| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:18 pm Post subject: Sep/Oct15 - Economic & tech war between EU & US? |
 |
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | Quietly .... Germany's finest hour?
Blimey
Really hotting up with Russian jets now vying for control of Syrian airspace.
Saying 'no no fly zone here Mr Kerry' in rather a big way . and all bypassing the UNSC as far as I can see
I remember as teenagers we were figuring how Syria & the Golan heights could be where it kicked off.
Euro 78 billion
The price Merkel is prepared to pay for peace?
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/credit-suisse-volkswagen-shares-coul d-fall-another-20-2015-10
Merkel's announcement Thursday 24th
http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-says-assad-must-have-role-in-syria-talks/a -18736427
Monday September 21: Stock sinks
VW shares go into a tailspin when markets opened, plunging more than 17% and sending about €15-billion up in smoke. The German government orders immediate “specific and extensive” tests on the vehicles concerned. South Korea follows suit, announcing emission tests on three different Volkswagen car models in mid-October.
http://mg.co.za/article/2015-09-28-timeline-of-events-in-vw-pollution- cheating-scandal
Tuesday September 22: 11-million vehicles
VW shares shed a further 20% and drag down other car stocks. The carmaker confesses that 11-million vehicles worldwide are equipped with the cheating software and Winterkorn offers his “deepest apologies”. |
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=170993#170993
EU Safe Harbour ruling requires a rethink of data processes
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500254944/EU-Safe-Harbour-ruling-r equires-a-rethink-of-data-processes
Warwick Ashford Security Editor 06 Oct 2015 17:30
The European Court of Justice's decision to invalidate the Safe Harbour agreement has far-reaching implications for businesses
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that the Safe Harbour framework is invalid, but what does that mean for business?
According to the European Parliament, more than 3,000 companies currently use the framework for the transfer of data, including firms such as Facebook, Google and Microsoft.
The Safe Harbour framework, administered by the US Department of Commerce, enabled US companies to self-certify that they have certain standards for the protection of personal data in place.
However, the ECJ said the Safe Harbour framework is invalid as a mechanism to legitimise transfers of personal data from the EU to the US because it does not guarantee adequate data protection.
Many agree that the ruling has far-reaching implications for all businesses, particularly social media networks and other technology businesses that hold or process personal data of EU citizens in the US.
While some lawyers believe the ruling will not cause any major disruptions, thousands of companies using Safe Harbour will have to review their data transfer processes.
“The judgment means businesses that use Safe Harbour will need to review how they ensure data transferred to the US is transferred in line with the law,” said David Smith, deputy commissioner at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The ICO recognises it will take some time for businesses to do this, he said, noting Safe Harbour is not the only basis on which transfers of personal data to the US can be made.
“Many transfers take place based on different provisions. The ICO has previously published guidance on the full range of options available to businesses to ensure they are complying with the law related to international transfers,” said Smith.
However, the ICO will work with other data protection authorities in Europe and issue further guidance for businesses on the options open to them, according to Smith.
“The ruling does not mean there is an increase in the threat to people’s personal data, but it does make clear the important obligation on organisations to protect people’s data when it leaves the UK,” he said.
Disappearance of Safe Harbour
Christopher Jeffery, head of UK IT, telecoms and competition at international law firm Taylor Wessing, said the ECJ ruling forces US companies that need to take personal data from the EU down other compliance routes.
“There are alternatives to Safe Harbour, but for most companies they take time and money to put in place. That will be an unwelcome distraction – no one was preparing for the abrupt disappearance of Safe Harbour,” he said.
Although some commentators have raised the prospect of mass enforcement action against every US company signed up to Safe Harbour, Jeffery believes this is unlikely.
“We expect the more pragmatic regulators to allow companies time to re-organise their compliance programmes,” he said.
However, Jeffery said in countries such as Germany – where Safe Harbour has long been regarded with suspicion – the regulators may not be so generous.
“They may feel concerns about Safe Harbour have been well-flagged and so businesses should have made alternative arrangements by now,” he said.
According to Jeffery, the key message to businesses is to “get on it” immediately.
“Getting model clauses signed, for instance, between affiliates and with key external suppliers should be relatively straightforward and helpful to show they are taking the issue seriously – go for the low-hanging fruit early to show a desire to move towards fuller compliance. Organisations that are slow to react and are seen to be doing nothing risk attracting regulator attention – and that will likely not end well,” he said.
Deema Freij, deputy general counsel and global privacy officer at Intralinks, said any company using Safe Harbour will need to evaluate how it protects personal data, as well as re-evaluate governance, risk and compliance processes to meet international data transfer requirements to the US without Safe Harbour being part of the mix.
“In anticipation of this ruling and because of the criticism Safe Harbour has received in recent times, many companies have already begun using model contracts as a means of meeting international data transfer requirements,” she said.
Alternatives could be scrutinised
However, Marc Dautlich, information law partner at legal firm Pinsent Masons, warned that while companies are able to adopt model clauses or implement binding corporate rules (BCRs) to help them meet the adequacy standards of EU data protection laws when transferring personal data outside of the EU, both options could now come in for scrutiny for similar reasons to those highlighted in relation to the Safe Harbour agreement.
Mahisha Rupan, data protection and privacy senior associate at technology law firm Kemp Little, also noted that BCRs only work for intra-group data transfers.
“Model clauses will need to be put in place between each data exporter and each data importer, which may be prove to be impractical where a US company has thousands of EU-based customers,” she said.
Consent of the individual may also be used to justify certain transfers to the US, said Rupan. “But consent is tricky as it must be specific, informed and freely given,” she added.
Robert Lands, partner and head of intellectual property at law firm Howard Kennedy, said the ruling means extra due diligence into service providers will need to be conducted, as many companies outsource their human resources, payroll and other tasks involving personal data about customers or staff.
“European businesses using software supported from the US need to be wary. Remote access can often allow a technician to view personal data in the US, meaning a transfer of personal data can occur. A more transparent and accessible approach should be taken to data sharing,” said Lands.
“Obtaining explicit consent to justify transfers and creating new agreements between companies that share data may be further ways of meeting the requirements of the Data Protection Directive,” he said.
Bharat Mistry, cyber security consultant at Trend Micro, said US companies will have to look at local operations to process data.
“This is a good thing as it restricts data flow to within the EU or local country borders. Therefore resulting in tighter control and enforcement by the EU and additional investment into Europe in the form of extra jobs in data processing,” he said.
Business affected outside the EU
In terms of the impact on businesses, Mistry said it will be niche startups or companies outside of EU border – where the EU deems the data protection controls/laws do not meet its standards – that will suffer most.
“The large-scale social media companies with a presence in EU borders will be able to access the data. Overall, the ruling is a positive as the more distributed the data, the higher the chance of a breach,” he said.
Ashley Winton, UK head of data protection and privacy at international law firm Paul Hastings, said companies should also be mindful of another recent landmark in case against Slovakia-based property website Weltimmo.
The ECJ’s ruling on 1 October 2015 is also expected to have far reaching implications for tech giants processing data in Europe.
According to the ruling in favour of the Hungarian data protection authority, companies that have websites translated into another language – targeting consumers of European member states – may now have to comply with the regulations in each individual member state.
“Multinational companies that have elected to create an establishment in a more business-friendly jurisdiction are now likely to have their data protection practices scrutinised by local regulators across the EU,” said Winton.
“There are currently no rules limiting individuals bringing complaints regarding data protection across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, so we may now see these complaints springing up from every direction,” he said.
Antony Walker, deputy CEO at techUK, said the ruling will cause real confusion and uncertainty for all sorts of businesses that need to transfer data between the EU and US.
“Businesses will be looking to the European Commission and national data protection authorities to steady the ship and provide clarity on what they need to do to ensure their transatlantic data transfers are lawful,” said Walker.
“This is a big issue for many small businesses as they will be faced with the time-consuming and costly task of working through the full legal implications. The ability to transfer data lawfully across borders is fundamental for a growing and dynamic digital economy. Businesses need stability and certainty in the legal framework to enable this to happen,” he said.
European Commission must make data transfers safer
Following the ECJ’s latest ruling, Claude Moraes, chair of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee, called for the immediate suspension of the Safe Harbour agreement and the initiation of a secure data protection framework that will guarantee the rights and privacy of European citizens.
“Compared with the strong, enforceable data protection legislation in the EU, Safe Harbour offers completely inadequate protection for EU citizens using services from US companies,” said Moraes.
“The Snowden disclosures threw these inadequacies into the spotlight as Safe Harbour does not provide any protection from mass surveillance activities because it contains a national security exemption that has never been clarified,” he said.
However, Moraes said there were also concerns prior to the Snowden revelations given that Safe Harbour is a non-binding agreement that lacks compliance by companies and gives no possibility for citizens to enforce their rights.
The decision by the European Court of Justice to declare the Safe Harbour agreement invalid forces the European Commission (EC) to act to ensure transatlantic transfers of personal data of EU citizens to companies in the US offer the continuity of protection required by EU law, according to Moraes. It also means the EC will have to come up with an immediate alternative to Safe Harbour, he said.
“The Commission has been in negotiations with the US for more than a year on improving the framework, but we have still received no update on these discussions,” said Moraes.
He called on the EC to put forward a complete and strong framework immediately for transfers of personal data to the US that complies with requirements of EU law as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU data protection rules. The framework should also provide EU citizens with solid, enforceable data protection rights and effective independent supervision.
Responding to ruling, the EC said it was an important step towards upholding Europeans’ fundamental rights to data protection.
“I see this as a confirmation of the European Commission’s approach for the renegotiation of the Safe Harbour agreement,” said EC first vice-president Frans Timmermans.
“We have already been working with the American authorities to make data transfers safer for European citizens. In light of the ruling, we will continue this work towards a renewed and safe framework for the transfer of personal data across the Atlantic,” he said.
In the meantime, Timmermans said transatlantic data flows between companies can continue using other mechanisms for international transfers of personal data available under EU data protection law.
He also promised “clear guidance” for national data protection authorities on how to deal with data transfer requests to the US.
While this ruling is widely considered to be significant, few believe the day-to-day operations of most companies will change significantly, particularly in light of the EC’s statement.
However, Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems – who brought the initial case against Facebook that was referred to the ECJ and resulted in the ruling on the Safe Harbour agreement – said US companies that aided US mass surveillance, such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo, may face serious legal consequences from this ruling when data protection authorities of 28 member states review their co-operation with US spy agencies.
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Volkswagen sued in three US states over diesel emissions cheating
New York, Massachusetts and Maryland allege VW sold tens of thousands of cars with ‘defeat devices’ installed and that employees tried to cover up the cheating
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/19/volkswagen-sued-new-y ork-massachusetts-diesel-emissions
@RupertNeate Tuesday 19 July 2016 17.33 BST
Last modified on Tuesday 19 July 2016 22.00 BST
Three US states are suing Volkswagen alleging that bosses knew the automaker’s cars had been engineered to cheat US pollution tests and had concluded that “breaking the law and risking the imposition of fines was an acceptable cost of doing business”.
New York, Massachusetts and Maryland have filed lawsuits alleging that former VW chief executive Martin Winterkorn and other top executives were involved in a campaign of “systematic cheating and deception” to mislead US regulators over the emissions of its diesel cars.
An 84-page lawsuit filed by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman on Tuesday alleges that VW had been fiddling with technology to reduce the appearance of its cars emissions as far back as 1999. The company went on to develop bespoke software, termed a “defeat device”, that allowed its cars to produce up to 40 times as much pollution on the roads than under strict US emissions test conditions.
The lawsuit claims Winterkorn and VW’s former global head of marketing, Christian Klingler, knew by spring 2014 “of the existence of unlawful defeat devices and did nothing to prevent both Audi and Volkswagen from repeatedly deceiving regulators”.
Current VW CEO Matthias Müller is also alleged to have been aware of the issue.
The lawsuit claims that “ultimately, Volkswagen and Audi decided not to expend the time and money necessary to re-engineer” the cars and decided “to employ cycle-beating defeat device software”.
Schneiderman said the allegations “reveal a culture of deeply rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law or the protection of public health and the environment”.
“Substantial penalties must be imposed on the Volkswagen companies, above and beyond the amount they have to pay to make American consumers whole.”
The lawsuits come despite VW agreeing a $14.7bn settlement with federal regulators and owners.
Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan criticized the decision by the states to file suit, noting the company has already agreed to spend billions of dollars to address all environmental harms from the excess emissions.
The states’ claims “are essentially not new and we have been addressing them in our discussions with US federal and state authorities,” Ginivan said. “It is regrettable that some states have decided to sue for environmental claims now.”
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Eye. Page 20
Letter from Dublin.
Ours is a small island on the dark edge of Europe, occasionally blessed, more often benighted. Recently, we were blessed with the offer of a $13bn tax refund, by the European Commission to be paid us by that pillar of corporate rectitude, the US based Apple Corp. Our trusty Taoiseach (PM) Enda Kenny rose to the occasion by savaging the Commission hand that gave, refused the gift and went slavering before an incandescent Apple. The shaky coalition of all the discontents that Kenny leads tried to tell him to grab the gift horse and chain it the basement of the Central Bank, instanter. But no. Kenny will appeal against this windfall. Why ? Well, you can only dribble urinary matter on the US of A so many times. Which is why part of the answer lies in our key Courts, situated on the bank of James’ Joyce’ Anna Livia Plurabelle, alias the river Liffey, which can sometimes be darker than the waters that flow past them, especially when they contain the legal corpse of Apple Corp.
This is a corpse that, if it comes to legal life again, may cost Apple and its 8 fellow internet giants, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, You Tube, Hotmail, Skype, Pal Talk and AOL a tad more than $13 Bn. And may explain why the legal system here is bending like a willow in a storm. Long forgotten, but just now surfacing again in court, is an Irish High Court judgement against the 9, first made in 2014 and unreported outside the land of saints and scholars as we sometime call ourselves. In June of that year, Judge Gerard Hogan of the High Court found the 9, and the US government that backs them, guilty of “indiscriminate mass surveillance” in Europe. No one seemed to notice that ‘”mass indiscriminate surveillance’ is criminal in many European countries like the UK and unlawful in all. Even fewer noticed that the plaintiff against the massed divisions of America’s internet best, an Austrian student called Schrems, had bundled the entire published revelations of Edward Snowden into 14 lever arch files and sworn them. At that point Snowden ceased to be hearsay and became sworn evidence in a court of law. Silence descended while the judgement went to the European Court of Justice, where the US Government and its internet satraps confidently expected that the case would be killed; politics before rights every time. It wasn’t. Last year the European Court took a step beyond anything the Irish judge had said and halted all legal transfers of personal data from Europe to the US. It didn’t halt the transfers. They just all became illegal.
Our gallant Taoiseach rewarded Judge Hogan with a promotion to the Appeal Court, just after the 2014 judgement, getting him well out of the way of a clearly signalled attempt by the US to undo the judgements.
Which brings us to the here and now. The hero of the saga is an unlikely Austrian obsessive, Max Schrems. In the face of opposition from the Irish Data Regulator, and total inaction by the other 27 European Regulators and their annual E500 million budget, Schrems was the one who got the case to Judge Hogan. Schrems got everything he wanted. The US indicted in court for the mass surveillance and an order against the Irish Regulator to complete his original complaint against Facebook.
The Irish Regulator, Helen Dixon, is based over a fish and chip shop in the remote Irish town of Portarlington, adjacent to the largest bog in Ireland, that of Allen. She has spent 7 months not investigating Schrems complaint and is back in court, making him the defendant in a non issue about private data contracts. Hogan’s promotion now clarifies. It’s not the High Court she’s in. It’s the obscure Commercial Court, before a somewhat less educated judge than Professor Dr Hogan. And she’s faced Schrems with 11 potential and expensive hearings before that full, and largely irrelevant matter, comes to trial in Feb 2017.
that was tech
this is economic
http://www.blacklistednews.com/US_DoJ_hits_Deutsche_Bank_with_record_% 2414bn_fine/54142/0/38/38/Y/M.html
| Quote: | Apple ordered to pay €13bn after EU rules Ireland broke state aid laws
European commission says Apple got illegal help with tax breaks but CEO Tim Cook says ruling threatens investment in Europe
Why Apple is facing a €13bn tax bill in Ireland
Sean Farrell and Henry McDonald
Tuesday 30 August 2016 15.33 BST
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/30/apple-pay-back-taxes- eu-ruling-ireland-state-aid
Apple has warned that future investment by multinationals in Europe could be hit after it was ordered to pay a record-breaking €13bn (£11bn) in back taxes to Ireland.
The world’s largest company was presented with the huge bill after the European commission ruled that a sweetheart tax deal between Apple and the Irish tax authorities amounted to illegal state aid.
The commission said the deal allowed Apple to pay a maximum tax rate of just 1%. In 2014, the tech firm paid tax at just 0.005%. The usual rate of corporation tax in Ireland is 12.5%.
“Member states cannot give tax benefits to selected companies – this is illegal under EU state aid rules,” said the European competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, whose investigation of Apple’s complex tax dealings has taken three years.
Vestager’s ruling prompted an angry response from Apple and from Ireland and is likely to spark a political row between the US and the EU. The US Treasury said the ruling threatened to damage “the important spirit of economic partnership between the US and the EU”.
In a letter to customers, Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, claimed the ruling could deal a blow to big companies investing in Europe: “Beyond the obvious targeting of Apple, the most profound and harmful effect of this ruling will be on investment and job creation in Europe. Using the commission’s theory, every company in Ireland and across Europe is suddenly at risk of being subjected to taxes under laws that never existed.”
The commission said Ireland’s tax arrangements with Apple between 1991 and 2015 had allowed the US company to attribute sales to a “head office” that only existed on paper and could not have generated such profits.
The result was that Apple avoided tax on almost all the profit generated from its multi-billion euro sales of iPhones and other products across the EU’s single market. It booked the profits in Ireland rather than the country in which the product was sold.
Corporation tax rates in Europe.
Apple and Ireland said they intend to appeal against the ruling.
The figure of €13bn plus interest is 40 times the previous record for such a case and the equivalent of the annual budget for Ireland’s health service. Irish campaigners called for the windfall to be invested in public housing.
The taxable profits of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe did not correspond to economic reality, the commission said.
Vestager said: “The commission’s investigation concluded that Ireland granted illegal tax benefits to Apple, which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses over many years.”
Vestager suggested other countries, including the US, might now examine how Apple did business within their borders. These other jurisdictions might then claim a share of the unpaid tax from Apple for the same period. This would reduce the bill owed to Ireland.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Tim Cook, Apple CEO. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, said the commission was rewriting Apple’s record in Ireland, overriding Irish law and disrupting the international tax system. He said Apple chose the Irish city of Cork as its European base 30 years ago and had expanded from 60 workers to almost 6,000 in Ireland.
He said Apple would appeal and that he was confident of winning.
Cook said: “We never asked for, nor did we receive, any special deals. We now find ourselves in the unusual position of being ordered to retroactively pay additional taxes to a government that says we don’t owe them any more than we’ve already paid.”
The commission’s decision is a rebuff to US efforts to persuade it to drop the case after warnings of retaliation from Washington.
Apple, which changed its tax arrangements with Ireland in 2015, should easily be able to pay the huge tax bill because it has a cash mountain of more than $230bn (£176bn) of cash and securities, mostly held outside the US. The tech group keeps the money outside the US because it would be forced to pay US tax charges if it repatriated the money.
Advertisement
The €13bn figure covers only the 10 years before the commission first requested information in 2013. The commission, which does not have the authority to go back any further, said it was up to Ireland to collect the tax from Apple.
The Irish government, however, wants the ruling reversed because it wants to preserve its status as a low-tax base for overseas companies.
Ireland’s finance minister, Michael Noonan, said Dublin would appeal against the ruling. He said: “The decision leaves me with no choice but to seek cabinet approval to appeal. This is necessary to defend the integrity of our tax system, to provide tax certainty to business and to challenge the encroachment of EU state aid rules into the sovereign member state competence of taxation.”
A cabinet meeting will be held in Dublin on Wednesday to discuss the fallout from the ruling. At the heart of the Fine Gael-led administration’s objections is that it would cause Ireland reputational damage in the eyes of other mainly US multinationals thinking of establishing their European base in the Republic.
Fine Gael, the main opposition party Fianna Fáil, and a host of independent deputies serving as ministers in the coalition government support the low-tax regime for multinationals because it has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
A tunnel to Wales or a gallery full of Gauguins: how Ireland could spend Apple’s money
Read more
Richard Murphy, a tax campaigner and a professor in international political economy at City University in London, said: “This is a great day for the sovereignty of the EU’s nations when it comes to tax. They will now be able to choose their own tax policies knowing another state should not be consciously undermining them when doing so. The Irish state has for too long been committed to tax abuse, unfair competition and secrecy, all of which are designed to undermine fair competition and increase inequality.”
Prof Louise Gracia of Warwick University business school said: “This ruling is a serious attempt at curtailing the power large multinationals have in avoiding their tax liabilities, and sends a warning to countries that facilitate hard-edged corporate tax minimisation strategies.”
She added: “It also shines a spotlight on the paltry levels of corporate tax that large multinationals are actually paying. Even if we accept the job and wealth creation arguments put forward by multinationals as mitigation against tax liability, this has to be within reason.”
Toby Quantrill, Christian Aid’s principal adviser on economic justice, said: “The staggering amount of money at stake here suggests that millions of citizens are paying a painfully high price for multinationals’ cosy tax deals with certain governments.
“This is not a one-off situation – it is part of a damaging race to the bottom in which governments are competing on who can offer multinationals the lowest tax bill. It’s time to get multinationals’ tax affairs out in the open, so we can all see how much they are actually contributing to the rest of society.”
In the US Peter Kenny, senior market strategist at Global Markets Advisory Group, said it was not yet clear which side would ultimately prevail, but that the ruling was a watershed moment. “There’s no telling whether the verdict will stand on appeal, but we know that the landscape is changing for US corporations in the EU.”
He described Vestager’s ruling as “just the tip of the spear – an enormously important ruling” because US-based companies “have traditionally used the EU as a way of circumventing a higher US corporate tax code.”
Apple’s share price, however, was largely unmoved. In a note to investors, Gene Munster, analyst at Piper Jaffray, said the €13bn potential bill was not a big deal for the huge company. “While the penalty is large in absolute terms, it represents a small portion of AAPL’s [Apple’s] overall valuation.”
It is not yet clear which side will be backed by either of the 2016 presidential candidates. Republican Donald Trump has said he would force US companies, Apple in particular, to move manufacturing jobs within the nation’s own borders, rather than allowing them to seek cheaper labour overseas. He has also said he would lower the US corporate tax rate.
His Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, has also hinted that she might lower the corporate tax rate. She has closer ties to Apple than Trump. Cook held a fundraiser for Clinton on 24 August. |
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a bit cheaper then!
Volkswagen settles 10 U.S. state diesel claims for $157 million
A man walks past the brands of the Volkswagen group during the annual news conference in Wolfsburg, Germany, April 28, 2016. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch
A man walks past the brands of the Volkswagen group during the annual news conference in Wolfsburg, Germany, April 28, 2016. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch
By David Shepardson | WASHINGTON
Volkswagen AG said on Thursday it has agreed to pay $157.45 million to settle environmental claims from 10 U.S. states over its excess diesel emissions, as the world's largest automaker looks to move past the scandal.
The settlement covers states including New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Washington, as well as some consumer claims. In 2016, the German automaker reached a $603 million agreement with 44 U.S. states, but that settlement did not cover claims in Thursday's announcement.
The settlement also requires Volkswagen to offer at least three new electric vehicles in the 10 states by 2020, including two SUVs. VW agreed in December to offer the vehicles in California in the same time frame.
In total, VW has agreed to spend up to $25 billion in the United States to address claims from owners, environmental regulators, states and dealers and to make buy-back offers.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the state's $32.5 million share of the settlement is the state's largest- ever air pollution fine and "makes clear that no company – however large or powerful – is above the law."
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said the state's $20 million share is the largest-ever state environmental civil penalty.
The settlement is significantly less than what the states had sought when they sued VW last year.
Washington state had said in 2016 it planned to impose $176 million in penalties related to state environmental claims, while other states said they sought penalties totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. States can use settlement funds for any purpose.
Volkswagen said the deal with 10 state attorneys general "avoids further prolonged and costly litigation as Volkswagen continues to work to earn back the trust of its customers, regulators and the public."
Earlier this month, Volkswagen pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Detroit to fraud, obstruction of justice and falsifying statements as part of a $4.3 billion settlement reached with the U.S. Justice Department over the diesel scandal.
Under the plea agreement, VW agreed to sweeping reforms, new audits and oversight by an independent monitor for three years after admitting to installing secret software in 580,000 U.S. vehicles. The software enabled it to beat emissions tests over a six-year period and emit up to 40 times the legally allowable level of pollution.
The September 2015 disclosure that VW intentionally cheated on emissions tests led to the ouster of its chief executive, damaged the company's reputation and prompted massive bills in what has become the costliest automotive industry scandal in history. VW still faces an ongoing criminal investigation in Germany.
(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Dan Grebler)
| TonyGosling wrote: | Volkswagen sued in three US states over diesel emissions cheating
New York, Massachusetts and Maryland allege VW sold tens of thousands of cars with ‘defeat devices’ installed and that employees tried to cover up the cheating
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/19/volkswagen-sued-new-y ork-massachusetts-diesel-emissions
@RupertNeate Tuesday 19 July 2016 17.33 BST
Last modified on Tuesday 19 July 2016 22.00 BST
Three US states are suing Volkswagen alleging that bosses knew the automaker’s cars had been engineered to cheat US pollution tests and had concluded that “breaking the law and risking the imposition of fines was an acceptable cost of doing business”.
New York, Massachusetts and Maryland have filed lawsuits alleging that former VW chief executive Martin Winterkorn and other top executives were involved in a campaign of “systematic cheating and deception” to mislead US regulators over the emissions of its diesel cars.
An 84-page lawsuit filed by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman on Tuesday alleges that VW had been fiddling with technology to reduce the appearance of its cars emissions as far back as 1999. The company went on to develop bespoke software, termed a “defeat device”, that allowed its cars to produce up to 40 times as much pollution on the roads than under strict US emissions test conditions.
The lawsuit claims Winterkorn and VW’s former global head of marketing, Christian Klingler, knew by spring 2014 “of the existence of unlawful defeat devices and did nothing to prevent both Audi and Volkswagen from repeatedly deceiving regulators”.
Current VW CEO Matthias Müller is also alleged to have been aware of the issue.
The lawsuit claims that “ultimately, Volkswagen and Audi decided not to expend the time and money necessary to re-engineer” the cars and decided “to employ cycle-beating defeat device software”.
Schneiderman said the allegations “reveal a culture of deeply rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law or the protection of public health and the environment”.
“Substantial penalties must be imposed on the Volkswagen companies, above and beyond the amount they have to pay to make American consumers whole.”
The lawsuits come despite VW agreeing a $14.7bn settlement with federal regulators and owners.
Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan criticized the decision by the states to file suit, noting the company has already agreed to spend billions of dollars to address all environmental harms from the excess emissions.
The states’ claims “are essentially not new and we have been addressing them in our discussions with US federal and state authorities,” Ginivan said. “It is regrettable that some states have decided to sue for environmental claims now.” |
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
