Latest news with #Chávez


The Star
3 days ago
- Business
- The Star
TPG Angelo Gordon among new bidders in auction for Citgo assets
New York: Investment fund TPG Angelo Gordon is among the new bidders for Citgo Petroleum Corp's parent company as part of a court-supervised auction designed to compensate creditors of Venezuela whose assets were seized, according to people familiar with the matter. New York-based TPG Angelo Gordon has launched a so-called 'topping bid' for the shares of Citgo's US-based parent PVD Holding, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because they weren't authorised to speak publicly about the bid. TPG Angelo Gordon declined to comment last Friday. TPG agreed to acquire Angelo Gordon in May 2023 in a cash-and-stock deal valued at US$2.7bil. The bid is aimed at bettering a US$3.7bil offer by Red Tree Investments LLC for control of the refiner, which is Venezuela's largest foreign asset. Seeking more offers Red Tree's offer came after US Judge Leonard Stark in Wilmington, Delaware, shot down an earlier US$5.3bil lead bid by an affiliate of Elliott Investment Management because of flaws with the proposal. Robert Pincus – a lawyer tapped by Stark to oversee the auction – said in court filings he supported pushing back the deadline for topping offers like TPG Angelo Gordon's by 21 days in hopes it will lead to a 'more robust bidding process'. Stark granted the extension last Friday. Stark and Pincus are aiming to generate more money from the nearly year-long auction in hopes of satisfying more creditors' claims against Venezuela over the seizures initiated by late strongman Hugo Chavez. Collectively the creditors are owed more than US$20bil by the Venezuelan government and its state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, which controls Citgo. Those creditors include Crystallex International Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp, ConocoPhillips Co and Siemens AG. Lost assets The companies lost gold and oil assets in the seizures and obtained international arbitration awards against the country. Investment manager Oaktree Capital Management LP is providing financing for multiple bidders, according to a person familiar with the matter who is not authorised to speak publicly. Oaktree's involvement hasn't been previously reported. The firm has more than US$200bil in assets under management and has experience in distressed debt and special situations. 'The court wants the best offer, even if that bidder is late to the game,' said Jason Keene, a strategist at Barclays who follows the auction process. Bidders are interested in the refineries Citgo runs in the United States as well as its pipelines, terminals and fuel-distribution channels. The battle goes back to the fallout from Chávez's decision to nationalise different industries as part of his socialist agenda. Chávez died in 2013 and was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro. In 2019, the US government gave the reins of the refinery to the opposition-led National Assembly, then presided by Juan Guaido, whom the United States and other governments formerly recognised as the country's legitimate leader as opposed to Maduro. A Florida congresswoman has asked US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to halt the Citgo auction to preserve the political opposition's control of the asset. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican who represents part of Miami, asked Rubio to stop any sale. 'Citgo needs to remain in hands of the opposition in order to be able to reconstruct Venezuela after the regime falls,' she wrote in a May 29 letter to Rubio. — Bloomberg


Los Angeles Times
18-05-2025
- Sport
- Los Angeles Times
Jake Paul and Julio César Chávez Jr. question each other's skills ahead of Anaheim bout
One of Jake Paul's nicknames is the 'Problem Child,' but that nickname could just as easily fit Julio César Chávez Jr. After becoming World Boxing Council (WBC) middleweight champion of the world in 2011, Chávez defended his crown three times and came to be considered on the same level as his contemporary Saúl 'Canelo' Álvarez. But a disappointing loss to Sergio Martínez in 2012, lack of discipline needed to train properly and make weight, as well as a crushing defeat to Álvarez in 2017, sent his career into a free fall. From 2019-21, he picked up three losses in four fights, including falling to former champion Daniel Jacobs and mixed martial arts veteran Anderson Silva. Now at 39, Chávez will face Youtuber turned boxer Jake Paul in a cruiserweight contest scheduled for June 28 at the Honda Center in Anaheim. Chávez (54-6-1, 34 KOs) has fought 61 professional bouts since his debut in 2003 and could be the toughest test of Paul's (11-1, 7 KOs) career to date, although it all depends on the level of the Mexican's fitness for the matchup. During a press event held at The Avalon in Hollywood on Wednesday, Paul strongly criticized Chávez while mentioning the addiction problems Chávez has faced as well as his 'lack of mentality.' 'I'm going to embarrass him and run him down like he always does,' Paul said. 'I'm going to expose him. He will be the embarrassment of Mexico. There are two things you can't beat — me and your drug addiction.' Outside the ring, Chávez's personal life has not been free of problems. The Culiacan native was arrested in January of last year in Los Angeles and charged with illegal possession of weapons, specifically an assault rifle, which was found in his home. He eventually pleaded not guilty and committed to entering a rehabilitation program. On Wednesday, the legendary Julio César Chávez Sr. stood by his son's side to support him in the face of Paul's verbal attacks. For Chávez Sr., if his son continues to train the way he has seen him lately, the American doesn't stand a chance. Chávez Jr. will be looking to be the second opponent to beat Paul after Tommy Fury scored a win in 2023. 'He's an overrated fighter. He hasn't fought anybody. He only fights old guys,' said Chávez Jr., who added he will arrive in Anaheim as the best version of himself and that the first five rounds will be difficult, but that he will tip the scales in his favor from the seventh round on. Chávez Sr., as on many occasions, has mentioned that his son is training like never before. 'There is no way Jake Paul can beat my son, the way he is training,' Chávez Sr. said. Paul responded he could beat Chávez Jr. and his legendary father, criticizing Chávez Jr.'s lack of discipline. 'It's not a champion's mentality to only train hard when you have a big fight. I train hard every time I have a fight, no matter who I'm facing. That teaches you the type of person he is,' Paul said. After the news conference, Chávez Jr. noted that he expected Paul to pick on his dad, but understood it was a mental tactic by his opponent. 'In boxing you learn step by step, and he is missing several,' Chávez Jr. said. Paul, a 28-year-old from Cleveland, will return to the ring since he last fought in November, when he outpointed heavyweight legend Mike Tyson in an eight-round bout in Arlington, Texas. The event disappointed many due to a lack of competitiveness from 58-year-old 'Iron Mike.' During this fight, Paul will likely have much of the crowd against him by choosing to fight a Mexican star in Southern California, although he believes there are many who will support him. 'Mexicans love me. People love me more than they love him. Mexico doesn't even love him. I'm going to show him who the real Mexican warrior is,' Paul said. The showdown between Paul and Chávez Jr. comes after a proposed showdown between the Youtuber and Álvarez fell apart earlier this year. Paul could be close to a fight against Álvarez, although before that he could consider a matchup against Mexico's Gilberto 'Zurdo' Ramírez, who will be defending his cruiserweight crown against Cuban Yuniel Dorticos (27-2, 25 KOs) on the Anaheim card. 'He has done a good job. Maybe someday we can fight for titles. Now I'm the champion,' Ramírez, 33, said about facing Paul. Ramírez (47-1, 30 KOs) said he would prefer to unify the Boxing Assn. title against Jai Opetaia, the International Boxing Federation champion. But before that, he will have to dispatch Dorticos, who is known for his powerful punch. 'Los Angeles is going to shake. The knockout doctor is back,' said Dorticos, 39. The card is promoted by Most Valuable Promotions in conjunction with Golden Boy Promotions, and will air on pay-per-view via DAZN. This article first appeared in Spanish via L.A. Times en Español.


CairoScene
15-05-2025
- Entertainment
- CairoScene
Pulitzer-Winning Photographer Michael Chávez on Cairo's Photo Scene
'Photography is more visible than ever online, but how do these photographers sustain it financially?' says the photojournalist. May 15, 2025 'I've always had a soft spot for Cairo, so to be here and see what Cairene photographers are doing right now, it's pretty exciting,' American photojournalist and educator Michael Robinson Chávez tells CairoScene during Cairo Photo Week. Chávez is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and a veteran visual storyteller whose work has taken him to over 75 countries. He has covered a wide range of global events, from the aftermath of the Egyptian revolution to the collapse of Venezuela and the impacts of climate change across Siberia and the Bay of Bengal. His photography is known for its blend of journalistic depth and lyrical composition, earning him recognition for both his coverage and the emotional depth of his images. Throughout the week, Chávez has wandered through the packed halls and side-street venues of Cairo Photo Week, taking in the rhythm of a city captured through hundreds of different lenses. He has spent time with young Egyptian photographers, listening to how they frame their stories and the challenges they face turning their craft into a career. He notes a shift that feels significant. There is a growing support system that did not exist a decade ago. Resources like grants, workshops, and mentorships are beginning to reach photographers outside traditional gate-kept circles. For many, this is the first time they are seeing their work not only taken seriously, but exhibited publicly, discussed in critique sessions, and included in wider conversations about visual culture in the Arab world. 'There's a paradox,' he says. 'Photography is more visible than ever online, but how do these photographers sustain it financially? That's still a big question.' For Chávez, that question lingers. But so does the sense of momentum.


New York Post
11-05-2025
- Sport
- New York Post
Juan Soto's recent Mets hot streak hits snag with 0-for-5 night
Access the Mets beat like never before Join Post Sports+ for exciting subscriber-only features, including real-time texting with Mike Puma about the inside buzz on the Mets. Try it free Juan Soto ended the Mets' 6-5 loss to the Cubs on Saturday night with a grounder to second, completing an 0-for-5 night for the slugger. He's gotten away from hitting the ball on the ground as much as he did earlier in the season, and the change helped spark a recent hot streak that wasn't on display versus Chicago. Hitting coach Eric Chávez knows it's those ground balls that can make Soto look mortal. 'Everyone's got a bugaboo and his has always been hitting the ball on the ground,'' Chávez said of Soto before the game. 'That's been his miss. It's a give and take with what he does well. He has a flat swing and sometimes that happens when the ball is going down and he hits the top of the ball. He's done it his whole career. Even playing against him, we knew that about ground balls.' The solution: Nothing. 'You don't change anything,'' Chávez said. 'To be honest with you, he's just more comfortable. There was nothing wrong with his swing. You can tell by his body language, not as a coach, but as a person, you can see he's more comfortable.' And there's no way to rush that process. 'Everyone has to go through that themselves,'' Chávez said. 'People say, 'He signed an $800 million contract, he should get a hit every at-bat. That's not reality. He made a big decision to come here [from the Yankees]. I know it's only 20 minutes away [from The Bronx], but it's night and day. It's completely different. Of course, it took time to adjust.' Juan Soto, who went 0-for-5, walks to the dugout after striking out in the seventh inning of the Mets' 6-5 loss to the Cubs on May 10, 2025. Corey Sipkin / New York Post After seeing teams swipe bases against them at an alarming rate early last season, the Mets brought in Luis Torrens and his defensive prowess helped turn that part of their game. Still, the Mets allowed the fifth-most steals in the majors. So far this season, with Francisco Alvarez having improved that part of his game, the Mets have thrown out 14 potential base stealers — tied for the most in the majors — and have given up just 14, the second fewest in the league. Alvarez made a throwing error in the first inning on Saturday, but also picked off Michael Busch at first base in the third. In the bottom of the third, Alvarez was drilled in the left hand by a 95 mph four-seamer by Cade Horton, who was making his MLB debut. Alvarez was checked out by trainers at first base and remained in the game. A day after the organization's No. 2 pitching prospect, Nolan McLean, threw seven scoreless innings in his debut at Triple-A Syracuse, the Mets third-ranked pitching prospect according to MLB Pipeline, Jonah Tong, pitched 6 ²/₃ perfect innings for Double-A Binghamton on Saturday, part of a seven-inning perfect game in the second game of a doubleheader. Ronny Mauricio takes some batting practice during the beginning of Mets' spring training this season. Corey Sipkin / New York Post Delivering insights on all things Amazin's Sign up for Inside the Mets by Mike Puma, exclusively on Sports+ Thank you Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Enjoy this Post Sports+ exclusive newsletter! Check out more newsletters The 21-year-old Tong, also a right-hander, whiffed 13 before being replaced with one out to go in the game after 99 pitches by TJ Shook, who got the final out. Also with Binghamton Saturday, Ronny Mauricio took another step forward in his comeback from a torn ACL suffered two offseasons ago, as the infielder played his first game at Double-A in his rehab assignment. Mauricio played third base and hit an RBI double in the first game of a doubleheader against Reading. Jose Siri, out with a fractured left tibia, is progressing better than anticipated, according to Mendoza. 'I didn't think he'd be doing some running and hitting in the cages, tee and toss, playing catch [and] doing some light sprints.' There's still no timetable for the outfielder's return.


New York Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
No One Has Ever Defeated Autocracy From the Sidelines
How will Americans know when we have lost our democracy? Authoritarianism is harder to recognize than it used to be. Most 21st-century autocrats are elected. Rather than violently suppress opposition like Castro or Pinochet, today's autocrats convert public institutions into political weapons, using law enforcement, tax and regulatory agencies to punish opponents and bully the media and civil society onto the sidelines. We call this competitive authoritarianism — a system in which parties compete in elections but the systematic abuse of an incumbent's power tilts the playing field against the opposition. It is how autocrats rule in contemporary Hungary, India, Serbia and Turkey and how Hugo Chávez ruled in Venezuela. The descent into competitive authoritarianism doesn't always set off alarms. Because governments attack their rivals through nominally legal means like defamation suits, tax audits and politically targeted investigations, citizens are often slow to realize they are succumbing to authoritarian rule. More than a decade into Mr. Chávez's rule, most Venezuelans still believed they lived in a democracy. How, then, can we tell whether America has crossed the line into authoritarianism? We propose a simple metric: the cost of opposing the government. In democracies, citizens are not punished for peacefully opposing those in power. They need not worry about publishing critical opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in peaceful protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from the government. In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition — that all citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and seek to remove the government through elections — is a foundational principle of democracy. Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposition comes with a price. Citizens and organizations that run afoul of the government become targets of a range of punitive measures: Politicians may be investigated and prosecuted on baseless or petty charges, media outlets may be hit with frivolous defamation suits or adverse regulatory rulings, businesses may face tax audits or be denied critical contracts or licenses, universities and other civic institutions may lose essential funding or tax-exempt status, and journalists, activists and other critics may be harassed, threatened or physically attacked by government supporters. When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy. By that measure, America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism. The Trump administration's weaponization of government agencies and flurry of punitive actions against critics has raised the cost of opposition for a wide range of Americans. The Trump administration has taken (or credibly threatened) punitive action against a strikingly large number of individuals and organizations that it considers its opponents. It has, for example, selectively deployed law enforcement agencies against critics. President Trump directed the Department of Justice to open investigations into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly contradicted Mr. Trump's false claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles Taylor (who, when he was a Department of Homeland Security official, anonymously wrote an opinion piece criticizing the president in 2018). The administration has also opened a criminal investigation into Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who filed a lawsuit against Mr. Trump in 2022. The administration has targeted major law firms for retribution. It effectively prohibited the federal government from hiring Perkins Coie; Paul, Weiss; and other leading law firms it perceived as friendly to the Democratic Party. It also threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts and suspended their employees' security clearances, preventing them from working on many cases related to the government. Donors to the Democratic Party and other progressive causes also face political retribution. In April, Mr. Trump directed the attorney general to investigate the fund-raising practices of ActBlue, the Democratic Party's main donor platform, in an apparent effort to weaken his rivals' fund-raising infrastructure. Major Democratic donors now fear retribution in the form of tax and other investigations. Some have hired additional legal counsel to prepare for tax audits, congressional investigations or lawsuits. Others have moved assets abroad. Like many autocratic governments, the Trump administration has targeted the media. Mr. Trump has sued ABC News, CBS News, Meta, Simon & Schuster and The Des Moines Register. The lawsuits appear to have weak legal bases, but because media outlets like ABC and CBS are owned by conglomerates with other interests affected by federal government decisions, a prolonged legal battle against a sitting president could be costly. At the same time, the administration has politicized the Federal Communications Commission and deployed it against independent media. It opened an investigation of fund-raising practices by PBS and NPR, potentially as a prelude to funding cuts. It also reinstated complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC for anti-Trump bias while opting not to reinstate a complaint against Fox News for promoting lies about the 2020 election. Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the media have occurred with even greater speed and force than equivalent actions taken by elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or Venezuela during their first years in office. Mr. Trump has also followed other autocrats in assaulting universities. The Department of Education opened investigations into at least 52 universities for their participation in diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and it has placed some 60 universities under investigation for antisemitism, threatening them with severe penalties. The administration illegally suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in approved funding to leading schools such as Brown, Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. It has frozen $2.2 billion in government grants to Harvard, asked the I.R.S. to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and threatened to revoke its eligibility to host foreign students. As Jonathan Friedman, the managing director of free-expression programs at PEN America, put it, 'It feels like any day, any university could step out of line in some way and then have all of their funding pulled.' Finally, Republican politicians face threats of violence if they oppose Mr. Trump. Fear of violence from his supporters reportedly dissuaded some Republican lawmakers from voting for his impeachment and conviction after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Republican senators were also threatened during confirmation hearings in early 2025. Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, reported that the F.B.I. warned him of 'credible death threats' while he was considering opposing Pete Hegseth's nomination as secretary of defense. For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of opposition has risen markedly. Although these costs are not as high as in dictatorships like Russia — where critics are routinely imprisoned, exiled or killed — America has, with stunning speed, descended into a world in which opponents of the government fear criminal investigations, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures and even Republican politicians are, as one former Trump administration official put it, 'scared' out of their minds 'about death threats.' This is not the first time that critics of the U.S. government have been harassed, threatened or punished: Dissidents were targeted during the Red Scares of 1919 and '20 and the McCarthy era, the F.B.I. harassed civil rights leaders and left-leaning activists for decades, and the Nixon administration attempted to use the I.R.S. and other agencies to attack his rivals. These measures were clearly undemocratic, but they were more limited in scope than those occurring today. And Mr. Nixon's efforts to politicize the government triggered his resignation, in part, and a set of reforms that helped curtail such abuse after 1974. The half-century after Watergate was America's most democratic. Not only did the Trump presidency put an abrupt end to that era, but it is also the first — at least since the Adams administration's persecution of the Jeffersonian Democrats in the 1790s — to systematically target both the mainstream partisan opposition and a broad sector of civil society. The administration's authoritarian offensive has had a clear impact. It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to think twice about engaging in what should be constitutionally protected opposition. Consequently, many of the politicians and societal organizations that should serve as watchdogs and checks on the executive are silencing themselves or retreating to the sidelines. For example, fear of retribution has had a chilling effect on donations to Democrats and progressive civic organizations, forcing several of them to scale back operations and lay off employees. In the wake of Mr. Trump's attacks on leading law firms, opponents of the administration are struggling to find legal representation, as deep-pocketed and reputable firms that once readily engaged in legal battles with the government are lying low to avoid his wrath. Columbia University ceded to the administration's extortionary demands for greater restrictions on student expression. As Mr. Trump observed, 'You see what we're doing with the colleges, and they're all bending and saying, 'Sir, thank you very much.'' There are troubling signs of media self-censorship. CBS's parent company, Paramount, which is seeking the Trump administration's approval for a merger with Skydance Media, recently established additional oversight over '60 Minutes' programming. This move triggered the resignation of the program's longtime executive producer, Bill Owens, who cited a loss of journalistic independence. And crucially, Republican lawmakers have abdicated their role as checks on executive power. As Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, put it, 'We are all afraid. It's quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. And I'll tell you, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that's not right.' Americans are living under a new regime. The question now is whether we will allow it to take root. So far, American society's response to this authoritarian offensive has been underwhelming — alarmingly so. Civic leaders confront a difficult collective action problem. A vast majority of American politicians, chief executives, law partners, newspaper editors and university presidents prefer to live in a democracy and want to end this abuse. But as individuals confronting government threats, they have incentives to appease, rather than oppose, the Trump administration. Civil society leaders seek to protect their organizations from government attacks: Chief executives need to protect shareholders and future business opportunities, media owners must avoid costly defamation suits and adverse regulatory rulings, and university presidents seek to avoid devastating funding cuts. For any individual leader, then, the price of defiance can often appear unbearably steep. Although they acknowledge that everyone would be better off if someone took the lead and defied Mr. Trump, few are willing to pay the price themselves. This logic has led some of America's most influential figures, including politicians, billionaires, chief executives and university presidents, to stay on the sidelines, hoping that someone else steps forward. Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian bullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary defensive measures, feel like the only reasonable course. But this is the fatal logic of appeasement: the belief that quietly yielding in small, seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm. It usually doesn't. And acts of individual self-preservation have serious collective costs. For one, acquiescence will probably embolden the administration, encouraging it to intensify and broaden its attacks. Autocrats rarely entrench themselves in power through force alone; they are enabled by the accommodation and inaction of those who might have resisted. Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile and hoping to be the last one eaten. Individual acquiescence also weakens America's overall democratic defenses. Although the retreat of a single donor or law firm may not matter that much, collective retreat could leave opponents of the Trump administration without adequate funding or legal protection. The cumulative effect on public opinion of every newspaper story not published, every speech or sermon not delivered and every news conference not held can be substantial. When the opposition plays dead, the government usually wins. The acquiescence of our most prominent civic leaders sends a profoundly demoralizing message to society. It tells Americans that democracy is not worth defending — or that resistance is futile. If America's most privileged individuals and organizations are unwilling or unable to defend democracy, what are ordinary citizens supposed to do? The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the descent into authoritarianism is reversible. Pro-democracy forces have successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere. America's courts remain independent and will almost certainly block some of the administration's most abusive measures. But judges — themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and even arrest — cannot save democracy on their own. Broader societal opposition is essential. American civil society has the financial and organizational muscle to resist Mr. Trump's authoritarian offensive. It has several hundred billionaires; dozens of law firms that earn at least a billion dollars a year; more than 1,700 private universities and colleges; a vast infrastructure of churches, labor unions, private foundations and nonprofit organizations; and a well-organized and well-financed opposition party. But civil society must act collectively. Chief executives, law firms, universities, media outlets and Democratic politicians, as well as more traditional Republicans, have a common interest in preserving our constitutional democracy. When organizations work together and commit to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the costs of defiance. The government cannot attack everyone all at once. When the costs of defiance are shared, they become easier for individuals to bear. So far, the most energetic opposition has come not from civic leaders but from everyday citizens, showing up at Congressional town hall meetings or participating in Hands Off rallies across the country. Our leaders must follow their example. A collective defense of democracy is most likely to succeed when prominent, well-funded individuals and organizations — those who are best able to absorb blows from the government — get in the game. There are signs of an awakening. Harvard has refused to acquiesce to administration demands that would undermine academic freedom, Microsoft dropped a law firm that settled with the administration and hired one that defied it, and a new law firm based in Washington, D.C., announced plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by the government. When the most influential members of civil society fight back, it provides political cover for others. It also galvanizes ordinary citizens to join the fight. America's slide into authoritarianism is reversible. But no one has ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.