Connect with us

News

Sequoia looks to oust Michael Moritz from Klarna in boardroom dispute

Published

on

Sequoia looks to oust Michael Moritz from Klarna in boardroom dispute

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Sequoia Capital is seeking to oust its former leader Michael Moritz as chair of the fintech Klarna, an extraordinary move that reflects the venture capital group’s mounting discontent over the governance of what was once Europe’s most valuable start-up.

The boardroom dispute adds to pressure on Klarna chief executive and co-founder Sebastian Siemiatkowski as the Swedish “buy now, pay later” pioneer prepares for a public listing, people with knowledge of the situation told the Financial Times.

Moritz, who led Sequoia’s investments into Google, PayPal, YouTube and Klarna over a near-40 year career, is a crucial boardroom ally of Siemiatkowski, according to three people with knowledge of their relationship. One person with knowledge of the move said removing Moritz could be viewed as “step one to removing Sebastian”.

Advertisement

When Moritz left Sequoia last year, the firm’s managing partner Roelof Botha told investors that he would “smoothly transition” off boards at Sequoia companies “over time”.

But Moritz retained an independent role on Klarna’s board even as a new Sequoia partner, Matthew Miller, was appointed. The formal procedure to oust Moritz was initiated by Miller, who sent a letter to other investors seeking an extraordinary shareholder meeting to remove his former colleague from the Klarna board.

Miller was representing Sequoia and had the full backing of Botha and the firm’s partnership, according to people familiar with the matter. They added that other shareholders were sympathetic to Sequoia’s effort.

Asked to comment on the effort to remove Moritz, Sequoia said: “As we engaged with the company with a new board member, we realised there were a series of governance changes that needed to be made to set the company up for its future.”

“We’re excited to back Sebastian and Klarna’s journey ahead. This request is about board composition to set the company up for its next chapter,” a spokesperson added.

Advertisement

Sequoia is Klarna’s largest shareholder, with funds advised by the firm holding a 22 per cent stake, according to a corporate governance report published last year.

The Information first reported Sequoia’s attempt to remove Moritz as chair.

Moritz declined to comment. He remains a senior adviser to Sequoia Heritage, a wealth management fund independent from Sequoia Capital. Klarna also declined to comment.

Klarna has long been viewed as a prime candidate for a public offering, and has backing from big investors including SoftBank, Silver Lake, Permira, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Mubadala Investment Company, the $276bn sovereign fund of the UAE.

Behind the scenes, Klarna had been preparing for an IPO for the past year, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The company had not yet appointed advisers but last year set up a new legal entity in the UK to simplify a potential listing, this person said. Siemiatkowski has also recently spoken about his intent to take the company public.

Advertisement

A long anticipated IPO has been stalled by higher interest rates, which have hit the valuations of private start-ups over the past two years and deterred all but a handful of large companies from going public. Klarna soared to a valuation of almost $46bn in 2021, but a year later its valuation was slashed to about $7bn when it raised $800mn from investors.

The IPO drought has increased the pressure on venture capital firms, which rely on mergers, acquisitions and listings to cash out stakes in private companies and return capital to their own backers, to edge the best candidates in their portfolios towards the public markets.

Online grocery delivery company Instacart, another prominent Sequoia portfolio company, listed last year — following a corporate governance reshuffle in 2021 that saw founder Apoorva Mehta step back from his role as chief executive to become executive chair.

One investor said they did not hold out any hopes of an IPO under Siemiatkowski, despite the chief executive’s public statements that he was ready to float the company whenever market conditions improved. But another person with knowledge of the board dispute said Siemiatkowski “has no objection to the company being floated”.

Advertisement

News

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Published

on

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Asian and European buyers are battling to source liquefied natural gas after the war in the Middle East choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking a fifth of global supplies.

In an indication of the intensifying contest for LNG since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, a handful of gas carriers have abruptly changed course while sailing to Europe and swung towards Asia instead, according to ship monitoring data analysed by the FT.

Countries across Asia are highly dependent on oil and gas sent through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway where shipping has slowed to a near standstill.

Advertisement

Most of the LNG produced in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is ordinarily shipped through the strait to Asia, and Asian LNG prices surged almost immediately after war broke out, creating an incentive to divert US gas to the region.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are among the countries that need to source LNG to make up for supplies they will not receive from the Gulf, said Massimo Di Odoardo, head of gas and LNG analysis at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Taiwan relied on Qatar for more than 30 per cent of its gas consumption in 2025, according to Citigroup, while for South Korea and Japan the figures were 15 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Asia typically uses more gas than Europe in the hotter summer months because of more air-conditioning use, creating urgency for Asian utilities to secure cargoes.

The vast majority of LNG is sold under long-term contracts rather than on the spot market, but some buyers are able to change the final destination of their purchases and some sellers are willing to break contracts if prices rise high enough.

Advertisement

By Thursday, surging European gas prices and rocketing shipping rates had swung the balance back against diversion of US LNG to Asia, according to data company Spark Commodities.

The decision on where to send gas carriers can depend on the relative levels of the European gas price, Asia’s JKM benchmark for LNG and shipping rates.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

For European buyers, the battle with Asia for LNG supplies is eerily familiar to the situation four years ago after Russia slashed pipeline natural gas flows to the continent following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Competition for spare cargoes then pushed prices to record levels.

On Monday, European gas prices reached as high as €69.50 per megawatt hour, more than double their level before the Iran conflict began. Even so, prices are still far from the €342 per megawatt hour reached in 2022.

JKM gas prices also more than doubled since the start of the war to $24.80 per 1mn British thermal units by Monday, equivalent to €73.10/MWh.

Advertisement

European buyers have learnt from their experience in 2022. “Europe has more weapons at its disposal in this extreme price scenario to try and fight,” said Alex Kerr, a partner at law firm Baker Botts.

Buyers had started putting clauses in contracts to say that suppliers would face much higher penalties if they diverted cargoes for commercial gain, Kerr said.

There is also much more LNG on the market now that is not committed to set destinations, largely because of new projects starting in the US.

While producers such as Qatar impose strict rules on where its LNG can be sent, almost all US exports are allowed to sail wherever buyers want. Several analysts said there had also been an increase in the willingness of some producers to break contracts for financial advantage.

This makes diversions more likely, while the reluctance of some European buyers to sign long-term supply contracts before the outbreak of war this month could prove costly.

Advertisement

Expectations of a global supply glut convinced some European buyers that it would be cheaper to wait until later in the year to sign supply deals.

Wood Mackenzie’s Di Odoardo said the buyers had also held off on LNG purchases because new EU legislation on methane emissions made it unclear whether they could incur penalties in the future.

The risk of prices rising as Europe and Asia fight for available cargoes is increasing every day the Strait of Hormuz stays almost closed.

Gas is more difficult to store and to carry in tankers than oil, making its markets more vulnerable to shortages and price shocks.

“The longer the Strait remains shut, the greater the risk that the shipping disruption turns into a genuine gas shortage, as tankers cannot load and facilities have limited storage,” said consultancy Oxford Economics in a research note.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Harry Dempsey in Tokyo. Data visualisation by Jana Tauschinski

Continue Reading

News

Is Iran another Iraq? : Sources & Methods

Published

on

Is Iran another Iraq? : Sources & Methods
Poor planning, overly ambitious goals, not thinking through the aftermath. These are the parallels that Richard Haass sees between the 2003 U.S. invastion of Iraq and its current air campaign against Iran.Haass was in charge of planning for the invasion as a top official in the State Department. He was a voice of dissent within the administration. Now he’s president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the Home & Away newsletter. He talks to Host Mary Louise Kelly about the Trump administration’s foreign policy and national security apparatus and where he sees it falling short on Iran.Email the show at sourcesandmethods@npr.orgNPR+ supporters hear every episode without sponsor messages and unlock access to our complete archive. Sign up at plus.npr.org.
Continue Reading

News

Concert promoter Live Nation settles US monopoly case over ticket sales

Published

on

Concert promoter Live Nation settles US monopoly case over ticket sales

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Live Nation has agreed to a preliminary settlement with the US government to end a monopoly case brought by the Department of Justice, in a deal that would stop short of breaking up the company.

The DoJ and some US states have reached a deal with Live Nation, which is the parent company of Ticketmaster, less than a week after trial began in New York, according to a senior justice department official. But 27 other state attorneys-general have refused to join the agreement, arguing it benefits Live Nation. 

The DoJ in 2024 sued Live Nation, accusing it of operating a monopoly that “suffocates its competition” in the live entertainment industry. The government alleged that the company illegally dominated the market for ticketing and concert promotion, using “exclusionary conduct” to wield an outsized influence over the majority of live concert venues across the US.

Advertisement

The lawsuit came amid growing discontent among fans, rivals, artists and US lawmakers, who have accused Live Nation of abusing its market power by charging exorbitant fees and retaliating against venues that choose to work with rivals.

It followed a fiasco during the ticket sale of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in 2022, when Ticketmaster’s website was overwhelmed by massive demand.

The terms of the deal, which will have to be confirmed by a federal court, include Live Nation offering a product that will allow other ticketing companies to use its technology. It would also let go of 13 amphitheatres it owns or controls — a number that may rise if other states join the agreement. 

The deal “opens up markets for other competitors, which will allow for competition that previously didn’t exist in primary ticketing and in the live entertainment space”, said a senior DoJ official. 

“That competition is going to have a direct impact on prices coming down,” he added. “It’ll also give consumers more options and not feel like they just have to go through Live Nation or Ticketmaster.”

Advertisement

But New York state attorney-general Letitia James, who has led a bipartisan group of states suing Live Nation, on Monday said in a statement that the agreement “fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers. We cannot agree to it.”

“[W]e will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry,” she added.

Live Nation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending