\n\nStorms caused heavy flooding across parts of western and central Europe overnight, with one man missing after being swept away by a raging stream in eastern Germany.\n\nFirefighters resumed their search for the man in Joehstadt, in Saxony state, on Wednesday morning [July 14]. German news agency dpa reported that he had been trying to secure his property from rising waters when he disappeared.\n\nHof county near the eastern border with the Czech Republic issued a disaster alert late Tuesday as basements filled with water, trees were uprooted and some areas lost power overnight. Germany’s DWD weather service said the region saw 80 liters (more than 21 gallons) of rain per square meter in the space of 12 hours.\n\nIn Hagen, firefighters had to rescue several drivers whose vehicles had become stuck in a flooded underpass. Videos on social media showed streets in the western city knee-deep in water and others buried by landslides.\n\nResidents in the nearby town of Erkrath were warned not to shower or use their washers as the sewage system was overloaded by rain.\n\nThe neighboring Netherlands and Belgium were also hit by flooding.\n\nWater authorities in the southern Dutch province of Limburg warned that the heavy rainfall will turn streams into dangerously fast-flowing torrents and urged the public to stay away from them.\n\nBoat owners were advised to steer clear of the Maas river due to strong currents and debris being washed downstream.\n\n

\n\nCatastrophic floods such as those that struck Europe recently could become much more frequent as a result of global heating, researchers say.\n\nHigh-resolution computer models suggest that slow-moving storms could become 14 times more common over land by the end of the century in a worst-case scenario. The slower a storm moves, the more rain it dumps on a small area and the greater the risk of serious flooding.\n\nResearchers already knew that the higher air temperatures caused by the climate crisis mean the atmosphere can hold more moisture, which in turn has led to more extreme downpours. The latest analysis, however, is the first to assess the role of slow-moving storms in causing extreme downpours in Europe.\n\nThe storms projected in the new study move even more slowly than those which drenched Germany, the Netherlands and other countries in the past week and so would lead to even more extreme rainfall and flooding. “The simulations give the idea that even worse can happen,” said Abdullah Kahraman at Newcastle University in the UK, who led the research.\n\nProf Lizzie Kendon at the UK Met Office said: “This study shows that in addition to the intensification of rainfall with global warming, we can also expect a big increase in slow-moving storms. This is very relevant to the recent flooding seen in Germany and Belgium, which highlights the devastating impacts of slow-moving storms.”\n\nScientists think the rapidly warming Arctic may be the root cause of slowing weather systems, by decelerating high-level winds such as the jet stream.

The rapidly warming Arctic creates high-level winds such as the jet stream.

Higher air temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more moisture.

Storms caused heavy flooding across parts of western and central Europe.


Last month, Gwyneth Paltrow stood trial in Utah where a man named Terry Sanderson accused her of causing him severe injury when she allegedly crashed into him while they were both skiing at the luxurious Deer Valley ski resort.\n\nShe ultimately won the trial after Sanderson was determined to be "100 percent at fault" for the 2016 ski crash. The proceedings garnered lots of attention, and now, weeks later, Paltrow has taken to Instagram to comment on what happened.\n\nHer post featured a video of falling show, a photo of an extravagant living room, another photo of snow, and one of a whiskey bottle, all apparently taken during the time she spent in Utah for the trial.\n\nHer post featured a video of falling show, a photo of an extravagant living room, another photo of snow, and one of a whiskey bottle, all apparently taken during the time she spent in Utah for the trial.\n\nHer captioned seemed to confirm this – she wrote "Last weeks of March; storms of varying kinds, a beautiful place to lay my head, cold therapy of the most natural kind, and a whisky discovery."\n\nThe last weeks of March were when the trial took place. "Storms of various kinds" could refer to both the snowstorms in the area and the media storm the trial caused.\n\nMany of her followers also understood her post to be a reference to her days in court.

The jury sided with Paltrow, ruling that Sanderson was at fault.

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow appeared in a Park City courtroom on Tuesday for the start of a trial over a 2016 skiing crash in Utah.\n\nPaltrow is accused of crashing into Terry Sanderson, causing several serious injuries and then abandoning him, while they were both skiing on a beginner run at Deer Valley Resort seven years ago.\n\nThe trial is being live streamed on YouTube.\n\nSanderson, a retired optometrist, filed the lawsuit in 2019, three years after the collision on the mountainside. Since then, he has alleged that the accident left him with a brain injury, four broken ribs and emotional damage. Sanderson also claimed Paltrow left the scene without giving him her name, contact information or calling for help.\n\nLawrence Buhler, an attorney for Sanderson, began opening arguments stating, "Distracted skiers cause crashes. Defendant Gwyneth Paltrow knew that looking up the mountain and to the side while skiing down the mountain was dangerous."\n\nPaltrow\'s attorney Stephen Owens told the jury that Sanderson\'s claims that the actress bolted from the mountain after ramming into him were totally fabricated.\n\n"We believe it to be utter B.S.," Owens said.\n\nHe also told the jury that the burden of proof in the case rested on Sanderson\'s legal team and not on the actress.\n\n"You\'re going to feel sorrow for [Sanderson] but that\'s not why you\'re here. You\'re here to figure out if someone negligently crashed into someone or if no one did," he noted.\n\n"Skiing comes with inherent risks," he added.

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow appeared in a Park City courtroom on Tuesday for the start of the trial over the 2016 skiing crash in Utah.

While highlighting Latino underrepresentation in Hollywood, John Leguizamo joked that he might take a role from a white actor by playing Gwyneth Paltrow in a movie about her ongoing ski-accident trial.\n\nThe actor, who stars in Prime Video\'s "The Power," is guest hosting "The Daily Show" after the departure of its host Trevor Noah. On Monday\'s episode, Leguizamo spoke about the phenomenon of white actors like James Franco, who was cast as Fidel Castro in the film "Alina of Cuba," being cast in Latino roles.\n\n"Well, guess what? If white people can take our roles, I\'m going to take theirs," Leguizamo said.\n\n"When they do the TV series based on Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski-accident trial, I\'m going to be Gwyneth Paltrow," he continued, before launching into an impression of the actor and Goop founder.\n\n\nPaltrow is in court after a retired optometrist, Terry Sanderson, sued her in 2019 claiming that she was at fault when she crashed into him on a ski slope in 2016. Paltrow, who has disputed parts of Sanderson\'s story, countersued, saying that Sanderson ran into her.\n\nLeguizamo has been outspoken about the dearth of Latino representation in Hollywood, writing an open letter to the industry in the Los Angeles Times in 2022 about the long-standing issue.\n\n"You may think Lin-Manuel Miranda, Bad Bunny, J Lo, Benicio del Toro and I are the only ones, but you are wrong," he wrote. "There are millions of Latinos, and we were just among the few to be allowed through."

John Leguizamo joked that he might take a role from a white actor by playing Gwyneth Paltrow in a movie about her ongoing ski accident trial.

Accuser Terry Sanderson was determined to be "100% at fault"


\n\nEquifax says a giant cybersecurity breach compromised the personal information of as many as 143 million Americans — almost half the country.\nCyber criminals have accessed sensitive information -- including names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and the numbers of some driver\'s licenses.\n\nAdditionally, Equifax said that credit card numbers for about 209,000 U.S. customers were exposed, as was "personal identifying information" on roughly 182,000 U.S. customers involved in credit report disputes. Residents in the U.K. and Canada were also impacted.\n\nThe breach occurred between mid-May and July, Equifax said. The company said it discovered the hack on July 29.\n\nThe data breach is one of the worst ever, by its reach and by the kind of information exposed to the public.\n\n"This is clearly a disappointing event for our company, and one that strikes at the heart of who we are and what we do," said Equifax chairman and CEO Richard F. Smith.\n\nEquifax is one of three nationwide credit-reporting companies that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history, which all factor into credit scores.\n\nUnlike other data breaches, not all of the people affected by the Equifax breach may be aware that they\'re customers of the company.

Equifax has come under fire for its handling of the huge cybersecurity breach.

\n\nHackers were able to access personal data of 143 million Equifax customers.\nHow did it happen?\n\nMuch is still unknown. But it came down to a flaw in a tool designed to build web applications, the company said in a press release this week. And Equifax admitted it was aware of the security flaw a full two months before the company says hackers first gained accessed to its data.\n\nSome of the information hackers had access to includes names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and some driver\'s license numbers.\n\nThe tool is called Apache Struts, and it\'s used by many large businesses and government organizations. Equifax used it to support its online dispute portal -- where Equifax (EFX) customers go to log issues with their credit reports. The flaw allowed hackers to take control of a website.\n\nA cybersecurity arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, US-CERT, "identified and disclosed" the Apache Struts flaw in March, Equifax said in a statement.\n\nAnd the company\'s security department "was aware of this vulnerability at that time, and took efforts to identify and to patch any vulnerable systems."\n\nYet, according to the company, hackers exploited the flaw months later.\n\nEquifax has said it discovered the data breach on July 29. On Friday, it said it waited until it "observed additional suspicious activity" a day later to take the affected web application offline.\n\nAnd on August 2 Equifax contacted Mandiant, a professional cybersecurity firm, to help the company assess what data had been compromised.\n\n

Hackers took control of Equifax's website.

\n\nThe blows keep coming for Equifax (NYSE:EFX) as shares continue to tumble and the Federal Trade Commission announced plans to open an investigation into the credit reporting company Thursday after the company went public with its massive security breach last week, putting 143 million American’s personal data at risk.\n\nIn case you missed all drama, here’s a timeline of events, involving one of the biggest security breaches of all time.\n\nMid-May through July 2017 – This is the time frame in which Equifax says hackers gained unauthorized access to its data.\n\nThursday, July 29 – Equifax discovers the hack and immediately stopped the intrusion.\n\nTuesday, August 1 & Wednesday, August 2– Three top executives from Equifax sell nearly $2 million worth of company stock.\n\nThursday, September 7 – Equifax officially alerts the public about the cybersecurity incident and provides a dedicated website for consumers to check if they were affected. Later on that night, the company also issues a statement saying the three executives “had no knowledge that an intrusion had occurred at the time they sold their shares.”\n\nFriday, September 8 –Shares of Equifax shed more than 13% of their value in trading. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tears into the company on social media for trying to push customers to give up their right to sue.\n\n\n.@Equifax is forcing you to give up your right to join a class action against the company if you want their credit protection product. pic.twitter.com/anu0SE58wg\n\n— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 8, 2017\n

\n\nThe chief executive of Equifax is retiring, the company said Tuesday, just weeks after the troubled credit reporting agency disclosed that it had suffered a massive data breach affecting as many as 143 million people.\n\nThe departure of Richard Smith comes as Equifax has drawn fire from countless consumers and dozens of federal lawmakers over its handling of the breach. Equifax announced earlier this month that hackers gained unauthorized access to sensitive personal data — Social Security numbers, birth dates and home addresses — for nearly half of the country. The company also faces multiple federal investigations over its handling of the hack and reports that executives sold an unusual amount of stock before the breach was publicly disclosed.\n\nEquifax's board of directors appointed board member Mark Feidler to serve as the company's nonexecutive chairman, the company said in a statement Tuesday. Paulino do Rego Barros Jr., who led the company's Asia Pacific division, will become the interim chief executive.\n\n“The cybersecurity incident has affected millions of consumers, and I have been completely dedicated to making this right,” Smith said in the statement. “At this critical juncture, I believe it is in the best interests of the company to have new leadership to move the company forward.”\n\nSmith, 57, had been the chairman and chief executive since 2005, after spending 22 years at General Electric. During Smith's time at Equifax, the company’s stock price had soared 200 percent, and its market value swelled from $3 billion to $20 billion. Smith also expanded the company’s business into 24 countries.

Equifax is facing multiple federal investigations over its handling of the hack.


\n\nIn a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.\n\nWriting for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."\n\nThe decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.\n\nJoining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks. Calling the decision "a serious jolt to the legal system," he said that both the majority and dissent displayed "a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share."

Protests are planned across the country to denounce the ruling.

\n\nNovember 8, 2016: Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. During his presidency, he appointed three conservative judges to the court - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — solidifying a conservative majority.\n\nJune 27, 2016: In its strongest defense of abortion rights in 25 years, the court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.\n\nDecember 1, 2021: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was brought to the Supreme Court, a case dealing with a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Upholding Mississippi's ban would mean overturning Roe.\n\nMay 2, 2022: A Politico report details a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade. The news set off protests and rallies across the country.\n\nJune 24, 2022: The court ruled 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the conservative justices in the decision to uphold Mississippi's law, but urged a concurring opinion concerning Roe. The decision is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states in the nation.\n\n

June 27, 2016: Supreme Court strikes down Texas rules forcing clinics to meet hospital-like standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday. This decision will mean laws further restricting abortion care and services will go into effect in many states. Following May's leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion in which the justices appear ready to overturn Roe, we asked you what questions you had for our experts about abortion care and access in the U.S.\n\nMany of you wrote in wanting to know more about the impact this decision could have on hospitals, in vitro fertilization, and care for miscarriages. To answer those questions, we reached out to Kristyn Brandi, an OB-GYN and family planning doctor, who is also the board chair for Physicians for Reproductive Health, and NPR health policy correspondent Selena Simmons-Duffin.\n\nMiscarriage care is definitely going to be impacted — it's already happening in Texas.\n\nA lot of times people think about miscarriage as something that's spontaneous, that somebody has no control over. That can be true, but it can also be something that people have to make decisions about. The standard of care for treating a miscarriage is the same as the standard of care for providing an abortion.\n\nThe way that can play out is if somebody has a miscarriage and they need to take medication to empty the uterus so they're not at risk of infection, that same medication is what's used for medication abortion. There have already been a lot of reports of pharmacists in Texas not filling those prescriptions for people who are suffering miscarriages.\n\n

Miscarriage care already being impacted in Texas.

\n\nThe supreme court has ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States, upending the landmark Roe v Wade case from nearly 50 years ago in a rare reversal of long-settled law that will fracture reproductive rights in America.\n\nJoe Biden called the ruling a “tragic error” and the Republicans celebrating it “wrong, extreme and out of touch”.\n\nThe court, the president said, had pointed America down “an extreme and dangerous path”. Sounding an alarm over a concurring opinion by the conservative justice Clarence Thomas, Biden said key rights including same-sex marriage and access to contraception could now be targeted by the rightwing court.\n\nHe said: “Justice Thomas said as much today. He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality. The right of couples to make their choices on contraception.\n\n“This is an extreme and dangerous path the court has now taken us on.”\n\nThe ruling, handed down a day after the court overturned a New York gun control law, came in the case Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the last abortion clinic in Mississippi opposed state efforts to ban abortion after 15 weeks and overturn Roe.\n\n“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” said the majority opinion, written by Samuel Alito and joined by four other conservatives, referring also to a 1992 ruling which buttressed Roe. “The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”\n\n

\n\nWithin days of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s memorial service in late September 2020, boxes of her files and other office possessions were moved down to a dark, windowless theater on the\u202fSupreme Court’s\u202fground floor, where\u202f–\u202fbefore the ongoing pandemic\u202f–\u202ftourists could watch a film about court operations.\nGrieving aides to the justice who’d served 27 years and become a cultural icon known as the “Notorious RBG” sorted through the chambers’ contents there.\nThe abrupt mandate from Chief Justice John Roberts’ administrative team to clear out Ginsburg’s office and\u202fmake way for the next justice broke from the common practice of allowing staff sufficient time to move and providing a new justice with temporary quarters if needed while permanent chambers were readied.\nIt upset employees throughout the building. They were aware that in the weeks before Ginsburg died, her staff had labored to ensure she had case documents at hand, whether in the hospital or at home. They were exhausted from all the memorial arrangements, which had attracted thousands of people to Washington.\u202f\nBut the confirmation of then-President Donald Trump’s chosen successor, Indiana-based US appeals court\u202fJudge Amy Coney Barrett, was as much a fait accompli at the court as in the political sphere.\n

President Donald Trump chose a successor of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


\n\nThursday, March 8 is International Women’s Day, but 2017 and 2018 could each arguably be called the year of women.\n\nThe groundbreaking anti-sexual assault and women’s empowerment movements #MeToo and Time’s Up upended the public conversation about women’s issues around the world, and elevated the global consciousness surrounding the obstacles women encounter in their daily lives, both personal and professional.\n\nThe #MeToo movement has become a worldwide phenomenon, searched for on Google in 196 countries in the past year. The culture shift has been palpable — for the first time ever, the world has been put on notice that these once-fledgling women’s movements were not to be ignored. And people started to listen.\n\nTIME magazine named The Silence Breakers as the 2017 Person of the Year, honoring not one individual, but all of the women involved – and the cause as a whole. By shining a light on the women whose efforts got the movement off the ground, TIME acknowledged the profound influence of women like Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd on the year’s news, and their unprecedented ability to enact rapid change.\n\nAlthough they overlap, there are distinct differences between the #MeToo and Time Up’s organizations and the movements fueling their formation.\n\nTIME spoke to #MeToo founder Tarana Burke and Christy Haubegger, a Creative Artists Agency executive who helped start Time’s Up, about what they see as the similarities and differences between their two organizations.\n\n“This is a movement that deals specifically with sexual violence,” Burke said.

#MeToo movement named Time magazine's Person of the Year for 2017.

\n\nIt has created a wave of awareness and brave confrontations over sexual harassment and assault, taking down powerful men in the process. And now the #MeToo movement has been named Time magazine\'s Person of the Year for 2017.\n\nOn its cover, Time called the people behind the movement "The Silence Breakers." Its story features women and men who have spoken out — including activist Tarana Burke, who started the hashtag 10 years ago.\n\n#MeToo rose to prominence as a social media campaign in the wake of high-profile accusations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. After actress Alyssa Milano popularized the hashtag, thousands of women began sharing their stories about the pervasive damage wrought by sexual harassment and by "open secrets" about abuse.\n\nThe movement\'s empowering reach could be seen in the platform on which Time announced its choice: the Today show. It was just one week ago that NBC fired the morning program\'s longtime and powerful co-host, Matt Lauer, over a detailed complaint of "inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace."\n\nWhile the most high-profile #MeToo stories have come from women and men who work in the movies and media, the Time article also features women who work hourly jobs, some of whom want to remain anonymous. The magazine\'s cover portrait includes strawberry picker Isabel Pascual, lobbyist Adama Iwu and former Uber engineer Susan Fowler along with Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift.\n\n

Tarana Burke started the #MeToo hashtag 10 years ago

\n\nHollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty of rape and sexual assault by courts in New York and Los Angeles.\n\nHere is a summary of the key events that led him to court:\n\n- Weinstein issues an apology acknowledging he "has caused a lot of pain" - but disputes allegations he harassed female employees over nearly three decades.\n\n- It is announced that Harvey Weinstein has been sacked by the board of his company, with immediate effect. \n\n- The organisation behind the Oscars votes to expel Weinstein. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says: "What\'s at issue here is a deeply troubling problem that has no place in our society."\n\n- Weinstein\'s former company files for bankruptcy, months after the Oscar-winning producer was accused of multiple sexual assaults.\n\n- Weinstein faces fresh sexual assault charges in New York from a third woman, in a case dating back to 2006.\n\n- After five days of deliberation, the jury finds Weinstein guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and third-degree rape.\n\n- Weinstein goes on trial in LA, facing 11 charges involving five alleged victims.\n\n- Weinstein is found guilty by a Los Angeles jury of raping a woman.\n

Weinstein's former company files for bankruptcy.

\n\nIt’s the hashtag that rocked the world.\n\nSince #MeToo went viral two weeks ago in the wake of sexual harassment allegations against producer Harvey Weinstein, Twitter reports that more than 1.7 million women and men have used the hashtag in 85 countries.\n\nIn Italy, women rallied behind a version called #QuellaVoltaChe, which translates to “That time when,” while French women decided to out their harassers by name under #BalanceTonPorc, which roughly translates to “snitch out your pig.”\n\nAt least nine well-known powerful men have been accused of various forms of sexual assault, including former President George H.W. Bush, Hollywood producer James Toback and journalist and author Mark Halperin. And just last week, California Rep. Jackie Speier launched #MeTooCongress, asking Washington staffers to share their stories on harassment on the Hill.\n\nBut can a hashtag, a meme or any viral moment – no matter how widespread – really turn into a lasting movement that that will create social change and reduce sexual abuse of women?\n\nMaybe. But experts say it’s going to take a coordinated effort between antiviolence organizations, the media and Hollywood as well as concrete actions from each and every one of us, especially men.\n\n“I am really tired of talking about women,” said Toni Van Pelt, president of the National Association of Women. “We must focus on the men. We must be demanding that the men step forward and take responsibility, whether they think they are the good guy or not.

Producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual harassment.

Actress Alyssa Milano popularized the hashtag #MeToo


\n\nViolence has erupted in cities across the US on the sixth night of protests sparked by the death in police custody of African-American George Floyd.\n\nDozens of cities imposed curfews, but many people ignored them, leading to stand-offs and clashes.\n\nRiot police faced off with protesters in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and LA, firing tear gas and pepper bullets to try to disperse crowds.\n\nPolice vehicles were set on fire and shops were looted in several cities.\n\nThe country is experiencing the most widespread racial turbulence and civil unrest since the backlash to the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968.\n\nThe outpouring of anger began last Tuesday after a video showed Mr Floyd being arrested in Minneapolis and a white police officer continuing to kneel on his neck even after he pleaded he could not breathe and fell unconscious.\n\nMore than 75 cities have seen protests, with streets only days ago deserted because of coronavirus full of demonstrators marching shoulder to shoulder. Some US officials have warned of protest-connected virus outbreaks.\n\nThe Floyd case has reignited deep-seated anger over police killings of black Americans and racism. It follows the high-profile cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York and others that have driven the Black Lives Matter movement.\n\nFor many, the outrage also reflects years of frustration over socio-economic inequality and discrimination, not least in Minneapolis itself, where George Floyd died.\n\n

Tens of thousands of demonstrators and activists were arrested, and hundreds hit with more serious charges by federal and local prosecutors.

\n\nBlack Lives Matters protesters in Bristol have pulled down a statue of the slave trader Edward Colston.\n\nDemonstrators attached a rope to the Grade II-listed statue on Colston Avenue on Sunday before pulling it to the ground as crowds cheered. They then jumped on it and rolled it down the street before pushing it into Bristol Harbour.\n\nThe historian David Olusoga compared the action to the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, the home secretary, Priti Patel, urged the police to respond. She told Sky News: “I think that is utterly disgraceful and that speaks to the acts of public disorder that have actually now become a distraction from the cause in which people are protesting about.”\n\nSupt Andy Bennett, of Somerset and Avon police, said his force was carrying out an investigation into criminal damage.\n\nHowever, Bennett told the BBC he understood that Colston was “a historical figure that’s caused the black community quite a lot of angst over the last couple of years”, adding: “Whilst I am disappointed that people would damage one of our statues, I do understand why it’s happened, it’s very symbolic. \n\n“You might wonder why we didn’t intervene and why we just allowed people to put it in the docks – we made a very tactical decision, to stop people from doing the act may have caused further disorder and we decided the safest thing to do, in terms of our policing tactics, was to allow it to take place.”\n\n

The statue was then rolled down the street and pushed into Bristol Harbour.

Black Lives Matters protesters in Bristol pulled down a statue of the slave trader Edward Colston.

\n\nUrgent plans to defuse tensions and address fury over disproportionate police action against black and minority ethnic people are being drawn up by the mayor of London, as Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests are expected in dozens of towns and cities by the weekend.\n\nThe initiative from Sadiq Khan to apply pressure on the Metropolitan police, the UK’s largest force, over the use of stop and search, Tasers and other practices comes amid concerns about the spread of coronavirus in crowds, and fears of violence as it emerged that far-right groups were planning counter-demonstrations.\n\nSteps to address anger over systemic racism, brought into sharp focus after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, contrast with UK ministers’ rhetoric and pressure from Tory backbenchers for police and prosecutors to crack down on disorder.\n\nBoris Johnson acknowledged the “incontrovertible, undeniable feeling of injustice” behind the BLM protests, in an article for the black newspaper the Voice, in which he also strongly condemned those who have flouted social distancing to attend them.\n\nHe wrote that he would not support such action “for the obvious reason that we risk a new infection at a critical time and just as we have made huge progress”, adding that: “Those who attack public property or the police – who injure the police officers who are trying to keep us all safe – those people will face the full force of the law.”\n\n

In UK, far-right groups are planning counter-demonstrations.

Police vehicles set on fire and shops looted in several cities.


Black Lives Matters protesters in Bristol pulled down a statue of the slave trader Edward Colston.

\n\nViolence has erupted in cities across the US on the sixth night of protests sparked by the death in police custody of African-American George Floyd.\n\nDozens of cities imposed curfews, but many people ignored them, leading to stand-offs and clashes.\n\nRiot police faced off with protesters in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and LA, firing tear gas and pepper bullets to try to disperse crowds.\n\nPolice vehicles were set on fire and shops were looted in several cities.\n\nThe country is experiencing the most widespread racial turbulence and civil unrest since the backlash to the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968.\n\nThe outpouring of anger began last Tuesday after a video showed Mr Floyd being arrested in Minneapolis and a white police officer continuing to kneel on his neck even after he pleaded he could not breathe and fell unconscious.\n\nMore than 75 cities have seen protests, with streets only days ago deserted because of coronavirus full of demonstrators marching shoulder to shoulder. Some US officials have warned of protest-connected virus outbreaks.\n\nThe Floyd case has reignited deep-seated anger over police killings of black Americans and racism. It follows the high-profile cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York and others that have driven the Black Lives Matter movement.\n\nFor many, the outrage also reflects years of frustration over socio-economic inequality and discrimination, not least in Minneapolis itself, where George Floyd died.\n\n

Americans had a deep-seated anger over police killings of black Americans and racism.

\n\nBlack Lives Matters protesters in Bristol have pulled down a statue of the slave trader Edward Colston.\n\nDemonstrators attached a rope to the Grade II-listed statue on Colston Avenue on Sunday before pulling it to the ground as crowds cheered. They then jumped on it and rolled it down the street before pushing it into Bristol Harbour.\n\nThe historian David Olusoga compared the action to the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, the home secretary, Priti Patel, urged the police to respond. She told Sky News: “I think that is utterly disgraceful and that speaks to the acts of public disorder that have actually now become a distraction from the cause in which people are protesting about.”\n\nSupt Andy Bennett, of Somerset and Avon police, said his force was carrying out an investigation into criminal damage.\n\nHowever, Bennett told the BBC he understood that Colston was “a historical figure that’s caused the black community quite a lot of angst over the last couple of years”, adding: “Whilst I am disappointed that people would damage one of our statues, I do understand why it’s happened, it’s very symbolic. \n\n“You might wonder why we didn’t intervene and why we just allowed people to put it in the docks – we made a very tactical decision, to stop people from doing the act may have caused further disorder and we decided the safest thing to do, in terms of our policing tactics, was to allow it to take place.”\n\n

The statue was then rolled down the street and pushed into Bristol Harbour.

\n\nUrgent plans to defuse tensions and address fury over disproportionate police action against black and minority ethnic people are being drawn up by the mayor of London, as Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests are expected in dozens of towns and cities by the weekend.\n\nThe initiative from Sadiq Khan to apply pressure on the Metropolitan police, the UK’s largest force, over the use of stop and search, Tasers and other practices comes amid concerns about the spread of coronavirus in crowds, and fears of violence as it emerged that far-right groups were planning counter-demonstrations.\n\nSteps to address anger over systemic racism, brought into sharp focus after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, contrast with UK ministers’ rhetoric and pressure from Tory backbenchers for police and prosecutors to crack down on disorder.\n\nBoris Johnson acknowledged the “incontrovertible, undeniable feeling of injustice” behind the BLM protests, in an article for the black newspaper the Voice, in which he also strongly condemned those who have flouted social distancing to attend them.\n\nHe wrote that he would not support such action “for the obvious reason that we risk a new infection at a critical time and just as we have made huge progress”, adding that: “Those who attack public property or the police – who injure the police officers who are trying to keep us all safe – those people will face the full force of the law.”\n\n

In UK, far-right groups are planning counter-demonstrations.


Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski crash trial came to an end Thursday when a jury sided with the actor, saying she was not at fault for a 2016 collision at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort that injured a retired optometrist.\n\nTerry Sanderson sued Paltrow for $300,000, alleging that reckless skiing caused her to run into him from behind on Feb. 26, 2016. Sanderson said he suffered four broken ribs, a concussion and lasting brain damage that affected his daily life and personal relationships.\n\nPaltrow, who has repeatedly denied running into Sanderson, countersued for $1 and her legal fees.\n\nThe trial went on for more than a week. The jury deliberated for just a few hours before deciding that Sanderson, not Paltrow, was at fault.\n\nHere’s a timeline of the events that led up to the court case, and memorable moments from trial.\n\nSanderson filed a lawsuit on Jan. 29, 2019, saying that Paltrow was skiing "out of control" when she hit him from behind, knocked him down, and then landed on top of him. He said after the collision, the actor got up and skied away and did not offer any help.\n\nHe was initially seeking more than $3.1 million but amended it to $300,000.\n\nSanderson said it took him three years to file the suit because his legal team could not come to a resolution after meeting with Paltrow and her attorney.

Sanderson did not appeal the verdict, ending the protracted legal battle

Gwyneth Paltrow was called to the witness stand Friday in a civil suit filed against her, where she emphatically denied that she caused an accident at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort in 2016 that left a man seriously injured.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, who is seeking $300,000 from Paltrow, says she slammed into him from behind in a ski collision that left him with a concussion, brain injury and four broken ribs. But Paltrow alleges that it was actually Sanderson at fault and that he is exploiting her wealth.\n\n"Mr. Sanderson categorically hit me on the ski slope and that is the truth," Paltrow said from the stand Friday.\n\nThe actor and Sanderson both dispute who hit whom and who was farther up the hill at the time of the crash. Deer Valley’s website says the person ahead or downhill has the right of way. \n\nPaltrow was called to the stand Friday by Sanderson’s attorneys, after the jury heard from Sanderson\'s daughters, an eyewitness and medical experts.\n\nPaltrow said she was “gently” skiing down the slope when she felt a body press into her back and saw two skis slide between hers. She and Sanderson fell to the ground, Paltrow said, adding that she momentarily froze before becoming upset and yelling an expletive at Sanderson.\n\nPaltrow apologized for the outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.\n\n“There was a body pressing against me and a very strange grunting noise,” she said.

Paltrow apologizes for her outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.

The Utah civil trial involving actress Gwyneth Paltrow and a man who is accusing her of wrongdoing in relation to a 2016 ski collision resumed Monday for its second week of proceedings.\n\nTerry Sanderson, the retired optometrist who is suing Paltrow, testified on Monday that he “was skiing easy” and “paying attention” prior to the collision with Paltrow, which happened at Deer Valley Resort in Park City, Utah.\n\n“I just remember everything was great and then I heard something I’ve never heard at a ski resort and that was a blood-curdling scream … and then boom,” he said. “It was like somebody was out of control and going to hit a tree and was going to die. And that’s what I had until I was hit.”\n\nHe went on to describe the impact.\n\n“I got hit in my back so hard and right at my shoulder blades and it felt like it was perfectly centered and the fists and the poles were right at the bottom of my shoulder blades, serious, serious smack and I’ve never been hit that hard,” Sanderson continued. “All I saw was a whole lot of snow.”\n\nSanderson disputed suggestions he sued Paltrow to exploit her fame and wealth.\n\n\n\n“I thought, ‘I’m not into celebrity worship,’” Sanderson told the jury about learning she was the other skier involved in their collision.\n\nCraig Ramon, a witness who testified previously, was recalled to the stand to discuss newly obtained evidence related to a message board earlier on Monday.

Sanderson disputed the suggestion that he was suing Paltrow to exploit her fame and wealth.

The witness Craig Ramon was recalled to testify about newly obtained evidence related to a message board earlier on Monday.

Attorneys are presenting their closing arguments Thursday before handing an eight-member Utah jury the case from the closely watched Gwyneth Paltrow ski collision trial, in which a retired optometrist is suing her for the injuries he says he sustained.\n\nPaltrow testified Friday in Utah after being sued in a 2016 ski crash that\'s been referred to as a "hit and run."\n\nIn 2019, the "Iron Man" star was sued by Terry Sanderson, who claimed she seriously injured him during a crash on the slopes at a Park City ski resort. The alleged incident occurred Feb. 26, 2016, on a beginner run at Deer Valley Resort.\n\nSanderson testified Monday. He is seeking $300,000 in damages, following a $3.1 million lawsuit that was previously dropped. Paltrow has denied the allegations and in a counterclaim said it was Sanderson who crashed into her.\n\nPaltrow is seeking "symbolic damages in the amount of $1, plus her costs and attorney’s fees to defend this meritless claim," her lawsuit said. The actress vowed to donate any additional funds potentially awarded by the jury to a charitable organization.

Paltrow testified in court in Utah on Friday after being sued in ski crash


Shares in banks all over the world have plummeted in recent days as fears that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) could precipitate a wider crisis in the sector.\n\nThe speed at which market jitters have spread across the world have forced bank executives and regulators to move with unprecedented swiftness: US authorities guaranteed all deposits in SVB – and smaller bank Signature – 48 hours after it collapsed. Just hours after Credit Suisse’s share price plunged on Wednesday, the Swiss central bank stepped in with a $54bn loan.\n\nWhile there’s nothing new about a financial emergency, these crises – and their resulting responses – are unique in having been accelerated by a frenzy of social media chatter that has fuelled the panic.\n\n‘It was a bank sprint, not a bank run’\nA bank run occurs when customers lose faith in an institution’s ability to look after their money, and large numbers withdraw their deposits all at once. As more people withdraw their funds, the likelihood of the bank being able to cover the withdrawals falls, leading more customers to pile in and demand the return of their money.\n\n“If you see a bomb disposal expert running down the street, don’t ask them what’s happened, just try to keep up,” writes Daniel Davies, the managing director of Frontline Analysts, in the Financial Times.\n\nRumours around a bank’s solvency can build up for months or years before it leads to a run. Or it can happen in a matter of hours.

UBS took over Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse in a rushed takeover.

President Biden says customers of U.S. banks should have confidence that their money will be there when they need it, as he seeks to limit the damage done by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and other problems. He also promised accountability for leaders and investors of banks that fail.\n\nBiden\'s words didn\'t prevent anxiety over the banking emergency from hammering stock prices of financial institutions on Monday morning. The pain was particularly acute for regional and middle-sized banks.\n\nThe banking emergency has prompted federal regulators to take extraordinary actions to close two banks and guarantee all their deposits.\n\nBecause of those actions, Biden said, "every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them."\n\nCompanies with accounts at the collapsed banks "can breathe easier, knowing they\'ll be able to pay their workers and pay their bills," Biden said. "Their hardworking employees can breathe easier as well."\n\nBiden spoke from the White House at 9 a.m. ET Monday, just 30 minutes before the New York stock market opened. But one hour into trading, a number of banking stocks were down.\n\nMany eyes are on First Republic Bank, the San Francisco institution whose clients include tech companies and wealthy investors. The bank\'s stock plummeted below the $20 mark early Monday — one week after it closed at $122.\n\nBank of America and Wells Fargo also saw their stock prices slip, both of them falling by 4% or more in the first hour of trading.

President Biden speaks on the banking emergency and assures customers of U.S. banks that their money will be there when they need it

Bank of America and Wells Fargo see their stock prices slip by 4% or more.


\n\nThe US, and the technology sector which were among its biggest customers, face another Lehman Brothers moment with the failure of SVB.\n\nUS regulators rushed to seize the assets of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) on Friday after a run on the bank, the largest failure of a financial institution since the height of the financial crisis more than a decade ago.\n\nSilicon Valley, the country\'s 16th largest bank, failed after depositors - mostly technology workers and venture capital-backed companies - hurried to withdraw their money this week as anxiety over the bank’s situation spread.\n\nThe bank could no longer cope with the massive withdrawals of its customers and its last attempts to raise new money did not succeed.\n\nUS authorities therefore officially took possession of the bank and entrusted its management to the U.S. agency responsible for guaranteeing deposits, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).\n\nLittle known to the general public, SVB had specialised in financing start-ups and had become one of the largest banks in the US by asset size: at the end of 2022, it had $209 billion (€196 billion) in assets and about $175.4 billion (€164.5 billion) in deposits.\n\n\nIts demise represents not only the largest bank failure since that of Washington Mutual in 2008, but also the second-largest failure of a retail bank in the United States.\n\nUS Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called several financial sector regulators together on Friday to discuss the situation, reminding them that she had "full confidence" in their ability to take appropriate action and that the banking sector remained "resilient".

SVB had specialised in financing start-ups.

\n\nEconomic warning signs are mounting in California — foreshadowing potentially tough budget decisions for the state officials and policymakers who emerge victorious from the Nov. 8 election.\n\nOne particularly eye-popping statistic: Just nine companies headquartered in the Golden State went public in the first three quarters of 2022, compared to 81 during the same period last year, according to a Bloomberg News analysis.\n\nAs of Sept. 30, initial public offerings in California had raised just $177 million, compared to an average of $16 billion during the same period over the past five years.\nThe $177 million figure represents just 2% of funds generated by U.S. companies that went public through the end of September. Last year at this time, California accounted for 39% of funds nationally.\nIf this trend continues, it could spell an end to the streak California has maintained since 2003 of generating more IPOs than any other state.\n“We are already seeing an immediate effect,” Brian Uhler, deputy legislative analyst for the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, told Bloomberg. “And it does appear to be significant,” contributing to a 5% decline in California employers’ income tax withholding payments in September compared to last year.\n\nIndeed, California collected about $2.8 billion less in taxes in September than it thought it would, marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections, according to a report released this week by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Department of Finance.\n\n\n

California collected less in taxes in September marking the third straight month of revenues coming in below projections.

\n\nA global rout sparked by investors’ pessimism about the US economy has pulled down Indian technology companies, too.\n\nThe Nifty IT, a key Indian stock market index for the information-technology space, is ending 2022 down 24% from the previous year, its worst fall since the 2008 global financial crisis. This decline comes after five straight years of annual gains.\n\nTech majors such as Wipro, Tech Mahindra, and Mphasis have lost more than 40% of their market value in 2022. Hundreds of employees of both startups and bellwether companies have been laid off. Venture capitalist funding has dwindled.\n\nWhile the Indian economy itself has been resilient in a shaky global environment, its tech industry’s weak stretch may continue into 2023.\n\nFears of a recession, stoked by rising interest rates in developed markets, have hit the revenues, sales, and growth prospects of many global tech firms. A major share of Indian tech firms’ earnings comes from global clients.\n\nThis sell-off only intensified after Goldman Sachs, in September, downgraded Mumbai-based Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Bengaluru’s Infosys to “sell” from “buy,” citing a potential slowdown in revenue growth.\n\nMeanwhile, HCL Technologies, India’s third-largest IT company by revenue, has also lowered its revenue growth projection for 2023.\n\n

Investors are pessimistic about the US economy.


After months of waffling, lawsuits, verbal mudslinging, and the near miss of a full-blown trial, Elon Musk now owns Twitter.\n\nOn Thursday night, Mr. Musk closed his $44 billion deal to buy the social media service, said three people with knowledge of the situation. He also began cleaning the house, with at least four top Twitter executives — including the chief executive and chief financial officer — getting fired on Thursday. Mr. Musk had arrived at Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters on Wednesday and met with engineers and ad executives.\n\nThe closing of the deal, which followed months of drama and legal challenges as Mr. Musk changed his mind about buying the company, sets Twitter on an uncertain course. Mr. Musk, a self-described “free speech absolutist,” has said that he wants to make the social media platform a more freewheeling place for all types of commentary and that he would “reverse the permanent ban” of former President Donald J. Trump from the service. Mr. Musk’s open approach to speech on Twitter could exacerbate long-simmering issues of toxic content and misinformation, affecting political debates around the world. Early tests will come within days, when Brazil elects its president and American voters go to the polls on Nov. 8 for the midterm elections. Twitter said it would prohibit misleading claims about voting and the outcome of elections, but that was before Mr. Musk owned it.

Musk proposed a plan to charge verified users $20 a month for verification.

At least four top Twitter executives, including the CEO and CFO, are fired.

Elon Musk closes $44 billion deal to buy Twitter.

Elon Musk, Twitter’s most important shitposter, has added the company to his business empire after months of legal skirmishes, according to CNBC, The Washington Post, and Insider. The acquisition was confirmed in an SEC filing from the company on Friday morning, noting it’s delisting $TWTR from the New York Stock Exchange. He celebrated by firing executives. Musk fired Parag Agrawal, who succeeded Jack Dorsey as Twitter CEO, and chief financial officer Ned Segal, both of who were in the building at the time and escorted out by security, according to Reuters. Vijaya Gadde, the company’s policy chief whom Musk had publicly criticized, was also ousted. Sean Edgett, the general counsel, is gone, too, The New York Times reports. (Bloomberg says security escorted him out, as well.) Chief customer officer Sarah Personette was not among the executives fired but announced she resigned on October 28th with a tweet thread posted the following Tuesday. In it, she mentions, “I do believe the new administration understands the importance of holding up the standards of GARM.”\nThe execs were in line for handsome payouts for their trouble, Insider reports: Agrawal $38.7 million, Segal $25.4 million, Gadde $12.5 million, and Personette, who tweeted yesterday about how excited she was for Musk’s takeover, $11.2 million. However, a subsequent report from The Information indicated Musk has said they’re fired “for cause” in an attempt to block them from receiving those payouts. It’s unclear what this may mean for Personette.

Twitter has begun laying off sizable chunks of the company, the first major move by Elon Musk since his acquisition of the company was completed last week.\n\nTwitter told employees in an email sent Thursday evening and seen by NBC News that the company would notify staffers by email about their employment.\n\n“We recognize that this will impact a number of individuals who have made valuable contributions to Twitter, but this action is unfortunately necessary to ensure the company’s success moving forward,” the email said.\n\nThe firings immediately prompted a class action lawsuit against Twitter for allegedly failing to give a 60-day warning of mass layoffs.\n\nIt had been widely reported that Musk planned to slash the company\'s 7,500-person payroll after he finalized his $44 billion acquisition late last week. He immediately dismissed CEO Parag Agrawal, as well as Twitter’s chief financial officer and its head of legal, public policy and trust and safety upon taking over the company.\n\nA Twitter employee said Thursday\'s email was the first communication staff members had received from Twitter since the acquisition Oct. 27.\n\n"It\'s total chaos, house melting down, everyone looking towards this email," the employee said.\n\nAccording to the email from Twitter, staff members will get notices either through their company email accounts — if they still have jobs — or their personal email accounts if their "employment is impacted."\n\nWorries about layoffs began to emerge before the buyout transaction was complete, but Twitter\'s general counsel urged employees not to dwell on rumors before Musk took ownership.

Lawsuits filed against Twitter for allegedly failing to give 60-day warning of mass layoffs


Stock prices of financial institutions suffer when the New York stock market opened.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank continues to reverberate, hitting bank stocks, revealing hidden stresses, knocking on to Credit Suisse, and setting off a political blame-game.\n\n\nWhy the $212bn tech-lender abruptly collapsed, triggering the most significant financial crisis since 2008, has no single answer. Was it, as some argue, the result of Trump-era regulation rollbacks, risk mismanagement at the bank, sharp interest rate rises after a decade of ultra-low borrowing costs, or perhaps a combination of all three?\n\nFederal investigations have begun and lawsuits have been filed and no doubt new issues at the bank will emerge. But for now, here are the main reasons experts believed SVB failed.\n\nThe Vermont senator Bernie Sanders argues that the culprit was an “absurd” 2018 law, supported by Congress and signed by Donald Trump, that undid some of the credit requirements imposed under the Dodd-Frank banking legislation brought in after the 2008 banking crisis.\n\nDodd-Frank required that banks with at least $50bn in assets – banks considered “systemically important” – undergo an annual Federal Reserve “stress test” and maintain certain levels of capital as well as plans for a living will if they failed.\n\nSVB’s chief executive, Greg Becker, argued before Congress in 2015 that the $50bn threshold (SVB held $40bn at the time) was unnecessary and his bank, like other “mid-sized” or regional banks, “does not present systemic risks”.\n\nTrump said the new bill went a “long way toward fixing” Dodd-Frank, which he called a “job-killer”.

In 2018 a law was passed for banks to not be required to have a $50bn safety capital.

President Biden says customers of U.S. banks should have confidence that their money will be there when they need it, as he seeks to limit the damage done by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and other problems. He also promised accountability for leaders and investors of banks that fail.\n\nBiden\'s words didn\'t prevent anxiety over the banking emergency from hammering stock prices of financial institutions on Monday morning. The pain was particularly acute for regional and middle-sized banks.\n\nThe banking emergency has prompted federal regulators to take extraordinary actions to close two banks and guarantee all their deposits.\n\nBecause of those actions, Biden said, "every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them."\n\nCompanies with accounts at the collapsed banks "can breathe easier, knowing they\'ll be able to pay their workers and pay their bills," Biden said. "Their hardworking employees can breathe easier as well."\n\nBiden spoke from the White House at 9 a.m. ET Monday, just 30 minutes before the New York stock market opened. But one hour into trading, a number of banking stocks were down.\n\nMany eyes are on First Republic Bank, the San Francisco institution whose clients include tech companies and wealthy investors. The bank\'s stock plummeted below the $20 mark early Monday — one week after it closed at $122.\n\nBank of America and Wells Fargo also saw their stock prices slip, both of them falling by 4% or more in the first hour of trading.

President Biden speaks on the banking emergency and assures customers of U.S. banks that their money will be there when they need it


\n\nHollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has been found guilty of rape and sexual assault by courts in New York and Los Angeles.\n\nHere is a summary of the key events that led him to court:\n\n- Weinstein issues an apology acknowledging he "has caused a lot of pain" - but disputes allegations he harassed female employees over nearly three decades.\n\n- It is announced that Harvey Weinstein has been sacked by the board of his company, with immediate effect. \n\n- The organisation behind the Oscars votes to expel Weinstein. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences says: "What\'s at issue here is a deeply troubling problem that has no place in our society."\n\n- Weinstein\'s former company files for bankruptcy, months after the Oscar-winning producer was accused of multiple sexual assaults.\n\n- Weinstein faces fresh sexual assault charges in New York from a third woman, in a case dating back to 2006.\n\n- After five days of deliberation, the jury finds Weinstein guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and third-degree rape.\n\n- Weinstein goes on trial in LA, facing 11 charges involving five alleged victims.\n\n- Weinstein is found guilty by a Los Angeles jury of raping a woman.\n

Weinstein was sentenced after a criminal conviction in New York in 2020.

\n\nWhen #MeToo exploded in the fall of 2017, its most optimistic promise was that it would become more than a hashtag, more than a brief interruption in America\'s regularly scheduled sexism, more than a reckoning for famous men who had abused wealthy, white women.\n\nThere were front-page headlines, explosions of long-stifled rage and examinations of collective complicity. There was hope those two small words signaled the beginning of meaningful change and, eventually, healing –  a belief the silence was finally broken. \n\nHas #MeToo delivered? \n\n"People are paying more attention, but I\'m not convinced that we\'re able or ready to behave differently about it as a nation," said Kristen Houser, chief public affairs officer at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.\n\nBrett Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford, ascended to the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump, who has been accused by 19 women of sexual misconduct, was recently accused of rape by prominent writer E. Jean Carroll, and public reaction was muted. While Congress has overhauled the process for handling sexual harassment claims on Capitol Hill, it has not passed any legislation in the past two years to address sexual harassment in America\'s workplaces. Thousands of migrant children who crossed the southern border into the U.S. have reported they were sexually assaulted while in government custody. \n\n

President Donald Trump was accused of sexual misconduct and rape by 19 women and E. Jean Carroll, respectively.

\n\nPresident Donald Trump mocked the #MeToo movement again at his rally in Pennsylvania on Wednesday night, citing the “rules of MeToo” as the reason he wasn’t “allowed” to use an expression.\n\nWhen talking about winning the state in the 2016 presidential election Trump said, “Pennsylvania hasn’t been won for many years by Republicans, but every Republican thinks they’re going to win Pennsylvania. … I used an expression – you know, there’s an expression but under the rules of MeToo I’m not allowed to use that expression anymore. I can’t do it.”\n\n“It’s the person that got away,” Trump continued. “See, in the old days, it was a little different,” the President added, laughing as a rally attendee told him from the crowd to “do it anyway.”\n\n“I would do it, except for these people up there,” Trump said, pointing at the cameras and press at the rally. “They would say, did you hear what President Trump said?”\n\nHe continued, “So there is an expression, but we’ll change the expression: Pennsylvania was always the person who got away, that’s pretty good, right, the person that got away?”\n\nIt’s another shot at the movement that began following the publication of sexual harassment and assault allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein in October 2017.

President Donald Trump mocked the #MeToo movement at a rally in Pennsylvania on Wednesday night.

Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault and ascended to the Supreme Court.

\n\nIt’s the hashtag that rocked the world.\n\nSince #MeToo went viral two weeks ago in the wake of sexual harassment allegations against producer Harvey Weinstein, Twitter reports that more than 1.7 million women and men have used the hashtag in 85 countries.\n\nIn Italy, women rallied behind a version called #QuellaVoltaChe, which translates to “That time when,” while French women decided to out their harassers by name under #BalanceTonPorc, which roughly translates to “snitch out your pig.”\n\nAt least nine well-known powerful men have been accused of various forms of sexual assault, including former President George H.W. Bush, Hollywood producer James Toback and journalist and author Mark Halperin. And just last week, California Rep. Jackie Speier launched #MeTooCongress, asking Washington staffers to share their stories on harassment on the Hill.\n\nBut can a hashtag, a meme or any viral moment – no matter how widespread – really turn into a lasting movement that that will create social change and reduce sexual abuse of women?\n\nMaybe. But experts say it’s going to take a coordinated effort between antiviolence organizations, the media and Hollywood as well as concrete actions from each and every one of us, especially men.\n\n“I am really tired of talking about women,” said Toni Van Pelt, president of the National Association of Women. “We must focus on the men. We must be demanding that the men step forward and take responsibility, whether they think they are the good guy or not.

Producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual harassment.


\n\nSwitzerland’s biggest bank, UBS, has agreed to buy its ailing rival Credit Suisse in an emergency rescue deal aimed at stemming financial market panic unleashed by the failure of two American banks earlier this month.\n\n“UBS today announced the takeover of Credit Suisse,” the Swiss National Bank said in a statement Sunday. It said the rescue would “secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy.”\n\nUBS is paying 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.25 billion) for Credit Suisse, about 60% less than the bank was worth when markets closed on Friday. Credit Suisse shareholders will be largely wiped out, receiving the equivalent of just 0.76 Swiss francs in UBS shares for stock that was worth 1.86 Swiss francs on Friday. Owners of $17 billion worth of “additional tier one” bonds — a riskier class of bank debt — will lose everything, Swiss regulators said.\n\nExtraordinarily, the deal will not need the approval of shareholders after the Swiss government agreed to change the law to remove any uncertainty about the deal.\n\nCredit Suisse (CS) had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years. In 2022, it recorded its worst loss since the global financial crisis. But confidence collapsed last week after it acknowledged “material weakness” in its bookkeeping and as the demise of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank spread fear about weaker institutions at a time when soaring interest rates have undermined the value of some financial assets.\n\n

UBS has completed the acquisition of Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years.

\n\nUBS executives told shareholders that its unexpected takeover of Credit Suisse was a milestone for the industry and a significant challenge for the bank, Reuters reported.\n\nDescribing the transaction as "the first merger of two globally systematically important banks," Chairman Colm Kelleher sought to assure investors that it also meant "a new beginning and huge opportunities ahead for the combined bank and the Swiss financial center as a whole."\n\nLast week, UBS rehired Sergio Ermotti as chief executive to steer the massive takeover. According to recent reports, UBS is preparing to eliminate about 20 to 30% of jobs worldwide.\n\nAddressing shareholders for the final time as chief executive, Ralph Hamers acknowledged that the merger has led to new priorities for the bank, bringing a change at its helm.\n\n"The acquisition of Credit Suisse will be a major challenge," Hamers said.\n\n"It is expected to create a business with more than $5 trillion in total invested assets," he said.\n\nPrice Action: UBS shares are down 0.81% at $20.83 during the premarket session on the last check Wednesday.\n\n

UBS acquires Credit Suisse for over $3 billion.

\n\nThe merger of two Swiss banks will result in layoffs in Switzerland and the U.S.\n\nThe acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS for over $3 billion, marks the end of an era in Switzerland as the rivalry between the two banks concluded on Sunday. \n\nThe repeated scandals and trading losses at Credit Suisse in recent years spooked investors and customers, leading clients to withdraw $10 billion one day last week, according to the Wall Street Journal. \n\nThe deal was finalized on Sunday, before Asia's stock markets opened, as Switzerland’s President Alain Berse announced it. The rivals had been reluctant to merge.\n\nA sign that the deal was driven by \u200b\u200bthe government was that the government officials took center stage in the press conference announcing the transaction. UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher and Credit Suisse Chairman Axel Lehman were placed at the far end of the table.\n\n“With the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS, a solution has been found to secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy in this exceptional situation,” the Swiss National Bank said in a statement.\n\nThe deal comes after three days of intense talks, which saw UBS and Credit Suisse very reluctant to tie the knot. The former felt that the bank was doing well and did not need to be saddled with a deal that could only bring problems. The latter felt that its turnaround plan would be enough to recover. But the Swiss authorities feared that the crisis of confidence suffered by Credit Suisse would intensify and, above all, that it would spread to other banks.

Swiss President Alain Berse announces the merger.


Another Bay Area bank was affected Monday by uncertainty in the financial markets following the failure of Silicon Valley Bank on Friday.\n\nStock in San Francisco-based First Republic Bank sank nearly 62% Monday and shares of other regional banks suffered losses, reportedly. First Republic has 86 locations across the country. Its Midpeninsula offices include two in Menlo Park and one each in Los Altos, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Redwood City.\n\nOn Sunday, regulators seized Signature Bank in New York after it failed.\n\nBut a San Jose State University professor of finance and accounting does not see the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank as signs of a coming crisis.\n\n"I don\'t think it is a huge contagion issue," said assistant professor Matthew Faulkner. "It\'s more toward an isolated incident."\n\nOver the weekend and Monday, top federal officials including President Joseph Biden appeared to be getting ahead of the issue.\n\nBiden sought to ease American\'s fears by making all deposits held by Silicon Valley Bank customers available regardless of the amount of their deposits, federal officials said over the weekend.\n\nThat includes businesses who must pay their employees and their bills, officials said.\n\n"Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe," Biden said Monday morning. "Your deposits will be there when you need them."\n\nInvestors will not be protected, Biden said. According to the president, they took a risk and "that\'s how capitalism works."\n\nTaxpayers will not be on the hook for the losses.

Shares in banks all over the world have plummeted.

On Wednesday, Silicon Valley Bank was a well-capitalized institution seeking to raise some funds.\n\nWithin 48 hours, a panic induced by the very venture capital community that SVB had served and nurtured ended the bank’s 40-year-run.\n\nRegulators shuttered SVB Friday and seized its deposits in the largest U.S. banking failure since the 2008 financial crisis and the second-largest ever. The company’s downward spiral began late Wednesday, when it surprised investors with news that it needed to raise $2.25 billion to shore up its balance sheet. What followed was the rapid collapse of a highly-respected bank that had grown alongside its technology clients.\n\nEven now, as the dust begins to settle on the second bank wind-down announced this week, members of the VC community are lamenting the role that other investors played in SVB’s demise.\n\n“This was a hysteria-induced bank run caused by VCs,” Ryan Falvey, a fintech investor at Restive Ventures, told CNBC. “This is going to go down as one of the ultimate cases of an industry cutting its nose off to spite its face.”\n\nThe episode is the latest fallout from the Federal Reserve’s actions to stem inflation with its most aggressive rate hiking campaign in four decades. The ramifications could be far-reaching, with concerns that startups may be unable to pay employees in coming days, venture investors may struggle to raise funds, and an already-battered sector could face a deeper malaise.

Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is shut down by regulators.

Stefan Kalb was in the middle of a meeting around 1 p.m. on Thursday when a fellow company executive sent him a panicked Slack message: "Do you know what\'s happening at SVB?"\n\nKalb, the CEO and co-founder of Seattle-based food management startup Shelf Engine, had been following news of a bank run at Silicon Valley Bank. Droves of depositors were attempting to pull out as much as $42 billion from the bank on Thursday alone, as fear spread that the bank was teetering on the brink of collapse.\n\nThe bank seemed to be on firm financial footing on Wednesday. The following day, it appeared to be under water.\n\nFor Shelf Engine, a 40-person startup founded in 2015 that uses artificial intelligence to help grocery stores reduce food waste, this was a big problem.\n\nNot only did Silicon Valley Bank help the company process checks and payments, but millions of dollars of the startup\'s cash was locked up in the bank.\n\nKalb sprung into action. He and his team quickly opened an account at JPMorgan Chase and attempted to wire transfer every last penny out of Silicon Valley Bank.\n\n"Unfortunately, our wire was not honored and our money is still at Silicon Valley Bank," Kalb, 37, said in an interview on Friday. "We woke up this morning hoping the money would be in that JPMorgan bank account, and it was not."

SVB depositors pull out up to $42 billion from the bank.

CEO & co-founder of startup "Shelf Engine" attempts to wire transfer their money out of SVB

Silicon Valley Bank attempted to raise $2.25 billion from investors.


Gwyneth Paltrow was called to the witness stand Friday in a civil suit filed against her, where she emphatically denied that she caused an accident at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort in 2016 that left a man seriously injured.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, who is seeking $300,000 from Paltrow, says she slammed into him from behind in a ski collision that left him with a concussion, brain injury and four broken ribs. But Paltrow alleges that it was actually Sanderson at fault and that he is exploiting her wealth.\n\n"Mr. Sanderson categorically hit me on the ski slope and that is the truth," Paltrow said from the stand Friday.\n\nThe actor and Sanderson both dispute who hit whom and who was farther up the hill at the time of the crash. Deer Valley’s website says the person ahead or downhill has the right of way. \n\nPaltrow was called to the stand Friday by Sanderson’s attorneys, after the jury heard from Sanderson\'s daughters, an eyewitness and medical experts.\n\nPaltrow said she was “gently” skiing down the slope when she felt a body press into her back and saw two skis slide between hers. She and Sanderson fell to the ground, Paltrow said, adding that she momentarily froze before becoming upset and yelling an expletive at Sanderson.\n\nPaltrow apologized for the outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.\n\n“There was a body pressing against me and a very strange grunting noise,” she said.

Public opinion of actress Gwyneth Paltrow has become more positive.

The Utah civil trial involving actress Gwyneth Paltrow and a man who is accusing her of wrongdoing in relation to a 2016 ski collision resumed Monday for its second week of proceedings.\n\nTerry Sanderson, the retired optometrist who is suing Paltrow, testified on Monday that he “was skiing easy” and “paying attention” prior to the collision with Paltrow, which happened at Deer Valley Resort in Park City, Utah.\n\n“I just remember everything was great and then I heard something I’ve never heard at a ski resort and that was a blood-curdling scream … and then boom,” he said. “It was like somebody was out of control and going to hit a tree and was going to die. And that’s what I had until I was hit.”\n\nHe went on to describe the impact.\n\n“I got hit in my back so hard and right at my shoulder blades and it felt like it was perfectly centered and the fists and the poles were right at the bottom of my shoulder blades, serious, serious smack and I’ve never been hit that hard,” Sanderson continued. “All I saw was a whole lot of snow.”\n\nSanderson disputed suggestions he sued Paltrow to exploit her fame and wealth.\n\n\n\n“I thought, ‘I’m not into celebrity worship,’” Sanderson told the jury about learning she was the other skier involved in their collision.\n\nCraig Ramon, a witness who testified previously, was recalled to the stand to discuss newly obtained evidence related to a message board earlier on Monday.

The witness Craig Ramon was recalled to testify about newly obtained evidence related to a message board earlier on Monday.

Gwyneth Paltrow\'s attorneys asked the daughter of a man suing the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer over a 2016 ski collision about missing GoPro camera footage that they called "the most important piece of evidence" at trial Thursday.\n\nSteve Owens, Paltrow\'s attorney, asked one of the man\'s daughters, Polly Grasham, about emails exchanged with her father about the mysterious footage and the possibility that the lawsuit was filed against Paltrow because she was famous.\n\nThe GoPro footage has not been found or included as evidence for the trial.\n\n"I\'m famous ... At what cost?" Terry Sanderson, the 76-year-old retired optometrist suing Paltrow, wrote in the subject line of an email to his family after the crash.\n\nSanderson is suing Paltrow for more than $300,000 in damages, claiming that she skied recklessly into him on a beginner run at Deer Valley Resort seven years ago, breaking his ribs and leaving him with a concussion. Paltrow has claimed Sanderson caused the crash and countersued for $1 and attorney fees.\n\nThe trial took on an increasingly personal note on the third day of proceedings when Sanderson\'s daughter and a neuropsychologist testified about his declining health.\n\nSanderson\'s attorneys tried to persuade jurors that the collision had changed the course of their client\'s life, leaving him brain-impaired and damaging his relationships with loved ones.\n\nPaltrow\'s attorneys questioned whether Grasham and neuropsychologist Dr. Alina Fong could say with certainty that Sanderson\'s downturn wasn\'t a result of aging or documented, pre-crash conditions.

Paltrow's attorney asked Sanderson about the possibility of the lawsuit being a result of Paltrow's fame.

The trial over a 2016 ski accident involving actor and businesswoman Gwyneth Paltrow wrapped up Thursday, with the jury ruling that she was not responsible for the collision at a Utah ski resort.\n\nAfter a short deliberation, the jury concluded that plaintiff Terry Sanderson was entirely at fault for the collision, with the decision ultimately hinging on which party jurors believed was higher on the slopes when the crash occurred. \n\nSanderson, 76, sued Paltrow for $3.1 million after alleging that she crashed into him at the tony Deer Valley resort in Park City, Utah. After a judge dismissed his initial suit, he later refiled his complaint seeking more than $300,000. Paltrow, 50, countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees.\n\nIn each taking the stand last week, Paltrow and Sanderson presented starkly different accounts of the collision and called a succession of medical experts and witnesses to buttress their claims. Paltrow\'s ski instructor at the time of the incident, Deer Valley veteran Eric Christiansen, blamed Sanderson for the crash, which occurred on a beginner ski run. \n\n\n"Gwyneth was making her turns very rhythmically," he said under oath, while alleging that Sanderson "was making wide radius turns and taking up a large swath of the ski slope."\n\nFor his part, Sanderson has accused Paltrow of barreling into him, breaking four of his ribs and causing a severe concussion whose symptoms lingered for years.

Gwyneth's ski instructor testified on her behalf that Sanderson was taking up a large swath of the ski slope.

Sanderson disputed the suggestion that he was suing Paltrow to exploit her fame and wealth.


\n\nIcelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson resigned on Tuesday, after documents leaked from a Panama-based law firm revealed that his wife possesses a secret offshore account worth millions of dollars.\n\nThe money is housed in a shell corporation called Wintris, which had bought bonds in Icelandic banks. So when Iceland\'s financial sector collapsed in 2008, Wintris became a creditor to those banks. In 2013, Gunnlaugsson became the prime minister, having run partly on a promise to get tougher with Iceland\'s remaining foreign creditors.\n\nSo what Icelandic voters didn\'t know when they elected him in 2013, but have learned with this week\'s "Panama Papers" revelations, is that Gunnlaugsson\'s own wife was secretly one of the creditors he\'d promised to crack down on — an enormous and undisclosed conflict of interest.\n\nWhen the truth came out this week, it led to mass protests on Monday calling for Gunnlaugsson\'s resignation. He stepped down the next day.\n\nWhat happened in Iceland shows the political power of the Panama Papers, but it also shows the degree to which the political turmoil from the 2008 financial crisis is, in some ways, still ongoing in that country.\n\nWhat\'s more, if Gunnlaugsson\'s resignation leads Iceland to schedule new elections soon, that vote could end up empowering a radical political party called the Pirate Party, a left-libertarian amalgam that\'s obsessed with transparency and direct democracy.\n\n

Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson steps down amid public outrage over his family's offshore investments.

\n\nThe Panama Papers are an unprecedented leak of 11.5m files from the database of the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca. The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The ICIJ then shared them with a large network of international partners, including the Guardian and the BBC.\n\nWhat do they reveal?\nThe documents show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.\n\nA $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin – is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.\n\nAmong national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.\n\nAn offshore investment fund run by the father of British prime minister David Cameron avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small army of Bahamas residents to sign its paperwork.

An offshore investment fund run by the father of British prime minister David Cameron avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain.

Mass protests on Monday called for Gunnlaugsson's resignation.

\n\nA network of secret offshore deals and vast loans worth $2bn has laid a trail to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.\n\nAn unprecedented leak of documents shows how this money has made members of Putin’s close circle fabulously wealthy.\n\nThough the president’s name does not appear in any of the records, the data reveals a pattern – his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his patronage.\n\nThe documents suggest Putin’s family has benefited from this money – his friends’ fortunes appear his to spend.\n\nThe files are part of an unprecedented leak of millions of papers from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm. They show how the rich and powerful are able to exploit secret offshore tax regimes in myriad ways.\n\nThe offshore trail starts in Panama, darts through Russia, Switzerland and Cyprus – and includes a private ski resort where Putin’s younger daughter, Katerina, got married in 2013.\n\nThe Panama Papers shine a particular spotlight on Sergei Roldugin, who is Putin’s best friend. Roldugin introduced Putin to the woman he subsequently married, Lyudmila, and is godfather to Putin’s older daughter, Maria.\n\nA professional musician, he has apparently accumulated a fortune – having been placed in ostensible control of a series of assets worth at least $100m, possibly more.\n\nRoldugin appears to have been picked for this role because of his lesser profile. He has denied in documents to bank officials in Switzerland and Luxembourg that he is close to any Russian public figures.

Sergei Roldugin, Putin’s best friend, has been placed in ostensible control of a series of assets worth at least $100m.


\n\nThe chief executive of Equifax is retiring, the company said Tuesday, just weeks after the troubled credit reporting agency disclosed that it had suffered a massive data breach affecting as many as 143 million people.\n\nThe departure of Richard Smith comes as Equifax has drawn fire from countless consumers and dozens of federal lawmakers over its handling of the breach. Equifax announced earlier this month that hackers gained unauthorized access to sensitive personal data — Social Security numbers, birth dates and home addresses — for nearly half of the country. The company also faces multiple federal investigations over its handling of the hack and reports that executives sold an unusual amount of stock before the breach was publicly disclosed.\n\nEquifax's board of directors appointed board member Mark Feidler to serve as the company's nonexecutive chairman, the company said in a statement Tuesday. Paulino do Rego Barros Jr., who led the company's Asia Pacific division, will become the interim chief executive.\n\n“The cybersecurity incident has affected millions of consumers, and I have been completely dedicated to making this right,” Smith said in the statement. “At this critical juncture, I believe it is in the best interests of the company to have new leadership to move the company forward.”\n\nSmith, 57, had been the chairman and chief executive since 2005, after spending 22 years at General Electric. During Smith's time at Equifax, the company’s stock price had soared 200 percent, and its market value swelled from $3 billion to $20 billion. Smith also expanded the company’s business into 24 countries.

The settlement received final court approval early this year.

\n\nFormer Equifax CEO Richard Smith says he is "deeply sorry" for the security breach in which sensitive personal information of as many as 143 million Americans was compromised.\nSmith, who is set to testify before a House Energy and Commerce Committee Tuesday, apologized for the cyber attack disclosed by the credit reporting company on September 8. He confirmed that the hack occurred due to "human error and technology failures," according to prepared remarks posted on the committee\'s website Monday.\n\n"To each and every person affected by this breach, I am deeply sorry this occurred," said Smith, who will make his first of four appearances on Capitol Hill this week on the breach. "The company failed to prevent sensitive information from falling into the hands of wrongdoers."\n\nThe former CEO announced his retirement last week from the credit reporting company.\n\nEquifax has come under fire for its handling of the huge cybersecurity breach. The company is one of three nationwide credit-reporting companies that track and rate the financial history of U.S. consumers, gathering data from credit card companies, banks, retailers and lenders.\n\nIn his eight-page testimony, Smith outlined the chronology of events that lead to the breach, which allowed criminals to access personal information including names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some cases driver\'s license numbers and credit card information.\n\nThe former CEO said hackers were able to infiltrate a software weakness in an online portal that allows consumers to dispute items on their credit report.

Paulino do Rego Barros Jr. was appointed as the interim chief executive.

\n\nEquifax says a giant cybersecurity breach compromised the personal information of as many as 143 million Americans — almost half the country.\nCyber criminals have accessed sensitive information -- including names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and the numbers of some driver\'s licenses.\n\nAdditionally, Equifax said that credit card numbers for about 209,000 U.S. customers were exposed, as was "personal identifying information" on roughly 182,000 U.S. customers involved in credit report disputes. Residents in the U.K. and Canada were also impacted.\n\nThe breach occurred between mid-May and July, Equifax said. The company said it discovered the hack on July 29.\n\nThe data breach is one of the worst ever, by its reach and by the kind of information exposed to the public.\n\n"This is clearly a disappointing event for our company, and one that strikes at the heart of who we are and what we do," said Equifax chairman and CEO Richard F. Smith.\n\nEquifax is one of three nationwide credit-reporting companies that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history, which all factor into credit scores.\n\nUnlike other data breaches, not all of the people affected by the Equifax breach may be aware that they\'re customers of the company.

Equifax reports a massive cybersecurity breach that compromised the personal information of up to 143 million Americans.

\n\nFive years ago, a massive data breach occurred. On Sept. 7, 2017, the Equifax credit bureau publicly revealed its computer networks had suffered a data leak that exposed the personal information of 143 million consumers, a number later raised to 147 million. That data included consumers’ names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and credit card numbers — all of which could lead to identity fraud and other financial crimes.\n\nThe data breach, announced six weeks after it was discovered, rattled the financial services industry, the cybersecurity sector and, most notably, the millions of consumers who were affected. The Equifax data breach had a powerful impact:\n\nVictims of the breach will benefit from a $425 million settlement that’s nearing its end.\nFederal lawmakers have made minor changes related to data privacy.\nEquifax has spent $1.6 billion to shore up its cybersecurity defenses.\nFive years after Equifax disclosed the breach, we posed the question to financial experts: Is personal data collected by the three major credit bureaus any safer than it was in 2017?\nThere’s no such thing as “bulletproof cybersecurity,” says James Lee, chief operating officer of the nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center. Even the most secure, most advanced cybersecurity measures can and do fail.\n\n“That said, there is nothing inherently insecure or risky about the data protection practices of the three major credit bureaus,” says Lee.


It’s been five months since Elon Musk took over Twitter after a long-drawn out, tumultuous negotiating period. There has been a lot of controversy since he positioned himself at the helm of the social media platform, including massive layoffs, allowing too-long tweets, and altering the algorithm to make his Super Bowl tweets rank higher. He closed the deal to acquire Twitter on Oct. 28, after paying his original officer price of $54.20 a share for a grand total of approximately $44 billion. He fired some of the company’s top executives almost immediately, including CEO Parag Agrawal, chief financial officer Ned Segal, and chief legal officer Vijay Gadde. Soon after, he began to lay off staff members to remove around half of the 7,500-strong workforce. Twitter value drops to half of Musk’s acquisition price. Now, it appears that Twitter is facing financial challenges. Changes since Musk’s takeover have resulted in more hate speech, issues in acquiring blue check verification, and problems with the app’s features. According to Zoe Schiffer, managing editor of Platformer, a tech news website, the billionaire sent an email to Twitter employees admitting that the company has been through radical changes which were necessary. Musk also reportedly acknowledged that the platform was previously about four months from running out of money. Per Schiffer, the value of Twitter is now half of what Musk paid for it. “Current grants are based on a $20b valuation,” she tweeted, although Musk says he is hopeful of eventually getting a valuation of $250 billion. Advertisers concerned about their brand have left the platform, leading to plummeting revenues for the company in recent months.

Linda Yaccarino was hired as Twitter's new CEO on Friday

Less than a week after Elon Musk finally gave in and paid full price for Twitter, his attempts to remake the platform are already descending into an entirely predictable clown show. Watching him begin to reshape content moderation and launch a poorly considered monetization scheme would be entertaining if their potential effects weren’t so dire, with consequences for Twitter’s employees and users, and potentially the broader society. \n\nOriginally reported Sunday by The Verge, a plan to charge verified users to get or keep their blue checks was expected to cost $20 a month. But after widespread backlash on the platform and a poll tweeted by Musk ally Jason Calacanis, in which nearly 82% of users responded that they wouldn’t pay anything for verification, those plans appear to have changed.\n\nBy Tuesday afternoon, Musk had posted a thread on the platform outlining his plan to charge $8 a month instead — part of an overhaul of Twitter’s existing Blue service.\n\nAlong with the coveted blue check, Twitter Blue subscribers will be able to post longer video and audio clips. They will also have half as many ads in their feeds and be able to get around paywalls from news publishers “willing to work” with the platform, and their tweets will get priority in replies, mentions and search results.\n\nIt should come as no surprise that such a plan could have a number of drawbacks.

A poll tweeted by Jason Calacanis showed that 82% of Twitter users wouldn’t pay for verification.

Twitter's value is half of Musk’s acquisition price.

Musk changed the plan to charge users $8 a month for verification.