Latest news with #FRE
Malaysian Reserve
4 days ago
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
FRE Alcohol-Removed Wines Renews as Official Non-Alc Wine Partner of Create & Cultivate
From supper clubs to summits, FRE will continue to champion connection and inclusion as Create & Cultivate's exclusive non-alc wine partner. ST. HELENA, Calif., Aug. 12, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — After a powerful year of community, creativity, and connection, FRE Alcohol-Removed Wines is proud to announce the renewal of its partnership with Create & Cultivate, extending its role as the Official Non-Alcoholic Wine Partner into 2026. This renewed collaboration builds on the deep relationships and vibrant events developed throughout the past year, ranging from intimate Supper Clubs to the world's largest festival for women in business. FRE has consistently shown up for its community, pouring thoughtful, alcohol-removed options into the moments that matter most. Create & Cultivate is the leading events and media company for ambitious women in business, known for uniting a powerful network of entrepreneurs, creatives, and thought leaders. With a fan-favorite podcast, curated digital content, and highly anticipated events like the 7-Figure Founder Retreat and Future Summit, Create & Cultivate helps women connect, learn, and grow at every stage of their careers. 'As a brand, we're committed to being present wherever our audience is, offering elevated non-alc options at every stage of their journey,' said Ashley Jappe, Director of Marketing at FRE. 'Partnering with Create & Cultivate has been a perfect extension of that promise. Whether someone is launching a new business, switching careers, or simply reconnecting with what wellness means to them, we want to make sure there's something in their glass that matches the occasion.' Over the past year, FRE has helped toast new ventures, big ideas, and genuine connections across Create & Cultivate's signature events. The partnership has included intentional tasting experiences, all designed to meet ambitious women where they are, with a thoughtful pour in hand. 'As we move into another year of collaboration, our goal remains the same: to support and uplift the incredible women who power our community,' said Marina Middleton, CEO of Create & Cultivate. 'FRE understands the importance of inclusivity and connection, and their presence at our events helps ensure every guest feels seen, celebrated, and included.' In 2025, FRE will continue to be featured at all Create & Cultivate Supper Clubs across the country, host dinners at Create & Cultivate's 7-Figure Founder Retreats, and activate at the SXSW Future Summit in Austin. With every activation, the brand will show that meaningful connection can flourish through intentional, non-alcoholic moments. For more information about FRE Alcohol-Removed Wines visit or follow @FREWines on social media. About FRE Alcohol-Removed WinesFRE Wines caters to a diverse range of consumers including those who abstain from alcohol, the sober curious, health-conscious individuals, and those who appreciate both alcoholic and non-alcoholic options. FRE Wines undergo the full vinification process: the grapes are meticulously grown, harvested, and fermented, as in traditional wines. After fermentation, the alcohol is gently removed using advanced techniques, preserving the wine's complexity, mouthfeel and aroma, giving a true to wine experience. Offerings include FRE Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon in mini 187ml bottles, and FRE Sparkling Brut, Moscato, Sauvignon Blanc, White Zinfandel, Rosé, Chardonnay, Pinot Grigio, Merlot, Red Blend, and Cabernet Sauvignon in standard 750mL bottles. About Create & CultivateCreate & Cultivate is the largest market-leading events and media company created for women in business to connect, learn, and grow. Through its innovative online platform, best-in-class curated events, and the fan-favorite Workparty podcast, Create & Cultivate fosters a vibrant ecosystem for women to explore, connect, and excel. Known for uniting industry leaders, entrepreneurs, and celebrities, the company offers a dynamic space where strategic insights and authentic connections drive professional and personal growth. For more information, visit or follow them on social media.
Yahoo
13-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fresenius SE KGaA (ETR:FRE) May Have Issues Allocating Its Capital
If you're looking at a mature business that's past the growth phase, what are some of the underlying trends that pop up? When we see a declining return on capital employed (ROCE) in conjunction with a declining base of capital employed, that's often how a mature business shows signs of aging. Basically the company is earning less on its investments and it is also reducing its total assets. On that note, looking into Fresenius SE KGaA (ETR:FRE), we weren't too upbeat about how things were going. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. If you haven't worked with ROCE before, it measures the 'return' (pre-tax profit) a company generates from capital employed in its business. The formula for this calculation on Fresenius SE KGaA is: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.052 = €1.8b ÷ (€43b - €8.3b) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). Thus, Fresenius SE KGaA has an ROCE of 5.2%. On its own that's a low return on capital but it's in line with the industry's average returns of 5.1%. See our latest analysis for Fresenius SE KGaA Above you can see how the current ROCE for Fresenius SE KGaA compares to its prior returns on capital, but there's only so much you can tell from the past. If you'd like, you can check out the forecasts from the analysts covering Fresenius SE KGaA for free. In terms of Fresenius SE KGaA's historical ROCE trend, it isn't fantastic. To be more specific, today's ROCE was 8.6% five years ago but has since fallen to 5.2%. In addition to that, Fresenius SE KGaA is now employing 34% less capital than it was five years ago. When you see both ROCE and capital employed diminishing, it can often be a sign of a mature and shrinking business that might be in structural decline. If these underlying trends continue, we wouldn't be too optimistic going forward. In short, lower returns and decreasing amounts capital employed in the business doesn't fill us with confidence. Despite the concerning underlying trends, the stock has actually gained 7.4% over the last five years, so it might be that the investors are expecting the trends to reverse. Regardless, we don't like the trends as they are and if they persist, we think you might find better investments elsewhere. Like most companies, Fresenius SE KGaA does come with some risks, and we've found 2 warning signs that you should be aware of. While Fresenius SE KGaA may not currently earn the highest returns, we've compiled a list of companies that currently earn more than 25% return on equity. Check out this free list here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Vinci Partners Investments Ltd (VINP) Q1 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strong Fundraising Amid ...
Release Date: May 12, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Vinci Partners Investments Ltd (NASDAQ:VINP) reported strong fundraising results with 1.1 billion reais in capital subscriptions during the first quarter of 2025, marking their most active first quarter in recent years. The company successfully completed the second closing of its long-term private credit fund in Peru, raising over 600 million reais from institutional investors. Fee-related earnings increased by 22% year over year, reaching 65.7 million reais in the first quarter. Vinci Partners Investments Ltd (NASDAQ:VINP) maintained its position as the leading partner to Chilean pension funds, holding a close to 20% market share. The company is well-positioned to capture potential capital inflows into Latin America, which is seen as a stable region amid global geopolitical shifts. The appreciation of the Brazilian real against the US dollar negatively impacted Vinci Partners Investments Ltd (NASDAQ:VINP)'s reported AUM, leading to a 7% decrease quarter over quarter. There were net outflows in the global IPNS segment, primarily due to capital returns and net flows in other substrategies. The company experienced a markdown in accrued performance, mainly due to currency fluctuations affecting offshore funds. There was a trend of redemptions across Vinci Partners Investments Ltd (NASDAQ:VINP)'s equity funds, although foreign investors began returning as net buyers. The macroeconomic uncertainty subdued activity in the corporate advisory segment, resulting in no material revenue from this area during the quarter. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 10 Warning Signs with VINP. Q: Can you provide some insight into the expected growth range for fee-related costs over the next four years, considering the goal to improve the FRE margin to around 40%? Also, what was the impact of the Brazilian real appreciation on your FRE? A: Bruno Ariamba, President of Finance and Operations, explained that the business model's strong leverage allows for managing more AUM without significantly increasing costs. He expects FRE costs to remain disciplined, with only inflationary impacts anticipated. Regarding the real appreciation, the impact on FRE was not significant, with a 2 million positive impact on distributable earnings. A 10% depreciation in AUM would have a minimal effect on FRE revenue. Q: Could you clarify the drivers behind the 24 billion decline in the IPNS segment, particularly the 14 billion related to liquid TPD? Also, why was there a markdown in accrued performance, especially in private equity? A: Bruno Ariamba noted that the decline in accrued performance was mainly due to currency fluctuations, not asset performance. The markdown was due to exchange rate changes from the fourth quarter, and if rates stabilize, accrued performance should recover. Alessandro Arte, CEO, added that the net outflow in liquid TPD was around 7 billion reais, influenced by forex variations and market volatility, not specific asset classes or managers. Q: Is there a heavy agenda of capital returns in TPD alternatives this year, and how does it impact your revenue? A: Bruno Ariamba clarified that capital returns in TPD alternatives do not impact future revenue significantly, as fees are charged upfront during fundraising. The impact is more on semi-liquid businesses, but most TPD business is closed-end, so recurring fees are mainly affected by TPD liquid redemptions. Q: What are the expectations for the macro-political environment in Latin America, and how might it affect your business? A: Alessandro Arte expressed optimism about a more benign macro-political environment in the second half of the year, which could benefit their business. The company is prepared for AUM inflows and expects to capitalize on favorable conditions in various countries. Q: How often do you mark your funds, and when should we expect to see changes in accrued performance? A: Bruno Ariamba stated that local funds are marked once a year, while offshore funds are marked quarterly. Therefore, changes in accrued performance should be visible in the second quarter. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Reuters
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Admissibility of Non-US Evidence at Trial in the US
Evidence must fulfill certain requirements before it is admissible at trial in a US federal court. When a trial involves a domestic dispute where parties have obtained discovery through standard federal procedures, the admissibility of the evidence is generally established through the testimony of witnesses located in the US. However, in a trial involving an international dispute relying on evidence obtained from a foreign country, the question of admissibility can be more complicated. A party may not be able to call witnesses located abroad to establish admissibility because they are generally beyond the subpoena power of a US court and the expense and time associated with calling foreign witnesses may make it impractical to do so. Therefore, when seeking to introduce evidence obtained abroad, counsel may wish to explore alternate means of admitting evidence. This article examines provisions from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) that may best serve litigants trying to establish the admissibility of evidence obtained abroad without the live testimony of witnesses, including the rules addressing: Exceptions to the rule against hearsay. The authentication of foreign public documents and records. The introduction at a hearing or trial of translations of evidence obtained from a foreign country. The introduction of deposition transcripts as evidence at trial. (For the complete version of this resource, which includes information on how to obtain the required certification when seeking to admit self-authenticating documents at a hearing or trial, see Admissibility of Non-US Evidence at Trial in the US on Practical Law.) Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay Because of the difficulty of having a witness located abroad appear to testify at a trial in the US, counsel may have to rely on materials constituting hearsay to establish their case. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a hearing or trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted (FRE 801(c)). Hearsay evidence is inadmissible at trial unless it falls under one of the exceptions specified in the FRE. The exceptions to the rule against hearsay that most affect the introduction of documents, records, and reports originating from abroad include those under: FRE 801(d)(2) (opposing party's statement). FRE 803 (exceptions independent of the witness's availability). FRE 804 (statements against interest). FRE 807 (residual hearsay exception). (For more on the rule against hearsay, see Evidence in Federal Court: Overview, Determining Hearsay Flowchart (Federal), and Hearsay Exclusions and Exceptions Flowcharts (Federal) on Practical Law.) Opposing Party's Statement The federal rules provide that relevant statements, including those obtained abroad, offered against an opposing party are not hearsay and are admissible when the statement: Was made by the opposing party in an individual or representative capacity. Is one that the opposing party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true. Was made by a person whom the opposing party authorized to make a statement on the subject matter of the statement. Was made by the opposing party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of the agency or employment relationship while the relationship existed. Was made by the opposing party's co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. (FRE 801(d)(2).) When a party stands in the shoes of a declarant or a declarant's principal, hearsay statements by the declarant or principal are admissible against the party (FRE 801(d)(2); see also 2024 Advisory Committee's Notes to FRE 801). These statements, even when included in documents or deposition testimony obtained abroad, have been admitted into evidence in federal courts (Mike's Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, L.L.C., 472 F.3d 398, 412-13 (6th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds, A.K. by and Through Kocher v. Durham Sch. Servs., L.P., 969 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409-11 (2009))). Statements falling under this exception do not have to be against the party's interest when made (see Statements Against Interest below) and do not require the laying of a preliminary foundation before being introduced into evidence. The opposing party that made the statement did not have to possess personal knowledge of the matter admitted. In fact, even if the opposing party's statement is an opinion, it is admissible under FRE 801(d)(2). Additionally, the admissibility of an opposing party's statement is not affected by the declarant's availability or unavailability or whether the witness testifies. While statements falling under the categories above are admissible as exceptions to the rule against hearsay, the statements themselves do not substantively establish: The authority given to a declarant by the opposing party to make a statement on the subject matter of the statement. The existence of an agency or employment relationship. The existence of a conspiracy. (FRE 801(d)(2).) Exceptions Independent of Witness Availability FRE 803 specifies several exceptions to the rule against hearsay that may apply regardless of the witness's availability. These exceptions may be particularly useful when litigating international disputes where the custodian or creator of the evidence cannot be called to testify at trial. The categories of documents that are admissible under this exception include: Business records. Public records and reports. Public records of vital statistics. Statements in ancient documents. Final judgments of previous convictions. Testimony or certifications regarding the absence of records. Business Records A business record or other record of a regularly conducted activity is admissible at trial as an exception to the rule against hearsay if: The record was made at or near the time of the transaction or other event, or from information that was transmitted, by someone with knowledge. The record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit. Making the record was a regular practice of that activity. (FRE 803(6).) These conditions may be shown by: The testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness. A certification that complies with FRE 902(12) (see Authenticating Foreign Documents Under Federal Rules below). A statute permitting certification. (FRE 803(6).) To be admissible, neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparing the business record may indicate a lack of trustworthiness (FRE 803(6)). Additionally, if relying on a certification under FRE 902(12), the certification accompanying the business record must be signed in a way that, if the certification is false, the individual certifying the record would be subject to a criminal penalty in the country where the certification was signed. The party submitting the evidence must also provide the opposing party with reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record and provide the record and certification for inspection so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them. (FRE 902(12).) (For the complete version of this resource, which includes more on obtaining the required certification, see Admissibility of Non-US Evidence at Trial in the US on Practical Law.) This exception may be particularly useful when introducing evidence such as Swiss bank records because they are records of regularly conducted activities maintained as a regular practice of business (Melridge, Inc. v. Heublein, 125 B.R. 825, 830 (D. Or. 1991)). Public Records and Reports A public record is admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay if neither the source of information nor other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness, and the record sets out: The office's activities. A matter observed while under a legal duty to report but not including a matter observed by law enforcement personnel in a criminal case. In a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation, such as a police investigation. (FRE 803(8).) The public records and reports exception includes foreign public records and reports, such as notices of arrest or investigative reports prepared by foreign police (Mike's Train House, Inc., 472 F.3d at 412; see also Amica Life Ins. Co. v. Barbor, 488 F. Supp. 2d 750, 756 (N.D. Ill. 2007)). Even records not originating from a foreign government may qualify under this exception. For example, the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are both considered public offices or agencies within the rule (Alinejad v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2023 WL 4684929, at *17 (D.D.C. July 6, 2023); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1125, 1186-87 (E.D. Pa. 1980)). Public Records of Vital Statistics Public records of vital statistics from outside the US are admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. Records of vital statistics include: Marriage certificates. Birth certificates. Death certificates. (FRE 803(9); see United States v. Palomares-Munoz, 5 F. App'x 709, 711 (9th Cir. 2001).) Statements in Ancient Documents Statements in documents prepared before 1998 are admissible as exceptions to the rule against hearsay if their authenticity is established (FRE 803(16); see Authenticating Foreign Documents Under Federal Rules below). Final Judgments of Convictions Evidence of a final judgment of a conviction is admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay if: The judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea. The conviction was for a felony. The evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment. When offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant. (FRE 803(22).) This type of evidence is admissible even if there is an appeal pending in the case that may affect the judgment (FRE 803(22)). Absence of a Record Testimony or a certification that complies with FRE 902 stating that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement is admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. This testimony or certification is admissible to prove either: The record or statement does not exist. A matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind. (FRE 803(10).) Statements Against Interest A statement against a declarant's interest may be admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable (FRE 804(b)(3)). A statement is against the declarant's interest if it is both: A statement that, when made, was so contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant's claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made the statement only if the person believe it to be true. Supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness considering the totality of circumstances in which it was made and any supporting or undermining evidence, if offered in a criminal case as a statement that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability. (FRE 804(b)(3).) Under the FRE, a witness is considered unavailable if the declarant: Is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant's statement because the court rules that a privilege applies. Refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so. Testifies to not remembering the subject matter. Cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness. Is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement's proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure the declarant's attendance or testimony. (FRE 804(a).) Residual Hearsay Exception The residual hearsay exception permits the introduction of necessary and trustworthy hearsay that does not fall within other hearsay exceptions. It provides a litigant with a catch-all standard under which they may be able to admit foreign evidence at trial that would otherwise be excluded (FRE 807(a)). A hearsay statement that is not admissible under a hearsay exception in FRE 803 or FRE 804 may still be admissible if: The court determines the statement has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness after considering: the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was made; and any independent evidence corroborating the statement. The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts. (FRE 807(a).) A statement is admissible under the residual hearsay exception only if the proponent of the evidence provides the opposing party with reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement into evidence so that the opposing party has a fair opportunity to evaluate the statement. The notice must: The residual hearsay exception permits the introduction of necessary and trustworthy hearsay that does not fall within other exceptions. It provides a litigant with a catch-all standard under which they may be able to admit foreign evidence at trial that would otherwise be excluded. Examples of the types of foreign documents that have been admitted under the residual hearsay exception include: Bank records from outside the US (United States v. Wilson, 249 F.3d 366, 376 (5th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds, Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005); United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 319 F.R.D. 459, 465-68 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)). Communications from foreign governments to the US (United States v. Doe, 860 F.2d 488, 491 (1st Cir. 1988)). Evidence that certain information was not included in the records of foreign governments (United States v. Cahill, 1988 WL 71239, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 1988)). Authenticating Foreign Documents Under Federal Rules Whether obtained under the FRCP, the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Evidence Convention or HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention), or diplomatic channels, evidence obtained in a foreign country must be authenticated to be admissible at trial (FRE 901(a)). Evidence obtained from a foreign country may be authenticated if the party introducing it provides sufficient proof, either through testimony of a witness with knowledge or through expert opinion, so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification (Yongo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 355 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2004); see also Cabas v. Barr, 928 F.3d 177, 184-85 (1st Cir. 2019)). Additionally, both the FRCP and FRE provide that certain types of documents are self-authenticating, meaning they are admissible at trial without any accompanying extrinsic proof of their authenticity (FRE 902). Self-Authenticating Foreign Documents Under the FRCP The FRCP provide that foreign public records are self-authenticating when evidenced by: An official publication of the record. An attestation by an authorized person that is accompanied by either a final certification of genuineness or a certification under a treaty or convention to which the US and the country where the record is located are parties. (FRCP 44(a)(2)(A).) The final certification may be made by: A secretary of a US embassy or legation. A consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the US. A diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the US. (FRCP 44(a)(2)(B).) Additionally, if all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of a foreign record, the court may for good cause either: Admit an attested copy without the requisite final certification. Permit the record to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification. (FRCP 44(a)(2)(C).) To show that no foreign record exists, a party must submit a written statement that a diligent search of designated records revealed no record or entry of a specified tenor. The court may admit this statement for good cause when evidenced by an attested summary with or without a final certification. (FRCP 44(b).) Self-Authenticating Foreign Documents Under the FRE FRE 902 provides a list of public documents that are self-authenticating, including the following related to foreign public documents and records: Documents signed or attested to by an authorized person. Copies of foreign public records. Foreign records of regularly conducted activities. Documents Signed or Attested to by an Authorized Person Public documents that purport to be signed or attested to by a person authorized by a foreign country's law to do so are self-authenticating documents. Documents may be submitted into evidence at trial if accompanied by a final certification confirming the genuineness of the signature and the official position of the person signing or attesting to the document. (FRE 902(3).) As under FRCP 44(a)(2)(B), the certification may be made by: Where certification of a public document is not provided, the document is treated as presumptively authentic by the court if: The opposing party was provided a reasonable opportunity to examine the document for authenticity and accuracy. There is good cause for the absence of a certification. (FRE 902(3)(A); United States v. McGowan, 552 F. App'x 950, 954 (11th Cir. 2014).) Evidence obtained from a foreign country may be authenticated if the party introducing it provides sufficient proof, either through testimony of a witness with knowledge or through expert opinion, so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification. FRE 902(3) is derived from FRCP 44(a)(2), which provides that a foreign public record is admissible when accompanied by a certification. FRE 902(3), however, is broader in scope because it applies to both foreign public records and foreign public documents. Public documents consist of: Official papers. Documents on file in a public office. Publications printed by order of the government. Public records are records required or directed by law to serve as a memorial and evidence of something written, said, or done. Copies of Foreign Public Records FRE 902(4) provides that copies of public records, including foreign public records, are self-authenticating if the copies are certified as correct by either: The custodian or another person authorized to make the certification. A certificate that complies with FRE 902(3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the US Supreme Court. Foreign Records of Regularly Conducted Activities In a civil case, certified foreign records of regularly conducted activities are self-authenticating and therefore admissible. Foreign records of regularly conducted activities submitted as self-authenticating evidence must meet the same conditions as business records submitted as exceptions to the rule against hearsay under FRE 803(6). Obtaining Required Certification for Foreign Documents The procedure to obtain final certification to authenticate public records obtained abroad depends on whether the country in which the records are located is a signatory to a treaty, such as the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention or Hague Apostille Convention, 33 U.S.T. 883). Certification of documents is required under FRE 902(3) and FRCP 44(a)(2) for self-authentication purposes. The certification does not address the validity of the substantive content of evidence but rather the authenticity of the signature on the documents themselves or on a document to which the documents are attached (FRE 902(3)). If the country in which the records are located is not a signatory to a relevant treaty, a litigant will typically be required to obtain certification through diplomatic procedures. Obtaining certification through diplomatic procedures usually requires additional steps and review by the US embassy or consulate. (For the complete version of this resource, which includes more on how to obtain the required certification under the Hague Apostille Convention or through diplomatic channels, see Admissibility of Non-US Evidence at Trial in the US on Practical Law.) Translations of Foreign Evidence When producing foreign evidence in response to a discovery request, the producing party does not have the obligation to translate documents kept regularly in a foreign language (Nature's Plus Nordic A/S v. Natural Organics, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 437, 441-42 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); see also In re Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 687 F.2d 501, 510 (1st Cir. 1982)). In practice, however, if seeking to introduce this evidence at trial, the parties need to exchange translations of the produced materials before introducing them into evidence. In document-intensive litigations, the parties will likely have translations made of key documents. The parties may assert objections to certain translations, such as where the parties use conflicting translations during a deposition or where documents are partially translated during a deposition by an interpreter. Whenever possible, courts want the parties to exchange translations and stipulate beforehand to the accuracy of any translations to be offered at trial. (For a model affidavit of translation used to authenticate the translation of documentary evidence originally in a foreign language submitted to the court, with explanatory notes and drafting tips, see Affidavit of Translation for US Proceedings on Practical Law.) Deposition Transcripts Involving Non-US Litigants Counsel involved in a case where a non-US litigant is a party will likely introduce necessary deposition testimony at trial because witnesses outside the US are beyond the scope of the court's subpoena power and, therefore, may be unavailable to testify in person. Even when the litigant is a corporate party that would be able to compel employees located outside the US to testify at trial, courts have permitted counsel for the US corporation to introduce deposition testimony (see Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 368, 370 (N.D. Ind. 1991)). Both the FRCP and the FRE provide guidance on the introduction of deposition testimony of foreign witnesses at trial. Introducing Deposition Testimony Taken Abroad Under the FRCP Under the FRCP, all or part of a deposition transcript may be used against a party at a hearing or trial if: The party was present or represented at the deposition or had reasonable notice of it. The transcript would be admissible under the FRE if the deponent were present and testifying. (FRCP 32(a)(1).) Additionally, the deposition transcript may be used for purposes permitted by the FRCP, such as impeaching the testimony given by a deponent as a witness or for any other purpose permitted under the FRE (FRCP 32(a)(2)). A party may use the deposition transcript of any witness, whether or not a party, for any purpose if the witness is unavailable to testify (FRCP 32(a)(4)). A court will find that a witness is unavailable if the witness is located more than 100 miles from the place of the hearing or trial or outside the US, unless the court finds that the witness's absence was due to the action of the party seeking to submit the deposition testimony (FRCP 32(a)(4)(B)). Introducing Deposition Testimony Under the FRE Under the FRE, a deposition transcript is technically hearsay and therefore must be admissible under FRCP 32 or under one of the hearsay exceptions provided by the FRE. The FRE also provides that the unavailability of a witness permits the admission of deposition testimony as an exception to the rule against hearsay (FRE 804(b)(1)). What constitutes the unavailability of a witness under the FRE, however, differs from the FRCP. This is particularly important for the litigant seeking to admit foreign deposition testimony under the FRE, because the witness may be beyond the subpoena power of a US court and it may be impractical to secure the witness's appearance at a specific date and time for a hearing or trial in the US. Irina Kobylevsky joined Practical Law from Kruzhkov Russo PLLC, where she was counsel focusing on commercial and business litigation. Previously, she was an associate at Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC and at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fresenius SE KGaA Full Year 2024 Earnings: EPS Misses Expectations
Revenue: €21.8b (up 3.6% from FY 2023). Net income: €1.04b (down 25% from FY 2023). Profit margin: 4.8% (down from 6.6% in FY 2023). The decrease in margin was driven by higher expenses. EPS: €1.85 (down from €2.48 in FY 2023). AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Revenue was in line with analyst estimates. Earnings per share (EPS) missed analyst estimates by 60%. The primary driver behind last 12 months revenue was the Fresenius Helios segment contributing a total revenue of €12.7b (58% of total revenue). Notably, cost of sales worth €16.5b amounted to 75% of total revenue thereby underscoring the impact on earnings. The largest operating expense was General & Administrative costs, amounting to €2.22b (51% of total expenses). Explore how FRE's revenue and expenses shape its earnings. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 4.5% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 4.0% growth forecast for the Healthcare industry in Germany. Performance of the German Healthcare industry. The company's share price is broadly unchanged from a week ago. Before we wrap up, we've discovered 2 warning signs for Fresenius SE KGaA that you should be aware of. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
