Tag Archives: C&E Industry News Filter

FDA Plans to Warn J&J Covid-19 Vaccine Raises Risk of Rare Neurological Condition

U.S. health regulators are expected to warn that the

Johnson & Johnson

JNJ -0.16%

Covid-19 vaccine is linked to a very small incidence of cases of a rare neurological disorder associated with other shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration plans to add the warning language to the J&J shot’s label, after finding a handful of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome among the millions of people who have gotten the vaccine, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare neurological disorder in which the immune system attacks nerves, causing temporary but potentially severe paralysis. The risk is a known one with vaccines, including some influenza vaccines and a leading shot to prevent shingles.

J&J didn’t immediately provide a comment.

The warning would be the latest for a vaccine that federal health officials had cautioned raises the risk of a rare blood-clotting condition.

The risk of Guillain-Barré, however, is very low, the person said, with a rate of about three to five cases per million recipients. The risk in the general population is about 1 in one million.

Some 12.7 million people in the U.S. have gotten the one-dose J&J vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As more U.S. adults get their Covid-19 vaccines, a variety of side effects are emerging. WSJ’s Daniela Hernandez speaks with an infectious disease specialist on what is common, what isn’t and when to seek medical attention. Photo: Associated Press

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a harmless type of common-cold virus called an adenovirus. It is engineered to carry a piece of genetic code instructing the body’s cells to make something resembling the spike protein that juts from the surface of the coronavirus.

Production of the spikelike protein, in turn, triggers an immune response that can protect a vaccinated person from Covid-19.

Another Covid-19 vaccine, from

AstraZeneca

PLC, which isn’t authorized in the U.S. but used in the U.K. and other countries, uses a technology similar to J&J’s. AstraZeneca’s shot also is linked to an increased risk of Guillain-Barré, federal health officials said.

AstraZeneca didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. authorized the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in late February. Its rollout has struggled after regulators ordered a temporary pause in its administration as investigators studied the rate of the rare clotting disorder among vaccinated people.

The FDA recommends use of the vaccine, saying the benefits outweigh the risks. The agency, however, attached a warning to the vaccine’s label about the risk of the disorder and made recommendations for treatment.

The vaccine requires only one dose and doesn’t need to be stored at ultralow temperatures like messenger RNA vaccines do, which makes it a more straightforward and easier shot for vaccinating people, especially in places for which the freezer conditions and patient follow-up for a second shot would be more difficult to achieve.

Write to Thomas M. Burton at tom.burton@wsj.com and Felicia Schwartz at felicia.schwartz@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Elon Musk Defends Purchase of SolarCity in Court

WILMINGTON, Del.—

Tesla Inc.

TSLA 4.46%

Chief Executive

Elon Musk

on Monday defended the electric-vehicle maker’s purchase of SolarCity Corp. in court, telling a Delaware judge that he didn’t act improperly during the negotiating process.

The case dates back to 2016, when Mr. Musk was chairman of both the then-unprofitable companies. His solution to improve their outlook: combine them in a roughly $2.1 billion tie-up to establish a single clean-energy business. Plaintiffs, which include several pension funds that owned Tesla stock, have characterized the deal as a scheme to benefit himself and bail out a home-solar company on the verge of insolvency.

Mr. Musk was the opening witness called in Delaware Chancery Court in a nonjury trial that is expected to run about two weeks. The attorneys for Mr. Musk have framed the acquisition as an opportunity to realize his long-held goal of creating a vertically integrated sustainable energy company.

A primary question in the case is whether Mr. Musk, who owned roughly 22% of Tesla at the time, controlled the transaction. Proving that claim is a challenge because Mr. Musk was a minority shareholder of Tesla and the company’s shareholders approved the acquisition. Lawyers for Mr. Musk have said that SolarCity was worth more than Tesla paid for it and the electric-vehicle maker’s board members, who included Mr. Musk’s brother, Kimbal Musk, acted independently.

Other issues before the judge include whether Tesla board members were conflicted and whether vital information about the deal was withheld from shareholders. Mr. Musk said Monday that an independent director handled the negotiation and that Tesla’s directors even overruled his proposal that Tesla provide temporary financing to SolarCity before the deal went through.

Members of the media on Monday gathered outside the justice center in Wilmington, Del., where Elon Musk testified in a nonjury trial.



Photo:

Matt Rourke/Associated Press

An attorney for the plaintiffs,

Randall Baron,

later questioned Mr. Musk, asking why SolarCity’s performance varied significantly from the projections that Tesla gave to shareholders in 2016. Mr. Musk blamed the decline in solar-panel installation and market share to Tesla’s pressing need to focus on developing its Model 3 car in 2017 and 2018. Tesla at the time was struggling to bring the car to market.

More recently, Mr. Musk said, the coronavirus pandemic impacted Tesla’s ability to get permits for residential solar installations.

If Mr. Musk loses, he could be asked to make Tesla whole. That payment could equal the value of the SolarCity transaction if the presiding judge finds that the solar firm wasn’t worth anything when Tesla agreed to buy it.

The trial has been delayed for more than a year because of the pandemic. Mr. Musk is the lone board member being sued. Tesla’s other board members at the time of the SolarCity tie-up agreed to settle last year for a combined $60 million, paid by insurance. The board members, some of whom had interests in both Tesla and SolarCity, denied wrongdoing.

Mr. Musk has built a reputation as an unusual and sometimes combative chief executive. He has already flashed some of that in the case, making for a confrontational witness in a 2019 deposition, repeatedly goading Mr. Baron, whom he called “reprehensible” for “attacking sustainable energy.”

“SolarCity I think would have done just fine by itself and Tesla would have done fine by itself, but in the long-term, they are better together. And that is what the future will show,” Mr. Musk said in the deposition.

Mr. Musk brought the proposed deal to Tesla’s board in early 2016, court records show. The plaintiffs describe SolarCity as having been in severe financial distress leading up to the deal, at risk of tripping a debt covenant and without other fundraising options. Shareholders weren’t fully informed of the company’s condition, they say.

Founded in 2006 by Mr. Musk’s cousins, SolarCity generated net losses of $769 million and $375 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Attorneys for Mr. Musk have said SolarCity was solvent and could have pursued other fundraising options.

When Mr. Musk testifies, he is likely to be asked about how much involvement he had in the deal with SolarCity, said Lawrence Hamermesh, executive director of the Institute for Law and Economics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School. “One of the things the plaintiffs are going to want to show is whether he had his fingers all over the negotiations and development and timing of the deal,” Mr. Hamermesh said ahead of the trial.

Electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc. says it has reached a deal to acquire solar-energy company SolarCity, which is also chaired by Tesla chairman Elon Musk. The WSJ’s Lee Hawkins discusses the details. Photo: Getty (Video from 8/1/2016)

That information will help the court decide whether the Tesla chief executive controlled the company’s consideration of the merger, as will testimony about some directors’ conflicts of interest and whether they made their decisions independently.

If Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights III, the presiding judge, finds Mr. Musk didn’t control the deal, the case is likely over for the plaintiffs, Mr. Hamermesh said. Case law in Delaware generally defers to the business judgment of independent and properly motivated directors. On the other hand, if the evidence points to control, the court would assess whether the deal process and price were fair and, if not, whether Mr. Musk should be ordered to pay money back to Tesla, Mr. Hamermesh said.

“The theory would be that Tesla has been damaged and Musk is the responsible party,” he said. “He would have to make Tesla whole.”

For Mr. Musk, who now ranks among the wealthiest people on the planet, the optics of a loss likely would be more meaningful than any court-ordered financial judgment, said

Seth Goldstein,

an analyst for Morningstar Research Services LLC.

“You could see the board become extra diligent with regard to acquisitions that aren’t in Tesla’s current, existing industries,” Mr. Goldstein said.

Mr. Musk is no stranger to court appearances. In 2019, he was called to the stand in a case in which a British cave explorer accused him of defamation. The jury found him not guilty.

The prior year, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Mr. Musk and Tesla over claims that he misled investors through his tweets. Mr. Musk and Tesla settled the lawsuit by each paying $20 million, and Mr. Musk agreed to have certain of his tweets reviewed by Tesla’s lawyers before publishing them.

Tesla’s SolarCity Deal: From the Archives

Write to Dave Michaels at dave.michaels@wsj.com and Rebecca Elliott at rebecca.elliott@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Global Tax Deal Heads Down Perilous Path in Congress

WASHINGTON—A complex international corporate tax deal that took years to hammer out soon faces one of its toughest tests: the U.S. Congress.

The Group of 20 major economies backed the plan this weekend in Venice, Italy, following the earlier endorsement from a broader 130-country group. The plan, aimed at limiting corporate tax avoidance, would revamp longstanding international rules and is crucial to President Biden’s plans to raise corporate taxes.

“The world is ready to end the global race to the bottom on corporate taxation, and there’s broad consensus about how to do it,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said.

As detailed negotiations continue, other countries will look to see if U.S. lawmakers implement a minimum corporate tax of at least 15% and embrace new rules for dividing the power to tax the largest companies. Congress will stare back, monitoring how quickly other countries create minimum taxes and remove unilateral taxes on digital companies that have drawn bipartisan U.S. opposition.

“The rest of the world is very aware that the administration cannot bind Congress,” said Chip Harter, the Trump administration’s lead international tax negotiator, who is now at PwC LLP. “They are watching very closely.”

Read original article here

President Biden’s Executive Order Opens New Front in Battle With Big Tech

WASHINGTON—President Biden’s sweeping new competition order targets big tech companies in ways that could fundamentally alter how they do business.

But it will fall to government agencies to carry out the order, and they could take years to put its ideas into action. The Federal Trade Commission that already has Big Tech companies in its sights is likely to become a particular battleground.

A core thrust of the order is to encourage regulatory agencies such as the FTC to adopt new rules and policies to rein in the growing size and power of large tech platforms such as Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc. That could prove to be a tall order for the FTC, the principal federal regulator of internet commerce. Some observers say the agency—which had its sails trimmed by Congress in the deregulatory era of the 1970s and 1980s—has struggled to keep up with unfair practices online, particularly in the areas of user privacy, big data and tech mergers.

As the White House detailed its executive order, one Democratic FTC commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, said in a tweet, “So excited about @POTUS’s EO on competition; it is an ambitious agenda that will help our markets work better and create a more equitable economy for all people – esp workers, marginalized communities, entrepreneurs, small biz.”

Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association that counts Apple Inc., Facebook and Google among its members, defended the tech industry as competitive and vibrant and took issue with the White House’s action.

Read original article here

Some Chinese Stocks Are Starting to Look Like Bargains. Where to Look.

Investing in China is even trickier than usual these days, leading some to wonder if it’s worth the trouble. And it’s not likely to get easier in the near term, though volatility over the next couple of months could create bargains for long-term investors.

Since scuttling the anticipated public offering of Ant Group last fall, Chinese regulators have been targeting the country’s biggest and most widely held internet companies. On July 2, Beijing struck again, launching a cybersecurity review of

DiDi Global

(ticker: DIDI) and ordering its app to be pulled from mobile stores, as it tightened controls over data security and rules for companies listed overseas.

The move, just days after DiDi had raised $4.4 billion in the year’s biggest IPO, led the stock to lose a fifth of its value on July 6, and rattled other Chinese internet shares. The

KraneShares CSI China Internet

exchange-traded fund (KWEB) has fallen 15% since June 30, as investors braced for more scrutiny of tech companies’ data practices and other regulatory moves.

“We now know this is a regulatory minefield, and those who expose themselves to the sector are taking on a lot of volatility,” says Arthur Kroeber, Gavekal Research’s head of research. “If your horizon is long term, this is going to be one of the growth stories of the next decade and you have to ride it out. But if you are more short term, you may say it’s too complicated and come back in a year when things have calmed down.”

The wave of regulatory measures has created the type of uncertainty that draws bargain hunters. Technology giants like

Alibaba Group Holding

(BABA), whose shares are down 11% this year, are popping up on value managers’ radars. But caution is warranted, especially for investors in U.S.-listed shares of Chinese companies. Regulatory pressures could continue. “It’s probably just the start of the enforcement actions,” says Kenneth Zhou, a partner at law firm WilmerHale in Beijing.

Fund managers have described China’s regulatory drive as a move to gain better control and set up guardrails for fast-growing digital industries and internet titans. It’s also a way for Beijing to deal with escalating U.S.-China tensions, in part resulting from recent legislation in Washington that sets the stage for delisting Chinese companies if they don’t offer more auditing disclosures within three years.

One concern for China’s regulators: the valuable troves of data collected by Chinese tech companies listed in the U.S., creating a possible national security threat.

“Control of data is shaping up to be a major domestic and geopolitical issue, with direct equity market implications for firms operating on both sides of the Pacific,” Rory Green, head of China and Asia research at TS Lombard, said in a recent research note.

Beijing is trying to gain better control of Chinese companies, including those listed abroad. Many of the largest Chinese techs, like Alibaba,

Tencent Holdings

(700.Hong Kong) and

JD.com

(JD), are registered in the Cayman Islands and use a variable interest entity (VIE) structure, allowing them to get around Chinese restrictions on foreign ownership. Though largely ignored by investors, the complex structure is a gray area because, under it, foreigners don’t actually own a stake in a Chinese company. Instead, they must rely on China honoring contracts that tie them to the company.

For decades, China has largely turned a blind eye to the extralegal structure, but it’s paying more attention now. Bloomberg News reported this past week that Beijing is considering requiring companies that use this structure to seek its approval before listing elsewhere. Already-listed companies might have to seek approval for any secondary offerings.

Analysts and money managers say they don’t expect China to unravel the VIEs, which are used by the country’s largest and most successful companies and would take decades to undo. Many are also skeptical that the U.S. will follow through with its delisting threat.

But Beijing could use VIE scrutiny to exert increased control over companies and to push back against U.S. regulators’ calls for more disclosure. Indirectly, the scrutiny will likely bolster Beijing’s efforts to lure domestic companies back home—a drive that’s already led to secondary listings in Hong Kong for Alibaba,

Yum China Holdings

(YUMC), and JD.com.

Analysts also expect the heightened scrutiny to slow, if not halt, the number of Chinese companies coming public in the U.S. in the near term. It could also shrink the tally of U.S.-listed Chinese companies—more than 240 with over $2 trillion in combined market value—that appeal to do-it-yourself retail investors. Any of these unable to secure secondary listings in Hong Kong or China might go private, says Louis Lau, manager of the Brandes Emerging Markets Value fund.

U.S.-listed stocks could see volatility as a result. Increasingly, fund managers and institutional investors—Lau included—have been gravitating toward stocks listed in Hong Kong or mainland China whenever possible. For retail investors, the best way to access these foreign listings, as well as the more domestically oriented stocks that some fund managers favor, is through mutual or exchange-traded funds.

Money managers are better positioned to navigate some of the logistical complications created by U.S.-China tensions, such as the fallout from a recent executive order that banned U.S. investment in companies that Washington says has ties to China’s military complex. The S&P Dow Jones Indices and FTSE Russell decided this month to boot more than 20 Shanghai- and Shenzhen-listed concerns affected by the order.

Other companies could also be banned and face similar fallout, with Reuters reporting on July 9 that the Biden administration is considering adding more Chinese entities to the banned list over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

As investing in China gets more complicated, the case builds for investors to choose a fund manager who can navigate these complexities and invest locally. Failure to do so could be costly. The

iShares MSCI China A

ETF (CNYA) is up 3% over the past three months, while the

Invesco Golden Dragon China

ETF (PGJ), which focuses on U.S.-listed Chinese companies, is down 14% in the same span.

“Regulation is here to stay. Investors will just have to get used to this,” says Tiffany Hsiao, a veteran China investor who is a portfolio manager on Artisan’s China Post-Venture strategy. “This is capitalism with Chinese characteristics. China is obviously still a Communist state. It embraces capitalism to drive innovation and improve productivity, but it’s important for companies that do very well to give back to society—and Chinese regulators will remind you of that.”

As a result, she says, investors must move beyond the widely held internet titans to find stocks that could benefit from the regulatory scrutiny that the giants face. Veteran investors are stressing selectivity, searching in local markets for companies that are outside the crossfire.

“A company can have great fundamentals and interesting opportunities, but get blindsided by government action, which is increasingly active,” says David Semple, manager of the

VanEck Emerging Markets

fund (GBFAX). “You need a higher degree of conviction than normal to be involved.”

Semple is gravitating toward companies he’s familiar with, in sectors that could get hit by regulation, but with less impact than investors think.

One example: China is targeting after-school course providers, as it tries to lower child-care costs and encourage families to have more children. Nonetheless, Semple sees opportunity in

China Education Group Holdings

(839.Hong Kong), which could make acquisitions as Beijing forces public universities to divest affiliated private ones.

Of the large internet stocks, Semple favors Tencent, the top position in his fund, over Alibaba, another holding. Alibaba faces more competitive pressures, Semple says, and Tencent has an advantage with its Weixin messaging and videogaming franchises, which provide a high-quality, relatively low-cost flow of users for its other businesses.

Tencent also has quietly complied with the government’s requirements, with CEO Ma Huateng keeping a low profile, says Martin Lau, managing partner and a portfolio manager at FSSA Investment Managers, which oversees $37 billion. That’s a positive, given the backlash that met outspoken Alibaba and Ant co-founder Jack Ma.

Many Chinese internet companies’ fundamentals are sound. However, complying with the stringent rules on collecting and safeguarding user data probably will reduce their profits from that area, says Xiaohua Xu, a senior analyst at Eastspring Investments.

Alibaba and other internet companies, including JD.com, are cheap enough to attract value investors. But volatility is likely, with investors recalibrating growth expectations as Beijing rolls out new rules, and reviews past deals. In addition, widely held U.S.-listed Chinese stocks, including Alibaba, could become proxies for investors’ China angst.

Despite the yellow flags, investors have reason to keep China in the mix. “If you are buying growth, the world has twin engines: the U.S. and China,” says Jason Hsu, chairman and chief investment officer of asset manager Rayliant Global Advisors and co-founder of Research Affiliates. But, he adds, the U.S. is more expensive. “And whenever there is risk—and the world sees China as risky, with this deepening that bias—that means opportunity.”

Write to Reshma Kapadia at reshma.kapadia@barrons.com

Read original article here

Stamps.com to Be Bought by Thoma Bravo in $6.6 Billion Cash Deal

Stamps.com agreed to be acquired by private-equity firm Thoma Bravo in an all-cash deal that values the e-commerce shipping software company at about $6.6 billion.

Stamps.com stockholders will receive $330 a share in cash, a 67% premium over the company’s $197.72 closing price Thursday.

When the deal is complete, Stamps.com will become a private company. Stamps.com said it would benefit from the operating capabilities, capital support and sector expertise of software and technology investor Thoma Bravo. Thoma Bravo said Stamps.com is well-positioned to capitalize on tailwinds in e-commerce.

The deal agreement includes a 40-day “go-shop” period expiring Aug. 18, which allows Stamps.com’s board and its advisers to initiate, solicit and consider alternative acquisition proposals from third parties. The companies expect the transaction to close in the third quarter.

Shares of Stamps.com jumped 64% Friday to $323.86 in midday trading.

Read original article here

Bitcoin Fraud Concerns Draw Scrutiny From Regulators

Regulators are signaling they want more control over an expanded cryptocurrency universe that has pushed further into Wall Street activities without the investor and consumer protections that apply to traditional securities and financial services.

The catch: no single regulator inspects crypto exchanges or brokers, unlike in the securities and derivatives markets. Regulators step in only when they believe U.S. law applies to a particular cryptocurrency or transaction, based on the way the asset was sold or traded.

Once a quirky asset that required navigating special exchanges to buy, cryptocurrencies can now be easily purchased on mobile apps from PayPal Holdings Inc., Square Inc.’s Cash app and Robinhood Markets Inc.

“A lot more money is being put into it, there is a lot of trading and the uses seem to be expanding,” said Dan Berkovitz, a commissioner on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. “I see a concern about whether we have a shadow financial system developing, and that should be a question for all of the regulators.”

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler has told House lawmakers that investor protection rules should apply to crypto exchanges, similar to those that cover equities and derivatives. Regulated exchanges are required by law to have rules that prevent fraud and promote fairness. But crypto exchanges face no such standard, Mr. Gensler said at the Piper Sandler Global Exchange and FinTech conference last month.

Read original article here

Didi and Other U.S.-Listed Chinese Tech Companies Tumble Amid Beijing Crackdown

Text size

A Didi Chuxing autonomous taxi during a pilot test drive on the streets in Shanghai.


Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images

U.S.-listed shares in

Didi Global

and other Chinese app makers tumbled on Tuesday after regulators intensified a crackdown on the country’s New York-listed technology companies.

Didi Global (ticker: DIDI) stock fell more than 25% on Tuesday after Beijing’s Cyberspace Administration ordered app stores to remove the Chinese ride-hailing giant’s services from its platforms on Sunday. 

The cybersecurity regulator widened its attack on Monday, launching a review of two U.S.-listed Chinese app makers:

Full Truck Alliance

(YMM), which operates truck-hailing apps; and online recruiting app

Kanzhun

(BZ).

The regulator ordered the companies to stop adding users while the investigations were conducted, The Wall Street Journal reported. Full Truck Alliance stock was 20% lower in New York premarket trading on Tuesday, while Kanzhun was down 9%.

And on Tuesday, China released guidelines through state-run Xinhua News Agency that would revise rules and strengthen supervision for companies listed in overseas markets, according to the Journal. The additional scrutiny could make it harder for Chinese companies to raise money in the U.S.,

A spokesperson for Full Truck Alliance told Barron’s the company would fully cooperate with the regulator during the cybersecurity process, saying, “FTA is conducting a comprehensive self-examination of any potential cybersecurity risks and will continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities.”

The spokesperson added: “Apart from the suspension of new user registration in China, FTA and its mobile applications maintain normal operation.”

The trio of Chinese app makers went public in the U.S. last month.

Ahead of Didi’s initial public offering, which raised $4.4 billion, reports emerged the company was facing an antitrust probe by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) over whether its pricing mechanism is transparent enough and whether it has been unfairly squeezing out smaller rivals.

Didi made its U.S. debut on Wednesday before attracting the attention of another regulator on Sunday. The cyberspace regulator removed Didi’s Chinese services from their platforms, citing illegal collection of personal data, the Journal reported.

“China is cracking down on big tech, but the decision to remove the app from domestic platforms appears to be timed for maximum impact and embarrassment,” said Markets.com analyst Neil Wilson. “China’s Communist Party is bristling at the number of Chinese companies listing in the U.S. this year, but there is genuine concern at the heart of this—regulators are not impressed with the way Didi and other Chinese tech companies handle data,” he added.

Wedbush analyst Brad Gastwirth struck a similar note, writing that “while Chinese regulators are pointing to Didi’s collection of user data as the impetus for their actions, with the move coming right after its US IPO, there is speculation that China targeting Didi because of its decision to list outside of China.”

In a statement, Didi said that users who had already downloaded and installed the app could continue using it, though it would no longer be available in China.

“The Company will strive to rectify any problems, improve its risk prevention awareness and technological capabilities, protect users’ privacy and data security, and continue to provide secure and convenient services to its users,” Didi said on Sunday. “The Company expects that the app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China.”

Kanzhun said on Monday it would fully cooperate during the review process. “The Company plans to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks and continue to enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities.”

Perhaps not unrelated, Chinese social-media company

Weibo

(WB) on Tuesday jumped 15% on reports it’s planning to go private.

Write to Callum Keown at callum.keown@dowjones.com

Read original article here

Facebook, Twitter, Google Threaten to Quit Hong Kong Over Proposed Data Laws

HONG KONG—

Facebook Inc.,

FB 0.09%

Twitter Inc.

TWTR 1.60%

and

Alphabet Inc.’s

GOOG 1.86%

Google have privately warned the Hong Kong government that they could stop offering their services in the city if authorities proceed with planned changes to data-protection laws that could make them liable for the malicious sharing of individuals’ information online.

A letter sent by an industry group that includes the internet firms said companies are concerned that the planned rules to address doxing could put their staff at risk of criminal investigations or prosecutions related to what the firms’ users post online. Doxing refers to the practice of putting people’s personal information online so they can be harassed by others.

Hong Kong’s Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in May proposed amendments to the city’s data-protection laws that it said were needed to combat doxing, a practice that was prevalent during 2019 protests in the city. The proposals call for punishments of up to 1 million Hong Kong dollars, the equivalent of about $128,800, and up to five years’ imprisonment.

“The only way to avoid these sanctions for technology companies would be to refrain from investing and offering the services in Hong Kong,” said the previously unreported June 25 letter from the Singapore-based Asia Internet Coalition, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Tensions have emerged between some of the U.S.’s most powerful firms and Hong Kong authorities as Beijing exerts increasing control over the city and clamps down on political dissent. The American firms and other tech companies last year said they were suspending the processing of requests from Hong Kong law-enforcement agencies following China’s imposition of a national security law on the city.

Jeff Paine, the Asia Internet Coalition’s managing director, in the letter to Hong Kong’s Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, said that while his group and its members are opposed to doxing, the vague wording in the proposed amendments could mean the firms and their staff based locally could be subject to criminal investigations and prosecution for doxing offenses by their users.

That would represent a “completely disproportionate and unnecessary response,” the letter said. The letter also noted that the proposed amendments could curtail free expression and criminalize even “innocent acts of sharing information online.”

The Coalition suggested that a more clearly defined scope to violations be considered and requested a videoconference to discuss the situation.

A spokeswoman for the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data acknowledged that the office had received the letter. She said new rules were needed to address doxing, which “has tested the limits of morality and the law.”

The government has handled thousands of doxing-related cases since 2019, and surveys of the public and organizations show strong support for added measures to curb the practice, she said. Police officers and opposition figures were doxed heavily during months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.

“The amendments will not have any bearing on free speech,” which is enshrined in law, and the scope of offenses will be clearly set out in the amendments, the spokeswoman said. The government “strongly rebuts any suggestion that the amendments may in any way affect foreign investment in Hong Kong,” she said.

Representatives for Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment on the letter beyond acknowledging that the Coalition had sent it. The companies don’t disclose the number of employees they have in Hong Kong, but they likely employ at least 100 staff combined, analysts estimate.

China’s crackdown on dissent since it imposed a national security law a year ago has driven many people in Hong Kong off social media or to self-censor their posts following a spate of arrests over online remarks.

While Hong Kong’s population of about 7.5 million means it isn’t a major market in terms of its user base, foreign firms often cite the free flow of information in Hong Kong as a key factor for being located in the financial hub.

The letter from the tech giants comes as global companies increasingly consider whether to leave the financial center for cities offering more hospitable business climates.

The anti-doxing amendments will be put before the city’s Legislative Council and a bill is expected to be approved by the end of this legislative year, said Paul Haswell, Hong Kong-based head of the technology, media, and telecom law practice at global law firm Pinsent Masons.

The tech firms’ concerns about the proposed rules are legitimate, Mr. Haswell said. Depending on the wording of the legislation, technology companies headquartered outside Hong Kong, but with operations in the city, could see their staff here held responsible for what people posted, he said.

A broad reading of the rules could suggest that even an unflattering photo of a person taken in public, or of a police officer’s face on the basis that this would constitute personal data, could run afoul of the proposed amendments if posted with malice or an intention to cause harm, he said.

“If not managed with common sense,” the new rules “could make it potentially a risk to post anything relating to another individual on the internet,” he said.

Corrections & Amplifications
Doxing was prevalent during protests in Hong Kong in 2019. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the year was 2109. (Corrected on July 5)

Write to Newley Purnell at newley.purnell@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Krispy Kreme Stock Gains Nearly 24% in IPO

Text size

Doughnuts on a production line inside a Krispy Kreme Doughnuts store in Times Square in Manhattan.


Angus Mordant/Bloomberg


Krispy Kreme

led a group of six companies to the public markets on Thursday.

Besides the doughnut chain,

Acumen Pharmaceuticals,


D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading,


Evercommerce,


Torrid Holdings,

and the

Glimpse Group

made their stock-market debuts.

So far this week, 17 companies, including those six, have listed their shares. There are no initial public offerings on tap for Friday because of the holiday weekend. On Wednesday, 10 companies went public, with

Didi Global,

the Uber of China, trading flat and closing at $14.14, 14 cents above its offering price.

On Thursday, Acumen Pharmaceuticals (ticker: ABOS) was one of the first to begin trading. The stock opened at $25.07 and closed at $20.10, up nearly 26% from the offering price.

The solid performance came after Acumen increased the size of its deal by nearly 20%. The biotech company, which is developing therapies to treat Alzheimer’s disease, collected about $160 million. It sold roughly 10 million shares at $16, the top of its $14-to-$16 range.

The Glimpse Group (VRAR), which develops and commercializes virtual and augmented reality software products, also opened. Shares kicked off at $11.75 and ended at $17.66, up 152% from its offer price. Glimpse delivered Thursday’s smallest deal. The company collected $12.3 million, after selling 1.75 million shares at $7, the midpoint of its $6-to-$8 price range.

Torrid Holdings (CURV) shares rose 15% from the offer price to close at $24.15. The direct-to-consumer retailer of plus-sized women’s clothes increased the size of its deal twice. It filed to offer 8 million shares at $18 to $21, which it boosted Wednesday to 10 million. It ended up selling 11 million shares at $21, the top of its expected range, raising $231 million. Sycamore Partners, the retail-focused private-equity firm, will own nearly 76% of Torrid after the IPO. 

Krispy Kreme (DNUT), the most well-known of Thursday’s group, kicked off at $16.30 and ended at $21, up nearly 24% from the offer price. The doughnut chain increased the size of its deal by 10% but priced it well below its expected range to raise $500 million. Krispy Kreme had planned to offer 26.7 million shares at $21 to $24 each, but ended up selling 29.4 million shares at $17 each. JAB Holding, the European investment firm, will own about 39% of Krispy Kreme after the IPO

D-Market Electronic Services & Trading, or Hepsiburada (HEPS), jumped nearly 12% from its offer price to close at $13.43. Hepsiburada, which means “you can find anything you want here” in Turkish, is a leading e-commerce platform from Istanbul. The company raised $680 million after selling 56,740,000 American depositary shares at $12 each, the midpoint of its $11-to-$13 price range. Each ADS represents one class B ordinary share.

Lastly, EverCommerce (EVCM) stock opened at $20, but slipped back to close nearly 4% above its offer price at $17.60. EverCommerce’s IPO came in at $325 million after the comp[any sold 19.1 million shares at $17, the middle of its $16-to-$18 range. The company provides software for small and midsize service businesses.

Write to luisa.beltran@barrons.com

Read original article here