The French government is set to force all air-conditioned shops to close their doors and switch off illuminated advertising overnight, in a bid to cut energy use.
Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher says it's "absurd" that leaving doors open while the air conditioning is running can lead to 20% more energy consumption.
Businesses which break the ban, due to come into force in the next few days when Pannier-Runacher issues new decrees, will face a €750 fin
Note EU-Digest: Same should be done in other countries of Europe, and in America, where people are completely addicted to airconditioning. and In some areas even keep their car engine running with airconditioning full blast on, while they shop. We better all start taking global warming serious as the clock keeps ticking towards the final curtain,🇪🇺🇺🇸
Read more at
France orders air-conditioned shops to close their doors - with fines if they leave them open | Euronews
Showing posts with label Fines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fines. Show all posts
7/25/22
9/13/19
France: Google agrees to double tax settlement with France to nearly EURO 1 billion
Google agrees to double tax settlement with France to nearly €1 billion Google said on Thursday it agreed to pay 465 million euros in additional taxes to French authorities, boosting the total settlement to end a fiscal fraud probe in the country to nearly 1 billion.
Support EU-Digest, which has reported the news without any political affiliation since 2004, and opposes those
who seek to discredit and even destroy news organizations who believe
in the right of a free Press. You can do that by investing in an advertisement in EU-Digest, or by
giving a donation to keep our efforts going : to donate or advertise and pay by credit card,
click on: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/hermes?token=8BP18304C1657151J&useraction=commit&mfid=1567106786154_8591ae1288ebf
5/2/18
Facebook seeks to block US spying lawsuit from top EU court
Facebook is trying to keep the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
from reviewing an Irish privacy case, fearing potential limitations on
its ability to move customer data from the EU to the US.
The Irish court has ordered the referral of the case to the ECJ in order to determine whether methods used for data transfers are legal. If the ECJ agrees with the decision of the Irish court, that could mean trouble ahead for thousands of tech firms, which transfer huge amounts of data from the EU to the US every day.
Read more: Facebook seeks to block US spying lawsuit from top EU court — RT World News
1/14/18
Monopolies: The European Union Just Showed Democrats How To Take On Monopolies - by A. C. Kaufman and D. Marans
European antitrust officials slapped Google with a record $2.7 billion fine on Tuesday for manipulating search results to favor its own services.
The ruling, which came after a seven-year investigation, exposes what critics described as the failure of U.S. regulators to rein in monopolies at home, forcing their victims to seek recourse in the European Union.
“The U.S. does not do antitrust regulation,” Matt Stoller, an antitrust expert at the nonpartisan New America Foundation’s Open Markets program, told HuffPost. “That’s the key difference. [Europeans] actually do antitrust.”
But what is most surprising about America’s kid-gloves approach to antitrust policy is that it is not limited to Republicans, who are often open about their philosophical objections to regulating monopolistic behavior. In recent decades, influential Democrats have proved just as, if not more, willing to let companies with concentrated financial power off the hook, experts told HuffPost.
“It would be hard to be worse than the [Obama] administration on this,” Stoller said. “The failure of leadership was incredibly profound. That said, it could always get worse, but I don’t think we know enough.”
A monopoly is a company that controls such a large share of an industry that it has the power to dictate prices or engage in other behavior that limits competition. Sometimes companies without sole monopoly power conspire to control prices, forming what are known as cartels.
For many Americans, the word “monopoly” conjures images of robber baron-owned railroad and steel conglomerates from the turn of the 20th century. The trust-busting policies of former President Theodore Roosevelt put an end to them, a certain popular wisdom goes, giving us the thriving, competitive economy we have today.
In reality, as Stoller laid out in a lengthy essay in The Atlantic in October, cutting monopoly business and financial power down to size was the product of constant battles with big money interests that picked up significantly during the New Deal of the 1930s.
Responding to the banking abuses that led to the Great Depression, populist Democrats, often from rural parts of the country, battled the monopolies of their era in order to protect their constituent farmers and local businesses. Antitrust legislation allowed for companies that grew too large or abused their size to be fined or broken up, and Congress, together with the executive branch’s Federal Trade Commission, often put those laws
Read more: The European Union Just Showed Democrats How To Take On Monopolies | HuffPost
The ruling, which came after a seven-year investigation, exposes what critics described as the failure of U.S. regulators to rein in monopolies at home, forcing their victims to seek recourse in the European Union.
“The U.S. does not do antitrust regulation,” Matt Stoller, an antitrust expert at the nonpartisan New America Foundation’s Open Markets program, told HuffPost. “That’s the key difference. [Europeans] actually do antitrust.”
But what is most surprising about America’s kid-gloves approach to antitrust policy is that it is not limited to Republicans, who are often open about their philosophical objections to regulating monopolistic behavior. In recent decades, influential Democrats have proved just as, if not more, willing to let companies with concentrated financial power off the hook, experts told HuffPost.
“It would be hard to be worse than the [Obama] administration on this,” Stoller said. “The failure of leadership was incredibly profound. That said, it could always get worse, but I don’t think we know enough.”
A monopoly is a company that controls such a large share of an industry that it has the power to dictate prices or engage in other behavior that limits competition. Sometimes companies without sole monopoly power conspire to control prices, forming what are known as cartels.
For many Americans, the word “monopoly” conjures images of robber baron-owned railroad and steel conglomerates from the turn of the 20th century. The trust-busting policies of former President Theodore Roosevelt put an end to them, a certain popular wisdom goes, giving us the thriving, competitive economy we have today.
In reality, as Stoller laid out in a lengthy essay in The Atlantic in October, cutting monopoly business and financial power down to size was the product of constant battles with big money interests that picked up significantly during the New Deal of the 1930s.
Responding to the banking abuses that led to the Great Depression, populist Democrats, often from rural parts of the country, battled the monopolies of their era in order to protect their constituent farmers and local businesses. Antitrust legislation allowed for companies that grew too large or abused their size to be fined or broken up, and Congress, together with the executive branch’s Federal Trade Commission, often put those laws
Read more: The European Union Just Showed Democrats How To Take On Monopolies | HuffPost
10/25/17
EU Citizens Privacy Rights: EU privacy regulators increase pressure on WhatsApp over data sharing
European Union privacy regulators rapped WhatsApp on the knuckles for not resolving their concerns over the messaging service's sharing of user data with parent company Facebook, a year after they first issued a warning.
The popular messaging service changed its privacy policy last year to start sharing users' phone numbers and other information with Facebook. That drew widespread regulatory scrutiny across Europe, and WhatsApp subsequently suspended the data sharing for EU users.
In a letter sent to WhatsApp on Tuesday and published on Wednesday, the group of EU data protection authorities - known as the Article 29 Working Party - said the company had still not resolved its concerns about getting user consent for the data sharing.
They noted that the information given users about the privacy policy update was "seriously deficient as a means to inform their consent."
"Whilst the WP29 (Article 29 Working Party) notes there is a balance to be struck between presenting the user with too much information and not enough, the initial screen made no mention at all of the key information users needed to make an informed choice, namely that clicking the agree button would result in their personal data being shared with the Facebook family of companies," the letter said.
The Irish data protection authority - which has jurisdiction over Facebook in the EU because the company's European headquarters are in Dublin - said in April that it hoped to reach a deal in the coming months on the data sharing with WhatsApp.
"Over the last year we have engaged with data protection authorities to explain how our 2016 terms and privacy policy update apply to people who use WhatsApp in Europe. We remain committed to respecting applicable law and will continue to work collaboratively with officials in Europe to address their questions," a WhatsApp spokesman said.
The WP29 also said users' consent was not freely given as WhatsApp effectively adopted a "take it or leave it approach in which users either signal their 'consent' to the sharing of data or they are unable to avail themselves of WhatsApp's messaging service."
A new EU data protection law will come into force in May which will give regulators the power to fine companies up to 4 percent of their global turnover, a huge increase compared with the present levels.
Read more: EU privacy regulators increase pressure on WhatsApp over data sharing
The popular messaging service changed its privacy policy last year to start sharing users' phone numbers and other information with Facebook. That drew widespread regulatory scrutiny across Europe, and WhatsApp subsequently suspended the data sharing for EU users.
In a letter sent to WhatsApp on Tuesday and published on Wednesday, the group of EU data protection authorities - known as the Article 29 Working Party - said the company had still not resolved its concerns about getting user consent for the data sharing.
They noted that the information given users about the privacy policy update was "seriously deficient as a means to inform their consent."
"Whilst the WP29 (Article 29 Working Party) notes there is a balance to be struck between presenting the user with too much information and not enough, the initial screen made no mention at all of the key information users needed to make an informed choice, namely that clicking the agree button would result in their personal data being shared with the Facebook family of companies," the letter said.
The Irish data protection authority - which has jurisdiction over Facebook in the EU because the company's European headquarters are in Dublin - said in April that it hoped to reach a deal in the coming months on the data sharing with WhatsApp.
"Over the last year we have engaged with data protection authorities to explain how our 2016 terms and privacy policy update apply to people who use WhatsApp in Europe. We remain committed to respecting applicable law and will continue to work collaboratively with officials in Europe to address their questions," a WhatsApp spokesman said.
The WP29 also said users' consent was not freely given as WhatsApp effectively adopted a "take it or leave it approach in which users either signal their 'consent' to the sharing of data or they are unable to avail themselves of WhatsApp's messaging service."
A new EU data protection law will come into force in May which will give regulators the power to fine companies up to 4 percent of their global turnover, a huge increase compared with the present levels.
Read more: EU privacy regulators increase pressure on WhatsApp over data sharing
10/3/17
Social Media -Hate Speech: The EU gave an ultimatum to Facebook and Google about hate speech - by Jacob Kastrenakes
The European Union is once again asking Facebook, Google,
Twitter, and other web companies to crack down on hate speech and
speech inciting violence and terrorism — but this time, it’s taking
things a step further. The European Commission has issued guidelines
for web companies to follow, and it’s warning the companies that, if
they don’t comply, the Commission may pass legislation. And that
legislation, of course, could lead to some huge fines.
There are a handful of guidelines so far. The Commission
recommends that web companies appoint a dedicated point of contact, who
law enforcement can contact when illegal content is discovered. It wants
web companies to allow third-party “trusted flaggers” with “specific
expertise in identifying illegal content” to come in and monitor
potentially illegal posts. And it asks web companies to invest in
technologies that can automatically detect potentially illegal posts and
speech.
The Commission would also like companies to do more to
prevent illegal content from being reposted after it’s been taken down.
And the Commission says time frames may need to be established for how
quickly illegal content is taken down once it’s discovered. Web
companies should issue public guidelines, the Commission says, so that
users know how takedown requests are treated and what kind of content
gets removed.
It sounds like a lot, but it mostly boils down to this:
web companies should remove illegal content faster and invest in tools
and employees to make it happen.
Web companies still take over a week to remove illegal
content in more than a quarter of cases, says Mariya Gabriel,
Commissioner for the digital economy and society. “The situation is not
sustainable,” Gabriel says in a statement. “Today we provide a clear
signal to platforms to act more responsibly.”
And there’s a good chance web companies will take steps toward following what the European Commission suggests.
For one, the
European Union is known for levying enormous fines on tech companies — like the €2.4 billion fine on Google
— and those companies would certainly like to avoid any new legislation
coming down that they could one day be in violation of. But also, these
companies have already been working with the EU toward reducing hate
speech.
And several European countries have already passed or considered passing their own laws on hate speech that web companies have to comply with.
A year ago, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Microsoft all agreed to hate speech rules,
which required the companies to review “the majority of” hateful
content within 24 hours of becoming aware of it.
As a result of the
partnership, the companies later teamed up on a new database of images and videos
identified as promoting terrorism, helping the platforms quickly pull
down content that had already been identified as illegal by another
company.
In today’s announcement, Vera Jourová, commissioner for
justice and consumers, refers back to that agreement saying it’s proof
that asking web companies to more strictly regulate hate speech on their
own can work.
“The code of conduct I agreed with Facebook, Twitter,
Google, and Microsoft shows that a self-regulatory approach can serve as
a good example and can lead to results,” Jourová said. But she also
warned that “if the tech companies don't deliver, we will do it."
The Commission says it plans to “carefully” monitor web
companies’ progress in implementing these recommendations and assess
whether further action needs to be taken. That’s supposed to be
completed by next May.
“Follow-up initiatives will depend on the online
platforms' actions to proactively implement the guidelines,” the
Commission writes. Further actions, the announcement says, include
“possible legislative measures to complement the existing regulatory
framework."
3/17/17
Social Media: EU authorities demand changes from Facebook, Google, Twitter - (Reuters)
Social media companies Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc and Twitter Inc will
have to amend their terms of service for European users within a month
or face the risk of fines, a European Commission official said on
Friday.
US technology companies have faced tight scrutiny in Europe for the way they do business, from privacy to how quickly they remove illegal or threatening content.
The Commission and European consumer protection authorities will “take action to make sure social media companies comply with EU consumer rules,” the official said.
The comments confirmed a Reuters report from Thursday.
Germany, the most populous EU state, said this week it planned a new law calling for social networks such as Facebook to remove slanderous or threatening online postings quickly or face fines of up to 50 million euros ($53 million).
The authorities and the Commission sent letters to the companies in December saying that some of their service terms broke EU consumer protection law and that they needed to do more to tackle fraud and scams on their websites.
The companies proposed some ways to resolve the issues and discussed them with the authorities and the Commission on Thursday, a source familiar with the matter said, adding that the meeting was constructive.
According to the letters seen by Reuters, some of those contested terms include requiring users to seek redress in court in California, where the companies are based, instead of their country of residence.
Other issues include not identifying sponsored content clearly, requiring consumers to waive mandatory rights such as the right to cancel a contract, and an excessive power for the companies to determine the suitability of content generated by users, according to the letters.
In the case of Alphabet’s Google unit, the concerns were about its social network Google+.
Read more: EU authorities demand changes from Facebook, Google, Twitter - Al Arabiya English
US technology companies have faced tight scrutiny in Europe for the way they do business, from privacy to how quickly they remove illegal or threatening content.
The Commission and European consumer protection authorities will “take action to make sure social media companies comply with EU consumer rules,” the official said.
The comments confirmed a Reuters report from Thursday.
Germany, the most populous EU state, said this week it planned a new law calling for social networks such as Facebook to remove slanderous or threatening online postings quickly or face fines of up to 50 million euros ($53 million).
The authorities and the Commission sent letters to the companies in December saying that some of their service terms broke EU consumer protection law and that they needed to do more to tackle fraud and scams on their websites.
The companies proposed some ways to resolve the issues and discussed them with the authorities and the Commission on Thursday, a source familiar with the matter said, adding that the meeting was constructive.
According to the letters seen by Reuters, some of those contested terms include requiring users to seek redress in court in California, where the companies are based, instead of their country of residence.
Other issues include not identifying sponsored content clearly, requiring consumers to waive mandatory rights such as the right to cancel a contract, and an excessive power for the companies to determine the suitability of content generated by users, according to the letters.
In the case of Alphabet’s Google unit, the concerns were about its social network Google+.
Read more: EU authorities demand changes from Facebook, Google, Twitter - Al Arabiya English
6/9/15
Banking industry: € 4.97B In Fines Against Major Banks Seems Like A Lot. Here's Why It Won't Deter Corporate Crime. - by Michael Bobelian
On April 11, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a record-breaking settlement with Xerox
stemming from the company’s alleged accounting fraud stretching back a
number of years. “Such conduct calls for stiff sanctions,” announced
Paul Berger, then the commission’s Associate Director of Enforcement,
“including, in this case, the imposition of the largest fine ever
obtained by the SEC against a public company in a financial fraud case.”
The fine, which the SEC dubbed as “unprecedented” at the time, totaled $10 million.
The € 4.97 billion settlement announced earlier today for charges related to the manipulation of currency exchanges makes the Xerox settlement seem pedestrian by comparison. The five banks included in the deal – Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and UBS – settled claims with various American and British enforcement bodies and all but UBS will plead guilty to criminal charges.
“The penalty all these banks will now pay is fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “It is commensurate with the pervasive harm done.”
The question remains whether these "outsized" penalties will actually deter corporations from further wrongdoing or do they merely represent the cost of doing business for companies with tens of billions in annual revenues.
€ 4.97B In Fines Against Major Banks Seems Like A Lot. Here's Why It Won't Deter Corporate Crime. - Forbes
The fine, which the SEC dubbed as “unprecedented” at the time, totaled $10 million.
The € 4.97 billion settlement announced earlier today for charges related to the manipulation of currency exchanges makes the Xerox settlement seem pedestrian by comparison. The five banks included in the deal – Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and UBS – settled claims with various American and British enforcement bodies and all but UBS will plead guilty to criminal charges.
“The penalty all these banks will now pay is fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “It is commensurate with the pervasive harm done.”
The question remains whether these "outsized" penalties will actually deter corporations from further wrongdoing or do they merely represent the cost of doing business for companies with tens of billions in annual revenues.
€ 4.97B In Fines Against Major Banks Seems Like A Lot. Here's Why It Won't Deter Corporate Crime. - Forbes
11/3/14
EU: UK faces punitive interest charges if Cameron ignores Euro 2.17bn EU bill - by Nicholas Watt and Ian Traynor
David Cameron’s refusal to pay a European budget surcharge of euro 2.17bn
by the end of the month will incur punitive extra costs, with interest
charged instantly on a rising monthly scale, the new European commission
warned on Monday on its first working day in office.
Margaritis Schinas, spokesman for the new commission chief, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the monies would have to be paid by 1 December, although political efforts were under way to reach a deal.
The deadline was binding, Schinas said. “Everybody has to pay what is due.”
The new EU budget spokesman, Jakub Adamowicz, said an interest rate of 2.5% would be applied to the outstanding debt from 1 December, rising by a quarter of a percentage point each month.
George Osborne will lead the charge against the levy at a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels on Friday, two weeks after the budget payments dispute erupted at a Brussels summit. As senior diplomats and officials in Brussels insisted on Monday that intensive efforts were under way to strike a deal, the chancellor issued a blunt warning that the EU was not working for Britain.
Read more: UK faces punitive interest charges if Cameron ignores £1.7bn EU bill | World news | The Guardian
Margaritis Schinas, spokesman for the new commission chief, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the monies would have to be paid by 1 December, although political efforts were under way to reach a deal.
The deadline was binding, Schinas said. “Everybody has to pay what is due.”
The new EU budget spokesman, Jakub Adamowicz, said an interest rate of 2.5% would be applied to the outstanding debt from 1 December, rising by a quarter of a percentage point each month.
George Osborne will lead the charge against the levy at a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels on Friday, two weeks after the budget payments dispute erupted at a Brussels summit. As senior diplomats and officials in Brussels insisted on Monday that intensive efforts were under way to strike a deal, the chancellor issued a blunt warning that the EU was not working for Britain.
Read more: UK faces punitive interest charges if Cameron ignores £1.7bn EU bill | World news | The Guardian
3/5/14
Pharmaceutical Industry: Novartis says will appeal 92 million euro cartel fine in Italy
NovartisBSE -0.43 % said it will appeal against a 92 million euro
($126.4 million) fine levied in Italy over alleged anti-competitive
practices relating to its eye drug Lucentis and crosstown rival Roche's
cancer drug Avastin.
"Novartis will use its legal rights of defense according to due process and will appeal," Novartis said in a statement on Wednesday.
"We strongly deny allegations about anti-competitive practices between Novartis and Roche in Italy."
Novartis said it will appeal against a 92 million euro ($126.4 million) fine levied in Italy over alleged anti-competitive practices relating to its eye drug Lucentis and crosstown rival Roche's cancer drug Avastin."Novartis will use its legal rights of defense according to due process and will appeal," Novartis said in a statement on Wednesday.
"We strongly deny allegations about anti-competitive practices between Novartis and Roche in Italy."
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/31466975.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/31466975.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
NovartisBSE -0.43 % said it will appeal against a 92 million euro
($126.4 million) fine levied in Italy over alleged anti-competitive
practices relating to its eye drug Lucentis and crosstown rival Roche's
cancer drug Avastin.
"Novartis will use its legal rights of defense according to due process and will appeal," Novartis said in a statement on Wednesday.
"We strongly deny allegations about anti-competitive practices between Novartis and Roche in Italy."
"Novartis will use its legal rights of defense according to due process and will appeal," Novartis said in a statement on Wednesday.
"We strongly deny allegations about anti-competitive practices between Novartis and Roche in Italy."
"Novartis will use its legal rights of defense according to due process and will appeal," Novartis said in a statement on Wednesday.
"We strongly deny allegations about anti-competitive practices between Novartis and Roche in Italy."
Read more: Novartis says will appeal 92 million euro cartel fine in Italy - The Economic Times
12/4/13
Banking Fraud: EU Sets"Big"Fines in Settling Libor Case - "but why no jail sentences given?"-by C.Bray and J.Ewing
Demonstrating a new resolve to punish bank misconduct, the European Union fined a group of global financial institutions a combined 1.7 billion euros ($2.3 billion) on Wednesday to settle charges that they colluded to fix benchmark interest rates.
The settlement was the largest combined penalty ever levied by the European competition authorities and is the first time that American banks have been fined in a set of interest rate scandals that have also drawn scrutiny from regulators in Britain and United States. Those regulators still have their own investigations underway.
“By European standards, it’s a large fine,” said Nicolas Véron, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a research organization in Brussels. “It signals that the time when only the U.S. can impose big fines is probably over.”
At a news conference in Brussels, Joaquín Almunia, the European commissioner responsible for competition policy, said an investigation had uncovered a collusive scheme by traders at some of the world’s largest banks. Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and Société Générale were found to have improperly influenced the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, as it relates to the Japanese yen and the euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor.
“There is a big need for better supervision of financial markets in Europe,” said Falko Fecht, a professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. “We don’t have a single supervisor for financial markets. This is a flaw in the design of the banking union so far.”
The announcement on Wednesday means that for the first time two American institutions, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, will pay penalties in the rate-fixing investigations. But they will pay only about $200 million, combined — hardly a significant financial hit to banks with tens of billions of dollars in revenue a year.
And the activity under question by the European Union against the American banks only covered short time periods, the longest lasted about three months — not the sort of long-term manipulation that investigators could point to as evidence of an entrenched pattern of corruption. By way of comparison, some of the European banks were engaged in activity that went on for about three years.
Note EU-Digest: this action by the EU is a step in the right direction, but certainly not satisfactory. When a person steals a package of gum in a grocery store they can be thrown into jail. The financial industry on the other hand has been able to steal and defraud the Government and the Public for billions of euro's and basically got away with it. It is high time these crooks are not only asked to pay fines, but also that some of the principals responsible get thrown into jail.
Read more: Europe Sets Big Fines in Settling Libor Case - NYTimes.com
The settlement was the largest combined penalty ever levied by the European competition authorities and is the first time that American banks have been fined in a set of interest rate scandals that have also drawn scrutiny from regulators in Britain and United States. Those regulators still have their own investigations underway.
“By European standards, it’s a large fine,” said Nicolas Véron, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a research organization in Brussels. “It signals that the time when only the U.S. can impose big fines is probably over.”
At a news conference in Brussels, Joaquín Almunia, the European commissioner responsible for competition policy, said an investigation had uncovered a collusive scheme by traders at some of the world’s largest banks. Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and Société Générale were found to have improperly influenced the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, as it relates to the Japanese yen and the euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor.
“There is a big need for better supervision of financial markets in Europe,” said Falko Fecht, a professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. “We don’t have a single supervisor for financial markets. This is a flaw in the design of the banking union so far.”
The announcement on Wednesday means that for the first time two American institutions, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, will pay penalties in the rate-fixing investigations. But they will pay only about $200 million, combined — hardly a significant financial hit to banks with tens of billions of dollars in revenue a year.
And the activity under question by the European Union against the American banks only covered short time periods, the longest lasted about three months — not the sort of long-term manipulation that investigators could point to as evidence of an entrenched pattern of corruption. By way of comparison, some of the European banks were engaged in activity that went on for about three years.
Note EU-Digest: this action by the EU is a step in the right direction, but certainly not satisfactory. When a person steals a package of gum in a grocery store they can be thrown into jail. The financial industry on the other hand has been able to steal and defraud the Government and the Public for billions of euro's and basically got away with it. It is high time these crooks are not only asked to pay fines, but also that some of the principals responsible get thrown into jail.
Read more: Europe Sets Big Fines in Settling Libor Case - NYTimes.com
3/6/13
EU executive fines Microsoft for antitrust breach
The EU executive on Wednesday slapped a 561-million-euro ($731 million) fine on the US software company Microsoft for what it called a breach of an anti-monopolies deal that the firm had previously agreed to.
The European Commission found that Microsoft had failed to offer Windows 7 users a choice of Internet browsers in line with a five-year accord reached between the two sides in 2009.
"Microsoft failed to rollout the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012," the Commission announced in a statement.
Read more: EU executive fines Microsoft for antitrust breach | Business | DW.DE | 06.03.2013
The European Commission found that Microsoft had failed to offer Windows 7 users a choice of Internet browsers in line with a five-year accord reached between the two sides in 2009.
"Microsoft failed to rollout the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012," the Commission announced in a statement.
Read more: EU executive fines Microsoft for antitrust breach | Business | DW.DE | 06.03.2013
3/5/13
Europe Expected to Levy Big Fine Against Microsoft
European antitrust officials are expected to impose a large fine on Microsoft on Wednesday for failing to give users of the company’s Windows software the choice of competing Internet browsers.
Read more: Europe Expected to Levy Big Fine Against Microsoft - NYTimes.com
It would be the first time the European Union has punished a company for neglecting to comply with the terms of an antitrust settlement. Microsoft and European antitrust officials reached a settlement over the browser-access issue in 2009. But last October, the Union’s antitrust chief, Joaquín Almunia, charged Microsoft with failing to live up to the agreement.
The amount of the fine could not be learned on Tuesday. Mr. Almunia’s office and Microsoft executives declined to comment. The company had previously emphasized that the failure was a mistake it regretted.
Read more: Europe Expected to Levy Big Fine Against Microsoft - NYTimes.com
12/13/12
Banking Industry: can we trust them? UBS faces $1-billion fine for rate rigging: report
Swiss banking giant UBS could pay a fine of more than $1 billion to settle allegations that it manipulated Libor interest rates, the Financial Times reported on Thursday.
UBS was the first bank to reveal problems in the rate-setting process of the Libor, otherwise known as the London Interbank Offered Rate, which sets the rate at which banks lend money to each other and also affects a vast range of contracts around the world.
In June, British bank Barclays was fined $452 million by British and US regulators for attempted manipulation of interbank rates between 2005 and 2009.
The Libor system was found to be open to abuse, with some traders lying about the rates to boost positions or make their groups seem more secure.
Barclays is the only bank to have been fined so far, but it is understood that about 20 banks globally are being investigated for possible Libor manipulation.
State-rescued Royal Bank of Scotland has already said that it hopes to settle any claims after warning that it could face significant financial penalties.
RBS, which is 81-percent owned by the government after a huge bailout, has dismissed a number of employees for misconduct as a result of its own investigations.
Read more: UBS faces $1-billion fine for rate rigging: report - The Local
UBS was the first bank to reveal problems in the rate-setting process of the Libor, otherwise known as the London Interbank Offered Rate, which sets the rate at which banks lend money to each other and also affects a vast range of contracts around the world.
In June, British bank Barclays was fined $452 million by British and US regulators for attempted manipulation of interbank rates between 2005 and 2009.
The Libor system was found to be open to abuse, with some traders lying about the rates to boost positions or make their groups seem more secure.
Barclays is the only bank to have been fined so far, but it is understood that about 20 banks globally are being investigated for possible Libor manipulation.
State-rescued Royal Bank of Scotland has already said that it hopes to settle any claims after warning that it could face significant financial penalties.
RBS, which is 81-percent owned by the government after a huge bailout, has dismissed a number of employees for misconduct as a result of its own investigations.
Read more: UBS faces $1-billion fine for rate rigging: report - The Local
11/15/12
BP fined, charged in oil spill that showed 'profit over prudence' - by Michael Muskal and Ronald D. White
Oil giant BP and three of its employees were indicted on criminal charges including manslaughter and obstruction of Congress on top of a record $4-billion fine that the company will pay the government for its role in the oil spill disaster that scarred the Gulf of Mexico, officials announced Thursday.
Led by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., officials announced the indictments in a televised news conference from New Orleans, where the grand jury has been investigating the 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the Louisiana coast. Eleven people died in the explosion.
The announcement of the charges against BP employees came on the same day officials announced that BP had agreed to an unprecedented settlement involving a guilty plea to criminal charges.
British oil giant BP is more than prepared for the $4.5 billion in settlement charges it agreed to Thursday, analysts said.
In the third quarter alone, BP raked in sales of more than $93 billion and had a net profit of more than $5.2 billion. That result showed that “BP has made the most remarkable comeback from the most costly industrial accident in history,” said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer and Co., in a note to investors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)