Latest News
-
Iran's nuclear negotiations: the strongest card Iran has is its highly enriched Uranium
Iran and the United States have been in talks to extend their ceasefire to begin negotiations over issues such as Tehran's nuclear programme, where Washington insists that?Iran cannot be able make a nuclear bomb. Israel and the U.S. bombed Iran in June. While a lot of its uranium-enrichment infrastructure was destroyed or badly damaged, it is believed that a significant amount of highly enriched nuclear uranium survived. This is the main concern of the United States. The biggest concern for the U.S. In a Friday post on social media, Trump stated that Iran had to agree that the enriched Uranium that was buried underground following earlier U.S. attacks be "unearthed", and destroyed with Iran and U.N. nuclear monitor. WHAT IS HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM? It is one of the two fissile elements, along with Plutonium, that can be used to make a nuclear weapon's core. While plutonium usually comes from the spent fuel in a nuclear reactor and requires a large, highly visible infrastructure to extract, uranium enrichment can be done using centrifuges with a smaller footprint. Two of Iran's known three enrichment facilities were in operation when Israel and?U.S. Two of the three Iranian enrichment sites that were known to have been operating when Israel and the?U.S. The one above ground was destroyed. When uranium reaches a purity of 20%, it is considered highly enriched. It is weapon-grade when the purity reaches around 90%. Some modern reactors use fuel that is enriched beyond 90%. According to reports, the fuel used in U.S. submarines is enriched above 90%. How much money does Iran have? Since the June attacks, Iran has failed to inform the U.N. Since the June attacks, Iran has not informed the?U.N. These are the amounts that Iran was estimated to have had when Israel dropped its first?bombs on June 13, - 440.9 kg enhanced to up to 60% 184.1 kg up to 20% enriched - 6,024.4 kg enrichment up to 5% -?2,391.1kg enriched up to 2% According to an IAEA yardstick the 60% stock is enough for 10 nuclear bombs if it's enriched. The 20% would suffice for one, and the 5% for 12. Uncertainty surrounds the amount that has survived. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said that his agency believes that "a little more than 200kg" of the 60% is stored in a tunnel complex located in Isfahan, which appears to have been mostly unharmed by June's attacks. He said some was also stored at the Natanz Nuclear Site. WHY THE CONCERNS? The U.S. has focused its concern on the 60% of material, as it would be easier and quicker to make a nuclear bomb. Washington wants it gone. Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons. It becomes exponentially easier as the level of enrichment increases. It is easier to go from unenriched uranium to 5% than to go from 60% to 90. Donald Trump withdrew the United States from a nuclear agreement between Iran and major powers. This deal kept Tehran a great distance away from producing an atom-bomb. The U.S.'s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 led to its unraveling and Iran rapidly expanded its nuclear program. Iran was not allowed to enrich its oil beyond 3.7% under the 2015 agreement. It takes more steps, even at 90%, to create the core of a nuclear bomb. The uranium becomes gaseous when it is enriched. The uranium must be converted into metal to be used in weapons. CAN YOU MOVE THIS? Yes. Yes. The 2015 deal, and the previous one that preceded it, saw Iran's uranium stocks enriched up to 20 percent diluted or converted into reactor fuel plates before being shipped out of the country. Transporting nuclear material, such as highly enriched?uranium, internationally is a delicate but routine procedure. Grossi, when asked by PBS about the 60% material in March, said: "It can be moved with some caution but?it requires some precaution." IS IRAN READY TO GIVE IT UP? Two senior Iranian sources reported last week that Iran's supreme leadership has given a directive not to send the 60% material abroad. Iranian sources claim that Tehran could agree to send the half to a third-country, in exchange for uranium that is enriched up to 5%, and diluted the other half within Iran. (Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi;;Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)
-
Trump wants to increase the N American content of autos to 82% with half coming from US
Four people familiar with U.S. negotiating positions said that the Trump administration wanted to increase the'regional content' in North American built vehicles to 82% in order to qualify for preferential trade treatment under the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement. In the expansive demand that was unveiled at the Mexico City negotiations this week between the United States and Mexico, no parts content from Canada is included in the totals. The sources claim that Canada was not present at the Mexico City negotiations. If accepted, the shift would be a major departure from the USMCA which currently requires that 40% of "core parts" of North American passenger cars be produced in high-wage countries, such as the U.S. and Canada. This threshold has been lowered to 45% in the case of pickup trucks. In total, USMCA requires that vehicles made in North America have a regional content of 75%. The U.S.'s demand and the lack of accommodation to Canada is consistent with the?Trump Administration officials' questioning about why Canada exports vehicles and auto parts and their desire to move that production to the U.S. Officials from the auto industry said there was a good chance that U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer will seek to negotiate new rules of origin in Mexico, and then present these to Canada with a "take it or leave it" proposition. Greer was evasive when asked if USMCA will continue to be a trilateral agreement or be split into bilateral agreements. First reported on Thursday,?U.S. Negotiators are pursuing an automotive content requirement specific to the U.S. Trade officials briefed lobbyists in the automotive industry on the proposal of 82% regional content. However, it was unclear how this figure or?the 50 U.S. dollar value requirement would be calculated. USMCA will replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020. It will maintain a duty-free zone that supports nearly $1.6 trillion of annual trilateral trade. Last year, President Donald Trump imposed 25% tariffs and 50% duties on Canadian and Mexican vehicle and component imports, and steel, aluminum, and copper from those countries. Greer said that he plans to maintain a certain level of tariffs in the revised "trade pact" on some key Mexican and Canadian products. The two partners could get some preferential tariff rates. At present, cars from Japan, South Korea, the European Union, and Britain are imported at lower tariff rates than vehicles from Canada or Mexico. David Lawder, Emily Green and Nora Eckert reported from Mexico City; David Shepardson in Washington; and Kalea Hall was in Detroit. David Lawder wrote the article; Aurora Ellis edited it.
-
Codelco's Q1 profits nearly quadruple on the strength of copper prices, despite a drop in output
Due to the strong price of red metal, Chile's Codelco - one of the world's largest producers of copper - posted an $825 million pretax profit for the first quarter of 2026. This is nearly four times the $213 reported during the same period in 2017. Codelco reported that its copper production in the period January-March was 272,000 metric tonnes, an 8% drop from the same quarter last year. Ruben Alvarado, CEO of the company, said that it benefited from the higher prices on global markets for products like copper and molybdenum. Copper is used in a wide range of industrial processes including construction and electrification. The output was weak, however, in the major mines El Teniente, Chuquicamata and in smaller divisions Ministro Hales Gabriela Mistral, and Andina. El Teniente's production fell by 26% after the fatal mine collapse last year. Chuquicamata saw a drop of 18% in ore availability. Alvarado stated in a statement that "these?results reflected an operationally challenging quarter in which the company had to deal with production constraints, lower grades of ore and higher costs." "Our focus is strengthening operational 'continuity', safety, cost-control, and ensuring sustainable excess generation for the Chilean State." Codelco did not make any changes to its output forecast for 2026, which is 1.33 to 1.36 millions tons.
-
Rio Tinto invests $1.5 billion in a low-carbon smelter project in Quebec
Rio Tinto announced on Friday that it had commissioned its $1.5 billion low carbon aluminium smelter?in Canada's?province?of?Quebec. The?Anglo Australian mining giant expects to complete the start-up by the end this year with all 96 pots in Complexe Arvida operating. The plant will be able to produce 220,000 metric tons of primary aluminum annually using the low-carbon smelting technology AP60. The AP60 expansion is a step towards the carbon-free aluminum electrolysis technology that ELYSIS has developed in partnership with Alcoa. Separately, on Friday, Melanie Joly, Canada’s Minister of Industry?and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions announced a C$100 Million ($72.55 Million) investment in ELYSIS Technology Deployment Project. The Canadian government said in a statement that "With rising tariffs, and continued trade uncertainty, the Government of Canada is taking decisive actions to protect Canadian workers and reinforce domestic supply chains, and build a stronger and more resilient economy." Rio Tinto?said that combining the AP60 with hydropower in its Canada operations 'would generate one-sixth the greenhouse?gas emission per tonne aluminium compared to industry average. The Arvida smelter ?is located in the ?Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec, ?which is responsible for nearly half of Rio's global aluminium production. ($1 = 1.3784 Canadian dollars) (Reporting by Nichiket Sunil in Bengaluru; Editing by Shilpi Majumdar)
-
Wall Street regulators propose to scrap Biden's climate rule
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a proposal?on?Friday to eliminate dormant regulations that were adopted by former 'President Joe Biden, which?requires companies to disclose their climate-related spending and risks. This is part of the government-wide retrenchment in climate policy following President Donald Trump's return to office last summer. The rule was adopted in 2024, but it has not yet taken effect because of a legal battle from conservative states and industrial lobbies. It was meant to'respond to mounting investor demands for consistent information on the building up of climate-related risks in the financial system, and the costs that companies will incur in adapting to and responding to the "climate crisis". Paul Atkins, SEC chairperson, said in a statement Friday that the agency should only require disclosures when they are material to investors. They shouldn't dictate corporate behavior. SEC officials said that the agency also believed that the rule was now outside of?its authority, could have a substantial impact on companies and discourage capital formation. Benjamin Schiffrin said in a statement that the SEC was "attacking investors" with this decision. Schiffrin is the head of securities policy for Better Markets which advocates for more policing of Wall Street. Investors are concerned about the risks that public companies face, and climate-related risks are no exception. Before the SEC makes a final decision, it will give the public two months to comment on and review the proposal. Reporting by Douglas Gillison, Washington; editing by Chizu Nomiyama
-
The top cases in the US Supreme Court docket
The U.S. Supreme Court has been deciding on a number of important cases in its current term. These include voting rights, presidential power, tariffs and birthright citizenship. Other issues are race, transgender sportspeople, campaign finance laws, LGBT "conversion therapies" and federal agency authority. The term began in October, and will run through June. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases regarding challenges to President Donald Trump’s policies. VOTING RIGHTS ACT On April 29, the court gutted a crucial provision of the Voting Right Act, making minorities less likely to challenge electoral maps as racially biased under the landmark civil right law. The court invalidated an electoral map which would have given Louisiana a U.S. Congress district with a majority of Black people. The decision severely undermined Section 2 in the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed this section to prevent electoral maps from diluting minority voter power. The ruling allowed Republican-led Southern States to demolish Democratic-held districts with a majority of Black and Latino voters ahead of November's midterm elections. After the Supreme Court gutted another part of the Voting rights Act in 2013, Section 2 became a more important bulwark to combat racial bias in voting. Black and Latinos tend to vote for Democratic candidates. Birthright Citizenship The court expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s directive on April 1, to restrict birthright citizenship within the United States. Justices asked the lawyer for the Trump administration questions regarding the legal validity and practical implications of Trump's order. The lower court ruled that Trump's executive order was invalid, as it instructed U.S. agencies to not recognize citizenship for children born in the U.S. when neither parent is a U.S. citizen or "green card" holder. The court found that Trump's policy was in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and federal law codifying rights to birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely rule by the end June. TRUMP'S TARIFFS On February?20, the justices struck down Trump?s sweeping tariffs he 'pursued' under a law intended for use during national emergencies. This ruling has major implications for global economics. The ruling, which was 6-3 in favor of the lower court decision that Trump had exceeded his authority by using this 1977 law, was upheld. The court ruled that Trump's claim to have the authority to impose tariffs was not supported by the law in question, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs, not the President, according to the U.S. Constitution. Tariffs are at the heart of a global trade conflict that Trump started after he entered his second term in office. This war has alienated trading partner, affected financial markets, and created global economic uncertainty. TRUMP'S FIRE OF FED OFFICIAL Justices expressed skepticism about Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, a move that could threaten the independence of the central bank. The justices said they would not grant Trump's request for a judge to overturn a decision that prevented him from firing Cook immediately while her legal case is being resolved. Congress created the Fed by passing a law, the Federal Reserve Act, that contained provisions designed to protect the central bank against political interference. The law stipulated that governors could only be removed "for cause" and did not specify the procedure for removal. Trump claimed that Cook's firing was due to unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. Cook, who is still in her position for now, said that the allegations were a pretext used to fire Cook over differences of monetary policy, as Trump pressures the Fed to reduce interest rates. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. IMMIGRANTS WITH PROTECTED STATUS The Justices heard arguments April 29 on the Trump administration's move to strip humanitarian benefits from hundreds of thousands Haitian and Syrian migrants, as part of Trump's signature immigration crackdown. The Trump administration appealed two federal judge's rulings that halted its efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which the U.S. Government had previously granted to over 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians. Some conservative justices seemed to agree with the administration that courts could not second-guess the decision of the government to end TPS protections. Some justices questioned also the claim made by the challengers, that the administration had not followed mandatory protocols when making decisions in accordance with the law governing TPS. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. Federal Trade Commission Firing The conservative justices of the court have signaled that they will uphold Trump's legality in firing a Federal Trade Commission Member and give an historic boost to president power, while also putting at risk a 90-year old legal precedent. On December 8, the court heard arguments in the Justice Department appeal of the lower court's ruling that the Republican President exceeded his authority by dismissing Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before the term she was due to finish. The conservative justices seemed sympathetic to 'the Trump administrations arguments that tenure benefits granted by Congress to independent agency heads unlawfully infringed on presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution. Trump was allowed to remove Slaughter until the case concluded. The court is expected to make a decision by the end June. TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTIcipation The conservative justices seemed ready to uphold the state laws that ban transgender athletes to female sports teams, amid an escalating nationwide effort to restrict transgender rights. On January 13, the court heard arguments from Idaho and West Virginia in appeals of lower courts' decisions siding with transgender student who challenged the bans imposed in both states as a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and a federal antidiscrimination act. 25 other states also have laws similar to Idaho's. The conservative justices expressed concerns over imposing a uniform law on the entire country, amid a sharp disagreement and uncertainty about whether medications such as puberty-blocking hormones or gender affirming hormones remove male physiological advantages in sport. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. LGBT 'CONVERSION THERAPEUTY' On March 31, the court rejected a Democratic-backed Colorado Law that prohibited psychotherapists from using “conversion” talk therapy to change a LGBT minor's gender identity or sexual orientation. The 8-1 decision sided with the Christian licensed counselor and deemed that the law was an infringement on his right to free speech. The court rejected Colorado’s argument that the law only protected speech, but regulated professional conduct. The court reversed a lower-court decision which had upheld a law brought by Kaley Chiles who argued it violated First Amendment protections from government abridgment. HAWAII GUNS LAW The conservatives expressed skepticism about a Hawaii gun law which restricts the carry of handguns in public places, such as businesses. They appeared ready to expand the right to own a firearm again. On January 20, the court heard arguments in an appeal filed by opponents of the law, backed by Trump's administration. The challengers were appealing a ruling by a judge that Hawaii's Democratic backed measure likely conforms to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right. Hawaii's law demands that a property owner "expressly authorize" the bringing of a handgun on private property. Four other states in the United States have laws similar to Hawaii's. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. Drug Users and Guns The Justices heard arguments in March 2 on the Trump Administration's bid to defend a federal statute that prohibits users of illegal drugs in Texas from owning firearms. Hunter Biden, son of former president Joe Biden, was charged under this law in 2023. The Justice Department appealed a ruling by a lower court that the gun restrictions were in violation of the Second Amendment rights to "keep and carry arms" guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Gun Control Act 1968 included a prohibition against gun ownership by illegal drug users. The decision is expected to be made by the end June. CAMPAIGN-FINANCE On December 9, the court heard arguments in a Republican led bid to overturn federal spending limits by political parties coordinated with candidates. The case involved Vice President JDVance. The conservative justices seemed to be sympathetic towards the challenge. However, the three liberal members of the court appeared inclined to maintain the spending limits. The debate centers around whether federal limits on campaign spending coordinated with candidates' input violate First Amendment protections against government abridgment. Vance and Republican challengers have appealed the ruling of a lower court that allowed restrictions on how much money political parties could spend on campaigns, with input from candidates who they support. This type of spending is called coordinated party expenses. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. MAIL-IN BALLOTS Conservative justices expressed skepticism in a March 23 case against a Mississippi law that allowed a five-day period of grace for mail-in votes received after Election Day. This could lead to tighter voting laws across the country. The Trump administration supported the challenge against Mississippi's law that allows mail-in votes sent by certain voters be counted as long as they are postmarked before Election Day and received within five business days of a federal election. In Mississippi, absentee voting is only available to certain categories of voters. These include the elderly, disabled and those who live away from home. A lower court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The court is expected to rule by the end June. U.S. ASYLUM - PROCESSING: The court seemed likely to rule for the Trump administration's defense of its authority to reject asylum seekers when officials deem U.S. - Mexico border crossings to be too overburdened for additional claims. On March 24, the court heard arguments in a dispute over a policy known as "metering," which Biden's administration dropped in 2021. The Republican president may want to reinstate it. It allowed U.S. Immigration officials to stop asylum seekers and refuse to process their applications indefinitely at the border. The decision is expected by the end of June. WEEDKILLER CAUSES CANCER The court seemed divided on Bayer AG’s efforts to stop thousands of lawsuits alleging that the German company failed to warn users of the dangers of the active ingredient of its Roundup weedkiller. On April 27, the court heard arguments in Bayer’s appeal of a Missouri state court jury verdict awarding $1.25million to a man called John Durnell, who claimed he had been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following years of exposure. The lower court rejected Bayer’s argument that U.S. pesticide law bars lawsuits based on claims made under state laws. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. Human Rights Abuses Around the World The court heard arguments in April 28 on a case that has broad implications for American human rights litigation. Members of the Falun-Gong spiritual movement have accused Cisco Systems, of facilitating religious persecusion in China. Cisco appealed the 2023 ruling of a lower court that gave new life to the 2011 lawsuit brought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. The suit accused Cisco of knowingly developing technology which allowed China's Government to monitor and persecute Falun Gong practitioners. Cisco asked the court to limit the scope the Alien Tort Statute which allows non-U.S. Citizens to sue in American courts over violations of international laws. The court is expected to make a ruling by the end June. SEC'S DISGORGEMENT POWER The Justices appeared to be inclined to support the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a case that tested the limits of one of its key powers. A financial remedy known as disgorgement, in which the agency seeks to recover profits made from illegal activities. On April 20, the majority of justices seemed to be receptive towards the Trump administration's defense of the SEC’s broad disgorgement powers. A decision is expected to be made by the end June. FCC fines wireless carriers In a case brought by major wireless carriers, the justices seemed to be ready to defend the Federal Communications Commission system of levying fines. During the April 21st arguments, the majority of justices appeared skeptical about the claim made by an attorney for Verizon Communications and AT&T claiming that the agency's internal proceedings deprived them of their right to a trial by jury under the U.S. Constitution. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. 'GEOFENCE" WARRANTS On April 27, the court heard arguments in a Virginia case over whether law enforcement using a "geofence warrant" to identify suspects by using data from mobile phones near crime scenes is against the Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution barring unreasonable searches. Geofence warrants approved by the court compel companies, such as Alphabet’s Google in this case, to search mobile device location data of customers who were close to the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. In this case, a defendant pleaded conditionally guilty to robbing an institution of higher learning while reserving the right to argue against evidence obtained from what he believes was an illegal search. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court sided on April 29, with the operator in New Jersey of Christian faith-based "crisis pregnancies centers" that are anti-abortion and trying to impede the state's investigation into the facility's deceptive practices. First Choice Women's Resource Centers brought a federal suit against a subpoena issued by the state attorney general in 2023 seeking information about the organization's doctors and donors. The lawsuit had been dismissed by a lower court. First Choice's facilities are designed to discourage women from getting abortions. RASTAFARIAN INMATE The conservative justices seemed inclined to reject the Rastafarian inmate's attempt to sue Louisiana state prison officials after they shaved his head in violation of religious beliefs. The case was brought before the court in November 10 under a federal statute protecting incarcerated persons from religious discrimination. Plaintiff Damon Landor's religion requires that he let his hair grow. He appealed the decision of a lower court to dismiss his lawsuit, because they found that the statute in question did not allow him monetary damages against individual officials. The ruling is expected to be made by the end June. DEATH ROW INMATE A man convicted in Alabama of a murder committed in 1997 was spared death after the court, on May 21,?kept in force a judicial ruling that the inmate has intellectual disabilities and is therefore ineligible to receive the death sentence. Alabama officials appealed a lower court decision on how to determine Joseph Clifton Smith’s intellectual capacity. The justices rejected the appeal. This method involved weighing IQ test scores and expert testimony alongside multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) test?scores. In a 2002 Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that executing a person intellectually challenged violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. JURY COMPOSITION On May 28, the justices sided with an inmate on death row who claimed that prosecutors had discriminated against him by excluding Black potential jurors in a 2006 trial where he was found guilty for his involvement in the murder of grocery store owner. They found that the state courts of Mississippi had not evaluated Terry Pitchford’s claim that four Black jurors were unlawfully dismissed, in violation of a 1986 Supreme Court precedent called Batson v. Kentucky which prohibits exclusions based upon race. SENTENCE REDUCTIONS The court ruled May 28 that judges could not order early release of prisoners based on the fact that they would receive shorter sentences following the 2018 criminal justice reform act. The court upheld the lower-court rulings that were made against two Pennsylvania men who had been convicted of armed burglaries and sought compassionate release on the basis of First Step Act. Congress passed this law years after their sentences. COX COPYRIGHT DISSENSION On March 25, the court ruled that Cox Communications could not be held responsible for piracy of songs by subscribers to its internet service. These include Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, and other labels. This ended their multi-billion dollar music copyright suit. The ruling of 9-0 overturned the decision by a lower court to order a trial to determine the amount the internet service provider was liable for the record labels under a form liability known as contributory copyright violation. Cox said that a retrial would have resulted in a verdict of up to $1.5 billion against the Atlanta ISP.
-
TotalEnergies CEO: French prefer a fuel price cap over a superprofit tax
Patrick Pouyanne, Chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies, said at the annual general meeting held on Friday that French citizens prefer to have energy companies 'cap fuel prices' at the pump rather than pay a tax on superprofits. He was answering a climate NGO's representative who asked if?the company could do more to help ease the price shocks for consumers. TotalEnergies has been criticized for its massive profits from oil price spikes caused by the war in Iran. French politicians are pushing for a tax on the company to help lower prices. Pouyanne claimed that a survey had revealed that French citizens prefer a price limit, but he did not specify which poll was in question. Pouyanne stated that "French citizens have already spoken out, saying they prefer a direct benefit from a price cap at the pump to a later supertax which the government could or might use?to finance energy transition." He added: "By a way, I think?that is why the government backed?back from its intention to impose supertax... We are the lone company in France to voluntarily cap fuel prices, and the more that we sell, the more money we lose." Reporting by America Hernandez, Editing by Sudip kar-Gupta & Susan Fenton
-
Reliance gets relief from India's highest court in securities fraud case
The Indian Supreme Court granted relief to Reliance Industries Ltd on Friday in a securities?fraud?case, overturning both a lower court decision and a 2020 order by the markets regulator that claimed the 'firm' engaged in manipulative trading. According to the order, the court ordered the Securities and Exchange Board of India to refund the 2.5 billion rupees (26.32 millions dollars) that it collected from Mukesh Ambani's company while the appeal was pending. RIL and SEBI didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Requests for comment from RIL and SEBI were not immediately responded to. The case is about RIL's decision in November 2007 to sell a?5% stake in Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (RPL). Before the sale, RIL entered into agreements with 12 entities who took short positions on RPL futures contracts. Profits and losses from these trades were ultimately attributed to the company. SEBI's?2020 order ruled that this arrangement was fraud and market manipulative as it circumvented derivatives position limits, cornered market, and influenced settlement price. The company was ordered to refund 4,47 billion rupees in investor funds. RIL appealed the order to the Securities Appellate Tribunal which confirmed SEBI's findings. The company then approached the Supreme Court. The top court held, however, that a violation of position limits was a regulatory violation, but did not establish fraud by itself. Hedging is a legitimate risk management tool, and there's no requirement to have a "perfect" hedge. The court said that there was no legal requirement for SEBI to "ensure a perfect hedging with a 1:1" ratio. It also stated that SEBI failed to meet its higher burden of proof to prove manipulation. Sumit Agrawal is a senior partner at Regstreet Law Advisors. He said: "Concentration of positions, aggressive trading strategy, or even violations of trading standards may invite regulatory consequences but are not sufficient to establish market abuse." $1 = 95.0000 Indian Rupees
USITC says Russian palladium does not harm America cos, ends probe
The?U.S. has stated that Russian unwrought Palladium, which is used to reduce emissions from gasoline vehicles, doesn't?harm American companies. The International Trade Commission announced a decision?on Friday to end Washington's antidumping investigation.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided on a separate countervailing duty of 109.1%. Sibanye Stillwater, which produces in South Africa as well as the United States, and the United Steelworkers Union had asked Washington to consider imposing duties so that they could 'protect the long-term sustainability of U.S. supplies. The USITC has now concluded the investigation with its negative determination.
USITC stated in a press release that its full report would be released on July 8th. "The U.S. industry is not materially harmed or threatened with a material injury by reason of the?imports from Russia of unwrought Palladium, which Commerce determined were sold at subsidized prices and below fair value in the United States," it said. Russian palladium exports to the U.S. increased from 23.8 tons a year ago - and 20.4 tons a year earlier - to 27.6 tonnes in 2024. Nornickel of Russia, the largest palladium producer in the world with a market share of about 40%, refused to comment on USITC's decision.
As of Friday, palladium spot prices had fallen by?17% from the beginning of the year. They were currently at $1,355 an ounce. Reporting by Susan Heavey and Anastasia Lyrchikova, with additional reporting from Katharine Jackson and Ismail Shakil. Editing by Ismail Shakil & Chizu Nomiyama.
(source: Reuters)