Latest news with #binding
Middle East
27-05-2025
- Business
- Middle East
OPEN// FM says looking forward to strengthening coop. with Mauritania in various fields
CAIRO, May 27 (MENA) - Minister of Foreign Affairs, Emigration and Expatriates Badr Abdelatty expressed Tuesday his aspiration to continue strengthening cooperation between Egypt and Mauritania in various fields, taking into account the strong ties binding them. During his meeting with Prime Minister of Mauritania Mokhtar Ould Ajay, Abdelatty praised the convening of the joint committee and the mutual coordination on various regional issues, especially those related to Arab and African affairs, according to a press release. He stressed the importance of working to advance trade and economic relations between the two countries and to utilize the available capabilities of Egypt and Mauritania. He emphasized the role of Egyptian companies operating in Mauritania within the framework of existing joint projects, and the need to expand these projects to achieve the interests of both countries and their peoples. During the meeting, the two sides also discussed issues of common interest on the Arab and African levels, and agreed on the importance of intensifying coordination and cooperation, which contributes to enhancing security and stability in the region. (MENA) A I E/R E E
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Tethys Petroleum Corporate Update
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands--(Newsfile Corp. - May 14, 2025) - Tethys Petroleum Limited (TSXV: TPL) ("Tethys" or the "Company") is pleased to provide an update on the Company's operations in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Arbitration update In November of 2023 Tethys initiated an arbitration with the International Arbitration Centre regarding a Settlement Deed and Release Agreement that was entered into in December of 2019. The relief sought by Tethys was to declare that the Settlement Deed and Release is no longer binding, and for DSFK Special Finance Company LLP to pay Tethys Petroleum 1,434,692,762 KZT, and for the 18 million shares issued to Olisol Petroleum Limited to be cancelled. On May 13, the sole Arbitrator ruled and declared that the Settlement Deed is declared no longer binding. DSFK Special Finance Company LLP is ordered to pay Tethys Petroleum Limited 1,434,692,762 KZT. Olisol Petroleum Limited is ordered to cancel share certificates GS 44 and GS 43 (totaling 18 million shares). DSFK Special Finance Company LLP and Olisol Petroleum Limited are ordered to pay Tethys 50,000 EUR and 50,000,000 KZT towards the reimbursement of the costs of the arbitration and the Company's legal costs. The Company is in the process of determining the next steps necessary to have the arbitration ruling enforced. About Tethys Tethys is focused on oil and gas exploration and production activities in Central Asia and the Caspian Region. Disclaimer Some of the statements in this document are forward-looking. No part of this announcement constitutes, or shall be taken to constitute, an invitation or inducement to invest in the Company or any other entity and shareholders of the Company are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements. Save as required by applicable law, the Company does not undertake to update or change any forward-looking statements to reflect events occurring after the date of this announcement. Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Contact Information: Tethys PetroleumCasey McCandlessChief Financial Officer901-763-4001 info@ To view the source version of this press release, please visit Sign in to access your portfolio
India Today
09-05-2025
- General
- India Today
West Bengal JEE 2025 answer key released, objections till May 11. Direct link
The West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations Board (WBJEEB) has uploaded the WBJEE 2025 provisional answer key. Students who took the exam on April 27 can now check the model answers and raise objections if they spot errors — but only till May 11, 11:59 you're planning to raise a challenge, you'll need to pay a non-refundable fee of Rs 500 per question. Payment can be made via net banking, debit card, credit card or UPI. Once submitted, the WBJEEB's review will be final, and no further appeals will be after reviewing all the objections will the board release the final answer key. WBJEE 2025 scores and ranks will be calculated based solely on this final version. The entrance exam was conducted in two shifts -- morning (11 am to 1 pm) and afternoon (2 pm to 4 pm). Thousands of engineering aspirants appeared for the state-level TO CHECK WBJEE 2025 ANSWER KEYHere's how you can access the WBJEE model answer key:Go to the official WBJEE website – on 'Model Answer Key – View and Challenge for WBJEE-2025'Enter your application number, password, and the security pinClick 'Sign in'View or download your answer keyIf needed, raise objections by selecting the questions and making the paymentDirect link to check WBJEE 2025 answer keyStudents can challenge multiple questions, but only in one session. No challenges will be considered if the payment isn't successful. After the review, the updated answer key will be final and binding.
Time of India
01-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
A good time to bump up our IPR regime
The US has retained India among the priority watch list of jurisdictions that it claims do not provide adequate safeguards to intellectual property. The Indian response has, on earlier occasions, highlighted that its IPR regime is compliant with WTO rules. This standoff must end. The two countries are negotiating an agreement to rebalance their trade, and the obvious way forward would be for India to improve market access to US exports. The primary concern of negotiators is to bring about a reciprocity in tariffs to trim India's trade surplus with the US. Attention will also have to be paid to non-tariff barriers to trade, among which US misgivings about India's IPR regime are serious enough. Since New Delhi has chosen not to confront Washington over Donald Trump's threatened reciprocal tariffs, it may not be able to defend its IPR protection record as vociferously as it did earlier.A new wave of American imports into India is likely to be led by energy and arms. These do not run into the thicket of IPR accusations and rebuttals. However, technology, pharmaceuticals and entertainment constitute politically sensitive bilateral trade in quest of a common ground on IPR. American companies now constitute a sizeable section of IP protection-seekers in India, and engagement between the two governments over harmonising rules is not progressing fast enough. Compliance burden and ineffective enforcement are among major concerns the US has shared with trade war presents India an opportunity to fast-track its plans to create a manufacturing export base in the country. US companies seeking to diversify their supply chains from China need to be convinced about India's intent to scale up IPR protection. It is a key input for investment decisions by American companies, and should not be allowed to become a binding constraint. It may be time for India to calibrate its IPR regime against best-in-class as part of ease of doing business in the country. India, after all, is enthusiastic about being a bigger part of the world.
The Intercept
29-04-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
Democrats Had a Shot at Protecting Journalists From Trump. They Blew It.
Attorney General Pam Bondi distributed plans inside the Justice Department last week to scrap rules protecting journalists and their sources from surveillance and subpoenas over unflattering coverage and leaks. Bondi's memo leaked to the press immediately. 'This Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump's policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people,' reads the memo, citing recent leaks to the New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters as examples of the kind of reporting that would no longer be tolerated. 'I have concluded that it is necessary to rescind [former attorney general] Merrick Garland's policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks.' Eliminating these rules is the latest signal of a looming threat to reporters, who could face subpoenas and search warrants for daring to publish information that President Donald Trump would prefer kept secret. Journalists who resist legal demands to disclose their sources could face fines or even jail time. But it didn't have to be this way. Long before Trump was reelected on promises to punish disfavored reporters and outlets, free press advocates warned that the rescinded Justice Department rules were an inadequate shield. The Biden DOJ last revised the rules in 2022 in light of revelations about the first Trump administration's spying on journalists to smoke out leakers. Along the way, even as it offered its own leaks to friendly outlets, the first Trump DOJ routinely ignored prior versions of the rules, which are not enforceable in court. Last year, Senate Democrats had a clear opportunity to make basic protections for journalists a matter of binding federal law, rather than mere policy that could be undone with a vendetta-laced memo. Following years of debate over the proper scope of a federal shield law for reporters, the PRESS Act unanimously passed the House of Representatives and had a bipartisan roster of Senate sponsors, including Republican Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. Then Democratic leaders blew it. For months, they let the PRESS Act sit in the Senate Judiciary committee without a hearing, even though that committee's chair, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was the bill's co-sponsor. After the election, Trump demanded that Republicans kill the bill. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., swore the PRESS Act was a top priority for his last weeks as Senate majority leader. But neither he nor Durbin put any apparent effort into moving the bill forward, either on its own or as part of must-pass legislation like the defense budget. They offered statements of reassurance and support for the press, but no action. In mid-December, with time running out, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the PRESS Act's lead sponsor, tried to advance it himself, bringing the bill to the Senate floor on a motion to enact it by unanimous consent. A single Republican, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, blocked it with a grandstanding speech about the evils of leaks and 'America-hating and fame-hungry journalists,' as he'd done with prior versions of the PRESS Act. 'Everyone predicted this would happen in a second Trump administration, yet politicians in a position to prevent it prioritized empty rhetoric over putting up a meaningful fight.' Despite the predictable opposition, Senate Democrats had no strategic plan to counter it — other than a speech by Schumer — and the PRESS Act died at the end of the session. Durbin's office blamed the PRESS Act's failure on Cotton's obstruction but did not answer why Durbin allowed the bill to stall in his committee. Durbin recently announced that he is retiring after more than four decades in Congress. Schumer's office did not respond to The Intercept's questions. 'Every Democrat who put the PRESS Act on the back burner when they had the opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill codifying journalist-source confidentiality should be ashamed,' said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, in a statement after Bondi's memo came out. 'Everyone predicted this would happen in a second Trump administration, yet politicians in a position to prevent it prioritized empty rhetoric over putting up a meaningful fight.' Barely three months in, the second Trump DOJ has already launched multiple investigations into reporters' sources for embarrassing stories. In March, Bondi's deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, announced a criminal inquiry over the leak of classified information to the Times about Tren de Aragua that contradicted many of the White House's basic claims about the Venezuelan gang. Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that she had referred two leaks of classified information to DOJ for criminal investigation, including a 'recent illegal leak to the Washington Post.' Earlier that day, the Post reported new details about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's use of the Signal app. Gabbard said a third leak referral was 'on its way.' Multiple agencies are forcing federal employees under suspicion of leaking to take polygraph tests, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Hegseth, who is obsessed with finding out who's leaking details of his own terrible security practices, has also threatened to use lie detectors. What procedural protections will remain for journalists as Bondi and her deputies prosecute these investigations is still unknown. Her memo was clear that the Biden-era rules were rescinded but light on details as to what might take their place. The memo referred to recent updates in the DOJ's manual and federal regulations, but updated language has not yet been published and the DOJ did not respond to The Intercept's request for copies. Where the prior rules barred subpoenas against reporters except under narrow circumstances, Bondi's memo emphasized the lack of clear legal protection for journalists against such subpoenas under Supreme Court precedent. Trump 'can and almost certainly will abuse the legal system to investigate and prosecute his critics and the journalists they talk to,' Stern said in his statement. Such abuses can take many forms, including using subpoenas to obtain a reporter's phone and email records, which the first Trump DOJ did for at least eight reporters at three national outlets: the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times. The Obama administration tried to force former New York Times reporter James Risen, who later joined The Intercept, to testify about his sources, but eventually dropped the effort. According to Bondi's memo, a subpoena for a reporter's testimony, notes, or correspondence should be 'an extraordinary measure to be deployed as a last resort,' narrowly drawn, and subject to 'enhanced approval and advance-notice procedures,' which Bondi did not spell out. Any arrests of reporters would be subject to her personal go-ahead, as would requests to interrogate journalists. 'Trump is laying the groundwork to lock up reporters who don't rat out their sources who expose crimes by his administration,' Wyden, the PRESS Act's lead Senate sponsor, wrote on Bluesky after the Bondi memo came out. 'I have a bipartisan bill that would make these protections ironclad. It passed the House unanimously (twice) and it was never taken up in the Senate.'
