Volkswagen Group of America is recalling more than 208,000 vehicles in the U.S. over a steering rack mounting bolt that can corrode and break, potentially causing a loss of steering control.

The recall affects a total of 208,724 SUVs, including certain 2018 Tiguan, 2018-2019 Atlas and 2019-2021 Audi Q3 vehicles, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced.

The affected Tiguan vehicles were manufactured from March 22, 2017, through June 18, 2018, the affected Atlas vehicles were manufactured from Nov. 30, 2016, through Sept. 22, 2018, and the affected Audi Q3 vehicles were manufactured from May 21, 2019, through July 16, 2021.

FORD RECALLS MORE THAN 223,000 VEHICLES OVER FUEL TANK ISSUE

The recalled vehicles were manufactured with a specific steering rack, so vehicles with a different steering rack are unaffected by the recall.

According to the notice, the right-side mounting bolt on the steering rack can corrode after moisture enters the surrounding area. If the bolt head fractures, the steering rack could remain attached to the vehicle’s subframe at only one mounting point.

CHRYSLER RECALLS NEARLY 75K SUVS OVER PARTS THAT COULD DETACH WHILE DRIVING

According to NHTSA, continued loading could cause the steering rack housing to fracture, potentially leading to a loss of steering capability, potentially leading to a loss of steering capability.

“A broken steering rack housing can result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash,” the NHTSA said in its notice.

Volkswagen and Audi said they are not aware of any crashes, fires, injuries or deaths linked to the defect.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

Dealers will replace the right steering rack mounting bolt with a bolt featuring a highly corrosion-resistant polymer coating at no cost. The new bolt is designed to offer greater protection against corrosion.

Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed out on Nov. 10.

Adding a new customer is a routine business decision for trucking companies — one that may also introduce changes in how the operation is structured.

There may be changes in the type of cargo carried, locations served, route types, mileage, and contractual insurance requirements. Even when fleet size remains unchanged, those changes may affect how coverage placement reflects the operation.

Reviewing whether existing coverage reflects current operations may be a useful step.

How a New Customer May Change Trucking Operations

Adding a new customer does not automatically trigger coverage changes. What matters is what changes in the operation as a result of that relationship.

If the new customer uses similar cargo, equipment, and routes, operational changes may be minimal. When a new customer introduces new states, different cargo types, or specialized equipment, there may be coverage considerations worth reviewing.

Relevant operational factors include:

• Type of freight
• Operating territory
• Expected mileage
• Equipment requirements
• Loading and unloading facilities
• Contractual insurance requirements

These factors help describe how a new customer relationship connects to the broader trucking operation.

Changes in Routes and Coverage Considerations

Adding a new customer may extend the operating territory.

Routes may appear in states or regions outside the company’s primary operating area. Operating in unfamiliar traffic and road conditions may introduce different exposure patterns.

While this does not point to any specific coverage outcome, operating territory is a relevant factor in the information used for coverage placement — and a change in territory may be worth reviewing in that context.

How Different Cargo May Affect Coverage Considerations

A new customer may bring a different type of cargo.

Motor truck cargo insurance addresses damage to freight in the motor carrier’s care, subject to the terms and limitations of the applicable policy.

A transition to higher-value, temperature-sensitive, or specialized cargo may be worth reviewing against existing cargo coverage terms. Refrigerated cargo, for example, introduces operational factors — temperature monitoring, reefer equipment maintenance, and breakdown exposure — that differ from standard dry freight operations.

How Equipment Requirements May Connect to Coverage

A customer may require specialized equipment — refrigerated trailers, flatbeds, or other configurations.

Physical damage coverage protects against damage to insured vehicles from accident, fire, theft, vandalism, and similar causes. Adding or changing equipment may be worth reviewing against existing physical damage coverage.

Where specialized equipment is used under a trailer interchange agreement, Trailer Interchange coverage may be relevant depending on the terms of that agreement.

For transportation businesses navigating those shifts, working with an independent agency specializing in commercial trucking insurance (such as GIA Group, LLC) may help identify how new routes, cargo types, equipment, and contractual requirements factor into coverage placement, and connect the operation to insurance carriers specialized in commercial trucking.

Why Contractual Requirements Are Worth Comparing Against Current Coverage

Customer contracts may include a range of insurance requirements:

• Liability limits
• Cargo limits
• Certificates of insurance
• Additional insured status
• Specific endorsements

Existing coverage does not automatically satisfy all contractual requirements. Comparing those requirements against current coverage before starting operations may help identify potential gaps.

Why Adding a Customer Does Not Automatically Mean Premium Changes

Adding a new customer does not automatically produce a specific premium change.

Premiums are influenced by many factors — vehicles, mileage, operating territory, cargo, claims history, and drivers among them. A new account may shift some of those factors, but the overall effect depends on the full operational picture and market conditions at the time of review.

When Customer Changes May Warrant a Coverage Review

A coverage review may be useful when a new customer introduces material operational changes such as:

• Entering a new operating region
• Significantly increasing mileage
• Carrying a different type of cargo
• Adding specialized equipment
• Introducing new contractual insurance requirements
• Changing loading and unloading arrangements

Reviewing these changes alongside existing coverage information may help clarify whether coverage continues to reflect current operations.

Why Keeping Coverage Information Current Matters

Trucking operations may evolve as customer relationships develop. Routes, cargo requirements, equipment, and mileage may all shift during the policy period.

Maintaining current operational records may support a clearer picture of how coverage aligns with actual business activity.

Conclusion

A new customer may mean more than additional freight — it may also bring different cargo types, extended routes, increased mileage, specialized equipment requirements, and new contractual obligations.

Reviewing those changes alongside existing commercial trucking coverage may help clarify whether coverage continues to reflect how the operation actually functions.

Shares of HEG rallied up to 5% on Monday to day’s high of Rs 248.90 on NSE after the company said that Replus Engitech Private, a subsidiary of the company, received orders from Indus Towers (formerly Bharti Infratel Limited) for the supply of Lithium-Ion Battery Banks worth Rs 217.56 crore.

According to the filing with the exchange, the company said that Replus Engitech Private, a subsidiary of the company, has been awarded by a domestic entity for supply of Lithium-Ion battery banks. The broad consideration or size of the order(s)/contract(s) which is Rs 217.56 crore is inclusive of GST.

The order(s)/contract(s) are to be executed on or before March 31, 2027, or such extended date as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

Also Read | HEG demerger to take effect on September 1; record date fixed for September 7

The company also mentioned that the transaction does not fall under related party transactions and no promoter/ promoter group/group companies have any interest in the entity that awarded the order(s)/contract(s).

REPLUS Engitech Private Limited, a subsidiary of Bhilwara Energy Limited, is a fast-growing, technology-driven manufacturer at the forefront of India’s Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and Electric Vehicle (EV) markets, according to the company’s website.
The company said it specialises in advanced lithium-ion technology and delivers secure, intelligent and reliable energy storage solutions, backed by in-house expertise in battery management systems (BMS) and energy management systems (EMS). Its offerings include AI-enabled battery pack manufacturing for stationary storage across residential, commercial, industrial and transmission and distribution (T&D) applications, as well as telecom, hybrid systems and e-mobility applications, including 2W, 3W, LCVs and AGVs.

HEG demerger

Earlier this month, the company announced its demerger into two separately listed entities focused on graphite electrodes and advanced materials.

The graphite electrodes business will move to HEG Graphite, which is proposed to be later renamed to HEG and run as a pure-play graphite electrodes company. The existing listed company will retain the advanced materials, battery energy solutions and green power businesses. It is proposed to be renamed HEG Advanced Materials after the demerger.

As part of the demerger, HEG shareholders will receive one share with a face value of Rs 2 each in the company being spun off for every share they hold in the existing HEG. This means the demerger ratio has been fixed at 1:1.

As part of the same scheme, Bhilwara Energy will be amalgamated into HEG. Under the arrangement, HEG will issue eight equity shares with a face value of Rs 2 each for every seven equity shares with a face value of Rs 10 each held in Bhilwara Energy. It is important to note that Bhilwara Energy is an unlisted company.

Also Read | Did HEG shares really crash 64% in one day? Here’s how the demerger math works

HEG share price movement

HEG’s share price has declined 65% over the past month and 60.27% so far this calendar year. The stock has fallen 52.43% over the past year, while its three-year and five-year declines stand at 28% and 42.24%, respectively.

Disclaimer: The views/recommendations mentioned in this article, wherever applicable, are those of the respective SEBI-registered Research Analyst/brokerage and have been reproduced/reported with due attribution. They should not be construed as the views or recommendations of The Economic Times Digital or the journalist. Readers are advised to consider the original research report and make their investment decisions based on their own assessment. Brokerage disclaimers here

The shares of Oracle Financial Services Software (OFSS) tumbled more than 7%, while those of Wipro, Coforge, Infosys and other IT companies dropped up to 2% despite the overall positive market sentiment on Monday.

OFSS shares plunged to Rs 11,061 apiece, on track to record the sharpest single-day fall since late July. It is currently the top loser on the Nifty IT index, which is down over half a %.

Why OFSS shares are falling today?

This came after the Financial Times reported that around $18 billion in loans tied to an Oracle-leased data centre in New Mexico has come under pressure, with loans quoted at 89 to 91 cents on the dollar by syndicate banks including Santander and Jefferies.

This came amid ongoing concerns regarding the escalating local opposition to the 1,400-acre “Project Jupiter” campus in Dona Ana County over fears it would impact water supply and air quality could derail Oracle’s massive AI infrastructure build-out, the FT report said. OFSS is the Indian subsidiary of Oracle.

Also read | Oracle’s $18 billion data center debt under pressure: FT

Trump extends $100K H-1B visa fee

Meanwhile, other IT stocks came under pressure after US President Donald Trump extended the $100,000 (around Rs 83 lakh) fee on employers for bringing in foreign workers on H-1B visas by another year. Trump, in a presidential proclamation issued on Friday, said the 2025 decision to impose the fee led to a 92% decrease in H-1B registrations by large IT outsourcing firms.
“An extension of the 2025 Proclamation will continue to protect the economic and national security interests of the United States, improve labour market access for American workers and graduates, and ensure that employers recruit only the most highly-skilled and essential alien workers when needed in line with the original intent of the program,” Trump said. Indians remain the single largest beneficiary group of the US H-1B visa program.IT stocks have seen sharp upswings and downswings this year. Earlier this month, Indian IT stocks sharply rallied after OpenAI and Anthropic leaders called for a slowdown in AI development to manage risks and protect humanity, boosting sentiment for the tech stocks on Dalal Street. HSBC earlier this year said India can serve as an “anti-AI” diversifier as sharp swings in technology-exposed markets encourage foreign investors to broaden their portfolios. “Any narrative around regulatory restrictions on the use of AI may actually have a positive influence on Indian IT stocks,” Bloomberg quoted Deven Choksey, managing director at investment advisory firm DRChoksey FinServ. “When the narrative shifts from unchecked development to regulated and responsible use of AI, short-covering backed by fresh buying in frontline IT stocks is quite possible,” he added.

Goldman Sachs on Indian IT stocks

Goldman Sachs however issued a cautious note, stating that IT services demand remains weak despite broadly robust tech spending, ET Now reported. It added that AI-led deflation has become more broad-based and could continue for another one to two years.

IT services firms can help clients customise AI solutions, while specific jobs may not require frontier models, Goldman Sachs was quoted as saying by ET Now. It added that GCCs continue to grow faster than IT services companies, bringing more work in-house. It noted that competition remained elevated across both new deals and renewals.

Also read | RIL selloff wipes off Rs 4 lakh crore from market value as shares drop 21% in 2026 so far. Should you buy now?

Disclaimer: This article has been written by Debaroti Adhikary, who is not a SEBI-registered Research Analyst or an Investment Adviser. Debaroti Adhikary and his/her ‘relative(s)’ (as defined under Section 2(77) of the Companies Act, 2013) do not hold any financial interest in the companies mentioned in this article as of the date of publication. The views/recommendations mentioned in this article, wherever applicable, are those of the respective SEBI-registered Research Analyst/brokerage and have been reproduced/reported with due attribution. They should not be construed as the views or recommendations of The Economic Times Digital or the journalist. Readers are advised to consider the original research report and make their investment decisions based on their own assessment. Brokerage disclaimers here.

For a business waiting 30, 60 or more days for customers to pay, that distinction matters. Previous missed payments or a difficult trading period may still be reviewed, but providers can also look at the strength of the business, its debtor book and the likelihood that outstanding invoices will be paid.

First identify where the cash flow gap comes from

Not every invoice-related cash-flow problem calls for the same type of finance. A business waiting for customers to settle completed work faces a different problem from one that needs to pay a supplier before receiving money from its own customers.

Before choosing invoice factoring or another invoice-based funding route, a business should identify which side of the payment cycle is creating the pressure. Factoring releases cash against unpaid customer invoices, while supplier invoice funding addresses bills the business itself needs to pay before enough customer cash has arrived.

Making that distinction first prevents a business from assessing a finance product that does not match the underlying problem.

Poor credit does not tell the whole story

Invoice factoring companies set their own eligibility criteria, so a weak credit history does not produce the same outcome in every application. Providers still carry out checks, but invoice finance also involves assessing the underlying business and the invoices being funded.

The quality of the debtor book matters because the facility depends on customers paying valid invoices. A business with established B2B customers, accurate records and customers that usually pay on time presents a different case from one dealing with disputed invoices or recurring late payments.

Recent accounts and trading information can also help explain an older credit problem. A missed payment during a temporary disruption may be viewed differently from continuing difficulty meeting current commitments.

None of this guarantees approval. It simply means the business credit history is one part of a wider assessment.

The invoices themselves need to stand up to scrutiny

Factoring works around money already owed to the business, so providers need confidence that those receivables are genuine and likely to be paid.

Accurate invoices, clear payment terms and an organised sales ledger make the position easier to assess. Providers may also look at how concentrated the debtor book is. Heavy dependence on one customer creates a different risk from a ledger spread across several established businesses.

Payment disputes matter as well. An invoice that is technically outstanding but subject to a disagreement over delivery or service quality is not equivalent to an undisputed invoice simply waiting for its payment date.

For the business owner, this means poor credit should not be considered in isolation. The condition of the receivables matters because those invoices sit at the centre of the facility.

Check whether factoring solves the actual problem

Access to funding is only one part of the decision. Factoring changes when the business receives cash and, in many arrangements, who manages collection from customers. It also comes with fees and contractual responsibilities.

A company with healthy sales but long customer payment terms or recurring late payments may have a clear reason to examine business invoice finance. A business that is consistently unprofitable has a different problem. Receiving cash earlier does not correct weak margins or operating costs that remain above income.

The same applies when poor credit reflects an issue that is still continuing. If current commitments already exceed what normal trading can support, another funding arrangement may shift the timing of the pressure without removing it.

Poor business credit does not automatically rule out invoice factoring, but approval and terms depend on the wider financial picture. The quality of the debtor book, current trading position, cost of the facility and reason for the cash-flow gap all matter when deciding whether factoring is a workable fit.