Skrill pulls entire public offering by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksPromoted LinksPromoted LinksYou May LikeMisterStoryWoman Files For Divorce After Seeing This Photo – Can You See Why?MisterStoryTotal PastThe Ingenious Reason There Are No Mosquitoes At Disney WorldTotal PastSerendipity TimesInside Coco Chanel’s Eerily Abandoned Mansion Frozen In TimeSerendipity TimesMoneyPailShe Was An Actress, Now She Works In ScottsdaleMoneyPailDrivepedia20 Of The Most Underrated Vintage CarsDrivepediaBetterBeDrones Capture Images No One Was Suppose to SeeBetterBeElite HeraldExperts Discover Girl Born From Two Different SpeciesElite Heraldautooverload.comDeclassified Vietnam War Photos The Public Wasn’t Meant To Seeautooverload.comSenior Living | Search AdsNew Senior Apartments Coming Nearby Scottsdale (Take a Look at The Prices)Senior Living | Search Ads whatsapp Share Skrill, the online payments provider, has pulled its planned London listing completely just hours after announcing it would cut the size of it down.The company waited until after the FTSE closed to announce the change of plan. It blamed poor and volatile market conditions for the decision on a day in which the FTSE lost nearly 100 points over concerns about global economic growth.“The IPO (initial public offer) was due to price this week, but the selling shareholders and Skrill management have decided not to proceed with the offer at this juncture due to adverse IPO market conditions,” Skrill said in a statement.Skrill, which had already delayed its plans to list from last year, was offering its shares at 235 to 335 pence each.Skrill, which has more than 15 million registered users and mainly operates in Europe, had already cut the size of its planned London listing to £30m from an originally planned £80m, its bookrunner said.Jefferies and Morgan Stanley were running the offer, along with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Tuesday 12 April 2011 2:23 pm alison.lock More From Our Partners Police Capture Elusive Tiger Poacher After 20 Years of Pursuing the Huntergoodnewsnetwork.orgRussell Wilson, AOC among many voicing support for Naomi Osakacbsnews.comBrave 7-Year-old Boy Swims an Hour to Rescue His Dad and Little Sistergoodnewsnetwork.orgKiller drone ‘hunted down a human target’ without being told tonypost.comNative American Tribe Gets Back Sacred Island Taken 160 Years Agogoodnewsnetwork.orgBiden received funds from top Russia lobbyist before Nord Stream 2 giveawaynypost.comAstounding Fossil Discovery in California After Man Looks Closelygoodnewsnetwork.org‘Neighbor from hell’ faces new charges after scaring off home buyersnypost.comA ProPublica investigation has caused outrage in the U.S. this weekvaluewalk.comFlorida woman allegedly crashes children’s birthday party, rapes teennypost.comMark Eaton, former NBA All-Star, dead at 64nypost.com980-foot skyscraper sways in China, prompting panic and evacuationsnypost.comSupermodel Anne Vyalitsyna claims income drop, pushes for child supportnypost.comInside Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis’ not-so-average farmhouse estatenypost.comMatt Gaetz swindled by ‘malicious actors’ in $155K boat sale boondogglenypost.comUK teen died on school trip after teachers allegedly refused her pleasnypost.comKamala Harris keeps list of reporters who don’t ‘understand’ her: reportnypost.comI blew off Adam Sandler 22 years ago — and it’s my biggest regretnypost.com whatsapp Show Comments ▼ Tags: NULL
ArchDaily Save this picture!© Nick Gutteridge+ 31 Share CopyAbout this officeOMAOfficeFollowAllies & MorrisonOfficeFollowProductsConcreteBrick#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousingLondonEnglandUnited KingdomPublished on May 11, 2016Cite: “Holland Green / OMA + Allies & Morrison” 11 May 2016. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
News RSF_en Receive email alerts Reporters Without Borders today said it was appalled by the Press Surveillance Commission’s decision to ban the pro-reform newspaper Rouzegar (Time), which had just increased its print run and expressed a desire to cover political issues after being reinforced by an influx of journalists from the banned daily Shargh.“The ban on Rouzegar is absurd,” the press freedom organisation said. “Not content with censuring newspapers when they are slightly critical, the Iranian government has now established prior control. Rouzegar did not have a chance to upset the regime, but it is viewed as a potential threat, especially at election time.”A social and cultural daily with a small circulation, Rouzegar had shifted its editorial line in a pro-reform direction by including journalists from Shargh on its staff. After its 16 October issue included political articles, it was seen as a new moderate publication that could fill the gap left by the banning of Shargh in September.But the culture ministry rounded on Rouzegar on 18 October, expressly banning it from covering politics on the grounds they did not come under the range of subjects it specified when it originally requested its licence from the Press Surveillance Commission.Rouzegar’s reaction was to provisionally suspend publication the same day. But it reappeared two days later, on 20 October, with an issue that had its political section replaced by general-interest and cultural articles.Nonetheless, it was finally banned altogether on 23 October. Culture ministry spokesperson Alizera Mokhtapour said the decision was based on article 33 of the press law, which provides for “an immediate ban on the publication of a newspaper that replaces a banned newspaper with a name, logo and format that is similar.” In other words, the Iranian authorities saw Rouzegar as Shargh in disguise.But it was clearly Rouzegar’s new editorial team, rather than its format or logo, that scared the authorities. In this case as in many others, the Press Surveillance Commission and the culture minister usurped the role of courts in controlling the media. In July 2004, the moderate dailies Vaghayeh Ettefaghieh and Jomhouriat were shut down in a similar fashion.At the time, Vaghayeh Ettefaghieh was employing many journalists that had come from the daily Yas-e No, which had been banned at the start of that year. The order closing down Vaghayeh Ettefaghieh mentioned that fact that most of its editorial staff were from Yas-e No.Before closing Jomhouriat, the authorities unsuccessfully pressured its publisher to fire the editor, Emadoldin Baghi, a figurehead of the Iranian pro-reform press and a keen defender of free expression. The daily was finally shut down on 18 July 2004.President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are on the list of press freedom predators which Reporters Without Borders compiles each year. IranMiddle East – North Africa Follow the news on Iran IranMiddle East – North Africa Help by sharing this information October 25, 2006 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Government bans daily for getting political After Hengameh Shahidi’s pardon, RSF asks Supreme Leader to free all imprisoned journalists Organisation News Iran: Press freedom violations recounted in real time January 2020 to go further News News February 25, 2021 Find out more March 18, 2021 Find out more Call for Iranian New Year pardons for Iran’s 21 imprisoned journalists June 9, 2021 Find out more
Pinterest WhatsApp Twitter IRVINE, Calif. & GREENWICH, Conn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 4, 2021– CoreLogic® (NYSE: CLGX), a leading global property information, analytics and data-enabled solutions provider, today announced that the company’s Board of Directors unanimously approved a definitive merger agreement under which funds managed by Stone Point Capital and Insight Partners will acquire all outstanding shares of CoreLogic for $80 per share in cash, representing an equity value of approximately $6.0 billion and a premium of 51% to CoreLogic’s unaffected share price on June 25, 2020. CoreLogic Chairman Paul Folino said, “This is a significant milestone for CoreLogic and a very positive outcome for our shareholders who will receive exceptional value for their shares in cash with a high degree of regulatory certainty and a closing expected in the near term. The transaction is the culmination of our Board’s extensive review of strategic alternatives, which included engaging with numerous potential buyers.” CoreLogic President and CEO Frank Martell said, “Stone Point and Insight Partners are highly respected investors who recognize the value and potential of CoreLogic’s digital content, solutions and market-leading platforms that power the housing economy. We look forward to working closely with Stone Point and Insight to build on our record financial and operating performance and accelerate our digital transformation and growth.” Chuck Davis, CEO of Stone Point Capital, said, “CoreLogic is a mission critical vendor and data provider across industry sectors in which Stone Point has specialized over the past 20 years, including mortgage, residential real estate and P&C insurance. CoreLogic’s proprietary data assets are increasingly important to its customers, and we look forward to leveraging our network within the broader financial services industry to support the company’s next phase of growth.” “At Insight Partners we focus on partnering with clear technology leaders that define and transform their markets through world-class software and data,” said Deven Parekh, Managing Director at Insight Partners. “What we found in CoreLogic is a market leader with a long history of serving customers with powerful data technology and a future vision to innovate across the real estate ecosystem. We are excited to support CoreLogic in its next chapter of transformational growth.” The transaction will be financed through a combination of committed equity financing provided by funds managed by Stone Point Capital and Insight Partners, as well as committed debt financing provided by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2021 subject to shareholder approval, regulatory approvals, and other customary closing conditions. Evercore is serving as financial advisor to CoreLogic and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is serving as the Company’s legal advisor. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC are acting as financial advisor to Stone Point Capital and Insight Partners. Kirkland & Ellis is serving as legal advisor to Stone Point Capital, and Willkie Farr and Gallagher is serving as legal advisor to Insight Partners. CLGX-F About CoreLogic CoreLogic (NYSE: CLGX), the leading provider of property insights and solutions, promotes a healthy housing market and thriving communities. Through its enhanced property data solutions, services and technologies, CoreLogic enables real estate professionals, financial institutions, insurance carriers, government agencies and other housing market participants to help millions of people find, buy, and protect their homes. For more information, please visit www.corelogic.com. About Stone Point Capital Stone Point Capital is a financial services-focused private equity firm based in Greenwich, CT. The firm has raised and managed eight private equity funds – the Trident Funds – with aggregate committed capital of more than $25 billion. Stone Point targets investments in companies in the global financial services industry and related sectors. For more information, please visit www.stonepoint.com. About Insight Partners Insight Partners is a leading global venture capital and private equity firm investing in high-growth technology and software ScaleUp companies that are driving transformative change in their industries. Founded in 1995, Insight Partners has invested in more than 400 companies worldwide and has raised through a series of funds more than $30 billion in capital commitments. Insight’s mission is to find, fund, and work successfully with visionary executives, providing them with practical, hands-on software expertise to foster long-term success. Across its people and its portfolio, Insight encourages a culture around a belief that ScaleUp companies and growth create opportunity for all. For more information on Insight and all its investments, visit insightpartners.com or follow us on Twitter @insightpartners. Safe Harbor / Forward Looking Statements Certain statements made in this communication are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws, including but not limited to those statements related to the Merger, including financial estimates and statements as to the expected timing, completion and effects of the Merger. Risks and uncertainties exist that may cause the results to differ materially from those set forth in these forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to: (i) the completion of the Merger on the anticipated terms and timing, including obtaining required stockholder and regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of other conditions to the completion of the acquisition, (ii) the possibility that any of the anticipated benefits of the Merger will not be realized or will not be realized within the expected time period, including due to unforeseen liabilities, future capital expenditures, or unexpected changes in revenues, expenses, earnings, synergies, economic performance, indebtedness, financial condition, losses, future prospects, or business and management strategies for the management, expansion and growth of the Company’s operations; (iii) the ability of Stone Point Capital and Insight Partners to obtain the necessary financing arrangements set forth in the commitment letters received in connection with the Merger; (iv) potential litigation relating to the Merger that could be instituted against Stone Point Capital, Insight Partners, CoreLogic or their respective directors, managers or officers, including the effects of any outcomes related thereto; (v) the risk that disruptions from the Merger will harm CoreLogic’s business, including current plans and operations; (vi) the ability of CoreLogic to retain and hire key personnel; (vii) potential adverse reactions or changes to business relationships resulting from the announcement or completion of the Merger; (viii) continued availability of capital and financing and rating agency actions; (ix) legislative, regulatory and economic developments; (x) potential business uncertainty, including changes to existing business relationships, during the pendency of the Merger that could affect CoreLogic’s financial performance; (xi) certain restrictions during the pendency of the Merger that may impact CoreLogic’s ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic transactions; (xii) unpredictability and severity of catastrophic events, including but not limited to acts of terrorism, outbreaks of war or hostilities or the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as management’s response to any of the aforementioned factors; (xiii) the possibility that the Merger may be more expensive to complete than anticipated, including as a result of unexpected factors or events; (xiv) the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstance that could give rise to the termination of the Merger, including in circumstances requiring CoreLogic to pay a termination fee; (xv) those risks and uncertainties set forth in Part I, Item 1A of CoreLogic’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1A of CoreLogic’s subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, as such risk factors may be amended, supplemented or superseded from time to time by other reports filed by CoreLogic with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “ SEC ”); and (xvi) those risks that will be described in the proxy statement that will be filed with the SEC and available from the sources indicated below. These risks, as well as other risks associated with the Merger, will be more fully discussed in the proxy statement that will be filed with the SEC in connection with the Merger. While the list of factors presented here is, and the list of factors to be presented in the proxy statement will be, considered representative, no such list should be considered a complete statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. Unlisted factors may present significant additional obstacles to the realization of forward-looking statements. Consequences of material differences in results as compared with those anticipated in the forward-looking statements could include, among other things, business disruption, operational problems, financial loss, legal liability to third parties and similar risks, any of which could have a material adverse effect on CoreLogic’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations, credit rating or liquidity. The forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. CoreLogic does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made. Important Additional Information and Where to Find It This communication is being made in connection with the Merger. In connection with the Merger, the Company plans to file a proxy statement and certain other documents regarding the Merger with the SEC. The definitive proxy statement (if and when available) will be mailed to stockholders of CoreLogic. This communication does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. BEFORE MAKING ANY VOTING OR INVESTMENT DECISION, STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT THAT WILL BE FILED WITH THE SEC (INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS THERETO) AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THAT ARE FILED OR WILL BE FILED WITH THE SEC CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE MERGER. Stockholders will be able to obtain, free of charge, copies of such documents filed by CoreLogic when filed with the SEC in connection with the Merger at the SEC’s website ( http://www.sec.gov ). In addition, stockholders will be able to obtain, free of charge, copies of such documents filed by CoreLogic at CoreLogic’s website ( https://investor.corelogic.com ). Alternatively, these documents, when available, can be obtained free of charge from CoreLogic upon written request to CoreLogic at 40 Pacifica, Irvine, CA 92618, Attn: Dan Smith, or by calling 703-610-5410. Participants in the Solicitation CoreLogic and certain of its directors, executive officers and other employees will be participants in the solicitation of proxies from stockholders of CoreLogic in connection with the Merger. Additional information regarding the identity of the participants, and their respective direct and indirect interests in the Merger, by security holdings or otherwise, will be set forth in the definitive proxy statement and other materials to be filed with the SEC in connection with the Merger (if and when they become available). Information relating to the foregoing can also be found in CoreLogic’s definitive proxy statement for its special meeting of stockholders on November 17, 2020, filed with the SEC on September 22, 2020 (the “ Special Meeting Proxy Statement ”). To the extent holdings of securities by potential participants (or the identity of such participants) have changed since the information printed in the Special Meeting Proxy Statement, such information has been or will be reflected on CoreLogic’s Statements of Change in Ownership on Forms 3 and 4 filed with the SEC. You may obtain free copies of these documents using the sources indicated above. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210204005722/en/ CONTACT: CoreLogic Contacts: Investors: Dan Smith 703-610-5410 [email protected]: Sard Verbinnen & Co. George Sard/Robin Weinberg/Devin Broda [email protected] Point Capital Contact: Mary Catherine Manin (203) 862-3126 [email protected] Partners Contact: Nikki Parker (571) 353-4237 [email protected] KEYWORD: CALIFORNIA CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: COMMERCIAL BUILDING & REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY FINANCE CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REIT OTHER CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING & REAL ESTATE SOURCE: CoreLogic Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/04/2021 09:15 AM/DISC: 02/04/2021 09:15 AM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210204005722/en TAGS Previous articleSkillsoft Integrates with Microsoft Viva to Empower Learning in Today’s Flow of WorkNext articleChoyce Peterson Negotiates New 6,500 SF Westport, CT Office for Keller Williams Prestige Properties Digital AIM Web Support CoreLogic Enters into Definitive Agreement to Be Acquired by Stone Point Capital and Insight Partners for $80 Per Share in Cash By Digital AIM Web Support – February 4, 2021 Facebook WhatsApp Local NewsBusiness Pinterest Twitter Facebook
Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago With the fifth anniversary of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Consumer Protection and Wall Street Reform Act coming up on July 21, many lawmakers and industry stakeholders are analyzing its effects on the financial industry and on American consumers.One such analysis, titled Dodd-Frank at 5: Higher Costs, Uncertain Benefits and conducted by analysts Ben Gitis, Andy Winkler, and Sam Batkins of the Washington, D.C.-based non-profit think tank American Action Forum (AAF), was released this week. The authors estimate that Dodd-Frank has imposed more than $24 billion in final rule costs and 61 million hours in paperwork in the last five years.”From a housing market still experiencing mediocre growth, to an uneven labor picture, it’s clear the law has fundamentally altered capital markets and added layers of complexity for consumers and financial institutions,” the authors wrote.Those costs are likely to increase, since only about 60 percent of the law has been finalized. The largest rules of Dodd-Frank still in proposed form are estimated to cost another $7.8 billion and 1.7 million paperwork hours, according to the authors.”As time passes, the law becomes more expensive as regulatory agencies like CFPB and FHFA grow with the mission to implement burdensome rules,” the authors wrote. “Meanwhile, small financial services firms continue to struggle as the law restricts the availability of financial products. With about 21 percent of the law still left to implement, one can only expect the costs to continue to rise.”The Home Mortgage Disclosure Rule is one of the rules that is still pending; AAF estimates it will impose another $2.1 billion in final rule costs to go with 90,000 paperwork hours. The rule was originally scheduled to go into effect on August 1, but the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced this date would be pushed back due to an “administrative error”; the new proposed effective date is October 3.The authors’ research found that smaller firms have absorbed most of the costs imposed by Dodd-Frank. While the number of financial firms grew only 2 percent from 2010 (the year Dodd-Frank was passed) to 2014, the number of firms with between 10 and 19 employees declined by 0.3 percent and the number of firms with between 20 and 49 employees shrank by 1 percent during that same period. The authors found that even regional financial firms struggled, since the number of firms with between 500 and 999 employees declined by 0.5 percent since 2010. Large companies (those with more than 1,000 employees) increased by 11.9 percent during that period.Employment in the financial industry has increased by only 3.7 percent since 2010 while jobs at federal financial regulatory agencies jumped by 19.2 percent during that same time frame. The number of employees at the Federal Housing Finance Agency skyrocketed by 37.1 percent while the number of employees in the Federal Reserve System (all Fed banks and the Board of governors) skyrocketed by 32.2 percent, according to the authors. The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Related Articles in Daily Dose, Featured, Government, News Share Save Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Tagged with: American Action Forum Dodd-Frank Act Regulatory Burdens About Author: Brian Honea Brian Honea’s writing and editing career spans nearly two decades across many forms of media. He served as sports editor for two suburban newspaper chains in the DFW area and has freelanced for such publications as the Yahoo! Contributor Network, Dallas Home Improvement magazine, and the Dallas Morning News. He has written four non-fiction sports books, the latest of which, The Life of Coach Chuck Curtis, was published by the TCU Press in December 2014. A lifelong Texan, Brian received his master’s degree from Amberton University in Garland. Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Print This Post Previous: Fannie Mae Reaches Milestone With Latest Credit Risk Sharing Transaction Next: Congressmen Agree White House Has Not Made GSE Reform a Priority Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Home / Daily Dose / Analysts Estimate Monetary and Paperwork Costs Imposed by Dodd-Frank American Action Forum Dodd-Frank Act Regulatory Burdens 2015-07-17 Brian Honea July 17, 2015 1,073 Views Analysts Estimate Monetary and Paperwork Costs Imposed by Dodd-Frank Sign up for DS News Daily Subscribe
News Updates’Centre’s Prior Approval Required To De-reserve Forests’ : Karnataka High Court Quashes Notification Releasing Forest Land Mustafa Plumber23 March 2021 3:37 AMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court has struck down an order/notification dated February 23, 2017 issued by the state government by which it purported to release a total of 260 acres forming a part of a reserve forest to the revenue department for rehabilitating project affected families in the forest lands. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said:…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karnataka High Court has struck down an order/notification dated February 23, 2017 issued by the state government by which it purported to release a total of 260 acres forming a part of a reserve forest to the revenue department for rehabilitating project affected families in the forest lands. A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said: “The impugned order/notification dated 23rd February 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. We hold that the power under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 (KARNATAKA FOREST ACT), cannot be exercised without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1963.” It also held that even if the State Government purports to issue a notification under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1980, such a notification shall be per se illegal. The court also ordered “If any of the officers are responsible for allowing non-forest activities on the lands subject matter, needless to add that criminal law shall be set in motion by the State Government against the concerned officers by taking recourse to Section 3 (A) read with Section 3(B) of the said Act of 1980”. The bench reminded the State government of Article 48A of the Constitution of India, which is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which enjoins the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife. Under clause (g) of Article 51A of the constitution, it is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the forests. It said “The officials of the State Government who did the exercise of initiating and completing the process under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 were also duty bound to protect the forest. The minimum which was expected of them was that they will not indulge in de-reservation of forest in complete violation of Section 2 of the said Act of 1980.” It also noted that “There is a doctrine of Public Trust. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the doctrine of Public Trust is applicable to India. The doctrine of Public Trust requires the State to ensure that forests are protected.” Case Background: By a notification issued on 24th June 1920 in exercise of the powers under the Mysuru Forest Regulation, 1900 a State Forest was declared in respect of the land subject matter of the petition. The notification declared that the area of 6742 acres and 33 guntas more particularly described therein known as Kudi block shall be deemed to be a ‘State Forest’ within the meaning of the said Regulation. By a notification dated 30th April 1926, an area of 3016 acres and 16 guntas was declared as a State Forest under the said Regulation. The state claimed that on May 2, 1961 an area of 19 acres and 20 guntas covered by the aforesaid notification was purportedly released for rehabilitation purposes. As per the impugned notification of 2017, it is recorded that between the years 1959 to 1969, several orders were issued by the State Government for de-notification of forests, but the process was not completed. Therefore, the said order purports to release certain forest lands mentioned therein from reserved forest. Though the said notification dated 23rd February 2017 refers to Section 2 of the said Act of 1980, it ignores the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. The petition filed by GIREESH ACHAR challenged the 2017 notification and sought a direction to declare Section 28 of the said Act of 1963, as ultra vires and unconstitutional in view of its repugnancy with Section 2 of the said Act of 1980. There is also a prayer for initiating proceedings under Section 3A and 3B of the said Act of 1980 against those who are responsible for violation of Section 2 of the said Act of 1980. Submissions of the Central Government: It was contended that Section 28 of Karnataka Forest Act of 1963 has ceased to be effective after the enactment of the said Act of 1980 and in view of the interim order of the Apex Court dated 12th December 1996 in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995. State government opposed the petition : It was pleaded that in the year 1958-59, a decision was taken to rehabilitate the project affected families in the forest lands and accordingly, the total extent of 260 acres out of the State Forest, was released to the Revenue Department. The order of release was not published in the official gazette. Relying on the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it was stated that prior approval was not required as orders of diversion were issued by the State Government prior to the date on which the said Act of 1980 came into force. It was further claimed that the power was exercised under section 30 of the said Regulation in the years 1962 and 1964 for declaring that a portion of the lands declared as State Forest shall cease to be so. Therefore, the State Government prayed for dismissal of the petition. Submission of Petitioners: It was submitted that even assuming that Section 28 of the said Act of the Karnataka Fores Act 1963 is valid, the power of de-reservation of a reserved forest within the meaning of the said Act of 1963 can be exercised only in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 and in this case, the power under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 has been exercised admittedly without seeking a prior approval of the Central Government as required by Section 2 of the said Act of 1980. Further, it was said “State Government cannot rely upon the earlier notifications issued in 1960s as Section 30 of the said Regulation conferred a power on the Government to release a part of the State Forest only by publishing a notification in official gazette. Admittedly, the said earlier notifications were not published in the official gazette.” Reliance was placed on the judgments passed in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union Of India & Others and and Nature Lovers Movement vs State of Kerala and others. Court findings: Going through the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Court said “The said Act of 1963 is a State Legislation and the said Act of 1980 is a subsequent Central Legislation. In fact, Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 starts with a non-obstante clause and it overrides the state laws. It added “In view of clause (i) of Section 2 of the said Act of 1980, the power under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 cannot be exercised without prior approval of the Central Government”. Secondly, it noted that in view of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act of 1963, any forest notified as a “State Forest” under the said Regulation shall be a reserved forest under the said Act of 1963. It also observed that “Under Section 30 of the said Regulation, the power to release a State Forest could be exercised only by a notification in official gazette. Admittedly, that was not done. Hence, the status of the forest subject matter of the impugned notification as a reserved forest being a State Forest continued till the date of the impugned notification.” It added “While issuing the impugned notification, not only that the State Government has completely glossed over the requirement of Section 2 of the said Act of 1980, but the State Government has violated the directions contained in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra) and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nature Lovers Movement (supra) rendered on 20th March, 2009.” It concluded by saying “In view of the clear legal position that no order under Section 28 of the said Act of 1963 can be passed without making a compliance with Section 2 of the said Act of 1980, the issue of repugnancy will not arise between the State enactment and the Central enactment as what will prevail is the provision of Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 as well the direction issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. Hence, the impugned notification deserves to be set aside.”Click Hear To Download/Read OrderNext Story
Previous articleBanks urged to assist Mica affected families in DonegalNext articleDrug-driver due in court after testing positive for cocaine in Pettigo News Highland Warning over huge spike in flu cases across North West Facebook RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR By News Highland – December 17, 2019 WhatsApp Twitter Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Google+ Facebook Pinterest DL Debate – 24/05/21 WhatsApp Pinterest News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic Google+ Homepage BannerNews Twitter Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programme There has been a significant increase in the number of confirmed cases of the flu in the North West this winter season.The HSE says 154 cases have been confirmed in the last 3 weeks, compared to 5 for the same period in 2018.The HSE Health Protection Surveillance Centre are asking the public to help prevent the spread of flu, as the disease is now actively circulating in the community.Dr Anthony Breslin, Specialist in Public Health Medicine, HSE North West is reporting that there has been a very significant number of flu case in the North West this year.There has been 154 cases of confirmed flu in the last 3 weeks, an increase of 2980% on the same period last year with about 70 of those cases requiring hospital care.Dr Breslin says the flu is affecting mainly young children and older adults as well as some pregnant women.Over 60% of flu cases are reported to have had no flu vaccine.If you have the flu you are advised that you can seek advice from your local pharmacy or your GP.Anyone who gets flu should stay at home, rest, drink plenty of fluids and use over-the-counter remedies like paracetamol to ease symptoms and if you need to visit your GP or the Emergency Department, you are requested to phone ahead to explain that you might have flu.
WLS(CHICAGO) — The U.S. Postal Service is now getting involved in the search effort for one of their own.Kierra Coles, 27, disappeared after being seen on video two weeks ago outside her home. She has not been heard from since, authorities said. On Tuesday, the U.S. Postal Service Inspection Unit announced it was offering a $25,000 reward for help in her safe return.Coles is 3 months pregnant and has a boyfriend, officials said.The postal worker was last seen on surveillance video from outside her apartment in Chicago’s South Side on Oct. 2. Police said she called out of work that morning saying she was sick, but was seen on the video wearing her uniform and her car was found outside her apartment.Police said they are treating the case as a non-suspicious missing person.Coles’ mother, Karen Phillips, said it’s possible she became overwhelmed by everything that was going on in her life. Phillips told Chicago ABC station WLS her daughter recently moved out of her home and into the apartment.“Maybe something did happen where she was overcome with a lot, you know when you are pregnant you are emotional,” she said. “I want to say she just went somewhere and didn’t want to tell nobody and then she will just come home but I don’t feel that.”USPSThe $25,000 offered by the USPS Inspection Unit is in addition to $3,500 offered by her postal union, WLS reported.“Whoever it might be knows something,” her father Joseph Coles told WLS. Joseph lives in Wisconsin, but has been in town for two weeks handing out flyers and said he “would not leave” before finding her.“We’re not going to sit idly by and we’re not going to rest until we find our sister,” Mack Julian, from the Letter Carrier’s Union, said.Cole is 5-foot-4 and about 125 pounds with black hair and brown eyes.Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.
InflationOn 29 Jan 2004 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. TheOffice of National Statistics said slower growth in clothing and footwearprices, and reduced costs for recreation and culture, helped to reduce CPIinflation – the Governments target measure – to 1.3 per cent in November, downfrom 1.4 per cent in the previous month. Clothing and footwear prices were the main reason why RPI inflation fellto 2.5 per cent in November, from 2.6 per cent in October. www.statistics.gov.ukview graphic requiresflash enabled browser
OXFORD’S rugby players began the season in fine form with an undefeated tour of the USA in September. The Blues defeated a New York Athletic Club side twice in two days before walloping the All-American Collegiate XV 44-0 at West Point Military Academy. The comprehensive nature of the victories in America bode well for Oxford as they look to win a Varsity match for the first time since 2004. After an initial 24-7 victory over NYAC on 16th September, the Blues really hit their straps the following day running out 43-7 winners against the US side. Jon Chance, Peter Clarke and Chris Haw all landed two tries each, with Tim Catling also grabbing a score.Captain Joe Roff’s side’s fine form continued five days later with a further seven tries scored in difficult conditions, ending the tour on a resounding high note. Upon returning home, Oxford’s fine early-season form continued with a resounding 48-14 victory over Japanese side Kanto Gaukin University. Left wing Euan Sadden produced a performance to remember, scoring a hat-trick of tries to help the Blues recover from going 7-0 down early on.With further tries from Tom Tombleson, Anthony Jackson and Chance, fly-half Craig McMahon slotted four conversions to ease Oxford home in their first game at Iffley Road this season. They next face Trinity College, Dublin, on Saturday at Iffley Road, kick-off 12.00 noon.