Mediaboss Marketing

On 19 March 2020, the European Commission adopted the Temporary Framework on State aid measures to support the economy in the current context of the COVID-19 outbreak ("Temporary Framework"). The Temporary Framework is based on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and aims to remedy a serious disturbance in the European economy. The Temporary Framework allowed States to adopt measures to contribute to the continuity of economic activity during the COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure recovery after the crisis.

The Temporary Framework, adopted in March 2020 and initially in force until the end of 2020, provided for five categories of aid which could, under certain conditions, be considered by the Commission to be compatible with the internal market:

aid in the form of direct grants, repayable advances or tax concessions, up to a maximum amount of EUR 800,000 per company;

aid in the form of loan guarantees;

aid in the form of subsidised interest rates for public loans;

aid in the form of public guarantees and reduced interest rates provided to enterprises through credit or other financial institutions; and

aid in the form of short-term export credit insurance.

In view of the pandemic's development and its impact on the economies of EU Member States, the Temporary Framework has been amended several times and its duration extended.

On 3 April 2020, the Commission adopted a first amendment so that aid could be used to accelerate research, testing and production of COVID-19-related products, to protect jobs and to further support the economy during the crisis (see our article of 7 April 2020).

On 8 May 2020, it adopted a second amendment to further facilitate access to capital and liquidity for companies affected by the crisis (see our article of 13 May 2020).

On 29 June 2020, it adopted a third amendment to further support start-ups and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and to encourage private investment (see our article of 10 July 2020).

On 13 October 2020, it adopted a fourth amendment to prolong the Temporary Framework and to allow aid to be used to cover part of the uncovered fixed costs of companies hit by the crisis (see our article of 16 October 2020).

On 28 January 2021, it adopted a fifth amendment to further extend the Temporary Framework, to adapt the aid thresholds set out in the Temporary Framework and to allow reimbursable instruments to be converted into direct grants under certain conditions (see our article of 3 February 2021).

Finally, on 18 November 2021, the European Commission extended the Temporary Framework until 30 June 2022 (see our article of 24 November 2021). The main change concerns the introduction of two categories of phasing-out aid, i.e. the option for Member States to grant investment and solvency support measures beyond the fixed expiry date (i.e. beyond 30 June 2022).

Member States can stimulate private investment in enterprises, provided that the investment aid is granted under an aid scheme and in various forms and that the maximum individual aid to an enterprise does not exceed EUR 10 million in nominal value. This ceiling is increased to EUR 15 million where the aid scheme provides for aid exclusively in the form of guarantees or loans. In addition, individual aid must not exceed 1% of the total budget of the scheme, save in exceptional situations duly justified by the Member State concerned.

The eligible costs covered by these investment support measures must only include the costs of investment in (in)tangible assets, excluding financial investments.

In addition, the aid intensity must not exceed 15% of the eligible costs, although increases may be justified where small or medium-sized enterprises are concerned. In the case of aid in the form of guarantees or loans, the aid intensity must not exceed 30% of the eligible costs.

Finally, Member States may limit investment aid to specific economic areas that are of particular importance for economic recovery, provided that such limits are designed in a general way and do not constitute an artificial restriction on eligible investments.

This instrument is available to Member States until 31 December 2022 if the investments concerned were made before 1 February 2020.

Solvency support is intended to alleviate the difficulties associated with a company's level of indebtedness and to act as an incentive for private investment in equity, subordinated debt or quasi-equity, with the aim of achieving risk sharing between Member States and private investors.

Risk sharing is achieved by limiting the value of such a guarantee to a maximum of 30% of the underlying portfolio when covering first losses, with a limit of EUR 10 million on the total amount of funding provided per company.

Like investment aid, solvency support is granted under an aid scheme established on the basis of transparent and objective criteria, in the form of state guarantees or similar measures. Such support will be granted on market-oriented terms and will only be targeted at SMEs as final beneficiaries. Financial institutions are explicitly excluded from the measure.

This instrument is available to Member States until 31 December 2023.

In addition, the Commission has made other changes, namely:

extending from 30 June 2022 to 30 June 2023 the option for Member States to convert certain reimbursable instruments (such as guarantees, loans and repayable advances) granted under the Temporary Framework into other forms of aid, such as direct grants;

adjusting the maximum amounts of certain types of aid in proportion to their extended period;

clarifying the exceptional flexibility provisions of the Commission's rescue and restructuring guidelines; and

extending by three months (from 31 December 2021 to 31 March 2022) the adapted list of non-marketable risk countries for short-term export credit insurance.

At the beginning of 2022, the Commission consulted Member States on a possible extension of the Temporary Framework and requested related macroeconomic data.

However, the European Commission announced on 12 May 2022 that the Temporary Framework would not be extended beyond 30 June 2022, although some measures can be implemented by States after this date; for example, Member States will still be able to convert loans into limited amounts of aid in the form of direct grants, subject to the conditions of the Temporary Framework and provided that this option has been envisaged in their national schemes. This conversion option could be used under strict conditions to cancel loans or parts of loans for the benefit of borrowers who are unable to repay.

Similarly, Member States will also be able to implement their schemes to restructure loans, for example by extending their duration or lowering the applicable interest rates, within defined limits.

In addition, during the phasing-out and transition phase, Member States will be able to adopt the specific investment support and solvency support measures described above until 31 December 2022 and 31 December 2023 respectively, subject to prior authorisation by the Commission (see above).

In conclusion, just over two years after the Temporary Framework's entry into force, the Commission will have enabled Member States to provide rapid and flexible support to companies affected by the COVID-19 crisis. The Commission has in fact adopted more than 1,300 decisions in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, authorising almost 950 national measures for a total amount of State aid estimated at almost EUR 3,200 billion.

Visit link:
Phasing-out of the Temporary Framework on State aid linked to the COVID-19 crisis - Lexology

A Georgia man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for hiding the death of a popular high school teacher whose disappearance remained a mystery for more than decade

ByThe Associated Press

May 23, 2022, 6:36 PM

3 min read

OCILLA, Ga. -- A Georgia man was sentenced to 10 years in prison Monday for hiding the death of a popular high school teacher whose disappearance baffled family, friends and investigators in her rural hometown for more than a decade.

Ryan Alexander Duke was sentenced in Irwin County Superior Court just three days after a jury acquitted him of murder in the 2005 death of Tara Grinstead. Duke testified that he gave investigators a false confession after a friend killed Grinstead. He was convicted only of concealing her death.

The 10-year sentence imposed by Judge Bill Reinhardt was the maximum punishment allowed. Duke has already served about half that time in jail awaiting trial.

A history teacher and former beauty queen, Grinstead vanished at age 30 from her home in Ocilla. Even as years passed, her family held out hope that Grinstead would be found alive until Duke told investigators in 2017 that he killed Grinstead and with the help of a friend burned her body to ash.

Every day, they couldnt find Tara," Judge Reinhardt told Duke at sentencing. "And it is true that despite whatever your selfish feelings were for not coming forward, you had to the power to stop that pain for years.

Five years ago, Duke told agents with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that he had broken into Grinstead's home in October 2005 to steal money for drugs. He saidhe fatally struck Grinstead when she startled him.

But Duke recanted his 2017 confession during his trial, testifying to the jury that he made it up under the influence of drugs and in fear of the real killer his friend with a similar last name, Bo Dukes.

Prosecutors insisted Duke's confession included details only the killer would know such as Duke telling investigators he called Grinstead's home from a pay phone after fleeing the house to see if she would answer. When she did not, he said, he returned to find her dead.

He confessed because he got caught, Grinstead's sister, Anita Gattis, told the court during Duke's sentencing hearing. There is nothing sanctimonious about that.

Investigators also found Duke's DNA on a latex glove found in Grinstead's yard. Still, his testimony sewed enough doubt with the jury that he was acquitted of all charges except for concealing her death.

Duke testified that his friend, Dukes, in 2005 woke him up inside the mobile home they shared and told Duke he had killed Grinstead. He testified that Dukes showed him Grinstead's purse and wallet.

He said they both took Grinstead's body to the pecan orchard and burned it. Investigators later found bone fragments at the site, but said DNA tests seeking to match them to Grinstead were inconclusive.

Dukes was called to the witness stand but declined to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Dukes is already serving 25 years in prison after being convicted in 2019 of concealing Grinstead's death, giving false statements to investigators and hindering the apprehension of a criminal.

View original post here:
Acquitted of murder, man sentenced for hiding teacher's body - ABC News

Looking back at Donald Trump and his teams efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it might be tempting to think of Rudy Giuliani as some kind of hapless, buffoonish figure. It was two days after the race was called, for example, when the former New York City mayor held a head-shaking press conference in Philadelphia at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot, near a sex shop and a crematorium.

Soon after, Giuliani held a different outlandish press conference in which a strange dye ran down his face.

But as ridiculous as his political antics made him appear, Giuliani is not just some random clown in the former presidents orbit. On the contrary, for those investigating the post-election scandals and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, there are few figures more important than the Republican lawyer.

Before Election Day 2020, for example, it was Giuliani who partnered with an active Russian agent in the hopes of undermining the future American president. After Election Day 2020, Giuliani was not only a central figure in Trumps inner circle as Team Trump tried to overturn the results, and he not only spoke at the rally that preceded the riot, but the former New York City mayor also stands accused of helping coordinate the fake-electors scheme thats the subject of multiple ongoing investigations.

By some accounts, Giuliani was also directed by Trump to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it were legally possible to seize control of voting machines in key swing states.

With this in mind, it was of interest to see that Giuliani finally sat down with congressional investigators on Friday. NBC News reported:

Rudy Giuliani, one of the most prominent promoters of former President Donald Trumps lies about a stolen election, testified Friday before the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 riot, according to two sources familiar with the matter. One source told NBC News that the onetime Trump attorney met with the Democratic-controlled House committee for roughly nine hours, including breaks.

Though Giuliani was first subpoenaed in January, his testimony was not a foregone conclusion. Soon after being contacted by congressional investigators, the Republican insisted that the select committee was itself illegal and lacked the authority to subpoena anybody. (None of this reflected reality.)

Eventually, Giuliani switched gears and was scheduled to testify a few weeks ago, but he canceled at the last minute after a disagreement over recording the interview.

Then he switched gears again and testified on Friday under oath over the course of nine hours. A New York Times report noted that the Q&A was interrupted so that Giuliani could host his hourlong afternoon radio show.

As for what he actually said over the course of the many hours, we dont yet know. But given the duration of the proceedings, it seems unlikely that Giuliani simply asserted his Fifth Amendment rights over and over again.

Lets also not forget that the former mayor has drawn the scrutiny of federal law enforcement, and it was a year ago when investigators executed a search warrant at Giulianis home. At least in theory, if he were still facing a possible indictment, testifying under oath for several hours would be a highly risky move.

Watch this space.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read the original post:
Over 9 hours, Jan. 6 committee finally gets answers from Giuliani - MSNBC

In the Dred Scott decision, Roger B. Taney, led the court in ruling that Black people could never be citizens of the United States and that slavery could not be banned in any state. The Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs, which will overturn Roe v Wade will have the same result.

Red states like Missouri already have plans that other red states will follow to sue doctors in other states that perform abortions on Missouri women. There is talk of charging women who go to another state for an abortion to face criminal charges when she returns to her home state. Such laws will in effect nationalize the ban on abortion, thus enslaving womens bodies throughout America.

Women should not count on a gang of religious zealots on the Supreme Court groomed by the Federalist Society to protect her rights under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution or under the Fifth Amendment when she goes to another state.

History rhymes in that black citizens, who sought such protections when traveling from state to state were denied them in the 19th Century. Current red state efforts will become Americas new de facto fugitive slave act, because red states will reach across borders to interfere with women getting an abortion.

Women activists are preparing for the end of Roe v Wade, and efforts are underway to create a new underground railroad that will help women get access to abortion where it is legal, and also to enable women to get necessary contraception and abortion pills as well. But these women will face the same risks of breaking the law that earlier railroaders faced.

The conservative war on women on will continue to not only deny pregnant women abortions, but to ban contraception as well. Women will become secondary citizens in America under patriarchal rule.

George Magakis, Jr., Norristown, Pa.

Read the rest here:
There will be a new version of the Underground Railroad to help women seeking abortions | PennLive letters - PennLive

Judy Huth met Bill Cosby when she was still a teenager, she has recounted in court papers. It was the mid-1970s, and Mr. Cosby had already had his breakthrough on the TV series I Spy and become a movie star, but was still years away from his huge success on The Cosby Show. Ms. Huth and a friend spotted him on a film set in a park in San Marino, Calif., and ended up meeting him in person, according to her court filings.

Days later, she asserts in the filings, she went to Mr. Cosbys tennis club at his invitation, where he gave her and her friend alcohol before taking them to the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, where she accuses him of forcing her to perform a sex act on him in a bedroom. Mr. Cosby has described her account as a fabrication since the case was first filed in 2014.

This week the job of deciding who is credible will fall to a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court, as the civil trial of Mr. Cosby on Ms. Huths accusations that he sexually assaulted her is scheduled to get underway.

Ms. Huths recollection regarding when the encounter occurred has changed. She initially said that it had happened in 1974, when she was 15. But more recently she concluded that it was actually in 1975, when she was 16, according to court papers. Since the beginning, she has said in court papers that she recalled Mr. Cosby telling her and her friend to claim they were both 19 if asked at the mansion.

The change of dates has led Mr. Cosbys team to further dispute her account. Andrew Wyatt, a spokesman for Mr. Cosby, said in a statement that Ms. Huth had made inconsistent statements since the inception of filing this civil suit against Mr. Cosby. Ms. Huth has said that recently released information supplied by Mr. Cosbys team had led her to reconsider what year it occurred.

The civil case, one of the last unsettled lawsuits against Mr. Cosby, was largely put on hold while prosecutors in Pennsylvania pursued the criminal case that resulted in his 2018 conviction on charges of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand. But the conviction was overturned, and Mr. Cosby was released from prison last year when an appellate panel found that his due process rights had been violated when prosecutors ignored an assurance from a prior district attorney that Mr. Cosby would not be prosecuted.

With the criminal case overturned, the significance of Ms. Huths suit has risen in the minds of some of the many women who have accused Mr. Cosby of being a sexual predator.

I think that Judys trial may be our last stand for justice and seeing accountability come to fruition in our stand against Bill Cosby, Victoria Valentino, who says Mr. Cosby drugged and raped her in Los Angeles in 1969, said in a text. (Mr. Cosby has denied all allegations of sexual assault, and said any encounters were consensual.) She said she plans to attend part of the trial, which, barring a last-minute settlement, is set to begin with jury selection this week and opening arguments expected June 1.

Patricia Steuer, who accused Mr. Cosby of drugging and assaulting her in 1978 and 1980, said that she saw the Huth civil trial as a chance to get a measure of justice. There is no other recourse at the moment, she said. It probably is the only avenue available.

Mr. Cosby, now 84, has already faced multiple other civil cases filed against him by women, many of whom sued him for defamation after his legal team dismissed as fictions their accusations of sexual misconduct by him. Eleven civil cases ended in settlements, with 10 of the settlements having been agreed to by Mr. Cosbys former insurance company over his objections, according to his spokesman.

Ms. Huths lawsuit is poised to become the first civil case accusing Mr. Cosby of sexual assault to reach trial. In court papers, Ms. Huth says that in a bedroom at the Playboy Mansion, Mr. Cosby tried to put his hand down her pants and then forced her to fondle him.

Ms. Huth filed her suit in December 2014, at a time when Mr. Cosby was facing allegations by many women who said he had drugged and sexually assaulted them, in incidents spanning several decades.

She also reported her accusation to the police, but the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office declined to file criminal charges because the statute of limitations had passed.

Her lawyers argued that the period for a civil claim had not expired, however, because in California it is extended for adults who say they were victims of sexual abuse as minors but repressed the experience. The deadline to file such a suit is determined in part by when the person, as an adult, becomes aware of the severe psychological effect of the abuse, her lawyers said.

In 2020, California law was amended to further extend the statute of limitations for sexual assault filings in civil court.

Ms. Huths revised timeline, which says Mr. Cosby assaulted her when she was 16 rather than 15, should not affect her ability to pursue the suit since the law views a 16-year-old as a minor, Ms. Huths lawyer, Gloria Allred, said.

Mr. Cosbys lawyers argued in legal papers that they felt ambushed by the sudden change in Ms. Huths account. They said that their research had been geared toward establishing Mr. Cosbys and Ms. Huths whereabouts in 1974, and said they had prepared evidence to show that the entertainer was not at the Playboy Mansion in the period she suggested in 1974.

Log books from the Playboy Mansion for 1974 do not list either Ms. Huth or her friend as having visited, according to Mr. Cosbys lawyers.

At a hearing last week, the judge asked Playboy to produce records for 1975 and agreed that Ms. Huth and the friend who accompanied her should sit for a further deposition before the trial begins.

Mr. Cosbys lawyers have also questioned whether she had only remembered the alleged abuse a short time before filing the suit because, they said, she had contacted a tabloid about it 10 years earlier.

Mr. Wyatt, the spokesman for Mr. Cosby, said in the statement, We feel confident that the Playboy records along with Ms. Huth changing her timeline of events from 1974 to 1975 in the 11th hour will vindicate Mr. Cosby.

Mr. Cosby acknowledged meeting with Ms. Huth at the Playboy Mansion, and Ms. Huth has produced photographs of them together that she said were taken there, according to court papers. But he has denied that she was a minor when they met.

While defendant does not deny that he socialized with plaintiff at the Playboy Mansion, as he did other women and men who frequented the club, his lawyers said in court papers, defendant vehemently denies that plaintiff was underage.

Ms. Huth has said that she changed the timeline of her account in part because she only recently realized, as a result of documents put forward by Mr. Cosby, that the filming of the movie Lets Do It Again, where she says they met, took place later than she had recalled.

The trial is expected to last two weeks, and Ms. Huth, who is seeking damages from Mr. Cosby, is expected to testify, along with the friend who accompanied her to the Playboy Mansion. Mr. Cosby has invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and will not testify. He will not attend the trial, Mr. Wyatt said.

During pretrial hearings, Ms. Huth had asked for a bench trial, but the trial will be in front of a 12-person jury, with at least 9 of 12 votes needed for a verdict.

Mr. Cosby settled a civil case Ms. Constand brought against him in 2006 for $3.4 million. The other civil cases were settled for undisclosed terms by the insurance carried on Mr. Cosbys home policy, which provided personal injury coverage in a range of circumstances, including lawsuits that accused the policy holder of defamation.

The other ongoing civil case against Mr. Cosby was filed last year by Lili Bernard, an actor and visual artist, who accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her at a hotel in Atlantic City in 1990, when she was 26. She was able to file the suit, which is still in its early stages, because in 2019 New Jersey overhauled its laws on the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases, extending the time limit for filing suits and creating a special two-year window allowing people to bring cases regardless of how long ago the alleged assaults might have occurred.

Original post:
Lawsuit Accusing Bill Cosby of Sexual Assault Heads to Trial - The New York Times