\n\nDramatic elections in Brazil, Chile and Colombia brought leftist governments into power across much of Latin America in 2022, capping the region\'s second "pink tide" in two decades.\n\n However, their struggles amid stubborn economic headwinds suggest the wave may have crested. An anti-incumbent streak that lifted the left could soon swing major elections the other way.\n\nTo have the same staying power as the left-wing renaissance at the turn of the century, governments will need to reignite economies that have frustrated voters and investors alike during a decade of mostly mediocre growth.\n\nChilean President Gabriel Boric, 36, took office in March as his country\'s most progressive leader in half a century and its youngest ever. But setbacks including the rejection of a new constitution have dented his popularity and forced concessions to the center, including swapping some of the youthful cohort in his cabinet for more experienced establishment figures.\n\nColombia also swung sharply to the left with June\'s election of Gustavo Petro, a 62-year-old former guerrilla vowing to tackle inequality with tax and land reforms. He has shored up fiscal concerns with the former, but spooked investors with a proposed ban on new oil and gas exploration and second-guessing of central bank policy.\n\nBrazilian President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, 77, who narrowly beat incumbent Jair Bolsonaro in October, is a holdover from the region\'s first pink tide, when a commodity boom helped him finish his 2003-2010 presidency with record approval.\n\nHowever, corruption scandals and economic mismanagement under his chosen successor tarred Lula\'s legacy.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric, 36, takes office in March as the country's most progressive leader in half a century.

\n\nThe advance of left-wing, progressive parties in Latin America is driven by the mismanagement of the pandemic, the economic crisis, and the failure of right-wing populism in the region, writes Valesca Lima\n\nIn the 2000s, a wave of left-wing electoral success swept Latin America, with a varied and complex turn to more progressive economic or social policies. This involved greater social spending, contradictory neoliberal reforms and, in some places, radical socialism.\n\nIn the 2010s, a right-wing political and conservative trend countered this tide, in clear reaction to the advances of progressives, and the right has dominated politics in the region for the past decade. But left-wing parties are once again making electoral and political strides. In the late 2010s, the forces remained somewhat even. Now, Boric's election in Chile in December 2021 marks a shift in regional governance. It brought the number of countries led by progressive parties to seven. That number could rise even higher if progressives win the 2022 general elections in Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica.\n\nBy March 2022, Latin America will have at least seven progressive governments. In addition to some notable democratic setbacks in recent years, several factors may explain the new wave of progressives sweeping the region.\n\nCoronavirus is changing the course of politics in the region. Mismanagement of the pandemic, along with poverty and unemployment, are driving voters to support candidates who promise big government and greater social spending.\n\n

In the 2010s, a right-wing political and conservative trend countered this tide.

“Our region can do more,” 11 former presidents and former foreign ministers from Latin America recently wrote in an open letter to current heads of state, underlining that regional integration was “more necessary than ever.” They have a point.\n\nAs the age of hyperglobalization is ending and regionalization is back in vogue, Latin America remains one of the least economically integrated regions in the world. Regional cooperation has been extremely limited due to profound ideological differences between leaders over the past years. Two examples symbolize the striking disconnect: Despite a shared border and numerous common challenges, the heads of state of Brazil and Argentina have not been on speaking terms for most of the past three years. Secondly, the president of Mexico has not visited South America at all since coming to power in late 2018. Now that the second pink tide has reached all major countries in the region and Bolsonaro is on his way out, many see a window of opportunity for greater regional unity. \n\nHowever, the past two weeks suggest that even with leftist leaders occupying presidential palaces in the vast majority of countries in the region, broader policy coordination and regional integration will not come easily.

\n\nFrom Mexico in the north to Chile in the south, the region\'s constantly see-sawing political map once again resembles that of the early 2000s, when a so-called "pink tide" of left-leaning governments washed over it.\n\nBut analysts say this time is different: the trend is driven by pragmatism rather than ideology.\n\n"It\'s not because Latin Americans are becoming more leftist. I don\'t think there\'s any evidence to support that," analyst Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue told AFP.\n\nIn their most recent election cycles, Latin American countries have resoundingly dethroned incumbent parties on the right and center-right of the political spectrum.\n\nHonduras, Bolivia and Argentina are among those to have turned their backs on the right, while Colombia in June elected its first leftist president despite a deep-rooted mistrust, as elsewhere in the region, of anything with perceived links to "communism."\n\nMany voters were jolted leftward by economic troubles and the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.\n\nVoters across the globe felt ignored, even denigrated, by the political establishment as poverty and inequality deepened.\n\n"It is more of a rejectionist trend than anything else... people looking for an alternative," said Shifter of the recent string of leftist victories.\n\n"It just so happens that we are in that moment in Latin America where a lot of the governments that are being rejected are of the right or the center right."

A "pink tide" of left-leaning governments swept Latin America in the early 2000s.


\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

Many of the reports of sexual assault related to people coming forward regarding past incidents

\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

A wave of awareness and brave confrontations was created over sexual harassment and assault.


\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.

Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed.

\n\nUBS (UBSG.S) executives sought to assure investors on Wednesday that Switzerland\'s largest bank can make its unexpected takeover of Swiss rival Credit Suisse (CSGN.S) work and pay off for its shareholders.\n\nWhile describing the biggest bank rescue since the global financial crisis as a milestone for the industry and a major challenge for the bank, Chairman Colm Kelleher told UBS shareholders it also meant "a new beginning and huge opportunities ahead for the combined bank and for the Swiss financial center as a whole."\n\nLast month, Swiss authorities announced that UBS would buy Credit Suisse in a shotgun merger to stem further banking turmoil after the smaller lender had come to the brink of collapse.\n\nAfter a run on deposits, the Swiss government had turned to UBS, which agreed to buy Credit Suisse for 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.3 billion), while the Alpine state put up more than 200 billion francs of support and guarantees.\n\nKelleher told the bank\'s shareholder meeting in Basel UBS was confident in its ability to successfully manage Credit Suisse\'s integration and that the combined bank would remain well capitalized.\n\n"We believe the transaction is financially attractive for UBS shareholders," he said.\n\nThe hastily arranged rescue, not only angered and unsettled both banks\' shareholders, but also many in Switzerland.\n\nA survey by political research firm gfs.bern found a majority of Swiss did not support the deal that would create a financial institution with assets double the size of the country\'s annual economic output.\n\n

Swiss government put up more than 200 billion francs of support and guarantees.

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

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

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


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

BLM protests are expected in dozens of towns and cities by the weekend.

Riot police face off with protesters, firing tear gas and pepper bullets.

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

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

\n\nIn the nearly three weeks since videos surfaced of George Floyd's death at the hands of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, thousands have participated in the Black Lives Matter protests. In Los Angeles, Athens, Tel Aviv, Sydney, and Mexico City, protestors have left their homes and taken to the streets amid the coronavirus pandemic to honor Floyd, to stand against racism, and to demand justice for others killed by the police. Here are powerful photos from those protests, from multi-lingual signs to Compton Cowboys on horseback.\n\nTo support the Black Lives Matter movement, you can also donate your travel rewards points to groups fighting for racial justice and spend your money at Black-owned bookstores and Black-owned restaurants throughout North America.\n\nDemonstrators honor George Floyd at the site of his murder on June 3. After 13 days of around-the-clock demonstrations, the city of Minneapolis met protestors' demands and announced plans to disband their police department, focusing instead on community-led initiatives. \n\nDutch protestors gathered on and around the Erasmus Bridge in Rotterdam to march in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter protests around the world. The Democrats 66, a political party in the Netherlands, is currently calling for a ban on police chokeholds within their own police forces.\n\nSparked by Floyd's murder, protestors gathered in Paris last week with signs that read “Justice pour Adama.” Adama Traoré was a Malian-French man who died in police custody in 2016, in the Paris suburb of Beaumont-sur-Oise.

Videos of George Floyd's death at the hands of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was released.


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”.

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

Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) abruptly collapsed

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)

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.

SVB invested in technology companies (startups).

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


\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


UBS acquires Credit Suisse for over $3 billion.

\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

Owners of $17 billion worth of “additional tier one” bonds will lose everything

\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

The Swiss Federal Council amended the Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance.

Swiss President Alain Berse announces the merger.


UBS shares are down 0.81% at $20.83 during the premarket session on the last check Wednesday.

UBS agrees to buy Credit Suisse in emergency rescue deal

UBS is preparing to eliminate about 20 to 30% of jobs worldwide

\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

In 2022, Credit Suisse recorded its worst lost.


\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.

\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.

\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.

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


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

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

BLM protests are expected in dozens of towns and cities by the weekend.

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

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


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.

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

\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

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

Mass protests on Monday called for Gunnlaugsson's resignation.


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.

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

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

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.

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 attempted to raise $2.25 billion from investors.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual harassment.


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

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

BLM protests are expected in dozens of towns and cities by the weekend.

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

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


In 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.

Speaking 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.

However, 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.

On 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.

In 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.

That claim is accurate, although Biden did vote against an identical proposal just one year later. Our rating is True.

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

\n\nAbortion rights activists across the country are sending a clear message after the overturn of Roe v. Wade: They’re not backing down.\n\nFrom Minnesota to California to Florida, more than a dozen protests are planned Monday to denounce the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the nearly 50-year-old federal constitutional right to have an abortion.\n\nThe fallout was swift: At least 10 states have effectively banned abortion since Friday’s ruling. And 26 states have laws indicating they could outlaw or set extreme limits on abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.\n\nActivists on both sides of the debate rallied in jubilation or devastation.\n\n“Old men, stop telling me what to do with my body,” read one protester’s sign in Washington, DC.\n\n“People’s bodies are more regulated than guns,” read another protester’s sign in Atlanta.\n\nOutside the Supreme Court, an elated Valentina Aaron held up a sign with an image of a fetus. “Forceps off my body,” the sign read.\n\n“It’s incredibly exciting,” Aaron said about the historic ruling. “If I was a baby in a womb, I would want someone to stand up for me.”\n\nBut nearby, abortion rights supporter Joseph Little held a sign saying, “Forced birth is enslavement.”\n\n“Making people give birth is enslavement,” Little told CNN. “When you tell people that they no longer have a voice in their own personal matters, that’s enslavement. It’s oppression. And the Bible clearly says that we need to correct oppression.”\n\n

Protests are planned across the country to denounce the ruling.

\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.

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

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

\n\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\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\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.

Donald Trump elected President of the United States.

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

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


\n\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\nThe American public is rendering its initial judgment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and most disapprove of the ruling, including two-thirds of women who disapprove. \n\nBy more than a 20-point margin, Americans call it a step backward rather than forward for America. And women, by more than three to one, think the ruling will make women's lives worse rather than better. \n\nThose who approve — and in particular, the three-fourths of conservatives who do — say they feel both hopeful and happy. \n\nAs they look ahead, those disapproving of Friday's ruling are especially likely to think the high court might someday limit or end birth control and also same-sex marriage.\n\nViews on Roe being overturned divide along partisan lines, though perhaps not as completely as political debate or legislative battles might suggest. One in six Democrats approves, and one in five Republicans disapproves. \n\nAcross demographic groups, younger people are especially likely to disapprove; most moderates disapprove along with nine in 10 liberals; two-thirds of Hispanic Americans disapprove, three-fourths of Black Americans and just over half of White Americans disapprove. \n\nApproval is high among Republicans, those who identify as conservatives, and evangelical Christians.\n\nThose who approve of Roe being overturned report feeling hopeful most of all, and happy and relieved. White evangelicals are also particularly likely to express these positive sentiments.\n\n

Three-fourths of conservatives approve of the ruling.

\n\nAbortion rights activists across the country are sending a clear message after the overturn of Roe v. Wade: They’re not backing down.\n\nFrom Minnesota to California to Florida, more than a dozen protests are planned Monday to denounce the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the nearly 50-year-old federal constitutional right to have an abortion.\n\nThe fallout was swift: At least 10 states have effectively banned abortion since Friday’s ruling. And 26 states have laws indicating they could outlaw or set extreme limits on abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.\n\nActivists on both sides of the debate rallied in jubilation or devastation.\n\n“Old men, stop telling me what to do with my body,” read one protester’s sign in Washington, DC.\n\n“People’s bodies are more regulated than guns,” read another protester’s sign in Atlanta.\n\nOutside the Supreme Court, an elated Valentina Aaron held up a sign with an image of a fetus. “Forceps off my body,” the sign read.\n\n“It’s incredibly exciting,” Aaron said about the historic ruling. “If I was a baby in a womb, I would want someone to stand up for me.”\n\nBut nearby, abortion rights supporter Joseph Little held a sign saying, “Forced birth is enslavement.”\n\n“Making people give birth is enslavement,” Little told CNN. “When you tell people that they no longer have a voice in their own personal matters, that’s enslavement. It’s oppression. And the Bible clearly says that we need to correct oppression.”\n\n

Protests are planned across the country to denounce the ruling.

\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.

\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.


More than 50 people have died and dozens more were missing on Thursday, as heavy flooding in Germany and Belgium turned streams and streets into raging torrents that swept away cars and caused houses to collapse.

Recent storms across parts of western Europe made rivers and reservoirs burst their banks, triggering flash floods overnight after the saturated soil couldn’t absorb any more water.

“I grieve for those who have lost their lives in this disaster,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said during a visit to Washington, expressing shock at the scope of the flooding. “We still don’t know the number. But it will be many.”

She pledged that everything would be done to find those still missing, adding, “’Heavy rain and flooding’ doesn’t capture what happened.”

Authorities in the North Rhine-Westphalia state said at least 30 people had died, while 19 deaths were reported in Rhineland-Palatinate state to the south. Belgian media reported eight deaths in that country.

Among the worst-hit German villages was Schuld, where several homes collapsed and dozens of people remained unaccounted for.

Rescue operations were hampered by blocked roads and phone and internet outages across the Eifel, a volcanic region of rolling hills and small valleys. Some villages were reduced to rubble, as old brick and timber houses couldn’t withstand the sudden rush of water, often carrying trees and other debris as it gushed through narrow streets.

Karl-Heinz Grimm, who had come to help his parents in Schuld, said he had never seen the small Ahr River surge in such a deadly torrent.

Rescue services have continued to comb through towns ravaged by the floods in search for potential survivors.

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

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

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

A dam along the river Rur in the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia broke.

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

German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed shock at the scope of the flooding.

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


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

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.

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.