Trading in the shares of International Energy Insurance Plc (IEI) has officially resumed on the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX) after more than a month-long suspension, following the company’s compliance with regulatory requirements and the release of its 2024 audited financial statements.

The insurer disclosed this in a notice to the NGX on Monday, confirming that the exchange had lifted the trading suspension placed on its shares on September 1, 2025. The suspension had been imposed over delays in filing its audited accounts, which the company has now rectified.

“The lifting of the suspension marks a new chapter in our journey of recovery and growth. With this step, we are focused on rebuilding investor confidence and delivering long-term value for all stakeholders,” the company said in a statement.

IEI’s shares, which trade under the ticker INTENEGINS, returned to the market on October 2. Despite sliding over 10 percent month-to-date, the stock has seen renewed trading momentum, with more than seven million shares changing hands in the days following the resumption.

The development is one of several key milestones for the insurer, which has been working to restructure its balance sheet and restore investor trust after years of financial turbulence.

Daewoo Loan Settlement and Norrenberger Takeover

In what has been described as a major turning point, IEI also announced that it has completely exited its long-standing loan with Daewoo Securities, now known as Mirae Asset Securities (UK) Limited.

The loan, a JPY 1.85 billion zero-coupon bond originally issued in January 2008 and due for repayment in 2028, had weighed heavily on the company’s financial health for years. However, during its Annual General Meeting in Jigawa on April 10, 2025, shareholders approved a debt-transfer plan to Norrenberger Advisory Partners Limited (NAPL), which took over responsibility for settling the bond.

By August 2025, IEI confirmed that NAPL had fully repaid the Daewoo bond—an event that capped years of restructuring and effectively cleared one of the company’s most significant liabilities.

The repayment followed Norrenberger’s acquisition of a 50.61 percent controlling stake in IEI in 2021 through a mandatory takeover bid involving 649.8 million shares. That acquisition, which transferred management control to the investment firm, was aimed at stabilizing IEI’s operations and positioning it for growth after a prolonged period of losses.

Financial Performance: Signs of Stability Amid Lower Earnings

While the company’s recent results show mixed performance, there are signs of gradual recovery. For the half-year ended June 30, 2025, IEI reported a pre-tax profit of N679.1 million, down from N1.04 billion recorded in the same period of 2024.

Insurance revenue declined to N2.3 billion, compared to N3 billion a year earlier. However, insurance service expenses fell to N866 million from N1.2 billion, while insurance service results stood at N1.2 billion, a decline from N1.6 billion in 2024.

Net investment income also dropped by 8.84 percent to N237.2 million, bringing the combined net insurance and investment income to N1.49 billion—a 22.7 percent year-on-year decline.

Despite lower earnings, the company’s balance sheet strengthened modestly. Total assets rose to N17 billion from N16.8 billion in 2024, while total liabilities decreased slightly to N24.06 billion from N24.4 billion in the prior year.

These figures, analysts say, suggest the company is gradually stabilizing following years of financial distress and restructuring. The lifting of the trading suspension, coupled with the complete repayment of the Daewoo bond, could signal a new phase for the insurer—one centered on capital rebuilding, governance strengthening, and renewed investor engagement.

As IEI turns the page on a turbulent chapter, its immediate focus appears to be on consolidating the gains from the Norrenberger-led restructuring while pursuing fresh business growth in Nigeria’s competitive insurance industry.

Some analysts believe that with improved compliance, cleaner balance sheets, and clearer governance, the company may now be in a position to restore market confidence and reposition itself as a key mid-tier player in Nigeria’s insurance sector.

U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm has gone on trial in London to defend itself against a £480 million ($646.8 million) class-action lawsuit accusing it of abusing its dominant market position to overcharge smartphone makers Apple and Samsung, ultimately inflating the cost of millions of devices sold to consumers.

The case, brought by Which?, one of Britain’s leading consumer advocacy groups, alleges that Qualcomm’s licensing practices forced smartphone manufacturers to pay inflated royalties — even for devices that did not use its chips — under what the group described as a “no license, no chips” policy.

Lawyers representing Which? told the Competition Appeal Tribunal that Qualcomm’s licensing terms effectively functioned as an “industry-wide private tax” that enriched the chipmaker while driving up retail prices for consumers. They estimate that around 29 million Britons who purchased iPhones or Samsung Galaxy devices since 2015 may be entitled to compensation if the case succeeds.

The Core of the Dispute

At the heart of the case is Qualcomm’s licensing model for its standard essential patents (SEPs) — intellectual property that covers technology crucial to mobile communications standards, such as 4G and 5G. The company requires device manufacturers to obtain licenses for these patents before they can buy Qualcomm chipsets.

Which? argues that this policy gives Qualcomm excessive leverage over manufacturers, allowing it to collect royalties even when its chips are not used in a device. Lawyers for the group said this practice distorted competition and violated British and European competition laws.

“This operates as an industry-wide private tax which ensures higher profits for Qualcomm and inflates the cost of devices,” Which?’s legal team stated in documents filed with the tribunal ahead of the five-week trial.

Qualcomm’s legal team has rejected the accusations, calling them a mischaracterisation of the company’s long-standing licensing approach. The firm insists that its patent portfolio is essential to the functioning of global mobile standards and that it is legally entitled to collect royalties from any manufacturer that implements its patented technologies.

The company also pushed back against the notion that it holds unfair bargaining power, pointing out that Apple and Samsung are industry giants with considerable influence and the capacity to negotiate competitive licensing terms.

“Apple and Samsung can and do exert enormous buyer power,” Qualcomm’s lawyers said, arguing that the claims of abuse overlook the complex commercial dynamics of the smartphone industry.

The Legal Backdrop

The case before the London tribunal will first determine whether Qualcomm is liable to the claimant class. If Which? prevails, a second trial will then decide the level of damages to be awarded to affected consumers.

This is not the first time Qualcomm has faced scrutiny over its licensing practices. The company has been the target of multiple antitrust investigations and lawsuits around the world, including in the United States, South Korea, and the European Union.

A similar consumer lawsuit in California, which challenged Qualcomm’s exclusive-dealing and patent licensing agreements with Apple and other manufacturers, was dismissed in 2023. However, European regulators have previously fined the company for anti-competitive conduct, including a €997 million penalty in 2018 for payments made to Apple to exclusively use its chips in iPhones — though that decision was later annulled on appeal.

The London trial underscores the growing global debate over how much control technology patent holders should have over downstream industries, particularly when their technologies become integral to global standards.

Consumer rights advocates argue that companies like Qualcomm use their patent dominance to extract unfair royalties, while the chipmaker maintains that its licensing model is vital to funding research and development in wireless innovation.

If the court rules against Qualcomm, it could open the door to similar consumer actions in other jurisdictions and force major revisions to the way patent royalties are structured in the mobile industry.