The recent £35 billion takeover of Worldpay by US company FIS has boosted the share value of other European payments technology companies including Worldline, Ingenico and Wirecard.

Worldpay

Worldpay, formerly known as Streamline, was set up as a subsidiary of NatWest bank back in 1989.  It was then bought by RBS in 2002 and re-christened ‘RBS Worldpay’.  Unfortunately for RBS, EU state aid rules meant that Worldpay had to be sold for £2 billion back in 2010 to Advent International and Bain Capital, although RBS Group still retained a 20% stake in the newly independent business.

Worldpay was able to become a big player in payment processing after several moves including buying UK credit and debit processing company Cardsave, launching a mobile card processing terminal which connects to smartphones (Worldpay Zinc), and acquiring SecureNet Payment Systems from Sterling Partners.

Worldpay was listed on the London Stock Exchange until 16 January 2018 after which it was acquired by Vantiv to form Worldpay, Inc.

Worldpay processes 40+ billion payments per year across 146 countries, in 126 currencies.

Largest Ever Deal

The £35 billion takeover of Worldpay by US-based FIS is the largest ever deal in the electronic payments industry and has created a consolidated company with combined revenues of over $12 billion.

Shares Boost

Following the announcement of the takeover, not only were shares in Worldpay up by 13% at one point, but the deal prompted a boost in the value of other payment technology companies. For example, Worldline share value was up 3.1%, and software company Atos, which owns half of Worldline was up 1.2%. The share values of Ingenico (based in France) and Wirecard (based in Germany) also received boosts with the takeover news.

FIS Says…

FIS chairman and chief executive Gary Norcross said that the two companies would “combine forces to offer a customer-driven combination of scale, global presence and the industry’s broadest range of global financial solutions”.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Market analysts have noted that this acquisition is the latest move in consolidation in the financial software and payments technology sectors where key existing companies are trying to increase their scale in order to compete with new entrants to a market where scale appears to be a necessary requirement to win at payments processing. The deal should also provide new business opportunities for both FIS and Worldpay.

Some commentators have noted the obvious compatibility of the two companies, and the hope is that deal may mean that businesses will have access to a wider portfolio of services that Worldpay can now provide.

Microsoft has announced the launch of its new “Office” app for Windows 10 which is an update to the former My Office app, will come preinstalled on Windows 10 machines and will provide access to an online version of Office for those who don’t have a subscription for Office 365.

Simply “Office”

The new, free app simply named “Office” can be used with ‘almost’ any version of Microsoft Office means that those who do have a 365 subscription and have Microsoft’s apps installed on their device can open Office from the Office app, and those who don’t have a subscription will be automatically directed to the online version.  Like Google Drive, this online version features the user’s recent documents on the home screen, which is in keeping with the idea that users should be able to find what they want quickly. Users can also share files with each other and can find content relevant to them but created by colleagues within their organisation.

Features

The new app includes helpful features such as tutorials and tricks for Microsoft’s apps and services, and users can see every Office app available to them by clicking on “Explore all your apps”.

Office also allows customisation so that businesses can brand it. Users also have access to third-party apps and Microsoft Search.

When and How?

Microsoft says that the Office app will become available to users on a rolling basis over the next few weeks and that it will be installed automatically as an update to the MyOffice app, which comes pre-installed as part of Windows.

You can search for “Office” in the search bar of the Windows start menu to open the app. The new app can also be downloaded from the Microsoft Store if needed.

Users can sign in to the app with their work, school, or free personal Microsoft Account to get started.

The Office app should work with any Office 365 subscription, Office 2019, Office 2016, and Office Online (the free web-based version of Office).

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Launching this Office app is a way of Microsoft being able to publicise, raise awareness about, and get more people using its free online versions of Office.

The app, which also allows Microsoft to compete with its rival Google Drive, should be quite appealing to business users thanks to features such as the ability to customise and brand it, the fact that it allows access third-party apps using AAD through the Office app, and the Microsoft Search feature that works across the organisation in addition to the user’s own apps and documents.

Having a free Office app that’s available without the need for an Office 365 subscription will also help address the problem of a mistaken assumption from many people that Office simply comes as part of Windows.

A millionaire barrister who raised crowdfunding money to fight ride-sharing company Uber in court over a £1.06 VAT receipt has lost attempts to limit his court costs liability and could face a £1 Million legal bill.

What Happened?

The initial reason given for tax lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC bringing the case against Uber was that he was not given a VAT receipt for £1.06 for his £6.34 taxi journey which he could have reclaimed from HMRC as a business expense and that Mr Maugham QC believed that Uber was undercharging VAT on its taxi services.

However, as commentators have noted there may be a wider angle to this story as the barrister accepted that the VAT receipt amount that he sought was trivial and that it may be more about establishing whether Uber as a company is subject to VAT.  If Uber is found to be subject to VAT, Mr Maugham QC’s action could trigger a £1bn VAT bill against Uber.

More Than Half Raised From The Black Cab Trade

Even though Mr Maugham QC managed to raise £107,650 to bring the case, one of the factors that appears to have influenced Mr Justice Trower’s rejection of Mr Maugham QC’s attempt to shield himself from the £1M legal bill and his attempt to appeal against the rejection is the proportion of money raised from the black cab trade to fight Uber. For example, the judge pointed out that “well in excess of 50%” of the crowdfunding money came from the black cab trade, and this included a donation of £20,000 from just one unidentified black cab source.

Income A Factor

Even though Mr Maugham QC wanted to limit his legal costs liability to £20,000 in the High Court case he brought against Uber, some commentators have noted that Mr Maugham QC’s alleged net annual income of £400,000, and his ownership of two properties may also have been a factor in the judge deciding not to stop Uber from recovering its estimated £1 million legal costs if it wins the main case.

The VAT Argument

This case was originally intended to focus on VAT, and one thing it has done is to shine a light on an argument about whether it is the individual Uber drivers who need to be VAT registered to give a VAT receipt, or whether Uber now has a large VAT liability.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The case was originally based on an assertion that Uber may be undercharging VAT on the taxi services it offers, and that HMRC may be treating big US multinationals such as Uber with kid gloves and an allegation that Uber could be thought by some to have a business model that’s designed to minimise its tax liability, and to minimise the workers’ rights that it has to offer to its drivers.

According Jolyon Maugham QC, in his statement via the Good Law Project, the decision to reject his attempt to limit his liability for legal costs could be seen as an example of how corporations can use the threat of costs liability to somehow dodge legal accountability, thereby making it difficult for other individuals or organisations to hold them to account.

Although Mr Maugham QC’s personal income and property assets may have had a bearing on the Judge’s decision not to grant him protection from an estimated £1 million legal bill if Uber wins, the outcome could also send a warning to businesses that taking on a big company/corporation in court could be make or break and could have serious financial implications.

Two government departments and a Kent-based Brexit planning group are reported to have given local councils advice on how to avoid releasing information about the no-deal Brexit plans, prompting UK. Gov and the ICO to intervene.

What Happened?

Kent Online reported that at the end of January, a leaked report showed that local councils were being given advice about how to handle Freedom of Information requests relating to the councils’ work and plans towards a no-deal Brexit, in a way that would not cause public harm.

It has been alleged that the threat of a no-deal Brexit situation has led to an increase in the amount of FIOA requests that councils receive about their plans for it, but that certain government departments and others may have sought to manage the amount of information making its way into the papers by issuing tips on how to keep emergency plans secret.

A blanket approach of this kind would go completely against FOIA laws.

Who?

According to Kent Online, the leaked report came from the Kent Resilience Forum, which is a group co-ordinating the strategy in the county for how it would deal with disruption in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Also, guidance issued by the Department for Exiting the EU DExEU was also cited in the report, as was guidance by the Cross-Border Delivery Group.

What Kind of Guidance?

The ‘guidance’ in question, mentioned in the leaked report, is alleged to include:

• The DExEU suggesting that councils and other organisations should refuse FOIA requests in relation to their emergency planning and, in some circumstances, that they should not confirm whether they hold information.
• Guidance from the DExEU leading to emergency services and councils being given a ready-made template for FOIA requests on Brexit plans.
• Local Resilience Forums or individual partner organisations being told to argue that disclosure would not be in the public interest as it “would undermine the effective conduct of public affairs”.
• Guidance that has led to the government tying ports to non-disclosure agreements, which prevent them from releasing any details about their discussions. Recommendations from the Cross-Border Delivery Group mean that while port authorities can share information with other organisations, these non-disclosure agreements are in effect for general disclosure to the public domain.

ICO Involved

The idea that FOIA requests could be treated in this way has prompted the involvement of the Information Commissioner’s Office. It has been reported that the ICO’s director of FoI, Gill Bull, has written to DExEU, the local government department, and the Kent Resilience Forum to express the ICO’s concern about the guidance.

The Council Says…

Kent Council has said that “We are keen to provide our partners with advice on how they can prepare for a worst-case EU Exit scenario”. The council has also said that it will soon be issuing an updated partner pack without the previous FOIA guidance.

The Government Says…

It has been reported that a government spokesperson has said that the original advice has now been revised, and new, updated guidance has now been issued.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Brexit is a complicated and divisive subject, but a Freedom of Information Request is an important legal right in the UK that allows for greater transparency in the way that companys and organisations operate, and each FOIA request should be considered individually.  It is worrying that advice should be given by government departments and other organisations, supposedly in the public interest, that appears to go against the Freedom of Information Act, by suggesting that some kind of blanket response, designed to withhold information should be applied. Businesses would not be able to behave this way without being held to account in a very damaging way, and it is understandable, therefore that the ICO has stepped in.