\n\nFrom Mexico in the north to Chile in the south, the region\'s constantly see-sawing political map once again resembles that of the early 2000s, when a so-called "pink tide" of left-leaning governments washed over it.\n\nBut analysts say this time is different: the trend is driven by pragmatism rather than ideology.\n\n"It\'s not because Latin Americans are becoming more leftist. I don\'t think there\'s any evidence to support that," analyst Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue told AFP.\n\nIn their most recent election cycles, Latin American countries have resoundingly dethroned incumbent parties on the right and center-right of the political spectrum.\n\nHonduras, Bolivia and Argentina are among those to have turned their backs on the right, while Colombia in June elected its first leftist president despite a deep-rooted mistrust, as elsewhere in the region, of anything with perceived links to "communism."\n\nMany voters were jolted leftward by economic troubles and the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.\n\nVoters across the globe felt ignored, even denigrated, by the political establishment as poverty and inequality deepened.\n\n"It is more of a rejectionist trend than anything else... people looking for an alternative," said Shifter of the recent string of leftist victories.\n\n"It just so happens that we are in that moment in Latin America where a lot of the governments that are being rejected are of the right or the center right."

A "pink tide" of left-leaning governments swept Latin America in the early 2000s.

\n\nThe advance of left-wing, progressive parties in Latin America is driven by the mismanagement of the pandemic, the economic crisis, and the failure of right-wing populism in the region, writes Valesca Lima\n\nIn the 2000s, a wave of left-wing electoral success swept Latin America, with a varied and complex turn to more progressive economic or social policies. This involved greater social spending, contradictory neoliberal reforms and, in some places, radical socialism.\n\nIn the 2010s, a right-wing political and conservative trend countered this tide, in clear reaction to the advances of progressives, and the right has dominated politics in the region for the past decade. But left-wing parties are once again making electoral and political strides. In the late 2010s, the forces remained somewhat even. Now, Boric's election in Chile in December 2021 marks a shift in regional governance. It brought the number of countries led by progressive parties to seven. That number could rise even higher if progressives win the 2022 general elections in Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica.\n\nBy March 2022, Latin America will have at least seven progressive governments. In addition to some notable democratic setbacks in recent years, several factors may explain the new wave of progressives sweeping the region.\n\nCoronavirus is changing the course of politics in the region. Mismanagement of the pandemic, along with poverty and unemployment, are driving voters to support candidates who promise big government and greater social spending.\n\n

In the 2010s, a right-wing political and conservative trend countered this tide.


\n\nThe advance of left-wing, progressive parties in Latin America is driven by the mismanagement of the pandemic, the economic crisis, and the failure of right-wing populism in the region, writes Valesca Lima\n\nIn the 2000s, a wave of left-wing electoral success swept Latin America, with a varied and complex turn to more progressive economic or social policies. This involved greater social spending, contradictory neoliberal reforms and, in some places, radical socialism.\n\nIn the 2010s, a right-wing political and conservative trend countered this tide, in clear reaction to the advances of progressives, and the right has dominated politics in the region for the past decade. But left-wing parties are once again making electoral and political strides. In the late 2010s, the forces remained somewhat even. Now, Boric's election in Chile in December 2021 marks a shift in regional governance. It brought the number of countries led by progressive parties to seven. That number could rise even higher if progressives win the 2022 general elections in Brazil, Colombia and Costa Rica.\n\nBy March 2022, Latin America will have at least seven progressive governments. In addition to some notable democratic setbacks in recent years, several factors may explain the new wave of progressives sweeping the region.\n\nCoronavirus is changing the course of politics in the region. Mismanagement of the pandemic, along with poverty and unemployment, are driving voters to support candidates who promise big government and greater social spending.\n\n

In the 2010s, a right-wing political and conservative trend countered this tide.

“Our region can do more,” 11 former presidents and former foreign ministers from Latin America recently wrote in an open letter to current heads of state, underlining that regional integration was “more necessary than ever.” They have a point.\n\nAs the age of hyperglobalization is ending and regionalization is back in vogue, Latin America remains one of the least economically integrated regions in the world. Regional cooperation has been extremely limited due to profound ideological differences between leaders over the past years. Two examples symbolize the striking disconnect: Despite a shared border and numerous common challenges, the heads of state of Brazil and Argentina have not been on speaking terms for most of the past three years. Secondly, the president of Mexico has not visited South America at all since coming to power in late 2018. Now that the second pink tide has reached all major countries in the region and Bolsonaro is on his way out, many see a window of opportunity for greater regional unity. \n\nHowever, the past two weeks suggest that even with leftist leaders occupying presidential palaces in the vast majority of countries in the region, broader policy coordination and regional integration will not come easily.


\n\nFrom Mexico in the north to Chile in the south, the region\'s constantly see-sawing political map once again resembles that of the early 2000s, when a so-called "pink tide" of left-leaning governments washed over it.\n\nBut analysts say this time is different: the trend is driven by pragmatism rather than ideology.\n\n"It\'s not because Latin Americans are becoming more leftist. I don\'t think there\'s any evidence to support that," analyst Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue told AFP.\n\nIn their most recent election cycles, Latin American countries have resoundingly dethroned incumbent parties on the right and center-right of the political spectrum.\n\nHonduras, Bolivia and Argentina are among those to have turned their backs on the right, while Colombia in June elected its first leftist president despite a deep-rooted mistrust, as elsewhere in the region, of anything with perceived links to "communism."\n\nMany voters were jolted leftward by economic troubles and the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.\n\nVoters across the globe felt ignored, even denigrated, by the political establishment as poverty and inequality deepened.\n\n"It is more of a rejectionist trend than anything else... people looking for an alternative," said Shifter of the recent string of leftist victories.\n\n"It just so happens that we are in that moment in Latin America where a lot of the governments that are being rejected are of the right or the center right."

Economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic have reached Latin America.


“Our region can do more,” 11 former presidents and former foreign ministers from Latin America recently wrote in an open letter to current heads of state, underlining that regional integration was “more necessary than ever.” They have a point.\n\nAs the age of hyperglobalization is ending and regionalization is back in vogue, Latin America remains one of the least economically integrated regions in the world. Regional cooperation has been extremely limited due to profound ideological differences between leaders over the past years. Two examples symbolize the striking disconnect: Despite a shared border and numerous common challenges, the heads of state of Brazil and Argentina have not been on speaking terms for most of the past three years. Secondly, the president of Mexico has not visited South America at all since coming to power in late 2018. Now that the second pink tide has reached all major countries in the region and Bolsonaro is on his way out, many see a window of opportunity for greater regional unity. \n\nHowever, the past two weeks suggest that even with leftist leaders occupying presidential palaces in the vast majority of countries in the region, broader policy coordination and regional integration will not come easily.


While many had long proclaimed the death of the Pink Tide, the ouster of Bolivian President Evo Morales in 2019 was in some ways a nail in the coffin. The far-right government of Jeanine Áñez that followed unleashed the military on protesters, killing 30, persecuted those associated with the Morales government, threatened to privatize state industry, and disastrously mishandled the Covid-19 crisis. Yet just 12 months later, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) returned, this time with Morales’s former finance minister, Luis Arce, at the helm. With him, the commitment to a progressive agenda, albeit financed through expanding extractivism, has returned.  \n\nBy that time, Alberto Fernández had entered office in Argentina, ending a neoliberal reprise under Mauricio Macri. In Chile and Colombia, mass protests against inequality, neoliberalism, and repression at the hands of right-wing governments had begun to rattle the status quo. While six of the 11 countries that had elected left-leaning governments during the first 15 years of the 21st century remained in conservative hands, a new Left surge was building. \n\nSince 2018, voters in eight countries have chosen the Left. For Colombia and Mexico, these elections marked their first national left government of the 21st century; for Honduras, a previous shift to the left was cut short. Yet these groundbreaking wins are muddied by the outsized influence of the United States in these countries, largely because of Washington’s preoccupation with its domestic issues of immigration and drugs.

Far-right government of Jeanine Áñez unleashed military on protesters, killing 30.


Economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic have reached Latin America.


\n\nWhen Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (or Lula) won the Brazilian presidency in November 2022 by a slim 1.8% margin, Latin America’s leftward swing seemed complete. For the second time this century the region experienced a so-called “pink tide.”\n\nHowever, most polls indicate that the current shift is more of an anti-incumbent movement than it is a lasting ideological realignment. Put simply, conservative governments failed to deliver sufficient growth and were punished accordingly by voters.\n\nThe window of opportunity for a more concerted regional articulation built around common political goals may be narrow, but it is also one of the faster paths to better economic results.\n\nRegional Integration\n\nTake the Mercosur trading bloc comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay (Venezuela is currently suspended, the remaining eight South American countries are associated members, while Mexico and New Zealand are observer members): it aims to establish full free trade and movement across the region and encompasses a territory of over 19.9 million sq. km (an area 15% larger than Russia and more than double that of the US). Though still an imperfect customs union and relegated to marginal status during the tenure of Lula’s predecessor Jair Bolsonaro, Mercosur delivered a combined GDP of over $5 trillion in 2022, making the bloc the world’s fifth largest economy.\n\nOther regional economic integration mechanisms include the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac) in 2010, the Union of South America (Unasur) in 2008, and the Latin American Integration Association (Aladi) in 1980.\n\n

In the past conservative governments failed to deliver sufficient growth.


\n\nWhen Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (or Lula) won the Brazilian presidency in November 2022 by a slim 1.8% margin, Latin America’s leftward swing seemed complete. For the second time this century the region experienced a so-called “pink tide.”\n\nHowever, most polls indicate that the current shift is more of an anti-incumbent movement than it is a lasting ideological realignment. Put simply, conservative governments failed to deliver sufficient growth and were punished accordingly by voters.\n\nThe window of opportunity for a more concerted regional articulation built around common political goals may be narrow, but it is also one of the faster paths to better economic results.\n\nRegional Integration\n\nTake the Mercosur trading bloc comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay (Venezuela is currently suspended, the remaining eight South American countries are associated members, while Mexico and New Zealand are observer members): it aims to establish full free trade and movement across the region and encompasses a territory of over 19.9 million sq. km (an area 15% larger than Russia and more than double that of the US). Though still an imperfect customs union and relegated to marginal status during the tenure of Lula’s predecessor Jair Bolsonaro, Mercosur delivered a combined GDP of over $5 trillion in 2022, making the bloc the world’s fifth largest economy.\n\nOther regional economic integration mechanisms include the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac) in 2010, the Union of South America (Unasur) in 2008, and the Latin American Integration Association (Aladi) in 1980.\n\n

In the past conservative governments failed to deliver sufficient growth.

Mass protests against inequality, neoliberalism, and repression at the hands of right-wing governments began in Chile and Colombia.


Mass protests against inequality, neoliberalism, and repression at the hands of right-wing governments began in Chile and Colombia.

\n\nGustavo Petro’s upcoming inauguration on August 7 as Colombia’s first left-wing president confirms an unmistakable trend in Latin American politics: Only five years after right-leaning leaders occupied presidential palaces in much of the region—including Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico—leftist candidates have won the vast majority of national elections and now govern all of the region’s major countries except Brazil, where former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva holds a comfortable lead less than 100 days ahead of the presidential election.\n\nThis “new pink tide” appears even more dominant than its predecessor in the 2000s that brought to power leaders like Argentina’s Cristina Kirchner, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. However, comparing the two cohorts reveals more differences than similarities.\n\nFirst, Latin American leaders in the mid-2000s enjoyed a commodity boom and, by the end of the decade, a significant U.S. interest rate reduction, which created an ideal macroeconomic environment for the region. These leaders were popular thanks to their increased public spending, and generally won reelection or succeeded in picking their successors.\n\nBy contrast, today’s leaders face a perfect storm of rising U.S. interest rates, geopolitical instability and limited fiscal space after a devastating pandemic that hit Latin America particularly hard. They must be the bearers of bad news, and thus generally suffer lower approval ratings. Given that the dominant political sentiment in Latin America today is—and will likely remain—anti-incumbent, the second pink tide will most likely be much shorter-lived than the first.

Anti-incumbent sentiment is the dominant political sentiment in Latin America


\n\nGustavo Petro’s upcoming inauguration on August 7 as Colombia’s first left-wing president confirms an unmistakable trend in Latin American politics: Only five years after right-leaning leaders occupied presidential palaces in much of the region—including Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico—leftist candidates have won the vast majority of national elections and now govern all of the region’s major countries except Brazil, where former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva holds a comfortable lead less than 100 days ahead of the presidential election.\n\nThis “new pink tide” appears even more dominant than its predecessor in the 2000s that brought to power leaders like Argentina’s Cristina Kirchner, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. However, comparing the two cohorts reveals more differences than similarities.\n\nFirst, Latin American leaders in the mid-2000s enjoyed a commodity boom and, by the end of the decade, a significant U.S. interest rate reduction, which created an ideal macroeconomic environment for the region. These leaders were popular thanks to their increased public spending, and generally won reelection or succeeded in picking their successors.\n\nBy contrast, today’s leaders face a perfect storm of rising U.S. interest rates, geopolitical instability and limited fiscal space after a devastating pandemic that hit Latin America particularly hard. They must be the bearers of bad news, and thus generally suffer lower approval ratings. Given that the dominant political sentiment in Latin America today is—and will likely remain—anti-incumbent, the second pink tide will most likely be much shorter-lived than the first.

Anti-incumbent sentiment is the dominant political sentiment in Latin America

\n\nDramatic elections in Brazil, Chile and Colombia brought leftist governments into power across much of Latin America in 2022, capping the region\'s second "pink tide" in two decades.\n\n However, their struggles amid stubborn economic headwinds suggest the wave may have crested. An anti-incumbent streak that lifted the left could soon swing major elections the other way.\n\nTo have the same staying power as the left-wing renaissance at the turn of the century, governments will need to reignite economies that have frustrated voters and investors alike during a decade of mostly mediocre growth.\n\nChilean President Gabriel Boric, 36, took office in March as his country\'s most progressive leader in half a century and its youngest ever. But setbacks including the rejection of a new constitution have dented his popularity and forced concessions to the center, including swapping some of the youthful cohort in his cabinet for more experienced establishment figures.\n\nColombia also swung sharply to the left with June\'s election of Gustavo Petro, a 62-year-old former guerrilla vowing to tackle inequality with tax and land reforms. He has shored up fiscal concerns with the former, but spooked investors with a proposed ban on new oil and gas exploration and second-guessing of central bank policy.\n\nBrazilian President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, 77, who narrowly beat incumbent Jair Bolsonaro in October, is a holdover from the region\'s first pink tide, when a commodity boom helped him finish his 2003-2010 presidency with record approval.\n\nHowever, corruption scandals and economic mismanagement under his chosen successor tarred Lula\'s legacy.

Colombia elects Gustavo Petro, a 62-year-old former guerrilla.


Chilean President Gabriel Boric, 36, takes office in March as the country's most progressive leader in half a century.


\n\nDramatic elections in Brazil, Chile and Colombia brought leftist governments into power across much of Latin America in 2022, capping the region\'s second "pink tide" in two decades.\n\n However, their struggles amid stubborn economic headwinds suggest the wave may have crested. An anti-incumbent streak that lifted the left could soon swing major elections the other way.\n\nTo have the same staying power as the left-wing renaissance at the turn of the century, governments will need to reignite economies that have frustrated voters and investors alike during a decade of mostly mediocre growth.\n\nChilean President Gabriel Boric, 36, took office in March as his country\'s most progressive leader in half a century and its youngest ever. But setbacks including the rejection of a new constitution have dented his popularity and forced concessions to the center, including swapping some of the youthful cohort in his cabinet for more experienced establishment figures.\n\nColombia also swung sharply to the left with June\'s election of Gustavo Petro, a 62-year-old former guerrilla vowing to tackle inequality with tax and land reforms. He has shored up fiscal concerns with the former, but spooked investors with a proposed ban on new oil and gas exploration and second-guessing of central bank policy.\n\nBrazilian President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, 77, who narrowly beat incumbent Jair Bolsonaro in October, is a holdover from the region\'s first pink tide, when a commodity boom helped him finish his 2003-2010 presidency with record approval.\n\nHowever, corruption scandals and economic mismanagement under his chosen successor tarred Lula\'s legacy.

Colombia elects Gustavo Petro, a 62-year-old former guerrilla.


Brazil elects Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.


Leftist governments come into power across Latin America in 2022, marking the region's second "pink tide" in two decades.


Leftist governments come into power across Latin America in 2022, marking the region's second "pink tide" in two decades.

Many see a window of opportunity for greater regional unity in Latin America.


11 former presidents and foreign ministers from Latin America wrote an open letter to current heads of state, emphasizing the need for regional integration.


Many see a window of opportunity for greater regional unity in Latin America.


Today’s leaders face a perfect storm of rising U.S. interest rates, geopolitical instability and limited fiscal space due to the pandemic.


Setbacks and corruption scandals have happened in Chile after elections.


Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski crash trial came to an end Thursday when a jury sided with the actor, saying she was not at fault for a 2016 collision at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort that injured a retired optometrist.\n\nTerry Sanderson sued Paltrow for $300,000, alleging that reckless skiing caused her to run into him from behind on Feb. 26, 2016. Sanderson said he suffered four broken ribs, a concussion and lasting brain damage that affected his daily life and personal relationships.\n\nPaltrow, who has repeatedly denied running into Sanderson, countersued for $1 and her legal fees.\n\nThe trial went on for more than a week. The jury deliberated for just a few hours before deciding that Sanderson, not Paltrow, was at fault.\n\nHere’s a timeline of the events that led up to the court case, and memorable moments from trial.\n\nSanderson filed a lawsuit on Jan. 29, 2019, saying that Paltrow was skiing "out of control" when she hit him from behind, knocked him down, and then landed on top of him. He said after the collision, the actor got up and skied away and did not offer any help.\n\nHe was initially seeking more than $3.1 million but amended it to $300,000.\n\nSanderson said it took him three years to file the suit because his legal team could not come to a resolution after meeting with Paltrow and her attorney.

Gwyneth Paltrow was skiing at the Deer Valley Resort when she collided with retired optometrist, Terry Sanderson.

Gwyneth Paltrow is on trial over a 2016 ski accident in Utah involving a retired optometrist who claims he suffered life-altering injuries.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, says the Hollywood actress was distracted and caused the crash. He is seeking $300,000 (£245,000) in damages.\n\nMs Paltrow, 50, denies the charge, and has countersued for $1 plus compensation for attorneys\' fees.\n\nMr Sanderson first filed suit against Ms Paltrow in 2019, three years after their collision.\n\nThe former US army captain and optometrist, who says he has never been injured in more than 30 years of skiing, accuses the Oscar winner of being "reckless" and racing into him from behind on a beginner slope at the upscale Deer Valley Resort in western Utah.\n\nLawyers for Mr Sanderson, who was 69 at the time, allege Ms Paltrow was distracted by her children and emitted a "blood-curdling scream" before landing on top of him, then left him "lying in the snow" without calling for help.\n\nHe claims the February 2016 crash left him unconscious, and that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and four broken ribs, as well as "loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress and disfigurement".\n\nHe initially sought $3.1m over what he deems a "hit and run", but that lawsuit was dismissed last May.\n\nHe took the stand twice during the trial, defending himself against allegations he is trying to exploit a celebrity.\n\n\nA movie star-turned-lifestyle influencer, Ms Paltrow rejects the plaintiff\'s version of events and alleges he skied directly into her back.

Terry Sanderson has accused Gwyneth Paltrow of causing the skiing accident.


Gwyneth Paltrow is on trial over a 2016 ski accident in Utah involving a retired optometrist who claims he suffered life-altering injuries.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, says the Hollywood actress was distracted and caused the crash. He is seeking $300,000 (£245,000) in damages.\n\nMs Paltrow, 50, denies the charge, and has countersued for $1 plus compensation for attorneys\' fees.\n\nMr Sanderson first filed suit against Ms Paltrow in 2019, three years after their collision.\n\nThe former US army captain and optometrist, who says he has never been injured in more than 30 years of skiing, accuses the Oscar winner of being "reckless" and racing into him from behind on a beginner slope at the upscale Deer Valley Resort in western Utah.\n\nLawyers for Mr Sanderson, who was 69 at the time, allege Ms Paltrow was distracted by her children and emitted a "blood-curdling scream" before landing on top of him, then left him "lying in the snow" without calling for help.\n\nHe claims the February 2016 crash left him unconscious, and that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and four broken ribs, as well as "loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress and disfigurement".\n\nHe initially sought $3.1m over what he deems a "hit and run", but that lawsuit was dismissed last May.\n\nHe took the stand twice during the trial, defending himself against allegations he is trying to exploit a celebrity.\n\n\nA movie star-turned-lifestyle influencer, Ms Paltrow rejects the plaintiff\'s version of events and alleges he skied directly into her back.

Terry Sanderson has accused Gwyneth Paltrow of causing the skiing accident.

Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski crash trial came to an end Thursday when a jury sided with the actor, saying she was not at fault for a 2016 collision at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort that injured a retired optometrist.\n\nTerry Sanderson sued Paltrow for $300,000, alleging that reckless skiing caused her to run into him from behind on Feb. 26, 2016. Sanderson said he suffered four broken ribs, a concussion and lasting brain damage that affected his daily life and personal relationships.\n\nPaltrow, who has repeatedly denied running into Sanderson, countersued for $1 and her legal fees.\n\nThe trial went on for more than a week. The jury deliberated for just a few hours before deciding that Sanderson, not Paltrow, was at fault.\n\nHere’s a timeline of the events that led up to the court case, and memorable moments from trial.\n\nSanderson filed a lawsuit on Jan. 29, 2019, saying that Paltrow was skiing "out of control" when she hit him from behind, knocked him down, and then landed on top of him. He said after the collision, the actor got up and skied away and did not offer any help.\n\nHe was initially seeking more than $3.1 million but amended it to $300,000.\n\nSanderson said it took him three years to file the suit because his legal team could not come to a resolution after meeting with Paltrow and her attorney.

Sanderson's legal team could not come to a resolution with Paltrow and her attorney.


The trial over a 2016 ski accident involving actor and businesswoman Gwyneth Paltrow wrapped up Thursday, with the jury ruling that she was not responsible for the collision at a Utah ski resort.\n\nAfter a short deliberation, the jury concluded that plaintiff Terry Sanderson was entirely at fault for the collision, with the decision ultimately hinging on which party jurors believed was higher on the slopes when the crash occurred. \n\nSanderson, 76, sued Paltrow for $3.1 million after alleging that she crashed into him at the tony Deer Valley resort in Park City, Utah. After a judge dismissed his initial suit, he later refiled his complaint seeking more than $300,000. Paltrow, 50, countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees.\n\nIn each taking the stand last week, Paltrow and Sanderson presented starkly different accounts of the collision and called a succession of medical experts and witnesses to buttress their claims. Paltrow\'s ski instructor at the time of the incident, Deer Valley veteran Eric Christiansen, blamed Sanderson for the crash, which occurred on a beginner ski run. \n\n\n"Gwyneth was making her turns very rhythmically," he said under oath, while alleging that Sanderson "was making wide radius turns and taking up a large swath of the ski slope."\n\nFor his part, Sanderson has accused Paltrow of barreling into him, breaking four of his ribs and causing a severe concussion whose symptoms lingered for years.

Terry Sanderson sued Gwyneth Paltrow over a ski accident for $3.1 million.


Sanderson's legal team could not come to a resolution with Paltrow and her attorney.


The trial over a 2016 ski accident involving actor and businesswoman Gwyneth Paltrow wrapped up Thursday, with the jury ruling that she was not responsible for the collision at a Utah ski resort.\n\nAfter a short deliberation, the jury concluded that plaintiff Terry Sanderson was entirely at fault for the collision, with the decision ultimately hinging on which party jurors believed was higher on the slopes when the crash occurred. \n\nSanderson, 76, sued Paltrow for $3.1 million after alleging that she crashed into him at the tony Deer Valley resort in Park City, Utah. After a judge dismissed his initial suit, he later refiled his complaint seeking more than $300,000. Paltrow, 50, countersued for a symbolic $1 and attorney fees.\n\nIn each taking the stand last week, Paltrow and Sanderson presented starkly different accounts of the collision and called a succession of medical experts and witnesses to buttress their claims. Paltrow\'s ski instructor at the time of the incident, Deer Valley veteran Eric Christiansen, blamed Sanderson for the crash, which occurred on a beginner ski run. \n\n\n"Gwyneth was making her turns very rhythmically," he said under oath, while alleging that Sanderson "was making wide radius turns and taking up a large swath of the ski slope."\n\nFor his part, Sanderson has accused Paltrow of barreling into him, breaking four of his ribs and causing a severe concussion whose symptoms lingered for years.

Terry Sanderson sued Gwyneth Paltrow over a ski accident for $3.1 million.

Sanderson's initial lawsuit was dismissed.


Gwyneth Paltrow\'s attorneys asked the daughter of a man suing the actor-turned-lifestyle influencer over a 2016 ski collision about missing GoPro camera footage that they called "the most important piece of evidence" at trial Thursday.\n\nSteve Owens, Paltrow\'s attorney, asked one of the man\'s daughters, Polly Grasham, about emails exchanged with her father about the mysterious footage and the possibility that the lawsuit was filed against Paltrow because she was famous.\n\nThe GoPro footage has not been found or included as evidence for the trial.\n\n"I\'m famous ... At what cost?" Terry Sanderson, the 76-year-old retired optometrist suing Paltrow, wrote in the subject line of an email to his family after the crash.\n\nSanderson is suing Paltrow for more than $300,000 in damages, claiming that she skied recklessly into him on a beginner run at Deer Valley Resort seven years ago, breaking his ribs and leaving him with a concussion. Paltrow has claimed Sanderson caused the crash and countersued for $1 and attorney fees.\n\nThe trial took on an increasingly personal note on the third day of proceedings when Sanderson\'s daughter and a neuropsychologist testified about his declining health.\n\nSanderson\'s attorneys tried to persuade jurors that the collision had changed the course of their client\'s life, leaving him brain-impaired and damaging his relationships with loved ones.\n\nPaltrow\'s attorneys questioned whether Grasham and neuropsychologist Dr. Alina Fong could say with certainty that Sanderson\'s downturn wasn\'t a result of aging or documented, pre-crash conditions.

Sanderson refiled his complaint seeking more than $300,000 in damages.


Sanderson's initial lawsuit was dismissed.


Gwyneth Paltrow was called to the witness stand Friday in a civil suit filed against her, where she emphatically denied that she caused an accident at Utah’s Deer Valley Resort in 2016 that left a man seriously injured.\n\nTerry Sanderson, 76, who is seeking $300,000 from Paltrow, says she slammed into him from behind in a ski collision that left him with a concussion, brain injury and four broken ribs. But Paltrow alleges that it was actually Sanderson at fault and that he is exploiting her wealth.\n\n"Mr. Sanderson categorically hit me on the ski slope and that is the truth," Paltrow said from the stand Friday.\n\nThe actor and Sanderson both dispute who hit whom and who was farther up the hill at the time of the crash. Deer Valley’s website says the person ahead or downhill has the right of way. \n\nPaltrow was called to the stand Friday by Sanderson’s attorneys, after the jury heard from Sanderson\'s daughters, an eyewitness and medical experts.\n\nPaltrow said she was “gently” skiing down the slope when she felt a body press into her back and saw two skis slide between hers. She and Sanderson fell to the ground, Paltrow said, adding that she momentarily froze before becoming upset and yelling an expletive at Sanderson.\n\nPaltrow apologized for the outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.\n\n“There was a body pressing against me and a very strange grunting noise,” she said.

Paltrow denies responsibility for the accident and claims it was actually Sanderson at fault.


Paltrow has counter-sued for $1 plus lawyers fees.


Public opinion of actress Gwyneth Paltrow seems to have changed following her big win in a ski collision lawsuit.\n\nPaltrow was sued by retired optometrist Terry Sanderson in 2019 over a ski crash that he claimed left him severely injured. However, a jury ruled that the Goop founder was not at fault for the accident and awarded her $1 in damages Thursday. Sanderson himself was found to be 100% at fault for the collision.\n\nPrior to the ski collision trial, which lasted for eight days in Utah state court, Paltrow had received an interesting reaction from the public. The Oscar-winning actress has faced tremendous backlash over the years for her beliefs and comments, including the recent drama over her "starvation diet." \n\nPaltrow also came under fire when she announced she and ex-husband Chris Martin planned to "consciously uncouple" rather than divorce after 10 years of marriage. \n\nThe lawsuit, brought against Paltrow by Sanderson, was seen by some – including PR expert Dave Quast – to be "extremely opportunistic."\n\nCelebrity branding expert and founder of Achilles PR Doug Eldridge explained that Paltrow chose to be "authentic" and as an actress chose to play herself throughout this trial. "She took a positive PR bump post trial for four reasons: 1) she won, 2) she countersued for $1 dollar (along with what is likely mid-six figures in legal fees), 3) her answers were ridiculous, and 4) her courtroom wardrobe was strategic and effective."

Paltrow was criticized by the public for promoting starvation diets and her ideas on conscious uncoupling


Actress Gwyneth Paltrow appeared in a Park City courtroom on Tuesday for the start of a trial over a 2016 skiing crash in Utah.\n\nPaltrow is accused of crashing into Terry Sanderson, causing several serious injuries and then abandoning him, while they were both skiing on a beginner run at Deer Valley Resort seven years ago.\n\nThe trial is being live streamed on YouTube.\n\nSanderson, a retired optometrist, filed the lawsuit in 2019, three years after the collision on the mountainside. Since then, he has alleged that the accident left him with a brain injury, four broken ribs and emotional damage. Sanderson also claimed Paltrow left the scene without giving him her name, contact information or calling for help.\n\nLawrence Buhler, an attorney for Sanderson, began opening arguments stating, "Distracted skiers cause crashes. Defendant Gwyneth Paltrow knew that looking up the mountain and to the side while skiing down the mountain was dangerous."\n\nPaltrow\'s attorney Stephen Owens told the jury that Sanderson\'s claims that the actress bolted from the mountain after ramming into him were totally fabricated.\n\n"We believe it to be utter B.S.," Owens said.\n\nHe also told the jury that the burden of proof in the case rested on Sanderson\'s legal team and not on the actress.\n\n"You\'re going to feel sorrow for [Sanderson] but that\'s not why you\'re here. You\'re here to figure out if someone negligently crashed into someone or if no one did," he noted.\n\n"Skiing comes with inherent risks," he added.

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow appeared in a Park City courtroom on Tuesday for the start of the trial over the 2016 skiing crash in Utah.


Gwyneth's ski instructor testified on her behalf that Sanderson was taking up a large swath of the ski slope.


Attorneys are presenting their closing arguments Thursday before handing an eight-member Utah jury the case from the closely watched Gwyneth Paltrow ski collision trial, in which a retired optometrist is suing her for the injuries he says he sustained.\n\nPaltrow testified Friday in Utah after being sued in a 2016 ski crash that\'s been referred to as a "hit and run."\n\nIn 2019, the "Iron Man" star was sued by Terry Sanderson, who claimed she seriously injured him during a crash on the slopes at a Park City ski resort. The alleged incident occurred Feb. 26, 2016, on a beginner run at Deer Valley Resort.\n\nSanderson testified Monday. He is seeking $300,000 in damages, following a $3.1 million lawsuit that was previously dropped. Paltrow has denied the allegations and in a counterclaim said it was Sanderson who crashed into her.\n\nPaltrow is seeking "symbolic damages in the amount of $1, plus her costs and attorney’s fees to defend this meritless claim," her lawsuit said. The actress vowed to donate any additional funds potentially awarded by the jury to a charitable organization.

Paltrow testified in court in Utah on Friday after being sued in ski crash


Paltrow apologizes for her outburst, saying she felt violated and initially believed the crash might have been a sexual assault.


The Utah civil trial involving actress Gwyneth Paltrow and a man who is accusing her of wrongdoing in relation to a 2016 ski collision resumed Monday for its second week of proceedings.\n\nTerry Sanderson, the retired optometrist who is suing Paltrow, testified on Monday that he “was skiing easy” and “paying attention” prior to the collision with Paltrow, which happened at Deer Valley Resort in Park City, Utah.\n\n“I just remember everything was great and then I heard something I’ve never heard at a ski resort and that was a blood-curdling scream … and then boom,” he said. “It was like somebody was out of control and going to hit a tree and was going to die. And that’s what I had until I was hit.”\n\nHe went on to describe the impact.\n\n“I got hit in my back so hard and right at my shoulder blades and it felt like it was perfectly centered and the fists and the poles were right at the bottom of my shoulder blades, serious, serious smack and I’ve never been hit that hard,” Sanderson continued. “All I saw was a whole lot of snow.”\n\nSanderson disputed suggestions he sued Paltrow to exploit her fame and wealth.\n\n\n\n“I thought, ‘I’m not into celebrity worship,’” Sanderson told the jury about learning she was the other skier involved in their collision.\n\nCraig Ramon, a witness who testified previously, was recalled to the stand to discuss newly obtained evidence related to a message board earlier on Monday.

The witness Craig Ramon was recalled to testify about newly obtained evidence related to a message board earlier on Monday.


Paltrow's attorney asked Sanderson about the possibility of the lawsuit being a result of Paltrow's fame.


Paltrow's attorney asked Sanderson about the possibility of the lawsuit being a result of Paltrow's fame.

Sanderson disputed the suggestion that he was suing Paltrow to exploit her fame and wealth.


While highlighting Latino underrepresentation in Hollywood, John Leguizamo joked that he might take a role from a white actor by playing Gwyneth Paltrow in a movie about her ongoing ski-accident trial.\n\nThe actor, who stars in Prime Video\'s "The Power," is guest hosting "The Daily Show" after the departure of its host Trevor Noah. On Monday\'s episode, Leguizamo spoke about the phenomenon of white actors like James Franco, who was cast as Fidel Castro in the film "Alina of Cuba," being cast in Latino roles.\n\n"Well, guess what? If white people can take our roles, I\'m going to take theirs," Leguizamo said.\n\n"When they do the TV series based on Gwyneth Paltrow\'s ski-accident trial, I\'m going to be Gwyneth Paltrow," he continued, before launching into an impression of the actor and Goop founder.\n\n\nPaltrow is in court after a retired optometrist, Terry Sanderson, sued her in 2019 claiming that she was at fault when she crashed into him on a ski slope in 2016. Paltrow, who has disputed parts of Sanderson\'s story, countersued, saying that Sanderson ran into her.\n\nLeguizamo has been outspoken about the dearth of Latino representation in Hollywood, writing an open letter to the industry in the Los Angeles Times in 2022 about the long-standing issue.\n\n"You may think Lin-Manuel Miranda, Bad Bunny, J Lo, Benicio del Toro and I are the only ones, but you are wrong," he wrote. "There are millions of Latinos, and we were just among the few to be allowed through."

John Leguizamo joked that he might take a role from a white actor by playing Gwyneth Paltrow in a movie about her ongoing ski accident trial.


Sanderson disputed the suggestion that he was suing Paltrow to exploit her fame and wealth.


Last month, Gwyneth Paltrow stood trial in Utah where a man named Terry Sanderson accused her of causing him severe injury when she allegedly crashed into him while they were both skiing at the luxurious Deer Valley ski resort.\n\nShe ultimately won the trial after Sanderson was determined to be "100 percent at fault" for the 2016 ski crash. The proceedings garnered lots of attention, and now, weeks later, Paltrow has taken to Instagram to comment on what happened.\n\nHer post featured a video of falling show, a photo of an extravagant living room, another photo of snow, and one of a whiskey bottle, all apparently taken during the time she spent in Utah for the trial.\n\nHer post featured a video of falling show, a photo of an extravagant living room, another photo of snow, and one of a whiskey bottle, all apparently taken during the time she spent in Utah for the trial.\n\nHer captioned seemed to confirm this – she wrote "Last weeks of March; storms of varying kinds, a beautiful place to lay my head, cold therapy of the most natural kind, and a whisky discovery."\n\nThe last weeks of March were when the trial took place. "Storms of various kinds" could refer to both the snowstorms in the area and the media storm the trial caused.\n\nMany of her followers also understood her post to be a reference to her days in court.

Accuser Terry Sanderson was determined to be "100% at fault"


Last month, Gwyneth Paltrow stood trial in Utah where a man named Terry Sanderson accused her of causing him severe injury when she allegedly crashed into him while they were both skiing at the luxurious Deer Valley ski resort.\n\nShe ultimately won the trial after Sanderson was determined to be "100 percent at fault" for the 2016 ski crash. The proceedings garnered lots of attention, and now, weeks later, Paltrow has taken to Instagram to comment on what happened.\n\nHer post featured a video of falling show, a photo of an extravagant living room, another photo of snow, and one of a whiskey bottle, all apparently taken during the time she spent in Utah for the trial.\n\nHer post featured a video of falling show, a photo of an extravagant living room, another photo of snow, and one of a whiskey bottle, all apparently taken during the time she spent in Utah for the trial.\n\nHer captioned seemed to confirm this – she wrote "Last weeks of March; storms of varying kinds, a beautiful place to lay my head, cold therapy of the most natural kind, and a whisky discovery."\n\nThe last weeks of March were when the trial took place. "Storms of various kinds" could refer to both the snowstorms in the area and the media storm the trial caused.\n\nMany of her followers also understood her post to be a reference to her days in court.

Accuser Terry Sanderson was determined to be "100% at fault"

The jury sided with Paltrow, ruling that Sanderson was at fault.


Gwyneth Paltrow was skiing at the Deer Valley Resort when she collided with retired optometrist, Terry Sanderson.


Gwyneth Paltrow will not recoup the attorneys\' fees she paid to successfully defend herself against a lawsuit from a 76-year-old retired optometrist who claimed she was at fault for crashing into him at a posh Utah ski resort in 2016.\n In a ruling published on Saturday, a Utah judge said attorneys for Paltrow and Terry Sanderson had agreed to drop the matter of Paltrow\'s attorneys\' fees. District Court Judge Kent Holmberg\'s final judgement did not detail why the matter of attorneys\' fees that Paltrow sought in her 2019 countersuit was dropped.\n\nThe judgement affirmed the jury\'s unanimous verdict finding Terry Sanderson — the man who collided with Paltrow — to be “100% at fault," awarding Paltrow the $1 she sought in a countersuit. It also said Sanderson would not appeal the verdict, effectively ending a protracted legal battle seven years after the two crashed on a beginner run near the base of Deer Valley Resort in Utah.\n\nRepresentatives for both Paltrow were not immediately available to answer questions about the final judgment or the money at stake. Neither side has publicly disclosed how much it cost to sustain a yearslong legal battle with a team of attorneys, expert witnesses from around the United States and, for Paltrow\'s side, high-resolution animated recreations of her recollections of the crash.\n\nThe “Shakespeare in Love” and “Ironman” star\'s eight-day court battle last month emerged as the most closely watched American celebrity trial since actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard faced off last year.

Sanderson did not appeal the verdict, ending the protracted legal battle


The jury sided with Paltrow, ruling that Sanderson was at fault.


Public opinion of actress Gwyneth Paltrow has become more positive.


Terry Sanderson sued Gwyneth Paltrow over a ski accident for $3.1 million.


\n\nChina has been the world's largest and fastest-growing producer of renewable energy for more than a decade, but has widened its lead over international rivals through a steep acceleration in the roll out of wind capacity since 2021.\n\nChina added more wind generation capacity in the past two years than over the previous seven, and in 2022 generated 46% more wind power than all of Europe, the second largest wind generation market, according to data from think tank Ember.\n\nAs Europe had been the world's top wind power producer until 2020, China's widening lead over the rest of the world in such a tight time frame further cements China's status as the global green energy leader, and underscores Beijing's commitment to overhauling its massive energy system at a record pace.\n\nFurther, the rapid roll out of wind capacity, along with a more than 27% surge in solar generation in 2022 from the year before, helped push China's electricity share from clean energy sources to a record 34.2% last year.\n\nThat in turn will help the country's energy system to limit reliance on high-polluting fossil fuels such as coal even as economic growth gathers momentum in 2023 following the lifting of COVID-19 movement curbs that restricted activity in 2022.\n\nWhile China has deployed record volumes of both solar and wind power capacity over the past decade, wind generation capacity has grown more steeply than solar capacity since 2020.\n

China has been the world's largest and fastest-growing producer of renewable energy for more than a decade.

\n\nThe global energy crisis has triggered unprecedented momentum behind renewables, with the world set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the past 20\n\nThe global energy crisis is driving a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power, with total capacity growth worldwide set to almost double in the next five years, overtaking coal as the largest source of electricity generation along the way and helping keep alive the possibility of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, the IEA says in a new report.\n\nEnergy security concerns caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have motivated countries to increasingly turn to renewables such as solar and wind to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, whose prices have spiked dramatically. Global renewable power capacity is now expected to grow by 2 400 gigawatts (GW) over the 2022-2027 period, an amount equal to the entire power capacity of China today, according to Renewables 2022, the latest edition of the IEA’s annual report on the sector.\n\nThis massive expected increase is 30% higher than the amount of growth that was forecast just a year ago, highlighting how quickly governments have thrown additional policy weight behind renewables. The report finds that renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity expansion over the next five years, overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity by early 2025.\n\n


\n\nThe global energy crisis has triggered unprecedented momentum behind renewables, with the world set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the past 20\n\nThe global energy crisis is driving a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power, with total capacity growth worldwide set to almost double in the next five years, overtaking coal as the largest source of electricity generation along the way and helping keep alive the possibility of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, the IEA says in a new report.\n\nEnergy security concerns caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have motivated countries to increasingly turn to renewables such as solar and wind to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, whose prices have spiked dramatically. Global renewable power capacity is now expected to grow by 2 400 gigawatts (GW) over the 2022-2027 period, an amount equal to the entire power capacity of China today, according to Renewables 2022, the latest edition of the IEA’s annual report on the sector.\n\nThis massive expected increase is 30% higher than the amount of growth that was forecast just a year ago, highlighting how quickly governments have thrown additional policy weight behind renewables. The report finds that renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity expansion over the next five years, overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity by early 2025.\n\n


\n\nChina has been the world's largest and fastest-growing producer of renewable energy for more than a decade, but has widened its lead over international rivals through a steep acceleration in the roll out of wind capacity since 2021.\n\nChina added more wind generation capacity in the past two years than over the previous seven, and in 2022 generated 46% more wind power than all of Europe, the second largest wind generation market, according to data from think tank Ember.\n\nAs Europe had been the world's top wind power producer until 2020, China's widening lead over the rest of the world in such a tight time frame further cements China's status as the global green energy leader, and underscores Beijing's commitment to overhauling its massive energy system at a record pace.\n\nFurther, the rapid roll out of wind capacity, along with a more than 27% surge in solar generation in 2022 from the year before, helped push China's electricity share from clean energy sources to a record 34.2% last year.\n\nThat in turn will help the country's energy system to limit reliance on high-polluting fossil fuels such as coal even as economic growth gathers momentum in 2023 following the lifting of COVID-19 movement curbs that restricted activity in 2022.\n\nWhile China has deployed record volumes of both solar and wind power capacity over the past decade, wind generation capacity has grown more steeply than solar capacity since 2020.\n

China added more wind generation capacity in the past two years.


\n\nThe European Union reached a provisional deal on Thursday on higher renewable energy targets, an important pillar of the bloc's plans to fight climate change and end dependence on Russian fossil fuels.\n\nNegotiators of the European Parliament and the Council, representing EU members, agreed that by 2030, the 27-country EU would commit to sourcing 42.5% of its energy from renewable sources like wind and solar, with a potential top-up to 45%.\n\nThe EU's current 2030 target is for a 32% renewable energy share.\n\nThe EU got 22% of its energy from renewable sources in 2021, but the level varied significantly between countries. Sweden leads the 27 EU countries with its 63% renewable energy share, while in Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and Ireland, renewable sources make up less than 13% of total energy use.\n\nA rapid shift to renewable energy is crucial if the EU is to meet its climate change goals, including a legally binding aim to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, from 1990 levels.\n\nEU countries will have to raise to 29% the share of renewables in energy used by the transport sector. EU industry would increase its use of renewables by 1.6% per year, with 42% of the hydrogen it uses deriving from renewable sources by 2030 and 60% by 2035.\n\nThe directive added targets for buildings and sought accelerated permitting processes for renewable energy projects.\n\n

The European Union reached a provisional deal on Thursday to commit to sourcing 42.5% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.


China added more wind generation capacity in the past two years.


\n\nThe Group of Seven rich nations have agreed to call for reducing gas consumption and increasing electricity from renewable sources while phasing out fossil-fuels faster and building no new coal-fired plants, France\'s energy transition minister said on Saturday.\n\nG7 environment and energy ministers, however, could not agree on a specific date to exit coal power, France\'s Agnes Pannier-Runacher told reporters on the first of two days of climate and energy talks in Sapporo in northern Japan.\n\n"The G7 countries have agreed that the first response to the energy crisis must be to reduce energy and gas consumption… For the first time ever, the G7 said that we must accelerate the phasing out of all unabated fossil fuels... Finally, it sent a message about accelerating renewable energy," Pannier-Runacher said.\n\nThe G7 decided to endorse a goal to "drastically increase electricity generated by renewable energies," a person with knowledge of the discussions separately told Reuters, asking not to be identified because the information is not public.\n\nMinisters also appeared to be considering numerical targets for increasing solar power capacity to at least 1 terawatt and offshore wind power capacity to 150 gigawatts by 2030, the source said.\n\nEnergy-poor Japan was pushing for investments to stay for the gas industry in order to keep the liquefied natural gas in the energy mix as a transition fuel, winning some - but not all - support from the rest of G7.\n\n

G7 nations agreed to reduce gas consumption and increase electricity from renewable sources.


\n\nThis year, the world is predicted to pass a critical turning point in renewable energy.\n\nGreenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, the largest source of the world\'s emissions, are expected to fall for the first time, according to London-based think tank Ember. That\'s despite the fact that the world\'s demand for electricity is still growing. Emissions are set to fall because expansion in renewable energies such as solar and wind is outstripping that growth in demand.\n\nIt\'s a crucial moment in the effort to tackle climate change, and the report, written by Małgorzata Wiatros-Motyka, senior electricity analyst at Ember, and colleagues, argues that we are fast approaching a positive "tipping point" in the effort to curb climate change.\n\n"This marks the point where power sector emissions stop rising," Wiatros-Motyka and her colleagues write. "Clean power can actually go to replacing fossil fuels, instead of just meeting rising demand."\n\nJust how important are positive tipping points in efforts to tackle climate change? And are we really about to pass an important one in 2023?\n\nFuture Planet editor Martha Henriques puts these questions to Simon Sharpe, author of Five Times Faster: Rethinking the Science, Economics, and Diplomacy of Climate Change.\n\nMH: We\'re used to hearing about dangerous tipping points in climate change, like the loss of sea ice or forests. What is a tipping point, and why are some of them good?\n\nSS: A tipping point in general is a point where a small input change leads to a large change in outcome.

The world is predicted to pass a critical turning point in renewable energy in 2023.


\n\nThe Biden-Harris Administration today announced the availability of nearly $11 billion in grants and loan opportunities that will help rural energy and utility providers bring affordable, reliable clean energy to their communities across the country. This represents the single largest investment in rural electrification since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Rural Electrification Act into law in 1936.\n\n“The Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to cleaner energy provides rural communities with an affordable and reliable power grid, while supporting thousands of new jobs and helping lower energy costs in the future,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said. “These investments will also combat climate change and significantly reduce air and water pollution that put children’s health at risk. The U.S. Department of Agriculture stands ready to partner with municipalities, tribal entities, entrepreneurs, rural electric cooperatives and other utilities to see this transformative investment come to life and create new economic growth and healthier communities.”\n\nFunding is available through two programs under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which makes the nation’s largest-ever investment in combatting the climate crisis. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be opening a Letter of Interest process for the Empowering Rural America (“New ERA”) program, which makes $9.7 billion available to eligible rural electric cooperatives to deploy renewable energy systems, zero-emission and carbon capture systems.

Biden-Harris Administration announces the availability of nearly $11 billion in grants for rural energy and utility providers.


\n\nThe Biden-Harris Administration today announced the availability of nearly $11 billion in grants and loan opportunities that will help rural energy and utility providers bring affordable, reliable clean energy to their communities across the country. This represents the single largest investment in rural electrification since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Rural Electrification Act into law in 1936.\n\n“The Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to cleaner energy provides rural communities with an affordable and reliable power grid, while supporting thousands of new jobs and helping lower energy costs in the future,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said. “These investments will also combat climate change and significantly reduce air and water pollution that put children’s health at risk. The U.S. Department of Agriculture stands ready to partner with municipalities, tribal entities, entrepreneurs, rural electric cooperatives and other utilities to see this transformative investment come to life and create new economic growth and healthier communities.”\n\nFunding is available through two programs under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which makes the nation’s largest-ever investment in combatting the climate crisis. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be opening a Letter of Interest process for the Empowering Rural America (“New ERA”) program, which makes $9.7 billion available to eligible rural electric cooperatives to deploy renewable energy systems, zero-emission and carbon capture systems.

Biden-Harris Administration announces the availability of nearly $11 billion in grants for rural energy and utility providers.

\n\nThe U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a nearly $11 billion investment on Tuesday to help bring affordable clean energy to rural communities throughout the country.\n\nRural electric cooperatives, renewable energy companies and electric utilities will be able to apply for funding through two programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said during a media briefing on Monday.\n\nVilsack said it was the largest single federal investment in rural electrification since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Rural Electrification Act in 1936 as part of the New Deal.\n\n"This is an exciting opportunity for the Rural Utility Service to work collaboratively with our great partners, the Rural Electric cooperatives, in order to advance a clean energy future for rural America," Vilsack said. "So this is an exciting and an historic day, and it continues an ongoing effort to ensure that rural America is a full participant in this clean energy economy."\n\nThe Empowering Rural America program will make $9.7 billion available for rural electric cooperatives to create renewable energy, zero-emission and carbon capture systems.\n\nJim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, praised the administration for the investment.\n\n"This is an exciting and transformative opportunity for co-ops and their local communities, particularly as we look toward a future that depends on electricity to power more of the economy," Matheson said. "USDA has smartly structured this program in a way that will help electric co-ops leverage new tools to reduce costs and keep energy affordable while meeting the future energy needs of their rural communities."\n\n

Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, praises the administration.


\n\nToday, EPA issued a multi-part proposal that will build on the strong foundation for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program started in the Biden-Harris Administration and seeks to advance the priorities of energy security, less pollution, and consumer protection. The RFS “Set” proposal requests public input on required volumes of biofuel for the next one to three years and on a series of important modifications to strengthen and expand the program. The agency is seeking public input on the proposal to help shape the RFS program in the years ahead.\n\n“The Renewable Fuel Standard program is critical to helping incorporate more homegrown biofuels into the market,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “This proposal supports low-carbon renewable fuels and seeks public input on ways to strengthen the program. With this proposal, EPA seeks to provide consumers with more options while diversifying our nation’s energy mix. EPA is also focused on strengthening the economics of our critical energy infrastructure, needed to maintain and boost our energy security. We’re eager to continue the dialogue on how biofuels can bolster U.S. energy security, protect consumers from high fuel costs, strengthen the rural economy, and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”\n\nThis proposal includes steady growth of biofuels for use in the nation’s fuel supply for 2023, 2024, and 2025. Because the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) does not include volumes after 2022, this is the first time that EPA is setting these proposed biofuel volume targets without using those outlined in statute.

EPA issued a multi-part proposal to build on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.


\n\nThe U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a nearly $11 billion investment on Tuesday to help bring affordable clean energy to rural communities throughout the country.\n\nRural electric cooperatives, renewable energy companies and electric utilities will be able to apply for funding through two programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said during a media briefing on Monday.\n\nVilsack said it was the largest single federal investment in rural electrification since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Rural Electrification Act in 1936 as part of the New Deal.\n\n"This is an exciting opportunity for the Rural Utility Service to work collaboratively with our great partners, the Rural Electric cooperatives, in order to advance a clean energy future for rural America," Vilsack said. "So this is an exciting and an historic day, and it continues an ongoing effort to ensure that rural America is a full participant in this clean energy economy."\n\nThe Empowering Rural America program will make $9.7 billion available for rural electric cooperatives to create renewable energy, zero-emission and carbon capture systems.\n\nJim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, praised the administration for the investment.\n\n"This is an exciting and transformative opportunity for co-ops and their local communities, particularly as we look toward a future that depends on electricity to power more of the economy," Matheson said. "USDA has smartly structured this program in a way that will help electric co-ops leverage new tools to reduce costs and keep energy affordable while meeting the future energy needs of their rural communities."\n\n

Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, praises the administration.


\n\nGlobal investment in clean energy is on course to rise to USD 1.7 trillion in 2023, with solar set to eclipse oil production for the first time\n\nInvestment in clean energy technologies is significantly outpacing spending on fossil fuels as affordability and security concerns triggered by the global energy crisis strengthen the momentum behind more sustainable options, according to a new IEA report.\n\nAbout USD 2.8 trillion is set to be invested globally in energy in 2023, of which more than USD 1.7 trillion is expected to go to clean technologies – including renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear power, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency improvements and heat pumps – according to the IEA’s latest World Energy Investment report. The remainder, slightly more than USD 1 trillion, is going to coal, gas and oil.\n\nAnnual clean energy investment is expected to rise by 24% between 2021 and 2023, driven by renewables and electric vehicles, compared with a 15% rise in fossil fuel investment over the same period. But more than 90% of this increase comes from advanced economies and China, presenting a serious risk of new dividing lines in global energy if clean energy transitions don’t pick up elsewhere.\n\n“Clean energy is moving fast – faster than many people realise. This is clear in the investment trends, where clean technologies are pulling away from fossil fuels,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “For every dollar invested in fossil fuels, about 1.7 dollars are now going into clean energy.

Investment in clean energy technologies is significantly outpacing spending on fossil fuels.


\n\nSwitzerland’s biggest bank, UBS, has agreed to buy its ailing rival Credit Suisse in an emergency rescue deal aimed at stemming financial market panic unleashed by the failure of two American banks earlier this month.\n\n“UBS today announced the takeover of Credit Suisse,” the Swiss National Bank said in a statement Sunday. It said the rescue would “secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy.”\n\nUBS is paying 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.25 billion) for Credit Suisse, about 60% less than the bank was worth when markets closed on Friday. Credit Suisse shareholders will be largely wiped out, receiving the equivalent of just 0.76 Swiss francs in UBS shares for stock that was worth 1.86 Swiss francs on Friday. Owners of $17 billion worth of “additional tier one” bonds — a riskier class of bank debt — will lose everything, Swiss regulators said.\n\nExtraordinarily, the deal will not need the approval of shareholders after the Swiss government agreed to change the law to remove any uncertainty about the deal.\n\nCredit Suisse (CS) had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years. In 2022, it recorded its worst loss since the global financial crisis. But confidence collapsed last week after it acknowledged “material weakness” in its bookkeeping and as the demise of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank spread fear about weaker institutions at a time when soaring interest rates have undermined the value of some financial assets.\n\n

In 2022, Credit Suisse recorded its worst lost.

Credit Suisse had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years.


Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed.


Credit Suisse had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years.


Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed.

Fear spread regarding weaker bank institutions.


Confidence collapsed last week for Credit Suisse.


Fear spread regarding weaker bank institutions.


\n\nThe merger of two Swiss banks will result in layoffs in Switzerland and the U.S.\n\nThe acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS for over $3 billion, marks the end of an era in Switzerland as the rivalry between the two banks concluded on Sunday. \n\nThe repeated scandals and trading losses at Credit Suisse in recent years spooked investors and customers, leading clients to withdraw $10 billion one day last week, according to the Wall Street Journal. \n\nThe deal was finalized on Sunday, before Asia's stock markets opened, as Switzerland’s President Alain Berse announced it. The rivals had been reluctant to merge.\n\nA sign that the deal was driven by \u200b\u200bthe government was that the government officials took center stage in the press conference announcing the transaction. UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher and Credit Suisse Chairman Axel Lehman were placed at the far end of the table.\n\n“With the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS, a solution has been found to secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy in this exceptional situation,” the Swiss National Bank said in a statement.\n\nThe deal comes after three days of intense talks, which saw UBS and Credit Suisse very reluctant to tie the knot. The former felt that the bank was doing well and did not need to be saddled with a deal that could only bring problems. The latter felt that its turnaround plan would be enough to recover. But the Swiss authorities feared that the crisis of confidence suffered by Credit Suisse would intensify and, above all, that it would spread to other banks.

Swiss authorities feared crisis of confidence would spread to other banks.


Intense talks between UBS and Credit Suisse over three days.


Swiss National Bank issues statement to secure financial stability and protect Swiss economy.


\n\nOn March 19, 2023, it was announced that UBS plans to acquire Credit Suisse in an allshares transaction, valuing Credit Suisse at CHF 0.76 per share / CHF 3 billion. The Swiss Federal Council, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA and the Swiss National Bank expressed their support for the transaction. The transaction is expected to close in Q2/23 following approvals by relevant authorities. AT1 capital instruments issued by Credit Suisse of appr. CHF 16 billion in aggregate have been written-down in full.\n\nIntroduction\n\nPursuant to public information, Credit Suisse was experiencing a crisis of confidence and faced outflows of clients funds, intensified by the recent events in the US financial markets.\n\nOn March 16, 2023, Credit Suisse announced the intention to access a covered loan facility as well as a short-term liquidity facility of up to appr. CHF 50 billion.\n\nFollowing intervention by, and request of, the Swiss Federal Department of Finance, the Swiss National Bank and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA, Credit Suisse and UBS entered into a merger agreement on March 19, 2023.\n\nThe Swiss Federal Council on March 16, 2023 issued an ordinance regarding additional liquidity assistance loans and the granting of loan loss guarantees by the Swiss Confederation for liquidity assistance loans by the Swiss National\n\nBank to systematically important banks (the Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance). In order to adapt this ordinance to the most recent developments, the Swiss Federal Council amended this Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance, effective on March 19, 2023 (the Amended Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance).\n\n

The Swiss Federal Council amended the Additional Liquidity Assistance Ordinance.


Swiss President Alain Berse announces the merger.


UBS announced its plans to acquire Credit Suisse in an all-shares transaction.


UBS agrees to buy Credit Suisse in emergency rescue deal


\n\nUBS (UBSG.S) executives sought to assure investors on Wednesday that Switzerland\'s largest bank can make its unexpected takeover of Swiss rival Credit Suisse (CSGN.S) work and pay off for its shareholders.\n\nWhile describing the biggest bank rescue since the global financial crisis as a milestone for the industry and a major challenge for the bank, Chairman Colm Kelleher told UBS shareholders it also meant "a new beginning and huge opportunities ahead for the combined bank and for the Swiss financial center as a whole."\n\nLast month, Swiss authorities announced that UBS would buy Credit Suisse in a shotgun merger to stem further banking turmoil after the smaller lender had come to the brink of collapse.\n\nAfter a run on deposits, the Swiss government had turned to UBS, which agreed to buy Credit Suisse for 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.3 billion), while the Alpine state put up more than 200 billion francs of support and guarantees.\n\nKelleher told the bank\'s shareholder meeting in Basel UBS was confident in its ability to successfully manage Credit Suisse\'s integration and that the combined bank would remain well capitalized.\n\n"We believe the transaction is financially attractive for UBS shareholders," he said.\n\nThe hastily arranged rescue, not only angered and unsettled both banks\' shareholders, but also many in Switzerland.\n\nA survey by political research firm gfs.bern found a majority of Swiss did not support the deal that would create a financial institution with assets double the size of the country\'s annual economic output.\n\n

Swiss government put up more than 200 billion francs of support and guarantees.


UBS acquires Credit Suisse for over $3 billion.


Owners of $17 billion worth of “additional tier one” bonds will lose everything


\n\nUBS executives told shareholders that its unexpected takeover of Credit Suisse was a milestone for the industry and a significant challenge for the bank, Reuters reported.\n\nDescribing the transaction as "the first merger of two globally systematically important banks," Chairman Colm Kelleher sought to assure investors that it also meant "a new beginning and huge opportunities ahead for the combined bank and the Swiss financial center as a whole."\n\nLast week, UBS rehired Sergio Ermotti as chief executive to steer the massive takeover. According to recent reports, UBS is preparing to eliminate about 20 to 30% of jobs worldwide.\n\nAddressing shareholders for the final time as chief executive, Ralph Hamers acknowledged that the merger has led to new priorities for the bank, bringing a change at its helm.\n\n"The acquisition of Credit Suisse will be a major challenge," Hamers said.\n\n"It is expected to create a business with more than $5 trillion in total invested assets," he said.\n\nPrice Action: UBS shares are down 0.81% at $20.83 during the premarket session on the last check Wednesday.\n\n


UBS is preparing to eliminate about 20 to 30% of jobs worldwide


UBS shares are down 0.81% at $20.83 during the premarket session on the last check Wednesday.


In 2022, Credit Suisse recorded its worst lost.


Credit Suisse had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years.


\n\nUBS has completed the acquisition of Credit Suisse today, crossing an important milestone. Credit Suisse Group AG has been merged into UBS Group AG and the combined entity will operate as a consolidated banking group.\n\nToday marks the last trading day of Credit Suisse Group AG shares on the SIX Swiss Exchange. Credit Suisse Group AG ADS will no longer be traded on the New York Stock Exchange. As announced on 19 March 2023, Credit Suisse shareholders will receive 1 UBS share for every 22.48 Credit Suisse shares held.\n\nAs previously announced, UBS will operate the following governance model pending further integration:\n• UBS Group AG will manage two separate parent banks – UBS AG and Credit Suisse AG. Each institution will continue to have its own subsidiaries and branches, serve its clients and deal with counterparties.\n• The Board of Directors and Group Executive Board of UBS Group AG will hold overall responsibility for the consolidated group.\n\nAs it completes the acquisition, UBS announces Board of Director nominations for certain Credit Suisse entities. Subject to regulatory approval, the Credit Suisse AG Board will consist of Lukas Gähwiler (Chair), Jeremy Anderson (Vice-Chair), Christian Gellerstad (Vice-Chair), Michelle Bereaux, Mirko Bianchi (until 30 June 2023), Clare Brady, Mark Hughes, Amanda Norton and Stefan Seiler.\n\nColm Kelleher, UBS Group AG Chairman, said: “I‘m pleased that we’ve successfully closed this crucial transaction in less than three months, bringing together two global systemically important banks for the first time.

UBS has completed the acquisition of Credit Suisse.


Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed.


The last trading day of Credit Suisse Group AG shares on the SIX Swiss Exchange.


The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank continues to reverberate, hitting bank stocks, revealing hidden stresses, knocking on to Credit Suisse, and setting off a political blame-game.\n\n\nWhy the $212bn tech-lender abruptly collapsed, triggering the most significant financial crisis since 2008, has no single answer. Was it, as some argue, the result of Trump-era regulation rollbacks, risk mismanagement at the bank, sharp interest rate rises after a decade of ultra-low borrowing costs, or perhaps a combination of all three?\n\nFederal investigations have begun and lawsuits have been filed and no doubt new issues at the bank will emerge. But for now, here are the main reasons experts believed SVB failed.\n\nThe Vermont senator Bernie Sanders argues that the culprit was an “absurd” 2018 law, supported by Congress and signed by Donald Trump, that undid some of the credit requirements imposed under the Dodd-Frank banking legislation brought in after the 2008 banking crisis.\n\nDodd-Frank required that banks with at least $50bn in assets – banks considered “systemically important” – undergo an annual Federal Reserve “stress test” and maintain certain levels of capital as well as plans for a living will if they failed.\n\nSVB’s chief executive, Greg Becker, argued before Congress in 2015 that the $50bn threshold (SVB held $40bn at the time) was unnecessary and his bank, like other “mid-sized” or regional banks, “does not present systemic risks”.\n\nTrump said the new bill went a “long way toward fixing” Dodd-Frank, which he called a “job-killer”.

In 2018 a law was passed for banks to not be required to have a $50bn safety capital.

On Wednesday, Silicon Valley Bank was a well-capitalized institution seeking to raise some funds.\n\nWithin 48 hours, a panic induced by the very venture capital community that SVB had served and nurtured ended the bank’s 40-year-run.\n\nRegulators shuttered SVB Friday and seized its deposits in the largest U.S. banking failure since the 2008 financial crisis and the second-largest ever. The company’s downward spiral began late Wednesday, when it surprised investors with news that it needed to raise $2.25 billion to shore up its balance sheet. What followed was the rapid collapse of a highly-respected bank that had grown alongside its technology clients.\n\nEven now, as the dust begins to settle on the second bank wind-down announced this week, members of the VC community are lamenting the role that other investors played in SVB’s demise.\n\n“This was a hysteria-induced bank run caused by VCs,” Ryan Falvey, a fintech investor at Restive Ventures, told CNBC. “This is going to go down as one of the ultimate cases of an industry cutting its nose off to spite its face.”\n\nThe episode is the latest fallout from the Federal Reserve’s actions to stem inflation with its most aggressive rate hiking campaign in four decades. The ramifications could be far-reaching, with concerns that startups may be unable to pay employees in coming days, venture investors may struggle to raise funds, and an already-battered sector could face a deeper malaise.

SVB invested in technology companies (startups).


On Wednesday, Silicon Valley Bank was a well-capitalized institution seeking to raise some funds.\n\nWithin 48 hours, a panic induced by the very venture capital community that SVB had served and nurtured ended the bank’s 40-year-run.\n\nRegulators shuttered SVB Friday and seized its deposits in the largest U.S. banking failure since the 2008 financial crisis and the second-largest ever. The company’s downward spiral began late Wednesday, when it surprised investors with news that it needed to raise $2.25 billion to shore up its balance sheet. What followed was the rapid collapse of a highly-respected bank that had grown alongside its technology clients.\n\nEven now, as the dust begins to settle on the second bank wind-down announced this week, members of the VC community are lamenting the role that other investors played in SVB’s demise.\n\n“This was a hysteria-induced bank run caused by VCs,” Ryan Falvey, a fintech investor at Restive Ventures, told CNBC. “This is going to go down as one of the ultimate cases of an industry cutting its nose off to spite its face.”\n\nThe episode is the latest fallout from the Federal Reserve’s actions to stem inflation with its most aggressive rate hiking campaign in four decades. The ramifications could be far-reaching, with concerns that startups may be unable to pay employees in coming days, venture investors may struggle to raise funds, and an already-battered sector could face a deeper malaise.

SVB invested in technology companies (startups).

Stefan Kalb was in the middle of a meeting around 1 p.m. on Thursday when a fellow company executive sent him a panicked Slack message: "Do you know what\'s happening at SVB?"\n\nKalb, the CEO and co-founder of Seattle-based food management startup Shelf Engine, had been following news of a bank run at Silicon Valley Bank. Droves of depositors were attempting to pull out as much as $42 billion from the bank on Thursday alone, as fear spread that the bank was teetering on the brink of collapse.\n\nThe bank seemed to be on firm financial footing on Wednesday. The following day, it appeared to be under water.\n\nFor Shelf Engine, a 40-person startup founded in 2015 that uses artificial intelligence to help grocery stores reduce food waste, this was a big problem.\n\nNot only did Silicon Valley Bank help the company process checks and payments, but millions of dollars of the startup\'s cash was locked up in the bank.\n\nKalb sprung into action. He and his team quickly opened an account at JPMorgan Chase and attempted to wire transfer every last penny out of Silicon Valley Bank.\n\n"Unfortunately, our wire was not honored and our money is still at Silicon Valley Bank," Kalb, 37, said in an interview on Friday. "We woke up this morning hoping the money would be in that JPMorgan bank account, and it was not."

Seattle-based food management startup "Shelf Engine" uses SVB to process checks and has millions of dollars locked up in the bank.


The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank continues to reverberate, hitting bank stocks, revealing hidden stresses, knocking on to Credit Suisse, and setting off a political blame-game.\n\n\nWhy the $212bn tech-lender abruptly collapsed, triggering the most significant financial crisis since 2008, has no single answer. Was it, as some argue, the result of Trump-era regulation rollbacks, risk mismanagement at the bank, sharp interest rate rises after a decade of ultra-low borrowing costs, or perhaps a combination of all three?\n\nFederal investigations have begun and lawsuits have been filed and no doubt new issues at the bank will emerge. But for now, here are the main reasons experts believed SVB failed.\n\nThe Vermont senator Bernie Sanders argues that the culprit was an “absurd” 2018 law, supported by Congress and signed by Donald Trump, that undid some of the credit requirements imposed under the Dodd-Frank banking legislation brought in after the 2008 banking crisis.\n\nDodd-Frank required that banks with at least $50bn in assets – banks considered “systemically important” – undergo an annual Federal Reserve “stress test” and maintain certain levels of capital as well as plans for a living will if they failed.\n\nSVB’s chief executive, Greg Becker, argued before Congress in 2015 that the $50bn threshold (SVB held $40bn at the time) was unnecessary and his bank, like other “mid-sized” or regional banks, “does not present systemic risks”.\n\nTrump said the new bill went a “long way toward fixing” Dodd-Frank, which he called a “job-killer”.

Interest rates rise after a decade of ultra-low borrowing costs.


Stefan Kalb was in the middle of a meeting around 1 p.m. on Thursday when a fellow company executive sent him a panicked Slack message: "Do you know what\'s happening at SVB?"\n\nKalb, the CEO and co-founder of Seattle-based food management startup Shelf Engine, had been following news of a bank run at Silicon Valley Bank. Droves of depositors were attempting to pull out as much as $42 billion from the bank on Thursday alone, as fear spread that the bank was teetering on the brink of collapse.\n\nThe bank seemed to be on firm financial footing on Wednesday. The following day, it appeared to be under water.\n\nFor Shelf Engine, a 40-person startup founded in 2015 that uses artificial intelligence to help grocery stores reduce food waste, this was a big problem.\n\nNot only did Silicon Valley Bank help the company process checks and payments, but millions of dollars of the startup\'s cash was locked up in the bank.\n\nKalb sprung into action. He and his team quickly opened an account at JPMorgan Chase and attempted to wire transfer every last penny out of Silicon Valley Bank.\n\n"Unfortunately, our wire was not honored and our money is still at Silicon Valley Bank," Kalb, 37, said in an interview on Friday. "We woke up this morning hoping the money would be in that JPMorgan bank account, and it was not."

Seattle-based food management startup "Shelf Engine" uses SVB to process checks and has millions of dollars locked up in the bank.


Interest rates rise after a decade of ultra-low borrowing costs.

Silicon Valley Bank attempted to raise $2.25 billion from investors.


Silicon Valley Bank attempted to raise $2.25 billion from investors.

Hysteria and fear spread that the SVB was collapsing.


Hysteria and fear spread that the SVB was collapsing.

Executive sends panicked Slack message about Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)


SVB depositors pull out up to $42 billion from the bank.


CEO & co-founder of startup "Shelf Engine" attempts to wire transfer their money out of SVB


Executive sends panicked Slack message about Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)


Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) abruptly collapsed


Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) abruptly collapsed

Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is shut down by regulators.


Another Bay Area bank was affected Monday by uncertainty in the financial markets following the failure of Silicon Valley Bank on Friday.\n\nStock in San Francisco-based First Republic Bank sank nearly 62% Monday and shares of other regional banks suffered losses, reportedly. First Republic has 86 locations across the country. Its Midpeninsula offices include two in Menlo Park and one each in Los Altos, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Redwood City.\n\nOn Sunday, regulators seized Signature Bank in New York after it failed.\n\nBut a San Jose State University professor of finance and accounting does not see the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank as signs of a coming crisis.\n\n"I don\'t think it is a huge contagion issue," said assistant professor Matthew Faulkner. "It\'s more toward an isolated incident."\n\nOver the weekend and Monday, top federal officials including President Joseph Biden appeared to be getting ahead of the issue.\n\nBiden sought to ease American\'s fears by making all deposits held by Silicon Valley Bank customers available regardless of the amount of their deposits, federal officials said over the weekend.\n\nThat includes businesses who must pay their employees and their bills, officials said.\n\n"Americans can have confidence that the banking system is safe," Biden said Monday morning. "Your deposits will be there when you need them."\n\nInvestors will not be protected, Biden said. According to the president, they took a risk and "that\'s how capitalism works."\n\nTaxpayers will not be on the hook for the losses.

Regulators seized Signature Bank in New York on Sunday.


Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is shut down by regulators.


Wall Street is worried about what may be next to topple following the second- and third-largest bank failures in U.S. history, and stocks are swinging sharply Monday as investors scramble to find someplace safe to park their money.\n\nThe S&P 500 was virtually unchanged in morning trading, but only after tumbling 1.4% at the open. The sharpest drops were again coming from banks. Investors are worried that a relentless rise in interest rates meant to get inflation under control are approaching a tipping point and may be cracking the banking system.\n\n\nThe U.S. government announced a plan late Sunday meant to shore up the banking industry following the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank since Friday.\n\nThe most pressure is on the regional banks a couple steps below in size of the massive, “too-big-to-fail” banks that helped take down the economy in 2007 and 2008. Shares of First Republic plunged 78%, even after the bank said Sunday it had strengthened its finances with cash from the Federal Reserve and JPMorgan Chase.\n\nHuge banks, which have been repeatedly stress-tested by regulators following the 2008 financial crisis, weren’t down as much. JPMorgan Chase fell 0.7%, and Bank of America dropped 3.7%.\n\n“So far, it seems that the potential problem banks are few, and importantly do not extend to the so-called systemically important banks,” analysts at ING said.

The U.S. government announced a plan late Sunday meant to shore up the banking industry.


President Biden says customers of U.S. banks should have confidence that their money will be there when they need it, as he seeks to limit the damage done by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and other problems. He also promised accountability for leaders and investors of banks that fail.\n\nBiden\'s words didn\'t prevent anxiety over the banking emergency from hammering stock prices of financial institutions on Monday morning. The pain was particularly acute for regional and middle-sized banks.\n\nThe banking emergency has prompted federal regulators to take extraordinary actions to close two banks and guarantee all their deposits.\n\nBecause of those actions, Biden said, "every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them."\n\nCompanies with accounts at the collapsed banks "can breathe easier, knowing they\'ll be able to pay their workers and pay their bills," Biden said. "Their hardworking employees can breathe easier as well."\n\nBiden spoke from the White House at 9 a.m. ET Monday, just 30 minutes before the New York stock market opened. But one hour into trading, a number of banking stocks were down.\n\nMany eyes are on First Republic Bank, the San Francisco institution whose clients include tech companies and wealthy investors. The bank\'s stock plummeted below the $20 mark early Monday — one week after it closed at $122.\n\nBank of America and Wells Fargo also saw their stock prices slip, both of them falling by 4% or more in the first hour of trading.

President Biden speaks on the banking emergency and assures customers of U.S. banks that their money will be there when they need it


Bank of America and Wells Fargo see their stock prices slip by 4% or more.


Stock prices of financial institutions suffer when the New York stock market opened.


Shares in banks all over the world have plummeted in recent days as fears that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) could precipitate a wider crisis in the sector.\n\nThe speed at which market jitters have spread across the world have forced bank executives and regulators to move with unprecedented swiftness: US authorities guaranteed all deposits in SVB – and smaller bank Signature – 48 hours after it collapsed. Just hours after Credit Suisse’s share price plunged on Wednesday, the Swiss central bank stepped in with a $54bn loan.\n\nWhile there’s nothing new about a financial emergency, these crises – and their resulting responses – are unique in having been accelerated by a frenzy of social media chatter that has fuelled the panic.\n\n‘It was a bank sprint, not a bank run’\nA bank run occurs when customers lose faith in an institution’s ability to look after their money, and large numbers withdraw their deposits all at once. As more people withdraw their funds, the likelihood of the bank being able to cover the withdrawals falls, leading more customers to pile in and demand the return of their money.\n\n“If you see a bomb disposal expert running down the street, don’t ask them what’s happened, just try to keep up,” writes Daniel Davies, the managing director of Frontline Analysts, in the Financial Times.\n\nRumours around a bank’s solvency can build up for months or years before it leads to a run. Or it can happen in a matter of hours.

Shares in banks all over the world have plummeted.


The Swiss central bank stepped in with a $54bn loan to Credit Suisse.


The assets and loans of collapsed US lender Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) are being bought by rival First Citizens BancShares.\n\nInvestors welcomed the deal, sending First Citizens shares up more than 40%.\n\nThe rise helped drive broader gains in banking shares, which have been in turmoil since SVB's failure sparked fears over the stability of the sector.\n\nIn Europe, worries over the strength of Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse led to a rushed takeover by rival UBS.\n\nThe deal for SVB brings to a close a saga that started earlier this month after a run on the bank forced US regulators to take over. Its collapse was swiftly followed by the failure of another US lender, Signature Bank.\n\nThe demise of the two were the biggest bank failures in the US since the financial crisis of 2008.\n\nUnder the SVB takeover deal, all 17 former SVB branches will open under the First Citizens brand on Monday. SVB customers are being advised to continue using their current branch until they receive notice from First Citizens Bank that their account has been fully moved across.\n\nFirst Citizens is based in Raleigh, North Carolina and calls itself America's biggest family-controlled bank. It has been one of the largest buyers of troubled banks in recent years.\n\nThe Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, the US financial regulator that announced the deal, said First Citizens had bought around $72bn of SVB's assets at a discount of $16.5bn - a deal that will make the bank one of the 25 biggest in the US.

UBS took over Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse in a rushed takeover.


In 2018 a law was passed for banks to not be required to have a $50bn safety capital.


Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) assets and loans are being bought by rival First Citizens BancShares.


On April 5, Musk discloses he has purchased more than 9% of Twitter\'s shares on the open market. At first, he is offered a board seat. That plan quickly falls through — and Twitter decides to adopt a poison-pill strategy to fend off a hostile takeover from Musk. Musk subsequently makes an offer to buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, or about $44 billion — a price well above the company\'s stock price at the time. He says his goal is to apply free speech principles to the platform, which he claimed had been mismanaged. "The company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form," he writes. "Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company." Musk says he would fund the deal through a combination of cash and borrowing. At this point, shares in Musk\'s automotive company, Tesla, begin to decline; by mid-November, they will have lost close to half their value. By April 25, Twitter decides to accept Musk\'s offer. “The Twitter Board conducted a thoughtful and comprehensive process to assess Elon’s proposal with a deliberate focus on value, certainty, and financing,” Twitter’s Independent Board Chair Bret Taylor says in a statement. “The proposed transaction will deliver a substantial cash premium, and we believe it is the best path forward for Twitter’s stockholders.” On May 13, Musk tweets he is putting the deal to acquire Twitter "temporarily on hold" pending additional information about the volume of fake and spam accounts on the platform.

On April 5, Musk discloses he has purchased more than 9% of Twitter's shares on the open market.

Shares in Musk's automotive company, Tesla, begin to decline.