NPS News:One of the signs of spring in the Jemez Mountains is deer and elk shedding their antlers. People like to collect these “sheds”, which is fine on private land or areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the US Forest Service. However, it is illegal on the Valles Caldera National Preserve or Bandelier National Monument and other National Park Service areas.The National Park Service was establish in 1916 and administers NPS lands using the 36 Code of Federal Regulations. The 36 Code of Federal Regulations prohibits the removal of any park property, which includes antlers, bones, or skulls, as well as rocks, flowers, and artifacts like arrowheads, potsherds or old bottles and cans, etc. Anyone caught collecting, disturbing or removing antlers or other items protected by law in Bandelier or the Valles Caldera Preserve can be fined, or even barred from the area for life. Most national park units are considered “living museums”, where everything in the park is important to the story that is told there or to the natural functioning of the park’s ecosystem. Shed antlers left on the ground provide an important source of minerals for many small animals. Antlers are bone and are mainly composed of calcium. Humans need calcium to keep their bones and teeth strong and growing normally; so do wild animals. Humans eat a variety of foods, like milk, cheese, ice cream, and leafy green vegetables, to get the calcium they need. For wildlife, calcium is harder to obtain. Small mammals, like mice, voles, chipmunks, and ground squirrels, get calcium by gnawing on shed antlers and animal bones. Antlers left on the ground help these animals survive.Although the gathering of a few antlers is thought to have little real impact on a park, with thousands of visitors coming to an area, or perhaps a few people illegally gathering quantities of antlers for commercial purposes, the effect can be large. As one park official said, “The unchecked collection of hundreds of pounds of antlers can make a difference to wildlife that depend on them, and their absence takes away from the wild character of the park that visitors come to enjoy. Physically and philosophically, it does make a real difference.”Bandelier National Monument and Valles Caldera want your help in protecting resources on your National Park Lands. If you see or are aware of illegal activity occurring on National Park Service Lands, call the Bandelier and Valles Caldera Crime Tip Line at 505.709.0077. For more details or general information about Bandelier and Valles Caldera, check park websites at www.nps.gov/band, www.nps.gov/vall.
French container shipping major CMA CGM S.A. has crossed the compulsory acquisition ownership threshold in Neptune Orient Lines Limited (NOL) and now owns 91.28% of NOL’s share capital.Following its all-cash voluntary conditional general offer for NOL, which was launched on June 6, CMA CGM now owns over 2.37 million shares in the company.The company satisfied on 9 June the acceptance condition in its offer, after NOL’s shareholders tendered all of their shares in acceptance of the deal.CMA CGM has confirmed that it intends to exercise its rights of compulsory acquisition to acquire all the NOL shares held by NOL shareholders who have not accepted the offer, at a price equal to the offer price of SGD 1.30, “as soon as practicable after the close of the offer.”“Payment for NOL shares that are compulsorily acquired will be made in cash within 7 business days after the completion of the compulsory acquisition exercise, which is expected to take at least one month from its commencement,” CMA CGM said.Further to the agreement, NOL’s Board of Directors changed, now comprising ten members, including Rodolphe Saadé (Chairman), Nicolas Sartini, Lars Kastrup, Serge Corbel, Ziad Tabet, Mathilde Lemoine, Ng Yat Chung, Kwa Chong Seng, Quek See Tiat and Tan Puay Chiang.
European Union – Value Added Tax – Exemptions Section 80(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (the 1994 act) provides, so far as material, ‘Except as provided by this section, the commissioners shall not be liable to credit or repay any amount accounted for or paid to them by way of VAT that was not VAT due to them.’ The claimants were closed-end investment trusts constituted as limited companies. Investment management services were provided to them by management companies (the managers) under agreements which typically provided for the managers to be renumerated by the payment of fees plus VAT. Under the UK VAT legislation then in force, it was understood that those services did not quality for exemption from VAT. However, from 1990, an express exemption for investment management services was established for authorised trust schemes, and in 1997, that exemption was extended to open-ended investment companies. Despite the existence of those exemptions, the managers continued from 1990 onwards to charge VAT at the standard rate on the management services that they rendered to the claimants, and the claimants paid VAT in the belief that it was due. In 2007, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in the case of J P Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust Plc and another v HMRC  ECR I-5517 (Claverhouse) that closed-end investment funds would fall under an exemption from VAT provided by article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive. The claimants commenced proceedings, seeking to claim back the money that had been paid to the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) in VAT. A number of issues arose in English and European Union law. In respect of English law the issues were: first, whether an action in restitution lay available to the claimants; and, secondly, whether the claims would be barred by section 80(7) of the 1994 act. With regard to those issues, the further question arose as to whether the full amount of the unrecovered VAT should be paid back (represented in submissions as £100) or whether the tax paid by the manager to its supplier should be deducted from that figure (represented as £75). In respect of European law two issues arose: first, whether the claimants had any rights under European law on which they could rely; and, secondly, if they did, what the nature of the remedy provided by EU law would be. A further issue arose of whether the claimants should be confined to a cause of action in the law of restitution to recover tax that had been unlawfully exacted, as established in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v IRC  AC 70 (the Woolwich issue). In considering the issues, the court had regard to Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Finance Minister: C-35/05  All ER (D) 266 (Mar), Claverhouse, Danfoss A/S v Skatteministeriet: C-371/07  All ER (D) 107 (Feb) and the San Giorgio principle as set out in Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v SpA San Giorgio 199/82  ECR 3595. The court ruled: (1) In order to determine whether English law recognised a right to restitution, it would be necessary to consider four questions: (i) whether the defendant had been benefited, in the sense of being enriched; (ii) whether that enrichment had been at the claimant’s expense; (iii) whether the enrichment had been unjust; and (iv) whether there were any defences (see  of the judgment). On the evidence, the Revenue had been enriched by the full amount of the VAT paid by the claimants to the managers, in other words by the full sum of £100, and not merely by £75. That enrichment had been at the expense of the claimants. The enrichment had been unjust. The relevant unjust factor had been the mistaken belief of the claimants that the VAT had been legally due, in the sense of being lawfully imposed, and there being a sufficient causal link between the mistake, the making of the payments, and the enrichment of HMRC (see -, ,  of the judgment). Consequently, the basic ingredients of a common law restitutionary cause of action by the claimants against HMRC had been made out (see -,  of the judgment). Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd  1 All ER 737 applied. (2) On the proper construction of section 80(7) of the 1994 act, the Revenue would not be liable to repay an amount paid to it by way of value added tax by virtue of the fact that it was not tax due to them (see  of the judgment). The claims in the instant case would all be barred by section 80(7) of the 1994 act (see  of the judgment). (3) In their capacity as end users of the investment management services, the claimants could in principle have rights under EU law, upon which they would be entitled to rely against the Revenue in order to obtain repayment of the balance of the VAT wrongly paid by them which they were unable to recover from the managers (see  of the judgment). JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc v Comrs of HM Revenue and Customs: C-363/05  All ER (D) 368 (Jun) considered. (4) In determining whether EU law provided a direct remedy for the claimants, it would be necessary to determine whether the state would be, in principle required, to repay charges levied in breach of EU law (the San Giorgio principle) (see  of the judgment). In the instant case, EU law required English law to provide a direct remedy for the claimants to recover the whole of the wrongly paid and otherwise irrecoverable VAT from the Revenue, but subject to limitation defences analogous to those which would apply to claims by the managers against the Revenue. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to classify the claims as San Giorgio claims (see ,  of the judgment). The claimants would, in principle, be able to recover directly from the state (see  of the judgment). delle Finanze dello Stato v SpA San Giorgio: 199/82  ECR 3595 applied; Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Finance Minister: C-35/05  All ER (D) 266 (Mar) considered; JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc v Comrs of HM Revenue and Customs: C-363/05  All ER (D) 368 (Jun) considered; Danfoss A/S v Skatteministeriet: C-371/07  All ER (D) 107 (Feb) considered. (5) In answering the Woolwich issue, it would be necessary to have regard to judgments due to be given by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Littlewoods Retail v Revenue & Customs Commissioners  EWHC 2771 (Ch) (Littlewoods) and the Supreme Court in Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs  All ER (D) 261 (Feb) (FII) (see  of the judgment). In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to adjourn consideration of the issue of whether the claims were barred on the ground that the only cause of action available to the claimants would be an extended version of the Woolwich cause of action (see  of the judgment). Further consideration of that issue would be adjourned until after the CJEU had given its judgment on the reference in Littlewoods and the Supreme Court had given its judgment on the pending appeal in FII (see ,  of the judgment). Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs  All ER (D) 261 (Feb) considered. Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: Chancery Division (Mr Justice Henderson): 2 March 2012 Laurence Rabinowitz QC, Andrew Hitchmough and Steven Elliott (instructed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers Legal LLP) for the claimants; Jonathan Swift QC and Andrew Macnab (instructed by the Solicitor for the Revenue and Customs Commissioners) for the defendants.
Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe now for unlimited access
Mncedisi Shabangu as the Marquis de Sade in Marat/Sade. Designer and director Jaco Bouwer tackles one of the Baxter Theatre Centre’s flagship productions for 2017, Peter Weiss’s contemporary classic Marat/Sade.Written by German playwright Weiss in 1963, the full title of the play is The Persecution and Assassination of Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade, which has been shortened to, and is widely known as, Marat/Sade.It will be staged at the Baxter Flipside from tomorrow, Thursday February 23 to Saturday March 25, at 7.30pm nightly.The ensemble of 16 actors is led by Mncedisi Shabangu as the Marquis de Sade, Charlton George as Jean-Paul Marat and Tinarie van Wyk Loots as Charlotte Corday.The story unfolds like a “play within a play” and is set in an asylum in 1808. The Marquis de Sade decides to stage a play about the murder of Jean-Paul Marat by Charlotte Corday and uses his fellow inmates as the actors. The performance is supervised by the director of the hospital, Monsieur Coulmier who unashamedly supports Napoleon’s government and firmly believes that the play will support his own bourgeois ideas and denounce those of the French Revolution that Marat helped to lead. However, the patients continue to speak their own words, which clash with those which Coulmier wishes to promote. The Marquis continues to manipulate the situation in his favour, resulting into an orgy of chaos and destruction.Original music for the production is composed by Pierre-Henri Wicomb, costume design by Birrie le Roux, lighting design by Patrick Curtis and choreography by Grant van Ster.There is an age restriction of 16. Ticket prices range from R130 for previews from Thursday February 23 to Monday February 27; R140 for shows Mondays to Thursdays; and R160 from Fridays and Saturdays. There are discounts available for block-bookings of 10 or more at R120 and students with a valid ID and seniors pay R110. For discounted corporate, schools or block-bookings, charities or fundraisers, contact Sharon on 021 680 3962, email firstname.lastname@example.org or Carmen on 021 680 3993, email email@example.com
Scottish solicitors have voted firmly against what would have been a landmark proposal to end the practice of allowing one professional to act for two parties in a conveyancing transaction.Mandatory separate representation was rejected at a special general meeting of the Law Society of Scotland last night, as members opted to maintain the status quo, which allows solicitors to represent buyers and their mortgage lenders.In total, 847 members voted against a change to the conflict of interest rules, with 671 in favour. The vote followed a decision at the society’s annual general meeting in March when members voted for the principle of moving towards mandatory separate representation. But, following a consultation over the summer, sentiment appears to have changed.Bruce Beveridge, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: ‘There has been a mood change within the profession since the vote at the annual general meeting in March this year. ‘The majority of solicitors at today’s meeting clearly believe that the current practice works for their clients, although there remains a significant number of solicitors who have concerns.’He said issues around separate representation were originally raised by solicitors who had concerns about requirements placed on them by banks and building societies which could compromise their relationship with the buyer client.But responses to the consultation revealed the strength of feeling within the profession and the sensitivities of the proposed change.Beveridge added: ‘It remains the case that homebuyers are generally unaware that their solicitor also has to provide specific legal advice to the lender and we will have to consider what we should do to ensure that all clients are clear about the duties and responsibilities of solicitors to both the housebuyer and the lender.’Yesterday’s vote and the views highlighted during the consultation will now be considered by the society’s regulatory committee which will consider what further work there should be on the issue.In March, the Law Society of England and Wales determined after consultation that joint representation provides the best value for money for clients. The chair of Chancery Lane’s conveyancing and land law committee, Jonathan Smithers, said: ‘Having separate representation wholesale increases costs for consumers and slows down transactions, and that is not in the best interest of people buying houses.’
A federal judge in San Francisco Monday allowed a lawsuit on Temporary Protected Status involving Haitians, El Salvadorians, Nicaraguans and Sudanese to move forward, denying a U.S. Justice Department request for dismissal of the suit.Hearing possible in August or Sept. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen’s refusal to dismiss the lawsuit means the case can move on a hearing in August or September on the immigrants’ bid for a preliminary injunction blocking the termination of their status. A full trial would come later.Justice Department lawyers had argued that the law, establishing the TPS program, doesn’t allow for court review of executive branch decisions on when to grant or terminate the status.Claims in lawsuit was strong enoughBut Chen said the law doesn’t prevent constitutional claims or challenges to the “general policies or practices.” The judge also said three claims in the lawsuit were each strong enough to justify keeping them in the case for the time being.The lawsuit cited Trump’s alleged reference in January to Haiti, El Salvador and certain African nations as “s—hole countries.”Policy lacks “reasoned explanation”The judge also said the immigrants could continue to claim that the policy change lacked a legally required “reasoned explanation” and that citizen children of TPS immigrants had rights to remain in the country and to be raised by their parents.Many Haitians are among more than 300,000 people from the four counties who were granted TPS approval but now could face deportation under the decision by the Trump administration to end the program.
Nigerian army says repelled Boko Haram attack Nigerian troops kill 10 Boko Haram militants in attack Nigerian army says it thwarted Boko Haram attack Governor of Borno state A Nigerian state governor on Wednesday evening escaped an ambush by gunmen suspected to be Boko Haram militants in the country’s northeastern state of Borno, a security source said Thursday.The source told Xinhua that security personnel in the convoy of Babagana Zulum, governor of the Borno state, swiftly responded to gunfire from suspected Boko Haram militants near Baga town, a fishing town on the border of Lake Chad, approximately 196km from Maiduguri, the state capital of Borno.The governor was on his way to some internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in the northern part of Borno under a food distribution program when the incident occurred, the source said.According to local media, Baga town had been a stronghold of Boko Haram for a period until the military declared its liberation in February 2015, while some elements of Boko Haram are still suspected to be operating in the region.Nigerian police and military are yet to confirm the gunfire in the area.The governor was forced to retreat as security operatives on escort duties repelled the attackers, the source said, adding Zulum has since returned safely with his entourage to a nearby town where the distribution of palliatives continues.Since 2009, Boko Haram has been trying to establish an Islamist state in northeastern Nigeria, extending its attacks to countries in the Lake Chad Basin.The group has posed enormous security, humanitarian and governance challenges in the Lake Chad basin, including Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Benin, and Niger, according to the United Nations.Related
Sharing is caring! 221 Views no discussions Tweet Share LocalNews WEATHER: A dissipating frontal boundary affecting Dominica by: Dominica Vibes News – May 10, 2017 A dissipating frontal boundary is currently affecting the Leeward Islands including Dominica, the weather report issued by the Dominica Meteorological Service on Wednesdday 10 May 2017 indicates.“By later today, conditions appear favourable for moderate to heavy showers and thunderstorm activity along with occasional gusty winds to begin affecting Dominica,” the advisory indicates.“Current model projected rainfall for Wednesday is in excess of 3 inches (76mm) with higher amounts in elevated areas. A flood warning may be issued for Dominica later today. Unstable weather conditions are expected to linger across the island during the next 24 to 48 hours,” it adds. The Met Office is therefore advising persons in areas prone to flooding, landslides and falling rocks are advised to be vigilant and to exercise extreme caution as flash flooding is possible during the period.Moderate to rough seas are also expected in areas of showers and thunderstorms. All sea users and residents near the coast are therefore advised to take all the necessary precautions.The public is advised to keep informed by paying attention to further updates provided by the Meteorological Service. You can also visit our website at weather.gov.dm or call the weather hotline at 447 5555. Share Share