Dubai: The UAE’s General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) on Tuesday confirmed that the air embargo applies only to Qatari-owned airlines, aircrafts or to companies registered in the Gulf state.

The air ban does not extend to private companies and chartered flights, and can continue to use the country’s airports or transiting through its airspace to and from Qatar.

In a statement issued by WAM, eligible companies are required to obtain the necessary approval prior to using UAE airspace.

Private companies and other airlines will be required to submit their requests to the GCAA at least 24 hours in advance, and provide the list of names and nationalities of crew, passengers, and cargo carried by the aircraft.

The GCAA also reiterated its full commitment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the “Chicago Convention 1944” and other relevant conventions, and the flow of international air traffic over UAE skies.

The GCAA further said that the UAE reserves the sovereign right under international law to carry out precautionary measures related to national security, and if necessary, to exercise its right to impose restrictions that guarantees the security and safety of its airspace from any threat or risk.

On June 8, the UAE announced that it will close its airspace to any planes flying to or from the Qatari capital until further notice.

The UAE joined countries including neighbours Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in severing diplomatic ties with Qatar last week, as well as any air, sea or land links.

They accuse the Gulf state of supporting terrorist groups, an allegation it denies.

The authority also affirmed its commitment to international resolutions on the fight against terrorism and aviation security, particularly the Security Council Resolution No. 2309, adopted by the Security Council at its 7775th session, in which it expresses its commitment to the sovereignty of all States, including their sovereignty over the airspace above their territories, territorial integrity, and political independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

What is the Chicago Convention?

The Chicago Convention established the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a specialised agency of the United Nations charged with coordinating and regulating international air travel. The Convention establishes rules of airspace, which includes the right to: 

• Overfly a foreign country without landing
• Refuel or carry out maintenance in a foreign country
• Fly from one’s own country to another
• Fly from a foreign country to one’s own
• Fly between two foreign countries during flights which begin or end in one’s own
• Fly from one foreign country to another one while stopping in one’s own country
• Fly between two foreign countries while not offering flights to one’s own country
• Fly between two or more airports in a foreign country while continuing service to one’s own country
• Fly inside a foreign country without continuing service to one’s own country

Source: International Civil Aviation Organisation 

Go to Source

Mooriit arap Sang, a resident of Ainamoi Constituency, Kericho County, informs Public Eye that for a long time, multinational tea estates in his county were used to the rather labour-intensive application of NPK fertiliser on their tea plantations.

In order to cut costs, Arap Sang says, most of the tea firms have now embraced the more cost-effective method of aerial application of the fertiliser. This method involves spreading of fertiliser on farms from an agricultural aircraft.

Although this resident agrees that aerial application of fertiliser has many advantages, he’s, however, concerned by the health effects it has on people living around the tea estates.

“The major problem with this method is the disastrous effect it has on the health of residents,” Sang blankly puts it.

“Our observation is that whenever the fertiliser is applied using planes, residents living within a 30km radius of the area of operation fall ill. They come down with a flu and most of them experience severe sore throats, coughing and those who are asthmatic, have to be hospitalised due to the allergic reaction to the poisonous chemical elements in the fertiliser,” he adds.

Without offering scientific evidence, Sang observes that residents of two counties neighbouring the area of operation have proportionally being diaognised with throat and esophagus cancer in a much higher proportion than people living in the North Rift for instance.

ALSO READ:

NEMA to list range of banned plastic papers

“It has also been established that the aerial spray by these multinationals is being carried out without the pre-requisite environmental audit assessment as required by law. The local National Environment Management Authority (Nema) office has on many occasions been notified of these concerns but no action has been taken,” a disappointed Sang adds.

Are Nema officials sleeping on the job or are they in bed with owners of this tea farms?

“The residents of South Rift are being slowly dispatched to their graves by the grave impunity of the multinationals who rake in profits at the expense of our lives,” Sang says.

“Please use this forum to plead our case as innocent residents of Kericho and Bomet counties are suffering,” he concludes.

Go to Source

Two large financial-firm leases that were in the works have just been signed — and in the year’s biggest non-surprise, neither was in East Midtown.

While the Grand Central and Plaza districts wait on East Midtown rezoning, brand-new towers and redeveloped older ones to the west continue to snap up large tenants. (The rezoning measure, which would allow larger, modern new buildings to go up in the mostly stagnating district, was cleared by the City Planning Commission last week and now continues to slowly wend its way to a vote by the City Council.)

Mizuho Americas completed a lease for 148,000 square feet at Rockefeller Group’s 1271 Sixth Ave., the former Time-Life building.

An ongoing, $600 million redesign will make the tower virtually new. John Maher, part of a CBRE team that repped Rockefeller Group, said 1271 Sixth’s new curtain wall should be finished by summer 2019 and the redevelopment project entirely finished by spring 2020.

Mizuho Americas is a subsidiary of Mizuho Financial Group, which boasts $1.8 trillion in global assets. Mizuho’s taking 1271 Sixth’s large second and third floors plus some below-grade space. It’s the second new tenant signed at the currently empty address since Major League Baseball committed to 400,000 square feet.

The asking rent for Mizuho’s floors was in the low $80s. The firm will consolidate staff from several other locations including 320 Park Ave., where it has its trading operation.

Mizuho has been reported to be in talks for 200,000 square feet at 1271 Sixth in addition to the just-signed 148,000 feet, but the status of those talks were unclear.

In addition to Maher, Rockefeller Group was repped by CBRE’s Mary Ann Tighe and Howard Fiddle and by Rockefeller’s Ed Guiltinan in-house. Mizuho was repped by a Savills Studley team including Mitchell Steir, Matthew Barlow and Steve Berliner.

Meanwhile, Related Co.’s Far West Side leasing locomotive powers along at full steam. Private equity firm Silver Lake has completed a lease for 56,000 square feet at 55 Hudson Yards, the 1.3 million square-foot, 51-story tower at Eleventh Avenue and West 34th Street that Related is developing with Oxford Properties Group. (Mitsui Fudosan owns a majority stake.) Silver Lake will move from Sheldon Solow’s 9 W. 57th St.

Also coming to 55 Hudson, which is now 60 percent leased, are Steve Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management; two law firms, Milbank Tweed and Boies, Schiller; Intercept Pharmaceuticals and electronic trading platform MarketAxess.

A 75,000-square-foot lease with Dan Loeb’s hedge fund Third Point, first reported by the Real Deal, is also expected to be signed at 55 Hudson Yards within a few weeks, sources said. Third Point will exit Lever House, marking yet another defection from the once-almighty Park Avenue corridor.

Go to Source

Go to Source

In three years of managing investments for North Dakota farmer Richard Haus, Long Island stock broker Mike McMahon and his colleagues charged their client $267,567 in fees and interest – while losing him $261,441 on the trades, Haus said.

McMahon and others at National Securities Corporation, for instance, bought or sold between 200 and 900 shares of Apple stock for Haus nine times in about a year – racking up $27,000 in fees, according to a 2015 complaint Haus filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Haus alerted the regulator to what he called improper “churning” of his account to harvest excessive fees. But the allegation could hardly have come as a surprise to FINRA, the industry’s self-regulating body, which is charged by Congress with protecting investors from unscrupulous brokers.

FINRA has fined National at least 25 times since 2000. As of earlier this year, 35 percent of National’s 714 brokers had a history of regulatory run-ins, legal disputes or personal financial difficulties that FINRA requires brokers to disclose to investors, according to a Reuters analysis of FINRA data.

McMahon did not respond to requests for comment. National declined to comment.

National is among 48 firms where at least 30 percent of brokers have such FINRA flags on their records, according to the Reuters analysis, which examined only the 12 most serious incidents among the 23 that FINRA requires brokers to disclose. That compares to 9 percent of brokers industry-wide who have at least one of those 12 FINRA flags on their record.

In total, the 48 firms oversee about 4,600 brokers and billions of dollars in investor funds. For a graphic with the complete list of firms and statistics on each, see: tmsnrt.rs/2rtbhOl

FINRA officials acknowledged in interviews with Reuters that the longstanding hiring practices at certain firms are a threat to investors. But they also argued that they can do little to stop firms from hiring high concentrations of potentially problematic brokers because doing so is not illegal.

That leaves investors like Haus vulnerable to a small group of brokerages that regularly hire advisors with blemishes on their backgrounds that would make them unemployable at most firms, former regulators and industry experts said.

The dozen FINRA flags examined by Reuters include regulatory sanctions for misconduct, employment terminations after allegations of misconduct and payments by firms to settle customer complaints. They also include brokers’ personal financial troubles, such as bankruptcies or liens for nonpayment of debts. [L1N1J9032] (For full coverage, including an explanation of Reuters methodology, see: here )

Last year, a FINRA official told Reuters, the regulator identified 90 firms as posing the highest risk to investors and flagged them internally for higher scrutiny. But FINRA declined to name the firms publicly or to release statistics showing the concentration of brokers with a history of FINRA flags within each firm.

In an interview with Reuters, FINRA’s executive vice president of regulatory operations, Susan Axelrod, declined to comment on any specific firm identified by Reuters. She would not directly address why the regulator will not publicly name the firms it identified as high-risk.

“Let’s just say those are not new names to us,” she said of the firms identified by Reuters.

FINRA Chief Executive Robert Cook, however, addressed its unwillingness to name names in a speech on Monday morning in Washington at Georgetown University, according to prepared remarks released by FINRA.

“We must consider fairness and due process,” Cook said. “FINRA does not possess a crystal ball – someone who we may identify as a high-risk broker for oversight purposes is not necessarily a bad actor.”

The regulator has created a dedicated unit focused on those high-risk firms, Axelrod told Reuters, but she declined to discuss its budget, staffing or specific duties. Cook on Monday said the unit included an unstated number of “examiners and managers” with experience dealing with high-risk brokers.

FINRA makes data on individual brokers’ backgrounds available through its Brokercheck website, which Axelrod said provides “unparalleled transparency” to investors. That site allows the public to search histories of complaints and sanctions against individual brokers – but only one at a time.

The regulator will not release the data in bulk form, such as a database, that would enable researchers to identify firms with high concentrations of brokers with a history of FINRA flags.

Reuters analyzed the FINRA data after receiving it from researchers at Columbia University Law School DataLab, who wrote computer code to extract it from the regulator’s website.

Reuters sought comment from officials at all 48 firms. Some responded that many of the FINRA-mandated disclosures do not necessarily equate to misconduct by brokers, such as when a firm pays a client to settle a complaint without admitting wrongdoing.

Cook, the FINRA chief, echoed that point in his speech Monday.

“A broker who has an unpaid lien because of a debt accrued due to a medical issue in her family must disclose that lien,” he said. “That event should not be treated the same as fraud or stealing money from customers.”

At least one executive from a firm identified in the Reuters analysis serves on FINRA’s 24-member Board of Governors – Brian Kovack, president of Fort Lauderdale-based Kovack Securities Inc.

Thirty-four percent of the firm’s 388 brokers have a history of FINRA flags, according to the Reuters analysis.

In a statement, Brian Kovack attributed those figures to the firm’s decision to take on a large number of new brokers from another brokerage in 2014, which prevented the firm from using its usual vetting process for new employees.

Asked why, three years later, the firm still has a high concentration of brokers with FINRA flags, Kovack said it took “considerable” time to ensure the review of new brokers’ backgrounds was “fair and transparent.”

After the review, the firm asked some advisors to leave, Kovack said, without specifying how many or the reasons they were dismissed.

SELF-REGULATION

FINRA is not a government agency, but rather an industry-financed “self-regulatory organization” – as FINRA puts it – that is not subject to public records laws and receives no taxpayer support.

Its annual operating budget of about $1 billion – supporting about 3,500 staffers in 16 offices – comes primarily from dues paid by member firms and individual brokers. FINRA has the power to fine, suspend and ban firms and brokers, and it can refer potentially criminal cases to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Last year, in an unlikely collaboration, Senators Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, sent FINRA a letter demanding the regulator do more to stop broker misconduct and to prevent those with troubled histories from concentrating in the same firms.

“FINRA is not doing nearly enough to fulfill its investor protection mission,” the letter read.

The regulator responded with a letter on June 15 of last year saying that it closely oversees firms “to determine whether they present a heightened risk to investors.”

From 2013 to mid-2016, the regulator told the senators, it identified 279 “high-risk” brokers. After identifying them, the regulator permanently banned 238 brokers from the industry for subsequent violations.

FINRA oversees about 3,800 brokerages and 630,000 brokers.

In interviews with Reuters, Axelrod pointed to firms that FINRA expelled. The regulator shut down about 130 firms in the six years ending in January 2017, with many cited for securities fraud, misuse of funds or falsifying records.

But the Reuters analysis of FINRA data found that the regulator did not expel the firm’s chief executive in 58 percent of those cases, leaving him or her free to join other brokerages. The brokers at those banned firms typically were also able to continue working in the industry.

Axelrod said that FINRA gives extra scrutiny to former executives of expelled firms after they show up with new jobs at other firms.

‘OVERWHELMING’ EVIDENCE

Regulators in at least one state think more can be done to crack down on brokers and brokerages with track records of violations.

Massachusetts securities regulators are considering changing their licensing practices after completing a review last year of brokerages with a high proportion of brokers with troubled histories.

“The evidence is pretty overwhelming that there is a practice here – a history here – of people moving from one firm to another and re-offending,” Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin told Reuters. “We can’t simply stand by and say, ‘The companies will do a better job.’ They won’t do a better job unless they feel some incentive.”

Some former regulators contacted by Reuters agreed with FINRA’s policy of withholding its internal risk ratings of firms from the public.

Susan Merrill – former head of enforcement at FINRA and now a partner with the law firm Sidley Austin LLP – said that releasing such ratings would be unfair to firms who have not necessarily broken laws or regulations.

“If there is a finding by the regulator,” Merrill said, “then that’s fair game.”

FINRA’s former CEO, Richard Ketchum, told Reuters last June that the regulator was considering publicly disclosing more information about firms with high concentrations of problematic brokers.

“We are looking hard at questions about how we can appropriately and fairly provide that broader disclosure … when firms have concentrations of persons that have similar problems,” Ketchum said in an interview.

Cook said Monday that FINRA was considering additional measures to rein in high-risk brokers, but he didn’t go into specifics.

WOLVES OF WALL STREET

Many of the 48 firms identified by Reuters regularly cold-call customers on the phone with high-pressure sales pitches, according to regulatory complaints and sanctions against the firms and their brokers.

Long Island, New York, has historically been a haven for boiler-room brokerages, which inspired the movie, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” based on the true story of broker Jordan Belfort and his firm, Stratton Oakmont. Belfort pleaded guilty to securities fraud and money laundering in 1999.

FINRA warned in a news release last year that boiler-room tactics were on the rise, particularly those targeting the elderly and other vulnerable investors.

Brokers generally know which firms will hire them despite past sanctions, said Dean Jeske, a lawyer at Foley & Lardner and FINRA’s former deputy regional chief counsel for enforcement in the Midwest.

“When you get a mark on your (record), it’s hard to get a job at Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch,” Jeske said.

Mike McMahon has had little trouble landing jobs at brokerages despite a trail of allegations and settlements.

McMahon left National in 2014 and later joined a smaller firm, Long Island-based Worden Capital Management – where 43 percent of 79 brokers had a history of FINRA flags as of earlier this year.

Forty-one percent of the firm’s brokers had at some point in their careers worked at firms that were later expelled by FINRA, according to the Reuters analysis.

Jamie Worden, head of Worden Capital, said in a statement that his firm’s compliance team vets all prospective brokers and that FINRA-mandated disclosures do not necessarily indicate wrongdoing.

“The public disclosures only represent a sliver of the information surrounding any circumstance,” Worden said.

McMahon, National and another firm where he worked have agreed to pay a total of $1.35 million since 2007 to settle 10 separate client complaints involving McMahon, according to McMahon’s record on FINRA’s BrokerCheck website.

In addition, McMahon currently faces four additional complaints to FINRA – which have yet to be resolved in a settlement or arbitration ruling – from clients he advised while working with National, the regulator’s records show.

McMahon denied any wrongdoing in several of the settled complaints.

Haus – the customer who lost more than half a million dollars with McMahon and others at National – told Reuters that the ordeal made him contemplate suicide.

“I was ashamed,” said the soybean farmer and U.S. military veteran. “I didn’t want to tell anyone I’m losing my life savings.”

Haus settled his complaint against National in November for an undisclosed amount of money. The settlement required him to sign a nondisclosure agreement, and he has since not responded to Reuters’ inquiries.

HIRING OPPORTUNITY

In many cases, the firms identified by Reuters continue to operate after years of repeated run-ins with FINRA and other regulators.

Take Los Angeles-based WestPark Capital Inc, where about half of the firm’s 95 brokers have FINRA flags on their records. More than 47 percent of WestPark brokers once worked at firms that were later expelled by FINRA.

Regulators including FINRA and the New Jersey Bureau of Securities have sanctioned WestPark six times in the past 11 years for a variety of alleged violations.

In 2004, FINRA suspended WestPark’s chief executive, Richard Rappaport, for 30 days from his management role and fined him and the firm $50,000 in response to allegations that WestPark omitted critical information from investment research reports and lacked supervisory controls.

Without admitting wrongdoing, Rappaport agreed to the punishment in a settlement with FINRA. But he then ignored the suspension and continued to actively manage WestPark, according to FINRA disciplinary records reviewed by Reuters.

His punishment for ignoring the 30-day suspension? Another 30-day suspension from FINRA and a $10,000 fine.

In 2016, West Park saw a hiring opportunity. The firm started taking on dozens of brokers from Newport Coast Securities – a firm that FINRA banned from the industry that year for excessive trading in client accounts to rack up fees and for recommending unsuitable investments. Newport appealed the expulsion.

By early 2017, WestPark had hired about 40 brokers from Newport Coast – including its former CEO, Richard Onesto.

WestPark and Rappaport declined to comment. Onesto did not respond to requests for comment.

PUMP AND DUMP

Another firm Reuters identified in its analysis – Windsor Street Capital – has been fined 12 times by FINRA since 2000 but may now face much stiffer penalties from the SEC.

Fifty-eight percent of the firm’s 48 brokers had FINRA flags on their records, according to the Reuters analysis. Over the years, FINRA fines have cost the firm about $300,000, and Windsor has appealed two other fines totaling more than $1 million.

In January, the SEC brought administrative actions against Windsor Street Capital and its former anti-money laundering officer, John Telfer, for allegedly facilitating a $25 million pump-and-dump scheme – in which investors promote or “pump” the value of a dubious stock they own just before selling, or “dumping” it.

Windsor declined to comment to Reuters but denied any misconduct in an SEC filing.

The SEC alleges that Windsor allowed clients to sell hundreds of millions of unregistered penny stocks through Windsor brokerage accounts and did not report the suspicious transactions to the U.S. Treasury Department.

The Windsor clients bought stock in dormant shell companies, spread false information to promote the companies’ products and then dumped the shares as other investors bought in at inflated prices, the SEC alleges in a case that is still pending.

Windsor made about $500,000 in commissions and fees from transactions related to the scheme, according to the SEC.

When asked if FINRA investigators contributed to the SEC’s investigation, an SEC official declined to comment and pointed to the agency’s press release, which only credits SEC investigators.

FINRA did not respond to requests for comment on whether it had a role in the Windsor investigation.

‘HAPPY NEW YEAR!’

At Long Island-based Joseph Stone Capital, 71 percent of the firms’ 59 brokers had FINRA flags on their records, according to the Reuters analysis.

Joseph Stone was investigated by the state of Montana after one of its sales representatives, Lawrence Sullivan, cold-called the office of Montana’s Commissioner of Securities and Insurance to pitch an investment on January 15, 2016, according to a report on the incident by the regulator.

The securities commission launched an investigation into the firm after the call, during which Sullivan quickly backtracked and denied he was pitching securities, according to the report.

Reuters could not reach Sullivan for comment. The staffer he called – Patrick Navarro, an assistant analyst at the state regulator – did not respond to requests for comment.

Investigators ultimately unearthed “fraudulent and unethical” practices, including excessive trading in client accounts – resulting in commissions totaling 28 percent of the $877,493 invested by clients in Montana, according to the regulator’s report.

The firm settled with the state on April 18, agreeing to pay $30,000 in restitution to clients without admitting wrongdoing.

During the call that got the firm into trouble, Sullivan pitched Navarro on an investment in Paypal stock, the report said. After Navarro informed Sullivan that he worked for the state’s securities regulator, Sullivan blurted out “Happy New Year!” and hung up.

(Edited by Lauren LaCapra, Janet Roberts and Brian Thevenot)

Go to Source

Go to Source

A bill eliminating the requirement that owners of so-called “minority- and women-owned business enterprises” have a net worth of less than $3.5 million in order to receive state certification has passed the state Assembly, the Observer has learned.

The legislation—sponsored by Brooklyn Assemblywoman Rodneyse Bichotte, who chairs the Oversight of Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises Subcommittee—states that an individual’s net worth will not be considered in deciding eligibility for certification under Article 15-A of the executive law. Republican State Senator Patty Ritchie is the lead sponsor for the bill’s State Senate counterpart, a hopeful sign of bipartisan consensus on the measure.

Bichotte told the Observer the ceiling has long discouraged the expansion of nonwhite- and female-owned businesses, whose owners face a choice between making more money and losing the ability to take part in state programs designed to assist historically marginalized entrepreneurs.

“MWBE business owners across the state have been affected by this cap threatening their participation and limiting their growth as a result,” Bichotte said in a statement. “The overall end goal is for MWBEs to be able to grow in their capacity to take on larger contracts.”

“For the smaller MWBE firms, room for growth is hindered,” she continued.

Article 15-A, signed into law in July 1988, approved the creation of an Office—now Division—of Minority and Women’s Business Development to encourage employment and business opportunities on state contracts for minorities and women.

If the upper chamber of the State Legislature passes Ritchie’s bill—and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs it—the change will go into effect immediately.

In 2014, Cuomo increased the state’s MWBE participation goal from 10 percent of state contracts in 2011 to 30 percent. Though some MWBEs and advocates have said the state is meeting its goals faster than the city, some have said the city is more transparent about how its goals are being implemented.

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration was pushing to get language into the state budget that would provide the city with new tools and resources to hire MWBEs as the state budget deadline approached, an effort led by Deputy Mayor of Strategic Initiatives Richard Buery, the city’s MWBE director. They city is still continuing that fight.

One reform would double the city’s small purchase discretionary spending for MWBEs to $200,000, to match the state’s. Another proposal calls for boosting the capacity of city agencies to offer mentoring programs to MWBEs and help them learn specific skills to bolster their ability to do business with the city. Bichotte has introduced bills calling for those reforms.

Current law does not clearly provide the city with the authority to create mentorship programs and arrange opportunities for participants in those programs.

The city also wants to amend state law to allow the city to recognize MWBEs that are registered with the state as well as those that are city-certified, when awarding contracts.

Go to Source

Social media giants and technology firms could face new penalties for extremist content under new plans being considered by the British and French governments.

Prime Minister Theresa May is visiting French President Emmanuel Macron tomorrow, and the pair are set to announce a joint crackdown.

May and Macron are set to discuss their country’s respective approaches to counter-terrorism, with possible moves including a new legal liability for technology companies hosting extremist content.

It could see the likes of Twitter, Google or Facebook fined for failing to take action, with both governments calling on businesses to develop tools to identify and remove content automatically.

Read More: May’s assault on the internet serves only to make us more vulnerable

May and Macron will also urge firms to create an industry-led forum to develop technical and policy solutions to tackle extremist content.

Speaking ahead of her Paris trip, May said: “The counter-terrorism cooperation between British and French intelligence agencies is already strong, but President Macron and I agree that more should be done to tackle the terrorist threat online.”

The proposals for fines goes beyond proposals in the Conservative manifesto, which committed the party to pushing firms to improve tools to remove content.

And after the London Bridge attack, May put tech giants in the spotlight as she declared “things must change” in the UK’s counter-terrorism planning.

Responding to May’s announcement, Twitter UK head of public policy, Nick Pickles said: “Terrorist content has no place on Twitter. We continue to expand the use of technology as part of a systematic approach to removing this type of content.

“We will never stop working to stay one step ahead and will continue to engage with our partners across industry, government, civil society and academia.”

Facebook, Twitter and Google already face fines for fake news and hate speech under German law proposals.

Go to Source

Go to Source