Energy firm Bulb on brink of collapse amid government talks with creditor
Bulb, Britain’s seventh-biggest energy supplier, is facing collapse within days amid eleventh-hour talks between the government and the company’s biggest secured creditor.
Sky News has learnt that the company, which launched in 2015 and has amassed 1.7 million customers, is expected to appoint insolvency practitioners imminently.
The precise timing remained unclear on Monday because of the complexity of the looming administration process and ongoing talks between the government and Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund, which has an outstanding secured loan of roughly £50m to Bulb’s parent company Simple Energy, according to industry sources.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Why the energy price cap is ‘failing’ the UK
Sequoia is said to have demanded the repayment of its loan prior to Bulb being placed into administration, they added.
A range of government departments and Ofgem, the industry regulator, began accelerating contingency plans for the collapse of Bulb last month.
Bulb executives and their advisors have been working on an emergency sale of the company, with the likes of Octopus Energy, Ovo Energy, Shell Energy Retail and Centrica, the owner of British Gas, expressing varying degrees of interest.
The ‘challenger’ energy company has also made a series of requests to the government in the last few weeks to help it structure a rescue support package, but these have been rejected, according to another industry executive.
Talks about a solvent rescue deal have also faded, they said.
Bulb’s demise would mark by far the biggest insolvency of the crisis engulfing the sector.
Bulb would be the biggest company to collapse as a result of the crisis engulfing the sector
Its customer base is nearly as large in aggregate as the roughly-20 suppliers which have collapsed during the last three months.
About 2 million households have seen their energy provider succumb to soaring wholesale prices since the start of September.
Bulb’s demise may place at long-term risk the jobs of the roughly-1000 people who work for the company, which was launched in 2015 by Amit Gudka and Hayden Wood, although the bulk of its workforce will not be at risk in the short-term as they will be required to continue in their roles during the special administration.
A Bulb spokesperson said: “We’ve decided to support Bulb being placed into special administration, which means it will continue to operate with no interruption of service or supply to members.
“If you’re a Bulb member, please don’t worry as your energy supply is secure and all credit balances are protected.”
Significantly, the insolvency of Bulb will entail the first use of a resolution process called a Special Administration Regime (SAR), which would guarantee funding for Bulb from the Treasury while administrators seek a restructuring deal, buyer or transfer of the customer base.
That would mean hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being used to fund Bulb’s obligations in the wholesale energy markets to ensure that it can continue operating.
Sky News revealed in September that Ofgem had lined up Teneo Restructuring to oversee the insolvency of a large energy supplier, although it was unclear whether it or AlixPartners, Bulb’s restructuring advisor, would handle the administration.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Building resiliency into the UK energy market
The largest of the suppliers to collapse during the current crisis, Avro Energy, had about 580,000 customers.
Bulb has been regarded for some time as being too large to go through Ofgem’s Supplier of Last Resort (SOLR) process – the method by which all of the UK’s other collapsed energy companies have been resolved in recent months.
In the SOLR process, a company’s operating licence is removed and bids are sought from other industry players for its customer base, with losses incurred by the acquirers of those customers then recouped through an industry levy.
Under the SAR, the administrator has a legal duty to consider the interest of customers, unlike a conventional insolvency process where the primary duty is to creditors.
In a long-established statement on its website about SAR, Ofgem said a memorandum of understanding had been drawn up between itself, the Treasury and BEIS, adding: “Provisions for this administration scheme for energy suppliers were included in the 2011 Energy Act.
“It has never been used before because a large energy supplier has never been insolvent.”
A government spokesman did not immediately comment on Monday but said three weeks ago: “Ofgem – as the expert regulator – is monitoring the situation across the energy market for the continued impacts on high worldwide wholesale gas prices.
“We have put in place the powers and robust processes to ensure customers do not experience any disruption to their energy supply and that costs are minimised if a supplier should exit the market.”
About two million customers have seen their energy supplier collapse since the start of September
The regulator added in late October: “There has been an unprecedented increase in global gas prices which is putting financial pressure on suppliers.
“We know this is a worrying time for many people and our number one priority is protecting customers.
“In the event a supplier fails, Ofgem and government have robust processes in place to ensure customers’ electricity and gas supply continue and domestic customers’ credit balances are protected.”
The ongoing crisis in the energy sector has sparked demands from some executives for a removal of the industry price cap or a bailout fund to help with the rescue of smaller suppliers.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, has rejected both demands.
Last week, Ofgem said it would seek to adjust the industry price cap more frequently as a result of recent challenges, meaning British consumers are expected to face even higher bills in the years ahead.
The collapse of one of the biggest challengers to the big players – the largest of which are British Gas, E.ON Next, EDF Energy, Scottish Power and Ovo Energy,, which acquired SSE’s retail business – would be a blow to hopes of a more varied and competitive market.
Octopus Energy, which like Bulb supplies 100% renewable energy, has established itself as an independent, well-funded challenger and now boasts 2.5 million customers across more than 4 million accounts.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
Unilever responded by selling the business to its licensee in Israel.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024