\n\nFor the first time, global demand for each of the fossil fuels shows a peak or plateau across all WEO scenarios, with Russian exports in particular falling significantly as the world energy order is reshaped\n\nThe global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing profound and long-lasting changes that have the potential to hasten the transition to a more sustainable and secure energy system, according to the latest edition of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook.\n\nToday’s energy crisis is delivering a shock of unprecedented breadth and complexity. The biggest tremors have been felt in the markets for natural gas, coal and electricity – with significant turmoil in oil markets as well, necessitating two oil stock releases of unparalleled scale by IEA member countries to avoid even more severe disruptions. With unrelenting geopolitical and economic concerns, energy markets remain extremely vulnerable, and the crisis is a reminder of the fragility and unsustainability of the current global energy system, the World Energy Outlook 2022 (WEO) warns.\n\nThe WEO’s analysis finds scant evidence to support claims from some quarters that climate policies and net zero commitments contributed to the run-up in energy prices. In the most affected regions, higher shares of renewables were correlated with lower electricity prices – and more efficient homes and electrified heat have provided an important buffer for some consumers, albeit far from enough. The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy.\n\n

\n\nEurope is struggling to contain an energy crisis that could lead to rolling blackouts, shuttered factories and a deep recession.\n\nThe primary cause: Russia has choked off the supplies of cheap natural gas that the continent depended on for years to run factories, generate electricity and heat homes. That has pushed European governments into a desperate scramble for new supplies and for ways to blunt the impact as economic growth slows and household utility bills rise.\n\nThe crisis deepened when Russia’s state-owned exporter Gazprom said the main pipeline carrying gas to Germany would stay closed, blaming an oil leak and claiming the problems could not be fixed because of sanctions barring many dealings with Russia.\n\nEuropean officials say it’s energy blackmail, aimed at pressuring and dividing the European Union as it supports Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.\n\nHere is the latest on Europe’s efforts to avoid an energy disaster:\n\nJust about. The halt in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline means Russian gas shipments have fallen 89% from a year ago. Russia used to supply 40% of Europe’s natural gas, and even more to Germany, where inexpensive energy was a pillar of the economy.\n\nThere’s still some Russian gas flowing to Europe through a pipeline passing through Ukraine into Slovakia, and another crossing the Black Sea to Turkey and then to EU member Bulgaria. Russia started cutting back gas as early as last summer, before the war in Ukraine started. That sent gas prices sharply higher.\n\n

Russia's state-owned exporter Gazprom has closed the main pipeline carrying gas to Germany.

Some Russian gas is still flowing to Europe through pipelines passing through Ukraine and Bulgaria.


\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."

10-year-old victim of rape was forced to cross state lines to receive an abortion.

\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\nThe number of abortions per month in Oregon went up by 18% in August, after the Supreme Court’s June decision overturning Roe v. Wade.\n\nAbortion remains legal without restrictions in Oregon, and providers have been anecdotally reporting an increase in travelers.\n\nNow there’s data documenting that change, from a national effort called, #WeCount. Led by the Society of Family Planning, it is gathering data from clinicians and tracking changes to abortion nationwide.\n\nThe data compares the number of abortions performed in April, before the high court’s decision, to July and August, just after it.\n\nIn the Pacific Northwest, the greatest changes occurred between April and August, when a near total ban on abortion went into effect in Idaho. That month, there was a 48% decrease in abortions in Idaho, amounting to 70 fewer abortions. In Oregon over that time period there was an 18% increase in abortions, or 150 more. In Washington, there was a 5% increase in abortions, or 90 more.\n\nAlyssa Colwill, the director of family planning clinical services at Oregon Health & Sciences University, says anecdotally, the majority of patients traveling for abortion are coming from Idaho, but she’s also seen patients from Texas, Wisconsin and other states.\n\nColwill says women who need to leave their home state for an abortion face steep obstacles. Appointments can be hard to schedule, and many patients are struggling with the cost of travel on top of the cost of an abortion.\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

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020.

Abortion remains legal without restrictions in Oregon.


\n\nThe number of abortions per month in Oregon went up by 18% in August, after the Supreme Court’s June decision overturning Roe v. Wade.\n\nAbortion remains legal without restrictions in Oregon, and providers have been anecdotally reporting an increase in travelers.\n\nNow there’s data documenting that change, from a national effort called, #WeCount. Led by the Society of Family Planning, it is gathering data from clinicians and tracking changes to abortion nationwide.\n\nThe data compares the number of abortions performed in April, before the high court’s decision, to July and August, just after it.\n\nIn the Pacific Northwest, the greatest changes occurred between April and August, when a near total ban on abortion went into effect in Idaho. That month, there was a 48% decrease in abortions in Idaho, amounting to 70 fewer abortions. In Oregon over that time period there was an 18% increase in abortions, or 150 more. In Washington, there was a 5% increase in abortions, or 90 more.\n\nAlyssa Colwill, the director of family planning clinical services at Oregon Health & Sciences University, says anecdotally, the majority of patients traveling for abortion are coming from Idaho, but she’s also seen patients from Texas, Wisconsin and other states.\n\nColwill says women who need to leave their home state for an abortion face steep obstacles. Appointments can be hard to schedule, and many patients are struggling with the cost of travel on top of the cost of an abortion.\n\n

Abortion remains legal without restrictions in Oregon.

\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

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020.

\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."

June 24, 2022: Supreme Court rules 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law, with the decision to overturn Roe a 5-4 vote.

\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

Trump appointed three conservative judges to the court - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — solidifying a conservative majority.


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.

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

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

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."

Hysteria and fear spread that the SVB was collapsing.

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


Jennifer Jones is struggling to pay her energy bills.

\n\nFor the first time, global demand for each of the fossil fuels shows a peak or plateau across all WEO scenarios, with Russian exports in particular falling significantly as the world energy order is reshaped\n\nThe global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing profound and long-lasting changes that have the potential to hasten the transition to a more sustainable and secure energy system, according to the latest edition of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook.\n\nToday’s energy crisis is delivering a shock of unprecedented breadth and complexity. The biggest tremors have been felt in the markets for natural gas, coal and electricity – with significant turmoil in oil markets as well, necessitating two oil stock releases of unparalleled scale by IEA member countries to avoid even more severe disruptions. With unrelenting geopolitical and economic concerns, energy markets remain extremely vulnerable, and the crisis is a reminder of the fragility and unsustainability of the current global energy system, the World Energy Outlook 2022 (WEO) warns.\n\nThe WEO’s analysis finds scant evidence to support claims from some quarters that climate policies and net zero commitments contributed to the run-up in energy prices. In the most affected regions, higher shares of renewables were correlated with lower electricity prices – and more efficient homes and electrified heat have provided an important buffer for some consumers, albeit far from enough. The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy.\n\n

Turmoil happened in natural gas, coal, electricity, and oil markets.

\n\nEurope could solve its energy crisis by scrapping sanctions against Russia and launching the mothballed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, the speaker of Russia\'s lower house of parliament said on Friday.\n\nGermany halted the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project on Feb. 22, just two days before Russia sent its troops into Ukraine in what it calls a "special military operation", and after the Kremlin formally recognised two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine.\n\nSome Europeans have been voluntarily cutting their energy consumption, including limiting their use of electrical appliances and showering at work to save money, while companies are bracing for possible rationing. read more\n\nDuma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, an ally of President Vladimir Putin, said energy security is impossible without Russia.\n\n"The moment of truth has come for European leaders. They have two ways out of the situation they have created for themselves," he wrote on Telegram.\n\n"The first one. Lift illegal sanctions against our country and launch Nord Stream 2. The second one. To leave everything as it is, which will lead to problems in the economy and make life even more difficult for citizens."\n\nEurope\'s most divisive energy project, costing $11 billion, was finished in September 2021, but has stood idle pending certification by Germany and the European Union.\n\nMoscow\'s military actions in Ukraine have triggered sweeping sanctions from the West, led to a cut in energy supplies from Russia and stoked inflation across the globe to multi-year highs.\n\n

Some Europeans have been voluntarily cutting their energy consumption.

\n\nThe United Kingdom’s new prime minister is reportedly preparing to commit as much as £150 billion ($172 billion) to shield households and businesses from soaring energy bills, increasing government borrowing at a time when investors are already on edge about the country’s finances.\n\nLiz Truss, who earlier this week succeeded Boris Johnson, told lawmakers Wednesday that she would unveil her plans to tackle sky-high energy prices on Thursday.\n\nTruss is drawing up plans to freeze the average annual energy bill for households at around £2,500 ($2,860) for the next two years, the Financial Times reported. That would mean bills rising by 27% from their current level, but keep them well below the £3,549 ($3,954) they would hit starting in October without government intervention.\n\nIt will be expensive. The FT reported that the plan could include £90 billion ($103 billion) in support to households, and up to £60 billion ($69 billion) for businesses, the FT said.\n\nIf so, that would outstrip the amount the government spent subsidizing the salaries of millions of workers during the pandemic to prevent mass layoffs by a whopping £80 billion ($91 billion). It would also dwarf the €95 billion ($94 billion) the German government has promised so far this year to help its households and businesses meet their energy costs.\n\nLike the rest of Europe, the United Kingdom is grappling with how to pay for its ambitious relief package.\n\n

Liz Truss, the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is preparing to commit up to £150 billion ($172 billion) to shield households and businesses from rising energy bills.


Germany triggered the second stage of its three-stage emergency gas plan on supply fears.

\n\nEurope is struggling to contain an energy crisis that could lead to rolling blackouts, shuttered factories and a deep recession.\n\nThe primary cause: Russia has choked off the supplies of cheap natural gas that the continent depended on for years to run factories, generate electricity and heat homes. That has pushed European governments into a desperate scramble for new supplies and for ways to blunt the impact as economic growth slows and household utility bills rise.\n\nThe crisis deepened when Russia’s state-owned exporter Gazprom said the main pipeline carrying gas to Germany would stay closed, blaming an oil leak and claiming the problems could not be fixed because of sanctions barring many dealings with Russia.\n\nEuropean officials say it’s energy blackmail, aimed at pressuring and dividing the European Union as it supports Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.\n\nHere is the latest on Europe’s efforts to avoid an energy disaster:\n\nJust about. The halt in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline means Russian gas shipments have fallen 89% from a year ago. Russia used to supply 40% of Europe’s natural gas, and even more to Germany, where inexpensive energy was a pillar of the economy.\n\nThere’s still some Russian gas flowing to Europe through a pipeline passing through Ukraine into Slovakia, and another crossing the Black Sea to Turkey and then to EU member Bulgaria. Russia started cutting back gas as early as last summer, before the war in Ukraine started. That sent gas prices sharply higher.\n\n

European officials accuse Russia of energy blackmail.

\n\nFinding a joint strategy to ease the European Union\'s ailing energy market is set to drive discussions in Brussels this week, as EU leaders convene for a two-day summit.\n\nEnergy prices — determined by the price of gas, coal and oil — had already soared across the globe after COVID-19 lockdowns were lifted and economies opened up, and the war in Ukraine has only exacerbated the crisis. Moscow\'s decision to cut gas supplies to the EU since launching the invasion has had a dynamic impact on gas prices within the bloc.\n\nPrices rose to a record high of €335 ($337) per megawatt hour (MWh) in the spring. Since then, prices have fallen to about €225 per MWh, but are still up 300% since the start of 2022.\n\nPhuc-Vinh Nguyen, a research fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute, a Paris think tank, told DW that if the war continued to escalate European gas prices would remain relatively high, and could be up to four times as much by 2025. "This will be a big issue for industries and also for consumers," he said.\n\nEU leaders and their energy ministers have held a string of meetings over the past few weeks to find solutions to reduce these high prices. But a united strategy is not yet on the table.\n\nDivisions persist over "capping prices," with some EU states, including Belgium, Italy, Poland and Greece, wanting a pan-European wholesale price cap on gas.

COVID-19 lockdowns were lifted and economies opened up.


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

Elon Musk, the CEO of Twitter, has reportedly issued stock grants to the company\'s staff at a valuation of close to $20 billion.\n\nThe price is only half of what he paid for Twitter in October 2022, when he shelled out $44 billion to buy the microblogging platform, according to multiple media sources on Saturday.\n\n"Musk sent Twitter employees an email about the state of Twitter 2.0. He acknowledged the company has been through a period of radical change, but said the changes were necessary… Because Twitter was previously about 4 months away from running out of money." Zoe Schiffer, a tech journalist, tweeted on Saturday. \n\n"Comp increases will be based on X Corp stock. Current grants are based on a $20 billion valuation. Musk says he sees a \'clear but difficult path\' to $250 billion valuation, which would mean current grants could 10x. Musk says Twitter is on the path of an inverse startup." she wrote in the thread of comments.\n\nTwitter\'s value has dropped significantly since the acquisition, but it is still far higher than Twitter\'s competitors\' public market valuation levels, according to a report by The information.\n\nThe site has lost advertisers as a result of the Musk-mandated reinstatement of some previously banned users, an increase in antisemitic and other hate speech, broken functionality, and a botched blue check rollout that cost Eli Lilly millions of dollars.\n\nDespite the fact that ad revenue surprisingly increased during the fourth quarter of 2022, the site has lost many users permanently, reported The Wrap.

Twitter was 4 months away from running out of money.

Twitter reinstates banned user accounts.

Elon Musk says that Twitter is close to becoming cash-flow positive after making sharp layoffs and working to lure advertisers back to the platform.\n\n“I’d say we’re roughly breakeven at this point,” Musk said Wednesday, during a live interview with the BBC recorded on Twitter Spaces.\n\nMusk has pushed to make more money at Twitter to recoup his multibillion-dollar investment in the company. As part of this income-generation drive, Twitter has sought to make more money from subscriptions, charging users $8 a month to get access to Twitter verification marks and for the ability to edit tweets, among other features.\n\nMusk said that Twitter will start removing blue checks from accounts without a subscription to the company’s paid Twitter Blue service next week.\n\nDuring the interview, Musk said that “almost all” advertisers have resumed buying ads on the platform, after several hit pause on Twitter advertising following Musk’s acquisition of the app.\n\nMusk purchased Twitter for $44 billion in late October after a drawn-out legal battle with the company. He has since sought to radically overhaul the platform, including its content moderation policies.\nThis has spooked many product placers, with half of Twitter’s top 100 advertisers now estimated to have left the platform since Musk took over.\n\n“Depending on how things go, if current trends continue, I think we could be ... cashflow-positive this quarter, if things keep going well,” Musk said.\n\nBrands were concerned about the app failing to tackle hateful posts in the wake of the $44 billion deal, which was completed in October 2022.

Half of Twitter’s top 100 advertisers have left the platform

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.

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


\n\nEurope’s energy crisis is deepening as Russia further limits exports of natural gas, forcing governments to spend billions to protect businesses and consumers from soaring bills as the region slides towards recession.\n\nEuropean benchmark natural gas prices spiked 28% on Monday morning to hit €274 ($272) per megawatt hour — the first day of trading after Russian energy giant Gazprom halted flows through the vital Nord Stream 1 pipeline indefinitely, claiming it had found an oil leak in a turbine.\n\nLast year, the pipeline delivered about 35% of Europe’s total Russian gas imports. But since June, Gazprom had slashed flows along Nord Stream 1 to just 20% of its capacity, citing maintenance issues and a dispute over a missing turbine caught up in Western export sanctions.\n\nMoscow’s decision not to reopen the pipeline on Saturday stoked concerns that the European Union could run short of gas this winter, despite a successful effort to fill storage tanks. Similar fears in the United Kingdom sent wholesale natural gas futures up by more than a third on Monday.\n\nNews of the pipeline’s indefinite closure on Friday caused the euro to sink below $0.99 on Monday — its lowest level in 20 years. The pound hit $1.14, its lowest since 1985, as traders worried about the toll a potentially drastic energy shortage could have on regional economic activity and government budgets.\n\nSome countries are preparing to spend big to try to limit the pain.\n\nOn Sunday, the German government announced a €65 billion ($64 billion) relief package to help households and companies cope as inflation soars.\n\n

Some Europeans have been voluntarily cutting their energy consumption.

German government announces €65 billion ($64 billion) relief package to help households and companies cope with inflation.

\n\nFor the first time, global demand for each of the fossil fuels shows a peak or plateau across all WEO scenarios, with Russian exports in particular falling significantly as the world energy order is reshaped\n\nThe global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing profound and long-lasting changes that have the potential to hasten the transition to a more sustainable and secure energy system, according to the latest edition of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook.\n\nToday’s energy crisis is delivering a shock of unprecedented breadth and complexity. The biggest tremors have been felt in the markets for natural gas, coal and electricity – with significant turmoil in oil markets as well, necessitating two oil stock releases of unparalleled scale by IEA member countries to avoid even more severe disruptions. With unrelenting geopolitical and economic concerns, energy markets remain extremely vulnerable, and the crisis is a reminder of the fragility and unsustainability of the current global energy system, the World Energy Outlook 2022 (WEO) warns.\n\nThe WEO’s analysis finds scant evidence to support claims from some quarters that climate policies and net zero commitments contributed to the run-up in energy prices. In the most affected regions, higher shares of renewables were correlated with lower electricity prices – and more efficient homes and electrified heat have provided an important buffer for some consumers, albeit far from enough. The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy.\n\n

Euro sinks below $0.99 and pound hits $1.14 due to fears of a drastic energy shortage.


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.

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”.

Interest rates rise after a decade of ultra-low borrowing costs.

Regulators seized Signature Bank in New York on Sunday.

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

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."

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


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.

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.

Public opinion of actress Gwyneth Paltrow seems to have changed following her big win in a ski collision lawsuit.\n\nPaltrow was sued by retired optometrist Terry Sanderson in 2019 over a ski crash that he claimed left him severely injured. However, a jury ruled that the Goop founder was not at fault for the accident and awarded her $1 in damages Thursday. Sanderson himself was found to be 100% at fault for the collision.\n\nPrior to the ski collision trial, which lasted for eight days in Utah state court, Paltrow had received an interesting reaction from the public. The Oscar-winning actress has faced tremendous backlash over the years for her beliefs and comments, including the recent drama over her "starvation diet." \n\nPaltrow also came under fire when she announced she and ex-husband Chris Martin planned to "consciously uncouple" rather than divorce after 10 years of marriage. \n\nThe lawsuit, brought against Paltrow by Sanderson, was seen by some – including PR expert Dave Quast – to be "extremely opportunistic."\n\nCelebrity branding expert and founder of Achilles PR Doug Eldridge explained that Paltrow chose to be "authentic" and as an actress chose to play herself throughout this trial. "She took a positive PR bump post trial for four reasons: 1) she won, 2) she countersued for $1 dollar (along with what is likely mid-six figures in legal fees), 3) her answers were ridiculous, and 4) her courtroom wardrobe was strategic and effective."

Paltrow was criticized by the public for promoting starvation diets and her ideas on conscious uncoupling

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

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.


\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".

\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.

\n\n\nFor the second time in two days, the Bank of England has been forced to offer extra support to UK markets still reeling from the government’s announcement last month that it would slash taxes and increase borrowing.\n\nThe central bank warned Tuesday that there was still a “material risk to UK financial stability” from a sharp-sell off in government bonds that has sent yields soaring, pushing up borrowing costs across the economy and forcing some pension funds to dump assets to raise cash.\n\nA slump in UK government bonds that promise to protect investors from inflation — known as index-linked gilts — was the latest source of risk, it said.\n\n“Dysfunction in this market, and the prospect of self-reinforcing ‘fire sale’ dynamics pose a material risk to UK financial stability,” it said in a statement.\n\nThe extent of the bond market strain was underscored Tuesday when the UK government sold £900 million ($994 million) of index-linked gilts due in 2051 at the highest yield since October 2008, according to Reuters.\n\nStarting Tuesday, the Bank of England will include index-linked gilts in its emergency £65 billion ($71.7 billion) bond-buying program announced on Sept. 28. “These additional operations will act as a further backstop to restore orderly market conditions,” it added.\nThe bank said the program would end as planned on Friday, despite calls for it to continue for another three weeks.\n\nOn Monday, it doubled the daily limit on its bond-buying to £10 billion through the end of the week.

UK government announces to slash taxes and increase borrowing.

The Bank of England offers extra support to UK markets


The 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.

What do they reveal?
The 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.

A $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.

Among 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.

An 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.

David Cameron admits to owning shares in a Panama-based offshore trust set up by his late father.

\n\nThe new head of world football has been caught up in the sport’s corruption scandal because of documents that have been revealed by the Panama Papers leak.\n\nFiles seen by the Guardian will raise questions about the role Fifa’s president, Gianni Infantino, played in deals that were concluded when he was director of legal services at Uefa, European football’s governing body.\n\nAccording to records, Uefa concluded offshore deals with one of the indicted figures at the heart of an alleged “World Cup of fraud” despite previously insisting it had no dealings with any of them.\n\nThe emergence of the contracts from 2003 and 2006, which were co-signed by Infantino, link Uefa for the first time to one of the companies involved in the huge unfolding scandal that has brought down former Fifa president Sepp Blatter.\n\nUefa has denied any wrongdoing by any of its officials or any other marketing partner.\n\nIt said the contracts were all above board. Fifa has previously insisted Infantino had no dealings with any of the officials currently under investigation – or their companies. Infantino said he was “dismayed” by the reports and “will not accept that my integrity is being doubted”.\n\nThe disclosures are based on the leak of 11m documents from the files of the offshore financial law firm Mossack Fonseca, which were obtained by Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with the Guardian and other news organisations.\n\n

Documents revealed by the Panama Papers leak have implicated the new head of world football.

\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.

Süddeutsche Zeitung shared the records with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

\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

Mass protests on Monday called for Gunnlaugsson's resignation.


Half of Twitter’s top 100 advertisers have left the platform

Elon Musk, who acquired Twitter late last month, has already made dramatic changes: firing top executives, laying off half of the company's staff and forming a content moderation council that will review account reinstatements.\n\nHowever, the most consequential policy shift may be a revamp of the site's signature blue check marks, which signal that an account holder has been verified as the person he or she purports to be.\n\nTwitter announced on Saturday a new version of its subscription service, Twitter Blue, that will allow users to access verification if they pay a monthly fee of $8.\n\nThe plan stoked immediate controversy. Some applauded the move as an effort to make verification more inclusive and wean Twitter off a dependence on advertising revenue. While critics slammed the decision as a setback for the policing of hateful and fake content that could drive away users and advertisers alike.\n\nTwitter did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the subscription plan.\nHere's what you need to know about Twitter's new verification plan, and the criticism that followed its announcement.\n\nUnder Twitter's new subscription service, users will gain access to account verification for a monthly fee of $8, which amounts to $96 per year.\n\nPreviously, the company verified celebrities, politicians, journalists and prominent figures on a case-by-case basis in an effort to prevent impersonation.\n\nThe service will not require subscribers to provide ID that confirms the identity purported on their account, which marks a departure from a previous mandate of government-issued identification, the New York Times reported.

Twitter announced a new subscription service, Twitter Blue.

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.

Elon Musk, the CEO of Twitter, has reportedly issued stock grants to the company\'s staff at a valuation of close to $20 billion.\n\nThe price is only half of what he paid for Twitter in October 2022, when he shelled out $44 billion to buy the microblogging platform, according to multiple media sources on Saturday.\n\n"Musk sent Twitter employees an email about the state of Twitter 2.0. He acknowledged the company has been through a period of radical change, but said the changes were necessary… Because Twitter was previously about 4 months away from running out of money." Zoe Schiffer, a tech journalist, tweeted on Saturday. \n\n"Comp increases will be based on X Corp stock. Current grants are based on a $20 billion valuation. Musk says he sees a \'clear but difficult path\' to $250 billion valuation, which would mean current grants could 10x. Musk says Twitter is on the path of an inverse startup." she wrote in the thread of comments.\n\nTwitter\'s value has dropped significantly since the acquisition, but it is still far higher than Twitter\'s competitors\' public market valuation levels, according to a report by The information.\n\nThe site has lost advertisers as a result of the Musk-mandated reinstatement of some previously banned users, an increase in antisemitic and other hate speech, broken functionality, and a botched blue check rollout that cost Eli Lilly millions of dollars.\n\nDespite the fact that ad revenue surprisingly increased during the fourth quarter of 2022, the site has lost many users permanently, reported The Wrap.

Twitter reinstates banned user accounts.


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."

Hysteria and fear spread that the SVB was collapsing.

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.

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.


\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

\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\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

Cyber criminals accessed sensitive information such as names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver's license numbers.


\n\nMore than 50 people have died and dozens more were missing on Thursday, as heavy flooding in Germany and Belgium turned streams and streets into raging torrents that swept away cars and caused houses to collapse.\n\nRecent storms across parts of western Europe made rivers and reservoirs burst their banks, triggering flash floods overnight after the saturated soil couldn’t absorb any more water.\n\n“I grieve for those who have lost their lives in this disaster,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said during a visit to Washington, expressing shock at the scope of the flooding. “We still don’t know the number. But it will be many.”\n\nShe pledged that everything would be done to find those still missing, adding, “’Heavy rain and flooding’ doesn’t capture what happened.”\n\nAuthorities in the North Rhine-Westphalia state said at least 30 people had died, while 19 deaths were reported in Rhineland-Palatinate state to the south. Belgian media reported eight deaths in that country.\n\nAmong the worst-hit German villages was Schuld, where several homes collapsed and dozens of people remained unaccounted for.\n\nRescue operations were hampered by blocked roads and phone and internet outages across the Eifel, a volcanic region of rolling hills and small valleys. Some villages were reduced to rubble, as old brick and timber houses couldn’t withstand the sudden rush of water, often carrying trees and other debris as it gushed through narrow streets.\n\nKarl-Heinz Grimm, who had come to help his parents in Schuld, said he had never seen the small Ahr River surge in such a deadly torrent.\n\n

Vice president of Germany’s federal agency for technical relief said it was very unlikely that any more survivors would be found.

\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.

Higher air temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more moisture.

\n\nCommunities in Germany, Belgium, and The Netherlands are reeling after extreme July rainfall swamped parts of Western Europe. Some of the worst-hit areas saw as much as two months of rain within 24 hours—enough to break precipitation records, push rivers to new heights, and trigger devastating flash floods.\n\nNighttime downpours on July 14-15, 2021, proved especially damaging. Many people were asleep when the most intense rain fell, and they were caught off guard as rivers raged, dams failed, and floodwaters inundated homes. News media estimated that 196 people were killed by flooding and thousands more were injured. Hundreds of people are still listed as missing.\n\nOn July 18, 2021, the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8 captured this image of flooding along the Meuse and Roer rivers. As water levels rose, nearly 5,000 people were forced to evacuate from Roermond, a city in The Netherlands near the border with Germany. A dam breach on the Roer contributed to the extensive flooding.\n\nWhile it will take some time for experts to analyze whether this event was influenced by human-caused global warming, scientists have amassed data showing that warming has led to more intense and frequent downpours in many parts of the world. Some researchers and meteorologists have also suggested that warming may be changing the jet stream in ways that make atmospheric "blocking" patterns—like the one that prolonged these downpours—more likely.\n\n

Human-caused global warming and climate change occur worldwide.

\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

Hof county near the eastern border with the Czech Republic issued a disaster alert.

\n\n“In some areas we have not seen this much rainfall in 100 years,” Andreas Friedrich, a German weather service spokesman, told CNN. He added that “in some areas we’ve seen more than double the amount of rainfall which has caused flooding and unfortunately some building structures to collapse.”\n\nShocking images of the devastation in Germany and Belgium showed entire villages underwater, with cars wedged in between collapsed buildings and debris. The Netherlands and Luxembourg have also been affected by the extreme rainfall.\n\nIn Germany, at least 105 people have been killed across two western states. In the hard-hit district of Ahrweiler, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, authorities told CNN that 1,300 people remained unaccounted for.\n\n“There is no end in sight just yet,” Ulrich Sopart, a police spokesman in the city of Koblenz, told CNN. He said that authorities are hopeful that they will be able to revise down the number of missing people as the rescue operation continues and phone lines are restored.\n\n”Our hopes are that some people might have been registered as missing twice or even three times – if for example a family member, a work colleague or a friend has registered a person as missing,” Sopart said.\n\n”Also, [in] some places phone lines are still down and reception is difficult. We do hope that people will get in touch with a relative, work colleague or friend to let them know they are fine,” he said.\n\nA dam along the river Rur in the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia broke Friday night, according to the regional government.

At least 105 people have been killed in two western states in Germany.


\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

\n\nOn March 19, 2023, it was announced that UBS plans to acquire Credit Suisse in an allshares transaction, valuing Credit Suisse at CHF 0.76 per share / CHF 3 billion. The Swiss Federal Council, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA and the Swiss National Bank expressed their support for the transaction. The transaction is expected to close in Q2/23 following approvals by relevant authorities. AT1 capital instruments issued by Credit Suisse of appr. CHF 16 billion in aggregate have been written-down in full.\n\nIntroduction\n\nPursuant to public information, Credit Suisse was experiencing a crisis of confidence and faced outflows of clients funds, intensified by the recent events in the US financial markets.\n\nOn March 16, 2023, Credit Suisse announced the intention to access a covered loan facility as well as a short-term liquidity facility of up to appr. CHF 50 billion.\n\nFollowing intervention by, and request of, the Swiss Federal Department of Finance, the Swiss National Bank and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA, Credit Suisse and UBS entered into a merger agreement on March 19, 2023.\n\nThe Swiss Federal Council on March 16, 2023 issued an ordinance regarding additional liquidity assistance loans and the granting of loan loss guarantees by the Swiss Confederation for liquidity assistance loans by the Swiss National\n\nBank to systematically important banks (the Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance). In order to adapt this ordinance to the most recent developments, the Swiss Federal Council amended this Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance, effective on March 19, 2023 (the Amended Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance).\n\n

UBS announced its plans to acquire Credit Suisse in an all-shares transaction.

\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

\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.

In 2022, Credit Suisse recorded its worst lost.


\n\nIranian police are reported to have fired on protesters in Saqqez, home city of Mahsa Amini who died in custody after being arrested for allegedly wearing her hijab "improperly".\n\nThousands gathered near the grave of the Kurdish woman and clashed with security, 40 days since her death.\n\nA rights group and witnesses said officers fired live rounds and tear gas at the crowds in the city.\n\nProtests swept across Iran after Ms Amini, 22, died on 16 September.\n\nShe had been detained three days earlier by the morality police in the capital, Tehran, and fell into a coma after collapsing at a detention centre.\n\nThere were reports that officers beat her with a baton and banged her head against a vehicle, but police denied that she was mistreated and said she suffered a heart attack.\n\nOn Wednesday, security forces were deployed in Saqqez and other parts of Kurdistan province, in anticipation of fresh demonstrations on the 40th day of mourning for Ms Amini - a culturally significant occasion for Iranians.\n\nVideos showed thousands of mourners walking along a road, through a field and across a river to bypass roadblocks and reach the graveyard where Ms Amini is buried.\n\nThe crowds were heard shouting "Woman, life, freedom" and "Death to the dictator" - two of the signature chants of the protest movement - as well as "Down with traitors" and "Kurdistan will be the graveyard of fascists".\n\nIt was not clear whether members of Ms Amini\'s family were present.\n\n

Protestors have faced a brutal crackdown from the government.

\n\nProtests have intensified this week in Iran over the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in police custody after she was arrested for allegedly wearing her headscarf too loosely. Amini died on Sept. 16 three days after her arrest in Tehran, and many Iranians are alleging that she was killed by law enforcement. Protestors have faced a brutal crackdown from the government who have deployed riot police, resulting in arrests, injuries and at least 17 deaths, according to the state media.\n\nIranian authorities claim that Amini died of heart failure, but her family and protestors across Iran accuse the government of covering up her murder. The international protests have expanded to express anger over a range of issues, not just restrictions women face over hijabs and more generally in Iran but also against the current regime. At one Iranian protest, a street full of Iranians chanted “death to the oppressor, be it the shah or the supreme leader!”\n\nMahsa Amini, 22, was arrested on Sept. 13 while visiting Tehran by the notorious morality police who enforce compulsory conservative Islamic behavior and dress. Hijabs are mandatory to wear in public for all women in Iran, regardless of religion or nationality. Amini was accused of violating the country’s law on headscarves.\n\nIran’s security forces said that upon her arrest, Amini was taken to a detention center where she received training on hijab rules, and it was there that she collapsed from a heart attack.

Upon her arrest, Amini was taken to a detention center where she received training on hijab rule.

Upon her arrest, she collapsed from a heart attack.

Hijabs are mandatory to wear in public for all women in Iran.

\n\nUN human rights experts* condemned the killings and the crackdown by security forces in Iran on protesters following the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, including alleged arbitrary arrests and detentions, gender-based and sexual violence, excessive use of force, torture, and enforced disappearances. They urged that the reports be thoroughly and independently investigated and those responsible held to account.\n\nThousands of people have been rallying in daily demonstrations throughout the country after 22-year-old Amini’s death on 16 September following her arrest and detention by the morality police for allegedly wearing her headscarf incorrectly. Protesters have been demanding accountability for the death of Amini and calling for an end to the ongoing repression of women and girls’ fundamental rights.\n\n“We are deeply troubled by continued reports of deliberate and unlawful use by the Iranian security forces of live ammunition, metal pellets and buckshot against peaceful unarmed protesters in breach of the principles of legality, precaution, necessity, non-discrimination and proportionality, applicable to the use of force,” the experts said.\n\n“An alarming number of protesters have already been detained and killed, many of whom are children, women and older persons. The Government must instruct police to immediately cease any use of excessive and lethal force and exercise restraint.”\n\nThey said reports of physical and sexual violence against women and girls during protests and in public spaces, and the denial of other women’s and girl’s rights while in detention, or when active in public, were frightening.\n\n

Reports of physical and sexual violence against women and girls during protests and in public spaces have been reported.