accounts shortly after the SEC issued him with a Wells Notice (which notifies SEC targets of impending enforcement action). Middleton's attorneys said that these transfers were routine and had been occurring every six months for the past 18 months—something Middleton says the SEC knew but chose to dishonorably omit in its submissions to the court. Additionally, they said the accounts were not personal at all, but in the name of the company. Unfortunately for Middleton, the SEC was successful in persuading the Judge, who froze Veritaseum business assets. However, at a subsequent hearing, the SEC made further filings, which included additional evidence that Middleton now says corroborates his story about the payments. This includes a report filed by the SEC's blockchain expert Patrick Doody: buried at the bottom of a sworn statement canvassing VERI trading volumes, Doody admits that he was incorrect to previously characterize the destination accounts for the £2 million ($2.7 million) as belonging to Middleton when in fact the accounts were in the name of Veritaseum LLC. This allegedly never got the chance to come up to court at the time, as Middleton and Veritaseum reached a settlement agreement with the SEC shortly thereafter. According to Middleton's latest filing accusing the SEC of fraud on the court: 'Defendants contend this outcome was coerced by the SEC's misconduct before the Court, which froze Defendant's assets based on a lie, that rendered Defendants unable to afford to be able to proceed with legal fees to continue its fight. In effect, but for the SEC obtaining the asset freeze, Defendants would have been able to defend the allegations and proceed in the normal course of due process.' Further, Middleton accuses the SEC of fraudulently suppressing evidence in the case, including by intimidating witnesses who were willing to provide statements in support of Middleton and Veritsaeum. One Veritaseum community member and Youtuber, Michael Sheahan, was subpoenaed by the SEC after submitting an affidavit in support of Middleton. 'The session turned 'aggressive, abusive and threatening', with threats of felony charges for his support and YouTube activity, halting his public advocacy and costing him channel ownership.' The SEC also attempted to seize Sheahan's devices. Another supporter, Lloyd G. Cupp III, was approached by SEC attorneys and asked to testify against Veritsaeum. Cupp declined and insisted that VERI was a utility token and not a security. Middleton says the SEC then pressured Cupp to reconsider. 'Though not explicitly threatened, this coercion reflected the SEC's dishonourable attempt to shape testimony.' Is it enough to vacate the Middleton-Veritaseum ruling? Under U.S. civil procedure rules, a judgment obtained by fraud on the court can be vacated under Rule 60(d)(3). That wider section describes the court's authority to set aside previous judgments: critically, it says that any such request must be made within a reasonable time and no later than a year after the date of the judgment in order to be considered. However, what Rule60(d)(3) does is specify that nothing in those rules affect the court's ability to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Fraud on the court is a high bar to reach. Though no hard-and-fast definition exists, several U.S. cases have teased out the concept. SEC v ESM Government Securities Inc in 1981 analyzed Rule 60(d)(3) and ruled that for there to be fraud on the court, the misconduct must threaten the integrity of the judicial process itself and not just affect the merits of one party's case. Mere perjury or attorney misconduct is not by itself enough to qualify. U.S. v Buck in 2002 ruled that fraud in the court must include 1) a deliberate scheme to defraud the court, 2) with intention to deceive, and 3) which corrupts the impartial functions of the court. Middleton's latest filing argues that the SEC conducts satisfy all of these requirements. He says the conduct by SEC attorneys was intentional misconduct: they knew at the time of the asset freeze hearing that the destination of the fund transfers was a Veritaseum account rather than a Reggie Middleton account. This was done 'to create a sense of urgency to obtain the relief they desired – the asset freeze.' He also says that the conduct was such that it corrupted judicial integrity: the SEC attorney knew both that the information being presented at the freeze hearing was false and that the Judge was specifically relying on it in making her determination to freeze Veritaseum assets. The filing also points to the witness intimidation. This all pressured the defendants to settle: the frozen funds would have otherwise been used to mount a robust legal defense, but with the funds frozen, Middleton and Vertisaeum suffered fairly severe penalties due to his settlement with the SEC. In addition to the nearly $10 million worth of monetary penalties, he and his companies were barred from participating in virtually any securities-related activities, and Middleton was banned from serving as an officer or director of any securities issuer. Between those prohibitions, Middleton was practically frozen out of the digital asset industry. SEC's response The SEC filed their response to Middleton's motion to vacate last week. First, they deny any such fraud took place. They point out that at the time the Judge granted the asset freeze, she had explicitly noted that there was ongoing uncertainty regarding the distinction between Middleton's personal accounts and Veritaseum accounts and that the parties would have the opportunity to present arguments over this before the expiry of the freeze. There was no further argument, as the defendants chose to settle the case. Secondly, they say that in any case, there is no legal basis to vacate because case law shows that 'relief for fraud on the court is available only where the fraud was not known at the time of settlement or entry of judgment.' Quoting Philips Lighting Co v Schneider , the SEC argues that 'examples of conduct that reaches this high standard include bribery of a judge, jury tampering, or hiring an attorney for the sole purpose of improperly influencing the judge.' In this case, the SEC argues, that standard is clearly not met. Why target Middleton? Assuming all of what Middleton says is true, the SEC's conduct is flagrantly dishonest and appears to have influenced the ultimate course of the enforcement. If true, it does raise the question of why the SEC would go to such lengths to secure a successful outcome in the Veritaseum case. On the one hand, such aggressive pursuit wouldn't be out of the norm for the SEC. Indeed, Middleton's latest filing seems at least partly inspired by another recent case in which the SEC was sanctioned for misleading the court. In SEC v Dig Licensing, the SEC pursued a blockchain project called Debtbox. In attempting to freeze Debtbox assets, the SEC told the court that Debtbox had 1) closed 33 bank accounts in 48 hours, 2) liquidated $720,000 of investor funds, and 3) were moving operations outside of the U.S. to avoid regulators. On that basis, the court granted the freeze. However, after complaints by Debtbox, the court ruled that the SEC's representations to the court were materially false and misleading: in reality, only 13 of DebtBox's bank accounts had been closed and were, in fact, closed by the banks themselves. There was no evidence of the $720,000 withdrawals, and the contention that the company planned to flee the reach of U.S. regulators had been based on a statement taken completely out of context. The court was not impressed: it hit the SEC with sanctions worth $1.8 million. Still, as a target for SEC overreach, Middleton is an interesting one. Middleton is clearly not averse to making powerful enemies: in 2022, his firm sued Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) for $350 million, accusing the exchange of violating a Veritaseum patent for blockchain infrastructure services, specifically 'devices, systems and methods for facilitating low trust and zero trust value transfers.' Coinbase responded by challenging the relevant patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPTO), broadly alleging that the subject matter of the patent was not patentable. The UPTO denied Coinbase's attempt. The Middleton lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in 2023, suggesting an out-of-court settlement. Indeed, Middleton has been something of a champion of intellectual property protections in the digital asset industry. He went on record to say that BSV is undervalued, pointing to the massive blockchain patent portfolio held by nChain. Middleton would know: he revealed in 2024 that 74% of the patents cited by his company come from nChain: 74% of our patent's cites come from @nChainGlobal – a testament to the prolific nature of nChain's IP program. This makes me think that #BSV may have significantly more value than many are realizing since nChain is stating that BSV users will be licensed through its use. Others… — Reggie Middleton US11196566 US11895246 US12231579 (@ReggieMiddleton) March 6, 2024 Further emphasizing the importance of the IP to the BSV proposition, Middleton said this when asked about the well-publicized delisting attacks aimed at BSV in the past: That shouldn't matter. Which is more valuable, IP packets traded on exchanges or the ownership of the Internet, itself. Prudent investors, owners and operators are best served by keeping their eyes on the prize. — Reggie Middleton US11196566 US11895246 US12231579 (@ReggieMiddleton) March 6, 2024 Depending on how far Middleton's case gets, we may be given more context around the SEC's handling of the case via discovery. For now, the SEC has asked that the request be denied. Watch: Breaking down solutions to blockchain regulation hurdles 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 days ago
- Reuters
Russian oligarch gets suspended UK jail term for contempt in divorce case
LONDON, June 25 (Reuters) - A Russian oil tycoon was on Wednesday given a suspended 28-day jail sentence in his absence in London for contempt of court after he repeatedly failed to comply with legal rulings made in his bitter multi-million dollar divorce case. Judge Richard Harrison last week said Mikhail Kroupeev, the non-executive chairman of energy company Gulfsands, had not complied with a series of court orders which followed the collapse of his 36-year marriage to his wife Elena Kroupeeva. Harrison said Kroupeev, who is residing in Cyprus and did not attend in person on Wednesday despite a court order, had been "arrogant, controlling and profoundly disrespectful, both to your wife and to the court". The judge imposed a 28-day prison sentence, suspended on terms that Kroupeev comply with an order to pay just over 195,000 pounds towards Kroupeeva's legal fees. Kroupeev is subject to a freezing order covering 38 million pounds ($51.8 million) of his assets, in a divorce case his ex-wife's legal team says will run into many hundreds of millions of pounds. Kroupeeva's lawyers said in court filings that the couple separated in "tempestuous" circumstances after she discovered in 2023 that her husband had, for most of the last 20 years, been living a double life with a secret second family in Russia. The pair, who are both Russian nationals but have British citizenship, moved to Britain in 1993. As well as Gulfsands, which Kroupeeva's lawyers said had a contract to export oil from Syria, Kroupeev's other business interests included Jupiter Energy, which is involved in oil and gas exports in Kazakhstan, and Waterford Finance which specialises in energy projects. Her lawyers say the couple's assets included a 15 million-pound house in London, luxury homes in Portugal and Turkey, and properties in Russia worth 10 million pounds. Last week, Kroupeev's lawyer Michael Glaser said his client denied the allegations about having a double life and apologised for not complying with the orders.
Metro
2 days ago
- Metro
Phil Spencer urges house hunters to do the '10p test' before buying
It's important to look out for cracks in the walls when viewing a potential new home – but just knowing that they're there isn't enough. As property expert and Location, Location, Location presenter Phil Spencer exclusively tells Metro, you should be testing those cracks with the 10p test. In Phil's opinion, not all gaps in the walls or ceilings are created equal, and while they can sometimes be harmless, they could also be symptomatic of something much more concerning. 'Often, they may just be a cosmetic issue, but they can also be a warning sign of a serious problem called subsidence [when the ground starts to sink, impacting the foundations of the property],' Phil explains. This is where Phil's 10p test comes in. While it has nothing to do with the value of the home, you will at least need to remember your wallet for the house viewing. 'If the crack is less than 3mm wide — which means you can't fit a 10 pence piece into it – it may not be serious,' Phil says. You can access completely fee-free mortgage advice with London & Country (L&C) Mortgages, a partner of Metro. Customers benefit from: – Award winning service from the UK's leading mortgage broker – Expert advisors on hand 7 days a week – Access to 1000s of mortgage deals from across the market Unlike many mortgage brokers, L&C won't charge you a fee for their advice. Find out how much you could borrow online Mortgage service provided by London & Country Mortgages (L&C), which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (registered number: 143002). The FCA does not regulate most Buy to Let mortgages. Your home or property may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage. 'Plaster sets hard and can crack over time as the property shrinks or swells in different weather conditions. 'The key thing is to not jump to conclusions, and the '10p test' is a useful rule of thumb.' Phil adds that cracks can actually happen more frequently in new-build homes. 'During the first year after it's built, a property will gently 'settle' and the plaster will contract as it dries out. These tiny movements lead to cracks forming in the plaster, which are nothing to worry about and can be filled and repainted.' The cost of repairing cracks in the ceiling can vary between £1,400 and £1,700, according to statistics from Checkatrade. But if it turns out to be a subsidence issue, you could end up parting with £12,500 on average to cover the cost. Ouch. Likewise, cracks measuring more than 3mm wide should be a red flag, as well as diagonal ones, and those which are wider at the top than the bottom. Wondering where to start? Find a surveyor and arrange an inspection of the property. They'll then be able to identify whether the building has subsidence and advise on what to do next. Phil also warns to watch out for cracks that are noticeable not only from the inside of the home, but the outside, too. 'Cracks caused by subsidence tend to appear at 'weak points' in the home – typically around windows and doorframes, or where an extension has been added. If you notice cracks in these areas, keep a close eye on them and take action if they get bigger,' Phil notes. More Trending 'Subsidence can be caused by lots of things and isn't a problem limited to older properties. If you think your home might be affected, don't panic, but act fast. The sooner it's investigated and fixed, the less damage will be done to the property.' It's time to get rid of those excessive trinkets – even including photographs and various personal items that, as Phil says, make the home look 'cluttered.' 'When potential buyers view your home, they want to imagine themselves living there, and it's hard to do that if the property looks a little too lived in,' he previously told Metro. View More » 'That's not to say you need to depersonalise, but removing clutter and making everywhere tidy will get every viewing off to the best possible start.' Do you have a story to share? Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@ MORE: This is how long it takes to sell a home in each UK city MORE: 'We spent the hottest day of the year with no water – our landlords couldn't care less' MORE: The 'vibrant' London neighbourhood named the city's top place to be LGBTQ+
