– Insiders are beginning to open up about how they chose Jorge Bergoglio as the new pope. For one thing, he wasn't part of the Vatican's troubled Curia hierarchy, but it was believed he could help heal it, the New York Times reports. It also helped that he didn't stake out a high public profile and project himself as a candidate beforehand, which can backfire in the world of Vatican politics. "He is not part of the Italian system, but also at the same time, because of his culture and background, he was Italo-compatible," says the archbishop of Paris. "If there was a chance that someone could intervene with justice in this situation, he was the man who could do it best." Among the questions cardinals asked themselves: "'Is he a man of the faith who connects us to Christ?'" said Chicago's archbishop. "Next, 'Can he govern?'" Lastly, he won points for "the fact that he has a heart for the poor." Bergoglio's pre-vote speech to the private conclave helped his selection, the Los Angeles Times notes; he offered a succinct call for a streamlined church free of corruption. But his selection was by no means a foregone conclusion; indeed, Cardinal Angelo Scola, described as a favorite of reformers, received a mistaken email of congratulations from Italian bishops shortly after Bergoglio's selection. Bergoglio reportedly led after the first round of voting, with Scola and Canada's Marc Oullet behind him. He gradually built his lead in subsequent rounds until reaching the threshold of 77 votes.

Expand this summary.

Cardinal Bergoglio apparently went through the first round of voting, which took place on Tuesday evening, into the conclave as a leading vote-getter, but a number of other eminences garnered some votes, which were handwritten on Latin ballots with Pilot gel pens. Carlo Marroni, who covers the Vatican for Il Sole 24 Ore, reported that Cardinal Bergoglio, Cardinal Scola and Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Canada were the leaders.

 Ignazio Ingrao, the Vatican expert for the newsweekly Panorama, said that at the beginning cardinals voted for a number of individuals as a “courtesy vote.” But, “Then they went fairly quickly to Bergoglio,” he said. Private conversations in the evening helped put the focus on him, analysts said.

 In the final round of voting, the future Francis hit 77 — the required two-thirds minimum — before all the votes were counted. Applause broke out, several cardinals said, but the counting continued for completeness. He ended up with “more than sufficient” votes to win, the Brazilian cardinal, Geraldo Majella Agnelo, said. The final tally was kept secret.

 Cardinal Scola went into the conclave with a solid block of votes, including many of the Americans and Europeans, who saw in him an Italian who was nevertheless at a distance from the intrigues of the Vatican. But it quickly became apparent this was not going to be enough, particularly given what news reports said was the opposition of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the powerful secretary of state under Benedict.

 “The rapidity with which the choice of Bergoglio was arrived at confirms that the votes that Scola could count on immediately became insufficient,” wrote Massimo Franco, the Vatican expert for the daily Corriere della Sera. The numbers also tell a tale: Latin America had 19 electors, second only to Europe’s 61, and Cardinal Bergoglio may have gotten strong support from the region.

 While Cardinal Bertone failed to give him support, Cardinal Scola certainly had his share of believers in the Italian Bishops Conference — it sent out a message congratulating him on becoming pope 20 minutes after Francis was named. The conference later blamed a technical glitch.

 “The Argentine archbishop was elected after the third balloting when Angelo Scola had sent his votes toward him,” wrote Paolo Rodari, La Repubblica’s Vaticanista.

 Another source of surprise was Bergoglio’s age, 76. A number of cardinals had suggested that a younger man was needed — in the early 60s range — especially after a pope resigned because of waning strength in old age.

 Cardinal Bergoglio’s age may have cut both ways, said Mr. Ingrao, the Vatican expert for Panorama. Reformers may have believed it would motivate him to act quickly, while cardinals favoring the status quo may have hoped his papacy would be too short to effect much change.

 “So there were thoughts about looking to someone much younger,” said Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, archbishop of Bordeaux. “But there were two reasons” to choose Cardinal Bergoglio, he said. “First it was his personality that was the determiner. The other thing was that we remembered that we had popes like John XXIII who was old but he was decisive for the evolution of the church. So the question of age wasn’t such a big factor.”

 The first public view of Francis was on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, where he asked the crowd in the piazza for their blessing and then wished them a good rest, earning praise from many Catholics for his humble bearing and choice to name himself after the beloved St. Francis of Assisi.

 On Thursday, his first full day as pope, he prayed at the St. Mary Major Basilica and passed by the clergy residence — where he stayed before the conclave — to pick up his luggage and pay the bill.

 “I think this is the style of our new pope,” Cardinal Ricard said. ||||| Pope Francis, center, leaves the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome on his first day on the job. (Ciro Fusco, European Pressphoto Agency / )

 VATICAN CITY — In private meetings before their conclave to elect a new pope, Roman Catholic cardinals took note when one of their number rose to speak — clearly, quietly and persuasively — about the need to purify the church and streamline its unwieldy bureaucracy.

 Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio seemed to sum up the very themes and challenges the leaders were debating. He was forceful without being abrasive, one cardinal recalled Thursday.

 By the time they strode solemnly into the magnificent Sistine Chapel and closed away the outside world Tuesday, many of the cardinals had significantly refined their lists of candidates. Scarcely 24 hours later, on a fifth round of voting, at least 77 of 115 prelates chose the unassuming cardinal from Buenos Aires as the 266th pontiff.

 The choice was historic, making him the first pope from the Americas and the first from a continent other than Europe in more than a millennium. The choice of Bergoglio, who will reign as Pope Francis, also stunned much of the public and many veteran Vatican-watchers. Almost no one predicted that Bergoglio would be elected to replace Pope Benedict XVI, who resigned last month.

 Cardinals take an oath of secrecy that bars them from discussing in detail the proceedings that lead to the election, but on Thursday details were beginning to emerge slowly, forming an illuminating if partial picture of what happened and how.

 "Most of us had two or three candidates when we entered" the chapel, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Mexico said in an interview. "We did not go in with our minds blank."

 Cardinals often say it is the Holy Spirit that guides them in the conclave. But the real work, the trading of names and weighing of pros and cons, takes place in the days before. Over pasta dinners and informal chats, and especially in the congregations — the meetings where cardinals speak — they air grievances or outline plans and visions. For some, it is as close to a campaign speech as they get.

 While support coalesced around Bergoglio, other candidates may have peaked or failed to gain traction because of serious criticism by numerous cardinals of the Italian-dominated Vatican bureaucracy.

 The usually formidable voting muscle of the Italian bloc was weakened by the so-called Vatileaks scandal that pointed to allegations of corruption and infighting in the Curia, as the bureaucracy is known. That might have hurt the chances of the archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Angelo Scola, who had frequently been mentioned as a possible front-runner. Although some considered Scola an outsider, the controversy may have hurt all Italian candidates.

 Embarrassingly for the Italian clergy, its bishops conference Wednesday night sent a quick message of congratulations to the new pope — addressing it to Scola instead of Bergoglio.

 In each round of conclave balloting, votes for other candidates dropped off or shifted to Bergoglio until he received the majority needed, Sandoval said. The fact that Bergoglio came in second in the 2005 conclave that chose Benedict may have had an effect.

 By the third ballot, the trend was clear, cardinals said. Bergoglio became somber. In the 2005 conclave, he had told fellow cardinals he did not want the job.

 "Cardinal Bergoglio wouldn't have become pope in the fifth ballot if he had not been a really strong contender for the papacy from the beginning," Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn told reporters.

 The election over, the new pope declined an elevated throne to receive the cardinals' pledges of allegiance. Then he joined them on the charter bus back to their residence rather than allowing himself to be whisked away in a limousine. Later, according to Brazilian cardinals, Pope Francis offered a champagne toast to the group at dinner and commented on their decision: "May God forgive you."

 "Don't you feel the new energy in the church?" the former archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, said on his Twitter account.

 Much of the criticism of Vatican management comes from cardinals who do not live in Rome but work in the far corners of the globe. There may have been a concerted push to challenge the standard modus operandi that led to the scandals that tarnished Benedict and his papacy.

 Bergoglio "brings a new style to the papacy," said John Thavis, an expert on the pontificate. "Yes, the cardinals see him as a manager. But they also see a whole new attitude. They saw it in him and not in the other candidates who pretty much follow in line with the way things have been done [at the Vatican] all along."

 The less formal, more down-to-earth style became apparent to the public with Francis' simple speech and silent prayer Wednesday night on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica. It continued Thursday when he returned to his hotel, picked up his bags and paid the bill.

 Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., also suggested that many of his colleagues went into the conclave with their minds all but made up. Most of the work was done in the congregations, he said.

 "We were hoping to keep the focus on what is today a renewal of the emphasis on the spiritual dimension of life … to make people realize they have a relationship with God even in this very, very material world," Wuerl told reporters. "We were looking for someone whose life says that."

 Several cardinals suggested that Bergoglio, who hews to conservative church doctrine, was theologically unimpeachable while also able to reach out to the developing world, parts of which are the only regions where Catholicism is growing. Born to Italian immigrant parents and raised in Argentina, he is seen as a pastoral teacher who can inspire action without browbeating.

 "He can bring unity," Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels said at a news conference. "He comes from a different continent and so he comes with positive baggage to be able to do that. He won't be a pope above the people, but with them."

 Danneels, generally considered among the more progressive of the cardinals, could barely contain his delight at the election of Bergoglio. He was not known as a supporter of the hard-line Joseph Ratzinger, who became Benedict, and seemed to welcome what he sees as a shift. He especially praised that speech during the congregations when Bergoglio urged reform of the Curia.

 Similarly, Bergoglio is believed to have won the support of many of the 11 U.S. cardinals, among them Mahony, who said he was "ecstatic" at having a Latin American pope, "a great gift."

 The Belgian cleric accompanied the new pope on the St. Peter's balcony Wednesday night and asked him how he felt. He pledged his service to God, saying he accepted what God had planned for him.

 "But I can imagine later he burst into tears when he realized what awaited him," Danneels said. "It is a superhuman task."

 wilkinson@latimes.com

 Times staff writer Janet Stobart contributed to this report. |||||


My dearest friend and YOUR favorite castaway, Dawn Wells ( Mary Ann from ‘Gillian’s Island’ )

 needs YOU !

 After 2008, like many of us, Dawn suffered through the banking crash and lost everything including her life savings in addition, to a life -threatening surgery which came close to killing her.

 Dawn was a victim of an unexpected accident that required hospitalization for two months and a very long time to rest and heal

 Dawn needs $194,000 to alleviate penalties by the IRS( which are compounded daily) and to pay her hospital costs

 Dawn is living one of the greatest fears we Americans have, an uncertain future. Should any of you out there wish to contribute a small some to help a woman who gave so many people Joy over the years, it would be so appreciated. God Bless

 PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME SAVE OUR AMERICAN ICON- Dawn Wells

 Thank you in advance.

 Dugg Kirkpatrick

 ps

 i had to up the goal because of fees that go fund me has. I didn’t take that into consideration

 Today, September 13

 marks the day that Leonard Carter will be able to withdraw funds on Dawn’s behalf!

 YAY!!!

 thank you so much everyone!

 Share Tweet 6.6k shares on Facebook shares on Facebook ||||| Dawn Wells, best known for playing Mary Ann Summers on Gilligan’s Island, is in need of financial aid, according to a GoFundMe reportedly created by her friend.

 A man by the name of Dugg Kirkpatrick recently launched a fundraiser with a goal of almost $200,000 to help Wells, 79, pay off medical bills.

 Get push notifications with news, features and more.

 As of Friday morning, the campaign has raised nearly $120,000 in just 10 days.

 According to the fundraiser description, Wells has been struggling to make ends meet since the 2008 financial crisis. She allegedly suffered “an unexpected accident that required hospitalization for two months” and needs the funds to “alleviate penalties by the IRS” and cover her hospital costs.

 PEOPLE has reached out Wells, her agent and Kirkpatrick for comment.

 Dawn Wells as Mary Ann Summers on Gilligan's Island CBS-TV/UA/Gladysya Prod/Kobal/REX/Shutterstock

 Kirkpatrick told TMZ that Wells broke her knee this year and was already recovering from a major surgery where she suffered complications. She reportedly wants to be moved to a smaller assisted living facility that caters specifically to people in the film and TV industry, but she was denied due to her debt.

 Kirkpatrick also told the outlet that Wells has no family to support her and has already lost her home. He is reportedly trying to get her moved into the new facility in Glendale, California, sometime this week.

 According to photos posted on his Twitter account, Kirkpatrick appears to be a hair stylist who has worked with Wells. |||||

Write a summary.

– Dawn Wells is not doing so well, according to the friend who launched a GoFundMe crowdfunding campaign for the Gilligan's Island actress. Wells, 79, who played Mary Ann on the show, lost almost everything in the 2008 financial crisis, the friend tells TMZ. This year, while already recovering from a major surgery and complications resulting from it, she broke her knee. She now needs to move to an assisted living facility, but it won't take her because she's nearly $200,000 in debt, the friend says. "Dawn needs $194,000 to alleviate penalties by the IRS (which are compounded daily) and to pay her hospital costs," the GoFundMe campaign says, though it's seeking to raise just $180,000. In a campaign update, the friend quotes Wells as saying, "I just don’t know what happened! I thought I would be just fine, but apparently I’m not. I’ve found myself with no home, husband, or kids. I thank god every day that I have friends and fans who care or this whole thing would be too overwhelming." The campaign asks the public to help "YOUR favorite castaway," noting that she is "a woman who gave so many people Joy over the years." As of this writing, it has raised more than $46,000. People notes that the campaign is run by someone calling himself Dugg Kirkpatrick, and points to a Twitter photo seeming to indicate he is a hairstylist who has worked with Wells.


Here is a news article: Join us for a special conversation between artist Nari Ward and Massimiliano Gioni, Edlis Neeson Artistic Director of the New Museum, on the occasion of Ward’s New Museum exhibition, “We the People.” Ward is one of the most influential sculptors working today. He transforms found material to speak to both personal memory and the complex political and social…

 Event Nari Ward in Conversation with Massimiliano… Thursday 03/14/19 7PM ||||| New York (CNN) -- A video that features ants crawling over a crucifix has gone on display at a New York gallery -- after it was banned from a Smithsonian museum -- raising questions over the boundaries of freedom of expression in a city known for its art.

 The exhibit, entitled "A Fire in My Belly, A Work in Progress," was produced by David Wojnarowicz, who died in 1992 after suffering from AIDS.

 It began screening Saturday at the New Museum, which is devoted exclusively to contemporary art, according to the museum website.

 The complete video is over 30 minutes long and includes graphic sexual content -- including masturbation and full frontal nudity -- and has renewed opposition from religious groups offended by the depiction of Jesus covered by insects.

 "I think that in the artistic community, directors, curators are tremendously insensitive to Christians, they respond by claiming victim status and I find it appalling," said Catholic League President Bill Donohue. "You can't make fun of the Holocaust, you can't make fun of black slavery..... and you can't even depict anything about Mohammed."

 The video was recently removed from a Smithsonian exhibit after Donohue led protests against it and petitioned Congress to cut the institution's funding after it presented the video.

 "The New Museum has always defended freedom of expression and continues to oppose censorship," said museum director

 Lisa Phillips in a written statement. "We cannot afford to take hard won civil liberties for granted and need to remain vigilant and protect artistic freedom."

 The move prompted dozens of art galleries to request the rights to show the video, said Wendy Olsoff, co-owner of the P.P.O.W. Gallery, which holds the rights to the video.

 "I think it was a bad decision, poor judgment," she said. "Someone who didn't see it, called it in, put pressure and they pulled it. If you pull one piece how do you know another wouldn't be pulled. That's censorship."

 The video is currently displayed in the museum's lobby and can be viewed free of charge. |||||
A summary of this is?

– A battle over an ant-covered crucifix has moved to New York City. The Smithsonian bowed to pressure by top Republicans John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and dumped an art exhibit video showing ants crawling over a crucifix. The "Fire in My Belly" exhibit, by artist David Wojnarowicz, who died of AIDS, is now on display at the New Museum. "I think that in the artistic community, directors, curators are tremendously insensitive to Christians," complained Catholic League President Bill Donohue. "You can't make fun of the Holocaust, you can't make fun of black slavery, and you can't even depict anything about Mohammed." The "New Museum has always defended freedom of expression and continues to oppose censorship," responded director Lisa Phillips. "We cannot afford to take hard won civil liberties for granted and need to remain vigilant and protect artistic freedom." Dozens of galleries and museums offered to display the video, which also includes nudity and masturbation, after it was axed by the Smithsonian, reports CNN.


Article:
Facebook Inc. on Wednesday disavowed comments by company director and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen that appeared to support the colonization of India—sentiments which also received a ringing denunciation from the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.

 Mr. Andreessen also apologized for the remarks, made late Tuesday on Twitter, after Indian regulators banned a Facebook program offering free access to a limited set of Internet sites.

 ... ||||| Splash News/Corbis

 Marc Andreessen needs to tweet a billion apologies.

 The prominent Silicon Valley investor and Facebook board member on Wednesday took to Twitter to apologize for a series of offensive tweets he posted the night before.

 The short missives touched a nerve because they appeared to reference India's colonial history. The world's second-most populous country, with more than a billion people, was a British colony until 1947.

 Here's the backstory: On Monday, India's Telecom Regulatory Authority blocked Facebook's Free Basics, which seeks to bring a limited number of Internet sites and services for free to areas of the world where online access is unavailable.

 The decision was part of a ruling on Net neutrality, the principle of equal access to all types of content and services on the Internet. Facebook, the country concluded, was violating those ideals by picking which services were accessible for free.

 Andreessen, well known for his fiery Twitter personality, called the decision "morally wrong" because India was denying poor people at least partial Internet connectivity. Afterward, he responded to a tweet that suggested he supports "Internet colonialism."

 "Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?" Andreessen wrote in a now-deleted tweet captured by Quartz and Business Insider.

 Andreessen's venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, had no further comment. Andreessen said he withdrew his comments "in full and without reservation."

 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday tried to distance himself from his board member. "I want to respond to Marc Andreessen's comments about India yesterday," wrote Zuckerberg on his Facebook page. "I found the comments deeply upsetting, and they do not represent the way Facebook or I think at all."

 A Facebook spokeswoman also reiterated the sentiment in a statement. "We strongly reject the sentiments expressed by Marc Andreessen last night regarding India."

 Andreessen's faux pas comes as Silicon Valley companies increasingly try to woo India and other developing countries to their services. Google and SpaceX are also trying to beam down Internet access to rural regions via balloons and satellites, for example.

 All of this comes as the technology sector becomes a bigger player on the world's stage. When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the US in September, he met with Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Apple's Tim Cook. |||||Summary:

– Facebook just lost an important legal fight in India, and now one of its board members has complicated its next steps. The mess started when Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen took to Twitter to criticize India's decision to block Facebook from offering free but limited Internet access to poor areas. At one point, when a critic likened Andreessen's position to "Internet colonialism," he shot back, "Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?" recounts the Wall Street Journal. That sentiment drew widespread condemnation and prompted Mark Zuckerberg himself to quickly distance himself from it. And in a series of tweets, Andreessen apologized for his "ill-informed and ill-advised comment." On his Facebook page, Zuckerberg used stronger language, describing the tweet as "deeply unsettling" and making clear that the company "strongly" rejects it. The controversy revolves around a program called Free Basics. As CNET explains, an Indian court declared that the concept violated Net neutrality rules because it would have provided free access to the Internet but only to a limited number of services. The controversy "comes at an inopportune time" for Facebook, which wants to establish a bigger presence in the country but now needs a new strategy after the misstep with Free Basics, notes the New York Times. As for Andreessen, "I will leave all future commentary on all of these topics to people with more knowledge and experience than me," he wrote.


News article:

Nomura Holdings Inc. and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc may face $500 million in damages for what a judge called an “enormous” deception in the sale of defective mortgage-backed securities, a ruling that may spur other banks to settle similar claims tied to the 2008 financial crisis.

 Nomura and RBS were excoriated in a 361-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan, whose ruling followed the first trial of claims that banks sold flawed securities to government-owned mortgage companies. After a three-week trial, Cote said they misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set a damages formula that may result in the government winning about half its original claim of $1 billion.

 “The offering documents did not correctly describe the mortgage loans,” Cote, who heard the case without a jury, wrote Monday. “The magnitude of falsity, conservatively measured, is enormous.”

 Before the trial, FHFA had reached $17.9 billion in settlements with other banks, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The ruling against Nomura and RBS may encourage other banks to settle mortgage-related suits brought by regulators and private investors rather than face the bad publicity and cost of an adverse judgment, said Robert C. Hockett, a professor at Cornell Law School.

 “They look pretty bad,” Hockett said in an interview. “They look like the strategy has blown up in their faces.”

 Cote ordered the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which filed the case, to propose how much the banks should pay as a result of her ruling.

 ‘Consistently Candid’

 “Nomura is confident that it was consistently candid, transparent and professional in all of its dealings with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Jonathan Hodgkinson, a U.S.-based spokesman for the bank, said in an e-mailed statement. Nomura will appeal, he said.

 Linda Harper, a U.K.-based spokeswoman for RBS, declined to comment on the decision.

 FHFA is pleased with the ruling and “looks forward to submitting proposed damages,” the agency’s general counsel, Alfred M. Pollard, said in an e-mailed statement.

 Nomura Shares

 Shares of Nomura fell 2 percent, the most among companies on the Topix index of securities firms, to 787.9 yen at the close of trading in Tokyo, paring this year’s gain to 14 percent.

 “The drop may be due to profit-taking by short-term investors,” said Mitsushige Akino, executive officer at Ichiyoshi Asset Management Co. in Tokyo. “The lawsuit could be the catalyst, although the impact won’t last long because this has been expected.”

 Legal costs are hampering Nomura’s efforts to return its overseas operations to profit. The Japanese firm had a fifth straight annual loss in its businesses abroad in the year ended March as it set aside an unspecified sum for lawsuits in the fourth quarter, financial results showed last month.

 Cote rejected the banks’ claim that the housing crash, and not defects in the loans, was responsible for the collapse of the mortgage-backed securities.

 David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, called Cote’s ruling “incredibly thorough.” The judge included detailed factual rulings that may make it difficult for Nomura and RBS to win on appeal, he said.

 ‘Danger Batman!!’

 The U.S. presented evidence from Nomura executives’ e-mails that suggested the bank might be aware it was selling troubled mortgage-backed securities. One e-mail described some of its mortgages as “crap.”

 Another warned: “Danger Batman!!”

 “The reason for Nomura’s lackluster due diligence program is not hard to find,” Cote said. The bank, competing to buy and securitize loans, sought to foster a “good relationship” with mortgage lenders and ignored “specific warnings about the risk of working with an originator,” she said.

 The banks may use a series of rulings against them by Cote, before and during trial, as issues on appeal, lawyers said.

 The judge barred Nomura from presenting some evidence, including limiting the bank’s ability to prove its claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t suffer damages from buying the mortgage-backed bonds. The judge also ruled that FHFA didn’t have to prove Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew of Nomura’s alleged false statements.

 ‘Expressed Skepticism’

 Elliott Stein, a Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst, wrote that Cote “expressed skepticism about some of Nomura’s contentions and little to none about the FHFA’s case” in closing arguments April 9.

 The FHFA claimed Tokyo-based Nomura cheated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by selling them $2 billion of bonds backed by faulty mortgages. RBS underwrote four of the seven securitizations at issue in the trial.

 Nomura and RBS argued that the documents issued in connection with bond sales adequately disclosed the risks and weren’t misleading. The banks also said that any alleged misstatements didn’t factor into decisions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the securities.

 Most of the trial testimony came from experts reviewing Nomura’s diligence in packaging mortgages into securities and disclosures it made to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in sales from 2005 to 2007.

 “This case is complex from almost any angle, but at its core there is a single simple question,” Cote wrote. “Did defendants accurately describe the home mortgages in the offering documents for the securities they sold that were backed by those mortgages?”

 ‘Disturbing Examples’

 In concluding they didn’t, Cote cited what she called “disturbing examples” from Nomura’s files showing it was willing to securitize defective loans.

 In at least 184 of 672 sample loans that were reviewed, home values were inflated and appraisers didn’t believe the figures they provided were correct, Cote said.

 The FHFA also proved that from 45 percent to 59 percent of the loans backing the mortgage securities had underwriting defects that increased their credit risk.

 “Guidelines were systematically disregarded,” she said.

 Edinburgh-based RBS was sued separately by FHFA in federal court in Connecticut for selling $32 billion of its own mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That case is scheduled for trial next year.

 The case is Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Nomura Holding America Inc., 11-cv-06201, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). ||||| “As its witnesses repeatedly described and as its documents illustrated, Nomura’s goal was to work with the sellers of loans and to do what it could to foster a good relationship with them,” the judge wrote. “Given this attitude, it is unsurprising that even when there were specific warnings about the risk of working with an originator, those warnings fell on deaf ears.”

 During the trial, expert witnesses performed analyses of some of the loans backing the disputed bonds. The experts brought in by the housing finance agency said far more of the loans than the documents stated had characteristics that made them much more likely to default.

 Lawyers for Nomura and R.B.S. argued that those experts’ analyses were seriously flawed. In his closing argument last month, David B. Tulchin, a lawyer for Sullivan & Cromwell, representing Nomura, called the experts’ methodologies “entirely artificial in the extreme.”

 The banks’ lawyers could argue on appeal that even though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took steep paper losses on the bonds, their actual losses have been small. All payments on the roughly $2 billion in bonds have been made, except for about $25 million, according a member of Nomura’s legal team, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

 More broadly, Nomura, in its appeal, will most likely continue to argue that the government’s losses on mortgage bonds were caused by the wider housing crash, making it a legal stretch to tie the losses on those bonds to flaws in the underlying loans.

 Judge Cote, however, said that the banks’ misconduct exacerbated the collapse in the mortgage market.

 “The origination and securitization of these defective loans not only contributed to the collapse of the housing market, the very macroeconomic factor that defendants say caused the losses,” she wrote, “but once that collapse started, improperly underwritten loans were hit hardest and drove the collapse even further.” ||||| NEW YORK A U.S. judge on Monday ruled that Nomura Holdings Inc (8604.T) made false statements in selling mortgage-backed securities to Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) ahead of the 2008 financial crisis.

 U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan ruled for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in a ruling that could allow the U.S. regulator to recover around $450 million.

 Cote, who presided over a non-jury trial, said the FHFA was entitled to judgment against Nomura and the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (RBS.L), which underwrote some of the $2 billion in mortgage-backed securities, in light of misstatements they made in offering documents.

 "The offering documents did not correctly describe the mortgage loans," the judge wrote in a 361-page decision. "The magnitude of falsity, conservatively measured, is enormous."

 The exact amount of damages to be awarded was unclear. Cote ordered the FHFA to submit a proposed judgment with updated damages figures based on her ruling by Friday.

 But Cote, citing figures previously submitted, said the FHFA was entitled to $624.4 million, minus over $178 million in payments it received since launching the lawsuit in 2011.

 The FHFA, which has acted as conservator for Fannie and Freddie since the government took them over in 2008, welcomed the ruling, which nonetheless appeared to deliver less than the $1 billion it sought at trial.

 "It is clear the court found that the facts presented by FHFA were convincing," FHFA General Counsel Alfred Pollard said in a statement.

 Tokyo-based Nomura said in a statement that it plans to appeal, saying it was "confident that it was consistently candid, transparent and professional in all of its dealings with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

 A spokeswoman for RBS declined comment.

 The lawsuit was the first to reach trial out of 18 the regulator filed in 2011 over some $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities that various banks sold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 The FHFA previously obtained nearly $17.9 billion in settlements with banks including Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Deutsche Bank AG (DBKGn.DE). Those deals followed a series of adverse rulings by Cote.

 The seven deals at issue in Nomura's case were issued from 2005 to 2007. Nomura was the securities' sponsor, and RBS underwrote four of the deals.

 In her ruling, Cote said the securities sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "were supported by loans for which the underwriting process had failed," with deals comprised of 45 percent to 59 percent "materially defective" mortgages.

 Nomura's lawyers countered that any losses incurred by Fannie and Freddie were not the banks' fault and were due to overall market conditions.

 But Cote said the banks "have not quantified the loss that they say is due to macroeconomic factors."

 Nor did the banks deny that "there is a link between the securitization frenzy associated with those shoddy practices and the very macroeconomic factors that they say caused the losses to the certificates," she wrote.

 The case is Federal Housing Finance Agency v Nomura Holding America Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-06201.

 (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Alan Crosby and Christian Plumb) |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– If you had to name two banks guilty of selling lousy mortgage packages during the financial meltdown of 2008, it's doubtful you'd tick off the names Nomura Holdings of Japan and the Royal Bank of Scotland. But as Reuters reports, a federal judge yesterday declared that both lied through their teeth when selling their deals to the government-owned entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. US District Judge Denise Cote of Manhattan, who decided the case on her own, framed it in straightforward terms in a line that Wall Street critics will love: “The magnitude of falsity, conservatively measured, is enormous.” Other banks such as Goldman Sachs and Bank of America opted to settle rather than go to trial, with Nomura and RBS the first two to do so. Legal experts tell the New York Times that they might have been less worried about their reputations taking a hit in the US because they were foreign banks. Nomura plans to appeal, with no word yet from RBS. The ruling puts the banks on the hook for about $500 million in penalties, though that's only about half of the original claim by the government, reports Bloomberg.


Write an article based on this summary:

– America's Dad wants to make sure America's Fourth Estate doesn't run out of steam. Members of the White House press corps arrived in the press area break room Thursday morning to find a brand new espresso machine courtesy of Tom Hanks, the Hill reports. The actor left behind a note reading, “Keep up the good fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Especially for the Truth Part.” According to Variety, this has actually become a bit of a tradition for Hanks, starting when he was at the White House for a film shoot during the Bush administration. He saw the press corps getting their coffee from a vending machine and bought them their own coffee machine. He later replaced it during the Obama administration when he noticed it was getting a bit rundown while at the White House for a screening of The Pacific.

While it’s never a guarantee that the press will get any juicy scoops during White House press conferences, Tom Hanks has made sure they get at least one thing: good coffee.

 In keeping with his tradition of the last two administrations, reporters, photographers and cameramen arrived to their break room surprised by a new espresso machine courtesy of the Oscar-winning actor.

 “To the White House Press Corps,” a note left by Hanks read. “Keep up the good fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Especially for the Truth Part.”

 Hanks first treated the corps to his generosity during the Bush administration, when he visited the White House during a film shoot in Washington. Upon noticing the Fourth Estate was sustaining itself from vending machine coffee, Hanks quickly came to the rescue and purchased a brand new machine with instructions: “I hope this machine will make the 24 hour cycle of news a bit more pleasant. Add water, insert pod, press button and report. All good things. Tom Hanks.”

 Upon a March 2010 visit to the White House for a screening of HBO’s “The Pacific” with Steven Spielberg, Hanks saw the machine to be in a state of disrepair. Or, at the very least, very dirty.

 “You know, you are supposed to clean this after every use,” ABC News reported Hanks wrote in a second note.

 So he sent them a replacement, this time a “super deluxe” version of the same machine, paired with a brand new espresso cup set.

 At least one corps benefactor knows how to get good press.

 BREAKING: White House press corps receives brand-new espresso machine from @tomhanks. Come for the coffee… stay for his note. 👇 pic.twitter.com/cirbLKHEt0 — Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) March 2, 2017 ||||| President Trump has kept the media plenty busy during his first 40 days in office, and Academy Award-winning actor Tom Hanks has taken notice.

 Hanks has sent the White House press corps a new espresso maker, replacing the one he gifted reporters in 2010.

 The new machine was spotted in the break room of the press area of the White House Thursday morning along with a note of encouragement.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 “To the White House Press Corps,” the note reads. “Keep up the good fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Especially for the Truth Part.”

 The card containing the note was topped with an illustration of American troops.

 The note that accompanied the new coffee maker from @tomhanks pic.twitter.com/Qfkli2TgCt — Jordan Fabian (@Jordanfabian) March 2, 2017

 Hanks first purchased a machine for the press during the Bush administration, when he toured the break room and noticed there was no coffee maker.

 The “Saving Private Ryan” actor replaced that machine for the “poor slobs of the Fourth Estate” in March 2010 after noticing the machine looked run down during a stop at the White House. |||||


Article:
CAPE ELIZABETH — Oh boy.

 That’s what crossed Jesse Orach’s mind when he tried to stand up at the finish line of the Beach to Beacon 10K in sight Saturday morning. The 23-year-old Gorham native was leading the field of Maine runners when he collapsed from heat stroke.

 “It kind of seemed like it was over for me,” said Orach, who finished first among Maine men in last year’s race. “Then, I felt someone pick me up.”

 Compiled images by Staff Photographer Ben McCanna

 Robert Gomez, Orach’s top competitor from Maine, helped him to his feet. Gomez, 34, of Windham held Orach up as they ran together to the finish line, and Gomez gave him a nudge over the line. Both men completed the 6.2-mile course in 31 minutes, 31 seconds.

 “He ran a better race. He gave it more than I did,” Gomez said. “I didn’t deserve to win.”

 Orach, who ran track for the University of Maine before graduating last year, is the first Maine man to repeat as champion since Ben True in 2009. And despite helping the competition, Gomez beat his previous best Beach to Beacon finish of third place in 2010.

 Gomez said he stuck with Orach for the first mile before falling about 30 seconds behind, unable to keep up. He didn’t see Orach again until rounding a turn for the final stretch, where Orach lay in the grass amid a growing crowd of medical personnel.

 “For a split second I kept going until I looked and saw it was Jesse,” Gomez said. “I couldn’t leave him there. In the running community, I feel camaraderie comes before competitiveness.”

 Orach started feeling unstable with about a quarter-mile to go, which he said “felt like an eternity.” His legs gave out less than 100 yards from the finish. Gomez pushed him across the line, and Orach collapsed for the second time.

 “It was scary. I’ve never seen him look like that,” said Orach’s mother, Brenda, who didn’t get to see her son win the Maine division in 2016. She wasn’t about to miss the race and came prepared with a sign reading, “That’s my boy!” with Orach’s bib number (30) on it.

 “But this guy here, what he did was so selfless,” Brenda Orach said as she pointed to Gomez. “You don’t see that very often.”

 After about an hour in the medical tent, Orach emerged, appearing weary-eyed and dazed, wrapped in a silver blanket. He said his core temperature peaked at 107.3 degrees.

 “I’ve felt better,” he said, smiling. “There was a lot of pressure, which could have played a factor in how the race ended. I definitely liked the atmosphere better last year when I didn’t have a target on my back.”

 Orach didn’t immediately know that he had won his second title, and said he got emotional while thanking Gomez for the support. The pair had only met each other the day before at the prerace press conference.

 “I didn’t know what to say,” Orach said. “He got me to the finish line.”

 Liam Simpson of Cape Elizabeth (32:22) finished third among Maine men.

 Rich Hickey, a finish-line referee, said a runner may be disqualified for receiving physical assistance or providing it to another runner.

 “So do you disqualify them both?” Hickey asked rhetorically. “We’re not going to disqualify anybody.”

 For Maine women, Emily Durgin placed first in 34:43. The Cheverus High and recent UConn graduate from Standish will be joining a New Balance team that trains in Boston.

 “This was actually my final year running as a Maine resident, so it’s a big honor,” Durgin said. “I wasn’t trying to run a fast race. It was a strategic race.”

 Durgin was paced by last year’s champion, Michelle Lilienthal of Portland, who finished second in 35:11.

 Lilienthal, 35, was competing without an injury for the first time in three years. A broken foot kept her out of the race in 2015, and she won in 2016 despite an Achilles injury.

 “Going in last year, I was definitely on the upswing even though I was undertrained,” Lilienthal said.

 “This year I felt super confident because I felt fit, but I just didn’t have that last mile. Emily made a move, and I was like, ‘You gotta go now,’ and it just wasn’t there.”

 Lilienthal led for the first five miles before Durgin surged ahead.

 “I just ran right behind her,” Durgin said. “I took off up that last hill and tried to hold on. That was kind of the plan and it worked out great.”

 Tracy Guerrette of St. Agatha was third (36:43).

 “I’m disappointed, but this race is like the Super Bowl of our running community here,” Lilienthal said. “Beach to Beacon will always be special to me.”

 Taylor Vortherms can be contacted at 791-6417 or:

 [email protected]

 Twitter: TaylorVortherms

 Share

 filed under: ||||| PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A competitor who collapsed short of the finish line at the Beach to Beacon 10K in Maine managed to complete the race with some help.

 Former University of Maine runner Jesse Orach says he thought the race was over and then he felt someone pick him up Saturday. Robert Gomez, of Windham, helped Orach to his feet, and together they crossed the finish line. Then, Orach collapsed again.

 The touching moment was captured by news photographers.

 Gomez told the Portland Press Herald that Orach "gave it more than I did" and deserved to be the top Maine finisher among nearly 6,500 competitors.

 They both had the same time: 31 minutes, 31 seconds.

 Orach tells the newspaper he'd suffered a heat stroke with his core body temperature peaking at 107.3 degrees. |||||Summary:

– A competitor who collapsed short of the finish line at the Beach to Beacon 10K in Maine managed to complete the race with some help. "It kind of seemed like it was over for me," says former University of Maine runner Jesse Orach, who won last year’s race. "Then, I felt someone pick me up." Robert Gomez, of Windham, helped Orach to his feet, and together they crossed the finish line. Then, Orach collapsed again. "He ran a better race," tells the Portland Press Herald. "He gave it more than I did. I didn’t deserve to win." "I couldn’t leave him there," Gomez continues. "In the running community, I feel camaraderie comes before competitiveness."The touching moment was captured by news photographers, reports the AP. Gomez and Orach both had the same time: 31 minutes, 31 seconds. Orach tells the newspaper he'd suffered a heat stroke, with his core body temperature peaking at 107.3 degrees. There were nearly 6,500 competitors.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Like snacking on dark chocolate? Then we hope you're not doing it to avoid milk, because the US Food and Drug Administration tested 94 dark-chocolate bars and found milk in 61% of them, Quartz reports—including not just products with descriptions like "may contain milk" or "may contain traces of milk," but ones that claim to be vegan, dairy-free, or lactose-free. What if the label doesn't mention milk at all? Yep, the agency found milk in 33% of those cases. Of 88 bars that didn't list milk as an ingredient, 51 included milk. The FDA undertook the project after consumers complained about reacting badly to dark chocolate. Sure enough, it's hard to find a dairy-free heaven in dark-chocolate land: "This can be a problem, since even one small bite of a product containing milk can cause a dangerous reaction in some individuals," a researcher tells Yahoo. The FDA detected milk in 75% of dark-chocolate products labeled "may contain milk," "manufactured in a facility that uses milk," or similar, and found that certain products "had milk levels as high as those found in products that declared the presence of milk," the agency says, noting that consumers should "read 'may' as 'likely'" on such labels. What's more, 15% of dark-chocolate bars with labels reading "dairy-free" or "lactose-free" contained milk, as did 25% claiming to be "vegan." So what's up? Many companies make dark and milk chocolate on the same machines: "And remember, they use a lot of powdered milk products in the chocolate industry, so powder can blow, it can get stuck to equipment," an allergist tells CBS Pittsburgh. Those in dire need of milk-free dark chocolate should find "a trusted source of allergen-free chocolate," says Yahoo, which advises people to "proceed with caution." (If you're not allergic to milk, though, chow down.)

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Chocolate a common source of hidden milk. And milk is a common reason for allergic reactions.

 “I see people claiming to be allergic to chocolate,” says allergist Dr. James DeAngelo of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Associates, “It’s actually the milk protein. Most of the time it’s casein.”

 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration looked into dark chocolate, specifically.

 While milk is allowed as an ingredient, it is not always listed. In fact, according to the FDA’s analysis of nearly 100 dark chocolate bars from different manufacturers and different parts of the country, two out of three did indeed contain milk. Only six had it listed on the label.

 “There’s shared equipment at the chocolate factory that could have milk,” explains Dr. DeAngelo, “And remember, they use a lot of powdered milk products in the chocolate industry, so powder can blow, it can get stuck to equipment.”

 The FDA also found that words like “may contain milk” or “may contain dairy” means it very likely contains milk. In fact, three out of fours bars labeled this way did.

 “I would say no dark chocolate unless you had an absolute declaration on the bar that you were absolutely certain from the manufacturer that it was made in a milk free facility and that it was completely clear of that,” says Dr. DeAngelo.

 If you’re highly allergic to milk, be aware, dark chocolate can be a risky food.

 Join The Conversation On The KDKA Facebook Page

 Stay Up To Date, Follow KDKA On Twitter ||||| Think dark chocolate means dairy-free? Think again. (Photo: Getty Images)

 The FDA set off alarms in February when it warned that most dark chocolate bars contain milk — including many billed as dairy-free. “This can be a problem, since even one small bite of a product containing milk can cause a dangerous reaction in some individuals,” researcher Binaifer Bedford, M.S., an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education fellow, said in an FDA statement.

 In a new report out today, the FDA shed more light on their testing, findings, and what consumers need to be aware of. Here’s what you should know:

 1. The FDA suggests reading “may” as “likely”

 If an bar has any type of warning, ranging from “may contain milk” to “manufactured in a facility that uses milk,” consumers should assume that the bar contains some amount of milk — the FDA found that 3 out of ever 4 bars with a warning contained milk.

 Related: The Healthiest Chocolate Chip Cookie Ever

 2. Dairy-free isn’t always true

 The FDA found traces of milk in 15 percent of bars that claimed to be “dairy-free.” The same goes for bars labeled “vegan” or “lactose-free” — while they’re theoretically free of dairy, that’s not always the case.

 3. No mention of milk isn’t any safer

 Even if milk isn’t listed in an ingredients list or in a warning on the label, it may still be present in the bar. The FDA found milk in 33 percent of bars that had no mention of milk anywhere on their labels.

 Frustrated? You should be — the FDA has found dairy labeling on chocolate bars to be inefficient at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

 So what’s a consumer to do? First off, if you’re severely allergic to milk, it’s worth seeking out a trusted source of allergen-free chocolate. This might be a local brand with dedicated allergen-free production materials, or a larger brand that’s marketed toward people with allergies. Either way, know that dark chocolate is what the FDA calls a “high-risk food” and proceed with caution.

 If you’re just trying to avoid dairy, be aware that most dark-chocolate bars do, in fact, contain milk. The FDA is working on building stricter labeling and manufacturing legislation, including a proposed “Preventive Controls for Human Food” rule that is set to go into practice in the fall. Here’s hoping that leads to safer — and more honest — chocolate for all.

 Read This Next: Why The FDA Is Warning People About Dark Chocolate

 Let’s keep in touch! Follow Yahoo Health on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest. ||||| Examples of messages found on some dark chocolate products.

 Español

 Subscribe: FDA Consumer Health Information

 NOTE: This Consumer Update sheds light on the results of an FDA study on milk in dark chocolate.

 If you’re allergic to milk and you love dark chocolate, how do you know whether you can indulge in a candy bar without having an allergic reaction? That’s what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wanted to learn, especially after receiving reports that consumers had harmful reactions after eating dark chocolate.

 Milk is a permitted ingredient in dark chocolate, but it is also one of eight major food allergens (substances that can cause reactions that are sometimes dangerous). U.S. law requires manufacturers to label food products that are major allergens, as well as food products that contain major allergenic ingredients or proteins. Allergens contained in a food product but not named on the label are a leading cause of FDA requests for food recalls, and undeclared milk is the most frequently cited allergen. Chocolates are one of the most common sources of undeclared milk associated with consumer reactions.

 FDA tested nearly 100 dark chocolate bars for the presence of milk. Earlier this year, the agency issued preliminary findings, and is now releasing more information about its research. The bars tested by FDA were obtained from different parts of the U.S., and each bar was unique in terms of product line and/or manufacturer. Bars were divided into categories based on the statements on the labels.

 The bottom line? Unfortunately, you can’t always tell if dark chocolate contains milk by reading the ingredients list. FDA researchers found that of 94 dark chocolate bars tested, only six listed milk as an ingredient. When testing the remaining 88 bars that did not list milk as an ingredient, FDA found that 51 of them actually did contain milk. In fact, the FDA study found milk in 61 percent of all bars tested.

 In part, that’s because milk can get into a dark chocolate product even when it is not added as an ingredient. Most dark chocolate is produced on equipment that is also used to produce milk chocolate. In these cases, it is possible that traces of milk may inadvertently wind up in the dark chocolate.

 Read ‘May’ as ‘Likely’

 To inform consumers that dark chocolate products may contain milk even if not intentionally added, many chocolate manufacturers print “advisory” messages on the label. There’s quite a variety of advisory messages, such as:

 “may contain milk”

 “may contain dairy”

 “may contain traces of milk”

 “made on equipment shared with milk”

 “processed in a plant that processes dairy”

 “manufactured in a facility that uses milk”

 FDA found that milk was present in 3 out of every 4 dark chocolate products with one of these advisory statements. Some products had milk levels as high as those found in products that declared the presence of milk.

 When the National Confectioners Association (NCA) was asked for its advice, a spokesperson said that “consumers with milk allergies should not consume dark chocolate products that come with advisory statements, since these products may indeed contain milk proteins.”

 Another problem is that advisory messages may appear to be conflicting if they are accompanied by dairy-free or vegan statements. “Even a consumer who carefully reads the label may be confused by a statement such as “vegan” (which implies that no animal-derived products were used) along with an advisory—or “may contain” statement—referring to the presence of milk,” says Stefano Luccioli, M.D., a senior medical advisor at FDA.

 Not Quite ‘Dairy Free’

 In addition to these advisory statements, labels for chocolate bars may make other claims. Some say “dairy-free” or “lactose free,” but FDA found milk in 15% of the dark chocolates with this label. And 25% of dark chocolate products labeled only “vegan” were found to contain milk.

 No Message Doesn’t Mean No Milk

 You shouldn’t assume that dark chocolate contains no milk if the label does not mention it at all. “Milk-allergic consumers should be aware that 33% of the dark chocolates with no mention of milk anywhere on the label were, in fact, found to contain milk,” says Luccioli.

 What Consumers Can Do

 Consumers who are sensitive or allergic to milk should know that dark chocolate products are a high-risk food if you’re highly milk-allergic. Start by checking the ingredients list to see if it includes milk. Read all the label statements on dark chocolate products and avoid those with an advisory statement for milk, even if these products feature also other (and conflicting) statements, such as “dairy-free” or “vegan”. View even products with dairy-free claims or without any mention of milk with caution, unless the manufacturer is a trusted source and/or uses dedicated equipment for making milk-free chocolate products.

 “The chocolate industry will continue to make every effort to understand the needs of allergic consumers and communicate the potential presence of milk allergens in dark chocolate through advisory labeling,” says Laura Shumow, director of scientific and regulatory affairs at NCA.

 FDA is evaluating the study findings and considering options for addressing the issues identified in the study. Further, allergen contamination is included in the preventive and risk-based controls mandated by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Under the proposed Preventive Controls for Human Food rule that is scheduled to become final this fall, food manufacturers would be required to implement a food safety plan that identifies safeguards in place to prevent or significantly reduce such hazards as food allergens.

 The proposed rule includes provisions to prevent unintended cross-contact between foods that contain allergens and those not intended to contain them. Firms covered by the final rule would have from one to three years after the rule becomes final to comply, depending on the size of the firm.

 Milk Detected in Individual Dark Chocolate Products

 Label/Package Statement Total number of dark chocolate products Number and percent (%) of dark chocolate products testing positive for milk Milk (or milk-derived component1) 6 6 (100%) Advisory Statements2 (alone or combined) 59 44 (75%) Dairy-free or lactose-free3 statements alone 13 2 (15%) Vegan statement alone 4 1 (25%) No statement regarding milk 12 4 (33%) TOTAL 94 57 (61%)

 Some examples of milk components include cream, milk fat, and sodium caseinate. Advisory statements refers to statements regarding the possible presence of milk, such as “may contain milk (or dairy)”, “made on equipment shared with milk,” “processed in a plant that processes dairy”, or “manufactured in a facility that uses milk.” This category also includes “may contain traces” statements, as well as advisory statements combined with either a vegan or dairy-free or lactose statement. Lactose-free chocolates are grouped with dairy-free products although the statement “lactose-free” does not necessarily indicate that the product is free from milk. This is because lactose is a “milk sugar,” and its removal does not mean that milk proteins are removed as well.

 Updated: May 21, 2015 |||||


– Judith Meisel says that when she was a teenager in the Stutthof concentration camp in western Poland, other prisoners told her: "Don't let us die without you mentioning what happened to us." The 88-year-old Minnesota resident has not forgotten: Her testimony helped German authorities indict two former guards from the camp where 65,000 people, including Meisel's mother, died, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports. She identified one former guard, 94-year-old Johann Rehbogen, as the young SS officer who would taunt female prisoners as they undressed. Prosecutors say the men can't be tied to specific murders, but their work as guards made the killings possible. Meisel—who escaped along with her sister when inmates were sent on a "death march" away from the camp in 1945—says she is willing to relive her horrific experiences to help prosecutors. "This process of seeking answers and finding justice for my mother gives new meaning to my life," she says. The two former guards have been charged as accessories to murder, the AP reports. They deny any knowledge of killings at the camp, where thousands were starved to death or froze. Prosecutors say prisoners were also gassed to death, shot, and killed with lethal injections. Authorities say Meisel and several other Stutthof survivors in the US could be called as witnesses if the former guards are deemed healthy enough to stand trial. (A pendant found at the Sobibor camp helped reunite a family.)

Expand this summary.

BERLIN (AP) — German prosecutors said Wednesday they have indicted two former Nazi SS guards in their 90s on charges of being accessories to murder while they worked at a World War II concentration camp.

 Both men served as guards at the Stutthof concentration camp, located near what is now the Polish city of Gdansk, Dortmund prosecutor Andreas Brendel told The Associated Press.

 The indictments were filed against a 93-year-old man from Borken who served in Stutthof from June 1942 to September 1944 and a 92-year-old man from Wuppertal who was there from June 1944 to May 1945.

 The charges were filed last week at the state court in Muenster but only announced Wednesday because the defendants first had to be notified. Both deny they had any knowledge of killings at the camp, Brendel said.

 About 65,000 people died at Stutthof. Some were put to death in gas chambers or shot, while others died from malnutrition or froze to death.

 The men, who have not been named, both served as guards and also watched over prisoners who were taken outside the camp to work. During the time they were at Stutthof, hundreds of killings occurred.

 Members of the SS killed more than 100 Polish prisoners and some 77 Soviet prisoners of war in the camp's gas chamber in 1944. An unknown number of Jews also were gassed there in late 1944.

 Between June 1944 and April 1945, SS members also killed several hundred Jews by shooting them in the back of the neck. SS-physicians and nurses at Stutthof killed more than 140 prisoners, many of them Jewish women and children, by injecting their hearts with gasoline and the chemical compound phenol from late 1942 until late 1944.

 "The prosecutors assume that the accused were aware of the different killing methods ...and that such a multitude of people could have only been killed with such regularity because the victims were guarded by helpers like them," the court wrote in a statement issued Wednesday.

 The two men therefore willingly supported several hundreds of killings of camp inmates in their function as guards, the statement added.

 German prosecutors in recent years have pursued Nazi suspects under new legal reasoning that, even without evidence of a specific crime, they can be prosecuted if they helped camps operate. ||||| In Judith Meisel’s last image of her mother, Mina, she is standing outside a gas chamber at the Stutthof concentration camp in Poland, awaiting the same fate that befell 65,000 other prisoners there.

 This summer, as she has countless times before, the St. Louis Park resident relived the experience in wrenching detail, but this time for a set of German prosecutors who, aided by Minnesota FBI agents, were racing to bring to justice the few Nazis still alive who can be linked to World War II-era atrocities.

 Now Meisel, 88, knows her assistance paid off: German authorities this month indicted two ex-guards on charges of being accessories to many of the murders at Stutthof, located near what is now the Polish city of Gdansk.

 Under German law, Meisel could join prosecutors as a “co-plaintiff” in the case.

 In June, Meisel stunned the Germans, and her family, when she identified one of the ex-guards, Johann Rehbogen, as a teenage SS officer who taunted her and other female prisoners as they undressed each morning.

 The charges, made possible by new German legal guidance allowing the prosecution of former Nazis who can’t be tied to specific killings, represent a new and vital chapter for survivors like Meisel.

 Holocaust survivor Judy Meisel held a photo of her parents Osser Beker and Mika Beker that was taken around 1938. Judy's mother died in the gas chamber at Stutthof concentration camp on the Baltic coast in late 1944 or early 1945.

 “I understand that the person who has been indicted was a young man at the time,” Meisel said. “Still, the questions he must answer are an important part of this story.”

 How, for example, did he take such a gruesome job at such a young age? What did he think when he watched women and children being killed on an industrial scale? How has he explained his past to his family and friends?

 Meisel awaits any details the 94-year-old Rehbogen can provide, even if it means she must again relive the horror of her years inside the camp.

 “This process of seeking answers and finding justice for my mother gives new meaning to my life,” Meisel said.

 What comes next?

 Prosecutors in Dortmund indicted Rehbogen and Harry Paul Fritz Schulz, 92, on charges stemming from their tenures at the camp from 1942 to 1944. Since 2011, German authorities have been pursuing cases against Nazis whom they believe they can prove helped operate concentration camps during the war.

 A Dortmund prosecutor told the Associated Press this month that both men denied knowing anything about the killings at the camp.

 Meisel’s description of life in the camp — and law enforcement interviews with other Americans identified as Stutthof survivors — are essential for prosecutors to challenge those denials. In June, Meisel instantly recognized a photo of Rehbogen, whom she and other prisoners called “Meydele” for his girlish looks, and said he was among those who taunted and beat prisoners.

 Cornelius Nestler, a German professor and lawyer who has represented Holocaust survivors in similar cases, found Meisel online and connected her with German authorities who weren’t sure how many, if any, Stutthof survivors were still alive.

 Nestler told the Star Tribune in an e-mail that the defendants will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment and will likely be evaluated by medical experts for their fitness to stand trial. Nestler said that the trial could commence next summer if the defendants are deemed healthy enough.

 Meisel, he said, could “take the stand as a witness,” or at least observe the proceedings.

 ‘Important lessons’

 Meisel’s son, Michael Cohen, said he’s not sure if his mother would travel to Germany or participate in the prosecution from afar. German authorities also named witnesses from Ohio, New Jersey, New York and Florida.

 The charges came as a surprise to the family, Cohen said, and represented a determination not to “simply move aside and forget about” those responsible.

 Cohen, a Minneapolis attorney, said news of the charges brought back new, vivid memories for his mother that include witnessing camp inmates killed by injections administered by Stutthof doctors. Meisel has since spent much of the month thinking of her mother and sister Rachel, who was forced on a death march away from the camp with her in early 1945 that they both escaped.

 Cohen said Meisel has described her mother as a woman of forgiveness, but is still unsure how she would respond to the charges. “She’s very interested in what comes next,” Cohen said this week.

 He also said the wave of emotions has taken its toll on his mother. As an activist, she has told her story to audiences across the country, but in the days since learning of the indictments, Meisel has privately revisited what it meant to be a Stutthof inmate.

 While she still has nightmares, Meisel said she welcomes any chance to tell her story “for the important lessons it teaches about tolerance and racism.”

 She said she cannot forget the message from some of her fellow prisoners: “Don’t let us die without you mentioning what happened to us.” |||||


Article:
Charlotta Turner, professor in Analytical Chemistry, received a text message from her student Firas Jumaah in 2014 telling her to to assume he would not finish his thesis if he had not returned within a week.

 He and his family were, he told her, hiding out in a disused bleach factory, with the sounds of gunshots from Isis warriors roaming the town reverberating around them. Jumaah, who is from Iraq, is a member of the ethno-religious group Yazidi hated by Isis.

 "I had no hope then at all," Jumaah told Lund's University Magazine LUM . "I was desperate. I just wanted to tell my supervisor what was happening. I had no idea that a professor would be able to do anything for us."

 Jumaah had voluntarily entered the war zone after his wife had rung him to say that Isis fighters had taken over the next-door village, killing all the men and taking the women into slavery.

 "My wife was totally panicking. Everyone was shocked at how IS were behaving," he said. "I took the first plane there to be with them. What sort of life would I have if anything had happened to them there?"

 But Turner was not willing to leave her student to die without trying to do something.

 "What was happening was completely unacceptable," she told LUM. "I got so angry that IS was pushing itself into our world, exposing my doctoral student and his family to this, and disrupting the research."

 She contacted the university's then security chief Per Gustafson.

 "It was almost as if he'd been waiting for this kind of mission," Turner said. "Per Gustafson said that we had a transport and security deal which stretched over the whole world."

 Over a few days of intense activity, Gustafson hired a security company which then arranged the rescue operation. A few days later two Landcruisers carrying four heavily-armed mercenaries roared into the area where Jumaah was hiding, and sped him away to Erbil Airport together with his wife and two small children. "I have never felt so privileged, so VIP," Jumaah told LUM. "But at the same time I felt like a coward as I left my mother and sisters behind me."

 Firas Jumaah and his former PHD supervisor Charlotta Turner. Photo: Kennet Ruona

 Luckily the rest of his family survived Isis occupation, while Jumaah back in Sweden completed his PhD and now works for a pharmaceuticals company in Malmö. The family has almost finished paying the university back for the rescue operation.

 "It was a unique event. As far as I know no other university has ever been involved in anything like it," Gustafson said. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

 By Yuliya Talmazan

 On an August day four years ago, Swedish chemistry professor Charlotta Turner received a surprising text message that would change the life of one of her graduate students.

 Firas Jumaah had returned to his native Iraq days earlier, fearing for the safety of his wife and two children who had traveled there for a family wedding. He had initially stayed behind to complete his lab work at Lund University in southern Sweden.

 While with his family in Iraq, Jumaah sent his supervisor a text message asking her to remove him from the doctoral program if he wasn’t back in Sweden within a week.

 Firas Jumaah Charlotta Turner

 Surprised by the message, Turner, 48, called Jumaah. It was then that she found out that his family was facing a life-and-death situation.

 “He was very sad and crying,” Turner told NBC News. “I could hear that the situation was hopeless and they had to flee.”

 Jumaah's family had returned to visit their home country of Iraq before violence began. But while he was there the so-called Islamic State conducted a deadly offensive in northern Iraq.

 On Aug. 3, ISIS attacked the city of Sinjar near to where Jumaah’s family was, massacring and enslaving thousands of Yazidis — a religious minority to which Jumaah and his family belong.

 “He realized one day that things were getting really serious there,” Turner said. “He was very worried and he just left.”

 Jumaah’s plan was to go in and bring his family back to Sweden, but when he arrived, most borders were closed because of a mass exodus of refugees. He also couldn’t go back to the airport. So they waited.

 But the situation only grew worse because ISIS kept advancing — and, at one point, came within 12 miles of their house.

 Over the phone, Jumaah told Turner that he and his family were preparing to go into hiding in Iraq’s northern mountains. She told him not to give up and started looking for ways to rescue the family.

 “It was very spontaneous,” she said. “For me, it was obvious that I should help and bring them home.”

 She approached the university’s security chief at the time, who found a company that could go in with armed men and rescue Jumaah and his family. |||||Summary:

– Four years ago, a chemistry professor got a text from her grad student: If I'm not back in a week, cut me from the doctoral program. Charlotta Turner called him right away: "He was very sad and crying,” the 48-year-old prof at Lund University in Sweden tells NBC News. "I could hear that the situation was hopeless and they had to flee." The student, Firas Jumaah, was visiting his native Iraq to help family members during a brutal 2014 ISIS attack targeting Yazidis—a religious minority that includes his family. The terror group had just enslaved and massacred Yazidis by the thousand in nearby Sinjar. Now Jumaah and family were planning to flee to the mountains. "I had no hope at all," says Jumaah, per the Local. "I was desperate." But Turner took action. She spoke to Lund University's then-security chief, who contacted a company that sent mercenaries into northern Iraq. Only days later, four armed mercs on two Landcruisers blazed into the place where Jumaah was hiding, and rushed him to Erbil Airport with his wife and two young kids. "I have never felt so privileged, so VIP," he says. "But at the same time I felt like a coward as I left my mother and sisters behind me." Seeing his colleagues back in Sweden, he was speechless: "I just cried," he says. Yet Jumaah finished his PhD and found work at a Malmo pharmaceuticals company, and his family survived. The bill: roughly 60,000 kroner ($6,613), which his family has nearly finished paying. “If they told me to pay 200,000 kronor, I would,” says Jumaah. (The UN is finding fresh ISIS horrors.)


Summarize this article:

Fitch Places United States' 'AAA' on Rating Watch Negative

 15 Oct 2013 4:44 PM (EDT)Fitch Ratings-New York/London-15 October 2013: Fitch Ratings has placed the United States of America's (U.S.) 'AAA' Long-term foreign and local currency Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) on Rating Watch Negative (RWN). The ratings of all outstanding U.S. sovereign debt securities have also been placed on RWN, as has the U.S. Short-term foreign currency rating of 'F1+'. The Outlook on the Long-term ratings was previously Negative. The U.S. Country Ceiling has been affirmed at 'AAA'.

 Fitch expects to resolve the RWN by the end of Q114 at the latest, although timing would necessarily reflect developments and events, including the duration of any agreement to raise the debt ceiling.

 KEY RATING DRIVERS

 In line with Fitch's previous statements, the RWN reflects the following key rating drivers and their relative weights:

 High

 - The U.S. authorities have not raised the federal debt ceiling in a timely manner before the Treasury exhausts extraordinary measures. The U.S. Treasury Secretary has said that extraordinary measures will be exhausted by 17 October, leaving cash reserves of just USD30bn. Although Fitch continues to believe that the debt ceiling will be raised soon, the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default.

 - Although the Treasury would still have limited capacity to make payments after 17 October it would be exposed to volatile revenue and expenditure flows. The Treasury may be unable to prioritise debt service, and it is unclear whether it even has the legal authority to do so. The U.S. risks being forced to incur widespread delays of payments to suppliers and employees, as well as social security payments to citizens - all of which would damage the perception of U.S. sovereign creditworthiness and the economy.

 - The prolonged negotiations over raising the debt ceiling (following the episode in August 2011) risks undermining confidence in the role of the U.S. dollar as the preeminent global reserve currency, by casting doubt over the full faith and credit of the U.S. This "faith" is a key reason why the U.S. 'AAA' rating can tolerate a substantially higher level of public debt than other 'AAA' sovereigns.

 Medium

 - The repeated brinkmanship over raising the debt ceiling also dents confidence in the effectiveness of the U.S. government and political institutions, and in the coherence and credibility of economic policy. It will also have some detrimental effect on the U.S. economy.

 The 'AAA' rating reflects the U.S.'s strong economic and credit fundamentals, including:

 - Its highly productive, diversified and wealthy economy; extraordinary monetary and exchange rate flexibility; and the exceptional financing flexibility afforded by the global reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar and the depth and liquidity of domestic capital markets - in particular the U.S. Treasury market. The U.S. sovereign credit profile also benefits from the respect for property rights, the rule of law and a high degree of social stability.

 - Fitch continues to judge that the U.S. economy (and hence tax base) remains more dynamic and resilient to shocks than its high-grade rating peers. Fiscal and macroeconomic risks emanating from the financial sector are generally low and diminishing and becoming supportive of, rather than a drag on, economic growth. Fitch forecasts economic growth to pick up from 1.6% in 2013 to 2.6% in in 2014 and to average 3% over 2015-17, before reverting to its assumed long-run trend growth rate of 2.25%. The projected recovery is supported by easing headwinds from private sector debt deleveraging, a pick-up in the housing market and a gradual decline in unemployment.

 - The 'AAA' rating also reflects the halving of the federal budget deficit since 2010, which is now approaching a level consistent with debt stabilisation. The Budget Control Act passed in August 2011 implied significant fiscal consolidation and Congress and the Administration have adhered to the automatic spending cuts - the sequester - specified under the Act in the absence of agreement on an alternative and equivalent set of deficit-reduction measures. In addition, the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act on 1 January 2013, which implied a tax increase of more than USD600bn, has also contributed to the deficit reduction effort.

 - Fitch's medium-term fiscal projections imply federal and general government (which includes states and local governments) gross debt stabilising next year and over the remainder of the decade at around 72% and 104% of GDP, respectively. This is below the 80% and 110% thresholds that Fitch previously identified as being inconsistent with the U.S. retaining its 'AAA' status.

 - Nevertheless, public debt stabilisation at such elevated levels still render the US economy and public finances vulnerable to adverse shocks and in the absence of additional spending reform and revenue measures, deficits and debt will begin to rise again at the end of the decade. The U.S. is the most heavily indebted 'AAA' rated sovereign, with a gross debt ratio equivalent to double that of the 'AAA' median.

 RATING SENSITIVITIES

 The RWN reflects the following risk factors that may individually or collectively result in a downgrade of the ratings:

 - Failure by the government to honour interest and/or principal payments on the due date of U.S. Treasury securities would lead Fitch to downgrade the U.S. sovereign IDR to 'Restricted Default' (RD) until the default event was cured. We would also downgrade the rating of the affected issue(s) to 'B+' from 'AAA', the highest rating for securities in default in expectation of full or near-full recovery. Debt securities approaching maturity or those with approaching coupon payments would be vulnerable to a downgrade. The Country Ceiling would likely remain 'AAA'.

 In the event of a deal to raise the debt ceiling and to resolve the government shutdown, which Fitch expects, the outcome of a subsequent review of the ratings would take into account the manner and duration of the agreement and the perceived risk of a similar episode occurring in the future. It would also reflect Fitch's assessment of the following main factors:

 - The impact of the debt ceiling brinkmanship and government shutdown on our assessment of the effectiveness of government and political institutions, the coherence and credibility of economic policy, the potential long-term impact on the U.S. sovereign's cost of funding and cost of capital for the economy as a whole, and the implications for long-term growth.

 - Our assessment of the prospects for further deficit-reduction measures in future years necessary to contain government deficits in the face of long-term spending pressures and place public debt on a downward path over the medium to long term.

 KEY ASSUMPTIONS

 Fitch continues to believe that an agreement will be reached to end the current political impasse and raise the U.S. debt ceiling. Even if the debt limit is not raised before or shortly after 17 October, we assume there is sufficient political will and capacity to ensure that Treasury securities will continue to be honoured in full and on time.

 Fitch's federal debt projections reflect its economic and fiscal policy assumptions and were detailed in the Special Report, 'U.S. Medium-Term Fiscal Projections - An Update' (dated 28 June 2013; see link below). Subsequent to that analysis, the Bureau of Economic Analysis revised the level of GDP up by around 3.4% due to revisions in the way GDP is calculated, including reclassifying spending on R&D; and intellectual property as investment. This has had the statistical effect of lowering debt/GDP ratios, but has not significantly affected the trajectory of debt dynamics or its sensitivity to shocks. Since the June review, Fitch has revised down its forecasts for GDP growth for 2013 to 1.6% from 1.9% and for 2014 to 2.6% from 2.8%.

 Fitch's medium-term fiscal projections incorporate assumptions regarding the medium-term growth potential of the US economy and do not incorporate potential upside benefits from shale gas or downside risks emanating from the eurozone and elsewhere. They draw heavily upon Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections, including CBO assumptions and judgements regarding the take up of various benefits as well as the rate of growth of health care spending.

 Financial sector risks are currently judged to be low as reflected by Fitch's stable outlook for the U.S. banking sector.

 Contact:

 Primary Analyst

 Ed Parker

 Managing Director

 +44 20 3530 1176

 Fitch Ratings Limited

 30 North Colonnade

 London E14 5GN

 Secondary Analyst

 Tony Stringer

 Managing Director

 +44 20 3530 1219

 Committee Chairperson

 Douglas Renwick

 Senior Director

 +44 20 3530 1045

 Media Relations: Brian Bertsch, New York, Tel: +1 212-908-0549, Email: brian.bertsch@fitchratings.com; Peter Fitzpatrick, London, Tel: +44 20 3530 1103, Email: peter.fitzpatrick@fitchratings.com; Daniel Noonan, New York, Tel: +1 (212) 908-0706, Email: daniel.noonan@fitchratings.com.

 Additional information is available on www.fitchratings.com

 Applicable criteria, 'Sovereign Rating Criteria' dated 13 August 2012 and 'Country Ceilings' dated 09 August 2013, are available at www.fitchratings.com.

 Applicable Criteria and Related Research: United States of America - Rating Action Report

 Sovereign Rating Criteria

 Country Ceilings

 U.S. Medium-Term Fiscal Projections – An Update

 Thinking the Unthinkable - What if the Debt Ceiling Was Not Increased and the US Defaulted?

 Additional Disclosure

 Solicitation Status

 ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEBSITE 'WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM'. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE 'CODE OF CONDUCT' SECTION OF THIS SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE.

  ||||| REUTERS/Eric Thayer This just in: credit rating agency Fitch has revised the outlook for the U.S.A.'s AAA credit rating to negative from stable.

 The news comes just as the latest talks in Washington, D.C. over how to raise the debt ceiling and end the government shutdown seem to be falling apart.

 "The prolonged negotiations over raising the debt ceiling (following the episode in August 2011) risks undermining confidence in the role of the U.S. dollar as the preeminent global reserve currency, by casting doubt over the full faith and credit of the U.S.," said Fitch in a press release. "This 'faith' is a key reason why the U.S. 'AAA' rating can tolerate a substantially higher level of public debt than other 'AAA' sovereigns."

 Fitch and Moody's still rate the U.S. AAA, the highest credit rating on the scale.

 S&P;, the other of the three key rating agencies, stripped America of its AAA rating back in 2011 during the last debt ceiling crisis, citing political instability as the key driver of the downgrade.

 Below is the full text of the Fitch release.

 ---------------------------------------

 Fitch Ratings-New York/London-15 October 2013: Fitch Ratings has placed the United States of America's (U.S.) 'AAA' Long-term foreign and local currency Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) on Rating Watch Negative (RWN). The ratings of all outstanding U.S. sovereign debt securities have also been placed on RWN, as has the U.S. Short-term foreign currency rating of 'F1+'. The Outlook on the Long-term ratings was previously Negative.

 The U.S. Country Ceiling has been affirmed at 'AAA'.

 Fitch expects to resolve the RWN by the end of Q114 at the latest, although timing would necessarily reflect developments and events, including the duration of any agreement to raise the debt ceiling.

 KEY RATING DRIVERS

 In line with Fitch's previous statements, the RWN reflects the following key rating drivers and their relative weights:

 High

 - The U.S. authorities have not raised the federal debt ceiling in a timely manner before the Treasury exhausts extraordinary measures. The U.S. Treasury Secretary has said that extraordinary measures will be exhausted by 17 October, leaving cash reserves of just USD30bn. Although Fitch continues to believe that the debt ceiling will be raised soon, the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default.

 - Although the Treasury would still have limited capacity to make payments after 17 October it would be exposed to volatile revenue and expenditure flows. The Treasury may be unable to prioritise debt service, and it is unclear whether it even has the legal authority to do so. The U.S. risks being forced to incur widespread delays of payments to suppliers and employees, as well as social security payments to citizens - all of which would damage the perception of U.S. sovereign creditworthiness and the economy.

 - The prolonged negotiations over raising the debt ceiling (following the episode in August 2011) risks undermining confidence in the role of the U.S. dollar as the preeminent global reserve currency, by casting doubt over the full faith and credit of the U.S. This "faith" is a key reason why the U.S. 'AAA' rating can tolerate a substantially higher level of public debt than other 'AAA' sovereigns.

 Medium

 - The repeated brinkmanship over raising the debt ceiling also dents confidence in the effectiveness of the U.S. government and political institutions, and in the coherence and credibility of economic policy. It will also have some detrimental effect on the U.S. economy.

 The 'AAA' rating reflects the U.S.'s strong economic and credit fundamentals, including:

 - Its highly productive, diversified and wealthy economy; extraordinary monetary and exchange rate flexibility; and the exceptional financing flexibility afforded by the global reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar and the depth and liquidity of domestic capital markets - in particular the U.S. Treasury market. The U.S. sovereign credit profile also benefits from the respect for property rights, the rule of law and a high degree of social stability.

 - Fitch continues to judge that the U.S. economy (and hence tax base) remains more dynamic and resilient to shocks than its high-grade rating peers. Fiscal and macroeconomic risks emanating from the financial sector are generally low and diminishing and becoming supportive of, rather than a drag on, economic growth. Fitch forecasts economic growth to pick up from 1.6% in 2013 to 2.6% in in 2014 and to average 3% over 2015-17, before reverting to its assumed long-run trend growth rate of 2.25%. The projected recovery is supported by easing headwinds from private sector debt deleveraging, a pick-up in the housing market and a gradual decline in unemployment.

 - The 'AAA' rating also reflects the halving of the federal budget deficit since 2010, which is now approaching a level consistent with debt stabilisation. The Budget Control Act passed in August 2011 implied significant fiscal consolidation and Congress and the Administration have adhered to the automatic spending cuts - the sequester - specified under the Act in the absence of agreement on an alternative and equivalent set of deficit-reduction measures. In addition, the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act on 1 January 2013, which implied a tax increase of more than USD600bn, has also contributed to the deficit reduction effort.

 - Fitch's medium-term fiscal projections imply federal and general government (which includes states and local governments) gross debt stabilising next year and over the remainder of the decade at around 72% and 104% of GDP, respectively. This is below the 80% and 110% thresholds that Fitch previously identified as being inconsistent with the U.S. retaining its 'AAA' status.

 - Nevertheless, public debt stabilisation at such elevated levels still render the US economy and public finances vulnerable to adverse shocks and in the absence of additional spending reform and revenue measures, deficits and debt will begin to rise again at the end of the decade. The U.S. is the most heavily indebted 'AAA' rated sovereign, with a gross debt ratio equivalent to double that of the 'AAA' median.

 RATING SENSITIVITIES

 The RWN reflects the following risk factors that may individually or collectively result in a downgrade of the ratings:

 - Failure by the government to honour interest and/or principal payments on the due date of U.S. Treasury securities would lead Fitch to downgrade the U.S. sovereign IDR to 'Restricted Default' (RD) until the default event was cured. We would also downgrade the rating of the affected issue(s) to 'B+' from 'AAA', the highest rating for securities in default in expectation of full or near-full recovery. Debt securities approaching maturity or those with approaching coupon payments would be vulnerable to a downgrade. The Country Ceiling would likely remain 'AAA'.

 In the event of a deal to raise the debt ceiling and to resolve the government shutdown, which Fitch expects, the outcome of a subsequent review of the ratings would take into account the manner and duration of the agreement and the perceived risk of a similar episode occurring in the future. It would also reflect Fitch's assessment of the following main factors:

 - The impact of the debt ceiling brinkmanship and government shutdown on our assessment of the effectiveness of government and political institutions, the coherence and credibility of economic policy, the potential long-term impact on the U.S. sovereign's cost of funding and cost of capital for the economy as a whole, and the implications for long-term growth.

 - Our assessment of the prospects for further deficit-reduction measures in future years necessary to contain government deficits in the face of long-term spending pressures and place public debt on a downward path over the medium to long term.

 KEY ASSUMPTIONS

 Fitch continues to believe that an agreement will be reached to end the current political impasse and raise the U.S. debt ceiling. Even if the debt limit is not raised before or shortly after 17 October, we assume there is sufficient political will and capacity to ensure that Treasury securities will continue to be honoured in full and on time.

 Fitch's federal debt projections reflect its economic and fiscal policy assumptions and were detailed in the Special Report, 'U.S. Medium-Term Fiscal Projections - An Update' (dated 28 June 2013; see link below). Subsequent to that analysis, the Bureau of Economic Analysis revised the level of GDP up by around 3.4% due to revisions in the way GDP is calculated, including reclassifying spending on R&D; and intellectual property as investment. This has had the statistical effect of lowering debt/GDP ratios, but has not significantly affected the trajectory of debt dynamics or its sensitivity to shocks. Since the June review, Fitch has revised down its forecasts for GDP growth for 2013 to 1.6% from 1.9% and for 2014 to 2.6% from 2.8%.

 Fitch's medium-term fiscal projections incorporate assumptions regarding the medium-term growth potential of the US economy and do not incorporate potential upside benefits from shale gas or downside risks emanating from the eurozone and elsewhere. They draw heavily upon Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections, including CBO assumptions and judgements regarding the take up of various benefits as well as the rate of growth of health care spending.

 Financial sector risks are currently judged to be low as reflected by Fitch's stable outlook for the U.S. banking sector.

 Contact: Primary Analyst Ed Parker Managing Director +44 20 3530 1176 Fitch Ratings Limited 30 North Colonnade London E14 5GN

 Secondary Analyst Tony Stringer Managing Director +44 20 3530 1219

 Committee Chairperson Douglas Renwick Senior Director +44 20 3530 1045

 Media Relations: Brian Bertsch, New York, Tel: +1 212-908-0549, Email: brian.bertsch@fitchratings.com; Peter Fitzpatrick, London, Tel: +44 20 3530 1103, Email: peter.fitzpatrick@fitchratings.com; Daniel Noonan, New York, Tel: +1 (212) 908-0706, Email: daniel.noonan@fitchratings.com.

 Additional information is available on www.fitchratings.com

 Applicable criteria, 'Sovereign Rating Criteria' dated 13 August 2012 and 'Country Ceilings' dated 09 August 2013, are available at www.fitchratings.com. ||||| NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Fitch Ratings put its AAA credit rating of the U.S. on negative watch Tuesday, citing the prolonged congressional negotiations over a hike to the borrowing limit. The U.S. is set to hit its debt ceiling on Thursday without a deal to increase its ability to borrow. "The prolonged negotiations over raising the debt ceiling (following the episode in August 2011) risks undermining confidence in the role of the U.S.dollar as the preeminent global reserve currency, by casting doubt over the full faith and credit of the U.S," the agency said in a statement. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had warned that a rating downgrade could come as soon as Tuesday.

 Read the full story: House plan in trouble as focus shifts to Senate |||||

– As lawmakers scramble to strike a last-minute deal that would allow the government to keep borrowing money, Fitch Ratings issued a shot across the bow this afternoon: It put the nation's AAA on a "negative" watch, reports MarketWatch, meaning a downgrade is possible unless things get resolved soon. "The prolonged negotiations over raising the debt ceiling (following the episode in August 2011) risks undermining confidence in the role of the US dollar as the preeminent global reserve currency, by casting doubt over the full faith and credit of the US." (Full text here.) The nation hits its debt-ceiling limit on Thursday. For the record, Fitch and Moody's still have the US at the highest AAA rating, though Standard & Poor's downgraded its rating during the 2011 crisis, notes Business Insider.