Darktrace Plans First Major London IPO Since Deliveroo Flop

Amy Thomson and Aaron Kirchfeld
·3 min read

(Bloomberg) -- British cybersecurity company Darktrace Plc announced plans for an initial public offering in London, marking the first major company to plan a listing on the exchange after Deliveroo Holdings Plc flopped in its market debut.

The IPO is expected to value the company at about $3 billion to $4 billion, a person familiar with the matter said. A representative for the company declined to comment on valuation ahead of the shares pricing. Darktrace and shareholders plan to sell at least 20% of the company’s equity, and the stock will trade on the London Stock Exchange’s premium market and be eligible for FTSE’s benchmark stock indexes, the company said in a statement Monday.

Unlike Deliveroo, Darktrace won’t offer a dual-class share structure and will be a more traditional listing for the London market, which may reassure some fund managers. The company will sell new shares to fund product development, and some existing investors also will offer stock, Darktrace said.

“This is a very different technology company,” Chief Executive Officer Poppy Gustafsson said in an interview. “I love Deliveroo. I think it’s great. I can get my favorite burrito delivered on a bicycle, but this is different.”

Read More: Deliveroo Flop Deals Blow to U.K. Post-Brexit Tech Ambitions

Darktrace has been putting the pieces in place since at least late 2019 for a public offering. The company was founded in 2013 by veterans of U.S. and British intelligence agencies and mathematicians from the University of Cambridge. Its technology uses artificial intelligence to learn how organizations work and employees communicate to detect irregularities and wall off cyberattacks to prevent them from spreading.

The company plans to use the funds to add to its 1,500 employees, with particular emphasis on its research and development center in Cambridge, Gustafsson said. Darktrace lost $28.7 million on revenue of $199 million for the 12 months ended in June 2020. The company may reach profitability “in the short term,” though growth is the priority for now, she said.

IPO proceeds in London total $9.9 billion this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, on par with 2019 and closing in on the 2020 total of $11.6 billion. Deliveroo, which raised 1.5 billion pounds ($2.1 billion) in its listing March 31, has slumped 35% since it began trading, hit by investor concerns about its gig-economy business model and its dual-class share structure.

Darktrace is one of the companies that received early funding and advice from British entrepreneur Mike Lynch’s Invoke Capital. Lynch, the founder of Autonomy Corp., is awaiting a verdict on a trial involving Autonomy’s more-than $10 billion sale to Hewlett-Packard Co. a decade ago. HP wrote down the vast majority of the deal in 2012 and has alleged that Lynch and his chief financial officer orchestrated an accounting fraud to make Autonomy more attractive in the sale, which both men have denied.

Read More: A Long Legal War Over a $10 Billion Takeover Heads to a Close

Lynch serves on Darktrace’s science and technology committee. A number of its executives also have Autonomy pedigree, including Gustafsson and Chief Strategy Officer Nicole Eagan.

Invoke is represented on Darktrace’s nine-member board by Phil Pearson, Vanessa Colomar and Andrew Kanter. A number of members also have ties to other Invoke-backed companies, including newly appointed Chairman Gordon Hurst, who’s also on the board of fraud-detection business Featurespace.

Jefferies International Ltd., Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. KG and KKR Capital Markets Partners LLP will arrange the sale if it goes ahead, with Needham & Co. and Piper Sandler & Co. as joint bookrunners.

(Updates with CEO comment in fourth paragraph.)

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

Subscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.

©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

Recommended Stories

  • Barron's Latest Picks And Pans: Affirm, Bitcoin, BorgWarner, Credit Suisse And More

    This weekend's Barron's cover story discusses why investors can no longer ignore cryptocurrencies. Other featured articles present companies pursuing Bitcoin opportunities and tips for investing in Bitcoin wisely. Also, see the prospects for cruise line operators, a newly public fintech, an auto parts giant, a struggling Swiss bank and more. Cover story "Bitcoin Is Making a Splash. Is It Safe to Test the Waters?" by Daren Fonda makes the case that this cryptocurrency is reaching a tipping point that investors can no longer ignore. Plenty of vexing questions remain, says the article. Among them, whether a purely digital currency is necessary and whether Bitcoin's price run-up reflects a bubble. Avi Salzman's "More Companies See Business Opportunities in Bitcoin" discusses how forward-thinking companies such as Square Inc (NYSE: SQ) and Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) see value in blending cryptocurrencies into their business models. However, for now, these companies are mostly taking baby steps, says Barron's. In "The Smart Way to Invest in Bitcoin," Nicholas Jasinski shows how Bitcoin is set to play a bigger role in portfolios as its popularity grows. See how advisors and investors can invest wisely, and what part Paypal Holdings Inc (NASDAQ: PYPL) and even Visa Inc (NYSE: V) may have to play. Few industries have raised as much money during the pandemic as the leading cruise operators, according to "Cruise Line Stocks Are Riding a Wave. They Could Sink" by Andrew Bary. See what Barron's believes could torpedo investors' upbeat narrative on Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd (NYSE: NCLH) and its rivals. In Nicholas Jasinski's "This Laser Maker Is on the Cutting Edge. Its Stock Is Cheap," discover how Pennsylvania-based laser-component maker II-VI, Inc. (NASDAQ: IIVI) is bulking up with a big acquisition, its latest in a long run of successful deals. While investors may not like the move, Barron's has some thoughts on why they should. "Affirm Is Still a Good Play on the Future of Shopping" by Daren Fonda points out that newly public Affirm Holdings Inc (NASDAQ: AFRM) is giving consumers a new way to make purchases, and no credit cards (or late fees) are required. Barron's thinks that could lift the shares of this leader, particularly in the e-commerce space. See also: Benzinga's Bulls And Bears Of The Week: Apple, Chevron, GM, GE, Peloton And More Overlooked multinational automotive supplier BorgWarner Inc. (NYSE: BWA) is a cheap way to bet on the looming transition to electric vehicles. So says Jack Hough's "The EV Future Is Nearly Here. This Auto Components Giant Is Ready." In "Credit Suisse's Crises Are Slamming the Stock. Stay Away," Paul Clarke reveals why analysts anticipate that Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS) stock will fall further. As tempting as the stock price may be now, says the article, more nasty surprises could well lie ahead for the Geneva-based banking giant whose struggles began a year ago. Eric J. Savitz's "The Economy Is On a Roll. Now Is the Time to Bet on Hardware" suggests that there is growing evidence of companies boosting their outlays for PCs, servers, disk drives and other tech hardware. Are Dell Technologies Inc (NYSE: DELL) or HP Inc (NYSE: HPQ) worth a look now? How about Seagate Technology PLC (NASDAQ: STX) or Western Digital Corp (NASDAQ: WDC)? Also in this week's Barron's: Why economic recovery depends on getting women back to work How value stocks will win again if the Federal Reserve behaves Whether debt-fueled growth is more of a concern than inflation Whether this is the time to invest in Brazil stocks How Fed policies could restore gold's shine Why Bitcoin matters and what investors need to know Proposed tax hikes and the risk for tech and financials The Fed president who sees a sharp rebound by autumn How dividends are rebounding after the pandemic A simple blood test that could reduce cancer deaths When early retirement is a bad idea The pros and cons of renting in retirement At the time of this writing, the author had no position in the mentioned equities. Keep up with all the latest breaking news and trading ideas by following Benzinga on Twitter. Image Courtesy: Wikimedia See more from BenzingaClick here for options trades from BenzingaThe Past Week's Notable Insider Buys Included Biotechs, Public Offerings, A SPAC And MoreBenzinga's Bulls And Bears Of The Week: Apple, Chevron, GM, GE, Peloton And More© 2021 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

  • Analysis: Chinese tech start-ups pull IPO plans as Beijing tightens scrutiny

    A growing number of Chinese tech start-ups are cancelling plans to list on Nasdaq-style markets at home with some eyeing Hong Kong share sales instead, as regulators tighten scrutiny of IPO applicants after the halting of Ant Group's $37 billion float. Over 100 companies have voluntarily withdrawn applications to list on Shanghai's STAR Market and Shenzhen's ChiNext since Ant's termination of its initial public offering (IPO) in November, according to Reuters review of exchange filings. The unprecedented withdrawals come against the backdrop of sharply intensified grilling of listing prospects by regulators, leading to IPO delays, outright rejection or even penalties, say bankers and company executives.

  • Alibaba shrugs off $2.75 billion antitrust fine, shares rally

    SHANGHAI (Reuters) -Alibaba does not expect any material impact from the antitrust crackdown in China that will push it to overhaul how it deals with merchants, its CEO said on Monday, after regulators fined the e-commerce giant $2.75 billion for abusing market dominance. Shares in Alibaba Group Holdings Ltd rose as much as 9% in Hong Kong trade as a key source of uncertainty for the company was removed, and on relief the fine and steps ordered were not more onerous. Alibaba has come under intense scrutiny since billionaire founder Jack Ma's public criticism of the Chinese regulatory system in October.

  • This Laser Maker’s Stock Is Cheap. Why It’s a Buy.

    Laser-component maker II-VI is bulking up with a big acquisition, its latest in a long run of successful deals. Investors don’t like the move. Here’s why they should.

  • Here's How Fox News and Trump Ended Up on Flip Sides of the Free Speech Fight

    Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/GettyAfter letting its hosts make wildly false claims about how Donald Trump’s political opponents supposedly “stole” the election from him, Fox News is facing potentially catastrophic lawsuits seeking billions in damages from election systems companies Dominion and Smartmatic.That’s why the former president’s personal propaganda network is now trying to raise the shield of legal protections for the press that Trump has spent years smashing."I'm gonna open up the libel laws,” he said in 2016, so that “when they write hit pieces, we can sue them, and they can lose money." Once elected, he whined that, “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness.”How Fox News Primetime Jacked Up Trump’s ‘Big Lie’But the First Amendment limitations on defamation liability that Trump and other right-wingers have long railed against well could be the only thing standing in the way of Fox News facing as much as $2.7 billion in damages in suits brought by voting technology companies that Trump and his favorite Fox hosts falsely accused of fraud in the wake of the November election.The network’s chief lawyer, Viet Dinh—who reportedly “runs the company day-to-day” and serves as a “kind of regent” for Rupert Murdoch’s most valuable media property—has publicly shrugged off the suits, declaring that the “First Amendment” will “protect” the broadcaster from liability.Dinh’s assertion that Fox will get off scot-free is based on a series of Supreme Court cases, beginning with the 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, that impose stringent limitations on the ability of certain plaintiffs, particularly those deemed to be “public figures,” to bring defamation lawsuits.The Supreme Court’s defamation precedents are grounded on a recognition that the public interest is best served by allowing a wide berth for discussion about individuals, and matters of public concern—and that permitting public figures and officials to recover damages for unknowing and unintentional falsehoods would place an intolerable chill upon public discourse, and particularly upon journalism.The facts of the Sullivan case are emblematic of the rationale for imposing constitutional limits on defamation liability. The case arose from a lawsuit brought against the New York Times for carrying an advertisement critical of misconduct by segregationist local officials in Alabama. After an Alabama jury assessed $500,000 in damages against the paper, a unanimous Supreme Court, in a decision by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., ruled in the Times’ favor, announcing that a public official suing in defamation must not only prove that the challenged statement was false, but must also demonstrate that the defendant acted with “actual malice”—meaning with actual knowledge that the statement was false, or acted with reckless disregard as to its truth.During the ensuing decades, the constitutional protections afforded by Sullivan and later related rulings have proven critical to permitting journalists, particularly those not affiliated with large media companies, with the ability to report upon—as well as citizens’ ability to criticize—prominent individuals, companies and government officials, without fear that unintentional errors could subject them to potentially catastrophic liability.Some public figures have, however, chafed at their limited abilities to chill public discussion and criticism with in terrorem threats of defamation liability. One of the loudest complainers is Donald Trump, who entered the presidency promising to “open up” defamation law. As his presidency proceeded, and his antagonism to all forms of non-fawning press coverage become more pronounced, Trump’s focus on constraining and punishing unwelcome speech became even more all-consuming for Trump. Predictably, many on the right joined Trump in attacking the Supreme Court’s Sullivan rule, as well as the statutory protection against defamation liability afforded to internet enterprises that republish the words of others under Section 230 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, arguing that such protections unfairly benefited only the right’s ideological adversaries.If Trump Loosened Up Libel Laws, He Would Get Sued Into Oblivion Trump’s railing against constitutional limitations on defamation law was always, however, more than a bit ironic, given Trump’s own absurdly frequent utterances of potentially defamatory falsehoods. Furthermore, when Trump was sued for defamation—including by alleged victims of his own past sexual assaults and harassment—Trump’s own lawyers did not hesitate to invoke every even remotely colorable argument for avoiding liability, including by asserting that Trump’s alleged falsehoods were protected by the First Amendment. Yet Trump, of course, has never been one to be concerned with either hypocrisy or inconsistency.But such hypocrisy is becoming all the more untenable in a network that comprises the very center of right-wing media.Fox News’ “regent” Dinh is a major star in the right-wing legal firmament, who after clerking on the Supreme Court went on to serve as the chief architect of the Patriot Act in the George W Bush Justice Department. After stints in academia and private practice, he joined Fox as chief legal and policy officer in 2018. Dinh’s first major step on the vocational ladder toward his current position of prominence was his service as a law clerk, to D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee who is sometimes described as the Federalist Society’s favorite judge.Silberman is always a good weathervane of prevailing right-wing legal views, and most recently he has been on a Trump-like rampage against the constitutional limitations on defamation liability.Last month, Silberman penned a dissenting opinion on the topic that read much like a Fox News segment. Silberman derided Sullivan as a “policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law”; he claimed that the precedent was part and parcel of an “ever-expanding sphere of influence for the Judiciary at the expense of the policymaking branches” of government. But Silberman’s real grievance was not with the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning, but rather with the latitude the court has purportedly afforded to the “’liberal media”, which he claimed dominates the airwaves and newspaper pages. The judge contended that the “New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets.” He also asserted that “Democratic” dominance of the press and airwaves is so complete that it might amount to the first step toward a “potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime.Silberman went on to contend that, given the grave danger the free press allegedly poses to democracy, it is time to strip journalists of the protections they have long enjoyed against defamation suits by public figures and officials. Silberman’s opinion, predictably, received fawning coverage from Fox, which highlighted the judge’s claim that “it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”Silberman’s right-wing clarion call to the right to rise up in favor of voiding First Amendment protections against defamation liability in the name of preserving democracy and defeating the supposed hegemony of the Democratic Party comes at a peculiar moment, however.During the months and weeks following the November election, the coverage of Fox News and other right-wing media outlets was crammed full of elaborate claims of voter fraud, including an elaborate conspiracy theory hatched by certain of Trump’s lawyers positing that two private voting technology companies, Dominion and Smartmatic, had fabricated votes and otherwise manipulated the outcome of the election in Biden’s favor.As soon became clear, these claims were mendacious, and not based in even a modicum of fact. Dominion and Smartmatic have since brought defamation lawsuits against a range of Trump-related individuals, such as Rudy Giuliani, as well as several media outlets, including Fox. Given that Fox faces the very real possibility of catastrophic damages liability in these suits, one can hardly blame Fox lawyer Dinh for putting to one side the legal (and ideological) objections that Judge Silberman and other right-wingers have to the Sullivan rule, and—like Trump—instead make use of any potential constitutional (or other) defense available in an effort to avoid potentially catastrophic liability.America, You Really Don’t Want Donald Trump’s Libel LawsDinh’s purported confidence that the Supreme Court’s defamation precedents will leave Fox in the clear may, however, be misplaced. The First Amendment does not categorically shield all defendants who make false and defamatory statements about public figures from liability. Rather, as explained, once there is a showing that the defendant was on notice that its statements were false, a public figure may well be able to recover substantial damages in a defamation case.And the public record already provides ample evidence that Trump and his allies, including a number of Fox News hosts, such as co-defendants Jeanine Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, and Lou Dobbs, had ample notice that the wacky conspiracy theories they repeated on air about Dominion and Smartmatic were virtually entirely fictional. Accordingly, Fox’s resort to First Amendment defenses may well prove unavailing.Furthermore, these commonsense boundaries on the scope of constitutional protections against defamation liability put to lie many of the assertions that right-wing critics like Trump and Silberman have made against the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents. The contention that the Supreme Court has erected First Amendment protections that allow journalists to lie without risk of facing legal consequences is itself simply false.Rather, in enforcing the First Amendment’s protection of free expression, the Supreme Court has carefully balanced the need to protect journalists from facing catastrophic liability for unintentional misstatements while still allowing public officials and figures to recover damages when they are the victims of knowingly false statements that injure their reputations. Put otherwise, maybe Justice Brennan was right in defining the proper role for the Constitution in protecting the rights of journalists and citizens to report about (and criticize) the prominent and powerful, and the right-wing attacks on the Sullivan rule are wrong.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

  • Prince Harry arrives back in the UK for Prince Philip funeral

    Prince Harry, whose explosive interview alongside his wife Meghan plunged the royal family into its biggest crisis in decades, has arrived back in Britain for Prince Philip's funeral on Saturday. Philip, the husband of Britain's Queen Elizabeth who had been at her side throughout her 69-year reign, died at Windsor Castle on Friday. Harry, Philip's grandson, arrived in London on Sunday from Los Angeles on a British Airways flight, The Sun newspaper reported.

  • Analysis: Big U.S. Treasury auctions could restart rise in yields

    U.S. Treasury auctions offering $271 billion of new debt and a key inflation report this week could end a recent lull in the bond market, reigniting a rise in yields that worried investors in the first quarter. Treasury yields have dipped since April 1 during a two-week pause in issuance, reversing some of the dramatic rise in February and March. Investors said weak demand at upcoming auctions, which kick off on Monday, could send bond prices lower and yields higher, albeit at a slower pace than in the first quarter.

  • Blue States Are Opening Up Voting as Red Ones Shut It Down

    Scott McIntyre/GettyWhen Major League Baseball relocated the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver in response to Georgia’s new voting law, Fox News was quick to react. “Is the White House concerned that Major League baseball is moving their All-Star Game to Colorado, where voting regulations are very similar to Georgia?” Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki last week.The network also featured Brian Kemp, governor of Georgia and former secretary of state there, claiming that it was “hypocritical” to move the game to Colorado, which, after all, has only half the number of early voting days and more strenuous ID requirements than those the new Georgia law has enacted. In a Republican National Lawyers Association Q&A this week, Kemp said the battle over the law—which pits Georgia-based companies and voting rights activists against the state’s Republicans—represented the “fight of our lives” against “cancel culture.”All of this misses the point. It is futile to attempt an apples-to-apples comparison of one state’s voting policies to another’s, because there are wide variations in local voting cultures, demographics, geographies, and legal idiosyncrasies. Comparing Georgia’s voting requirements to Colorado’s without this context is like asking why you can play Beethoven on a piano but not a tambourine, as both happen to be instruments.Whoopi Goldberg Cuts Off Meghan McCain’s MLB Georgia Rant: ‘Are You Done?’For example, although it is factually true that Georgia has double the number of early voting days as Colorado, it’s important to acknowledge that most Georgians vote in person while almost no Coloradans do. To say that this is an advantage over Colorado is to fundamentally misunderstand how Coloradans vote. And the proof is in the numbers: Turnout in 2020 was 10 points higher in Colorado than it was in Georgia. It’s unpersuasive to claim that your state is the same as another state when the results are so different, akin to two stores with the exact same security policies but with far different rates of theft because, say, one store is in a mall and the other is in an outdoor market.These misleading comparisons between states show the need for a smarter measuring stick. We should compare states to themselves. Would this bill make voting in this state harder to access than the current rules do? That standard would enable appropriate scrutiny of states that choose to make their own laws worse, negating the need for red-state-blue-state pissing matches, and instead holding the line and demanding states don't undo their own good work.“If we want to talk about comparing one state to comparing the other, let's see what trajectory they’re on,” Bob Brandon, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Fair Elections Center, recently told NBC News. Similarly, Justin Levitt, law professor at Loyola Law School at Loyola Marymount University in California, rejected state-by-state comparisons. Having an outdated law on the books is a lot different from “looking back on that law, in the current context, and saying, ‘Yeah, we need one of those,’” he said. “‘Somebody else screwed up’ is not an excuse for screwing up. That’s the inane part about whatabout-ism.”But that whatabout-ism is how politicians and the media have been focusing their attention. They are distracted by essentially meaningless rankings of states’ “ease of access,” pulled from data that is not uniformly collected or may be entirely based on one activism group’s interpretation of the laws as expansive or restrictive—hardly scientific comparisons. Today, conservative media outlets superficially compare the Georgia law to other states with no context. Not a single one has asked, “Does this make it easier for the exact same people in the same state to vote in the way they just did?” The restrictions of the new law may not impact turnout, but they won’t make voting easier or elections better either. It is far simpler, and more logical, to question whether a state is improving or worsening its own standards, and in light of what the standards have been in the immediate past.Take Kentucky. It is the only state with a Republican-controlled legislature that has passed bills so far this session to expand voting access. The state will now have three days of early voting, up from none, and firmer security and ease of access measures around absentee voting. It helps that the state has a governor with a “D” by his name, and also that Kentucky didn’t have to do much to make voting easier. As part of its response to the pandemic, Kentucky offered early and absentee voting for the first time. Once voters realized what a hassle voting had been when they only had a single day to vote in person in the middle of the week, there was no turning back. The voters demanded it become law.Most Republican-controlled state legislatures are poised to do the opposite: Legislation has been introduced that would make laws materially worse for voters, all based on the lie that the election was compromised by fraud. The Georgia law, while it does expand early voting and is a far cry from the horrors of the original legislation, will still produce new barriers for Georgians compared with access in 2020. It gives the state far stricter controls over the counties, essentially makes drop boxes useless, and prevents elections officials from sending absentee ballot applications out to voters proactively. It also allows partisan groups to challenge the eligibility of an infinite number of voters, with essentially no limitations.Conservatives have also found a carrier for their grievances in the idea that blue states with restrictive voter laws are ignored while red states that introduce the same laws have big baseball games ripped away from them. Connecticut has no early voting at all. Neither does Delaware, the home of President Joe Biden. New Jersey just adopted nine days, the fifth-shortest window in the country, and New York only has 10. Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey also have far more restrictive absentee ballot requirements than almost every state, including those in the Republican South. So why, they ask, do the Republican states end up getting all the criticism?While as a Texan I have long harbored the same frustration—when I lived in New York, for example, I could only vote in in-person at my precinct on Election Day (the 10 early days were introduced last year), and in Texas I can vote for 15 days anywhere in the county—the argument is unproductive. With the latest round of voting legislation, blue states are moving far more rapidly toward modern standards while Republican states are aggressively attempting to roll back what little advantages they had over their bluer counterparts (assuming, of course, they ever really had them). Since I’ve left New York, it has adopted early voting and updated its absentee ballot requirements. It has implemented ranked-choice voting and synchronized federal and state primary schedules.Meanwhile, my home state has gone rapidly in the other direction. As in Georgia and other Republican-led states, proposals in Texas would restrict access to some of its best voting policies by banning drive-through voting (implemented with great success by Harris County, home of Houston), limiting absentee ballots and reducing early voting. Even the most draconian of these laws will still allow voters more time to vote early than those in Delaware, Connecticut, and New Jersey—but that’s not much comfort to a Texan.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

  • I asked the 'Fear TWD' showrunners about the show's baiting Madison tweet teasing a potential character return. They seemed as surprised as fans to learn about it.

    Insider asked the showrunners what's up with the "Fear TWD" Twitter handle teasing fans about Madison. We're sorry the answer isn't more satisfying.

  • Prince Philip: The Vanuatu tribes mourning the death of their 'god'

    As Britain grieves his death, so do some Pacific tribespeople who revere him as a spiritual figure.

  • Bafta Film Awards 2021: Red carpet in pictures

    The biggest night in the British film calendar, the Bafta Awards, is taking place in London.

  • Canadians are flocking to US border cities to take advantage of a travel loophole - and it's creating lucrative opportunities on both sides of the closed border

    Lucrative niche industries including flying helicopters over the border and international car rides are booming in cities like Buffalo, New York.

  • ‘Stay away’ warnings swept aside by mourners who would not be deterred from ‘duty’ to Prince Philip

    No one was meant to be there. Signs around Windsor called for restraint among the public grieving for Prince Philip, asking people to “not gather at royal residences”. But by lunchtime yesterday, so many people had come to lay flowers for the Duke of Edinburgh that Castle Hill, the street leading to Windsor Castle, had to be blocked off for safety. “There were just too many vehicles and too many people”, said a staff member. “It was too dangerous – we had a few near misses this morning.” Measures are expected to stay in place for the rest of the week, with mourners instead having to take a detour along the high street then on to the Long Walk. “We didn’t expect the visitors’ entrance to be closed off”, said Catherine Crampton, 61, who came from her home in Windsor to lay flowers with her daughter and two granddaughters. “We were able to lay flowers eventually after [walking for] about 10 minutes … We wanted to be here to pay our respects.”

  • Palace reveals Prince Philip redesigned Balmoral Castle's notorious heating system

    Prince Philip devised a special heating system to protect the paintings at Balmoral Castle, it has emerged as the Royal family paid tribute to his conservation work on its estates. The Palace revealed on Sunday that the Duke of Edinburgh was behind an initiative to install a heating system that responded to humidity rather than the outside temperature to create a less damaging atmosphere for the castle’s many antiques. The Duke’s fervent passion for horticulture and agriculture also led him to re-landscape many the Queen’s estates and even get behind the wheel of a bulldozer to realise his vision. In a memorial released on Sunday, the palace detailed the works the Duke carried out and oversaw on the Queen’s private estates at Sandringham and Balmoral, as well as Great Windsor and Home Parks. It revealed how the Duke took a particularly close interest in the maintenance of the Queen’s beloved Balmoral residence in Aberdeenshire, where she spends August and July.

  • Mom dies in road-rage shooting with her young daughters in the car, Texas family says

    Police are searching for the driver of the other vehicle.

  • Why Prince Philip’s great-grandchildren shouldn't attend the Royal funeral

    Of all the images that stood out during the televised funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, there was one that has endured in the collective consciousness longer than any other: that of two boys who had just lost their mother, walking in sombre procession behind her coffin, while the world looked in upon their most private moment. Alongside Princes William and Harry that day walked their grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh. Amid a terrible whirlwind of public mourning and spectacle, the Duke was reportedly deeply concerned about the emotional wellbeing of his bereaved grandsons, then 15 and 12. “I’ll walk if you walk,” he apparently told them at a dinner before the funeral. And, of course, he kept his word. Almost a quarter of a century later, has there been a change of heart within the monarchy about the role of children at Royal funerals? It is understood that the Duke’s 10 great-grandchildren, who include Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, will not be in attendance at his funeral this Saturday. That nine are under 10 years of age (Savannah Phillips will turn 11 in December) has likely played a part in the decision.

  • Iran blames Israel for Natanz nuclear plant outage, vows revenge

    Iran blames regional arch-foe Israel for a sabotage incident at its key Natanz nuclear site and will exact revenge, state TV quoted its foreign minister as saying, in what appeared to be latest episode in a long-running covert war. Iran's semi-official Nournews website said the person who caused an electricity outage in one of the production halls at the underground uranium enrichment plant had been identified. The incident occurred amid diplomatic efforts by Iran and the United States to revive Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with major powers, an accord Israel fiercely opposed, after former U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned it three years ago.

  • Trading clunkers for electric bikes: France moves to offer financial incentive

    France is offering the owners of old, exhaust-belching cars the opportunity to hand over their vehicles for scrap in return for a 2,500 euro ($2,975.00) grant to buy an electric bicycle. Lawmakers in the National Assembly have just approved the measure in a preliminary vote. If adopted, France will become the first country in the world to offer people the chance to trade in an ageing vehicle for an electric or folding bicycle, the French Federation of Bicycle Users (FUB) said.

  • Corporate executives set to join effort to increase voter access in the wake of new voting laws: WSJ

    The statement from business leaders in support of increased voter access could be released as soon as this week, according to The Wall Street Journal.

  • Pentagon chief declares 'ironclad' US commitment to Israel

    U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Sunday declared an “enduring and ironclad” American commitment to Israel, reinforcing support at a tense time in Israeli politics and amid questions about the Biden administration's efforts to revive nuclear negotiations with Israel's archenemy, Iran. Austin's first talks in Israel since he became Pentagon chief in January come as the United States seeks to leverage Middle East diplomatic progress made by the Trump administration, which brokered a deal normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states.