Professional services giant Deloitte has announced a sweeping new enterprise deal with Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, in what the firm called a “landmark partnership” to deepen its artificial intelligence capabilities across its global operations.

Yet, the timing of the announcement has stirred attention — and irony — as it coincided with revelations that Deloitte would refund the Australian government for submitting a report tainted by AI-generated inaccuracies.

According to the Financial Times, the Australian Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said Deloitte would have to refund the final installment of its A$439,000 (about $283,000) contract after a review revealed the report it delivered earlier this year contained multiple factual errors and citations to non-existent academic papers. A corrected version was quietly uploaded to the department’s website last week.

The review, which had been billed as an “independent assurance report,” had been prepared for the government to assess policy effectiveness, but ended up being undermined by reliance on AI tools that produced fabricated information.

The Australian Financial Review, which first reported on the errors in August, noted that the incident prompted internal questions within Deloitte about the use of generative AI in research and advisory services. The consulting firm has since promised to tighten its internal review processes for AI-assisted work.

While that story was unfolding, Deloitte was simultaneously unveiling its AI expansion with Anthropic, announcing that Claude, Anthropic’s flagship chatbot, would soon be rolled out to the firm’s nearly 500,000 employees worldwide. The two companies first partnered in 2023, but the new deal — described by Anthropic as a “strategic alliance” — significantly scales up the collaboration.

Under the agreement, Deloitte and Anthropic plan to co-develop compliance-oriented AI products designed for highly regulated industries such as finance, healthcare, and public services. Deloitte also intends to deploy “AI personas” — tailored versions of Claude — to support various internal departments, including accountants, auditors, and software developers.

“Deloitte is making this significant investment in Anthropic’s AI platform because our approach to responsible AI is very aligned,” said Ranjit Bawa, Deloitte’s global technology and ecosystems and alliances leader, in a company blog post. “Together we can reshape how enterprises operate over the next decade. Claude continues to be a leading choice for many clients and our own AI transformation.”

The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Anthropic described it as the largest enterprise deployment of Claude to date, a sign that major consulting firms are now racing to embed generative AI tools at the core of their service delivery models.

Still, the juxtaposition of the two announcements — Deloitte expanding its AI footprint while refunding a government client for AI-generated misinformation — has raised uncomfortable questions about corporate responsibility in deploying generative AI.

In recent months, several organizations have faced similar missteps as generative AI tools have been caught fabricating data or references. In May, the Chicago Sun-Times admitted that part of its annual summer reading list was generated by AI and included nonexistent book titles. Internal documents from Amazon also revealed that the company’s AI productivity tool, Q Business, had struggled with accuracy and reliability in its first year of rollout.

Even Anthropic, Deloitte’s new partner, has not been immune. Earlier this year, its legal team apologized after Claude fabricated a legal citation used in a court filing related to a dispute with music publishers. The company later said the incident highlighted the importance of “human oversight” when using generative models in high-stakes contexts.

However, the controversy illustrates the central paradox confronting the consulting world, where firms are racing to capitalize on the AI boom to boost efficiency and revenue, yet they are simultaneously struggling to control the very technology they are selling as transformative. The firm’s alliance with Anthropic could help shape the next era of AI-driven consulting, but it also serves as a cautionary tale about the growing pains of automation at scale.

At its core, the saga captures the uneasy intersection of ambition and accountability in the generative AI revolution — where companies eager to lead may find themselves humbled by the same technology they seek to master.

The global financial landscape is quietly reorganizing itself. In the last decade, we saw fintechs nibble at the edges of traditional banking. But today, a more seismic shift is underway—U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins. According to a new report by Standard Chartered, as much as $1 trillion could exit emerging market banks and move into stablecoins within the next three years.

The reason is simple: people no longer trust the promise of “return on capital” when “return of capital” has become the supreme pursuit. In countries like Nigeria where currency depreciation is a recurring virus, savers now seek stability, not yield. They prefer a dollar stablecoin wallet to a naira savings account—because what is the essence of a 10% interest rate when the currency itself has lost 40% of its value?

The global financial landscape is on the brink of a major transformation as U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins continue their meteoric rise, challenging the dominance of traditional banking systems.

According to a new report by Standard Chartered, it warns that the rapid adoption of stablecoins, bolstered by supportive U.S. crypto policies, could drain up to $1 trillion in deposits away from emerging market banks within the next three years.

“We see the potential for $1 trillion to leave emerging market banks and move into stablecoins in the next three years or so,” the bank stated in its analysis released on Monday.

This reality poses existential questions for African banking. Young Nigerians are not just saving in stablecoins—they are warehousing their future in them. The implication is profound: bank deposits will deteriorate, local loanable funds will shrink, and balance sheets will weaken. As deposits fall, the capacity of banks to lend to businesses declines, tightening liquidity across the economy.

In simple terms, as stablecoins rise, naira-denominated financial intermediation falls. Yet, this is not driven by rebellion but by rationality; it is the invisible hand of self-preservation in a turbulent monetary ecosystem. And behind the curtain, the United States silently wins—because every dollar-backed stablecoin is another vote for its currency’s global supremacy.

In this transition, we are witnessing the most sophisticated form of dollarization in history. No longer does one need to physically hold greenbacks; all it takes is a blockchain wallet. While emerging economies fight inflation and instability, the U.S. dollar—through stablecoins—enters every smartphone, every crypto exchange, and every youth’s savings app. This is not just capital flight; it is trust migration.

The architecture of money is being redesigned, and the winners are those who issue the stablecoins. Every USDT or USDC held in Lagos, Nairobi, or Johannesburg strengthens the dollar’s gravitational pull while weakening local monetary sovereignty.

Africa must therefore act. The time for central banks to merely regulate is gone; now, they must innovate. Nigeria’s banks and regulators must not dismiss this wave as another crypto fad. They must create naira-backed digital assets, integrate programmable money into their systems, and redesign incentives that make banking competitive in the age of decentralization.

Because if this trend continues, Africa’s banking system may survive—but its economic soul will not. In this new world, where young people choose return of capital over return on capital, the nation that understands trust will become the nation that controls wealth. And today, that nation is the United States—powered by code, trust, and stablecoins.

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.