Friday, April 3, 2009

General Motors (GM) and Chrysler will receive bridge loans from the government of Canada and the provincial government of Ontario, however no more will be forthcoming from either Canadian or US governments unless the companies can reinvent themselves.

“This is a regrettable but necessary step to protect the Canadian economy. We are doing this on the assumption that we obviously cannot afford either in the United States or Canada a catastrophic short-term collapse.” said Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.

“We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish. This industry is, like no other, an emblem of the American spirit; a once and future symbol of America’s success,” said Barack Obama, President of the United States. “These companies – and this industry – must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state.”

Chrysler will receive CA$1 billion and may in fact be eligible for as much as CA$4 billion. If Chrysler succeeds in the next 30 days with a restructuring plan it would be eligible for a US$6 billion loan. A part of Chrysler’s restructuring plan must include a partnership with Fiat within 30 days to appease the US administration. Fiat is a supplier of smaller fuel-efficient vehicles, and the merger will help Chrysler to be viable in the North American market. A Chrysler court bankruptcy would inevitably lead to it being sold off.

As a part of Chrysler’s restructuring plans, Tom LaSorda, the president of Chrysler announced that Canadian operations would fold if it does not receive both the US commitment of $2.3 billion of aid and a new Canadian Auto Workers CAW contract to reduce all-in costs by CA$19 per hour. As a result of this announcement Chrysler’s auto sales volume in Canada dropped 23% compared to March of 2008.

GM has until the end of May to restructure its company to receive up to CA$7.5 billion. As part of the companies restructuring, General Motor’s chief executive Rick Wagoner was replaced Sunday with Fritz Henderson, the current chief operating officer. Henderson spoke out on Tuesday that GM has submitted a restructuring plan which would close five plants, and this may be increased to meet the requirements for financial aid. He is in full compliance with Obama’s auto task force to seek bankruptcy if GM cannot negotiate with their unions, bondholders and others.

GM recently brought forward the “GM Total Confidence” program providing consumer purchase protection for customers who lose their job for economic reasons within the first two years from purchase. As a result of Chrysler’s restructuring announcement in Canada, GM’s Canadian vehicle sales volume fell only 17.3% compared to 2008, an increase from the previous month.

GM must reduce some of its legacy costs which include its pensions and union health care costs. A part of GM’s ailments arose from investing in supplying truck and SUVs during an economy of high gas prices when consumers were demanding fuel efficient vehicles.

Tony Clement, Canada’s Minister of Industry, is hoping that the CAW will support the restructuring process and re-negotiate their agreement. Whereas a United Auto Workers negotiator has said, “I don’t see how the UAW will do anything until they see what the bondholders will give up.”

The Obama administration is looking toward bankruptcy proceedings for the automakers, “as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger. [It will] quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down. What we are asking is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognise that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts.” said Obama.

The auto parts suppliers and IT software exporters in India have already been affected by the declining auto sales. GM and Chrysler software contracts provide US$300 to 350 million a year to vendors in India. As well these two major automakers usually award US$1 billion contracts to auto parts suppliers. “We are worried and closely watching the developments in the US to gauge the impact. The decline in auto sales in the US has already hit the order books of Indian suppliers,” said a Delhi auto parts supplier.

“Going forward, the industry will undoubtedly be smaller, but if our efforts are successful it will be viable and it will support good jobs for Canadians,” said Clements.

Betty Sutton, Ohio’s Congresswoman put forward the CARS act which provides a US$3,000 to 5,000 incentive for those who trade in their vehicle for a fuel-efficient car. “It clearly stimulates the economy, and it gets the consumer into the showroom and gets them buying again. But importantly — and this is what I particularly like about it — it really helps the environment quite a bit in two respects.” said William Clay Ford Jr., executive chairman of Ford Motor Co.

Ford Motor Company has not come forward with requests for assistance.

Since December GM and Chrysler have received US$17.4 billion government loans.

HAVE YOUR SAY
How should the automakers re-invent themselves?
Add or view comments

Sunday, August 3, 2008

The 18th Taipei Computer Applications Show (2008 TICA), organized by Taipei Computer Association (TCA) and Taiwan External Trade Development Council (TAITRA), started its five day trade show at the Taipei World Trade Center. Unlike COMPUTEX Taipei, TICA focused on selling electronic goods to consumers in the local area.

To attract local residents, the show used several arcade machines from the recent “Digital E-Park” trade show.

The event also hosted displays on Linux Applications, Robots, Digital Content , e-Learning, and Science. These displays were co-organized by TCA, TAITRA, and Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) to demonstrate achievements of Taiwan’s R&Ds.

According to TAITRA, technology giants such as Micro-Star International, Advanced Micro Devices, Intel, D-Link, Hewlett-Packard Company, and Sony participated in the event, in addition to local companies such as 3J Tech, Omni Motion, International Games System, and TransAVA, will showcase different trendy and incident-involved products in this show.

Taipei City Government, the supervisor for the event’s transport, announced a plan to deal with the amount of traffic going to the event, which expected to peak in visitor numbers of the weekend.

In depth: Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal controversy

Posted December 9th, 2018 by e76yKR

Friday, May 26, 2006

Buffalo, N.Y. Hotel Proposal Controversy
Recent Developments
  • “120 year-old documents threaten development on site of Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal” — Wikinews, November 21, 2006
  • “Proposal for Buffalo, N.Y. hotel reportedly dead: parcels for sale “by owner”” — Wikinews, November 16, 2006
  • “Contract to buy properties on site of Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal extended” — Wikinews, October 2, 2006
  • “Court date “as needed” for lawsuit against Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal” — Wikinews, August 14, 2006
  • “Preliminary hearing for lawsuit against Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal rescheduled” — Wikinews, July 26, 2006
  • “Elmwood Village Hotel proposal in Buffalo, N.Y. withdrawn” — Wikinews, July 13, 2006
  • “Preliminary hearing against Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal delayed” — Wikinews, June 2, 2006
Original Story
  • “Hotel development proposal could displace Buffalo, NY business owners” — Wikinews, February 17, 2006

In February of 2006, the Savarino Services Construction Corp. proposed the construction of a seven million dollar hotel on Elmwood and Forest Avenues in Buffalo, New York. In order for the hotel to be built, at least five properties containing businesses and residents would have to be destroyed. It was not certain whether the properties were owned by Savarino or by the landlord Hans Mobius. The hotel was designed by Karl Frizlen of the Frizlen Group, and is planned to be a franchise of the Wyndham Hotels group.

Elmwood Avenue is known by the community as a popular shopping center, and Nancy Pollina of Don Apparel (who is “utterly against” the construction) claims it’s the only reason why students from Buffalo State College leave campus. Additionally, Michael Faust of Mondo Video said he did not want to “get kicked out of here [his video store property].”

In 1995, a Walgreens was proposed to be built on the same land, but Walgreens later withdrew its request for a variance because of pressure from the community. More recently, Pano Georgiadis tried to get the rights to demolish the Atwater House next to his restaurant on Elmwood Avenue, but was denied a permit due to the property’s historical value. He has since been an opponent to the hotel construction.

In the process of debating the hotel, it was thought that a hotel had previously existed on the proposed site, however; research done at the Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society had shown that no hotel had previously existed on the site.

Contents

  • 1 In depth
    • 1.1 The initial meeting
    • 1.2 Hotel redesign
    • 1.3 The second meeting and the planning board’s decision
    • 1.4 Threats of lawsuit
    • 1.5 Approval by the Common Council and Planning Board
    • 1.6 Lawsuit filed
    • 1.7 Proposal withdrawn
    • 1.8 Properties for sale
    • 1.9 Documents threaten hotel proposal, businesses on site
  • 2 Chronology
  • 3 Gallery

By Julius Giarmarco

In Estate of Knipp v Commissioner, 25 T.C. 153 (1955), the decedent was a 50% partner in a general partnership that was owner and beneficiary of 10 life insurance policies on his life. The policies were purchased for business purposes. The court ruled that the decedent held no incidents of ownership in the policies. To rule otherwise the court felt would result in unwarranted double taxation, since 50% of the death proceeds were already included in the value of the decedent’s estate via his partnership interest.

Some practitioners have been reluctant to rely on the Knipp case where a partnership or LLC holds no assets other than life insurance. They feel that Knipp requires a business purpose for holding life insurance. But, in PLR 200947006 (Nov. 20, 2009) and PLR 200948001 (Nov. 27, 2009), the IRS ruled that a decedent did not have incidents of ownership over policies on his life owned by (and payable to) a limited partnership, even though: (1) the limited partnership owned no assets other than life insurance; and (2) the decedent owned stock in the corporate general partner and was the trustee of a trust that was a limited partner.

ILIT Substitute

These two PLRs, although not precedent, may open the door for several planning opportunities. For example, a family limited partnership (‘FLP’) or family limited liability company (‘FLLC’) can be used as a substitute for an irrevocable life insurance trust (‘ILIT’). Among the advantages of an FLP/FLLC over an ILIT are the following:

YouTube Preview Image

1. Unlike an ILIT, the partnership/operating agreement of an FLP/FLLC can be amended. Thus, FLPs/FLLCs may be more flexible than ILITs if circumstances or tax laws change.

2. The grantor-insured cannot name himself/herself as the trustee of the ILIT without adverse estate tax consequences. But the insured can be the general partner/manager of the FLP/FLLC. Thus, by retaining a relatively small general partnership interest in an FLP (or a small percentage of the voting membership interests in an FLLC), the insured can remain in control while owning a small percentage of the FLP or FLLC for estate tax purposes.

3. If the insured becomes estranged from a child or grandchild who is a partner/member, the FLP/FLLC can be dissolved and (through the dissolution process) the estranged partner/member can be allocated cash or other assets, while the other partners/members can be allocated the life insurance policy.

4. It is more convenient to use an FLP/FLLC (rather than an ILIT) to own income-producing assets (including a business) in order to provide funds to pay life insurance premiums. In addition, the FLP’s/FLLC’s income will be allocated among the partners/members pro rata and taxed at their individual rates. Income earned and held by the ILIT to pay premiums will be taxed at the ILIT’s extremely high rates (unless the ILIT is a grantor trust). Finally, having income-producing property in the FLP/FLLC avoids having to give trust beneficiaries Crummey powers.

5. Assuming reasonable valuation discounts are allowed (for lack of control and lack of marketability), the insured can ‘leverage’ his/her annual gift tax exclusion (presently $13,000) and lifetime gift tax exemption (presently $1 million) by making gifts of FLP/FLLC units rather than cash.

Buy-Sell Funding

Another planning opportunity for partnership-owned life insurance deals with buy-sell agreements. Buy-sell agreements for corporations with more than two shareholders create several potential problems. First, with the popular cross-purchase or wait-and-see buy-sell agreement (so that the surviving shareholders receive a stepped-up basis in their shares and a C corporation avoids paying the Alternative Minimum Tax), either a trusteed buy-sell arrangement must be used or multiple policies must be purchased (i.e., each shareholder must own a policy on each other shareholder’s life). For example, with four shareholders, you would need 12 policies. Second, a transfer-for-value may occur at the death of a shareholder as the deceased shareholder’s interests in the surviving shareholders’ policies are purchased by the surviving shareholders. If so, a portion of the insurance proceeds will be subject to income taxes. IRC Section 101(a)(2).

To avoid both of these problems, the shareholders could form a general partnership or limited liability company to own the policies with which to fund the corporate buy-sell agreement. Similar to a trusteed buy-sell arrangement, only one policy per shareholder is needed. The partnership / operating agreement will provide that any life insurance death proceeds be specially allocated to just the surviving shareholders. At the death of a shareholder, there will be no transfer-for-value problems, because the transfer of policies to a ‘partner’ of the insured is an exception to the transfer-for-value rule. IRC Section 101(a)(2)(B). In addition, partnerships and LLCs are not subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

In summary, life insurance owned by an FLP or FLLC can provide flexibility and planning opportunities to the insureds that are not available to their counterparts in ILITs and corporations.

THIS ARTICLE MAY NOT BE USED FOR PENALTY PROTECTION. THE MATERIAL IS BASED UPON GENERAL TAX RULES AND FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE AND TAXPAYERS SHOULD CONSULT THEIR OWN LEGAL AND TAX ADVISORS AS TO THEIR SPECIFIC SITUATION.

About the Author: Julius Giarmarco, J.D., LL.M, chairs the Trusts and Estates Practice Group of Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C., in Troy, Michigan. For more articles on estate and business succession planning, please visit the author’s website,

disinherit-irs.com

, and click on ‘Advisor Resources’.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=515886&ca=Legal

Thursday, November 8, 2007

India is the latest of the countries where the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) experiment has started. Children from the village of Khairat were given the opportunity to learn how to use the XO laptop. During the last year XO was distributed to children from Arahuay in Peru, Ban Samkha in Thailand, Cardal in Uruguay and Galadima in Nigeria. The OLPC team are, in their reports on the startup of the trials, delighted with how the laptop has improved access to information and ability to carry out educational activities. Thailand’s The Nation has praised the project, describing the children as “enthusiastic” and keen to attend school with their laptops.

Recent good news for the project sees Uruguay having ordered 100,000 of the machines which are to be given to children aged six to twelve. Should all go according to plan a further 300,000 machines will be purchased by 2009 to give one to every child in the country. As the first to order, Uruguay chose the OLPC XO laptop over its rival from Intel, the Classmate PC. In parallel with the delivery of the laptops network connectivity will be provided to schools involved in the project.

The remainder of this article is based on Carla G. Munroy’s Khairat Chronicle, which is available from the OLPC Wiki. Additional sources are listed at the end.

Contents

  • 1 India team
  • 2 Khairat
    • 2.1 The town school
  • 3 The workplace
  • 4 Marathi
  • 5 The teacher
  • 6 Older children, teenagers, and villagers
  • 7 The students
  • 8 Teacher session
  • 9 Parents’ meetings
  • 10 Grounding the server
  • 11 Every child at school
  • 12 Sources
  • 13 External links

Category:August 5, 2010

Posted December 8th, 2018 by e76yKR
? August 4, 2010
August 6, 2010 ?
August 5

Pages in category “August 5, 2010”

How Pawn Shops Los Angeles Work

Posted December 8th, 2018 by e76yKR

byalex

If you need quick cash but do not want to get a loan, consider going to Pawn Shops Los Angeles. Pawn shops buy new or used merchandise from the public and give cash on the spot. You can sell your item outright or use it as collateral on a short-term loan. Either way, you get cash the same day.

Pawn shopsare a form of credit, but there is no credit check. When you need money, you can take unwanted items to a pawn shop and they will give you a temporary loan.

YouTube Preview Image

An employee will tell you how much the item is worth. Since the pawn shop has to make money, they give you a percentage of the total value. This is the amount of the loan you qualify for.

The pawn shop employee will write down what you are pawning and the amount of money you were given. This paper will also tell you how much money you need if you want to buy the item back later because there is a fee for the service.

If you want the item back, you can buy it back within 30 days for the amount the shop gave you plus a fee. If you do not want the item back, or if you can not pay for it, you do not have to buy it back.

Pawn shops Los Angeles give no credit check loans to anyone, as long as you have an item that has some value. Most pawn shops will accept nearly anything, including jewelry, electronics and even vehicles. Since they accept so many different items, many people like shopping at pawn shops for the bargains.

If you need quick cash, but do not want to get a loan, consider pawning something. You can buy it back if you have enough money in the next 30 days, or you can sell it to the leading pawn shopoutright if you don’t want it back. Since there’s no credit check, you are very likely to get cash today as long as your item has value and it something that your pawn shop purchases.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

A report published last week in the Toronto Star by Professor Michael Geist of Canada’s University of Ottawa claims a copyright case under the Class Proceedings Act of 1992 may see the country’s largest players in the music industry facing upwards of C$6 billion in penalties.

The case is being led by the family and estate of the late jazz musician Chet Baker; moving to take legal action against four major labels in the country, and their parent companies. The dispute centres around unpaid royalties and licensing fees for use of Baker’s music, and hundreds of thousands of other works. The suit was initially filed in August last year, but amended and reissued on October 6, two months later. At that point both the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA) and Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors (SODRAC) were also named defendants.

January this year SODRAC and CMRRA switch sides, joining Baker et al. as plaintiffs against Sony BMG Music, EMI Music Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada. David A. Basskin, President and CEO of CMRRA, with a professional law background, stated in a sworn affidavit that his organisation made numerous attempts over the last 20 years to reduce what is known as the “pending list”, a list of works not correctly licensed for reproduction; a list of copyright infringements in the eyes of the Baker legal team.

The theoretical principle of the list is to allow timely commercial release while rights and apportionment of monies due are resolved. Basskin complains that it is “economically infeasible to implement the systems that would be needed to resolve the issues internally”. And, “[…] for their part, the record labels have generally been unwilling to take the steps that, in the view of CMRRA, would help to resolve the problem.”

The Baker action demands that the four named major labels pay for and submit to an independent audit of their books, “including the contents of the ‘Pending Lists'”. Seeking an assessment of gains made by the record companies in “failure or refusal to compensate the class members for their musical works”, additional demands are for either damages and profits per the law applicable in a class action, or statutory damages per the Copyright Act for copyright infringement.

[…] for their part, the record labels have generally been unwilling to take the steps that, in the view of CMRRA, would help to resolve the problem.

This forms the basis for Professor Geist’s six billion dollar calculation along with Basskin’s sworn testimony that the pending lists cover over 300,000 items; with each item counted as an infringement, the minimum statutory damages per case are CA$500, the maximum $20,000.

Basskin’s affidavit on behalf of CMRRA goes into detail on the history leading up to the current situation and class action lawsuit; a previous compulsory license scheme, with poor recordkeeping requirements, and which, had a decline in real terms to one of the lowest fees in the world, was eventually abolished and the mechanical license system introduced. The CMRRA went on to become a significant representative of music publishers and copyright holders, and the pending list an instrument to deal with situations where mechanical rights were as-yet not completely negotiated. Basskin’s affidavit claiming the list grew and circumstances worsened as time progressed.

The Mechanical Licensing Agreement (MLA) between the “majors'” industry body, an attached exhibit to the affidavit, is set to expire December 31, 2012; this is between CMRRA and the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). With the original MLA expiring at end September 1990, CMRRA negotiated more detailed terms and a “code of conduct”. Subsequent agreements were drawn up in 1998, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

Basskin asserts that the named record company defendants are the “major” labels in Canada and states they “are also responsible for creating, maintaining and administering the so-called “Pending Lists” that are the subject of the current litigation”; that, specific to publishing, divisions of the four represent the “‘major’ music publishers active in Canada”. Yet the number of music publishers they represent has decreased over time due to consolidation and defection from the CRIA.

Geist summarizes the record company strategy as “exploit now, pay later if at all”. This despite the CMRRA and SODRAC being required to give lists of all collections they represented to record labels, and for record labels to supply copies of material being released to permit assessment of content that either group may represent interested parties for. Where actual Mechanical License Agreements are in place, Basskin implies their terms are particularly broad and preclude any party exercising their legal right to decline to license.

Specific to the current Mechanical Licensing Agreement (MLA) between the CMRRA and the CRIA; a “label is required to provide an updated cumulative Pending List to CMRRA with each quarterly payment of royalties under the MLA.” The CMRRA is required to review the list and collect where appropriate royalties and interest due. Basskin describes his first encounter with pending lists, having never heard of them before 1989, thus:

[…I]n the early years of my tenure, CRMMA received Pending Lists from the record labels in the form of paper printouts of information. The information contained on these lists varied from record label to record label, [… i]n fact, within a few days after my arrival at CMRRA, I recall my predecessor, Paul Berry, directing my attention to a large stack of paper, about two feet high. and informing me that it was PolyGram’s most recent Pending List. Prior to that introduction I had never heard of Pending Lists.

Alain Lauzon, General Manager of Canada’s Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SODRAC) submitted his followup affidavit January 28, 2009 to be attached to the case and identify the society as a plaintiff. As such, he up-front states “I have knowledge of the matters set out herein.” Lauzon, a qualified Chartered Accountant with an IT specialisation, joined SODRAC in 2002 with “over 20 years of business experience.” He is responsible for “negotiation and administration of industry-wide agreements for the licensing of music reproduction and distribution”; licensing of radio and online music services use is within his remit.

Lauzon makes it clear that Baker’s estate, other rightsholders enjoined to the case, SODRAC, and CMRRA, have reached an agreed settlement; they wish to move forward with a class proceeding against the four main members of the CRIA. He requests that the court recognise this in relation to the initially accepted case from August 2008.

The responsibility to obtain mechanical licenses for recordings manufactured and/or released in Canada falls with the Canadian labels by law, by industry custom, and by contractual agreement.

The preamble of the affidavit continues to express strong agreement with that of David Basskin from CMRRA. Lauzon concurs regarding growing use of “pending lists” and that “[…] record labels have generally been unwilling to take the steps that would help to resolve the Pending List problem.”

With his background as an authority, Lauzon states with confidence that SODRAC represents “approximately 10 to 15% of all musical works that are reproduced on sound recordings sold in Canada.” For Quebec the figure is more than 50%.

Lauzon agrees that the four named record company defendants are the “major” labels in Canada, and that smaller independent labels will usually work with them or an independent distribution company; and Basskin’s statement that “[t]he responsibility to obtain mechanical licenses for recordings manufactured and/or released in Canada falls with the Canadian labels by law, by industry custom, and by contractual agreement.”

Wikinews attempted to contact people at the four named defendant CRIA-member record labels. The recipient of an email that Wikinews sent to Warner Brothers Canada forwarded our initial correspondence to Hogarth PR; the other three majors failed to respond in a timely fashion. Don Hogarth responded to Wikinewsie Brian McNeil, and, without addressing any of the submitted questions, recommended a blog entry by Barry Sookman as, what he claimed is, a more accurate representation of the facts of the case.

I am aware of another viewpoint that provides a reasonably deep explanation of the facts, at www.barrysookman.com. If you check the bio on his site, you’ll see that he is very qualified to speak on these issues. This may answer some of your questions. I hope that helps.

Sookman is a lobbyist at the Canadian Parliament who works in the employ of the the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). Hogarth gave no indication or disclosure of this; his direction to the blog is to a posting with numerous factual inaccuracies, misdirecting statements, or possibly even lies; if not lies, Sookman is undoubtedly not careful or “very qualified” in the way he speaks on the issue.

Sookman’s blog post opens with a blast at Professor Geist: “his attacks use exaggeration, misleading information and half truths to achieve his obvious ends”. Sookman attempts to dismiss any newsworthiness in Geist’s article;

[… A]s if something new has happened with the case. In fact, the case was started in August 2008 (not October 2008 as asserted by Prof. Geist). It also hasn’t only been going on “for the past year”, as he claims. Chet Baker isn’t “about to add a new claim to fame”. Despite having started over a year and a half ago, the class action case hasn’t even been certified yet. So why the fervour to publicise the case now?
HAVE YOUR SAY
Should the court use admitted unpaid amounts, or maximum statutory damages – as the record industry normally seeks against filesharers?
Add or view comments

As the extracted [see right] stamp, date, and signature, shows, the court accepted amendments to the case and its submission, as Professor Geist asserts, on October 6. The previously mentioned submissions by the heads of CMRRA and SODRAC were indeed actions within the past year; that of SODRAC’s Alain Louzon being January 28 this year.

Sookman continues his attack on Professor Geist, omitting that the reverse appears the case; analysis of his blog’s sitemap reveals he wrote a 44-page attack on Professor Geist in February 2008, accusing him of manipulating the media and using influence on Facebook to oppose copyright reform favourable to the CRIA. In the more current post he states:

Prof. Geist tries to taint the recording industry as blatant copyright infringers, without ever delving into the industry wide accepted custom for clearing mechanical rights. The pending list system, which has been around for decades, represents an agreed upon industry wide consensus that songwriters, music publishers (who represent songwriters) and the recording industry use and rely on to ensure that music gets released and to the market efficiently and the proper copyright owners get compensated.

This characterisation of the pending list only matches court records in that it “has been around for decades”. CMRRA’s Basskin, a lawyer and industry insider, goes into great detail on the major labels resisting twenty years of collective societies fighting, and failing, to negotiate a situation where the labels take adequate measures to mechanically license works and pay due fees, royalties, and accrued interest.

What Sookman clearly overlooks is that, without factoring in any interest amounts, the dollar value of the pending list is increasing, as shown with the following two tables for mid-2008.

As is clear, there is an increase of C$1,101,987.83 in a three-month period. Should this rate of increase in the value of the pending list continue and Sony’s unvalued pending list be factored in, the CRIA’s four major labels will have an outstanding debt of at least C$73 million by end-2012 when the association’s Mechanical Licensing Agreement runs out.

Easy Approval Payday Loans Reduce Debt Fast

Posted December 6th, 2018 by e76yKR

byphineasgray

-year-old daughter, works in the healthcare field. Between taking care of her daughter and working at her job as a medical assistant, she has very little time to do much else. Sometimes, working people like Mary need emergency cash. Therefore, they like to know they can access money fast.

A Loan You Can Take Out Even If Your Credit Is Bad

Easy approval payday loans are designed to pay for HVAC repairs, car repairs, and medical expenses – any costs that materialize which are considered emergencies. You do not have to have a good credit score to apply for the loans either. Easy approval payday loans can be obtained even if your credit score has seen better days.

YouTube Preview Image

Higher Interest Loans

Because easy approval payday loans do not require any kind of collateral for approval, the interest rates for these loans can be considered exorbitant. However, you have to look at the length of the loan terms as well. Because you are only taking out the loan for no more than two weeks, the interest rate is determined and set in accordance to the established terms.

Why Payday Loans Are Not Used for Non-emergency Reasons

Naturally, a mortgage loan will offer a much lower rate of interest than easy approval payday loans as it is collateralized and secured for a much longer period of time. If you default on the loan, the lender can seize your house. Therefore, use easy approval payday loans only for their intended purpose and pay them back accordingly.

The Ideal Payday Loan Borrower

Ideally, a borrower who takes out a payday loan should do so out of need. For instance, he may need to pay for an unanticipated medical expense that is not covered by insurance, or he might need the money to buy a new tire or replace a part in his car. Once payday rolls around, he should be able to pay back the money he received with interest and do so without too much difficulty.

Prioritize Your Debts and Borrowing Practices

Borrowers default on fast payday loans when they are not in the habit of saving, or use the borrowed cash for another purpose besides an unexpected debt. You should not even use a payday loan for paying a credit card debt. It does not make sense to add this kind of expense to a debt load that includes credit card interest.

Pay Back your Loan on Time

Use payday cash for immediate cash needs and pay the money back when it is scheduled to be paid. Otherwise, don’t be tempted by the idea of “easy” money. Easy approval only means that the cash you are receiving is not collateralized and the financing carries a higher rate of interest.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

On Monday, the United States ride-sharing company Uber announced suspension of its experimental self-driving car program after one of the cars fatally struck a 49-year-old woman pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona on Sunday night.

The company characterized the suspension of the program — in the Phoenix area and also in Pittsburgh; San Francisco; and Toronto, Canada — as a standard response in the wake of the accident. Uber released a statement that “Our hearts go out to the victim’s family. We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident.” According to a spokeswoman, the company is also conducting its own investigation. It was reportedly the first time someone died in an incident involving a self-driving car.

Elaine Herzberg was hit at about 10 pm local time (UTC -7) on Sunday when she walked into the street with her bicycle about 100 yards or less from a crosswalk. She died later in hospital. The Volvo car was operating autonomously. Sylvia Moir, chief of police in Tempe, told the San Francisco Chronicle that according to the human operator in the vehicle — Rafaela Vasquez, 44 — “it was like a flash”, there was no time to override the computer to take evasive action, the first indication was the sound of impact.

The police stated the car was three miles per hour (mph) over a speed limit of 35 mph. According to Moir, recordings from the car’s video cameras indicated it would have been “difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode”. Moir told the San Francisco Chronicle that while she “[wouldn’t] rule out the potential to file charges” against Vasquez, “preliminarily it appears that the Uber would likely not be at fault in this accident”.

Uber started its Arizona self-driving test program in February 2017, using vehicles that had been banned in California due to safety concerns. The next month one was involved in a collision while in self-driving mode after another car failed to yield the right of way; the Uber SUV rolled on its side.