Next 15 sacks three executives over potential misconduct at Mach49
A marketing company quoted on London's junior Aim market has warned on profits and said that its chief executive would step down after uncovering 'potential serious misconduct' relating to a company that it previously acquired.
The potential misconduct was discovered by Next 15 after a review of a big contract for Mach49, an advisory company based in Silicon Valley, which was cancelled early in September.
The loss of part of the contract lowered the earnout for the sellers of the business, which was based on how profitable the agency was between 2020, when it was acquired, and January 2025.
Next 15 said it expected 'a lower conversion of opportunities within this brand's pipeline' after uncovering the potential issues, which together with a weakening in the dollar, meant that adjusted operating profit for the current financial year would be 'materially below' market expectations of £80.5 million. The company generates about half of its revenue in dollars.
Three members of Mach49's senior management team have been sacked, including Linda Yates, Mach49's founder and chief executive, and no further payments will be made to Yates, the company said.
Next 15 said it was in the process of reporting the matters to relevant law enforcement agencies and would 'ensure that full co-operation is provided to those agencies'.
Tim Dyson, the company's chief executive of more than 30 years, will retire from the business and be replaced by Sam Knights, who is the boss of Shopper Media Group, a marketing company owned by Next 15.
Dyson's exit came on the same day as the company's annual meeting, which meant a resolution for his re-election as a director was withdrawn.
The $400 million contract, which was announced 18 months after Next 15 acquired the company in 2020, was cancelled at the end of last year and not in 2026, as had been expected previously.
Winning the contract had increased the earnout due to the owners of Mach49 by £107 million, according to Next 15's 2022 full-year results, which pushed the company to a £80.1 million pre-tax loss that year.
The shares, which have fallen 76 per cent over the past 12 months, were down 77p, or 27 per cent, to 212p in afternoon trading.
Next 15 is best known in the City as the owner of MHP Group, which handles the financial communications for dozens of companies listed on the stock market, including its parent. It also owns other consultancies, advising clients on everything from marketing to technology to communications. Next 15's agencies have worked with some of the world's best-known brands and companies, including Apple, BAE Systems and Pepsi.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
With this surrender to Leftist rebels, Starmer's days as PM are numbered
It is now clear that Keir Starmer is making major concessions to his belligerent MPs to save his political career. A series of compromises have drastically diluted his landmark welfare Bill. This is not just a personal defeat. Starmerism, the final line of defence between the far-Left and the levers of power, is on the brink of collapse. Rachel Reeves and her Treasury colleagues will conclude Britain has little choice but to continue pursuing mass migration and increasing taxation. Spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence will become hopelessly unrealistic; even 3 per cent will be out of reach. All this is aside from the moral gravity of the failure to break the cycle of benefits dependency, or the impact it will have on those who study, strive and work hard to provide a better life for their families. Spending on welfare has ballooned in recent years. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. By the end of the decade the country could be spending as much on disability benefits as it currently does on transport, policing and social care put together. The pool of workers is shrinking, whilst spending rises inexorably. In the end, this country will go to the wall. Starmer's reforms didn't go far enough; the IFS estimates that the benefits bill would still rise by £8 billion by 2030. Yes, this row – the row that could derail Starmer's premiership – would not even come close to cutting the overall cost. A benefits surrender risks destroying the trust of the markets, triggering a Truss-style meltdown, not immediately but inevitably. Labour came into power on the promise of 'change'. When Reeves hiked taxes by £40 billion in a single fiscal event, she insisted she was 'fixing the foundations'. The Government has sought to distance itself from the 'fantasy' economics now being advanced by Reform UK. How can it reconcile this with a benefits climbdown, coming in the wake of all the other about-turns on other cuts? How can it claim to be taking 'tough' decisions for the 'greater good'? Labour's far-Left, fresh from derailing Starmer's reforms, will surely make the case for a shift towards socialist populism. If Labour cannot see off Nigel Farage through the successful pursuit of deep reform, then, according to some Labour MPs, the next best thing is to try and match his immigration populism with economic populism. Wealth taxes, pensions tax raids, second home levies – all will be on the table. A failure to push through benefit cuts will above all be a moral calamity. Britain is becoming a country that mollycoddles 'takers' whilst clobbering the 'makers'. Citizens who attempt to improve their lives are being dragged down, through excessive taxation, the neutering of private enterprise or the destruction of the private school system. We learnt this week that more than seven million people are now estimated to be higher rate taxpayers, a jump of more than two-fifths since just 2022-23. The permanently inactive are exalted as 'vulnerable' and 'deserving', a status that renders them untouchable. Serial welfare recipients are relentlessly given the benefit of the doubt, yet the self-employed and those with assets are treated by the system as potential tax dodgers. We should of course cushion the most vulnerable in our society. We should also make the distinction between the respectable working class and the dysfunctional underclass. On a recent trip to the North East, residents from one rough estate told me of the local children who aspire to become drug dealers and believe that their future is not determined by their own decisions but rather merely by 'luck'. Their parents are too proud to visit the estate's work support charity but are at ease tapping benefits from an impersonal bureaucracy. Those like Diane Abbott who preach that 'there is nothing moral about cutting benefits' should be made to conduct an in-depth tour of these places. They would see the destructive impact of uncontrolled welfarism on the integrity of families, the self-respect of adults, and the dreams of children. Starmer's failure was not inevitable. Labour could have made a solid centre-Left case for reform. It should be possible to cut benefits while also treating genuinely disabled people with greater humanity, not least by bringing back rigorous in-person assessments. It could have glanced at this week's British Social Attitudes Survey, which found that less than half (45 per cent) of people support more spending on benefits for disabled people who cannot work. Nearly a third now agree it is too easy to claim disability benefits. And there is rising evidence that benefits cuts can actually be a vote winner. After a brief softening of public opinion during the Covid lockdown, polling expert James Frayne has recently picked up on a hardening of attitudes to welfare and a growing perception that benefits do not reach the working class. Rather than hiding behind Old Left platitudes about the 'dignity of work', Starmer could have spoken bluntly about the phenomenon of people claiming benefits based on false beliefs and statements about their mental health. The Prime Minister's failure to articulate these truths only serves to embolden his opponents. As one told me: 'I've heard no minister explain why the budget of the United Kingdom should be balanced on the backs of disabled people. And if you can't make the argument maybe you're doing the wrong thing.'
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
PM 'agrees' benefit changes deal with Labour rebels
The government is expected to announce a deal shortly with Labour rebels on its planned benefits changes. Multiple sources tell the BBC existing claimants of the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) will continue to receive what they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of Universal Credit. It is also expected that the support to help people into employment will be fast forwarded so it happens concessions amount to a massive climbdown from the government, which was staring at the prospect of defeat if it failed to accommodate the demands of over 100 of its backbenchers. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Opposing reforms that are a step in the right direction is bad politics
What do you do as a parliamentary opposition when the Government is doing something you know you should support? The Conservative Party has faced this issue twice this week. The first is on Labour's feeble attempt to slow the increase (not make a cut) in health-related welfare spending. How that will play out is unresolved as I write. Kemi Badenoch recognises the reputational risks of voting against, so she has made an offer to back Sir Keir Starmer – but on conditions: further spending cuts and no tax increases this autumn. It's clever tactically. Starmer clearly can't accept the conditions. And his refusal allows a vote against the Government and, potentially, the death of a flagship Bill. That's the job of an opposition, isn't it? Well maybe. Yes, it certainly makes things awkward for Starmer. But it makes things awkward for the Tories too. For a political party, principles are as important as tactics, especially perhaps if you are trying to reinvent yourselves in the public mind after the political mush of the last 14 years. Sometimes it's possible to be too tactical, too clever. The fact is the welfare bill has to come down. Maybe Labour is not going about it exactly as we would. But it is still the right thing to do. Fiscal responsibility is supposed to be a Conservative thing. So when Labour is taking a Conservative approach to something, maybe the party should back them? A similar problem is presented by the Planning Bill, which had its Second Reading in the Lords this week. Less is at stake in the short run, for the Bill will certainly go through. But the underlying politics are if anything more significant. Labour's Bill is certainly imperfect. It is best characterised as driving the current system to work better: more meaningful plans, less power for local councillors to block, less scope for legal challenge. It has a novel approach to nature protection: essentially making developers pay to restore nature somewhere, but not necessarily on the exact spot where development is taking place. My suspicion is that this is not going to deliver the boost Labour wants. The current system hasn't delivered the target of 300,000 homes a year since the late 1970s. Indeed, since the financial crash, it's only once delivered more than 200,000. Our restrictive controls-based system, with its presumption against building, very likely just can't do it, however streamlined it is. Moreover, although Labour hates it when you mention it, any house building is to a very large extent building for migration. Net immigration is going to be, best case, towards two million under this Government, so at least 125,000 homes every year will be needed simply to accommodate future arrivals. While that's the case, it's going to be very difficult to get political consent to build more – and rightly so. So what is the right political response to this situation? Do Conservatives resist Labour's Bill, arguing that it undermines local democracy and risks the countryside, or support, recognising their approach is imperfect? At the moment the party is doing neither. Instead it is trying to side-step the choice by saying it wants 'more homes, but the right homes, in the right places'. That allows it to sound sympathetic to the policy aims while raising all sorts of difficulties in practice, and (not by chance) to accommodate very different perspectives within the party. But there are risks here: not just that Conservatives get on the wrong side of the argument, but that voters can't see the guiding principle that's being applied, perhaps can't even tell whether we are actually supportive or hostile at all. Once again: when trying to establish a clear profile, maybe this is less than ideal. I know where I stand. Like it or not, and unless you are prepared to engage in what is euphemistically called compulsory 'remigration', which I am not, the population is what it is, and we need to build more houses. That requires both reducing immigration right down to zero for a prolonged period and a serious reform to the current planning system, more like the radical Robert Jenrick proposals from 2021, sadly junked as the Conservative Party entered the early stages of its nervous breakdown. Indeed we might need to be even more radical than that in places like London within the M25. That's obviously not going to happen under Labour, but it is what a post-2029 government on the Right should aim to do. So we shouldn't do things which are inconsistent with it now. Labour's Bill is an imperfect half measure, but it still goes in the right direction. There is no future for the Right in echoing the voice of nimby councillors and the green and Lib Dem blob, determined as they are to stop development or hamstring it with green regulation. The appeal of the Right must instead be to aspiration, to those who want to own a home (and dare I say it more than one?) and get on in life. The Conservative Party at least can't get back in the game without this. Now would be a good time to start.
