BP in Battle to Keep Its Accord With Rosneft Alive

 

Months of negotiations with Rosneft, the oil company controlled by the Russian state, and a group of Russian billionaires who are BP’s partners in its current joint venture, TNK-BP, have failed to come to a conclusion, BP said, without giving any details.

“A solution has not been found at this time, although talks will continue,” the BP statement said.

For BP, some analysts believe that much of its prospects for growth — and winning back investors — after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico depends on clinching the deal in Russia.

Under the arrangement with Rosneft, originally announced in January, BP would gain access to the Kara Sea, one of the icy backwaters of the Arctic Ocean that has recently attracted attention from the energy industry as a new oil frontier. But it quickly hit a legal snag when the Russian shareholders in TNK-BP, who operate through a holding company known as AAR, filed a legal action to block it.

A Monday midnight deadline passed without word from BP or Rosneft.

But the BP chief executive Robert W. Dudley said Tuesday that BP remained “committed to Russia, to working constructively with AAR in TNK-BP, and to our existing good relationship with Rosneft.”

“All parties have worked hard to reach an acceptable resolution, as we believe it could offer significant benefits to BP shareholders, to Rosneft, AAR and Russia,” Mr. Dudley said.

BP said previously that it had offered AAR a range of concessions, including cash and a part in the Rosneft deal, but without success. Some newspapers have reported that BP was locked in talks with AAR trying to buy the stake it does not already own in TNK-BP from the Russian investor group for more than $30 billion.

Mikhail Fridman, chairman of AAR, said Tuesday that the investor group remained “dedicated to the success of TNK-BP” and that “AAR is a long-term strategic investor, and we look forward to working with BP on delivering the next phase of TNK-BP’s growth, both in Russia and internationally.”

He added that the group planned “to continue discussions about potential collaboration among BP, Rosneft and AAR.”

A spokeswoman for Rosneft said the company might issue a statement later Tuesday.

AAR contended that BP had violated terms of the partnership in forging the agreement with Rosneft. An international arbitration court in Stockholm that has handled the AAR complaint ruled recently that BP-Rosneft could complete the part of the deal involving a stock swap, but would have to include TNK-BP in the Arctic exploration part of the agreement.

For the deal to proceed, Rosneft and BP would presumably have to renegotiate terms and either include TNK-BP or somehow buy out AAR’s stake.

Andrew E. Kramer contributed reporting from Moscow.

View the original article here

Fifa battle over UK World Cup TV

。 11 May 2011 Last updated at 20:20 ET By Bill Wilson Business reporter, BBC News  World Cup finals games featuring England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain free to watch Football bodies Fifa and Uefa have appealed against a European ruling that the World Cup and Euro Championships must be on free-to-air TV in the UK.

In February, the European General Court said the UK could keep the events on a list of "protected" events of national sporting interest shown for free.

It means the two tournaments cannot be sold exclusively to pay-TV firms.

Fifa and Uefa say they cannot sell the events fairly, and the cases will now go to the European Court of Justice.

Football's world governing body has been in the news this week with allegations from former FA chairman Lord Triesman that four Fifa members sought "bribes" in return for backing England's failed 2018 World Cup bid.

Lengthy process

The TV cases will be heard in the European Court of Justice, Europe's supreme court, regarding the decision made in the General Court (formerly Court of First Instance) earlier this year.

A spokesman for the European courts said appeals processes were currently taking up to one-and-a-half years from start to finish, and that any actual hearing may not get under way for up to a year.

The BBC and ITV have secured the rights to broadcast the football World Cup finals in 2014.

So any potential change of broadcasting towards a future pay-TV model would not take place until the 2018 event in Russia.

As well as the cases against the UK, Fifa has also launched an appeal against Belgium showing all World Cup games on free-to-air.

Points of law

"The grounds of appeal open to Uefa and Fifa appear to be relatively limited," said Daniel Geey, an expert on TV rights deals at Field Fisher Waterhouse solicitors.

UK fans will not have to pay to watch stars like Argentina's Lionel Messi playing at the World Cup

He said the football bodies could only appeal on points of law - such as the General Court's competence, or whether the court breached procedural steps or infringed European Union law.

"They [Fifa and Uefa] cannot not simply repeat arguments that were already set out and heard by the General Court and expect the decision to be overturned," Mr Geey said.

He added: "UEFA and FIFA are now in injury time if they are to pull off a last minute winner.

"Although not inconceivable, the odds of snatching victory appear to be stacked against football's two most powerful football bodies."

Commercial arguments

Fifa and Uefa have argued that the current set-up interferes with their ability to sell television rights at the best price.

They do not see any reason why all games at tournaments should be shown free on UK television, as part of a list of national sporting "crown jewels" that have to be made available to everyone to watch.

The two football bodies have said that any games featuring England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will still been shown on TV for free, as will the finals and semi-finals of the tournaments.

But under their plans the rest of the "non-core" World Cup matches and European Championship matches would not have to be shown free in the UK.

Mr Geey said the football bodies believed they should have the ability to sell such "non-core" matches to pay-TV operators.

"With such operators more likely to pay larger amounts for exclusive premium content, both organisations would argue increasing commercial revenues would be further invested back into the game," said Mr Geey.

Competition 'distorted'

Uefa has said the listing infringes its property rights, as it results "in a restriction" of the way in which it can "market the television rights to the Euro [championships]".

In addition, it has said that showing the entire tournament on free-to-air TV in the UK has led to "a disproportionate and unjustified distortion of competition on the relevant market".

Fifa earned a minimum of $2bn in TV and media rights deals for the South Africa 2010 World Cup.

And Uefa said turnover during the three-week Euro 2008 tournament in Austria and Switzerland was $2.04bn, with more than half the cash coming from the sale of broadcasting rights.

Fifa battle over UK World Cup TV

11 May 2011 Last updated at 20:20 ET By Bill Wilson Business reporter, BBC News  World Cup finals games featuring England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain free to watch Football bodies Fifa and Uefa have appealed against a European ruling that the World Cup and Euro Championships must be on free-to-air TV in the UK.

In February, the European General Court said the UK could keep the events on a list of "protected" events of national sporting interest shown for free.

It means the two tournaments cannot be sold exclusively to pay-TV firms.

Fifa and Uefa say they cannot sell the events fairly, and the cases will now go to the European Court of Justice.

Football's world governing body has been in the news this week with allegations from former FA chairman Lord Triesman that four Fifa members sought "bribes" in return for backing England's failed 2018 World Cup bid.

Lengthy process

The TV cases will be heard in the European Court of Justice, Europe's supreme court, regarding the decision made in the General Court (formerly Court of First Instance) earlier this year.

A spokesman for the European courts said appeals processes were currently taking up to one-and-a-half years from start to finish, and that any actual hearing may not get under way for up to a year.

The BBC and ITV have secured the rights to broadcast the football World Cup finals in 2014.

So any potential change of broadcasting towards a future pay-TV model would not take place until the 2018 event in Russia.

As well as the cases against the UK, Fifa has also launched an appeal against Belgium showing all World Cup games on free-to-air.

Points of law

"The grounds of appeal open to Uefa and Fifa appear to be relatively limited," said Daniel Geey, an expert on TV rights deals at Field Fisher Waterhouse solicitors.

UK fans will not have to pay to watch stars like Argentina's Lionel Messi playing at the World Cup

He said the football bodies could only appeal on points of law - such as the General Court's competence, or whether the court breached procedural steps or infringed European Union law.

"They [Fifa and Uefa] cannot not simply repeat arguments that were already set out and heard by the General Court and expect the decision to be overturned," Mr Geey said.

He added: "UEFA and FIFA are now in injury time if they are to pull off a last minute winner.

"Although not inconceivable, the odds of snatching victory appear to be stacked against football's two most powerful football bodies."

Commercial arguments

Fifa and Uefa have argued that the current set-up interferes with their ability to sell television rights at the best price.

They do not see any reason why all games at tournaments should be shown free on UK television, as part of a list of national sporting "crown jewels" that have to be made available to everyone to watch.

The two football bodies have said that any games featuring England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will still been shown on TV for free, as will the finals and semi-finals of the tournaments.

But under their plans the rest of the "non-core" World Cup matches and European Championship matches would not have to be shown free in the UK.

Mr Geey said the football bodies believed they should have the ability to sell such "non-core" matches to pay-TV operators.

"With such operators more likely to pay larger amounts for exclusive premium content, both organisations would argue increasing commercial revenues would be further invested back into the game," said Mr Geey.

Competition 'distorted'

Uefa has said the listing infringes its property rights, as it results "in a restriction" of the way in which it can "market the television rights to the Euro [championships]".

In addition, it has said that showing the entire tournament on free-to-air TV in the UK has led to "a disproportionate and unjustified distortion of competition on the relevant market".

Fifa earned a minimum of $2bn in TV and media rights deals for the South Africa 2010 World Cup.

And Uefa said turnover during the three-week Euro 2008 tournament in Austria and Switzerland was $2.04bn, with more than half the cash coming from the sale of broadcasting rights.

Battle Over Health Care Law Shifts to Federal Appellate Courts

At Tuesday’s hearing, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will consider a pair of contradictory rulings sent up from the lower courts. In one case, filed by Virginia’s attorney general, a federal district judge in Richmond ruled late last year that Congress had exceeded its authority by requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance. In the other, filed by Liberty University, a conservative Christian institution, a district judge sitting 100 miles away in Lynchburg, Va., upheld the insurance mandate.

If the appellate courts act quickly, the question of the health law’s constitutionality could land before the Supreme Court as soon as the next term, which opens in October.

With the lower courts divided, each side hopes to build a string of victories in the midlevel Courts of Appeals.

“We want to win as many of these as we can,” said Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II of Virginia, a Republican. “If we have nothing but wins all the way up to the Supreme Court, there is an element of momentum, I think, where the justices consider what has gone on before the case came to them.”

Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, 31 lawsuits have been filed to challenge it, according to the Justice Department, which is defending the Obama administration. Nine are awaiting action by Courts of Appeals, and nine are pending in federal district courts. The others have been dismissed.

Three district judges appointed by Democratic presidents have upheld the law while two Republican appointees have struck down part or all of it.

On June 1, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati is scheduled to hear the appeal of a ruling in favor of the law. On June 8, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta will review a Florida judge’s ruling that invalidated the entire act. That judge later suspended his own order until higher courts could settle the matter.

The Supreme Court recently turned down a request by Mr. Cuccinelli that it hear the case without review by the Court of Appeals.

In Tuesday’s hearing, a three-judge panel will first hear arguments in the case filed by Liberty University and then in the one filed by Mr. Cuccinelli. The makeup of the randomly selected panel will not be revealed until Tuesday morning.

With the addition of four appointees by President Obama, the Fourth Circuit bench now includes seven members named by Democratic presidents and seven named by Republicans. The loser before the three-judge panel may petition for a hearing before the entire court before taking the case to the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration will be represented in each of the appellate cases by Neal K. Katyal, the acting solicitor general.

Solicitors general more typically argue for the federal government before the Supreme Court. Although it is not unprecedented for them to appear before Courts of Appeals, Mr. Katyal’s assignment is seen as a nod to the significance of the case.

E. Duncan Getchell Jr., Virginia’s solicitor general, will speak for the commonwealth, as he did in the district court, and Liberty University will be represented by Mathew D. Staver, the dean of its law school.

The plaintiffs in the 11th Circuit case, including Republican officials from 26 states, will be represented by Paul D. Clement, a United States solicitor general under President George W. Bush. Mr. Clement recently resigned from King & Spalding after it withdrew its support for his defense of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriages.

Scores of politicians, economists and interest groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides of the health care litigation.

The Virginia and Liberty University cases bear some differences. But both challenge the insurance requirement on the ground that it cannot be supported by the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress broad but not unlimited authority to regulate interstate commerce. Starting in 2014, the health care law would require most Americans to obtain policies or pay an income tax penalty.

The plaintiffs complain that the government has never before forced citizens to buy a commercial product. In the lower courts, arguments have centered on whether a choice to not buy insurance constitutes the kind of economic “activity” that the Supreme Court has, in the past, found subject to federal regulation.

The judges are also being asked to determine whether Virginia has legal standing to challenge the law, whether the insurance requirement can be supported under Congress’s authority to tax, whether it runs afoul of religious liberties, whether employers can be required to contribute to their workers’ health coverage, and whether a finding against one provision of the law should invalidate the entire act.

 

Battle Over Health Care Law Shifts to Federal Appellate Courts

 

At Tuesday’s hearing, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will consider a pair of contradictory rulings sent up from the lower courts. In one case, filed by Virginia’s attorney general, a federal district judge in Richmond ruled late last year that Congress had exceeded its authority by requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance. In the other, filed by Liberty University, a conservative Christian institution, a district judge sitting 100 miles away in Lynchburg, Va., upheld the insurance mandate.

If the appellate courts act quickly, the question of the health law’s constitutionality could land before the Supreme Court as soon as the next term, which opens in October.

With the lower courts divided, each side hopes to build a string of victories in the midlevel Courts of Appeals.

“We want to win as many of these as we can,” said Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II of Virginia, a Republican. “If we have nothing but wins all the way up to the Supreme Court, there is an element of momentum, I think, where the justices consider what has gone on before the case came to them.”

Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, 31 lawsuits have been filed to challenge it, according to the Justice Department, which is defending the Obama administration. Nine are awaiting action by Courts of Appeals, and nine are pending in federal district courts. The others have been dismissed.

Three district judges appointed by Democratic presidents have upheld the law while two Republican appointees have struck down part or all of it.

On June 1, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati is scheduled to hear the appeal of a ruling in favor of the law. On June 8, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta will review a Florida judge’s ruling that invalidated the entire act. That judge later suspended his own order until higher courts could settle the matter.

The Supreme Court recently turned down a request by Mr. Cuccinelli that it hear the case without review by the Court of Appeals.

In Tuesday’s hearing, a three-judge panel will first hear arguments in the case filed by Liberty University and then in the one filed by Mr. Cuccinelli. The makeup of the randomly selected panel will not be revealed until Tuesday morning.

With the addition of four appointees by President Obama, the Fourth Circuit bench now includes seven members named by Democratic presidents and seven named by Republicans. The loser before the three-judge panel may petition for a hearing before the entire court before taking the case to the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration will be represented in each of the appellate cases by Neal K. Katyal, the acting solicitor general.

Solicitors general more typically argue for the federal government before the Supreme Court. Although it is not unprecedented for them to appear before Courts of Appeals, Mr. Katyal’s assignment is seen as a nod to the significance of the case.

E. Duncan Getchell Jr., Virginia’s solicitor general, will speak for the commonwealth, as he did in the district court, and Liberty University will be represented by Mathew D. Staver, the dean of its law school.

The plaintiffs in the 11th Circuit case, including Republican officials from 26 states, will be represented by Paul D. Clement, a United States solicitor general under President George W. Bush. Mr. Clement recently resigned from King & Spalding after it withdrew its support for his defense of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriages.

Scores of politicians, economists and interest groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides of the health care litigation.

The Virginia and Liberty University cases bear some differences. But both challenge the insurance requirement on the ground that it cannot be supported by the commerce clause of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress broad but not unlimited authority to regulate interstate commerce. Starting in 2014, the health care law would require most Americans to obtain policies or pay an income tax penalty.

The plaintiffs complain that the government has never before forced citizens to buy a commercial product. In the lower courts, arguments have centered on whether a choice to not buy insurance constitutes the kind of economic “activity” that the Supreme Court has, in the past, found subject to federal regulation.

The judges are also being asked to determine whether Virginia has legal standing to challenge the law, whether the insurance requirement can be supported under Congress’s authority to tax, whether it runs afoul of religious liberties, whether employers can be required to contribute to their workers’ health coverage, and whether a finding against one provision of the law should invalidate the entire act.

 

The Bay Citizen: Veterans Battle to Regain ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Losses

Mr. Loverde, 32, was discharged from the Air Force in 2008 after revealing to his commanding officer that he is gay. President Obama signed legislation repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” last December, but the fate of Mr. Loverde and some 14,000 other service members whose lives were turned upside down by the 17-year-old policy is unclear.

The Pentagon is preparing to phase out “don’t ask, don’t tell,” possibly by the fall, but the measure revoking the policy was silent on what steps the Pentagon should take regarding service members who were already discharged because of their sexual orientation.

Mr. Loverde, now a photography student at Academy of Art University in San Francisco, is one of three California veterans waging a legal battle against the military in Federal District Court in San Francisco. They have filed a suit that seeks to have them reinstated and to declare “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the “regulations, policies, and guidance that implement it unconstitutional on their face.”

Mr. Loverde, who deployed to Iraq in 2007, said he wanted the Air Force to reinstate him immediately, restore his rank of staff sergeant and give him back his old job as a loadmaster on C-130 aircraft.

“They want to treat us as if we willingly left on our own, but they fired us,” he said. “Our lives were uprooted.”

More than 14,000 service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” according to the Pentagon. Advocacy groups estimate that 40,000 others were discharged in the decades when there was an outright ban on gays. The Pentagon said it could not provide statistics on the number of service members discharged because of their sexual orientation before “don’t ask, don’t tell” went into effect in 1993.

Many younger veterans, like Mr. Loverde, have indicated they would like to rejoin the military once “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed. Others want the word “homosexual” removed from their discharge papers or to have their discharges upgraded from “other than honorable” to “honorable” so they can receive full veterans benefits.

“With the repeal and hopefully the authorization from the Joint Chiefs, I think there will be a flood of people coming to upgrade their discharges, including myself,” said Richard Manning, 65, the first vice commander of the American Legion’s Alexander Hamilton Post 448 in San Francisco, which is composed of gay and lesbian veterans.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which brought the suit on the veterans’ behalf, said his organization is continuing the litigation because it has heard from hundreds of veterans discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” who plan to return to the military.

“They are ready to serve their country again,” Mr. Sarvis said.

In court papers filed earlier this month, the Justice Department, which is representing the military, argued that the suit should be dismissed or moved to a special federal court whose jurisdiction is limited to personnel matters.

“We have encouraged the courts to withhold further proceedings in litigation until the executive branch’s certification process is complete,” Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” will formally take effect 60 days after the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the military “has prepared the necessary policies and regulations” to carry out the change, and that the shift won’t damage the military’s ability to fight or recruit.

In Congressional testimony, Defense Department officials have said the certification is likely to take place this summer, leading to a full repeal in September or October.

That timetable makes the veterans’ case difficult, said Michael Zamperini, a professor at the Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco.

Last September, a federal judge in another California case declared “don’t ask, don’t tell” unconstitutional and temporarily halted discharges under the policy. That case is under appeal. But Mr. Zamperini said judges are likely to defer to Congress now that President Obama has signed the repeal.

 

Cambodia and Thailand Extend Battle

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (Reuters) — A second day of fighting between Thai and Cambodian troops on Saturday killed at least four soldiers, bringing the two-day death toll to 11, the worst bloodshed since the United Nations called for a cease-fire in February.

Thousands of villagers have been evacuated from the disputed border area in jungles near the Ta Moan and Ta Krabey temples, about 90 miles west of the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple, the site of a deadly four-day standoff in February.

Lt. Gen. Thawatchai Samutsakorn of the Thai Army said one of his soldiers had been killed. A local hospital said 13 were wounded.

Suos Sothea, deputy commander of Cambodia’s artillery unit in the area, said three Cambodian soldiers had been killed and 11 wounded, bringing the two-day toll of wounded on both sides to at least 43.

The Cambodia Defense Ministry condemned “these repeated deliberate acts of aggression” and called on Thailand to cease “hostilities.” It accused Thailand of firing cluster munitions — weapons banned by many countries — as well as shells “loaded with poisonous gas.”

The Thai foreign affairs minister, Kasit Piromya, denied those accusations as “groundless.”

Sovereignty over the ancient, stone-walled Hindu temples — Preah Vihear, Ta Moan and Ta Krabey — and the jungle of the Dangrek Mountains surrounding them has been in dispute since the withdrawal of the French from Cambodia in the 1950s.

Ta Moan and Ta Krabey, perched on an escarpment about seven miles apart in terrain riddled by land mines, were built in the 12th century when the Khmer empire stretched across parts of Thailand and Vietnam before shrinking to present-day Cambodia.

Thailand says that according to a 1947 map, the two temples are in its Surin Province. Cambodia rejects that claim and says they are in its Oddar Meanchey Province. Before Friday, the two countries jointly patrolled the area largely without incident.