San Francisco Bay Area people and organizations in solidarity with Gaza announced “a massive and powerful ‘Boat Blockade’ for Aug. 16 to block the Israeli Zim ship from unloading in Oakland!”Organizers have formed a huge coalition led by the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, including upwards of 60 organizations. The demonstrators plan to meet at 5 a.m. at the West Oakland Bay Area Rapid Transit station. They will then march and carpool “to the Port of Oakland to show up for Palestine and stand down Israeli apartheid!” (From an announcement by the International Action Center)The leaflet calling for this action says the following: “Palestine is calling us to action! Palestinian laborers [and the] Palestinian General Federation Trade Union have called on workers around the world to refuse to handle Israeli goods. We will be answering this call by organizing community pickets at the Port of Oakland, asking the longshoremen to honor this request and to stand with the people of Palestine as they have done in the past.“During apartheid in South Africa, ILWU workers made history when they refused to unload South African cargo in San Francisco in 1984. … In 2010, … we built on ILWU’s history and successfully blocked the Israeli Zim ship from being unloaded at the Port of Oakland.”Symbolic demonstrations are planned in other cities around the country in solidarity with the action in Oakland.Already, on the morning of Aug. 13, people in the Long Beach, Calif., area demonstrated outside the Long Beach Harbor Pier A terminal, protesting the arrival of a ship owned by the Israeli Zim American Integrated Shipping Services Company.Some protesters carried Palestinian flags. Others carried signs protesting Israeli apartheid and the massacres in Gaza. Some passed out flyers in English and Spanish to port truck drivers and ILWU members. The flyer promoted a boycott of Zim specifically and Israeli goods generally, with statements by the International Transport Workers Federation, the South African Metal Workers Union and the International Dockworkers Council condemning Israeli military actions and occupation.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Ready Set Go, when Planting Window OpensDan ritterA warm, dry weekend helped fields dry and perhaps even some planting got done. The week also starts out drier before more rain moves into Indiana late Tuesday night. Soil temperatures in some areas are still below 50 degrees, but Dan Ritter with Brodbeck Seeds says that should not hold you back form planting, “The calendar says it is planting time so, if your soil is dry and workable, then I would not worry too much about the soil temperature.” He said soil conditions should be a major concern, “If soil is fit, then let’s go and put some seed in the ground.”Ritter said some areas are dry while other areas of the state are still too wet. He says that growers should not panic and that no changes are needed yet in your cropping plans, “Stay with what has made you successful in the past. With the equipment we have, if we can get 12 to 14 good days, we can get most of this crop in the ground.”Ritter does say the cool, wet conditions will likely lead to a greater chance of seedling blight this year, “That is why I recommend a seed treatment on soybeans.” He added a fungicide seed treatment is standard on Brodbeck seed corn.Brodbeck Seeds will be presenting agronomy updates throughout the growing season, here on Hoosier Ag Today. Home Indiana Agriculture News Ready Set Go, when Planting Window Opens By Gary Truitt – Apr 22, 2018 Ready Set Go, when Planting Window Opens Facebook Twitter Previous articleCommentary: Take a Bold Step in Uncertain TimesNext articleIndiana Farm Show Lives Again, Hoosier Ag Today and Farm World Acquire long-running Hoosier Farm Tradition Gary Truitt Facebook Twitter SHARE SHARE
Local NewsBusiness Facebook Veritas Selects Trilio for New Product Offering Pinterest TAGS WhatsApp WhatsApp Pinterest Facebook By Digital AIM Web Support – February 2, 2021 Twitter Twitter Previous articleOIF Validates Maturity of Transport SDN APIs in 2020 Multi-VendorNext articleGlobal Supercomputer Market- Atos SE, Dawning Information Industry Co. Ltd., Dell Technologies Inc., Among Others to Contribute to the Market Growth | Technavio Digital AIM Web Support
Top StoriesTN Governor Will Decide Perarivalan’s Pardon Within A Week, Supreme Court Told LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK22 Jan 2021 7:09 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court on Friday recorded the submission of the Central Government that the application filed by AG Perarivalan, convict in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, will be considered within a week.The court passed a modified order on Friday as the order passed yesterday(January 21) had led to certain confusions. The Solicitor General had submitted yesterday that the Governor will take…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Friday recorded the submission of the Central Government that the application filed by AG Perarivalan, convict in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, will be considered within a week.The court passed a modified order on Friday as the order passed yesterday(January 21) had led to certain confusions. The Solicitor General had submitted yesterday that the Governor will take a decision within 3-4 days. However, when the order was published in the evening, there was a variance. The order stated that the SG had submitted that the Governor will decide within 4 weeks. On account of this confusion, the matter was mentioned today for clarification. The Solicitor General clarified that the Governor will decide within a week. Accordingly, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer and Indu Malhotra passed the following order :”The learned Solicitor General submitted that the application filed by the Petitioner under Article 161 of theConstitution of India shall be considered within a period of oneweek from today. List this matter after two weeks”.The writ petition was filed by Perarivalan, who was in death row for over two decades, aggrieved with the inaction of the Governor to decide on the recommendation made by the Tamil Nadu government in September 2018 to grant him pardon. The bench had earlier expressed unhappiness over the fact that the recommendation made by the Tamil Nadu state government for the remission of the sentence had been pending before the Governor for over two years.In 2014, the Supreme Court had commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment on account of long pendency of his mercy plea.Click here to read/download the orderNext Story
Top StoriesInsolvency Process Maintainable Against Corporate Guarantor Even If Principal Borrower Is Not A ‘Corporate Person’ : Supreme Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK26 March 2021 7:06 AMShare This – x’In law, the status of the guarantor, who is a corporate person, metamorphoses into corporate debtor, the moment principal borrower (regardless of not being a corporate person) commits default in payment of debt which had become due and payable”The Supreme Court has held that the principal borrower need not be a “corporate person” for insolvency process to be initiated against a company which stood as its guarantor.”Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be initiated by a financial creditor against a corporate person in respect of guarantee to the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has held that the principal borrower need not be a “corporate person” for insolvency process to be initiated against a company which stood as its guarantor.”Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can be initiated by a financial creditor against a corporate person in respect of guarantee to the loan amount secured by person not being a corporate person, in case of default in payment of such a debt”, the Court held.Upon default committed by the principal borrower, the liability of the company (corporate person), being the guarantor, instantly triggers the right of the financial creditor to proceed against the corporate person (being a corporate debtor), the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari observed.In this case, the Union bank of India extended credit facility to M/s. Mahaveer Construction, a proprietary firm. A company named M/s. Surana Metals Limited(the corporate debtor in the case) offered guarantee to the two loan accounts of the Principal Borrower. The stated loan accounts were declared NPA on 30.1.2010. The Bank issued notice to Principal Borrower, as well as the guarantor. Eventually, the Financial Creditor filed an application under Section 7 of the Code on 13.2.2019 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceeding against the Corporate Debtor, before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata. Surana Metals raised objection against maintainability of this application contending that as the principal borrower is not a corporate person, the financial creditor could not have invoked remedy under Section 7 of the Code against the corporate person who had merely offered guarantee for such loan account. The NCLT held that the Corporate Debtor, being co-extensively liable to repay the debt of the Principal Borrower and having failed to do so despite the recall notice, became Corporate Debtor and thus liable to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Code. As regards the second objection, the Adjudicating Authority found that the Principal Borrower, as also, the Corporate Debtor had admitted and acknowledged the debt time and again, lastly on 8.12.2018 and thus the application filed on 13.2.2019 was within limitation. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upheld this order of NCLT.Challenging the orders of NCLT/NCLAT, appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.In appeal before the Apex Court, these two issues were raised: (i) Whether an action under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20161 can be initiated by the financial creditor (Bank) against a corporate person (being a corporate debtor) concerning guarantee offered by it in respect of a loan account of the principal borrower, who had committed default and is not a “corporate person” within the meaning of the Code? (ii) Whether an application under Section 7 of the Code filed after three years from the date of declaration of the loan account as Non performing Asset , being the date of default, is not barred by limitation?Answering the first issue against the company, the bench observed that the principal borrower may or may not be a corporate person, but if a corporate person extends guarantee for the loan transaction concerning a principal borrower not being a corporate person, it would still be covered within the meaning of expression “corporate debtor” in Section 3(8) of the Code.Indubitably, a right or cause of action would enure to the lender (financial creditor) to proceed against the principal borrower, as well as the guarantor in equal measure in case they commit default in repayment of the amount of debt acting jointly and severally. It would still be a case of default committed by the guarantor itself, if and when the principal borrower fails to discharge his obligation in respect of amount of debt. For, the obligation of the guarantor is coextensive and coterminous with that of the principal borrower to defray the debt, as predicated in Section 128 of the Contract Act. As a consequence of such default, the status of the guarantor metamorphoses into a debtor or a corporate debtor if it happens to be a corporate person, within the meaning of Section 3(8) of the Code. For, as aforesaid, expression “default” has also been defined in Section 3(12) of the Code to mean nonpayment of debt when whole or any part or instalment of the amount of debt has become due or payable and is not paid by the debtor or the corporate debtor, as the case may be.Thus understood, it is not possible to countenance the argument of the appellant that as the principal borrower is not a corporate person, the financial creditor could not have invoked remedy under Section 7 of the Code against the corporate person who had merely offered guarantee for such loan account. That action can still proceed against the guarantor being a corporate debtor, consequent to the default committed by the principal borrower. There is no reason to limit the width of Section 7 of the Code despite law permitting initiation of CIRP against the corporate debtor, if and when default is committed by the principal borrower. For, the liability and obligation of the guarantor to pay the outstanding dues would get triggered coextensively.Referring to Section 5(5A) of the Code, which defines the expression “corporate guarantor” to mean a corporate person, who is the surety in a contract of guarantee to a Corporate debtor, the bench observed that the same cannot be interpreted to extricate the corporate person from the liability (of being a corporate debtor) arising on account of the guarantee given by it in respect of loan given to a person other than corporate person.”The liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the principal borrower. The remedy under Section 7 is not for recovery of the amount, but is for re-organisation and insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor who is not in a position to pay its debt and commits default in that regard. It is open to the corporate debtor to pay off the debt, which had become due and payable and is not paid by the principal borrower, to avoid the rigours of Chapter II of the Code in general and Section 7 in particular.In law, the status of the guarantor, who is a corporate person, metamorphoses into corporate debtor, the moment principal borrower (regardless of not being a corporate person) commits default in payment of debt which had become due and payable. Thus, action under Section 7 of the Code could be 23 legitimately invoked even against a (corporate) guarantor being a corporate debtor. The definition of “corporate guarantor” in Section 5(5A) of the Code needs to be so understood.”While dismissing the appeal, the court also rejected the contention regarding the maintainability of the application filed by the financial creditor under Section 7 of the Code on the ground of being barred by limitation. The court said that a fresh period of limitation is required to be computed from the date of acknowledgment of debt by the principal borrower from time to time and in particular the (corporate) guarantor/corporate debtor vide last communication dated 08.12.2018.Case: Laxmi Pat Surana vs. Union Bank Of India [CA 2734 OF 2020]Coram: Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna MurariCounsel: Adv Abhijit Sinha, Adv O.P. GaggarCitation: LL 2021 SC 186 Click here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Local authorities can take advantage of a two-month e-learning trial in ITor business skills for £300 courtesy of Jenison Interactive Training. Licencesfor the training would normally cost £5,000 per annum but Jenison has alsodeveloped two new e-learning licences exclusively for local governmentorganisations which permit unlimited usage by staff. The IT skills licence provides full access to Jenison’s 23 e-learningcourses, which include step-by-step tutorials in Microsoft Office and theEuropean Computer Driving Licence. The business skills course covers HarvardManageMentor, a series of 33 online resources developed by Harvard BusinessSchool Publishing. The 20-user licences include free use of Jenison’s Checkpoint LearningManagement System, allowing training administrators to monitor and trackperformance and usage. All courses can be accessed via an intranet. www.jenison.co.uk Local authorities can bag licences bargainOn 1 Apr 2003 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos.
Airborne geophysical surveys play a pivotal role in imaging subglacial geology and characterizing broad areas of the Antarctic liothsphere. Ground-based geophysics, coupled with airborne geophysics and geology, is essential to further elucidate crustal structure and tectonics. Recent Italian exploration projects have focused on three major tectonic elements over East Antarctica: i) The Transantarctic Mountains, ii) the Wilkes Subglacial Basin, and iii) the Early Palaeozoic terranes of northern Victoria Land. We review the main goals of four recent exploration projects performed between 1999-00 and the latest 2003-4 campaigns over this part of East Antarctica. Finally, we present our future collaborative effort (2005-06) aimed at providing further insight into the poorly known, yet highly controversial, Wilkes Subglacial Basin.
All-sky CCD observations of mesospheric gravity waves have been made from Halley Station Antarctica (75.5°S, 26.7°W) as part of a collaborative research program between British Antarctic Survey, U.K. and Utah State University, USA. A mesospheric bore event was observed in the nightglow emissions over a period of several hours on the 27th of May, 2001. Two dimensional S-Transform (ST) analysis is applied to the airglow images of this bore event. This local spectral technique allows one to calculate the wave parameters as a function of time and space. It is observed that the horizontal phase speed and wavelength decrease over time as the amplitude attenuates. Simultaneously with this wave event the background wind experiences a large acceleration in the direction of the wave propagation. Mesospheric bore theory calculations are used to estimate the bore duct depth and it is shown that as the wave packet evolves, the bore duct collapses (decreasing in its vertical extent). As the bore duct shrinks, the wave’s group velocity decelerates, the amplitude attenuates, and the wave dissipates.
Make sure your underwear fits and is “unobtrusive”, don’t appear “frumpy” or “tarty”, or mention politics, religion or sex at dinner – this is just some of the advice published in a new guide for graduate trainees.Graduates were told to avoid wearing “crumpled or stained” clothes, not to put salt on food before tasting it and only to pick your napkin off the floor if there is no butler to do it for you.The guide, compiled by the wife of the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds Metropolitan University, has raised eyebrows, with one academic describing it as “a broth of self-important snobbery”.