Connect with us

News

Supreme Court lets stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate Texas ban

Published

on

Supreme Court lets stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate Texas ban

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate the law in Texas, which has one of the country’s strictest abortion bans.

Without detailing their reasoning, the justices kept in place a lower court order that said hospitals cannot be required to provide pregnancy terminations that would violate Texas law.

The Biden administration had asked the justices to throw out the lower court order, arguing that hospitals have to perform abortions in emergency situations under federal law. The administration pointed to the Supreme Court’s action in a similar case from Idaho earlier this year in which the justices narrowly allowed emergency abortions to resume while a lawsuit continues.

The administration also cited a Texas Supreme Court ruling that said doctors do not have to wait until a woman’s life is in immediate danger to provide an abortion legally. The administration said it brings Texas in line with federal law and means the lower court ruling is not necessary.

Advertisement

Texas asked the justices to leave the order in place, saying the state Supreme Court ruling meant Texas law, unlike Idaho’s, does have an exception for the health of a pregnant patient and there’s no conflict between federal and state law.

Doctors have said the law remains dangerously vague after a medical board refused to specify exactly which conditions qualify for the exception.

There has been a spike in complaints that pregnant women in medical distress have been turned away from emergency rooms in Texas and elsewhere as hospitals grapple with whether standard care could violate strict laws against abortion.

Pregnancy terminations have long been part of medical treatment for patients with serious complications, as way to to prevent sepsis, organ failure and other major problems. But in Texas and other states with strict abortion bans, doctors and hospitals have said it is not clear whether those terminations could run afoul of abortion bans that carry the possibility of prison time.

Advertisement

The Texas case started after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, leading to abortion restrictions in many Republican-controlled states. The Biden administration issued guidance saying hospitals still needed to provide abortions in emergency situations under a health care law that requires most hospitals to treat any patients in medical distress.

Texas sued over that guidance, arguing that hospitals cannot be required to provide abortions that would violate its ban. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals sided with the state, ruling in January that the administration had overstepped its authority.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

News

How Liberal Blunders Handed the Right the Supreme Court

Published

on

How Liberal Blunders Handed the Right the Supreme Court

As the Supreme Court launches a new term, it remains dominated by a 6-3 super-majority that has ushered in one of the most conservative eras in the institution’s history. In recent years, the justices have overturned key precedents on abortion, gun rights, and the power of federal regulators while forging a groundbreaking path in areas spanning religious liberty, presidential immunity, and other fields that have damaged the Court’s reputation and instigated calls for reforms.

The lurch to the right is the culmination of a more than 50-year transformation. Most Americans are familiar with the latest chapters of that story. Senate Republicans, for example, used unprecedented tactics to prevent Democratic President Barack Obama from filling the Supreme Court seat of the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. They justified the move by claiming that a seat should not be filled in the final months of a presidential term. Four years later, however, they flipped positions and rushed the conservative Amy Coney Barrett through the confirmation process after liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died months before the end of Republican Donald Trump’s presidential term.

Yet, most Americans do not know that the seeds of this warfare over the Court were not planted by conservatives in recent years, but by liberals in the late 1960s. Through a combination of hubris, miscalculation, and poor timing, they squandered a majority that could have remained intact for decades to come, giving way to the conservative counter-revolution that continues to dramatically reshape American law. 

That hubris was on full display when Lyndon Johnson eyed the high court months after his landslide victory in 1964. Eager to extend the Warren Court’s liberal jurisprudence and fearful that his Great Society might suffer the fate of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives at the hands of conservative jurists, Johnson resolved to maintain the institution’s ideological bent.

Advertisement

Read More: A Mistake in the Early 1970s Still Haunts Supreme Court Ethics

To accomplish this task, he sought to do the impossible—remove a sitting justice to make room for his close friend and counselor, Abe Fortas. Fortas was a brilliant attorney renowned for winning the landmark case Gideon v. Wainright, which expanded the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel to state prosecutions.

In 1965, the news of Justice Arthur Goldberg’s frustration with the Court’s tepid pace, which couldn’t match the rush Goldberg had felt as a former union negotiator and Labor Secretary, gave Johnson an opening. Exploiting the justice’s patriotism and ego, he offered Goldberg the ambassadorship to the U.N., along with a promise that the justice would be his point man on Vietnam. To sweeten the offer, Johnson vowed to make Goldberg a “second secretary of state.” Though never intending to keep these promises, Johnson even dangled the prospect of adding the justice to his ticket in 1968 as a final inducement. Goldberg succumbed within days.

Johnson then coaxed Fortas, who preferred to maintain his lucrative private legal practice, into accepting the appointment. Having endured Johnson’s full-court press, Goldberg presciently told his clerks: “He’s going to wear him down.” To overcome Fortas’ repeated refusals, Johnson asked his friend to visit the White House and then sprung the news that they were headed to a press conference to announce Fortas’ appointment. “To the best of my knowledge… I never said yes” Fortas later proclaimed—but he found himself on the Court all the same.

Advertisement

Johnson’s next move was just as cunning. To dislodge Tom Clark, a center-right justice, Johnson appointed the justice’s son, Ramsey, to lead the Justice Department in 1967, knowing that the senior Clark would resign rather than risk a conflict of interest that could impede his son’s advancement.

At that point, Johnson’s reengineering of the Court looked like a masterclass in Machiavellian scheming. Though Goldberg and Fortas were ideologically comparable, replacing Clark with Thurgood Marshall created a 6-3 liberal bloc capable of perpetuating the Warren Court for years to come.

Yet, what might have been the next chapter in cementing the liberal dominance of the Court instead proved to be the beginning of its undoing. In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to retire because he was convinced that Richard Nixon would win the presidency. Warren “detested” his fellow Californian with an “abiding passion” and feared Nixon would dismantle the Warren Court’s revolutionary legacy.

Johnson ignored the plethora of names suggested to him, which included Texas Governor John Connally, Attorney General Clark, Goldberg, and others. Instead, he selected Fortas to be chief justice and Homer Thornberry, an old friend serving as a federal appeals court judge, for Fortas’ seat. In doing so, Johnson rejected Defense Secretary Clark Clifford’s suggestion of pairing Fortas with a moderate Republican to secure GOP support. “I don’t intend to put some damned Republican on the Court,” Johnson fired back at Clifford.

Advertisement

The choice of the Texan Thornberry was intended to appease conservative Southern Democrats—the Warren Court’s biggest critics. When an aide warned that Thornberry and Fortas would be ripe for charges of cronyism, the president mocked his calculations: “What political office did you ever get elected to?”

To secure the nominations, Johnson attained personal guarantees from the Senate’s two most powerful members, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, and Richard Russell, the long-time leader of the Southern Democrats. Backed by Johnson—the one time “Master of the Senate”—and having been easily confirmed in 1965, Fortas’ ascension seemed like a foregone conclusion.

To the surprise of the Washington establishment, however, a coalition led by a Republican odd couple—ardent segregationist Strom Thurmond, and Robert Griffin, a centrist from Michigan—shattered the well-established norms governing judicial appointments to upend the nominations.  

The rebels savvily allied themselves with the Southern Democrats to organize the first filibuster against a Court nominee. Initially, they galvanized the opposition with the then-novel argument that since it was an election year, the next president, not the “lame duck” Johnson, ought to name the new chief justice. 

Advertisement

Gaining momentum, their attacks grew more strident. Fortas’ foes labeled him a crony for serving as the president’s advisor, questioned his ethics by pointing to oversized payments for a teaching position, and welcomed social conservatives to tar him as a patron of criminals and pornographers.

Read More: How SCOTUS Gave Prosecutors Incredible Power Over Abortion Access

Thurmond’s histrionics reached their apogee when, screaming from the dais during Fortas’ confirmation hearings, he accused the nominee of inciting criminals to “commit rapes.” His most unorthodox exploit involved the airing of adult movies the Court had shielded from censors. The unprecedented spectacle mockingly named the “Fortas Film Festival” was the last straw that doomed the justice’s candidacy.

The failure exposed Johnson’s miscalculations. Contrary to what he had envisioned, Thornberry’s selection failed to pacify the Southern Democrats. And by picking Fortas rather than a centrist or someone not already sitting on the Court, Johnson unwittingly gave the Warren Court’s enemies a prime target.  

Advertisement

Even more surprisingly, for a president revered for bending the Senate to his will, he failed to rally the chamber’s liberals angered over his handling of the Vietnam War. The final blow came when his two long-time friends, Dirksen and Russell, abandoned Johnson, the latter in a pique over Ramsey Clark’s handling of a district court judgeship.   

After a May 1969 LIFE article exposed a short lived dubious financial arrangement between Fortas and a white-collar criminal, Warren pressured him into resigning to preserve the Court’s integrity. Upon Warren’s retirement a few weeks afterwards, the liberal hold over the institution was over after 30 years.

It would take more than two decades for conservatives to seize firm control of the Court and another three to reach today’s commanding super-majority. Along the way, Republicans suffered numerous setbacks, highlighted by Robert Bork’s botched nomination in 1987 and the liberal turn taken by Justices Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. The abrupt shift in the Court’s ideological make-up in 1969, however, allowed the right to lay the foundation for the long-term transformation of the judicial body into a conservative stronghold.

The demise of the Court’s liberal majority is littered with what-ifs. Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas had been on the Court for more than a quarter century by the mid-1960s (and Black was 80 years old). What if they had retired during Johnson’s presidency rather than serve until infirmity forced their resignations at moments when Republicans occupied the White House? 

What if Clark had acquiesced to Russell’s judicial pick, thereby keeping the head of the Southern Democrats in Fortas’ camp? What if Warren had retired earlier, when Johnson’s power was at its apex, or hadn’t driven Fortas from the Court for his ethical lapse? What if Johnson hadn’t duped Goldberg into resigning in 1965 or if he had tried to reinstall the former justice on the Court in 1968?

Advertisement

At the center of all of this was Johnson’s blundering. In his memoir, the former president admitted he “feared… a conservative Court.” Yet, in trying to prevent it, he instead helped foster the creation of the very thing he feared.

Michael Bobelian is a journalist who has written about the Supreme Court, legal affairs, and history for the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Forbes.com, and other publications. His most recent book is Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court.

Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Mel Stride to back James Cleverly in Conservative leadership race

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Former Conservative leadership candidate Mel Stride is set to throw his backing behind James Cleverly on Monday evening, in a boost to the ex-home secretary’s bid to replace Rishi Sunak, according to party figures.

The expected endorsement will come hours before Tory MPs vote on Tuesday to eliminate one of the four remaining contenders from the race. They will vote out another candidate on Wednesday, with Conservative members being balloted in a run-off between the final two names later this month. 

Advertisement

Cleverly came joint third with ex-security minister Tom Tugendhat in the second round of voting last month. That ballot saw former immigration minister Robert Jenrick in pole position with ex-business secretary Kemi Badenoch in second place. 

However, Cleverly picked up momentum during the party’s annual conference in Birmingham last week, after swerving any gaffes and giving a strong performance in his keynote speech. Jenrick and Badenoch saw their conference appearances overshadowed by controversial comments, which may have dented their appeal with colleagues and party members.

Stride, who was knocked out in the second-round ballot, was a staunch supporter of Sunak and is seen as a senior centrist Tory. The backing will be another welcome boost for Cleverly, but may cement in the minds of MPs and members the sense that he is a moderate Tory in a party that is feeling threatened by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Former home secretary Priti Patel, the leadership candidate who was knocked out of the race first, has so far declined to offer her public support to any of the remaining candidates. 

Advertisement

These have sought to project upward momentum for their campaigns with a series of high-profile endorsements in recent days. 

Badenoch won the backing of Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida at the weekend. The ex-US presidential hopeful said she would be an inspiration for conservatives “across the world”.

Earlier on Monday Andy Street, the former Tory mayor of the West Midlands, said Tugendhat best embodied “a moderate, inclusive brand of Conservatism” that “focuses on real societal issues, not ideology”.

Jenrick’s campaign is so confident of reaching the final two that it is saving significant endorsements until the back end of this week, according to one person familiar with his thinking, after MPs have knocked out two of the current contenders. Jenrick is planning a big speech in central London on Thursday in expectation of making the run-off.

Advertisement

At the weekend a survey of members by the ConservativeHome grassroots website suggested that Cleverly had leapfrogged Jenrick among the party faithful. However, it found that Kemi Badenoch remained in first position.

On Monday, the candidates used a debate in the House of Commons on the government’s decision to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius to flaunt their patriotic credentials. 

Jenrick accused foreign secretary David Lammy of having “handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation which is an ally of China” in order to “feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party”. 

Tugendhat accused the government of “undermining the rights of the Chagossian people” with the deal. He has previously criticised Cleverly, who began negotiations with Mauritius when he was foreign secretary under Liz Truss in 2022. 

Advertisement

On Monday, Lammy insisted the deal was “strongly supported by partners” and secured the future of a UK-US military base situated on Diego Garcia, a strategically important asset.

Source link

Continue Reading

Money

SEGRO appoints former government official Corbridge as CIO

Published

on

SEGRO appoints former government official Corbridge as CIO

Corbridge will oversee the group’s digital and technology strategy, reporting to chief financial officer Soumen Das.

The post SEGRO appoints former government official Corbridge as CIO appeared first on Property Week.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Gaza’s message to the world after a year of genocide

Published

on

Gaza's message to the world after a year of genocide
YouTube video

It’s been one year since Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza, following the Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, and following 75 years of Israel’s Occupation of Palestine. More than half of the Gaza Strip’s buildings, businesses, roads, farms, hospitals, and schools have been completely destroyed. Over 41,000 people have been reported killed, with this number growing daily. To commemorate a year of what has been called “the most documented genocide in history,” TRNN asked some residents of Gaza to describe their year. This is what they told us.

Producer: Belal Awad, Leo Erhardt
Videographer: Ruwaida Amer, Mahmoud Al Mashharawi
Video Editor: Leo Erhardt


Transcript

Narrator:
It’s been one year since Israel launched its war on Gaza. More than half of the strip’s
buildings, businesses, roads, farms, hospitals, and schools have been completely destroyed.
Over 41 thousand people have been reported killed, with this number growing daily. The
Real News network asked some residents of Gaza to describe their year. This is what they
told us…

Sami Isa Ramadan:
No matter how much I try to explain, I couldn’t describe even 1% of what’s happened to us.
In general, this war will be recorded in history. It should have its own title page in history. For the whole world, eh? Not only in the Gaza Strip, or Palestine. This war of Oct. 7, of the
Israeli army on Gaza, needs to be studied in history, because schools, hospitals, buildings,
homes, fishermen, farmers, workers, there was nothing that was not targeted straightaway.

Narrator:
Sami Isa Ramadan has been displaced four times since Oct. 7th and now lives amidst the
rubble in a bombed-out building, in Deir Al Balah.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
I lost a brother — I don’t know if he’s in prison or dead. My siblings have been scattered.
Three of them were injured. A missile struck our neighbor’s house and three of them were
injured, and my father was killed. God rest his soul. I mean, it’s a catastrophe. Maybe the
camera — you are filming a tiny clip, out of millions of hours. To tell you the truth, I’m tired. Truly tired, you know what I mean? And this is my suffering. Out of 2 million people, I’m just one person.

Advertisement

Narrator:
While it’s true that Sami is indeed only one of around 2.2 million residents of the strip, his
experience does reflect the experiences of many of his fellow Gazans since October 7th.

Sabreen Badwan:
The first week of the war, the Israelis contacted us and said: “Your area is not safe, you must
evacuate. This is a combat area.” They threw leaflets. At first, we didn’t want to move, but
then when we saw most people leaving — it was like a sign of the day of judgment — If you
were to see it, it was like the Nakba of 1948. I mean, I felt it was like the scenes of the 1948
displacement that our ancestors lived through. We used to hear about it like an abstract
dream and couldn’t believe it. Then we lived and experienced it, except harsher and more
difficult.

Narrator:
A staggering 90% of Palestinians in Gaza have been displaced since October 7th, making it
an almost universal experience. Sabreen Badwan is from Tel Al Hawa, and like everyone we
spoke to, has moved multiple times attempting to find safety.

Sabreen Badwan:
I went to a house in Al Nuseirat, in the center of the Gaza strip. We spent a single night
there. That same night we awoke in the middle of a massacre. The entire block was
completely destroyed. From this day I was convinced the enemy was lying—there is no safe
place. I decided to move to a UNWRA school because before this war, as we used to know,
the UNWRA schools were safe.

Advertisement

Narrator:
According to UNRWA, Israeli forces have targeted a total of 190 UN-run facilities in the
course of the war. That’s despite the agency sharing the coordinates for each of its locations
well in advance. Two hundred and twenty UNRWA employees have been killed in Gaza over
the last year, making this the deadliest war for UN employees in United Nations history.

Sabreen Badwan:
During this war, everything changed. We went to live in a school for around three months,
then we were again warned to leave the area of the school because the Israelis told us it’s
not safe, it’s deadly and dangerous. So we left the school terrified, not knowing where to go,
as bombs were exploding. We were terrified. We didn’t know where to go. There was
nowhere for us to go. We went to a house: we were bombed. We went to a school: we were
bombed. Where should we go then? What do we do?

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
What should we do? Our entire house was flattened and we were displaced to Al Nuseirat,
and from there we came here. They took us to the schools. We were in Al Razi and then
they [the Israelis] took us.

Narrator:
Death has touched each and every person in Gaza since Oct. 7.

Advertisement

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
They hit our home, so we left — it collapsed on us. Our neighbors were killed. The entire
block behind us was destroyed. Our house collapsed.

Sabreen Badwan:
My father was killed at the beginning of the war. This saddened and preoccupied me a lot.
Especially because I couldn’t say goodbye to him. He was north of the Gaza river and I was
here south of the Gaza river. So I couldn’t say farewell, and this impacted me and my mental state.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
The war has affected everyone. There isn’t a family in the Gaza Strip that hasn’t been
injured by the occupation forces. The one who lost his dad, the one who lost his siblings,
there’s no family — me, my family is small, and approximately 20 people have gone. This
was my boys’ birthday party, in our modest and simple home.

Narrator:
The UN children’s agency has described Gaza as “a graveyard for children.” Children have
died from bombs, bullets, disease, and malnutrition at an alarming rate. And mental health
issues such as speech impediments and PTSD affect almost every child.

Advertisement

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
The war has affected children and young people badly.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
The children, my children, for example. For the basics, mosquitoes — we haven’t got a
solution. Aside from the skin diseases that have spread, the epidemics that have affected
the old and the young. As you can see, I’m sure you have seen the suffering of the children,
especially the children.

Ni’ma Ramlawi:
What? After a year of war? What more do they want to happen to us? Hunger! Everyone is
hungry. And they died of hunger. And with this war, they killed us and killed our children.
They’re martyrs. They bombed our homes. There’s no house left for us to live in — neither
us nor our children. Are we going to stay like this in tents? And the winter is coming, too.
Look at how we are. Exhaustion and sickness— we are grown adults and we can’t manage
our mental state. There’s children — my grandson has malnutrition grade 2 from the
situation we are in.

Narrator:
Ruined infrastructure, open sewage, a lack of hospitals and medication, and communicable
disease have now become a threat for the people of Gaza.

Advertisement

Shohda Abu Ajweh:
God has afflicted us, aside from the war, with another war: the war of diseases and no
medications. I mean, my grandchildren are suffering from chicken pox, we haven’t found any medications. Not to mention the contaminated water and the open sewage. The Israelis
targeted infrastructure on purpose to provoke the spread of disease. Right now the borders
are closed. People are not receiving any aid, so people are suffering. They’re suffering from
everything, from a lack of everything. We ask Allah to remove this affliction and to help all
our people.

Riadh al Drimli:
Even if things were available, there’s no money to buy it. It’s really expensive! And there’s no income on top, I’m telling you. For example, I make 20 shekels ($5.30). What am I going to do with that 20 shekels ($5.30)? I can buy some drinking water or bring something for the house? It’s not enough!

Narrator:
Riad al Drimli used to work as an electrician, since October 7th, he was displaced alongside
his family and is now selling falafel to try to make ends meet.

Riad al Drimli:
I mean, what can I say? A lot of suffering. From tent to tent and ants and worms. Maybe for
someone living in the rubble of their destroyed house would probably be nicer than the tents, the sewage, the water, and all the problems. Feel for us! You Arabs: rise up against these oppressors. Look at our suffering! Forget about us: what about our children! Our daughters! People are being slaughtered – and they are okay watching us bleed?

Advertisement

Marwan Ibrahim Salem:
My message to the whole world — the Arab world, to Europe, to East to West — to all — is
to stand with the oppressed people. Because this nation is oppressed. And oppression never
lasts. I ask for an end to the war, and the return of people to their homes, and the rebuilding
of our homes. That’s what I ask from the world.

I hope to return to my home! Me and my wife. People want to return to their land! To return to Gaza city, to our neighborhood. To our families. To see who’s good, and who’s dead.

Sami Isa Ramadan:
To this day, the bodies of my relatives are still buried under the rubble, from
the early days of the war. All the buildings you see here, they were bombed with people in them, they collapsed on people’s backs. On people’s heads. There’s no phone call, warning you: ‘Hello, you need to leave the house’ —- no —- the house is flattened with people still inside. This is a cowardly and savage army. It has no humanity.

I have experienced the most bitter experience here. For me, the worst experience I have
ever had is living in a tent. We are the living dead, here in this tent. A death sentence. We
have been sentenced to death — they just haven’t carried out the execution. And our faith is
in God. It’s in God’s hands.

Advertisement

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Partial win for Man City in challenge to Premier League sponsorship rules

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The Premier League’s rules on commercial agreements between football club owners and related companies are unlawful, a tribunal has found, following a legal challenge from Manchester City that will force some of the regulations to be rewritten. 

City, which is owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, challenged the league’s so-called Associated Party Transaction rules earlier this year, claiming that they had unfairly blocked sponsorship deals, including one with Abu Dhabi-based airline Etihad. 

Advertisement

The Premier League’s APT rules were brought in after Newcastle United was acquired by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund in late 2021, and updated again earlier this year.

The regulations were designed to prevent companies related to club owners from using inflated sponsorship deals to boost revenue and so give teams greater leeway to spend on players. 

Although an independent panel rejected several of City’s claims, and recognised the Premier League’s need for an assessment mechanism for related party deals, it deemed the current rules “unlawful” under UK competition law.

This was principally because the rules excluded shareholder loans from their assessment. Several Premier League clubs rely on interest-free loans from their owners but — unlike sponsorship deals — loans are not required to meet “fair market value” criteria. 

Advertisement

The tribunal also found that the way APTs are assessed was unlawful on a procedural basis, with clubs denied important information before decisions were made.

The ruling means the Premier League’s original assessment of two City sponsorship deals, including the Etihad deal in question, no longer stand. Etihad is already the club’s front of shirt sponsor and has naming rights over its stadium.

The Premier League said that a “small number of discrete elements” in its rule book would now need updating, but that the changes could be done “quickly and effectively”.

City’s partial victory on the APT rules comes as a separate independent committee hears the case brought by the Premier League against the club related to 115 alleged financial rule breaches stretching over many years. A verdict in that case is expected in the new year.

Advertisement

After being acquired by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan in 2008, City has become the dominant force in English football. The club has won the Premier League six times in the past seven years, and last year won the Uefa Champions League for the first time.

Monday’s ruling is the latest in a string of legal challenges against football’s rulemakers.

On Friday, the European Court of Justice said the current rules set by global governing body Fifa regarding football transfers were unlawful, while the same court ruled late last year that Fifa and its European counterpart Uefa had breached competition law during their response to the aborted European Super League.  

City’s battle against the league is another example of how football clubs are increasingly taking the legal route to determine the rules that underpin the competition. It is a recognition of how the rules off the pitch — not just star players — can influence winners and losers on the pitch.

Advertisement

The Premier League said the verdict “endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system”. The league said it would now add shareholder loans to its assessments and remove some of the amendments brought in earlier this year. 

“The tribunal upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of Manchester City’s challenges. Moreover, the tribunal found that the rules are necessary in order for the League’s financial controls to be effective,” it added. 

City said it welcomed the findings of the tribunal. “The club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside,” it said.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Money

Transact teams up with Moneyinfo to enhance client document delivery

Published

on

Transact teams up with Moneyinfo to enhance client document delivery

Adviser investment platform Transact has announced a new integration with fintech provider Moneyinfo to help streamline adviser-client communication.

The collaboration is part of Transact’s plan to integrate with technology providers to enhance efficiency and client engagement for the 2,000 adviser firms using the platform.

The integration with Moneyinfo simplifies document delivery, which is often a time-consuming process.

Through the integrated Moneyinfo portal and app, advisers can automatically deliver key client communication, including valuation reports and statements.

Advertisement

Removing this previously manual process will improve the operational efficiency of advisers, providing more time to focus on providing advice.

Plannr and Transact team up to ‘supercharge’ efficiency of advisers

Transact chief development officer Tom Dunbar said the platform’s overall strategy is to “make financial planning easier”.

“A key priority in doing this is to improve the technology ecosystem available to our adviser firms,” he added.

Advertisement

“By integrating with client portals like Moneyinfo we help advisers operate more efficiently and improve the client experience.”

Moneyinfo managing director Tessa Lee said the firm is “passionate about pushing the boundaries of technology” to benefit the wealth-management industry.

“Our collaboration with Transact is a direct response to what advisers have been asking for – greater efficiency and peace of mind,” she added.

“Through simplifying document delivery, this integration allows advisers to focus on their core business, knowing the technology is working behind the scenes to support them.”

Advertisement

In a statement, the companies said that, for adviser firms, the benefits of this integration go beyond time savings as the automation of documentation also provides a “seamless client experience”.

Advisers now have a choice in how they manage document distribution, with an option for Moneyinfo’s platform to handle everything from encrypted delivery to audit trails.

Chris Riley, MD at Seventy Financial Planning – a firm participating in the pilot – said: “It has transformed our processes and vastly improved the client experience. We no longer worry about chasing documents – it’s taken care of.”

Dunbar added: “We’re committed to empowering our clients with the tools they need to succeed in a competitive, fast-changing industry and working with like-minded firms like Moneyinfo helps us stay ahead of the curve, ensuring our adviser firms benefit from the latest innovations.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com