February 2023 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Larson and Pritzker Will Do What It Takes to Keep Both DeSantis and Trump Out of the White House
by Gunnar Larson 24 Feb '23

24 Feb '23

Larson and Pritzker Will Do What It Takes to Keep Both DeSantis and Trump Out of the White House: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-23/pritzker-vows-to-block-g…

1 0

RED FLAGS! Corporate Officers - Directors and Officers - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

As many Cypherpunks can agree, xNY.io has been screaming about red flags out of New York, concerning digital asset innovation at the cross border level. Here is a terrific example of how board directors who have ignored red flags at the United Nations (aka JP Morgan) probably have a solvency issue. Elon Musk said the same thing, before the Twitter LBO about the failing United Nations. Also, Mr. Musk said that the CEO that banks the United Nations hates the SpaceX CEO ... Meanwhile, the Southern District of New York seemingly has never heard of Bank.org and/or the United Nations. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/directors-and-officers/1284994/delaware… Until the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its recent decision in In re McDonald's Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation1 ("McDonalds"), it was unclear if claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty premised on a lack of oversight first established by In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation2 ("Caremark") in 1996, with respect to directors, also applied to corporate officers of Delaware corporations. In McDonalds, the Delaware Court of Chancery pronounced, unequivocally, that "[t]his decision clarifies that corporate officers owe a duty of oversight. The same policies that motivated [the Delaware Court of Chancery in Caremark] to recognize the duty of oversight for directors apply equally, if not to a greater degree, to officers."3 Legal Background and Analysis Under the Caremark test, as later adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Stone v. Ritter4, liability to directors for failing to properly discharge their duty of oversight arises under two different "prongs" of the test, where either: "(1) directors utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls; or (2) having implemented such a system or controls, consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations thus disabling themselves from being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention."5 First Prong: Information System Claims. The court in McDonalds referred to the first prong as an "Information Systems Claim", whereby "the board lacked the requisite information systems and controls".6 To make an Information Systems Claim, the board must have consciously failed to make a good faith effort to establish a board-level information and oversight system designed to provide timely and accurate information and, at a minimum, address "essential and mission-critical" legal compliance.7 The validity of an Information Systems Claim does not depend on whether the oversight system was actually effective, but only whether the system existed and was monitored by the board. Second Prong: Red-Flags Claims. The McDonalds court referred to the second prong as a "Red-Flags Claim", whereby "the board's information systems generated red flags indicating wrongdoing and that the directors failed to respond."8 The basis for liability requires a demonstration that (i) directors consciously disregarded evidence of red flag wrongdoing or misconduct in bad faith, and (ii) that the corporate trauma in question must be sufficiently similar to the red flag misconduct such that the board's bad faith and conscious inaction proximately caused the trauma.9 Must Act in Bad Faith; Exculpation Unavailable. The McDonalds court found that the two prongs of the Caremark test would apply equally to officers and directors, but that the specifics of an officer's duty is context-dependent, as discussed in more detail below. Regardless, under either prong of the Caremark test, directors and officers will only be liable for violations of the duty of oversight if a plaintiff can provide evidence that they acted in bad faith and, therefore, disloyally to the corporation. 10 This requires a showing of scienter, i.e., that the officer consciously failed to make a good faith effort to establish information systems or the officer consciously ignored red flags.11 As a practical matter, this means that Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which permits a Delaware corporation to include an exculpatory provision in its certificate of incorporation that eliminates the personal liability of a director or officer for breaches of certain fiduciary duties, will not apply to Caremark claims because Section 102(b)(7) specifically excludes bad faith misconduct and breaches of the duty of loyalty. See "Elimination of the Duty of Care in Delaware? Statutory Exculpation of Officers: Recent Amendment to Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law". Applicability to Corporate Officers. The Court of Chancery in McDonalds then went on to explain how the situational aspects of a corporate officer's duty of oversight may differ from that of the board of directors in a couple of important ways. For example, although the board has oversight duties regarding the whole corporation because it has "plenary authority" concerning the management of the corporation, a particular officer only has a duty to establish information systems and follow-up on red flags issues that comes within the scope of his or her authority and responsibility (e.g., a chief financial officer would be responsible for creating financial, but not human resources or legal, reporting systems and controls).12 The court then went on to note, however, that if a red flag is sufficiently material, then an officer may have a duty to report upward on such red flag even if it is outside of his her or her area of responsibility.13 From the McDonalds decision, it is unclear which officers of the corporation will be charged with a duty of oversight, i.e., if it will include all corporate officers or just senior officers. Based on language from the McDonalds opinion, a reasonable inference can be drawn that it applies to all corporate officers: "the officers are optimally positioned to identify red flags and either address them or report upward to senior officers [emphasis added] or to the board."14 Section 142(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law defines the term "officer" as "such officers with such titles and duties as shall be stated in the bylaws or in a resolution of the board of directors." Further, in the matter of In re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation,15 the Delaware Court of Chancery established a bright-line rule whereby officers and directors become fiduciaries only when they are officially installed, and receive "the formal investiture of authority that accompanies such office of directorship." Taken together, the fiduciary duty of oversight would seem to apply only to those corporate officers specified in the bylaws or appointed by board resolution. In the derivative shareholder lawsuit16 at issue in the McDonalds case, the plaintiffs did not allege that the Chief People Officer of McDonalds failed to make a good faith effort to establish information systems (i.e., an Information Systems Claim), and, instead, made a Red-Flags Claim by asserting that the Chief People Officer breached his duty of oversight by consciously ignoring red flags.17 In particular, the complaint cited statements from employees that the human resources function, under the supervision of the Chief People Officer, "turned a blind eye" to complaints about sexual harassment, including coordinated complaints filed by restaurant workers and a ten-city strike. Further, because the Chief People Officer also allegedly engaged in acts of sexual harassment, the court concluded that "it is reasonable to infer that the officer consciously ignored red flags about similar behavior of others."18 Practice Points Regarding Oversight Duties of Corporate Officers In order to minimize exposure to liability for a breach of the duty of oversight by corporate officers, we recommend that management take the following actions: Each corporate officer should identify, at a minimum, the essential and mission-critical compliance with laws or regulatory mandates facing the company that are within the scope of the officer's authority and establish a monitoring systems that timely and accurately brings this information to the officer's attention. There may be heightened risk for a Caremark claim where risk to life or health or the company's obligation to comply with positive laws or regulations are involved. Once the oversight system is in place, the officer should pay attention to any "red flag" issues that may evidence non-compliance, report that information to the officer's superior(s), and take corrective actions, as needed, to address the red flag of non-compliance. Document all of the above actions, as litigation actions involving alleged breach of the duty of oversight are preceded by Section 220 books and records requests under the Delaware General Corporation Law. If this happens, one should be able to produce ample evidence that such officer made good faith efforts to properly execute his or her duty of oversight, including documenting: (i) that an oversight system was established, (ii) that the officer reviewed and discussed compliance issues, and (iii) that the officer followed-up on all red-flag issues, and addressed them, as needed.

1 0

Judge Carter Enjoins New York's New Online Hate Speech Law On First Amendment Grounds - Trials & Appeals & Compensation - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

. . . The potential chilling effect to social media users is exacerbated by the indefiniteness of some of the Hateful Conduct Law's key terms. It is not clear what the terms like "vilify" and "humiliate" mean for the purposes of the law. While it is true that there are readily accessible dictionary definitions of those words, the law does not define what type of "conduct" or "speech" could be encapsulated by them. For example, could a post using the hashtag "BlackLivesMatter" or "BlueLivesMatter" be considered "hateful conduct" under the law? Likewise, could social media posts expressing anti-American views be considered conduct that humiliates or vilifies a group based on national origin? It is not clear from the face of the text, and thus the law does not put social media users on notice of what kinds of speech or content is now the target of government regulation. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/128…

1 0

ESG Litigation Heats Up In Marketing, Climate Pollution, And DEI - Securities - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

MLK said, Gunnar, duck and run. So interesting that in New York our Civil Rights have been ignored, for fear of historic litigation (as one of the world’s most controversial journalists in litigation investment). But, no, we have chosen to innovate rather than litigate. The United Nations is probably the world's most pervasive fraud in ESG malfeasance, and that is something Bank.org is happy to make history with. With the situation in Chelsea, I also think the FBI CFO's Civil Rights has been abused with an "All Electric Tower" via a $2B windmill project financed by five time felons at JPMORGAN. Who, by the way bank the United Nations. These rights abuses are very well known by the FBI, NYPD, DHS and New York Attorney General. Yet, NY-DFS is the best regulator on the planet to make all this exciting and historic ... "For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently created a Climate and ESG Task Force. The Southern District of New York launched a civil rights unit in its criminal division, and the Environmental Protection Agency instituted the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights." ---------- As more regulatory agencies create ESG-focused task forces, ESG-related enforcement actions and litigation are steadily increasing. Katten attorneys analyze trends and enforcement targets. As more regulatory agencies develop task forces focused on environmental, social, and governance oversight, the potential for ESG-related enforcement actions is steadily increasing. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission recently created a Climate and ESG Task Force. The Southern District of New York launched a civil rights unit in its criminal division, and the Environmental Protection Agency instituted the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Each newly minted federal regulatory task force will give rise to greater ESG-related enforcement action. But governmental actions are simply one aspect of the ESG landscape that will be very active this year. For example, we also expect increased shareholder derivative lawsuits, consumer protection litigation, suits by environmental advocacy groups, employment discrimination claims—individual and class—and other private action litigation. Green Marketing Green marketing, including promotion of environmentally friendly products or services, is under increased scrutiny. Although consumer goods have long been the target of allegations of false or misleading marketing claims, these claims are on the rise in the green marketing space. As consumers become more interested in the environmental attributes of products and services, they may seek to base purchase decisions on advertised "green" benefits. Although some marketing jargon may seem benign at first glance, companies should be cautious of overstating, misleading, or providing inaccurate environmentally friendly claims that could give rise to litigation. This is understandably challenging in the evolving ESG landscape. For example, consumers have an increased expectation of transparency as it relates to carbon emissions reduction, but this can be achieved directly, by reducing emissions from manufacturing, sourcing, and transport. Or, it can be achieved through the purchase of carbon offsets—carbon reduction credits that represent the impact of beneficial projects somewhere else in the world—which are applied to reduce a company's net emissions. Danone Waters is litigating a consumer protection lawsuit alleging that that the "carbon-neutral" claim on the label of Evian water is false and misleading. The plaintiffs assert that a reasonable consumer would interpret the carbon-neutral label to mean that no carbon dioxide was released in the manufacturing of Evian products—which is most likely unreasonable, given the likelihood that no product production can claim to be totally carbon-free. Danone Waters achieves carbon neutrality by purchasing carbon offsets. However, the plaintiffs have attacked the carbon-offset verification process as unreliable. As consumer expectations around carbon neutrality evolve, companies may have to revise their carbon neutrality claims to maintain customer trust and reduce potential litigation risks. Similarly, words such as "clean," which were once perceived as innocuous green marketing jargon, are also false advertising claims. Currently, a utility company is fighting claims that it deceptively advertises natural gas as a "clean" source of energy, when natural gas combustion emits methane—a greenhouse gas that has been linked to climate change. Because green marketing consumer expectations are evolving, companies should work in concert with legal counsel to remain on par with current market trends. Climate Pollution Companies that pollute continue to be the target of lawsuits brought by environmental advocacy groups and state agencies. In recent years, states and cities brought several lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging that these companies knowingly made false and misleading statements regarding the extent their products contribute to pollution. An environmental advocacy group recently sued a manufacturing company claiming that its production facility was polluting the Merrimack River in violation of the Clean Water Act. These actions reflect the importance of companies understanding their pollution output and devising a sustainable plan with various stakeholders to reduce that output over time. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ESG-related employment discrimination and shareholder derivative lawsuits related to DEI missteps are also increasing. Recently, a proposed class action lawsuit alleged that a social media company's recent layoffs disproportionately affected women. Layoffs under any circumstance are tough, and ripple effects may not be revealed until months or years later. Yet, it is imperative that companies adopt controls to ensure layoffs do not produce an unintentional, disproportionate impact to protected classes. Since 2020, over a dozen corporations have faced shareholder derivative lawsuits based on their allegedly misleading statements about their commitment to diversity and equity. These lawsuits typically allege that the corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure the corporation complied with anti-discrimination laws or by authorizing false statements in public materials regarding the corporation's commitment to diversity and inclusion. Although these derivative lawsuits have faced significant legal obstacles and many have been dismissed, shareholders continue to pursue these claims. DEI is no longer solely the responsibility of diversity officers—it is an important ESG risk management function. DEI missteps or failings can lead to costly private litigation, which can be avoided with proper controls. These cases emphasize the importance for corporations to appropriately embed ESG principles into their business operations and adequately reflect their commitment to customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Originally Published by Bloomberg Law

1 0

Treating Dumbfuck Donald as a serious POTUS contender is journalistic malpractice
by professor rat 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

>>> if Trump just happened to keel over tomorrow. Would the media still keep hyping him as a 2024 frontrunner? Would it pretend that Trump being deceased wouldn’t stand in the way of his availability as a candidate? That would be absurd beyond the pale. But it’s not much more absurd than pretending that a guy who’s on track to be put on three felony criminal trials and sent to prison before we even get to 2024, is somehow magically going to be available as a 2024 candidate. <<< https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/this-is-absurd-beyond-the-pale/49034/ NYT lied - people died - That past is not dead - its not even past

1 0

Ohio train derailment: Why Republicans seized on the East Palestine accident - Vox
by professor rat 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

Republican POTUS tweeted he was rolling back regulations in 2017 https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1628490355904503833 Reposts not train braking rules designed to stop explosions near communities

1 0

New York Department Of Financial Services Issues Guidance On Virtual Currency Custodial Services - Financial Services - United States
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

In Short The Situation: Following a string of bankruptcies among virtual currency firms, the New York Department of Financial Services has issued guidance on the practices and procedures it expects from certain state-regulated entities providing virtual currency custodial services. The Result: These entities should review their current arrangements regarding customer safeguards in the context of the guidance, including how their customers' assets are segregated and whether they are treated solely as the property of their customers, as well review their due diligence and disclosure procedures with respect to customer assets under custody. Looking Ahead: The guidance is designed to clarify the relationship between a virtual currency custodian and its customers to ensure the latter are better protected in the event of bankruptcy, particularly in situations where ownership of the virtual currency is at issue. New York has long been a first mover in virtual currency, and this guidance may influence future actions at the federal level. New York Department of Financial Services Issues Guidance for Virtual Currency Custodians On January 23, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS") issued guidance to certain New York-regulated virtual currency entities on proper disclosure and custody practices. The Guidance on Custodial Structures for Customer Protection in the Event of Insolvency (the "Guidance") applies to entities that provide virtual currency custodial services as either holders of New York's BitLicense or its Limited Purpose Trust Charter. The Guidance sets forth NYDFS's expectations for virtual currency entities ("VCEs") that provide custodial services ("VCE Custodians") on standards and procedures "to better protect customers in the event of an insolvency or similar proceeding ... [by] providing a high level of customer protection with respect to asset custody under the BitLicense." Notably, the Guidance is not a statute or a regulation with the force of law. The Guidance sets forth NYDFS's expectations in four areas: Segregation of and Separate Accounting for Customer Virtual Currency: NYDFS expects that VCE Custodians will hold the virtual currency of customers in either "separate on-chain wallets and internal ledger accounts for each customer" or omnibus wallets containing only customer virtual currency held by the VCE Custodians as agents or trustees. That is, VCE Custodians should not commingle proprietary digital assets with customer assets. If a VCE Custodian holds customer virtual currency in an omnibus wallet-comingling customer assets with other customer assets only-it must uphold appropriate recordkeeping and internal audit trail procedures such that it is able to promptly and accurately identify each customer's beneficial interest. VCE Custodian's Limited Interest in and Use of Customer Virtual Currency: The Guidance restricts a VCE Custodian's interest in the assets under its control, directing VCE Custodians to "structure their custodial arrangements in a manner that preserves the customer's equitable and beneficial interest in the customer's virtual currency." Further, the Guidance advises VCE Custodians to treat all customer assets under their control as solely the property of the customers, and to avoid handling customer assets as if they were the property of the VCE Custodians. NYDFS expects that customer assets will not be used to secure or guarantee an obligation of, or extend credit to, the VCE Custodian or others. Sub-Custody Arrangements: VCE Custodians may enter into sub-custody arrangements with third parties, provided that they conduct appropriate due diligence and obtain prior approval from NYDFS. Customer Disclosure: VCE Custodians must disclose their terms of service to customers, including their procedures for segregating customer assets, what property interest customers will retain, and how the VCE Custodians can use the virtual currencies they hold. VCE Custodians must also obtain customers' acknowledgment of such terms. For VCE Custodians that offer digital asset staking and lending programs, more clarity may be needed on how these disclosure provisions interact, if at all, with NYDFS's expectation that VCE Custodians will not make extensions of credit using customer assets. Significance of the Guidance NYDFS issued the Guidance subsequent to a string of bankruptcies in the virtual currency space. Customer rights have been a central issue in these recent bankruptcies, particularly in regards to whether ownership of customer virtual currency held by a custodian lies with the customer or with the custodian (and therefore the bankruptcy estate). In such situations, one way that some VCE Custodians have attempted to protect customer rights to their assets is to include language in customer agreements permitting the parties to "opt-in" to Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the "UCC"), which, by electing to treat the VCE Custodian as a "securities intermediary" and the virtual currency as "financial assets" under the UCC, can provide a customer with greater protections in the event of bankruptcy. The Guidance, however, does not mention this option. See UCC, Article 8, Sections 8-103, 8-303. The question of how customer digital assets held by failed VCE Custodians should be treated is still playing out in bankruptcy courts, although a recent ruling in the Celsius Network bankruptcy proceedings indicates that the answer hinges on the nature of the custodial relationship. On January 4, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that customer assets in certain Celsius accounts belonged to the bankruptcy estate, not to Celsius customers, as the customers had "entered a contract which contained unambiguous and clear language regarding transfer of title and ownership of assets" to Celsius. Celsius Network LLC, et al., Case No: 22-10964, Docket No. 1822, at 39 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023). The Guidance could help to prevent similar future situations by ensuring customers retain equitable and beneficial interest in the virtual currencies stored with VCE Custodians, and by setting an expectation of clear disclosures to customers regarding the property interest maintained by customers in digital assets stored with custodians. Three Key Takeaways NYDFS has taken notice of issues customers face when VCE Custodians file for bankruptcy and, as a result, has provided clarifying guidance to BitLicensees and New York limited purpose trust companies that provide custodial services for customer digital assets. The Guidance lays out customer protections that NYDFS expects VCE Custodians to provide, including procedures for segregation of funds, a clear custodial relationship (as opposed to a debtor-creditor relationship), properly vetted and approved sub-custody arrangements, and appropriate disclosure practices. If a VCE Custodian maintains procedures as outlined in the Guidance, customers may enjoy greater protections in the event of the custodian's insolvency. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

1 0

The United Nations is using “big numbers and misleading statistics” to convince the world that 700 million people will be displaced in Africa by 2030 because of water scarcity, according to Danish Refugee Council Global Adviser and Senior Analyst Alexander Kjærum.
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

Water.org and the United Nations (working at UNHQ-NY) have been a big part of Bank.org's success ... https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-un-is-wrong-to-say-700-million-will-be-d… Global ViewsData and development Opinion: UN is wrong to say 700 million will be displaced by drought By Alexander Kjærum // 23 February 2023 Environment & Natural ResourcesHumanitarian AidResearchUnited NationsWMO Internally displaced people in Beletweyne, in the Hiraan region of Somalia, wait to receive food and nonfood items donated by AMISOM troops. Photo by: AMISOM “UN predicts 700 million displaced in Africa by 2030 due to water scarcity” — reads a headline from October 2022. The story behind the number tells a concerning story about the aid sector’s use of big numbers and misleading statistics to advance their agendas. In fact, the number has nothing to do with water scarcity, Africa, or a timeline of 2030. Subscribe to Newswire A comprehensive look at the day’s top global development breaking news, analysis, and opinion Subscribe The October headline was based on a recently released report by the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization, but it had also been used over several years, including by the U.N. secretary general, several other U.N. agencies, in particular the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification and UNICEF, and the World Bank and numerous NGOs. The number gained momentum in 2022 as it was included in a draft public version of the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, despite the fact that it was clearly stated that the draft should not be cited or quoted. The number first appeared in a UNESCO report from 2009, which states that between 24 million to 700 million could be displaced globally by water-related factors. While the referencing in the UNESCO report is not entirely clear, it appears that the source of the 700 million is a Christian Aid report from 2007. This report states that up to 1 billion could be displaced by 2050 (not 2030), which includes 645 million that would be displaced due to development projects “such as dams and mines.” Combined with an estimated 50 million displaced by natural disasters this becomes approximately 700 million. There is only very basic math behind these numbers — e.g. the 645 million displaced due to development projects is calculated by the assumption that 15 million are displaced every year, multiplied by 43 years to reach 2050. The mere fact that a flagship U.N. report cites a number from a document which clearly says it should not be cited should raise immediate red flags. — In 2012, the 24 million to 700 million range is then referenced in a UNCCD fact sheet, stating that: “With the existing climate change scenario, almost half the world’s population will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030, including between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa. In addition, water scarcity in some arid and semi-arid places will displace between 24 million and 700 million people.” This became the source for a number of future references, but in a synthesized version where nuance and meaning get lost, it becomes “high water stress is estimated to affect about 250 million people on the [African] continent and displace up to 700 million individuals by 2030.“ This should be quite obviously wrong to most people for two reasons: 1) The number of displaced people from a hazard or disaster will always be smaller than the ones who are exposed to that same hazard or disaster. Yet in this scenario of 700 million people displaced, that would represent almost three times as many as the 250 million people actually affected by water stress. 2) The 700 million figure would amount to almost half of Africa’s population in 2030. This example reveals several concerning points about the use of big numbers in the humanitarian and development sector. First, when a number range is provided, the highest number regularly ends up being the one that makes the headlines. We see this in the World Bank Groundswell report for example, where the headlines have also been that climate change could lead to 216 million migrants by 2050 without including the range of 44 million to 216 million. Second, the drive to promote big, concerning numbers seems to dilute common sense. While 700 million displaced in the distant future of 2050 might have made some sense in 2007, how can this figure be used in 2022 for a 2030 projection without looking into what the current status is? Based on calculations on data from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, 2.6 million people globally were displaced by drought between 2017 and 2021, so quite far from potentially accumulating to 700 million on the African continent by 2030 as per the October 2022 headline. The loss of common sense is related to the fact that people have a very hard time understanding big numbers, which research confirms. When 700 million is used and quoted without context it ends up meaning simply “many people” to a majority of readers. If the quote had used the equally erroneous wording “half of Africa’s population to be displaced by 2030,” I am sure many readers and researchers would have questioned this prediction. More reading: ► Opinion: Data we trust is a vital weapon as diseases gain ground ► What does the data say about climate development funding? (Pro) ► Opinion: Localization is key to avoid climate data misuse Third, it reveals that many humanitarian and development organizations are publishing big numbers without accurately checking their validity or credibility; presumably more intent on gaining attention and funding for their cause. It exposes the extreme big-number fetish in the sector, when what is needed instead is to promote factual, qualitative knowledge about the issues of concern. This 700 million example reveals a concerning lack of review and fact-check internally in many of the leading U.N. agencies and NGOs that continue to publish and use this number. The mere fact that a flagship U.N. report cites a number from a document which clearly says it should not be cited should raise immediate red flags. There is no good reason to always provide the biggest, worst-case scenario number in any range provided in research. By constantly focusing on the largest value in a range, or the most sensational, humanitarian and development communications risk crying wolf and losing credibility among the public, donors, and internal decision-makers. In turn, as these groups are regularly fed numbers and predictions that are very likely not to be true, they will lose faith in the evidence being provided. This poses a significant risk to advancing more evidence- and data-driven development and humanitarian action in a time when it is needed most. To retain some credibility, humanitarian and development agencies should start by focusing on promoting the most realistic scenario numbers. And these numbers should always come with a clear explanation of the methodology behind them and put them into context. Lastly, the sector should focus less on numbers and more on describing the issues qualitatively, which makes it easier for donors and decision-makers to act on it. Editor’s note: By the time of publication, WMO responded to the author’s queries and have subsequently removed the reference to 700 million displaced people in Africa due to water scarcity by 2030 from the “State of the Climate in Africa 2021” report. The views in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect the views of the Danish Refugee Council. The views in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect Devex's editorial views. About the author Alexander Kjærum Alexander Kjærum is a global advisor, senior analyst with the Danish Refugee Council. He is leading the work on enhancing the use of data and analysis for strategic planning, programming, and advocacy. He is also the lead on use of predictive analytics and author on the flagship Global Displacement Forecast report.

1 0

Ohio train derailment: Why Republicans seized on the East Palestine accident - Vox
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/2/23/23611697/ohio-train-derailment-east-… "Former President Donald Trump stands next to a pallet of water before delivering remarks at the East Palestine Fire Department station on February 22, 2023, in East Palestine." Water.org is one of those things ...

1 0

Judge John Dorsey Has Effectively Privatized Justice in the FTX Bankruptcy Case
by Gunnar Larson 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2023/02/judge-john-dorsey-has-effectively-pr… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 23, 2023 ~ John T. Dorsey (2016 Photo from Internet Archives' Wayback Machine) John T. Dorsey (2016 Photo from Internet Archives’ Wayback Machine) Judge John Dorsey is the presiding judge in the bankruptcy proceedings for Sam Bankman-Fried’s collapsed house of cards, which includes the now frozen crypto exchange, FTX; his now shuttered hedge fund, Alameda Research; and more than 100 opaque affiliates operating in the shadows around the globe. Undisputed is the fact that despite FTX being represented by some of the most prominent law firms in America as it built this criminal enterprise – notably Sullivan & Cromwell – more than 10.3 million user accounts were looted of more than $8 billion right under the nose of Big Law. We say “notably Sullivan & Cromwell” in the above paragraph because not only did it work on more than 20 matters for the FTX group of companies for 16 months prior to its bankruptcy filing but its former law partner, Ryne Miller, served as General Counsel of FTX US since August of 2021. In addition, Sullivan & Cromwell has conceded that it personally represented Sam Bankman-Fried on his purchase of more than half a billion dollars of stock in Robinhood Markets (a stock trading app) – the rightful ownership of which is now the subject of multiple court battles. Equally problematic, an email by Sullivan & Cromwell law partner, Andrew Dietderich, has surfaced in a court filing indicating that just four days before FTX filed bankruptcy, Dietderich had told another law firm that FTX is “rock solid.” (Dietderich is now one of the key law partners involved in the FTX bankruptcy proceedings.) Given this set of facts, justice for the defrauded customers and the public interest would obviously demand that the pre-bankruptcy legal interactions between Sullivan & Cromwell, the FTX group of companies and Sam Bankman-Fried (as well as all other questionable activities by others) be investigated by an independent examiner, as is required under bankruptcy law when requested by the U.S. Trustee and debts exceed $5 million. Instead, Judge Dorsey ruled against the U.S. Trustee’s request for an independent examiner in the FTX bankruptcy proceeding and has signed an order making Sullivan & Cromwell the lead counsel overseeing the FTX bankruptcy case. By doing this, Judge Dorsey has effectively privatized justice while sitting on the bench of a federal court. Sullivan & Cromwell is a 144-year old Big Law firm with more than 900 attorneys. Its headquarters is located in the financial district in lower Manhattan on Broad Street. It filed the FTX bankruptcy case, not in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in lower Manhattan, but in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware – a two-hour drive for its law partners, some of whom are billing as much as $2,165 an hour in the FTX bankruptcy matter. (For 19 days in November and 31 days in December, Sullivan & Cromwell has thus far billed $20 million in legal fees and more than $239,000 in expenses. Part of those expenses include more than $20,000 for “Conference Room Dining” and “Meals – Overtime.”) Judges in U.S. Bankrupty Court in Delaware, including Judge Dorsey, have previously ruled on multiple occasions against the appointment of an independent examiner when requested by the U.S. Trustee. This might explain the two hour drive to Wilmington, Delaware by Sullivan & Cromwell’s high-priced attorneys. As Sullivan & Cromwell’s partners are billing and eating their way through what’s left of defrauded crypto customers’ money, Judge Dorsey had the audacity to make the argument in turning down the U.S. Trustee’s request for an independent examiner, that it would cost too much money. The U.S. Trustee program is part of the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal agency. Its statutory mandate is “to promote the integrity and efficiency of the bankruptcy system for the benefit of all stakeholders — debtors, creditors, and the public.” The public’s vested interest in this matter could not be greater. The federal prosecutor who has thus far indicted Sam Bankman-Fried and two of his alleged co-conspirators (Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang), has called FTX “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history.” The entire life savings of some customers is gone with the allegation that their customer accounts were used as Bankman-Fried’s personal piggy bank to buy luxury real estate in the Bahamas; buy celebrity endorsements; slap his company’s name on sports stadiums; and funnel tens of millions of dollars to political campaigns. (And let’s not forget the millions of dollars in legal fees that went to Big Law firms – pre-bankruptcy – to keep this house of cards propped up. In addition to Sullivan & Cromwell, Forbes reported that the following U.S. law firms had worked for FTX prior to its bankruptcy filing: Fenwick & West; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Hogan Lovells; Morrison Foerster; Paul Hastings; Perkins Coie; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and White & Case.) Adding to the logical premise that the public is heavily vested in a transparent and independent investigation of FTX and its enablers – and what is transpiring in these bankruptcy proceedings – a total of 18 state attorneys general and/or state securities regulators filed statements with Judge Dorsey’s court endorsing the U.S. Trustee’s request for an independent examiner. But in another show of how Judge Dorsey has privatized these proceedings, he ignored the wishes of 18 states representing more than a third of the population of the United States. We have made multiple requests to the offices of the U.S. Trustee, asking if the U.S. Trustee is planning to appeal the denial of its request to appoint an independent examiner. Thus far, no information on this topic has been provided to us.

1 0