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

The settlement received final court approval early this year.

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

Former Equifax CEO Richard Smith apologizes for the security breach.

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

Equifax's chief executive, Richard Smith, is retiring.

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

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


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”.

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."

Executive sends panicked Slack message about Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)

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

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

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


\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\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.

The Bank of England offers extra support to UK markets

Layoffs are making headlines, and most seem to be centered around one job sector: tech. \n\nThe tech industry increased its layoffs by 649% in 2022, which is the highest since the dot-com bubble more than a few decades ago, according to "The Challenger Report." More tech employees were laid off in 2022 than in 2020 and 2021 combined. \n\nCompanies turn to layoffs as a survival method to cut costs when revenue and profits get leaner. \n\nWhen inflation hit the economy hard in June 2022, consumers saw price increases of 9.1% compared to the typical annual rate of 2% for steady inflation, according to the Federal Reserve. 2022 saw the highest inflation rate in 40 years, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The economy softened as people started buying less to accommodate these higher prices. The cost of living jumped significantly, and people and businesses had to make cutbacks. Technology companies saw price increases for services, so companies had to evaluate and make cuts if necessary. \n\nHigher interest rates affect how much a company wants to borrow due to higher costs. These higher rates directly impact venture capitalists (VCs) and other funding of startups. Companies do not want to invest in riskier areas when the economy's future is uncertain. Economic uncertainties cause companies to reevaluate their hiring and growth strategies. \n\nInvestors want companies to decrease expenses as revenues slow down. VCs are worried that profits will be down this year after the large growth period. \n\nPart of the rise in layoffs is due to correcting the hiring of too many people. During the height of the pandemic, the use of technology grew significantly as everything moved online. \n\nWith the collapse of SVB, more venture capitalists and banks are going to be nervous about taking on the risk of start-up companies.

Investors wanted companies to decrease expenses as revenues slowed down.

SVB had specialised in financing start-ups.


Protests 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.

Iranian 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!”

Mahsa 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.

Iran’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.

Iranians took to the streets of the capital on Monday to protest the death of Mahsa Amini.

\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.

Iranian authorities claim that Amini died of heart failure.

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

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

Her family and protestors across Iran accuse the government of covering up her murder.


\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\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights. \n\n

Lawsuits have been filed in several states arguing that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.

\n\nIn the summer of 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden faced allegations of hypocrisy and "flip-flopping" after he strongly condemned the U.S. Supreme Court\'s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and remove federal constitutional protections for abortion access.\n\nSpeaking on June 24, Biden described Roe as "the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy," and he called the decision to overturn it a "tragic error" and the "realization of an extreme ideology."\n\nHowever, many observers — both to the left and right of Biden on the ideological spectrum — contrasted such remarks, in 2022, with what they presented as Biden\'s very different stance on the abortion rights landmark, four decades ago.\n\nOn June 24, one Facebook user published a viral post which contained a screenshot of an article by the London Independent, with the headline "Biden voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 1982..." and the caption "Wonder how those protesting the Supreme Court decision feel about this. Chances are they are the same people that voted for Biden."\n\nIn recent years, the same core claim — that Biden once voted in favor of effectively overturning Roe and returning abortion policy to the states and the U.S. Congress — has featured in news articles by the The New York Times, Fox News, and the New York Post.\n\nThat claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is "True."\n\n

A viral Facebook post claimed that Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1982.

\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\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\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

Jennifer Jones is struggling to pay her energy bills.

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

\nGermany\'s economy minister warns of a "market collapse" if natural-gas prices continue to soar.\nGermany has triggered the second stage of its three-stage emergency gas plan on supply fears.\nThat\'s after Russia —citing a techincal reason — slowed piped natural-gas supplies to Germany.\n\nGermany warned the country\'s energy crisis may trigger a "Lehman effect" across the utility sector as it moved one step closer to rationing natural gas.\n\nGermany — Europe\'s largest economy — moved into the second of its three-stage emergency gas plan on Thursday after Russia slowed supplies to the country, exacerbating concerns over an energy crunch. These supply fears have already driven European natural gas futures up by 85% year-to-date.\n\nUnder the second stage of Germany\'s emergency gas plan, utility companies can pass on price increases to customers. The government is holding back on triggering the clause for now. But Habeck said they could kick in if the supply crunch and price increases persist, as energy suppliers that buy power on the wholesale market are running up losses and many could ultimately fail as a result.\n\n"If this minus gets so big that they can\'t carry it anymore, the whole market is in danger of collapsing at some point — so a Lehman effect in the energy system," said German economy minister Robert Habeck at a press conference, according to a Bloomberg translation. Habeck was referring to financial services firm Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy in 2008 amid the subprime mortgage crisis — which spilled over and caused the Global Financial Crisis.\n\n

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

\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.

\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.


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

UBS has completed the acquisition of Credit Suisse.

\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 National Bank issues statement to secure financial stability and protect Swiss economy.

\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

Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed.


\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.

Joe Biden expresses his support behind the demonstrators.

Protestors have faced a brutal crackdown from the government.

Her family and protestors across Iran accuse the government of covering up her murder.

22-year-old Mahsa Amini was arrested for allegedly wearing her headscarf too loosely.


\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.

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

\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.

\nGermany\'s economy minister warns of a "market collapse" if natural-gas prices continue to soar.\nGermany has triggered the second stage of its three-stage emergency gas plan on supply fears.\nThat\'s after Russia —citing a techincal reason — slowed piped natural-gas supplies to Germany.\n\nGermany warned the country\'s energy crisis may trigger a "Lehman effect" across the utility sector as it moved one step closer to rationing natural gas.\n\nGermany — Europe\'s largest economy — moved into the second of its three-stage emergency gas plan on Thursday after Russia slowed supplies to the country, exacerbating concerns over an energy crunch. These supply fears have already driven European natural gas futures up by 85% year-to-date.\n\nUnder the second stage of Germany\'s emergency gas plan, utility companies can pass on price increases to customers. The government is holding back on triggering the clause for now. But Habeck said they could kick in if the supply crunch and price increases persist, as energy suppliers that buy power on the wholesale market are running up losses and many could ultimately fail as a result.\n\n"If this minus gets so big that they can\'t carry it anymore, the whole market is in danger of collapsing at some point — so a Lehman effect in the energy system," said German economy minister Robert Habeck at a press conference, according to a Bloomberg translation. Habeck was referring to financial services firm Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy in 2008 amid the subprime mortgage crisis — which spilled over and caused the Global Financial Crisis.\n\n

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

\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.


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 Swiss central bank stepped in with a $54bn loan to Credit Suisse.

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

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

Wall Street is worried about what may be next to topple following the second- and third-largest bank failures in U.S. history, and stocks are swinging sharply Monday as investors scramble to find someplace safe to park their money.\n\nThe S&P 500 was virtually unchanged in morning trading, but only after tumbling 1.4% at the open. The sharpest drops were again coming from banks. Investors are worried that a relentless rise in interest rates meant to get inflation under control are approaching a tipping point and may be cracking the banking system.\n\n\nThe U.S. government announced a plan late Sunday meant to shore up the banking industry following the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank since Friday.\n\nThe most pressure is on the regional banks a couple steps below in size of the massive, “too-big-to-fail” banks that helped take down the economy in 2007 and 2008. Shares of First Republic plunged 78%, even after the bank said Sunday it had strengthened its finances with cash from the Federal Reserve and JPMorgan Chase.\n\nHuge banks, which have been repeatedly stress-tested by regulators following the 2008 financial crisis, weren’t down as much. JPMorgan Chase fell 0.7%, and Bank of America dropped 3.7%.\n\n“So far, it seems that the potential problem banks are few, and importantly do not extend to the so-called systemically important banks,” analysts at ING said.

The U.S. government announced a plan late Sunday meant to shore up the banking industry.

Shares in banks all over the world have plummeted.

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


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 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\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\nIceland’s embattled prime minister, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, has become the first major casualty of the Panama Papers, stepping aside from his office amid mounting public outrage that his family had sheltered money offshore.\n\nWhat was planned as a mass protest in Reykjavik on Tuesday evening turned to muted satisfaction as demonstrators vented their anger following revelations that Gunnlaugsson once owned – and his wife still owns – an offshore investment company with multimillion-pound claims on Iceland’s failed banks.\n\n“We were hoping parliament would be dissolved,” said Steingrimur Oli Einarsson, a fish oil trader, one of a few hundred to brave a freezing northeasterly wind on parliament square in downtown Reykjavik.\n\n“Of course we’re happy the prime minister has stepped down. But we are not satisfied with who is taking over from him, and with the fact that the government itself is still there.”\n\nGunnlaugsson’s office said in a statement that he was not resigning, but “handing over the office of prime minister for an unspecified time” to Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, the agriculture and fisheries minister.\n\nGunnlaugsson was “very proud” of his success resurrecting Iceland’s economy after the 2008 financial crisis, the statement said, and “especially proud of his government’s handling of ... the creditors of the failed Icelandic banks”.\n\nOutside parliament, Sigrin Eiroksdottir, a pre-school teacher, said the occasion “doesn’t really feel like any kind of victory. There is so much still to put right in this country in terms of ethics, of how the world looks at us.”\n\n

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


\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

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

\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\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.

\nGermany\'s economy minister warns of a "market collapse" if natural-gas prices continue to soar.\nGermany has triggered the second stage of its three-stage emergency gas plan on supply fears.\nThat\'s after Russia —citing a techincal reason — slowed piped natural-gas supplies to Germany.\n\nGermany warned the country\'s energy crisis may trigger a "Lehman effect" across the utility sector as it moved one step closer to rationing natural gas.\n\nGermany — Europe\'s largest economy — moved into the second of its three-stage emergency gas plan on Thursday after Russia slowed supplies to the country, exacerbating concerns over an energy crunch. These supply fears have already driven European natural gas futures up by 85% year-to-date.\n\nUnder the second stage of Germany\'s emergency gas plan, utility companies can pass on price increases to customers. The government is holding back on triggering the clause for now. But Habeck said they could kick in if the supply crunch and price increases persist, as energy suppliers that buy power on the wholesale market are running up losses and many could ultimately fail as a result.\n\n"If this minus gets so big that they can\'t carry it anymore, the whole market is in danger of collapsing at some point — so a Lehman effect in the energy system," said German economy minister Robert Habeck at a press conference, according to a Bloomberg translation. Habeck was referring to financial services firm Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy in 2008 amid the subprime mortgage crisis — which spilled over and caused the Global Financial Crisis.\n\n

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


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

A lot of Iranians are frustrated with the government for various reasons about the current regime.

\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


\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\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.

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

Miscarriage care already being impacted in Texas.

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


\n\nFor decades, the legal battle over abortion focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and its guiding document, the U.S. Constitution.\n\nNow, with Roe v. Wade overturned, the legal spotlight has shifted to the states, where abortion supporters and opponents must contend with 50 different constitutions that, in many places, guarantee rights more broadly than their federal counterpart.\n\nThe legal chaos has already begun. In a half-dozen states and counting, lawsuits argue that new restrictive abortion laws are in violation of state constitutions.\n\nSo, too, the stakes have grown for ballot measures scheduled this year to amend those constitutions, whether to protect the right to an abortion or eliminate it.\n\n"For anyone who thought, \'Oh, Roe v. Wade is done and now this whole thing is over\' — I have bad news," Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at the University of California Davis, tells NPR. "This is just going to be an even more complicated chapter that we\'re entering into."\n\nAnd experts say the uncertainty could continue for years to come, given the relative ease of amending state constitutions and the judicial elections in many states that can result in rapid changes to a court\'s ideological makeup.\n\nIn the days since the Dobbs decision, abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts to find a right to abortion in at least four states, including Utah, Kentucky, Idaho and Mississippi. (Some other active legal challenges, including lawsuits in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Texas, do not ask judges to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion rights.

Abortion rights organizations have filed lawsuits challenging state courts in at least four states.

Donald Trump elected President of the United States.

\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

May 2, 2022: Politico report details leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade.

\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.


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.

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

Twitter revenues plumment in recent months.

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.

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


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

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

Twitter sends email to employees notifying them of layoffs.

Musk originally offered to buy Twitter for $44 billion in April ($54.20 per share), a deal that Twitter ultimately accepted. Musk in May put the takeover "temporarily on hold" because of a dispute over the number of fake or spam accounts that Twitter claimed to have. Twitter said that fake accounts represented less than five percent of users, but Musk was not convinced. In July, Musk decided he no longer wanted to buy Twitter and attempted to call off the purchase, claiming that Twitter did not comply with its contractual obligations and that he was not provided with the relevant business information that he requested. Twitter in turn filed a lawsuit to force Musk to go on with the sale, accusing him of trashing the company, disrupting its operations, and destroying stockholder value. Musk\'s decision to offer to continue on with the purchase comes ahead of a trial that was set to begin on October 17. With Musk once again on board, it is probable that the acquisition will go through, provided he does not change his mind again.

Musk offered to buy Twitter for $44 billion in April.

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.

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.


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

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

Weinstein issues an apology but disputes allegations he harassed female employees.

Producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual harassment.

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

Tarana Burke started the #MeToo hashtag 10 years ago


The Iranian government has executed at least four prisoners over crimes it claims they committed during the demonstrations.

Iranian authorities claim that Amini died of heart failure.

\n\nWorld leaders at the UN General Assembly must support calls for the establishment of an independent international investigative and accountability mechanism to address the prevailing crisis of impunity in Iran. Their urgent need for action was demonstrated most recently by the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa (Zhina) Amini, and the barrage of gunfire unleashed on protesters which has left at least eight people dead and hundreds injured, Amnesty International said today.\n\nIranian security forces are violently quashing largely peaceful protests sparked by Mahsa Amini’s death on 16 September, days after her violent arrest by the “morality police” for not complying with discriminatory compulsory veiling laws. Amnesty International collected evidence on the security forces’ unlawful use of birdshot and other metal pellets, teargas, water cannon, and beatings with batons to disperse protesters.\n\n“The global outpouring of rage and empathy over Mahsa Amini’s death must be followed by concrete steps by the international community to tackle the crisis of systemic impunity that has allowed widespread torture, extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings by Iranian authorities to continue unabated both behind prison walls and during protests,” said Diana Eltahawy, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.\n\n“The Iranian authorities’ latest brutal crackdown on protests coincides with Ebrahim Raisi’s speech at the UN.

UN General Assembly called for the establishment of an independent international investigative and accountability mechanism to address the crisis of impunity in Iran.