DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 3994

Cassie v Diddy; Learning About Out Of Court Settlement

By
Stanley Alieke
-
0

The news that Casandra Elizabeth Ventura Aka Cassie was taking her ex-partner, Sean “P Diddy” Combs to court over the allegation of sexual abuse was the highlight of this week. Due to the celebrity status of the persons involved it appeared that the whole world was/is interested in the case to see and know what comes of it but to the utmost dismay of folks we got another news yesterday that the parties involved have settled out of court and will no longer be dragging themselves to both the traditional court and before the court of public opinion. 

Someone reached out to me to ask me about the possibility of withdrawing a matter that had already been filed from the court for the parties involved to go and settle the matter amongst themselves. This is very much possible and it is well acknowledged by our laws even in Nigeria; it is called “out-of-court settlement” and it is sometimes even advised by the court that the parties before the court should consider this method. 

Out-of-Court-Settlement is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) whereby a matter that has been filed in court is put on hold by the court and time is given to the parties for them to go and negotiate amongst themselves and arrive at a settlement. The parties involved make this request to the court to pend the matter for them to go and explore the avenue of settling amongst themselves and for them to come back later to update the court within a fixed time if they have agreed on a settlement or if they have not; if they have arrived at a settlement, they will have to file another document known as notice/ terms settlement in the court where the matter is pending thereby adopting the terms of settlement in court for the terms to officially become the decision of the court and for the matter to come to an end but if they were unable to arrive at a settlement amongst themselves they will inform the court that they were unable to arrive at a settlement, therefore, the matter should proceed in the court.

Once the terms of the settlement are signed by the parties involved, it becomes binding to everyone and it becomes officially binding when the court has adopted the terms of settlement as its judgment and no party is allowed to renege from the agreed terms of settlement. 

This settlement out-of-court method of ADR is oftentimes utilized by big companies that are open for share subscription from the general public. Due to the well-known fact that lawsuits and scandals affect stock performance in the stock exchange market, most companies when involved in lawsuits instead of rolling the dice to see the possible outcome from the court would rather quickly hush the matter and settle the matter out of court to make the whole thing go away as quickly as possible. 

I (personally) have utilized this avenue in some of my cases. We utilized it last year when I represented Sabinus (Mr Funny) as his lawyer and we had to sue a big corporation for trademark infringement; the company had to reach out to us through their lawyers and ask us that they do not want the matter to proceed in court since it was clear that they did infringe on our trademark; they requested for out of court settlement and we tabled before them our demands; once our demands were met and we reached a compromise and we signed the terms of settlement and filed same in court notifying the court that we have settled the matter amongst ourselves and therefore will not be proceeding with the suit any longer; the court adopted the terms of settlement we filed as it judgment and we put the matter to rest. (Some information about the case is online, you can read it up there). 

Settlement out of court is well recognized and it is always advisable that conflicting parties should explore it unless the matter is a matter that the court must sit on like divorce proceedings and some criminal prosecutions. 

The Path to Green Tech Around the World

By
Samuel Ajiboyede
-
0

In recent times, the concept of Green Tech has gained some prominence. This is more so in countries trying to establish their reputation as an excellent place to start a tech business. The idea of Green Tech stems from the sense of responsibility that as the world becomes increasingly reliant on technology; we must begin to consider the industry’s environmental impact on our environment.

While it is fantastic to harp on the need for tech skills, talents, funding, and mentoring networks that will drive the advancement of the industry, we must begin to ask how the advancement of this industry may negatively or positively affect our environment and our health. That is the whole idea of green tech – tech that is human and nature-friendly.

So, how can tech contribute to a more sustainable future? or at least not stand in the way of a more sustainable future?

Defining what to do with E-Waste and Critical Minerals

Electronic waste, commonly known as e-waste, is a growing concern in the tech industry. You discard your old gadgets – phones, laptops, PCs, and other accessories – without concern about where it ends up. With the rapid turnover of devices and gadgets, a significant amount of electronic waste ends up in landfills, releasing harmful toxins and contributing to environmental degradation.

If we want to go the path of green tech, we must prioritize reducing e-waste through responsible disposal and recycling programs.

Moreover, the extraction and use of critical minerals in tech devices have far-reaching ecological consequences. These minerals are, more often than not, sourced through environmentally destructive practices, leading to deforestation, habitat destruction, and water pollution.

To mitigate these issues, a shift towards sustainable sourcing of critical minerals used in the tech industry is essential. This involves exploring alternatives, investing in recycling technologies, and reusing these minerals whenever possible. By adopting these strategies, the tech industry can significantly reduce its environmental footprint.

Devising A Strategy to Recycle and Reuse Raw Materials and Products

One effective approach to greening the tech industry is implementing a comprehensive strategy for recycling and reusing raw materials and products. If tech companies are charged to develop such a strategy internally, we would be one step closer to a green economy.

The “circular economy” model is gaining traction, emphasizing the importance of extending the life cycle of tech products. This involves designing devices for easy disassembling and recycling, reducing waste, and conserving resources.

For instance, in the UK, where I am, the government could collaborate with tech companies to establish robust recycling and refurbishing programs. One of the many ways to do this is to offer incentives to both manufacturers and consumers for recycling and reusing devices. Such a move can significantly reduce its environmental impact and promote a sustainable tech ecosystem in the UK. Of course, this can be modified and adapted in other countries, too, based on their peculiar features.

Reducing Dependence on Imports

The UK’s reliance on importing many tech components and devices contributes to its carbon footprint through transportation emissions. To make tech greener, the UK must strengthen its domestic tech manufacturing capabilities. This not only reduces the environmental impact associated with shipping but also bolsters the country’s economic resilience.

The government can incentivize domestic tech manufacturing by providing tax breaks grants, and supporting research and development initiatives. By fostering a robust tech manufacturing sector, the UK can reduce import dependence and enhance its tech sustainability efforts.

Digitizing the Grid to Reduce Costs

The energy grid plays a critical role in powering the tech industry. If a country can successfully digitize the grid, things become more efficient, and overall, it can also help reduce the cost of achieving net-zero emissions. With a smarter, more interconnected grid, energy can be distributed more efficiently, reducing waste and lowering carbon emissions.

The UK, like many other nations, has set ambitious targets for achieving net-zero emissions. According to a 2021 study, digitizing the grid could save the UK up to £16.7 billion annually on its journey to net zero. This cost reduction can be channeled into further green initiatives and technology development.

And more…

A lot can be done in alignment with the Green Tech initiative, but first, there needs to be a will to move in this direction. Biodiversity reporting is also an emerging field where technology can play a pivotal role. As global awareness of the importance of biodiversity grows, governments and corporations are under increasing pressure to measure and report their impacts on nature. The UK can secure a first-mover advantage in biodiversity reporting by developing innovative tech solutions.

The responsibility does not fall solely on the tech industry. Governments, regulatory bodies, and consumers all play a vital role in driving change. Investing in research and development for biodiversity monitoring technologies, the UK can become a global leader in this vital area. There is big room for collaboration between the government, tech companies, researchers, and environmental organizations

But it is urgent and necessary that we start now to pave the way for a more sustainable and prosperous future for the UK and the world.

US SEC Offers Guidelines To Exchanges On Spot Bitcoin ETFs

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has given some guidance to exchanges that want to list spot Bitcoin ETFs, according to Bloomberg’s ETF analyst Eric Balchunas. In a tweet on Friday, Balchunas said that the SEC advised the exchanges to do cash creates for these products, which means that the ETFs would buy Bitcoin directly from the market instead of using a third-party custodian. Balchunas also said that the SEC asked the exchanges to file amendments in the next couple of weeks, indicating that the regulator is moving closer to approving spot Bitcoin ETFs.

ETFs, or exchange-traded funds, are investment vehicles that track the performance of a basket of securities, such as stocks, bonds, commodities, or currencies. ETFs are traded on stock exchanges, just like individual stocks, and offer investors exposure to a diversified portfolio of assets with low fees and high liquidity.

This is a significant development for the crypto industry, as spot Bitcoin ETFs would allow investors to gain exposure to the actual price of Bitcoin, rather than its futures contracts. Futures-based Bitcoin ETFs, such as ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITO) and Valkyrie Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BTF), have already launched in the U.S., but they have some drawbacks, such as higher fees, tracking errors, and rollover risks. Spot Bitcoin ETFs, on the other hand, would track the spot price of Bitcoin more accurately and efficiently, and potentially attract more institutional and retail demand.

However, spot Bitcoin ETFs are not without challenges either. The SEC has been reluctant to approve them due to concerns about market manipulation, fraud, custody, and liquidity in the crypto space. The SEC has also expressed doubts about whether Bitcoin is sufficiently decentralized and whether its price discovery is reliable. The SEC’s guidance to do cash creates for spot Bitcoin ETFs suggests that the regulator is trying to address some of these issues by ensuring that the ETFs have a direct connection to the underlying asset and do not rely on intermediaries.

The SEC’s guidance also implies that the regulator is not opposed to spot Bitcoin ETFs in principle, but rather wants to see more safeguards and transparency in their design and operation. This is consistent with the recent remarks by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, who said that he is open to considering spot Bitcoin ETFs if they meet the standards of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which governs mutual funds and ETFs. Gensler also said that he prefers that spot Bitcoin ETFs trade on exchanges that are registered with the SEC, rather than on platforms that are exempt from regulation.

One of the most popular types of ETFs are those that track the performance of a specific market index, such as the S&P 500, the Nasdaq 100, or the MSCI Emerging Markets. These are known as index ETFs, and they aim to replicate the returns of the underlying index by holding the same securities in the same proportions.

However, not all indexes are easy to replicate. Some indexes are composed of hundreds or thousands of securities, some of which may be illiquid, inaccessible, or subject to regulatory restrictions. For example, the MSCI China An Index includes over 4000 stocks listed on mainland China’s stock exchanges, which are subject to foreign ownership limits and capital controls. To overcome these challenges, some ETF providers use a technique called sampling, which involves selecting a representative subset of securities from the index that can capture its risk and return characteristics.

Another technique that some ETF providers use is called synthetic replication, which involves entering into a swap agreement with a counterparty, usually a bank or a broker-dealer, that agrees to pay the ETF the return of the index in exchange for a fee. The ETF does not hold any securities from the index, but instead holds a collateral basket of other securities that may or may not be related to the index. The swap agreement transfers the risk and return of the index from the counterparty to the ETF, without requiring the ETF to actually own the index securities.

Synthetic replication has some advantages over physical replication, such as lower tracking error, lower costs, and access to otherwise unavailable markets. However, it also introduces some risks, such as counterparty risk, collateral risk, and regulatory risk. Counterparty risk is the risk that the swap provider defaults on its obligation to pay the ETF the index return. Collateral risk is the risk that the collateral basket held by the ETF loses value or becomes illiquid. Regulatory risk is the risk that the rules governing synthetic ETFs change or become more restrictive.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in launching spot ETFs, which are ETFs that track the spot price of commodities or currencies, rather than futures contracts or other derivatives. Spot ETFs aim to provide investors with a more direct and transparent exposure to the underlying asset, without the complexities and costs associated with futures trading, such as rollover, contango, backwardation, margin requirements, and leverage.

However, spot ETFs also face some challenges in obtaining regulatory approval and attracting investor demand. One of the main challenges is that spot ETFs may be considered collective investment schemes (CIS), rather than securities, under some jurisdictions.

CIS are subject to different and stricter regulations than securities, such as higher capital requirements, more disclosure obligations, and more investor protection measures. For example, in Hong Kong, spot ETFs are classified as CIS and require authorization from the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), which imposes stringent criteria on their structure, operation, and risk management.

Another challenge is that spot ETFs may have difficulty in providing sufficient liquidity and efficiency for investors. Unlike futures contracts, which are standardized and traded on centralized exchanges with clearing houses and market makers, spot commodities and currencies are traded on decentralized and fragmented markets with varying degrees of liquidity and transparency.

Spot ETFs may rely on third-party providers to facilitate their creation and redemption processes, which may involve higher costs and operational risks. Spot ETFs may also face competition from other investment products that offer similar or better exposure to spot prices, such as exchange-traded notes (ETNs), exchange-traded commodities (ETCs), or physically backed ETFs.

The crypto industry and investors are eagerly awaiting the SEC’s decision on spot Bitcoin ETFs, which could come as soon as next month. Several applications are pending before the regulator, including those from VanEck, WisdomTree, NYDIG, Valkyrie, and Bitwise. If approved, spot Bitcoin ETFs could boost the adoption and legitimacy of Bitcoin and pave the way for more crypto-related products in the U.S. market.

George Weah Scores A Memorable GOAL in Liberia

By
Ndubuisi Ekekwe
-
0

Goalkeepers hated him. Defenders despised him. His wizardry was unbounded. He was a legend in a land where you needed to be twice better to get half praise. George Weah was one of his generation’s finest footballers. He scored many goals – beautiful ones. I know that because as Sausa, ex-Secondary Technical Ovim’s football commentator and strategist with zero football skill, I do understand games, and Weah was peerless at his prime!

In 2019, I wrote that “King George has failed to score for Liberia recently. The football-turned-politician is the President of Liberia. His government has been accused of being clueless, political ineptitude and even corruption. In short, he has scored many own-goals – poverty and youth unemployment are up.”

But like the legendary George Weah known for his mercurial football vision and dribbling skills, he has scored a memorable GOAL in Liberia: he conceded the free and fair presidential election which he lost. Mr. Weah, that is the goal of the World Cup of National Progress. #Respect!

Liberia President George Weah on Friday conceded election defeat to opposition leader Joseph Boakai after a tight race, ending a presidency marred by graft allegations but helping to ensure a smooth transition of power in the once volatile African nation.

Boakai, 78, a former vice president who lost to Weah in the 2017 election, led with 50.9% of the vote over Weah’s 49.1%, with nearly all the votes counted, the country’s elections commission said on Friday.

The Impact of the Credit Rating Downgrade on Borrowing Costs

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

A credit rating is an assessment of the creditworthiness of a borrower, such as a government, a corporation, or an individual. It reflects the likelihood that the borrower will repay its debt obligations on time and in full. Credit ratings are assigned by independent agencies, such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch, based on various factors, such as the borrower’s financial strength, economic outlook, political stability, and debt burden.

A credit rating downgrade is a negative change in the credit rating of a borrower, indicating that the borrower’s credit risk has increased. A downgrade can have significant implications for the borrower’s borrowing costs, as well as its access to capital markets. In this blog post, we will discuss how a credit rating downgrade affects the borrowing costs of different types of borrowers, and what strategies they can adopt to mitigate the impact.

Borrowing costs refer to the interest rate or yield that a borrower has to pay to borrow money from lenders or investors. Borrowing costs depend on various factors, such as the supply and demand of credit, the inflation expectations, the monetary policy, and the credit risk premium.

The credit risk premium is the additional return that lenders or investors require to lend or invest in a risky borrower, compared to a risk-free borrower. The credit risk premium is influenced by the credit rating of the borrower, as well as other market conditions.

A credit rating downgrade increases the credit risk premium of the borrower, which in turn increases its borrowing costs. The magnitude of the increase depends on several factors, such as the severity of the downgrade, the initial credit rating level, the type of debt instrument, and the market sentiment. Generally speaking, the lower the initial credit rating level, the higher the sensitivity to a downgrade.

For example, a downgrade from AAA to AA+ may have a smaller impact than a downgrade from BBB- to BB+, which crosses the threshold from investment grade to speculative grade. Similarly, the longer the maturity of the debt instrument, the higher the sensitivity to a downgrade. For example, a downgrade may have a larger impact on a 10-year bond than on a 3-month bill.

The impact of a credit rating downgrade also varies across different types of borrowers. For sovereign borrowers, such as governments, a downgrade can increase their borrowing costs both domestically and internationally. A higher borrowing cost can worsen their fiscal position and debt sustainability and may trigger further downgrades or even default.

A sovereign downgrade can also have spillover effects on other borrowers within the same country, such as banks, corporations, and households, as they may face higher borrowing costs due to their perceived linkage with the sovereign risk. For example, during the European debt crisis in 2010-2012, several countries in the eurozone experienced sovereign downgrades that led to higher borrowing costs for their banks and corporations.

For corporate borrowers, such as companies, a downgrade can increase their borrowing costs both from banks and from bond markets. A higher borrowing cost can reduce their profitability and cash flow, and may affect their ability to invest, grow, or repay their debts.

A corporate downgrade can also have spillover effects on other borrowers within the same industry or sector, as they may face higher borrowing costs due to their perceived correlation with the industry or sector risk. For example, during the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, several financial institutions experienced corporate downgrades that led to higher borrowing costs for other financial institutions.

For individual borrowers, such as consumers or households, a downgrade can increase their borrowing costs both from banks and from non-bank lenders. A higher borrowing cost can reduce their disposable income and consumption spending and may affect their ability to service their mortgages or other debts.

An individual downgrade can also have spillover effects on other borrowers within the same community or region, as they may face higher borrowing costs due to their perceived association with the community or region risk. For example, during the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007-2008, several homeowners experienced individual downgrades that led to higher borrowing costs for other homeowners.

The adoption and legitimacy of Bitcoin

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that operates without the need for a central authority or intermediary. It was created in 2009 by an anonymous person or group using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin uses a peer-to-peer network to verify transactions and secure the network from malicious attacks. Bitcoin transactions are recorded in a public ledger called the blockchain, which ensures transparency and accountability.

Bitcoin has been gaining popularity and acceptance as a form of payment and investment in recent years. According to CoinMarketCap, as of November 18, 2023, there are over 21 million bitcoins in circulation, with a market capitalization of over $1.2 trillion. Bitcoin is accepted by thousands of merchants and service providers worldwide, including major companies like Microsoft, PayPal, Starbucks, and Tesla. Bitcoin is also recognized as a legal tender in some countries, such as El Salvador, Japan, and Switzerland.

One of the main advantages of Bitcoin is that it is immune to inflation and debt. Unlike fiat currencies, which are controlled by governments and central banks, Bitcoin has a fixed supply of 21 million units that will ever be created. This means that no one can manipulate the value of Bitcoin by printing more money or creating artificial scarcity. Bitcoin also has a transparent and predictable issuance rate, which is determined by an algorithm and decreases over time until the final bitcoin is mined around the year 2140.

Bitcoin can also help people escape from debt and financial repression. Many countries around the world suffer from high levels of debt, either public or private, that are unsustainable and burden future generations. Some governments resort to measures such as currency devaluation, capital controls, bailouts, or confiscation of assets to deal with their debt problems, but these often harm the ordinary citizens and erode their purchasing power and savings.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, offers a way for people to store and transfer value that is independent of any government or institution, and that cannot be seized or censored. Bitcoin users can also benefit from lower transaction fees, faster settlement times, and greater financial inclusion than traditional payment systems.

Therefore, Bitcoin can be seen as a legitimate alternative to fiat currencies, especially in times of economic turmoil and uncertainty. Bitcoin offers a sound and scarce form of money that is resistant to inflation and debt, and that empowers individuals to control their own finances. Bitcoin also has the potential to foster innovation and competition in the global financial system, and to challenge the status quo of centralization and corruption.

 

1...3,9933,9943,995...8,597Page 3,994 of 8,597

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy