Latest news with #LSC
NDTV
13-05-2025
- Business
- NDTV
Lakshya Shooting Club Launches High Performance Centre in Navi Mumbai
Lakshya Shooting Club (LSC) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a private sector bank to establish a state-of-the-art High Performance Centre (HPC) in Navi Mumbai. The name of the facility is 'Axis Bank Lakshya Shooting Club High Performance Centre' as the leading private sector bank is involved in the venture. Under the MoU, Axis Bank will "extend financial and developmental support" to LSC to establish a holistic centre which will include two advanced shooting ranges for air rifle, air pistol, and simulated 50m rifle, an integrated sport science centre with performance analysis, injury prevention, and recovery support, a sports psychology unit to support the emotional and mental well-being of the athletes, and residential accommodation for athletes and coaches, and additional training facilities. The centre will provide world-class infrastructure, comprehensive athletic development programs, and community engagement activities for nurturing emerging shooters. It will also groom Olympic-level elite shooters, and look to create an open and inclusive platform for scouting potential talent. LSC is a well-renowned nurturing ground for young shooters and was founded by Olympian Suma Shirur. The centre is expected to host over 400 athletes annually, including both resident and non-resident participants. It is designed to be fully accessible and para-friendly, supporting para-athletes, including those who have already represented India at the Paralympics and Deaflympics.
The South African
07-05-2025
- Business
- The South African
Gatekeepers gone rogue: Why Big Law's Legal Sector Code challenge deserves contempt
This article is written reluctantly. However, the writer has no real option but to write this opinion piece, as the application brought by Webber Wentzel, Bowmans, and Werksmans (in its current form) is not only disingenuous, but alarmingly out of touch with South Africa's constitutional and transformative imperatives. It reads as a strategic retreat disguised in legalese; a reaction not to unfairness, but to the discomfort of transformation gaining ground. Last month, three of South Africa's largest corporate law firms — Bowmans, Webber Wentzel, and Werksmans —intervened in Norton Rose Fulbright's legal challenge against the Legal Sector Code (LSC), gazetted by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition. The firms seek to have the code reviewed and set aside, arguing it is unlawful, irrational, and unconstitutional. In a country where transformation is not a luxury but a constitutional imperative, the Legal Sector Code (LSC) represents a long-overdue step toward an equitable profession that reflects the demographics of South Africa. Let's be clear: the LSC is not a revolution. It is not asking for reparations. It is asking, ever so politely, that the legal profession begin to reflect the demographics of the country it claims to serve. It sets targets for ownership, management control, skills development, and procurement; all tailored specifically for a profession that has systematically excluded black South Africans from the highest echelons of influence for generations. That some of the largest and most prestigious law firms—who have benefited immensely from an inequitable system—now oppose that code should be enough to raise eyebrows. Of importance is that the Code was first published for public comment in 2022. Bowmans, Webber Wentzel, and Werksmans i.e. the Big Three of Resistance did, in fact, comment during this process, and those comments were taken into account in finalising the Code. The LSC was signed off by Minister Ronald Lamola in October, but later blocked from publication by then-Minister Patel. As frustration mounted, several stakeholders—including NADEL (The National Association of Democratic Lawyers) and the Black Lawyers Association—threatened legal action. It was ultimately the Black Conveyancers Association (BCA) that formally instituted litigation to compel gazetting. The case was later withdrawn after Minister Parks Tau, under the 7th Administration, assured that all conditions had been met and committed to publication. The episode reflects the persistent political resistance transformation continues to provoke—and the resolve of black professional formations to see it through. While Minister Ronald Lamola was a key stakeholder, the legal authority to gazette Sector Codes rests solely with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition under Section 9 of the B-BBEE Act. The Code was ultimately gazetted by Minister Parks Tau on 20 September 2024, after confirming all legal and procedural requirements were met. At the heart of their founding affidavit, the firms argue: The LSC applies only to less than 5% of legal practices — excluding over 95% of firms from its scope — yet imposes severe and disproportionate targets on large firms. No transitional period was provided before implementation. Several deviations from the Generic Codes (e.g., in ownership, management control, skills development, and socio-economic development) lack the required justifications based on 'sound economic principles, sectoral characteristics or empirical research.' The LSC excludes black non-lawyers in calculating transformation metrics — a move the applicants say is unjustified and discriminatory. The process leading to the LSC's gazetting was flawed: the Minister did not address the concerns of his predecessor, Minister Patel, who declined to publish the Code due to legal and procedural irregularities. The B-BBEE targets could cripple the applicant firms' procurement competitiveness and violate their existing client obligations, particularly in the public and financial sectors. But that is just a summation; let us now get into the meat of it: the founding affidavit spans over 110 pages and raises 11 grounds of review—each of which we will unpack in detail below, following the broader context and summary provided above. Minister Tau acted unreasonably and/or irrationally The applicants argue that Minister Tau should not have gazetted the Code without first confirming that Minister Patel's concerns were resolved. However, it is important to note that the formal consultative process for the Legal Sector Code (LSC) spanned five to six years, beginning in earnest around 2018/2019. While broader conversations on legal sector transformation predate this, structured and sustained engagements specific to the LSC trace back to that period. The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) was not blindsided; it participated, advised, and contributed to drafts. That Patel did not personally sign off is not a legal requirement. Moreover, the Minister of Justice is empowered under section 9 of the B-BBEE Act to issue sector codes in consultation—not co-dependence—with the DTIC. Against this backdrop, any suggestion that Minister Tau acted unreasonably or irrationally is unconvincing. Exclusion of 95% of legal practices This is a wildly misleading figure. The LSC is binding only on firms with an annual turnover of R10 million or more. That threshold is standard in all sector codes. Smaller firms are measured using the Qualifying Small Enterprise (QSE) or Exempt Micro Enterprise (EME) scorecards, just as in other sectors. The majority of black-owned firms are QSEs and EMEs. The complaint here is not about exclusion—it's about the discomfort of finally being included. Absence of a B-BBEE Strategy under section 11 This ground collapses under basic legal literacy. Section 11 of the B-BBEE Act allows, but does not require, the Minister to issue a strategy. The existence of sector codes does not hinge on the prior publication of a national strategy. In any event, the DTIC's 2019 national B-BBEE strategy is publicly available. Breach of section 9(2) of the Constitution The applicants suggest that the Code's provisions are 'self-defeating' and violate equality rights. This is a bizarre inversion of logic. The LSC was created precisely to give effect to section 9(2), which allows for measures to advance persons disadvantaged by past discrimination. It is not for the historically privileged to suddenly claim victimhood when structural redress is finally enforced. Arbitrary ownership targets The LSC sets a 50% black ownership target by year five. In a country where approximately 93% of the population is non-white, it is both inaccurate and intellectually dishonest to assert that a target of 50% black ownership within five years is unachievable. The demographics of the population clearly align with the potential for such equitable representation in partnerships. Alternative forms of equity such as profit sharing and equity equivalents are also recognised in the Codes. Other professional sectors have complied; legal firms must too. Unworkable targets for black legal spend Firms are required to brief black advocates and instruct black-owned firms. The profession has long lamented the lack of black counsel getting briefs—now that there's a policy solution, it's suddenly 'unworkable'? The LSC recognises market realities by allowing a ramp-up period and includes flexibility where specialist skills are lacking. Use of unmeasurable indicators This is incorrect. Every element in the scorecard includes a measurable target and verification standard. The Codes of Good Practice mandate verification agencies to assess B-BBEE compliance based on submitted evidence. If some firms cannot produce records, the fault lies not in the Code but in their own HR and procurement departments. Misalignment with Generic Codes The LSC was developed in line with the DTIC's guidelines, as acknowledged in the gazetted notice. Sector codes are, by definition, allowed to depart from generic frameworks to accommodate sector-specific dynamics. The legal sector is not exempt from that flexibility. Breach of the Rule of Law This is a buzzword argument with no legal backbone. The Code was developed after a transparent, multi-year consultation involving major stakeholders. It was gazetted after proper public comment and signed by the competent authority. Nothing about it undermines the Constitution or legislative supremacy. Specialised scorecard for state institutions The applicants are not state-owned entities and thus lack standing to object to this clause. But for clarity: the scorecard for organs of state simply encourages them to support transformative procurement. It's aspirational, not binding. Lack of a transitional period There was a six-month lead-up to the gazette date and an effective grace period thereafter. Moreover, the DTIC's practice notes make clear that measurement periods can overlap with old codes for a brief time. The hysteria is misplaced. The firms emphasise that while they support transformation and B-BBEE, they believe the Code in its current form threatens not only their operational sustainability but also the broader objectives of economic inclusivity and access to justice. Exactly how a framework designed to promote inclusion and equity threatens inclusion and equity is anyone's guess — but apparently, in the alternate reality of Big Law, equity is dangerous when it asks too much of the privileged. The irony is rich: the very firms now dragging the Legal Sector Code to court are the same ones desperate to retain the Level 1 B-BBEE ratings that guarantee them a steady pipeline of lucrative state work. They want the benefits of transformation without the burden of accountability. It's a paradox; suing the state for enforcing the very code that underpins the procurement rankings they depend on. If the goal is to remain eligible for public sector briefs, the solution isn't litigation. It's compliance. Instead, these firms would rather challenge the rules than play by them; a move that exposes exactly why the Code is needed in the first place. This article is also written against the backdrop of the amendments to the Employment Equity Act (EEA), a cornerstone of South Africa's legislative framework aimed at addressing the deep-rooted structural imbalances that continue to plague our corporate landscape. The developments are a direct response to the entrenched disproportionality that defines the composition of top management in many sectors, where the overwhelming dominance of white men persists despite decades of democracy. The EEA does not merely encourage transformation as a moral ideal — it mandates it as a legal and societal necessity. The significance of the Act has been unequivocally endorsed by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has consistently reaffirmed the government's commitment to substantive transformation in the private sector. President Ramaphosa has explicitly stated that the private sector remains skewed, with top management still overwhelmingly controlled by white males, and he has called on companies to be more inclusive and reflective of South Africa's demographics. He has defended the EEA as a vital instrument that not only prohibits unfair discrimination but actively seeks to correct the inequalities of the past. According to the President, these laws are not an overreach — they are part of a broader effort, built over the last three decades, to dismantle the structural inequality inherited from apartheid. It is against the development of these progressive labour laws, designed to move the country toward justice and equity, that efforts to undermine transformation must be scrutinised. In particular, the actions of the 'big three' law firms, who now challenge transformative instruments like the Legal Sector Code, stand in direct contradiction to the spirit and letter of employment equity legislation. Rather than embracing the responsibility to lead by example, these firms appear to entrench exclusionary practices under the guise of legal technicalities, undermining the very goals that the Employment Equity Act seeks to achieve. Perhaps the most galling aspect of the LSC challenge is who's leading it. Not just white firms, but also a few black professionals who have made it to the top and now seem intent on pulling the ladder up behind them. This isn't just a legal fight — it's a moral abdication. As legal scholar Dr. Mandisa Mahlobo aptly put it in a recent panel on transformation: 'Representation isn't enough. We need redistribution — of power, of resources, and of opportunity.' Transformation in the legal sector has been glacial. In 2018, the LSSA reported that only 36% of attorneys were black and just 35% were women. At partner level, the disparities are starker. According to the Law Society's 2023 statistics, only 17% of attorneys in senior positions are black, and less than 10% are black women. More than 60% of legal spend in the private sector goes to the same few firms — firms that now seek to entrench the very exclusivity they claim to be reforming. It is no coincidence that these same firms who wave the Level 1 flag are gatekeeping the work that status brings in. The Generic Codes may help firms attract clients, particularly from the public sector, but the benefits often stop at entry. Junior black attorneys are routinely excluded from the most lucrative matters, often offered no meaningful bonuses or promotions, and ultimately pushed out under the pretext of not meeting billable targets. Promotion data since 2022 in these firms shows an alarming disconnect between the public transformation rhetoric and private practice reality. This invites an uncomfortable question: is the Generic Code, without enforceable sector-specific guidance, merely a legalised form of fronting? If the black lawyers who help achieve Level 1 B-BBEE ratings are not getting the work, not being promoted, and not staying in the profession, then something is deeply wrong. Transformation is not measured by PowerPoint presentations or glossy brochures. It is measured by power — who holds it, who shares it, and who is systematically kept from it. South Africa's corporate sector also bears responsibility. It continues to abet these firms, rewarding Level 1 B-BBEE status without asking how it is achieved or whether it translates into real, lived transformation. It is simply enough to tick the box. No accountability. No follow-through. Just performative compliance wrapped in progressive language. Instead of engaging with the substance of the Code, Webber Wentzel, Bowmans, and Werksmans have chosen the path of obstructionism. These are not cries of injustice, they are tantrums from gatekeepers reluctant to yield space. Against this background, it becomes increasingly difficult to view the challenge to the Legal Sector Code as a good-faith objection rooted in technical or procedural shortcomings. Rather, it bears all the hallmarks of a systemic, coordinated attempt to defang transformation under the familiar guise of 'practicality' and 'sustainability.' The interventions by the big three of resistance only reinforce this concern. While these firms publicly tout their support for transformation and parade their previously disadvantaged candidate attorneys as evidence thereof, their decision to align with NRF's legal challenge exposes a troubling and deliberate inconsistency. Their argument that the Legal Sector Code is unworkable or too onerous mirrors the same rhetoric historically deployed to stall meaningful transformation: commitment in language, resistance in practice. If the Generic Codes were truly adequate, we would not still be contending with such glaring underrepresentation of black practitioners, particularly in ownership and senior leadership. These interventions do not seek to refine or enhance the Code. They aim to dilute its impact and shield entrenched privilege, all while posturing as reasonable critique. This is not pragmatism; it is a refusal to confront the structural inequalities the Code was expressly designed to remedy. As the Constitutional Court reminds us, transformation is not optional. The time for debating whether we need redress has passed. What remains is the task of implementation. If this is the hill Big Law wants to die on, let them. We'll be too busy building something better. The courts may decide the case — but the people have already judged the intent. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Axios
01-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
State agencies question Browns' stadium math
Two state offices have independently suggested that the Browns' tax revenue projections for a proposed Brook Park stadium are overstated. Catch up quick: House Republicans passed the biennial state budget earlier this month, which included $600 million in state-backed bonds for the project. Paying back those bonds could cost Ohio taxpayers nearly $1 billion, once interest is included, according to Gov. Mike DeWine. Team owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam have argued that the stadium and surrounding new development will generate sufficient tax revenue to pay back the debt over the next 25 years. Driving the news: The Ohio Legislative Services Commission (LSC), the bipartisan office that reviews statehouse legislation, and DeWine's Office of Budget and Management (OBM) both say the Haslams' math is too optimistic. What they're saying: "The projected economic impact runs directly counter to decades of research and evidence about the cost and benefits of professional sports stadiums," writes OBM director Kim Murnieks in a memo first reported by Signal Statewide. By the numbers: The Browns' projections are based on attracting 1.5 million more visitors annually to Brook Park than to the current lakefront stadium. The LSC analysis, which was prepared at the request of state Sen. Nickie Antonio, notes that the Browns would have to sell out the 70,000-seat venue 21 times per year, in addition to 10 sold-out Browns games, to reach that figure. None of the three nearby domed stadiums — in Minneapolis, Detroit and Indianapolis — had more than 12 events with 50,000+ attendance in 2023. The other side: The Haslam Sports Group questioned the memos' assertions in a statement, saying that the team has addressed multiple questions with DeWine and other state officials directly.
Forbes
30-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Forbes
The World's Best Vodka—According To The 2025 London Spirits Competition
Last week the London Spirits Competition revealed the winners of its 8th annual grand tasting. Plenty of press has been devoted to the top whiskey--a perennial all-star in the realm of brown spirits. But today it's time we talk about what these esteemed judges deemed the world's best vodka, because it's a bottle that likely remains unknown even to the fiercest of booze aficionados. And the winner is…Xaoma Gold, an 80-proof vodka distilled primarily from wheat in Kazakhstan. In awarding the liquid 98 out of 100 potential points, the LSC had this to say in its official tasting notes: Although it is produced in Kazakhstan, using markedly modern distillation equipment, the drink is actually inspired by ancient Iranian nomads. For hundreds of years, these wanderers would traverse the flat grasslands of Central Asia carrying with them a fermented elixir known as xaoma. According to the lore, this magical juice bestowed strength and sagacity upon all those who imbibed it. To honor this past, the producers of Xaoma Gold have crafted a soft and rounded vodka. According to the brand, the wheat used in its production is sourced from the fertile regions of northern Kazakhstan, which helps encourage said softness. It also leverages the aromatic infusions of Central Asian herbs, resulting in a spirit that sings with coffee and lemon in a crisp finish. Before hitting the bottle, it undergoes an 8-stage filtration process, which removes impurities while retaining character and mouthfeel. The stellar showing at London Spirits Competition doesn't mark the first time Xaoma has wowed judges, either. Last year it won Double Gold at the Warsaw Spirits Competition. The year before that it earned 95 out of a potential 100 points at the Ultimate Spirits Challenge. And it has earned gold at the European Spirits Challenge for two consecutive years. So, clearly there's something special happening here. Across European markets, Xaoma Gold is readily available. And though it doesn't enjoy wide distribution here in the states, you can still procure a bottle of the liquid for around $24. It stands out on shelves--and backbars--with its artful green and gold label, inspired by the cultural expressions of those aforementioned ancient nomads. Vodka is all-too-often written off as an unexciting category of spirit. Anyone eager to do so ought to have a crack at this particular pour. It's filled with intrigue both inside the bottle and out. And it makes for one heck of a fine martini when chilled with a lemon twist.
USA Today
29-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Analysis says Browns' projections for new stadium are 'too optimistic'
Analysis says Browns' projections for new stadium are 'too optimistic' Show Caption Hide Caption Browns fans react to news of new stadium, move to Brook Park Fans gave their reactions after team owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam announced the Cleveland Browns are moving to Brook Park to build a new dome stadium. The analysis questions the projected number of jobs and new visitors, citing similar research showing limited economic impact from sports stadiums. The legality of using state bonds for a sports stadium is also uncertain, with a definitive answer requiring a court decision. Concerns exist that economic activity might simply shift from other areas within Ohio rather than generate new growth. The Cleveland Browns and many Republican lawmakers are pitching the team's new, domed stadium as an economic boon for the state, worthy of a $600 million bond investment. But a new, independent legislative analysis found the Browns' projections are likely too rosy on everything from the number of construction workers employed to how many people would attend events at the proposed Brook Park stadium. "The academic literature on publicly funded sports stadiums is vast, covering many decades, sports, states and municipalities," according to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission analysis, prepared in response to questions from the Ohio Senate's top Democrat. "The overwhelming conclusion from this body of research is that there are little to no tangible impacts of sports teams and facilities on local economic activity." Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, who requested the analysis, said the proposed funding plan raised "serious legal and financial concerns." Among the concerns: It's not clear whether the Ohio Constitution allows the state to issue bonds for a sports stadium. A 1993 court decision allowed Ohio to issue bonds for the Cincinnati Performing Arts Center. Using that logic, a new Browns stadium might be allowed, and Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague recently said the Browns proposal was constitutional. However, the analysis wrote: "Ultimately, only a court can determine whether or not it is permissible." The Browns' owners' economic impact analysis found the Brook Park project would lead to 6,000 temporary construction jobs, 5,370 permanent positions at the stadium and 2,540 jobs in Cuyahoga County. But research suggests that there are "very limited economic impacts of professional sports teams and stadiums." Some of those jobs might not be new, but rather moved from Cleveland to Brook Park, according to the LSC analysis. The owners projected that a new domed stadium would bring 1.5 million new visitors to the area. But the LSC analysis said this "may be overly optimistic." To hit those numbers, the stadium would have to host 21 sold-out events (in addition to Browns games), LSC estimated. But none of the three closest domes had more than 12 major events in 2023. Hosting a big event in the Cleveland area could pull economic activity from other parts of the state. For example, the Haslam family, which owns the Browns and Columbus Crew, held a game between the Crew and Inter Miami in Cleveland to capitalize on the increased demand for Miami star Lionel Messi. Ohio couldn't issue general obligation bonds, backed by the full faith and credit, revenue and taxing power of the state, for the Browns stadium, according to the analysis. That means Ohio lawmakers couldn't levy a tax to pay for the debt service. Those who crafted the legislative analysis, first reported by Ohio Public Media Statehouse News Bureau, didn't have access to the full economic report commissioned by the Browns' owners, so they couldn't dig into the math behind the projections. Antonio said the new analysis should give lawmakers pause. "We should not move forward until we know the courts, the numbers, and the public are on board.' Republicans in the Ohio House of Representatives approved the $600 million bond project for the Cleveland Browns. When the proposal passed, Rep. Mike Dovilla, R-Berea, described the Browns' proposal as "Cleveland's ship finally coming in" and called it a transformative, world-class entertainment district. But, Rep. Ron Ferguson, R-Wintersville, said any economic benefit to Brook Park is coming at Cleveland's expense. "If you look at the state holistically, there isn't going to be any new economic spend, which is what this study says over and over again." Ferguson, who opposes the Browns project, said state lawmakers shouldn't be putting their thumbs on the scale and choosing one part of Ohio over another. "All you're doing is moving the money around within the borders of Ohio." Now, the Ohio Senate is reviewing the Browns' proposal, and more teams, including the Cincinnati Bengals, are asking for money. Gov. Mike DeWine initially pitched paying for new stadiums by doubling taxes on sports betting. He has the power to veto any plan that he decides isn't in Ohio's best interest. 'Sports are very important in Ohio," DeWine told the statehouse bureau. "It's a good thing for our state in many, many ways, but we can't fund it anymore out of general fund money. We can't do it.' State government reporter Jessie Balmert can be reached at jbalmert@ or @jbalmert on X.
