firms

June 26 (Asia Today) — South Korea plans to create an investment and procurement system aimed at producing homegrown security technology companies comparable to U.S. data analytics company Palantir Technologies, the government said Friday.

The Ministry of SMEs and Startups announced the strategy with the Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration during a meeting on future security innovation companies at the Blue House.

The plan seeks to accelerate the transfer of advanced civilian technology into national defense and security.

The government aims to develop five security technology companies valued at more than 1 trillion won ($651 million) and 50 companies with annual sales exceeding 100 billion won ($65.1 million) by 2030.

It will designate five strategic sectors covering drones and robotics, defense artificial intelligence and semiconductors, advanced sensors and materials, aerospace technology and cybersecurity and quantum communications.

Officials described the initiative as an effort to cultivate a “Korean Palantir,” referring to the U.S. company known for software that integrates and analyzes large volumes of defense and intelligence data.

The phrase is a policy description rather than the name of a company the government plans to establish.

Investment vehicle modeled on In-Q-Tel

The ministry plans to establish a government-backed investment organization modeled on In-Q-Tel, the nonprofit strategic investor created to support technologies relevant to U.S. intelligence agencies.

The proposed organization would make direct investments in early-stage security technology companies to address funding shortages.

The government also plans to support the establishment of a technology-focused asset management company tentatively called Korea Strategic Technology Partners.

Through government and private investment vehicles, officials aim to create as much as 10 trillion won ($6.5 billion) in strategic technology financing over the next five years.

The money would provide growth capital to startups and smaller companies developing technologies with potential defense, intelligence, aerospace or cybersecurity applications.

Faster research and procurement

South Korea also plans to introduce a special research and development program modeled on the U.S. Other Transaction Authority system.

The system would connect research, testing and government purchasing under a faster contracting process intended for rapidly changing technologies.

Selected companies could receive as much as 10 billion won ($6.5 million) each over five years.

The Defense Ministry and Korea AeroSpace Administration plan to create procurement systems capable of placing some advanced weapons or technologies into initial service within one year.

The government also plans to expand access to defense data through a catalog showing what information may be available to approved companies.

Aerospace authorities will support the development of core technology for a national space data center and platforms that allow businesses to use satellite information.

The strategy reflects the government’s view that traditional defense procurement moves too slowly for technologies such as artificial intelligence, drones, robotics and cybersecurity software.

Support for smaller technology companies

Minister of SMEs and Startups Han Seongsook said the global security industry is shifting rapidly from traditional hardware toward software, data and artificial intelligence.

“The government will provide bold and rapid support so startups and small venture companies with flexible and creative technologies can become leaders in security innovation,” Han said.

The government also plans to protect companies’ intellectual property rights and allow technologies developed through public programs to be adapted for civilian markets.

Officials said the strategy would help smaller companies enter a defense industry that has traditionally been dominated by large manufacturers and hardware-centered weapons programs.

The ministries plan to form an interagency committee, pursue special legislation and revise contracting rules to support the initiative.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260626010009467

The clock is running down on the most consequential deadline the crypto sector has faced in Europe.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

From the start of July, the transitional window under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) closes for good, and companies that have not secured authorisation must either stop serving European customers or wind down altogether.

MiCA is the EU’s first comprehensive law for the crypto industry, bringing exchanges, brokers and digital wallet providers under the kind of formal oversight that has long applied to banks and other financial firms.

It replaces a fragmented mix of national rules with a single rulebook spanning all 27 member states: a company licensed in one EU country earns a “passport” to operate across the bloc, but in return it must meet standards on how much capital it holds, how it is run, how it safeguards customers’ funds and how it prevents money laundering.

“What emerges is a genuine single market replacing the old patchwork of 27 national regimes,” Yamal Kalaf, co-founder of MiCAR Whitepapers Europe, which advises crypto businesses on MiCA authorisation, told Euronews.

Since the core rules took effect at the end of 2024, existing operators have been allowed to keep operating under older national registrations, but that concession was temporary.

Crypto firms need European licences but many are behind

The scale of the looming shake-out is striking.

According to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), which confirmed in April that there would be no extension, only around 210 firms had obtained full authorisation by May, out of more than 1,200 that previously held national crypto registrations across the EU.

That points to a conversion rate of well under a fifth, leaving the vast majority of the old market without a licence as the cut-off arrives in a few days.

Speaking to Euronews, Roshan Dharia, CEO of distressed-investment firm Echo Base, explained that “the low conversion rate suggests that a meaningful portion of the market has concluded that obtaining and maintaining a MiCA licence is not economically viable within its current operating model.”

National regulators have warned that firms operating beyond the deadline without the new licence face enforcement action. France’s markets watchdog has also cautioned that continuing without authorisation could expose companies to criminal prosecution.

ESMA has told unlicensed providers to prepare orderly wind-downs, including transferring customer assets to authorised platforms or self-custody wallets, and to notify clients in advance so they can move funds safely.

“What we will see after 1 July is a smaller, more institutional market with real passporting. That is not a market in retreat. That is a market growing up,” Miguel Zapatero, Head Counsel at Crossmint, told Euronews.

Crossmint is a crypto infrastructure provider whose licensed rails let developers build wallets, custody and payment products.

A market reshaped around licensed rails

Plenty of familiar names have already cleared the bar.

Coinbase has been authorised in Ireland and Kraken in Ireland and Luxembourg. At the same time, the banking app Revolut secured its licence from Cyprus’s regulator late last year, allowing it to offer crypto services across the EU.

For these firms, the new rules promise a reward as unlicensed rivals retreat, the survivors stand to absorb their departing customers.

“MiCA is a genuine regulatory identity shift, not a registration exercise,” Gal Arad Cohen, partner at law firm S. Horowitz & Co, told Euronews.

The most prominent casualty so far may be Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange.

According to Reuters, which cited two people familiar with the matter, Binance is set to lose permission to serve EU clients because its licence application to Greece’s market regulator, the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, is poised to be rejected.

Without approval in any member state, the exchange would be unable to operate across the bloc from July onwards.

Speaking to Euronews, Patrick Mollard, CEO at Fipto, a blockchain-based payments company for businesses, referred to the Binance case by stating that “scale earns you no shortcut to a licence, and that is precisely the point.”

Binance has pushed back, saying it has worked constructively with regulators for 18 months and believes its application met MiCA’s requirements. The company added that it understood the Greek authority had completed its review and found the filing compliant.

The company has promised a further update before 30 June.

The episode has also reputedly taken on a political dimension.

French crypto publication The Big Whale reported, citing unnamed sources, that ECB President Christine Lagarde had opposed Binance’s bid for a Greek MiCA licence.

Euronews could not independently verify the report, and neither the ECB nor the Greek government has publicly commented on the allegations.

The Big Whale also reported that Binance is exploring a potential MiCA application in France after the setback in Greece, a claim that neither Binance nor French regulators have publicly confirmed.

Binance did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Euronews.

A shake-out for smaller crypto firms

Beyond the biggest names, the deadline is expected to push smaller crypto apps and brokers towards licensed custody providers. Rather than building their own MiCA-compliant systems, many are likely to rely on authorised firms to hold customer assets.

“We will see consolidation and transfer of clients as the deadline will not be met by all currently operating entries,” Floortje Nagelkerke, partner at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, explained to Euronews.

The result, analysts suggest, will be a smaller, more concentrated European market, with fewer players, higher barriers to entry and a clear advantage for those holding a licence, but stronger consumer protections.

“People who hold crypto in the EU after 1 July will, on balance, hold it on safer rails,” Miguel Zapatero, Head Counsel at Crossmint, concluded.

China has added 10 United States-based companies to its export control list and barred government procurement from nearly 50 US companies two weeks after the Pentagon blacklisted some of China’s best-known companies for their alleged ties to the Chinese military.

China’s Ministry of Commerce announced the export order on Monday, barring Chinese companies from exporting “dual-use” items that can be used for civilian or military purposes to the US firms.

The list of companies includes rare-earth mine operator MP Materials Corp, rare-earth magnet maker USA Rare Earths, and US defence contractors specialising in fields such as aerospace, drones, synthetic-aperture radar, and shipbuilding and repairs.

Under the order, “foreign institutions and individuals worldwide are also prohibited from transferring or providing Chinese dual-use goods to them” while ongoing export transactions must be suspended immediately.

The Commerce Ministry said the export ban had been issued to “safeguard national security and interests and fulfil international obligations such as non-proliferation”.

China’s Ministry of Finance on Monday separately barred Chinese government procurement from 46 companies, including subsidiaries of major US defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Atomics and General Dynamics. US-funded, locally registered companies, however, have been given an exemption by the ministry.

Experts described Beijing’s orders as a retaliation, albeit a largely symbolic one, against the US after the Pentagon in early June added about 80 Chinese companies and their subsidiaries to its list of “Entities Identified as Chinese Military Companies Operating in the United States”.

The designation means the Pentagon either believes the companies are owned or controlled by the Chinese military or they are “military-civil fusion contributors”, a term for commercial companies that contribute to China’s military development despite their civilian status.

The updated list includes Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba Holdings, search engine giant Baidu and electric automaker BYD, some of China’s largest and best-known companies.

While the order does not bar US companies from doing business with them, it does impact US defence contractors and their future supply chains.

“We can interpret this as a tit-for-tat response, and that fits into China’s playbook any time we’ve seen escalation from the US side in terms of trade and investment tools,” said Nick Marro, global trade lead analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

China-based supply chain consultant Cameron Johnson said the Commerce Ministry’s order mirrors US semiconductor export controls designed to keep the most advanced chips out of Chinese hands.

“They basically say it doesn’t matter where or who you are, you are bound by this regardless of circumstance,” said Johnson, who is also a senior partner at the Shanghai consultancy Tidal Wave Solutions. “Organisations or individuals in any country or region are prohibited from transferring dual-use materials that originated in China.”

He said Beijing’s orders in practice may be hard to enforce and many of the companies named in those orders have already moved their supply chains out of China or begun to “de-risk” their operations there.

Johnson said the wide scope of companies included in Washington’s and Beijing’s directives could be a sign of more to come and may signal a new front in the US-China trade war.

“This is probably just the beginning of the back and forth,” he said. Last year, after returning to the White House for a second term, US President Donald Trump reignited the US-China trade war, leading Washington and Beijing to impose escalating rounds of tariffs on each other.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a trade truce in October, which was extended during a summit between the two leaders in Beijing in May.

Despite promises to “enhance economic cooperation” during the meeting, observers like Singapore-based geopolitical analyst Steve Okun predicted the goodwill may be short-lived.

“The US’s recent closure of chip export loopholes and China’s continuing addition to its export bans show the national security lane remains active in both capitals regardless of the diplomatic niceties at the recent Trump-Xi summit,” Okun told Al Jazeera.

“There is no ‘truce’ in the US-China trade war. Expect further actions from both sides as well on export controls and investment restrictions,” he said.

Eleven UK travel firms have collapsed into liquidation since 2025, leaving customers seeking refunds after flights and holidays were cancelled and staff made redundant, amid wider uncertainty in the travel industry.

Eleven travel companies have collapsed into liquidation over recent months as the travel industry has been battered by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

The closures since the start of the year have triggered flight chaos and left staff facing redundancy as a result.

In a number of cases, holidays have been cancelled outright, leaving customers scrambling for refunds or compensation.

In Oxfordshire, coach and passenger land transport firm Oxfordshire Travel Limited, based near Kidlington, went into liquidation in October 2025.

The company had traded for a decade before liquidators were brought in, after it was determined the business was no longer able to continue operating or settle its debts.

Set Sail Cruises Ltd, also based in Oxfordshire, was dissolved on March 17, 2026, with all planned sailings cancelled as a consequence.

The agency was just two years old, having been incorporated on February 4, 2024.

In the same county, The Padel Travel Club Limited also shut its doors with approximately £41k in short-term debts — any trips that had yet to depart were subsequently cancelled.

The business was incorporated in February 2023 and has since been struck off the Companies House register following a voluntary strike-off.

Documents suggest the company folded with short-term debts of just over £40,000 and insufficient assets to repay creditors in full, though a final liquidation statement has yet to be made available. Several other travel firms have also felt the full force of the struggling industry.

London-based Regen Central Ltd, an ATOL-licensed travel agency selling flight-and-hotel packages to Europe and Southeast Asia, lost its ATOL on January 13.

Following this, the company fell into liquidation and cancelled all bookings.

Another travel firm, Simply Florida Travel Ltd, based in Glasgow and well-known for selling “dream holidays” including trips to Disney World, was stripped of its ATOL holder status after dissolving in early January.

Holidaymakers were left chasing refunds as all packages and flights were subsequently cancelled.

Gold Crest Holidays, a coach-tour operator running trips across the UK and abroad, also collapsed and ceased trading in early 2026.

Following the liquidation, all members of staff were made redundant.

Numerous other travel companies have also stopped trading or dissolved since 2025. These include Asiara UK Ltd, Jetline Travel Ltd, Great Little Escapes LLP and New Era Travel.

Most recently, Strachan Travel Ltd, a Lancashire-based firm incorporated in 1983, entered voluntary liquidation.

Resolutions to wind up the company were recorded on June 11, with liquidators appointed on June 16, according to The Gazette.

The collapse of these firms comes amid a period of widespread uncertainty in the travel sector, following warnings issued by the Government and airlines in response to the conflict in the Middle East.

However, with a peace agreement now signed and several travel restrictions lifted, there is renewed hope for the industry.

June 8 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued an ultimatum on Monday to tech companies, including Apple and Google, to prevent explicit images from being taken or viewed on children’s mobile phones within three months or face legislation compelling them to comply.

Speaking at the London Tech Week show, Starmer said the initiative, requiring operating system developers to enable nudity-detection software or other technical fixes, was a global first that would make Britain the first country where children would not be able to shoot, share or view naked images.

“For too long, people have been told that [children sharing explicit images] is simply the price of modern tech — that nothing could be done. That government is powerless. That parents just have to accept it,” said Starmer.

“I reject that completely because tech should adapt to the needs of society, not the other way round. If we are serious about unlocking the opportunities that tech can bring then we must also be serious about preventing those who want to abuse it — the online predators.

“That is why today, I am calling for tech companies operating in this country to introduce vice controls that prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images. Because this is not an impossible challenge. If they choose not, then we will act and we will change the law,” he added.

Adult phone users are exempted from the changes, but will be required to complete an age-verification process to prove they are over the age of 18.

The phone companies have until September to make the change or legislation will be introduced to Parliament requiring the appropriate software is installed on all phones and tablets sold in the four countries of the United Kingdom.

Starmer’s move came four weeks after Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls Jess Phillips resigned, citing his failure to act on her recommendations to remove the ability for children to take explicit photos of themselves or others.

The government dismissed criticism from advocates of privacy and the right to expression, accusing it of trampling on people’s democratic freedoms.

“The government mandating that all phones in Britain require ID and surveillance software is a crossing of the Rubicon that would make the U.K. one of the most authoritarian internet regimes in the world,” said Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo.

Silkie warned it also raised the specter of spyware in the pocket of every person with a phone that would end up being “exploited for other purposes before long.”

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the government’s motivation was stopping the coercion and sextortion of children and that it was not interested in “surveilling or policing” people’s phones.

“There is no reporting, no data collection, no monitoring, and no images leaving the device,” she explained.

The leader of the Conservative opposition Kemi Badenoch questioned how it would be achieved and said the approach was piecemeal, saying there needed to be a total ban that included social media for children younger than 16.

The BBC’s science team said the technical hurdles were considerable because so much of the child sexual abuse material was shared via encrypted apps such as WhatsApp, Signal and Discord, where the content being sent cannot currently be detected.

In April, the government announced it will pass legislation banning children from using smartphones in schools in England. The law will only apply to England because education policy is devolved to the parliaments and assemblies of the other countries of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The law, an amendment to the government’s flagship education and child well-being bill, formalizes what is already policy in many schools but introduces a “clear legal requirement” that would empower them to enforce it — including removing phones from children before class.

The government is currently also running a public consultation on whether to implement an Australia-style ban on social media for children younger than 16 and a separate initiative to develop screen-time guidance for children older than 5, including the minimum age at which a child should be given first phone and how much time they should be on it.

Department of Commerce issues guidance on chip restrictions amid concerns about loopholes in export control regime.

The United States has issued a notice affirming its restrictions on shipments of semiconductors to subsidiaries of Chinese companies located outside China amid concerns about loopholes in Washington’s export control regime.

The Department of Commerce said in the guidance issued on Sunday that its licensing requirements for the export of advanced AI chips applied to all businesses with headquarters or a parent company in China.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which falls under the Commerce Department, said it issued the clarification in response to questions about whether it was enforcing preexisting licence requirements after it had overturned former President Joe Biden’s AI Diffusion Framework.

“The answer is yes,” the BIS said in the notice.

Unveiled in the final days of the Biden administration, the AI Diffusion proposed the implementation of a globe-spanning framework to control access to AI chips, including export caps for all but the closest US allies.

The framework drew backlash from tech firms, including Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, which cast the proposal as a threat to innovation and cross-border collaboration.

President Donald Trump’s administration scrapped the framework last May, ahead of its implementation, citing the “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and the harm it would do to Washington’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Chip giant Nvidia, whose top-of-the-line Blackwell GPUs are banned for export to China, said it had already been operating in keeping with the clarified rules.

“The guidance reaffirms that NVIDIA’s sales and vetting process is correct – consistent with our existing approach, licences are required to ship controlled products to PRC headquartered companies,” a Nvidia spokesperson told Al Jazeera, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

AMD and Intel, Nvidia’s main competitors in the GPU space, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TSMC, which manufactures the most advanced chips on behalf of clients such as Nvidia, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The BIS also did not respond to inquiries.

Chris McGuire, a former State Department official who worked on technology policy in the Biden administration, accused the Trump administration of providing Chinese companies a loophole to buy export-controlled chips.

“Chinese companies have been buying these chips, very likely at scale. And because BIS has not updated export control regulations to clearly state what it IS enforcing, all of this was legal,” McGuire said in a post on X.

“This clarification does make clear that Blackwell shipments to China-headquartered companies outside of China are now illegal again – which is good, although obviously we have to see how many shipments have already gone to assess how much damage was done,” McGuire said.

“BIS’ statement acknowledges these shipments have been happening when it says companies who bought chips under this loophole don’t have to stop using them.”

The US has rolled out numerous restrictions on the supply of high-end technology to China, as Washington and Beijing battle for dominance in AI.

In December, Trump announced that he would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 chip to China, in a major loosening of Washington’s export controls.

While not Nvidia’s most advanced chip, the H200 is about six times as powerful as the H20, the most advanced chip previously allowed for export to China.

May 19 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s fast-growing defense industry is confronting a major new obstacle in the U.S. market as the Pentagon fully implements strict cybersecurity certification requirements across its global supply chain.

The U.S. Department of Defense has begun enforcing the final version of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC, program, requiring all companies participating in U.S. defense contracts to meet specific cybersecurity standards.

Industry officials warn that Korean defense firms unable to obtain certification could be excluded not only from exports to the United States but also from ship maintenance, repair and overhaul projects and future joint weapons development programs.

The certification system applies not only to primary contractors but also to subcontractors supplying parts and components.

Even companies with advanced technology and competitive pricing can be blocked from bidding if they fail to meet required cybersecurity levels.

For many South Korean defense firms, the most critical threshold is CMMC Level 2, which is required for handling Controlled Unclassified Information, or CUI, tied to U.S. military programs.

The requirement is considered especially important for South Korea’s ambitions to participate in U.S. Navy ship maintenance and repair projects, as well as broader bilateral defense cooperation initiatives.

Defense analysts say the new rules are becoming a de facto trade barrier across Western defense markets.

“Losing access to the U.S. market effectively means being pushed out of the global defense supply chain,” one industry expert said.

Defense Acquisition Program Administration has launched information sessions and consulting support programs in response to growing industry concerns.

The agency is working with regional defense innovation clusters, the Korea Defense Industry Association and the Defense Agency for Technology and Quality to help companies prepare for certification.

But smaller suppliers say the burden remains overwhelming.

Industry estimates suggest that achieving Level 2 certification can cost companies from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars due to infrastructure upgrades, consulting fees and final audits. Preparation alone can take more than a year.

Large defense contractors have already formed dedicated task forces, but many second- and third-tier suppliers lack both funding and cybersecurity specialists.

Because the CMMC system requires certification across the entire supply chain, failure by even a single subcontractor could jeopardize broader export opportunities involving larger Korean defense firms.

Additional complications stem from differences between U.S. and South Korean encryption standards.

One key CMMC requirement involves use of cryptographic modules certified under U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines known as FIPS standards.

Many South Korean defense companies, however, rely on domestic encryption systems validated under the country’s K-CMVP framework overseen by intelligence and defense authorities.

Industry experts are calling for government-level negotiations between Seoul and Washington to seek mutual recognition or equivalency between Korean and U.S. encryption standards.

Some officials argue such talks could be linked to ongoing negotiations over a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement between the two allies.

Concerns are also growing over South Korea’s lack of domestically accredited third-party CMMC assessment organizations, forcing companies to rely on U.S.-based auditors and raising concerns about defense technology exposure.

Analysts say South Korea’s defense industry must now treat cybersecurity as strategically important as weapons performance itself if it hopes to become a top-tier global arms exporter.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260519010005245