Author: Staff Writer

Starbucks has announced a major $1 billion restructuring plan aimed at reshaping its North American operations, which includes closing around 400 underperforming stores across the U.S. and Canada and cutting approximately 900 corporate positions.

The company expects the changes to reduce its North American store count by roughly 1% by the end of fiscal year 2025.

CEO Brian Niccol said the closures are focused on locations that have struggled to deliver the desired customer experience or achieve financial targets.

“We are making these changes to ensure Starbucks continues to provide an exceptional customer experience and remains sustainable in a competitive market,” Niccol said. Affected employees will receive notice this week, with options for transfers to nearby stores where feasible and severance packages designed to ease the transition.

The restructuring also includes a substantial investment in renovating more than 1,000 existing locations.

Starbucks plans to enhance store designs with improved textures, lighting, and layout to create warmer, more inviting environments for customers. Niccol emphasized that the renovations are part of a broader strategy to modernize stores and reinforce brand loyalty.

On the corporate side, around 900 non-retail positions will be eliminated, including the departure of Chief Technology Officer Deb Hall Lefevre. Ningyu Chen, formerly Senior Vice President of Global Experience Technology, has been appointed interim CTO.

Starbucks is increasingly leveraging Tata Consultancy Services for IT and operational support, reflecting a shift toward outsourcing certain functions to streamline efficiency.

The restructuring follows several quarters of declining sales in North America, with the company reporting six consecutive quarters of soft performance in its core markets. Rising costs, competitive pressures from specialty coffee chains, and changing consumer habits have contributed to the need for strategic realignment. Analysts note that Starbucks’ moves are aimed at improving long-term profitability while maintaining the quality and consistency of its customer experience.

Investors reacted cautiously to the announcement, with shares dipping slightly in after-hours trading.

Despite market concerns, Starbucks maintains that the changes are part of a deliberate, forward-looking plan. Financial analysts have highlighted that while the near-term impact may include reduced revenue from closed stores and severance costs, the focus on efficiency and store modernization could strengthen the company’s competitive position over time.

Industry observers point out that Starbucks’ strategy reflects broader trends in retail and food service, where companies are optimizing footprints, focusing on high-performing locations, and leveraging technology to enhance customer engagement. Starbucks’ decision to invest in renovations while reducing corporate overhead signals an attempt to balance operational efficiency with customer-centric improvements.

As Starbucks moves forward with its restructuring, the company has pledged to support impacted employees and ensure minimal disruption to customers. The combination of store closures, corporate reductions, and targeted renovations underscores a commitment to long-term growth, operational resilience, and sustained market leadership in the North American coffee sector.

Also Read: Trump Demands Microsoft Dismiss Lisa Monaco, Citing National Security Risks

U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly called on Microsoft to fire Lisa Monaco, its newly hired global affairs president and former Deputy Attorney General under President Biden, accusing her of posing a threat to U.S. national security.

In a post on his social media platform, Trump described Monaco as a “menace to U.S. National Security,” arguing that her role in Microsoft — a company with substantial federal government contracts — grants her access to sensitive information she should not hold.

He also asserted that her security clearances were revoked earlier this year and claimed she has been banned from federal properties.

Monaco joined Microsoft in July 2025 to lead the company’s engagement with governments, cybersecurity policy, and digital crime efforts.

Her government career spans high-profile roles in both Democratic administrations, including coordinating the Justice Department’s response to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and serving as a national security adviser.

Trump’s targeting of Monaco comes a day after the indictment of former FBI director James Comey — part of a broader pattern in which Trump has intensified pressure on individuals from prior administrations whom he views as political adversaries.

Microsoft declined to comment publicly on Trump’s demand. Monaco also has not responded to inquiries.

Observers note that the request places Microsoft in a difficult position: acquiescing may be viewed as bowing to political pressure, while resisting could expose the company to retaliation or regulatory scrutiny.

Some analysts suggest the move is intended less for practical effect than as a rhetorical escalation.

Monaco’s security clearances were revoked in February, a move that Trump has cited as justification for his demand. He claims she was also prohibited from accessing federal facilities. But the precise reasons for these revocations are not publicly confirmed.

Her appointment at Microsoft had not drawn much attention until recently, leading some analysts to speculate that Trump may have only recently become aware of her role.

In recent months, Microsoft has leaned heavily into its government services business, including cloud and AI contracts. That makes the optics of Trump’s demand more acute, given the company’s reliance on federal contracts and relationships.

The episode also underscores the tensions between tech firms and political authorities in the U.S. Trump has previously intervened in corporate matters, including pressuring leadership changes at Intel and demanding actions by media and entertainment firms.

It remains uncertain whether Microsoft will comply or push back. Monaco’s role and reputation are now at the center of a clash between political interests and corporate autonomy — a flashpoint that may have implications for how tech companies navigate government relations in an increasingly partisan climate.

Also Read: IndusInd Bank: Ex-CFO Alleges ₹2,000 Crore Accounting Fraud

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Central Bank has directed HDFC Bank’s Dubai branch to stop onboarding new customers with immediate effect, intensifying scrutiny on the Indian lender’s overseas operations.

The move follows an inspection that flagged concerns around compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) regulations, according to people familiar with the development.

The regulatory action means HDFC Bank, India’s largest private sector lender by market capitalisation, will not be able to add new corporate or retail clients at its Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) branch until further notice.

Existing operations, however, will continue as usual, ensuring that current customers are not impacted by the directive.

The development comes at a time when HDFC Bank is navigating heightened regulatory oversight both in India and abroad.

Earlier this year, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) flagged issues in the bank’s digital operations and customer onboarding processes, temporarily halting its plans to launch new digital initiatives.

While most of those restrictions have since been eased, the RBI continues to keep the bank under close watch.

In Dubai, the Central Bank’s action is viewed as part of a broader effort to tighten supervision of foreign banks and ensure strict adherence to AML and CTF guidelines, which have been a priority for regulators in recent years.

The UAE has been under pressure from global watchdogs such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to strengthen its monitoring mechanisms, and authorities have taken a tougher stance on compliance lapses.

For HDFC Bank, the latest restriction represents another regulatory setback in its international ambitions.

The lender, which completed its high-profile merger with Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC Ltd) in 2023, has been working to expand its global footprint, particularly in regions with significant Indian diaspora populations such as the Middle East.

Its Dubai branch, operational since 2019 under a Category 1 licence from the Dubai Financial Services Authority, was seen as a key part of this strategy.

Analysts suggest that while the immediate financial impact may be limited, reputational risks remain significant. “HDFC Bank has been positioning itself as a global player, and regulatory restrictions in international markets could dent investor confidence,” said a banking sector analyst, noting that the bank’s stock has been under pressure in recent trading sessions.

The bank has not issued a detailed public statement on the matter but is understood to be engaging closely with UAE authorities to resolve the issues raised during the inspection. Industry observers say the outcome of these discussions will be closely watched, not only by HDFC Bank’s stakeholders but also by other Indian banks operating in overseas jurisdictions.

With regulatory scrutiny intensifying across multiple fronts, HDFC Bank faces the task of reassuring both customers and investors of its compliance strength while continuing to pursue its international growth strategy.

The bank’s response to the UAE Central Bank’s directive will likely determine how quickly it can restore momentum in one of its most important overseas markets.

Also Read: Priya Nair Takes the Helm as HUL Overhauls Leadership

Former Chief Financial Officer of IndusInd Bank, Gobind Jain, has lodged a formal complaint with Mumbai’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW), alleging accounting irregularities stretching back to 2015 that have left the private lender exposed to losses of nearly ₹2,000 crore. His claims also include serious charges of insider trading by senior executives.

According to Jain’s submissions, the bank repeatedly misaccounted derivative trades executed internally—bookings that inflated profits early on and deferred recognition of losses. He alleges that successive management teams, board members, and former finance chief S.V. Zaregaonkar were aware of the discrepancies but failed to act.

In his letter to the Prime Minister’s Office, Jain called for the suspension of Chairman Sunil Mehta and a full independent probe.

The bank has denied the allegations, stating in a public response that the board disclosed irregularities promptly, engaged independent auditors, and fully cooperated with regulators.

Earlier in 2025, IndusInd admitted accounting lapses in its derivatives business involving internal cross-desk trades not properly marked to market.

The bank said it identified a hole of roughly $230 million (equivalent to over ₹1,900 crore) in its earnings. A forensic review led by Grant Thornton revealed further misstatements in microfinance income and “unsubstantiated balances” under other assets.

As the disclosures erupted publicly, senior leadership at IndusInd—a leading private sector bank—faced immediate fallout. In April, CEO Sumant Kathpalia and Deputy CEO Arun Khurana resigned, each citing “moral responsibility” amid governance concerns. A new oversight committee was formed, and the board initiated independent investigations to unravel the full extent of irregularities.

The ramifications quickly spilled into regulatory terrain. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has restrained Kathpalia, Khurana and three other senior officials from securities trading, alleging they sold shares while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information about the accounting lapses.

Moreover, Mumbai’s Economic Offences Wing has already recorded statements from several bank employees, including Jain and Arun Khurana. The agency is reported to be considering whether to upgrade the preliminary enquiry into a full criminal case, assessing whether accounting gimmicks rose to the level of fraud or breach of trust.

While the probe continues, IndusInd Bank has undergone leadership changes. Virally experienced banking executive Viral Damania has been appointed as the new CFO, and the bank has pledged full cooperation with investigative agencies.

Observers note that the bank’s immediate reputation and credit standing are under stress, and restoring confidence will require decisive internal and regulatory resolution.

The charges raised by a whistleblower ex-CFO place IndusInd at the center of one of India’s most serious recent banking scandals.

If proven, the allegations will deepen scrutiny of internal control lapses, auditor oversight, and board accountability—not just at IndusInd, but across the broader Indian banking sector.

Also Read: US to Probe Waaree Energies Over Alleged Solar Tariff Evasion

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has restored limited certification powers to Boeing, allowing the company to resume issuing airworthiness certificates for some of its 737 MAX and 787 Dreamliner aircraft.

The decision, effective from September 29, comes more than six years after Boeing lost these privileges following two fatal crashes that exposed serious flaws in its safety processes.

The FAA said Boeing will once again be able to certify aircraft but under a hybrid arrangement in which the company and the regulator will alternate weeks in carrying out the approvals.

The system is designed to maintain close federal oversight while gradually returning responsibilities to Boeing. The regulator emphasised that it would continue to carry out “direct and rigorous oversight” of Boeing’s production lines even as some authority is handed back.

Boeing’s certification powers were stripped in 2019 after crashes involving Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights, both 737 MAX jets, killed 346 people and led to the aircraft’s global grounding.

The FAA later extended restrictions to the 787 programme in 2022 after identifying persistent production quality issues.

The decision to partially restore authority follows what the agency described as a thorough review of Boeing’s current manufacturing standards.

The move could ease a backlog of aircraft deliveries by reducing the bottleneck created when the FAA assumed full control of approvals. It may also signal growing confidence that Boeing has taken steps to strengthen its safety culture, which has been under intense scrutiny since the crashes.

However, the FAA has kept in place a cap on 737 MAX production at 38 planes per month, a measure imposed after a mid-air panel blowout on an Alaska Airlines jet in early 2024.

Boeing continues to face regulatory pressure. Earlier this month, the FAA proposed a $3.1 million fine over alleged safety violations between late 2023 and early 2024, including reports of an aircraft being presented for certification despite non-compliance with requirements.

The company has also been warned that further lapses could jeopardise the gradual return of delegated authority.

For Boeing, regaining even partial certification powers is an important milestone in efforts to rebuild trust with regulators, airlines and passengers.

The company is keen to demonstrate that its internal systems and processes are now robust enough to handle responsibilities once seen as routine. Analysts say the FAA’s decision reflects cautious optimism but stress that Boeing remains under the closest scrutiny of its modern history.

The restoration of certification powers marks a significant step for Boeing but does not end regulatory constraints. The FAA’s alternating system of approvals means that federal inspectors will remain a visible presence on Boeing’s production floors, ensuring that reforms implemented in recent years are consistently upheld.

Also Read: Supreme Court Approves JSW Steel’s Takeover of Bhushan Power & Steel

The Supreme Court of India has overturned its earlier May 2025 ruling and approved JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL).

The decision marks a significant development in one of the country’s most protracted insolvency cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai re-heard the appeal after recalling the May judgment, which had rejected the resolution plan and directed BPSL’s liquidation.

The court dismissed objections raised by BPSL’s former promoters and certain creditors, including claims for a share in the company’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA).

The bench emphasized that the successful resolution applicant (SRA) cannot be compelled to address claims not part of the Request for Resolution Plan (RfRP) or the approved resolution plan.

The court also noted that the delays in implementing the resolution plan were not attributable to JSW Steel or the committee of creditors (CoC), citing legal challenges and property attachments as contributing factors. JSW Steel had invested heavily in modernizing BPSL, nearly doubling its production capacity from 2.3 million tonnes per annum in 2017 to 4.5 million tonnes per annum in 2025. The court observed that the purpose of the IBC—to transform a loss-making entity into a profit-making one—had been achieved.

The approval of JSW Steel’s resolution plan effectively concludes a six-year-long insolvency process that began in 2017 when Punjab National Bank initiated proceedings against BPSL. The plan had been approved by the CoC and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in 2019, and upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in 2020. However, dissenting creditors and former promoters challenged the plan in the Supreme Court, leading to the May 2025 ruling that quashed the plan and ordered liquidation. The court’s latest decision overturns that ruling, allowing JSW Steel to proceed with its acquisition of BPSL.

Following the Supreme Court’s approval, JSW Steel’s shares traded 1.23% lower at ₹1,134.40 apiece as of 12:55 p.m. on September 26.

The resolution plan had been a significant point of contention, with various stakeholders raising concerns over its terms and implementation. The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to the IBC’s framework and the finality of decisions made by the CoC and approved by the NCLT and NCLAT.

Also Read: Amazon to Pay $2.5 Billion to Settle FTC Accusations