Connect with us

News

How deal-hungry Puig became beauty’s ‘flexible’ conglomerate

Published

on

How deal-hungry Puig became beauty’s ‘flexible’ conglomerate

Beauty groups L’Oréal and Shiseido have long made waves with their splashy acquisitions, but their little-known Spanish peer Puig has also got in on the act by pitching itself to brand founders as a “flexible” acquirer.

The beauty and fashion group, which bankers value at €8bn-€10bn, unveiled its 11th acquisition in 12 years this month as it weighs a stock market listing. Puig is purchasing a majority stake in a high-end German “molecular cosmetics” brand, Dr Barbara Sturm, extending a run of deals including a majority stake in Charlotte Tilbury, which valued the UK cosmetics maker at £1.3bn.

Puig is still a minnow compared with the likes of L’Oréal and Estée Lauder, which have market capitalisations of €236bn and $49bn respectively, but its transformation in recent years has been drastic.

Before the spending spree began in 2011 the family-owned group, which sells everything from perfume to high heels, focused on just a few key brands including Carolina Herrera and Nina Ricci, bringing in annual sales of €1.2bn.

The Dr Sturm acquisition means it now has controlling stakes in a total of 14 brands. The Barcelona-based conglomerate has said its 2023 sales would surpass €4bn.

As the luxury sector grapples with the end of a post-coronavirus boom, Marc Puig, the founder’s grandson who serves as both chair and chief executive, said the company was “seeing some slowdown in growth” but remained in good shape.

Advertisement

That is partly because Puig does not classify itself as a luxury player and instead says it is in premium beauty. Puig said that segment “has traditionally been more immune because the unit price of products is lower, so it has different market dynamics to the luxury market. This resilience has been proven over time and is expected to remain.”

As the biggest cosmetics and fashion groups vie to tap growing demand for beauty products, they have eagerly snapped up or invested in smaller brands.

In 2021, for example, LVMH acquired Officine Universelle Buly 1803, a historic French perfume and cosmetics label. L’Oréal last year bought Australian high-end cosmetics group Aesop from its Brazilian owner in a transaction with an enterprise value of $2.5bn.

Charlotte Tilbury has a seat on Puig’s nine-person executive committee © Cindy Ord/Getty Images

Consumer goods group Unilever and private equity firms had looked at buying Charlotte Tilbury, a brand associated with its eponymous founder and its YouTube make-up tutorials, before Puig secured it in 2020.

The Spanish company also scored a big win in 2022 when it fended off L’Oréal to acquire Byredo, a cult Swedish brand founded by Ben Gorham, a former basketball player.

Advertisement

Asked why a founder would choose Puig, Marc Puig told the Financial Times: “We have to be aware that every founder and every individual is different . . . we have been able to find appropriate formulas for each case. We try to be more flexible than other big houses — I think that’s what sets us apart.”

Charlotte Tilbury herself remains the chair and chief creative officer of her brand and has a seat on Puig’s nine-person executive committee. Jean Paul Gaultier, who sold to Puig in 2011, is still involved with his label even though he has retired.

Dries Van Noten, the Belgian founder of the high-end fashion house that carries his name, said his team had approached Puig about being acquired in a deal that was eventually sealed in 2018. The Spanish group gave his business the “strong shoulders” it needed to grow, including support for ecommerce and opening stores in China, he told Women’s Wear Daily.

“Like in every good marriage, I think there are good days, and sometimes less good days, but I think they really respected us, so they didn’t want to put the Puig stamp on our company,” said Van Noten, who has continued as chief creative officer.

One model stares straight ahead as the others turn with their backs to the camera on the runway
Dries Van Noten models at Paris Fashion Week earlier this year © Kristy Sparow/Getty Images

Not all deals in the sector have a happy ending. Bobbi Brown sold her eponymous cosmetics brand to Estée Lauder in 1995 but left in 2016 after a couple of sour years, saying later that “the fun things go away” when you are part of a billion-dollar brand.

Puig was founded as a perfume company in 1914 by Antonio Puig, who reinvented himself after a ship carrying the merchandise of his previous import business was sunk by a German submarine. The two drivers of its growth in the 20th century were its distribution of foreign-made products in Spain and its production of perfumes under licence for other brands. A 1968 deal to make fragrances for Paco Rabanne was a landmark. Puig still holds the beauty licences of Comme des Garçons Parfums and Christian Louboutin.

Advertisement

Marc Puig has led the company since 2004 but said he would be the last generation of the family to head the business, even though he has no plans to step down.

One of the chair’s big goals has been to reduce the group’s dependence on licensing, which is less profitable than outright ownership. The company’s own products now account for more than 90 per cent of all sales. That also gives it end-to-end control over product and distribution.

Other groups want a bigger presence in high-end beauty, among them fashion house Kering and watch-and-jewellery specialist Richemont. They have started to build in-house capabilities, but have also contracted third parties to make products carrying their brand names.

Marc Puig looks at the camera, dressed in a dark grey suit and black tie
Marc Puig said the company was ‘seeing some slowdown in growth’ but remained in good shape

Puig’s chair suggested that in the long term his rivals would realise that doing it themselves was a safer bet. “They will have to recover some of the brands that today have licences,” he said.

Despite diversification into fashion and skincare, fragrance remains the core of Puig’s business. Perfume has not been badly affected by the luxury slowdown and Puig is forging ahead with a push to sell more expensive products.

In an upmarket category it calls “niche fragrance”, which includes its 2015 acquisitions of L’Artisan Parfumeur and Penhaligon’s, Puig says it has grown faster over the past decade than any other company.

Advertisement

What distinguishes it from other luxury products, and what may shield it in a pullback in spending, is price. Top-end haute couture or watches can cost several thousand euros, putting them out of reach for many consumers, but high-end perfumes remain more affordable.

It used to be rare to find a 100ml bottle of perfume for more than €100. Now Puig has widened its price range, but has not gone far beyond €200 — a level that buys more natural ingredients and unusual scent mixes.

“There are people who say ‘I don’t want to smell like everybody else’,” said Puig. “People respond to that need to express themselves to the rest of the world.”

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending