A Hong Kong court has rejected PwC International’s bid to be removed from a $8.5 billion lawsuit brought by the liquidators of China Evergrande Group, allowing claims over the auditing of the failed property developer to proceed against the global PwC coordinating entity.

The liquidators are seeking 57 billion yuan ($8.48 billion) in damages from PwC International, PwC Hong Kong and PwC’s China practice, alleging negligence in their audit work for Evergrande. PwC International’s maximum potential liability is estimated at 38 billion yuan.

The ruling does not determine whether PwC is ultimately liable. Instead, Deputy High Court Judge Patrick Fung said there were sufficient issues requiring further examination and that the liquidators should be allowed to proceed to trial and obtain documents and other evidence.

“I take the view that not all the facts are known and, hence, it is crucial that there should be discovery of documents and interrogatories administered, which I believe will throw more light on the case,” Fung wrote in Wednesday’s judgment.

“In such circumstances, the Plaintiff should not be driven from the judgment seat without a trial,” he added.

The decision represents an important procedural victory for Evergrande’s liquidators because it keeps PwC International within the proceedings and allows them to pursue evidence concerning the relationship between the global PwC organization and its Hong Kong and China operations.

In 2024, Chinese authorities handed down an unprecedented six-month suspension and imposed a hefty RMB 441 million ($62 million) fine on PwC China, after revelations that its auditors turned a blind eye to widespread financial misreporting at Evergrande. According to the Ministry of Finance, PwC China and its Guangzhou branch, which oversaw Evergrande’s mainland subsidiary, Hengda Real Estate, not only failed to flag “major mistakes” in the audit between 2018 and 2020 but also participated in distorting financial records, which significantly inflated Evergrande’s profits and obscured the company’s spiraling debt.

PwC International had argued during a May hearing that it should not be a defendant because PwC Hong Kong and PwC China were not its subsidiaries and because PwC International had never communicated with Evergrande.

The court nevertheless found at this stage that PwC International owed Evergrande “a duty of care.” That finding does not establish negligence or determine the damages ultimately recoverable, but it means the claim cannot be dismissed before a full examination of the evidence.

The liquidators welcomed the ruling while stressing that the court had not yet ruled on the substance of their allegations.

They said they would continue investigating Evergrande’s affairs and pursuing recoveries for creditors.

PwC International said it disagreed with the decision.

“PwCIL is the coordinating entity within the PwC network and has never provided any services to Evergrande or had any relationship with the company,” a spokesperson said. “PwCIL is confident that the claims against it have no merit. We are reviewing the Court’s decision and evaluating our legal options.”

The case is part of the wider fallout from Evergrande’s collapse, one of the most consequential failures in China’s property sector. The developer defaulted on most of its roughly $300 billion in liabilities before the Hong Kong High Court ordered it into liquidation in 2024.

Edward Middleton and Tiffany Wong of Alvarez & Marsal were appointed as liquidators and have been pursuing assets and potential claims as they seek to recover money for creditors.

The scale of the damages claim against PwC is significant. If successful, it could become one of the largest accounting-related liability cases to emerge from China’s property crisis and could have implications beyond the individual dispute, particularly for how responsibility is allocated within global professional-services networks.

The case also puts renewed attention on the role of auditors in Evergrande’s years of rapid expansion and mounting financial liabilities. The liquidators are effectively seeking to establish whether audit failures contributed to losses suffered by creditors and, if so, whether the PwC entities involved should compensate them.

For PwC International, the central issue is different: whether a global coordinating entity can be held responsible for alleged conduct involving legally separate member firms operating in Hong Kong and mainland China.

That question could make the eventual proceedings significant for the structure of multinational professional-services networks, which commonly operate through separate local partnerships or entities linked through a global organization.

The court’s decision means those questions will now be examined through further evidence rather than being resolved at the preliminary stage.

The ruling comes amid another major development in the Evergrande saga. Last week, founder Hui Ka Yan, once regarded as Asia’s richest man, was sentenced to life in prison by a Chinese court, which also ordered the confiscation of his personal property.

Hui’s conviction and the continuing liquidation proceedings underline the extraordinary scale of Evergrande’s collapse. The company expanded rapidly during China’s property boom before its debt burden became unsustainable, leaving creditors facing substantial losses.

The PwC case adds another potential avenue for recovery. But the liquidators still face the much harder task of proving their allegations at trial and establishing the extent of any financial responsibility.

Huawei Technologies has signed a multi-year cross-licensing agreement with HP covering patents used in Wi-Fi technology, including the latest Wi-Fi 7 standard, in a deal that highlights the Chinese technology company’s growing role as a holder and licensor of essential wireless patents despite years of U.S. restrictions.

Under the agreement, HP will gain access to Huawei’s patents while Huawei will receive access to HP’s intellectual property. The companies did not disclose financial terms or specify the patents Huawei will license from HP.

HP sought to limit the significance of the agreement, describing it as a standard licensing arrangement rather than the beginning of a broader commercial relationship between the two companies.

“This is a standard-essential patent license covering Wi-Fi technology,” an HP spokesperson said. “It is not new, and does not represent a broader strategic or commercial relationship, partnership, or collaboration with Huawei.”

Standard-essential patents are technologies that manufacturers may need to use to ensure their products comply with an industry standard and remain interoperable with products made by other companies. Licensing such patents is common across the technology industry, including among manufacturers of computers, smartphones, printers and networking equipment.

The agreement nevertheless carries significance for Huawei because it demonstrates the value of its intellectual-property portfolio at a time when the company remains subject to extensive U.S. technology restrictions.

Washington has restricted Huawei’s access to certain U.S.-origin technologies since 2019, when the company was placed on a U.S. trade blacklist that generally requires suppliers to obtain government approval before providing it with certain technologies. Those restrictions have complicated Huawei’s access to advanced semiconductors and critical software. They do not, however, automatically prevent the company from licensing patents to international technology companies.

Huawei has increasingly sought to turn its intellectual property into a source of revenue, expanding its patent portfolio and licensing operations and reaching agreements or settlements with companies including Amazon.

The HP agreement also follows a legal dispute between the two companies.

Huawei sued HP at Europe’s Unified Patent Court in August 2025, alleging that the U.S. company had used one of its Wi-Fi 6 patents without authorization, according to intellectual-property publication IAM.

HP subsequently joined the Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 patent pool in November 2025, resolving legal actions brought against it by Huawei and Philips. The pool provides companies with access through a single licensing agreement to roughly 2,000 patents regarded as essential to Wi-Fi 6 products.

Huawei’s latest agreement with HP goes beyond that arrangement, covering a wider group of Huawei Wi-Fi patents, including technology associated with Wi-Fi 7.

The development is important to Huawei’s licensing strategy because Wi-Fi standards are embedded in a vast range of connected consumer and business products. A successful licensing business allows Huawei to monetize technology developed in areas where it may no longer be able to compete as freely as it once did in global hardware markets.

Huawei has previously said it is one of the leading holders of patents essential to implementing Wi-Fi 6. The company has set a licensing fee of 50 cents for each consumer device using its Wi-Fi 6 technology. Huawei said more than 1.6 billion consumer electronic devices, excluding mobile phones, had used its Wi-Fi-related inventions by the end of 2025.

That installed base gives Huawei a potentially significant source of recurring intellectual-property revenue as manufacturers continue adopting newer wireless standards.

The move also reveals an important distinction in the U.S.-China technology conflict. Washington’s restrictions have targeted Huawei’s access to strategic technologies such as advanced chips and software, but they have not eliminated Huawei’s ability to earn revenue from patents that form part of international technology standards. That makes intellectual property one of the areas where Huawei can continue participating in the global technology ecosystem even as geopolitical restrictions constrain other parts of its business.

Meanwhile, the agreement provides HP access to Huawei’s relevant patents and reduces the risk of further disputes over the use of standardized Wi-Fi technology in its products.

The deal, however, is relevant for the PC industry as wireless connectivity becomes important to computers and other connected devices. Wi-Fi 7 offers improvements in throughput, latency, and reliability over previous generations, increasing the importance of access to patents covering technologies incorporated into the standard.

HP remains one of the world’s largest PC manufacturers. Gartner data puts the Palo Alto, California-based company at a 21.3% global PC market share, behind Lenovo. The agreement therefore links two major technology companies through intellectual property even as broader U.S.-China technology relations remain constrained by trade and national-security restrictions.

The agreement does not indicate a broader strategic partnership between the companies, as HP made clear. But it does bolster Huawei’s position as a significant owner of technology essential to global wireless standards.

A business may start with a few screens and simple announcements, but its communication needs can expand quickly. More locations, frequent promotions, and different audiences require software that keeps screen management organized. The features behind the platform therefore matter as much as the displays themselves.

Retail stores, restaurants, offices, schools, and other organizations use screens for different purposes. A suitable platform should support those daily requirements without making routine updates complicated. The six features below can help businesses identify what to prioritize when comparing signage options.

1. Centralized Management

Managing displays individually can become inefficient once a business adds more screens or locations. Digital signage solutions with centralized management allow authorized staff to oversee connected displays through one management portal. Teams can update material remotely and maintain greater control over what appears across the network.

Screen Groups Help Direct Content to the Right Locations

Screen grouping adds another level of control for businesses with different audiences. A retailer could group displays by store, while a company could separate lobby screens from employee communication displays. Staff can then assign suitable material to the intended group without changing every screen separately.

2. Scheduling Tools

Promotions, menus, announcements, and event notices do not always need to appear throughout the entire day. Scheduling tools allow teams to decide when particular material starts and stops, which makes planning easier.

A restaurant could schedule breakfast and lunch menus for their respective service periods. Retail staff could prepare a holiday promotion before its launch date, while an office could arrange reminders for an upcoming company event. Scheduled publishing helps the screen match the organization’s actual calendar.

3. Media Support and Integrations

Businesses usually have information stored across several file types and applications. A capable platform should support common media formats and useful integrations so teams can bring those resources onto their screens.

Important capabilities may include:

• Images and videos for promotions, announcements, and visual messages
• PDFs and presentations for existing company materials
• Playlists that place several assets into an organized rotation
• Business dashboards that present metrics and operational data
• App integrations for calendars, weather, social feeds, and other information

Broad support gives organizations more options for creating displays suited to different communication goals.

4. Screen Zones

Some locations need to communicate more than one type of information at the same time. Screen zones divide a display into designated sections, allowing separate pieces of material to share the available space.

A workplace display, for example, could place an important announcement beside a calendar and business dashboard. Support for portrait and landscape orientation also helps teams adapt layouts to different screen positions. These layout features make digital signage solutions more practical for businesses that need to present several information sources clearly.

5. Multi-User Permissions

A growing screen network may involve marketing staff, administrators, local managers, and other contributors. Giving every person the same level of access may not suit the way those teams work. Multi-user permissions allow organizations to assign access according to individual responsibilities.

A central marketing department might manage company-wide promotions while branch managers handle material intended for their own locations. Defined permissions create a more structured workflow and give each contributor access to the areas relevant to their role.

6. Offline Playback

Internet connectivity may occasionally vary across business locations, but previously prepared material can remain important. Offline playback allows downloaded assets to continue playing on supported devices when an internet connection becomes unavailable.

Check How Content Behaves Without a Connection

Businesses should consider what happens to scheduled material when connectivity drops. A platform with offline capability can keep downloaded content available on the screen until the connection returns. This feature can be especially useful for organizations that depend on displays throughout their operating hours.

The right signage platform should solve practical communication needs rather than simply provide a long feature list. Businesses should consider how staff will control displays, schedule messages, organize access, present information, and maintain playback across their locations. A platform that fits those everyday requirements can support a well-organized screen network as communication needs expand.

Indian AI startup Runable has raised $21 million in a Series A round as it expands from AI-powered website and app creation into a more ambitious market: using autonomous agents to help small businesses find customers, run marketing campaigns and generate revenue.

The Bengaluru-based company said the funding round was co-led by Susquehanna Venture Capital and Nexus Venture Partners, with existing investors Together Fund and Array VC also participating. The all-equity financing values Runable at $65 million after the investment, according to co-founder and CEO Umesh Kumar.

Founded in 2025, Runable is entering a crowded AI market dominated by companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic and coding platforms including Cursor, Lovable and Replit. But rather than competing solely to build better websites, applications or software from natural-language prompts, Runable is betting that the next stage of AI adoption will be about what happens after a product has been built.

“In the end, a business doesn’t require Codex or Claude Code or anything. They require real outcomes,” Kumar told TechCrunch. “If I am paying an agency $10,000 to run my Google Ads, can someone come in and do it for me for a lower price? That’s where Runable comes in.”

In the AI-agent market, generative AI has dramatically reduced the technical barriers to creating software, allowing people with limited coding experience to build websites, applications, and digital products. As those capabilities become increasingly commoditized, the competitive frontier is moving toward agents that can execute entire business processes rather than simply generate content or code.

Runable is positioning itself around that opportunity.

Its AI agent can already create websites, applications, presentations, and other digital assets through natural-language instructions while managing elements such as deployment and analytics. The company is now adding tools intended to help businesses acquire customers, including advertising, social-media management, search-engine optimization and efforts to improve how businesses appear in AI chatbot results.

The longer-term proposition is considerably broader than an AI website builder. Kumar wants business owners to be able to tell Runable how many customers they want and have the agent determine the digital infrastructure, advertising and distribution required to pursue that target.

That would place Runable closer to an AI-powered digital agency than a conventional software-development platform.

The company’s origins were different. Kumar and co-founder Saksham Sarda initially built Runable as an AI infrastructure company focused on browser technology capable of scraping data at scale. But customers began using the browser-based agent for tasks such as creating presentations and websites, prompting the founders to shift toward a general-purpose AI agent.

The pivot appears to have generated rapid early adoption. Kumar said Runable reached a $2 million annualized revenue run rate within three weeks of beginning to accept payments in March. The startup now claims about 1.7 million registered users, with the United States, United Kingdom and Japan among its largest markets. Brazil is another market where it has users, although the company is concentrating increasingly on the first three countries.

Runable’s growth, however, comes with a significant economic challenge.

Kumar declined to disclose current revenue or the number of paying customers, but said users consumed more than 1 trillion tokens during the past 90 days, with paying customers accounting for roughly 60% to 70% of that usage.

The company is currently operating with negative gross margins because it subsidizes AI inference for customers. That makes the economics of its agent business dependent partly on the continuing decline in the cost of running AI models.

Kumar said Runable is using several models and developing some of its own technology, explaining that improving inference efficiency could eventually make the economics considerably more attractive.

“We are seeing this path where you can provide the same quality of inference at almost 10x less cost,” he said.

That cost curve could prove decisive. AI agents that autonomously perform multi-step tasks can consume substantially more computing resources than conventional software, particularly when they browse the web, generate content, analyze information, interact with external services and repeatedly call AI models.

The business model therefore depends on Runable being able to capture enough value from customers to cover the cost of the underlying intelligence and infrastructure.

There is another challenge: the largest AI companies are moving in the same direction.

OpenAI and Anthropic are increasingly developing agents capable of executing tasks rather than merely responding to prompts. Coding platforms such as Cursor, meanwhile, are also expanding beyond code generation into broader software-development workflows.

Runable’s response is to focus less on the underlying model and more on the outcome.

For a developer who wants to work directly with code and local files, Kumar acknowledged that products such as OpenAI’s Codex or Anthropic’s Claude Code may be better suited. Runable is instead targeting small-business owners who may have little interest in configuring AI models, analytics platforms, hosting systems, advertising accounts, and marketing tools.

That matters because the small-business market is large but fragmented, and many companies still rely on agencies or freelancers for digital marketing and customer acquisition.

However, the concern lies in an AI agent’s ability to reliably take responsibility for those outcomes rather than simply produce the assets needed to pursue them.

A test by TechCrunch illustrates the gap. When asked to build and deploy a website for a fictional coffee-subscription company and attract its first 100 visitors with a $25 advertising budget, Runable created the site and prepared an advertising campaign but stopped before launching it because the user needed to connect an advertising account.

That limitation exposes one of the biggest obstacles facing autonomous business agents: AI can generate the work, but real-world execution often requires access to external platforms, payment systems, customer accounts, and permissions.

Runable said it can currently run advertising without users connecting their own advertising accounts for ads on ChatGPT, through partnerships it declined to identify.

The company describes those partnerships as a “soft wedge” into a much larger opportunity.

Its closest competitors, according to Kumar, include general-purpose agents such as Manus and Genspark. The distinction Runable wants to establish is that these products are primarily designed to perform tasks, while Runable is attempting to connect those tasks directly to business growth.

That is a potentially important shift in the AI-agent race.

The first phase of generative AI was largely about creating information: text, images, code and presentations. The next phase is about taking actions. The more commercially valuable agents may ultimately be those that can connect creation with distribution, customer acquisition and revenue generation.

Runable is betting that small businesses will pay for that entire chain rather than for another tool that merely makes it easier to build a website.

Its $21 million funding round gives the company capital to pursue that bet. If it succeeds, the competitive advantage may not come from having the best AI model. It may come from owning the layer that turns capable models into customers, sales, and recurring revenue for businesses that do not have the time or expertise to manage the technology themselves.

Canada will impose retaliatory tariffs on about $20 billion of annual U.S. imports from Sept. 8, matching the latest U.S. duties dollar-for-dollar while unveiling a C$7.5 billion support package for businesses and workers affected by the escalating trade dispute.

The counter-tariffs will range from 15% to 50% and cover roughly 700 products imported from the United States, the Canadian government said Tuesday.

The measures come after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed new 50% tariffs on about $20 billion of Canadian imports on Saturday, following the collapse of trade talks between the two countries.

The latest exchange marks a significant deterioration in relations between two longtime economic allies and deepens uncertainty for companies operating across the world’s largest bilateral trading relationship.

“Our dollar-for-dollar, rate for rate counter-tariffs as well as a multi-billion dollar support package will protect workers, farmers, families, and businesses,” Canadian Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said.

Canada’s tariff schedule targets products according to their sensitivity to Canadian industries and the potential economic impact of the U.S. measures.

Steel, aluminum, furniture and clothing will face 50% tariffs, while cheese, appliances and some seafood will be subject to 25% duties. Electronics and tools will face 15% tariffs, a Canadian government official told reporters.

The measures will also cover prepared foods, perfumes and toiletries, plastics, lumber, wood pulp and paper, carpets and other clothing products. Industrial goods included in the tariff list range from iron and steel and aluminum to hand tools, machinery, electrical equipment, rail engines, motorcycles, furniture and gaming equipment, according to government documents.

Canada calculated its retaliatory tariffs using 2024 trade data. The targeted products represent nearly 4.5% of Canada’s imports from the United States. The U.S. measures, by comparison, affect roughly 5% of Canada’s exports to the United States. While relatively narrow in terms of overall trade, the tariffs could have disproportionate consequences for industries already under pressure.

Wood products are one area of concern, with Canadian kitchen cabinet manufacturers among the businesses potentially exposed to higher U.S. trade barriers.

The concentrated nature of the tariffs means the economic impact could extend well beyond the headline value of $20 billion. Companies facing higher duties may have to absorb some of the additional cost, raise prices, reduce production or reconsider investment and hiring.

Canada is seeking to cushion those effects through a C$7.5 billion package announced alongside the tariffs. The programme includes assistance for small and medium-sized businesses, financing intended to ease corporate cash-flow pressures and support for workers whose employment is threatened by the new trade barriers.

The Business Development Bank of Canada, the federal government’s business lender, will provide part of the financing. Affected companies will be able to access interest-free loans ranging from C$2.5 million to C$5 million.

Industry Minister Melanie Joly said companies would not have to begin repayments for 36 months, effectively taking the repayment period through the end of Trump’s current term. The assistance is intended to give businesses time to adjust their supply chains, find alternative markets and manage the financial shock from the tariffs.

Canada is also using the measures as a political tool.

Joly said the government had deliberately selected some products and industries in ways that could increase pressure on U.S. states ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

“We’re also targeting products that will target states in the U.S. and so we’re being wise and strategic to put political pressure,” she said.

The strategy represents a shift from simply responding to U.S. tariffs toward attempting to create political costs for American lawmakers and businesses in regions exposed to Canadian demand.

“We need to make sure that the competitors don’t have access to the Canadian market in a better way than their own… products,” Joly said.

The escalation comes after a confrontational series of trade measures between Washington and Ottawa.

Trump’s latest tariffs are relatively limited in terms of the share of total Canadian exports they affect, but their sector-specific impact could be significant. Canada’s dependence on the U.S. market means that even targeted restrictions can disrupt manufacturers and suppliers that have built their businesses around cross-border trade.

The Canadian response introduces a second layer of costs for U.S. exporters.

American companies selling the targeted goods into Canada will now face higher duties, potentially raising prices for Canadian consumers and businesses or forcing U.S. exporters to absorb some of the additional cost to preserve market share.

That creates the possibility of a broader economic spillover if the dispute continues.

The tariff exchange also threatens to complicate supply chains that have developed over decades of relatively open trade between the two economies. Many products cross the U.S.-Canada border multiple times before reaching consumers, meaning tariffs imposed at one stage can raise costs throughout the production chain.

The political rhetoric surrounding the dispute has also intensified.

Trump on Tuesday threatened to rename Lake Ontario, which borders both countries, “Lake America,” adding another provocative element to an already strained relationship.

The immediate priority for Canada is limiting the damage to industries exposed to U.S. tariffs while demonstrating that Washington cannot impose duties without facing a corresponding economic cost. For the United States, the latest measures risk increasing costs for exporters seeking access to the Canadian market while putting additional pressure on companies that rely on cross-border demand.

The larger economic concern is whether the new tariffs remain a temporary negotiating tactic or develop into a prolonged trade confrontation. If the measures remain in place, analysts say companies on both sides may begin making longer-term changes to sourcing, production and investment decisions. That could raise costs and reduce some of the efficiencies created by decades of integrated North American supply chains.

The C$7.5 billion Canadian support package may soften the immediate blow, but it does not remove the underlying uncertainty. The government’s interest-free loans provide companies with additional liquidity, while the delayed repayment schedule gives affected businesses time to adjust.