 |
|
|
|||||
The Supreme Court said Monday that it will hear from oil and gas companies trying to block lawsuits seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in damage linked to climate change. The conservative-majority court agreed to take up a case from Boulder, Colorado, one of multiple lawsuits alleging the companies deceived the public about how fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Governments around the country have sought damages totaling billions of dollars, arguing it’s necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires, rising sea levels and severe storms worsened by climate change. The lawsuits come amid a wave of legal actions in states including California, Hawaii and New Jersey and worldwide seeking to leverage action through the courts. The case out of Boulder County will likely have implications for those other lawsuits. Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil appealed to the Supreme Court after Colorados highest court let the Boulder case proceed. The companies argue emissions are a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out. The use of state law to address global climate change represents a serious threat to one of our Nations most critical sectors, attorneys wrote. President Donald Trump‘s administration weighed in to support the companies and urge the justices to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court decision, saying it would mean every locality in the country could sue essentially anyone in the world for contributing to global climate change. Trump, a Republican, criticized the lawsuits in an executive order, and the Justice Department has sought to head some off in court. Attorneys for Boulder had agued that the litigation is still in early stages and should stay in state court. There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by out-of-state conduct, be it the negligent design of an automobile or sale of asbestos, they wrote. City officials said the case was about dealing with problems people are facing in Colorado. Our case is, fundamentally, about fairness. Boulder is already experiencing the effects of a rapidly warming climate, and the financial burden of adaptation should not fall solely on local taxpayers,” said Jonathan Koehn, its climate initiatives director. The Supreme Court also asked the two sides to present arguments on whether the case is truly ready to be heard by the justices. Arguments are expected in the fall. Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Author and alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra is the latest celebrity to come under scrutiny after the Department of Justice (DOJ) released more than three million pages of files on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. A slew of famous names pop up in the DOJ’s files, released on January 30, including business leaders like Casey Wasserman and powerful politicians like former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Chopra was among them, and a new investigation from CNN reveals the extent of his ties with Epstein. On February 4, Chopra posted on X defending his appearance in the files and distancing himself from Epsteins crimes, which include operating a sex-trafficking ring and sexually abusing underage girls. I want to be clear: I was never involved in, nor did I participate in, any criminal or exploitative conduct. Any contact I had was limited and unrelated to abusive activity, he wrote. Some past email exchanges have surfaced that reflect poor judgment in tone. I regret that and understand how they read today, given what was publicly known at the time. Fast Company has reached out to Deepak Chopra for further comment. I am deeply saddened by the suffering of the victims in this case, and I unequivocally condemn abuse and exploitation in all forms.I want to be clear: I was never involved in, nor did I participate in, any criminal or exploitative conduct. Any contact I had was limited and— Deepak Chopra (@DeepakChopra) February 4, 2026 Now, those email exchanges are under scrutiny, particularly Chopras frequent references to Epsteins girls. Chopra and Epstein maintained frequent contact over text and email from 2016 to 2019, the year that Epstein was arrested. Their messages, which number in the hundreds, according to reports, also indicate several in-person meetings at Epsteins properties in New York City, Paris, and South Florida. In at least two exchanges, Chopra encouraged Epstein to bring his girls on trips. In 2017, he wrote, If you want use a fake name. Bring your girls, while inviting Epstein to Israel, later adding, Your girls would love it as would you. Later that year, Chopra invited Epstein to Switzerland, again inviting him to come with your girls. It is unconfirmed if Epstein accepted these invitations, nor is it clear the age of the girls Chopra referenced. Girls frequently came up in Epstein and Chopras conversations. In 2017, while discussing philosophy, Chopra wrote to Epstein, God is a construct Cute girls are real. In 2016, after sending Epstein a video of himself with actress Kat Foster, Chopra described her as innocent and smart at the same time, to which Epstein replied, secondary to cute. Over text, the two once discussed Chopras apparent seduction of a woman whose name was redacted. Epstein wrote, I liked watching you zero in on your prey. Made me smile. Chopra responded: I not a predator Just a lover. Chopra also expressed support for Epstein in early 2019 ahead of his arrest in July. In a text exchange, Chopra said he was sending love to Epstein from India. Epstein replied, Can you send it in female form. In a later exchange, Epstein complained about another round of very bad press. Chopak advised him to Stay silent and Meditate. When Epstein reached out again noting the toxicity of my press, Chopak replied, I am not concerned about that. Being named in the Epstein files is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing. Chopra maintains his innocence: A recent video circulating on X shows Chopra being approached at an airport and asked about his appearance in the Epstein files. Chopra replied: No misconduct. Zero.
Category:
E-Commerce
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. Back on January 7, President Donald Trump announced: I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it. On January 20, Trump went further, outlining elements of the proposed ban. The order directed multiple federal agenciesincluding HUD, the Department of Agriculture, the VA, the GSA, and the Federal Housing Finance Agencyto issue guidance within 60 days limiting the federal governments role in facilitating institutional purchases of single-family homes that could otherwise be bought by owner-occupants. Specifically, within 60 days, the government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) would no longer be permitted to approve, insure, guarantee, or securitize single-family home purchases by large institutional investors. The order also stated that, within 30 days, the administration would define large institutional investors and that build-to-rent transactions would be exempt. On Thursday (February 19), the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House has settled on a key detail of its proposed banone it plans to send to Congressprohibiting large investors, defined as entities owning 100 or more homes, from purchasing additional single-family houses. Because the threshold is set at 100 homes, the policy would affect not just major institutional landlords, but also some larger individual investors. The plan still includes the build-to-rent exemption and adds another carveout: large investors can continue to purchase homes in need of significant repair. Those two proposed exemptions are notable given that most institutional activity right now is in build-to-rent, and when purchasing scattered-site homes, institutional investorsat least when they are actively buyingtend to target properties that require sizable renovation spending. Notably, this proposal would not mandate large investors to liquidate existing holdings. The measure announced on Thursday would need congressional approval, and its prospects are uncertain. According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, passage is still far from guaranteed. At the height of the Pandemic Housing Boom, large investorsthose owning at least 100 single-family homesmade up an all-time high of 3.1% of home purchases in Q2 2022, according to John Burns Research and Consulting. That period, at the tail end of the boom, was when yields were particularly attractive as borrowing costs were ultra-low, home prices were soaring, and rents were climbing rapidly. However, since mortgage rates spiked and capital markets shifted, their share has fallen to around 1.0% of transactions over the past three years. The math isnt as favorable right now. ResiClub members (paid tiers) can find an interactive version of the map below here On a national level, large investorsthose owning at least 100 single-family homesonly own around 1% of total single-family housing stock. That said, in a handful of regional housing markets, institutional and large single-family landlords have a much larger presence. Markets like Phoenix and Atlanta became major hubs for institutional single-family rental investment following the 2008 housing crash as the asset class started to institutionalize. Firms such as Invitation Homes, Progress Residential, and AMH built sizable portfolios in these metros by acquiring distressed homes. That early activity helped establish a reliable local SFR ecosystemincluding property management firms, leasing infrastructure, and contractor networksthat makes it easier to scale and expand single-family rental and build-to-rent operations today.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||