DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 192

FedEx Sues US Government Seeking Refunds of Tariff Payments 

0

FedEx has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government seeking a full refund of tariffs it paid under emergency powers invoked by President Donald Trump.

FedEx sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade. The suit targets U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its commissioner, Rodney Scott, along with the U.S. government. FedEx is seeking reimbursement for all duties paid under tariffs imposed via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

This action follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on February 20, 2026 (last Friday), in a 6-3 decision, which found that President Trump exceeded his authority by using IEEPA to impose these broad tariffs unilaterally.

The Court ruled that such tariffs require congressional approval, deeming them illegal. FedEx, acting as an importer of record for affected goods, stated it had “suffered injury” from these payments and is requesting a “full refund” of all IEEPA duties paid, potentially including interest.

The company did not disclose a specific dollar amount in the complaint, but earlier estimates suggested FedEx could face around a $1 billion hit in 2026 from these tariffs plus related changes like ending de minimis exemptions for small packages under $800.

This appears to be the first major U.S. company to file such a suit following the Supreme Court decision. Analysts expect many other importers and businesses to follow, as over $175 billion in collected tariff revenue could be subject to potential refunds.

FedEx described the filing as a step to protect its rights, noting that no formal refund process has yet been established by regulators or courts. This development stems from Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs which aimed at various imports but were challenged on constitutional grounds regarding executive overreach in trade policy.

The case could set precedents for widespread refund claims. UPS, as a direct competitor to FedEx in global shipping and logistics, faced comparable exposure to the IEEPA tariffs. These duties applied to imported goods, and carriers like UPS often acted as the importer of record or handled customs clearance, bearing or passing on costs through fees, brokerage charges, or higher shipping rates.

UPS likely incurred substantial tariff-related expenses in 2025–2026, though no specific figure has been publicly disclosed for UPS similar to FedEx’s estimated ~$1 billion exposure before the ruling. With the tariffs now deemed illegal, UPS stands to potentially recover payments made, plus interest, if a refund process materializes.

UPS has not yet filed a lawsuit seeking refunds unlike FedEx’s February 23 filing in the U.S. Court of International Trade. However, UPS has publicly acknowledged the ruling: On February 20, it noted the Supreme Court’s decision and stated it would follow U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) guidance.

CBP confirmed it would stop collecting IEEPA tariffs effective February 24, 2026. UPS indicated it will cease such collections accordingly and comply with any future directives on refunds or new tariffs.

Analysts expect UPS to join the wave of refund claims, as thousands of importers including major firms are positioned to seek relief. The lack of an established refund mechanism yet creates uncertainty, but UPS’s scale positions it well for potential recovery if courts or CBP establish procedures.

In the interim, Trump imposed a new temporary 10–15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which could offset some relief. Amazon, a massive importer and e-commerce platform reliant on overseas suppliers especially from China and other trading partners, was heavily affected by the tariffs.

They disrupted supply chains, raised costs for third-party sellers, and contributed to price increases for consumers on many goods. Amazon’s stock rose notably around 2–3% immediately after the February 20 ruling, alongside other e-commerce players like Etsy and Wayfair. This reflected investor optimism that ending the IEEPA tariffs would ease cost pressures, improve margins, and reduce the need for price hikes or supply chain shifts.

As a major importer, Amazon could be eligible for significant refunds on duties paid potentially in the hundreds of millions or more, though no exact amount is public. However, Amazon has not filed a lawsuit for tariff refunds. Many companies; Costco, which sued pre-ruling preserved rights through prior actions, and the ruling opens the door broadly.

Amazon may pursue claims administratively via CBP or through court if needed, but no announcements have emerged yet. The tariffs exacerbated challenges for Amazon’s global sourcing and Prime delivery ecosystem. Ending them could lower input costs, benefit sellers, and stabilize pricing.

However, Trump’s rapid imposition of replacement tariffs under other authorities introduces ongoing uncertainty. Consumers who faced higher prices are unlikely to receive direct refunds—refunds would primarily go to importers like Amazon, with no obligation to pass savings onward.

FedEx’s lawsuit appears to be the first major post-ruling filing, potentially paving the way for others like UPS and Amazon. Over $175 billion in collected IEEPA revenue is now at risk of refunds, but the process remains unclear and could involve prolonged litigation in the Court of International Trade.

Businesses may use any recovered funds to offset costs rather than lower prices immediately. The situation evolves quickly, with new tariffs already in play and more legal challenges expected.

IBM and Related Stocks Plummeted on Anthropic-COBOL Blog Posts

0

IBM’s stock experienced a sharp decline on February 23, 2026 with effects carrying into the 24th, following an announcement from Anthropic about enhancements to its Claude AI model—specifically, capabilities in Claude Code for modernizing legacy COBOL systems.

The drop was significant: IBM shares fell around 13% not exactly 10%, though intraday lows hit near that level before closing lower, marking its worst single-day percentage decline since October 2000. This erased roughly $31 billion in market capitalization in a single session. The stock closed around $223, down from prior levels near $257, and February has seen a broader ~27% monthly slide so far.

What Triggered It?

Anthropic published a blog post on February 23, 2026, titled something along the lines of “How AI helps break the cost barrier to COBOL modernization.” In it, they highlighted how tools like Claude Code can automate key phases of COBOL modernization—such as: Mapping dependencies across massive codebases.

Documenting workflows. Identifying risks and issues that traditionally take human consultants months or years. They claimed this shifts modernization timelines from years to quarters, reducing the need for large consulting teams.

COBOL; developed in the late 1950s still powers critical systems in banking ~95% of U.S. ATM transactions, airlines, insurance, governments, and more—most of which run on IBM mainframes.

IBM has long profited from maintaining these systems, licensing, hardware refreshes, and high-margin consulting and services for modernization projects that are notoriously expensive and complex due to outdated code and scarce expertise.

Investors interpreted this as a direct threat to IBM’s legacy revenue streams, sparking panic selling. Related stocks like Accenture and Cognizant also dropped around 6-7%. IBM executives including Rob Thomas pushed back quickly via blog posts and statements, arguing: Simply translating or analyzing COBOL code isn’t true modernization.

Mainframe value lies in platform architecture, security, uptime, compliance, and reliability—not just the language. New AI tools emerge weekly, but complex enterprise migrations still require IBM’s expertise and hybrid approaches.

IBM has its own AI tools; watsonx Code Assistant for Z for COBOL-to-modern-language translation. Some analysts called the sell-off an overreaction, noting mainframes’ entrenched role in mission-critical environments where reliability trumps speed.

Unlike IBM, Accenture did not issue a direct rebuttal on this specific announcement. The firm has aggressively leaned into AI itself: it has trained over 550,000 employees on generative AI tools, formed deep partnerships with OpenAI and others, and positions itself as the “bridge” helping clients adopt AI safely and at scale.

Executives have repeatedly said AI will augment rather than replace their services, allowing faster delivery and new offerings. Many analysts called the move an overreaction, noting that true modernization still needs human expertise for strategy, integration, testing, compliance, and change management—areas where Accenture’s domain knowledge remains hard to replicate quickly.

Early Feb 24 pre-market trading showed a modest rebound ~0.5% around $202, suggesting some dip-buying. This continues a clear pattern: every major Anthropic Claude Code-related announcement in recent weeks has triggered sector-wide drops in legacy tech and services stocks.

In short, the COBOL news amplified existing investor anxiety about AI commoditizing traditional consulting work, but Accenture’s scale, client relationships, and AI-first pivot give it tools to adapt—much like the broader industry. The stock remains volatile as the market reprices the speed of AI disruption.

This event fits a broader pattern of AI announcements from Anthropic (Claude) pressuring legacy tech and services sectors—similar drops hit cybersecurity stocks after prior Claude features, and Indian IT firms have faced pressure from AI automation fears. It’s a stark reminder of how quickly AI can reprice established business models, even if full disruption takes time.

Central Bank of Nigeria Cuts Interest Rate to 26.5% as Disinflation Continues

0

The Central Bank of Nigeria has reduced the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) by 50 basis points to 26.5 percent from 27 percent, marking its first easing move after an extended tightening cycle.

The decision was taken at the 304th meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) in Abuja, with Governor Olayemi Cardoso announcing the outcome. Eleven members were in attendance.

The rate cut comes against a backdrop of sustained moderation in inflation. Headline inflation declined for the eleventh consecutive month to 15.1 percent in January 2026, down sharply from 34.6 percent in November 2024 — a 19.5 percentage-point drop in fourteen months. By conventional monetary policy standards, such a disinflation trajectory creates room for a recalibration of interest rates.

Although the benchmark rate was lowered, the MPC retained other key parameters, underscoring a measured approach to easing:

The Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) was left unchanged at 45.0 percent for commercial banks and 16.0 percent for merchant banks. The Liquidity Ratio remains at 30.0 per cent. The Standing Facilities Corridor was fixed at +50/-450 basis points around the MPR.

By maintaining tight liquidity conditions through a high CRR, the CBN is signaling that while inflation is easing, risks have not fully dissipated. The CRR remains one of the highest globally, effectively sterilizing a significant portion of bank deposits and limiting the volume of lendable funds in the system.

This balancing act reflects the central bank’s attempt to anchor inflation expectations while cautiously supporting growth. The new MPR of 26.5 percent is the lowest since May 2024, when it stood at 26.25 percent, but policy remains restrictive in real terms given prevailing macroeconomic uncertainties.

Disinflation and Credibility Questions

Nigeria’s inflation descent has been unusually steep. The decline from 34.6 percent to 15.1 percent within just over a year has prompted debate in some quarters about the underlying drivers and statistical base effects associated with rebasing and food price normalization.

The disinflation narrative strengthens the case for easing, yet it also raises questions about sustainability. If price moderation has been driven partly by exchange-rate stabilization, improved FX liquidity, and base effects rather than structural productivity gains, inflation could reaccelerate under renewed fiscal or external pressures.

Ahead of the MPC meeting, analysts were split between a hold and a cut.

Asimiyu Damilare, Head of Research at Afrinvest West Africa, argued that recent macroeconomic developments had strengthened the case for easing. In contrast, the Managing Director of Arthur Steven Asset Management Limited suggested it might be premature to expect a significant move given the limited year-to-date data.

The MPC’s decision represents a middle path: a modest 50-basis-point reduction rather than a more aggressive unwind of prior tightening.

At its 303rd meeting, the committee held the MPR at 27 percent, reinforcing its inflation-fighting stance. The latest move, therefore, marks a pivot in tone, even if not yet a wholesale shift in policy posture. But many analysts had expected a significant basis point reduction that would be commensurate with the decline in the inflation rate.

Will Borrowers Feel Relief?

The more fundamental question is whether the rate cut will materially lower borrowing costs in the real economy.

The Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE) welcomed the cut but warned that monetary transmission remains weak. According to the think tank, lending rates to businesses remain elevated due to structural constraints, including the high CRR, elevated deposit costs, macroeconomic risk premiums, government borrowing pressures, and high banking system operating costs.

In effect, the MPR functions as a signaling rate, but actual credit pricing is shaped by broader structural factors. When the CRR locks up 45 percent of commercial bank deposits, liquidity conditions remain tight regardless of marginal policy rate adjustments.

The CPPE notes that crowding-out effects from government domestic borrowing further complicate transmission. If banks can earn relatively attractive returns on sovereign instruments with minimal credit risk, incentives to expand private-sector lending weaken.

It added that unless complementary reforms address these rigidities, manufacturers, SMEs, and agricultural producers may see little relief from the 50-basis-point adjustment.

The rate cut also has implications for exchange-rate management and capital flows. Nigeria has relied heavily on tight monetary conditions to support the naira and attract portfolio inflows. Easing too quickly could reduce carry trade attractiveness and introduce volatility into the FX market.

However, if disinflation remains entrenched, real yields may stay sufficiently positive to retain foreign investor interest even with a slightly lower benchmark rate.

For domestic growth, the cut may signal the beginning of a gradual policy normalization cycle. Nigeria’s economy has been operating under historically tight financial conditions, with credit expansion constrained and corporate financing costs elevated. A sustained easing trajectory could improve investment sentiment, provided macro stability holds.

A Gradual Pivot

The MPC’s decision reflects a cautious pivot rather than an abrupt turn. Inflation has moderated significantly, justifying a policy response. Yet by retaining other tightening tools, the CBN is keeping liquidity conditions restrictive.

The CPPE notes that the effectiveness of this easing phase will depend less on the headline rate cut and more on structural reforms that improve monetary transmission, deepen credit markets, and reduce fiscal crowding-out.

The tightening cycle has peaked, but the path toward a meaningfully accommodative stance remains measured and conditional on continued macroeconomic stability.

Africa’s Equity Funding Growth Outpaces Global Peers in 2025 – Report

0
Fund, money cash dollar

In 2025, Africa distinguished itself as one of the fastest-growing equity funding regions globally, delivering stronger year-on-year growth than several major markets despite attracting only a small fraction of worldwide capital.

According to report by Africa: The Big Deal, the continent’s startup ecosystem saw a notable rise in equity funding in 2025, with total capital inflows increasing by 24% year-on-year. At first glance, this performance may appear modest when placed beside the global funding rebound of 46%.

However, the global benchmark is heavily skewed by exceptional growth in the United States, where equity funding surged 66% and accounted for roughly 70% of worldwide capital deployed. Because global figures are disproportionately driven by U.S. mega-rounds, they tend to overstate the strength of funding trends across most other regions. When isolating the rest of the world, equity funding expanded by approximately 15% year-on-year in 2025.

In 2025, Africa’s startup and investment ecosystem began showing clear signs of recovery and maturation, driven by a mix of equity deals, venture debt, and evolving investor confidence. After a period of slower activity in 2023–2024, the continent’s capital markets rebounded, reflecting both growth in deal sizes and a broader distribution of funding across regions and sectors.

Africa’s financial Equity landscape experienced a significant transformation in January 2025, with a notable surge in equity funding attracting investors from across the globe. A staggering 90% of the total funding in January came from Equity investments, amounting to $262 million, which is a 4.4x increase from January 2024.

Within that broader context, Africa’s overall 24% growth represents a comparatively strong performance rather than a lagging one. Indeed, the continent outpaced several major markets. Equity funding growth in Europe reached 18%, while Latin America recorded 17%. Growth in China stood at 19%, and Southeast Asia also posted 18%. Meanwhile, India experienced a near-flat performance, expanding by only 1% year-on-year.

Despite this strong relative growth, Africa remains significantly underrepresented in absolute funding volumes. The continent attracted approximately $2.2 billion out of an estimated $470 billion in global equity funding in 2025, representing just 0.4% of worldwide capital.

This underrepresentation becomes more pronounced when Africa’s figures are compared with those of individual markets and cities. In 2025, startups across the continent collectively raised roughly the same amount of equity capital as those in Sweden. Africa’s total also aligns closely with a single urban ecosystem, such as Toronto.

Funding in Brazil was slightly higher, while Saudi Arabia and Raleigh trailed only marginally behind. In India, funding directed solely into the fintech sector matched Africa’s entire continent-wide equity total.

Africa’s 2025 funding trajectory signals strengthening investor confidence, improved capital efficiency, and growing maturity across key startup ecosystems.

Several structural factors could shape the continent’s funding landscape in the coming years:

1. Continued Relative Growth Potential

With a smaller funding base, Africa retains significant headroom for expansion. Even moderate capital inflows can translate into strong growth rates, positioning the continent as a high-momentum region among emerging markets.

2. Rising Sector Concentration

Fintech, climate technology, logistics, and digital infrastructure are expected to attract a larger share of investment, mirroring global capital allocation patterns but with localized innovation models.

3. Currency Stability and Macroeconomic Reforms

Improved macroeconomic management across major African markets could reduce investor risk perceptions, encouraging larger ticket sizes and longer investment horizons.

4. Global Capital Diversification

As investors seek growth opportunities beyond saturated markets, Africa’s demographic expansion, digital adoption, and financial inclusion gaps present compelling long-term investment themes.

Outlook

While absolute funding volumes remain modest compared with global leaders, Africa’s 2025 performance demonstrates that the continent is not lagging behind global trends when measured against comparable regions. Instead, it is steadily strengthening its position as a competitive and increasingly attractive destination for venture capital.

Japan Seeks Clarity on U.S. Tariff Shift as Trade Deal Faces New Test Ahead of Takaichi Visit

0

Japan’s strategy is to lock in the 15% ceiling agreed last year and prevent Trump’s new across-the-board tariff from being layered on top, a risk that could directly hit autos and unsettle corporate investment plans.


Japan has formally asked the United States to ensure that its treatment under Washington’s new tariff regime remains at least as favorable as terms secured in last year’s bilateral trade pact, underscoring Tokyo’s effort to preserve stability as Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi prepares for a high-stakes visit to Washington next month.

The request follows President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a temporary 15% duty on imports from all countries after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In response, Trump invoked a separate statute that allows duties of up to 15%, and warned that countries backing away from trade agreements could face higher tariffs under alternative trade laws.

Japan’s trade minister Ryosei Akazawa said he and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed during a call on Monday that both governments would implement last year’s trade agreement “in good faith and without delay,” according to Japan’s trade ministry.

However, Akazawa acknowledged that some Japanese exports currently benefiting from tariff rates below 15% could face higher effective duties if the new across-the-board tariff is stacked on top of existing measures. A trade ministry official said the exposure applies in theory to goods enjoying tariffs below 15% under most-favored-nation treatment.

Tokyo’s position is narrowly framed: it is not seeking to reopen the agreement but wants assurance that the 15% rate agreed last July will function as a ceiling, not a floor.

Autos at the center of risk

The July agreement capped tariffs on Japanese autos and other goods at 15%, while Japan committed to a $550 billion package of U.S.-bound loans and investment. For Japan, autos are the critical variable. The sector accounts for a substantial share of exports to the United States and supports extensive domestic supply chains.

If the new 15% global tariff were layered over existing reduced rates, Japanese automakers could face higher-than-anticipated effective duties, compressing margins and potentially altering production allocation decisions between Japan, the United States, and third markets.

Japanese government sources said Tokyo will not seek to renegotiate the pact, partly out of concern that doing so could prompt the administration to consider sector-specific tariffs that are unaffected by the Supreme Court’s ruling, particularly in the auto industry.

The tariff shift introduces uncertainty into corporate investment planning on both sides of the Pacific. Yoshinobu Tsutsui, head of Keidanren, Japan’s largest business lobby, described the Supreme Court ruling as evidence that U.S. institutional checks and balances remain active and positive for the broader economy. At the same time, he warned that Trump’s new tariffs increase risks surrounding long-term capital expenditures.

Investment decisions in autos, semiconductors, energy, and advanced materials often hinge on stable tariff expectations over multi-year horizons. Even if the nominal rate remains at 15%, ambiguity over stacking or future legal shifts could delay board-level approvals for factory expansions or cross-border joint ventures.

Macroeconomic stakes

The broader macroeconomic implications are measurable. Takahide Kiuchi of Nomura Research Institute estimates that if the United States does not replace the invalidated IEEPA-based tariffs with permanent duties, Japan’s real GDP could be roughly 0.375% higher annually than under a sustained higher-tariff scenario.

That projection matters in an economy where growth is structurally constrained by demographics and modest domestic consumption. External demand, particularly from the United States, remains a key pillar. Even incremental changes in tariff treatment can ripple through export volumes, corporate profits, and wage growth.

The trade relationship now extends beyond tariff schedules. Last week, Tokyo and Washington unveiled three U.S. projects — valued at $36 billion — to be financed by Japan, including an oil export facility, an industrial diamonds plant, and a gas-fired power plant.

Akazawa described the broader tariffs-and-investment framework as a “win-win deal,” citing shared economic security concerns such as reliance on Chinese rare earths. By financing U.S. energy and industrial capacity, Japan is embedding itself more deeply in American supply chains while supporting diversification away from China.

This dimension adds geopolitical weight to the tariff discussion. The bilateral economic relationship increasingly intersects with supply-chain resilience, critical minerals access, and Indo-Pacific security cooperation.

Diplomatic caution ahead of March summit

With Takaichi’s Washington visit scheduled for late March, Japanese officials are emphasizing continuity. The meeting is viewed in Tokyo as important not only for trade but also for security coordination amid regional tensions and China’s export controls on strategic materials.

By refraining from public criticism of the Supreme Court ruling or Trump’s subsequent tariff move, and instead requesting equivalent treatment under the existing pact, Japan is signaling a preference for quiet diplomacy.

The immediate operational question is whether the 15% global tariff will be applied in a way that preserves the July agreement’s intended protections. The longer-term structural issue is whether U.S. trade policy will remain predictable enough for companies to plan capital deployment across borders.