builds China data centre to comply with cybersecurity law

Apple is reportedly setting up its first data centre in China, in partnership with a local Internet services company.

According to reports, the move is to comply with tougher cybersecurity measures that bolster control over the collection and movement of Chinese users’ data, and can also grant the government unprecedented access to foreign companies’ technology.

The new measure forces companies to store information within the country has already led some to tap cloud computing providers with more local server capacity.

The US technology company said it will build the centre in the southern province of Guizhou with data management firm Guizhou-Cloud Big Data Industry.

In a report by Reuters, an Apple spokesman in Shanghai said the centre is part of a planned $1 billion investment into the province.

“The addition of this data centre will allow us to improve the speed and reliability of our products and services while also complying with newly passed regulations,” said the company in a statement. “Apple has strong data privacy and security protections in place and no backdoors will be created into any of our systems.”

Apple is the first foreign firm to announce amendments to its data storage for China following the implementation of a new cybersecurity law on 1st June that requires foreign firms to store data within the country.

Chinese authorities noted that the law is not designed to put foreign firms at a disadvantage and that it was necessary to thwart threats of cyber-attacks and terrorism.

In April, China also announced a law requiring businesses transferring over 1,000 gigabytes of data outside China to undergo yearly security reviews, with potential blocks on exporting economic, technological and scientific data.

Other foreign firms that oversee cloud businesses, including Amazon.com and Microsoft already have data centres in China.

The post Apple builds China data centre to comply with cybersecurity law appeared first on Tahawul Tech.

(c) 2017 Corporate Publishing International. All rights reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info)., source Middle East & North African Newspapers


Go to Source

Would Jerry Brown’s climate change law go too easy on Big Oil?

Drive to the Bay Area from Sacramento, cross the Carquinez Bridge, and you might see it on your right – the Phillips 66 oil refinery in Rodeo, churning out millions of gallons of gasoline.

This facility and other oil refineries in the state have become the flash point in a potentially combustible political fight in Sacramento over the future of California’s war against climate change.

Gov. Jerry Brown and top Democratic legislators this week unveiled a pair of bills, AB 398 and AB 617, to extend for another decade the cap-and-trade system aimed at limiting carbon emissions from a whole host of pollution sources. The current system, which has forced industrial firms to spend billions on emissions permits, is set to expire in 2020.

Brown has acknowledged his proposal might not pass, and in a scramble for votes he testified before the Senate on Thursday. “You have an incredible mechanism that protects our economy and reduces greenhouse gases,” he told the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. “Don’t throw this thing out.” If cap-and-trade expires, it would be replaced by an “intrusive regulatory burden” that would be more costly, Brown said.

The committee approved both bills Thursday on 5-2 party-line votes.

The legislation, which would extend cap-and-trade through 2030, still has a big hill to climb. Brown is seeking a two-thirds supermajority vote, the same threshold needed to approve tax hikes, to ward off lawsuits challenging the sale of emissions permits. The existing system passed with only a simple majority and barely survived a legal challenge led by the California Chamber of Commerce.

At the same time, Brown’s plan is struggling to gain favor with many legislative Democrats. A big reason is the proposed treatment of Phillips 66 in Rodeo and the other 18 oil refineries in California.

Some environmentalists say Brown’s proposals treat the oil industry too leniently. Specifically, they’re furious about a provision that would forbid the California Air Resources Board and regional air-quality agencies from imposing additional restrictions on greenhouse-gas emissions from oil refineries.

“I think it’s the big one,” said Diane Takvorian, an environmentalist and CARB board member who’s critical of the governor’s proposal.

The state air board has been planning to order refiners to reduce their carbon emissions by an extra 20 percent over the next decade, according to an agency planning document. Separately, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is close to implementing its own greenhouse-gas curbs on each of the Bay Area’s five refineries.

Both of those plans would be prohibited under the legislation pending in Sacramento.

“Obviously we don’t like to have our authority restricted,” said Greg Nudd, the Bay Area district’s rule development manager. All four of the state’s major regional air quality districts, including Sacramento’s, have told Brown they oppose the cap-and-trade legislation because of the proposed limits on their power.

While some environmentalists are challenging the governor, no Republican lawmaker has supported the legislation publicly. The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil refiners, hasn’t taken a position on the bills.

Cap and trade is one of the centerpieces of California’s efforts to curb greenhouse gases. The program requires hundreds of industrial polluters to obtain emissions allowances to release carbon into the air.

Most of the permits are handed out for free, but the companies have to purchase some as well, at quarterly auctions run by the state Air Resources Board or from other polluters that have permits to spare. The total volume of permits in circulation (the “cap”) declines slightly each year, reducing overall greenhouse-gas emissions.

Companies have spent more than $5 billion on permits since the program began in 2012, and the effects have rippled through practically every sector of the economy. Experts say the cost to the oil industry, for instance, has added an estimated 11 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline. A lesser-known rule, known as the low carbon fuel standard, has probably added another 4 cents a gallon, for a total cost of 15 cents.

The Air Resources Board says total carbon emissions in California fell by 1.5 percent in 2015, the last year for which figures were available. That’s the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road for a year and provides evidence that the system is working, the air board says.

But some critics on the left say cap and trade doesn’t reduce carbon emissions evenhandedly, and leaves poorer communities vulnerable to excessive and often dangerous air pollutants.

The problem, critics say, is that the program doesn’t actually force individual companies to curb their greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead, the companies can simply purchase more emissions allowances if they need to pollute more. They can also “offset” a portion of their emissions by making investments in forestry programs or other green projects approved by the state air board. They’re complying with the law, but still polluting.

And because many of the largest smokestack industries in California are located in disadvantaged communities, a disproportionate share of greenhouse gases are spewed in those neighborhoods, critics say.

Carbon emissions by themselves aren’t necessarily dangerous, but experts say the same smokestacks that release greenhouse gases usually spew other, more harmful, pollutants into the air at the same time. That includes oil refineries.

“The areas where refineries are (located) are low-income communities of color,” said Takvorian, the CARB board member and executive director of the Environmental Health Coalition. “Their emissions are contributing to environmental pollution and public health concerns.”

Which explains why Takvorian and the regional air-quality agencies have come out against Brown’s proposal to extend cap and trade. While they believe the overall mechanism has been helpful in reducing greenhouse gases, they want a system that cracks down on individual companies that are still polluting.

“We want to see less flexibility for industries; we want to close those loopholes,” said Amy Vanderwarker of the California Environmental Justice Alliance in Oakland.

The four regional air-quality districts also came out in opposition to the governor’s plan.

“Taking authority away from the districts … is not a good thing in my opinion,” said Larry Greene, the outgoing executive director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

In an effort to mollify local officials, Brown’s companion legislation, AB 617, would require industrial firms in heavily polluted communities to install the “best available retrofit control technology” by December 2023. The bill also would require regional air districts to ramp up pollution-monitoring activities.

Brown said the bill “will clean up the air like no other bill, and it will clean it up where it’s the worst, in vulnerable hot spots where poor people are suffering the most.”

Officials with the regional air districts, however, said the bill is seriously flawed. It would force them to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new air-monitoring equipment, and it wouldn’t address what they believe is one of the biggest problems they’re facing: pollution from aging diesel trucks.

It’s “a glaring omission,” said Seyed Sadredin of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Go to Source

US shale firms are teaming up with Wall Street to frustrate OPEC


oil and gas frackingDavid McNew / Stringer / Getty
Images

US shale producers survived an oil price crash and confounded
OPEC’s efforts to drain a global glut by employing innovative
drilling and production techniques. Now, some of these producers
are turning to creative investments to pump more oil.

Drilling joint ventures, called “DrillCos” for short, combine
cash from investors like Carlyle Group LP with drillable-but-idle
land already owned by producers. Investors get a pledge of
double-digit returns within a few years, while producers can
raise productivity without spending more of their own money.

The total raised by these ventures – at least $2 billion in the
last 24 months – is a small part of overall shale financing. But
they represent another way for Wall Street and shale producers to
increase the flow of oil, and frustrate plans by the Organization
of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to prop up prices.

Private equity this year has showered more than $20 billion on US
energy ventures. Driven by shale expansion, US oil production
this year is forecast to increase by 570,000 barrels per day
(bpd) to 9.9 million bpd, the US Energy Information
Administration estimates.

NO BALANCE-SHEET RISK

Drillcos take control of drillable land and generally turn over
100 percent of the cash flow from oil and gas production to
investors until they earn a 15 percent return. At that point,
control reverts to the producer, with the investor’s stake
shrinking to about 10 percent of remaining production.

“It’s a type of surgical, temporary capital,” Mark Stoner a
partner at private equity fund Bayou City Energy LP, said in an
interview. Bayou City committed $256 million to an Oklahoma
drillco with privately held Alta Mesa Holdings LP
[ALMEH.UL] last year.

“We get exposure to great, prolific oil basins, but don’t have to
take on balance sheet risk.”

Companies such as EOG Resources Inc , one of the financially
strongest US shale producers, are turning to drillcos.

Two months ago, EOG struck a $400 million deal with Carlyle to
finance wells in Oklahoma. The investment lets EOG focus its own
cash on the Permian Basin, the largest US oilfield, and lifts its
production without increasing its spending.

The venture also allows EOG to double or triple the value of land
it held on its books, Lloyd Helms, EOG’s head of exploration and
production, said an industry conference in May.

Legacy Reserves LP , Exco Resources Inc , Alta Mesa and EOG are
among 34 oil producers that since 2015 have formed drillcos worth
more than $2.05 billion. The money has come from investors
including Blackstone Group , Carlyle, KKR & Co , and others,
according to 1Derrick Ltd, which tracks oilfield land deals.

PUTTING IDLE LAND TO USE

Historically, one way producers wrung more cash from financiers
was to pledge future output for cash payments to finance
drilling. There was no swap of land and no guaranteed return.
Drillcos differ in that investors get control of land until a
double-digit rate of return is met, providing insurance against a
default.

For producers, these ventures also help boost the total amount of
oil they can eventually recover. Wall Street is rewarding those
with strong production with share price gains at a time when OPEC
and its allies have agreed to pull 1.8 million bpd off the global
market.

“This helped us drill acreage that we wouldn’t otherwise have
been able to drill right away,” Mike McCabe, Alta Mesa’s chief
financial officer, said in an interview.

For investors, the potentially high rates of return, compared
with commercial loan rates running about 5 percent to 7 percent,
have spurred interest despite crude prices under $50 a barrel.

“There’s a lot of money seeking a home, especially in this low
interest rate environment,” Mingda Zhao of Vinson & Elkins
LLP, a law firm that has negotiated drillco agreements, said in
an interview.

Drillcos are not risk free. If oil prices tumble, investors’
ability to grab high returns within a few years fades. Shale
producers also must be willing to provide more information on the
land than they would under more common loan agreements.

Such detailed information “gives us well-level insight into
what’s going on in a basin,” said Bayou City’s Stoner.

For Carlyle, one of the world’s largest private equity funds, the
drillco with EOG was a relatively low-risk way to invest in US
shale.

“We were looking for very specific types of assets and drilling
deals to make the risk-return work for us,” David Albert, co-head
of Carlyle’s Energy Mezzanine Opportunities funds, said in an
interview.

The funds, with more than $4 billion under management, can still
make money on its drillco investment even after oil prices
slipped below $45 per barrel this month on oversupply concerns.

“Even with current oil prices, there are still economic
opportunities to be had out there,” Albert said.

Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright
2017. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

Read the original article on Reuters. Copyright 2017. Follow Reuters on Twitter.

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Arconic, Inc. and Certain Officers – ARNC

NEW YORK, July 13, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Arconic, Inc. (“Arconic” or the “Company”) (NYSE:ARNC) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-05312, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Arconic securities between February 28, 2017, and June 26, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until September 11, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Arconic Inc. is a global provider of lightweight multi-material solutions, focused on the aerospace market in addition to serving the automotive, industrial gas turbine, commercial transportation, and building and construction markets. The Company also provides titanium, aluminum, nickel-based super alloy, and specialty alloy solutions.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Arconic knowingly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond PE (polyethylene) cladding panels for use in construction; (ii) the foregoing conduct significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury and/or death in buildings constructed with Arconic’s Reynobond PE panels; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Arconic’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.   

On June 14, 2017, a fire broke out at the 24-story Grenfell Tower apartment block in London.  The fire burned for roughly 60 hours, destroying the building and causing at least 80 deaths and over 70 injuries.

On June 24, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled “Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety”, describing the causes of the Grenfell Tower fire and attributing the rapid spread of the fire to highly flammable Reynobond PE cladding panels manufactured by Arconic and used in the building’s construction.

On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled “Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower: emails,” revealing that Arconic sales managers were aware that flammable panels would be distributed for use at Grenfell Tower. 

On June 26, 2017, Arconic issued a press release announcing it would discontinue global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-rise buildings after the material was suspected to have contributed to the spread of the deadly fire at the Grenfell Tower apartment complex in London.

On these disclosures, Arconic’s common share price fell $3.70, or 14.49%, to close at $21.84 on June 27, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

AngloGold taking Tanzania to UN court over country’s new mining law

South African AngloGold Ashanti (JSE:ANG), has taken a page from Acacia Mining’s (LON:ACA) book by announcing Thursday it had begun arbitration proceedings against Tanzania over a new law that allows authorities renegotiate contracts with mining firms.

The world’s third-biggest gold producer said that in light of the changes to the mining legislation it had “no choice” but to take such precautionary step to safeguard its agreements with Tanzania.

The company, the world’s third-biggest gold producer, said that in light of the changes to the mining legislation it had “no choice” but to take a precautionary step to safeguard its indirect subsidiaries agreements with the government in relation to the development and operation of the Geita gold mine.

The operation, which produced 489,000 ounces of gold last year, is AngloGold’s largest mine and one the company is considering to invest in to extend its life beyond 2025, when it’s expected to run out of ore.

The Mine Development Agreement (MDA) was signed by AngloGold subsidiaries – Samax Resources and Geita Gold Mining – and the Tanzanian government about 20 years ago.

The company said that contract was instrumental in its decision to make a significant investment in the development of Geita, which last year paid a total of $130 million in taxes and contributed $593 million in revenue to Tanzania’s output as measured by the gross domestic product.

AngloGold follows Acacia’s announcement last week that it had begun arbitration proceedings, adding that its largest shareholder, Barrick Gold (TSX, NYSE:ABX) and the Tanzanian government had agreed to continue parallel talks over claims that point fingers at Acacia.

Among the allegations, Tanzania’s authorities have said the firm has been operating illegally and evading tens of billions of dollars in taxes by understating the amount of metal concentrate in exports from the three gold and copper mines it operates.

Go to Source

Christleton targeted for 50 homes in University of Law plan

The University of Law is consulting villagers over plans to build around 50 homes on its existing campus to fund a relocation to Chester city centre .

It was recently announced the university (ULaw) would be moving from Christleton to an undisclosed city centre site.

Now it is clear the ULaw intends to redevelop its existing rural base, set in 14 acres of grounds, into a ‘quality’ residential scheme.

The University of Law in Christleton, near Chester.

A leaflet to residents says a public consultation drop-in will be held at Ince Building at the law campus on Wednesday, July 19, between 2.30pm-7.30pm, where members from ULaw and the project team will be available to discuss the proposals.

The flyer, issued by ULaw and planning consultants Lichfields, says: “The University of Law Chester is planning to move to Chester city centre in September 2018. This will allow ULaw to invest in the student experience with bespoke new premises close to its business community, amenities and facilities.

“To facilitate this move, ULaw is seeking to redevelop their campus at Christleton. This offers a rare opportunity for the sustainable redevelopment of a brownfield site for high quality residential development, set within a historic context and attractive landscaped setting.”

The leaflet sent out to residents about a proposed housing scheme at the University of Law campus in Christleton.

The leaflet says the residential scheme would be for a mix of apartments and houses including family homes and affordable properties on ‘previously developed land at a sustainable location’.

There would be associated infrastructure, open space and enhancement of the grade II-listed Christleton Hall and other heritage assets.

Benefits are claimed to include meeting local housing needs and more spending power to bolster local facilities and services. No planning application has been submitted so far but residents are invited to comment on the proposals at this stage.

A presentation was given to Christleton Parish Council on July 4.

Tory councillor Stuart Parker , whose Chester Villages ward includes Christleton, said: “I think this is a precursor to putting in a planning application.

”The site is green belt, from what I understand.

“The hall itself would be made into apartments and the huge car park would be the site where they would propose to build the houses so because it would need a change within the green belt, it would not be looked at favourably.”

Cllr Parker did not wish to be drawn on his view at this point, but added: “I need to consult with the parish council and see what the feeling is from the residents. We are there to represent the interests of the people.”

ULaw is not divulging its new city centre location.

There were rumours it wanted to move into the new One City Place building, by Chester Railway Station , after change-of-use planning consent was granted to convert two storeys into a non-residential educational facility.

But The Chronicle understands those floors are now ‘under offer’ by another company.

One City Place next to Chester Railway Station.

Students currently enrolled at ULaw in Chester and staff members will move to the new city centre location in September 2018.

Professor Andrea Nollent, Vice Chancellor and CEO at The University of Law, said: “For both our students and the law firms with whom we have close partnerships, our new location will bring them closer together in the city centre as part of Chester’s vibrant business community.

“Not only will this enhance our current offering but it will also create new opportunities, from which our students, staff and employers can benefit.”

The university operates from eight UK centres.

Read More

Top news stories

Go to Source

UPDATE 3-EU says regulators should stop ‘letter-box’ financial firms

* Securities watchdog seeking to avoid “race to bottom”

* Secondary trading decisions can’t be outsourced to London

* Regulators should not employ fast-track authorisation

* Asset managers brought into line with hedge funds
(Adds comment from French regulator)

By Carolyn Cohn and Maiya Keidan

LONDON, July 13 (Reuters) – Regulators should prevent
investment firms from setting up shop in one jurisdiction to
avoid stricter controls in their home state, the European
Union’s markets watchdog said, as centres such as Dublin,
Frankfurt and Paris vie for business.

EU authorities are concerned about a “race to the bottom” as
financial services firms shift operations after Britain leaves
the bloc in 2019, amid reports businesses are being set up that
are effectively no more than postal addresses to take advantage
of more lenient rules in some countries.

Ireland has complained to the European Commission that it is
being undercut by rival centres, Reuters reported in March.

National securities regulators should “mitigate the risk of
letter-box entities and ensure that any relocation is
effective”, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)
said in an ‘opinion’, or formal guidance, on Thursday.

Regulators should ensure senior management are based in the
home jurisdiction of the firm and that “board members and senior
managers in the EU27 have effective decision-making powers, even
where the investment firm is part of a group”, ESMA said.

If regulators believe that investment firms, such as
broker-dealers including the trading arms of banks, are not
genuinely operating in their home jurisdiction, “this may
provide grounds for not granting or withdrawing authorisation”,
ESMA said.

ESMA also said regulators should not design “fast-track”
authorisation processes.

Financial professionals have said the speed with which they
can set up in various jurisdictions has contributed to their
decision-making on EU operations after Brexit.

“I think that the fast-track prohibition is targeted at the
French – the AMF have offered UK-based fund managers a quick
authorisation process if they move from London to Paris,” said
Neil Robson, a partner at law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman.

France’s AMF regulator has launched the “2WeekTicket” (TWT),
a fast-track pre-approval process for firms already authorised
by Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority.

“ESMA is saying that a quick authorisation to leave the UK
cannot be acceptable and that there are formal mandated
authorisation processes that have to be followed,” Robson said.

The AMF said the TWT was “not a licence or an authorisation”
but a first-review service aimed at identifying whether there
was any major obstacle to doing business in France.

“It does not substitute the normal complete authorisation
process for asset managers willing to establish in France,
whether they were previously located in the UK or not,” a
spokeswoman said. “To our knowledge, there is no specific
concern from ESMA regarding the TWT.”

Lawyers also said the guidance risked a lessening of
national regulators’ powers.

“Is there some form of disintegration of the (regulators’)
ability to make rules in relation to their own jurisdiction, and
govern their own authorisation process?” said Monica Gogna,
funds lawyer at Ropes & Gray.

SECONDARY TRADING

In a separate opinion on secondary trading, ESMA said
decision-making for designing, controlling and monitoring
trading systems’ operations should not be outsourced outside the
EU.

The broker-dealer trading arms of banks in Britain have
previously asked EU regulators whether their entities in the
other 27 EU states will still be allowed to outsource operations
to London once Britain leaves the bloc.

“ESMA considers it necessary that conditions for outsourcing
activities to UK-based entities do not generate regulatory and
supervisory arbitrage risks,” the watchdog said.

In a third opinion, ESMA said regulators should also prevent
asset managers from setting up letter-box operations, bringing
them into line with rules applying to hedge funds.

“It is a big development because the ‘letter-box’ concept is
only a … hedge fund idea,” said Leonard Ng, co-head of the EU
financial services regulatory group at law firm Sidley Austin,
adding legislation for other asset managers “has not previously
been as prescriptive”.

ESMA said regulators should keep a close eye on investment
managers who set up operations with fewer than three full-time
staff.

“Granting authorisations to relocating entities should not
result in a situation in which these entities could continue to
perform substantially more portfolio management and/or risk
management functions for the relevant funds in their original
member state,” it said.

Chris Cummings, chief executive of Britain’s Investment
Association, said he supported ESMA’s setting of “robust
standards” for UK investment management firms doing business
with the EU after Brexit.
(Additional reporting by Simon Jessop; Editing by Keith Weir
and Mark Potter)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017. Click For Restrictions – http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

Go to Source