Stewardship Code to face a final hurdle

first_img KCS-content Stewardship Code to face a final hurdle Share whatsapp THE GOVERNMENT’S new best practice rules for shareholders face a crucial period this week, as the last batch of institutional investors declare their support for the guidelines. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is also due to report on its two-month consultation into the Stewardship Code, which aims to help institutional shareholders keep a closer eye on company leadership. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) published the code in July, and has given institutions until the end of the month to publicly endorse the rules. No-one at the FRC could comment yesterday on the level of support received so far from fund managers and other institutional shareholders. Peter Montagnon, senior investment adviser to the FRC, urged investors to endorse the code last week. He said collective support for the rules would put the UK “in a strong position to push back on more radical alternatives” currently being mulled over by the European Commission. EU rules “would almost certainly involve more direct regulation of companies and also of the markets,” Montagnon warned at a conference. The FSA set a 6 September deadline for asset managers to voice concerns about the “comply or explain” rule in the code, which encourages investors to declare they will follow the rules, or explain why they will not. A spokesperson for the FSA could not confirm yesterday when the results will be published. FAST FACTS | STEWARDSHIP CODE● The Financial Reporting Council published the code in July, in response to the Walker Report on corporate governance● The code encourages institutional investors to monitor companies more closely Sunday 19 September 2010 10:28 pm Read This Next’A Quiet Place Part II’ Sets Pandemic Record in Debut WeekendFamily ProofHiking Gadgets: Amazon Deals Perfect For Your Next AdventureFamily ProofBack on the Rails for Summer New York to New Orleans, Savannah and MiamiFamily ProofYoga for Beginners: 3 Different Types of Yoga You Should TryFamily ProofAmazon roars for MGM’s lion, paying $8.45 billion for studio behind JamesFamily ProofIndian Spiced Vegetable Nuggets: Recipes Worth CookingFamily ProofTortilla Mango Cups: Recipes Worth CookingFamily ProofWhat to Know About ‘Loki’ Ahead of Disney+ Premier on June 9Family ProofCheese Crostini: Delicious Recipes Worth CookingFamily Proof Show Comments ▼ Tags: NULL whatsapplast_img read more

Want to make a million in the next market crash? I’d use these 3 Warren Buffett tips today

first_img See all posts by Peter Stephens I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Peter Stephens | Friday, 18th December, 2020 “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Image source: The Motley Fool Warren Buffett has previously invested money following a market crash to great effect. It has enabled him to buy high-quality companies at prices that undervalue their future prospects.His strategy works because he is content to hold large amounts of cash ready to invest in a market decline. He also takes a long-term view of his investments, and seeks to buy businesses with wide economic moats.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Clearly, the timing of the next market crash is a known unknown. However, planning for it now could be a means of improving an investor’s prospects of making a million.Warren Buffett’s willingness to hold cashWarren Buffett holds a significantly greater proportion of cash within his portfolio than is the case for many other investors. Yes, this means lower returns when stock markets are rising. But it also gives him the opportunity to capitalise on low valuations when they come along. And with a market crash often being of short duration, access to large amounts of liquidity can help an investor to take advantage of temporarily cheap stock prices.With interest rates currently low, holding a substantial amount of cash may reduce an investor’s overall returns in the short run. However, the low valuations often available in a market decline may mean it is worth accepting a lower return in the short run. It could offer greater scope for capital appreciation over the long term.A patient stance regarding the prospect of a market crashWarren Buffett also takes a patient approach when managing his portfolio. This means he is unconcerned about when a market crash will happen, or how long it will take for the stock market to recover. As a result, he is content to wait for the best opportunities to come along. Should there be none at a particular point in time, he is happy to wait. One day, shares in high-quality companies will trade at lower prices.Looking ahead, it is unclear when the next market crash will occur. However, the past performance of the stock market suggests a downturn is always set to take place in the long run. Waiting for it in order to buy high-quality stocks at cheap prices could be a profitable long-term move.Seeking economic moatsWarren Buffett has previously purchased companies with wide economic moats. This means a competitive advantage over their peers that can lead to higher profits in a variety of market conditions. Through purchasing businesses with advantages such as strong customer loyalty and a unique product, it may be possible to generate relatively high returns in the next market crash.Even if an investor matches the stock market’s long-term return of around 8% per year, a £100,000 investment today would be worth over a million within 30 years. However, by holding cash for better opportunities, having a patient approach and buying stocks with wide economic moats, it may be possible to obtain a higher return over the long run. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Want to make a million in the next market crash? I’d use these 3 Warren Buffett tips today I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Enter Your Email Addresslast_img read more

Audrey Cady Scanlan ordained as bishop of Central Pennsylvania

first_img From left, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Central Pennsylvania Bishop Audrey Cady Scanlan, and Connecticut Bishop Ian Douglas, following Scanlan’s ordination service Sept. 12. Photo: Episcopal Diocese of Central Pennsylvania[Episcopal News Service] The Rev. Audrey Cady Scanlan was ordained and consecrated as the 11th bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Pennsylvania on Sept. 12 during a service at The Forum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was the chief consecrator and Bishop Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut delivered the sermon.Scanlan was elected on March 14 on the second ballot out of a field of three nominees. She comes to Pennsylvania from Connecticut where she served on the diocesan staff as the canon for mission collaboration and congregational life.Scanlan succeeds Bishop Nathan Baxter, who retired in May 2014 after serving the Central Pennsylvania diocese for eight years. The Rt. Rev. Robert Gepert has since served as provisional bishop.Scanlan was born in New York, but has lived in Connecticut for the past 50 years. She has served that diocese in many ways, building leadership, addressing conflict, walking with parishes in all seasons of congregational life, as well as building networks and communities across a diocese of 168 parishes. She and her husband of 30 years, Glenn, have three children: Emma, 27, William ,25, and Harriet, 22.The Diocese of Central Pennsylvania is composed of 12,827 members worshiping in 65 congregations throughout central Pennsylvania.A video of the service is available here. Assistant/Associate Priest Scottsdale, AZ Audrey Cady Scanlan ordained as bishop of Central Pennsylvania Director of Music Morristown, NJ Press Release Service Family Ministry Coordinator Baton Rouge, LA Seminary of the Southwest announces appointment of two new full time faculty members Seminary of the Southwest Priest-in-Charge Lebanon, OH Rector Collierville, TN This Summer’s Anti-Racism Training Online Course (Diocese of New Jersey) June 18-July 16 Virtual Celebration of the Jerusalem Princess Basma Center Zoom Conversation June 19 @ 12 p.m. ET House of Bishops, Rector Martinsville, VA Tags Featured Jobs & Calls An Evening with Presiding Bishop Curry and Iconographer Kelly Latimore Episcopal Migration Ministries via Zoom June 23 @ 6 p.m. ET Remember Holy Land Christians on Jerusalem Sunday, June 20 American Friends of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem Cathedral Dean Boise, ID Submit a Press Release The Church Investment Group Commends the Taskforce on the Theology of Money on its report, The Theology of Money and Investing as Doing Theology Church Investment Group Assistant/Associate Rector Morristown, NJ Course Director Jerusalem, Israel Episcopal Migration Ministries’ Virtual Prayer Vigil for World Refugee Day Facebook Live Prayer Vigil June 20 @ 7 p.m. ET Rector Albany, NY Rector Shreveport, LA Rector Pittsburgh, PA Rector Washington, DC Assistant/Associate Rector Washington, DC Bishop Diocesan Springfield, IL Curate (Associate & Priest-in-Charge) Traverse City, MI Rector Tampa, FL The Church Pension Fund Invests $20 Million in Impact Investment Fund Designed to Preserve Workforce Housing Communities Nationwide Church Pension Group center_img In-person Retreat: Thanksgiving Trinity Retreat Center (West Cornwall, CT) Nov. 24-28 Associate Rector Columbus, GA Director of Administration & Finance Atlanta, GA AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to PrintFriendlyPrintFriendlyShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterShare to EmailEmailShare to MoreAddThis Ya no son extranjeros: Un diálogo acerca de inmigración Una conversación de Zoom June 22 @ 7 p.m. ET New Berrigan Book With Episcopal Roots Cascade Books Rector Knoxville, TN Associate Rector for Family Ministries Anchorage, AK By ENS staffPosted Sep 14, 2015 Associate Priest for Pastoral Care New York, NY Rector Smithfield, NC Priest Associate or Director of Adult Ministries Greenville, SC Submit a Job Listing Youth Minister Lorton, VA Rector/Priest in Charge (PT) Lisbon, ME Canon for Family Ministry Jackson, MS People Featured Events Inaugural Diocesan Feast Day Celebrating Juneteenth San Francisco, CA (and livestream) June 19 @ 2 p.m. PT Rector and Chaplain Eugene, OR Rector (FT or PT) Indian River, MI Join the Episcopal Diocese of Texas in Celebrating the Pauli Murray Feast Online Worship Service June 27 Missioner for Disaster Resilience Sacramento, CA Submit an Event Listing Episcopal Charities of the Diocese of New York Hires Reverend Kevin W. VanHook, II as Executive Director Episcopal Charities of the Diocese of New York Rector Belleville, IL Rector Bath, NC TryTank Experimental Lab and York St. John University of England Launch Survey to Study the Impact of Covid-19 on the Episcopal Church TryTank Experimental Lab Rector Hopkinsville, KY Curate Diocese of Nebraskalast_img read more

How Farm Bureau is Tackling Climate Change

first_img Facebook Twitter Home Indiana Agriculture News How Farm Bureau is Tackling Climate Change SHARE By Eric Pfeiffer – Dec 17, 2020 Previous articleSyngenta Experts Share Crop Management Advice to Prepare Growers for 2021Next articleBrazil Adds a Tariff Blow to American Ethanol Industry Eric Pfeiffer SHARE Regardless of how the presidential election turned out, American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall says they knew that climate change would be a hot topic going forward. That’s why back in February, they joined the Environmental Defense Fund, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and the National Farmers Union to form The Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance, or FACA.Duvall said of forming the alliance, “We decided if we start going to Congress, we’ve got to make sure that we have a group of people that congressman will pay attention to. We met with some like and not-so-like groups that don’t quite think the way we do all the time, just to try to discover whether or not we could find some common ground that our policy covers. Because my policy book guides me in all those conversations.”Together, the group developed more than 40 recommendations based on three principles: agricultural and forestry climate policies must be built upon voluntary, incentive-based programs and market-driven opportunities; they must promote resilience and adaptation in rural communities; and they must be science-based.Duvall recognizes that some farmers might have some heartburn and concern about these climate discussions, but he says, “I assure our farmers and ranchers that we’re going to do the right thing. What we’re trying to do is make sure we protect them, make sure it’s farmer friendly, and hopefully create a new stream of revenue for you. A lot of times, a stream of revenue on things that we’re already doing.”He added, “If we don’t take our seat at the table, they’re going to take farmers and ranchers and put them in the middle of the table and they’ll eat us for lunch. And it will cost us a ton and we will be very upset. So, we’re going to take that seat as long as our policy book will allow us to stay there.”You can read the full recommendations from the alliance at agclimatealliance.com.Duvall spoke during the Indiana Farm Bureau annual convention last weekend. Facebook Twitter How Farm Bureau is Tackling Climate Changelast_img read more

In Marginal Relief To Vodafone Idea, SC Allows Tax Refund Of Rs 773 Crores Against Claim Of Rs 4760 Crores [Read Judgment]

Top StoriesIn Marginal Relief To Vodafone Idea, SC Allows Tax Refund Of Rs 773 Crores Against Claim Of Rs 4760 Crores [Read Judgment] Mehal Jain29 April 2020 7:48 AMShare This – xIn a setback of sorts to Vodafone Idea, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Income Tax authorities to refund only the amount of Rs.733 Crores for the Assessment Year 2014-15, amidst the telecom giant’s claims that the Department had not processed income tax refunds of Rs 4,760 crore for the AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. The Tax Department had withheld the refund to adjust it against…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn a setback of sorts to Vodafone Idea, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Income Tax authorities to refund only the amount of Rs.733 Crores for the Assessment Year 2014-15, amidst the telecom giant’s claims that the Department had not processed income tax refunds of Rs 4,760 crore for the AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18. The Tax Department had withheld the refund to adjust it against the demands raised in the subsequent years. The requisite action under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Income Tax Act in respect of AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 having not even been initiated, the bench headed by Justice U. U. Lalit directed the refund to be made within 4 weeks. Submissions before the Apex Court It was the case of the appellant for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 (for which provisions of Section 143(1D) of the Act are relevant), the respondent-authorities have neither processed the return of income for the said years by the last date, viz. 31.03.2018 nor did the Respondent exercise the discretion provided under Section 143(1D) of the Act. Insofar as the Assessment Year 2017-18 is concerned, it was pointed out that the Respondents have admitted that their July 23, 2018 order under section 143(1D) was without jurisdiction because on that date, neither the return of income was processed, nor a notice under Section 143(2) issued, warranting exercise of powers under Section 241A of the Act. “On that ground alone, the Impugned Order insofar as Assessment Year 2017-18 is concerned should be set aside and the refund claimed for that year should be granted with interest”, it was argued. Further, it was sought to be submitted that even the Orders dated 23.07.2018 and 14.03.2019 invoking jurisdiction under Section 241A of the Act for the AY 2017-18 have no sanctity of law since the sine qua non for invoking that Section, i.e. processing of return was completed on 09.04.2019- “even on merits, neither the Order dated 23.07.2018 nor the order dated 14.03.2019 disclose any grounds on which powers under Section 143(1D) or Section 241A of the Act could have been invoked” In their turn, the respondents submitted that if the AO issued a Notice u/s 143(2) within the time limit i.e. 6 months from the end of the financial year in which return was filed, then there is no longer a requirement to process the return under Section 143(1). Hence, the discretion under Section 143(1D) can be exercised at any point prior to the passing of the final assessment order. “The entire objective of not processing a return after issuance of a scrutiny notice is that in cases where there is a likelihood of substantial demands, there should not be a compulsion on the Revenue to issue refunds. There is no anomaly in the above legislative scheme which warrants dilution of the non-obstante clause and to read into Section 143(1D) a limitation which the legislature has not prescribed”, it was urged. The Income Tax Department iterated that it is well settled that a non-obstante clause is a legislative device which is employed to give overriding effect to some or all contrary provisions and as such, the operation of a non-obstante clause cannot be limited in any manner and must be given its full effect. It also placed reliance on the 2018 judgment of the Delhi High Court out of which the appeals arose- “The High Court has categorically held that since Section 143(1D) begins with a non-obstante clause, it will overbear/override the second proviso to Section 143(1) which contains a limitation period of one year for precession of return” It was submitted that the AO had withheld refund in all these years for cogent and valid reasons, in the interest of the revenue, subject to final scrutiny assessment proceedings. Moreover, it was pressed that the scope of judicial review against such an order where the AO has exercised his discretion would be limited and any interference can only be done if such an exercise of power is either wholly capricious or without any valid reasons. Conclusions of the Court The bench, also comprising Justice Vineet Saran, observed that the exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, is to be undertaken, where it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income, or has not computed excessive loss, or has not under-paid the tax in any manner- “where the return filed by the assessee itself calls for or requires a further probe and deeper consideration”. The decision narrates that by virtue of sub-section (3), upon issuance of notice, the assessee is entitled to produce evidence in support of his case. After hearing the assessee and considering the evidence so produced, assessment of total income or loss is to be made. “The veracity of the return is checked threadbare rather than considering mere apparent inconsistencies from the return…The power under (…) sub-sections (2) and (3) is to scrutinise the return and cause deeper probe to arrive at the correct determination of the liability of the assessed”, articulates the court. The judgment penned by Justice Lalit observes that the exercise of power under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 of the Act is thus premised on non-acceptance of what is evident from the return itself and to ensure that there is no avoidance of tax in any manner- “The dimension of such power is far greater and deeper than mere adjustments to be made in respect of what is available from the return. Once such scrutiny is undertaken and proceedings are initiated by issuance of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143, it would be anomalous and incongruent that while such proceedings so initiated are pending, the return be processed under sub-section (1) of Section 143, which may in a given case, entail payment of refund”. The bench inferred that logically, the outcome of the exercise initiated through notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143, must determine whether any refund is due and payable. If the return itself is under probe and scrutiny, such return cannot be the foundation to sustain a claim for refund till such scrutiny is not complete. Simultaneously, the court canvassed the exercise of adjustments which are required to be made for computing the total income or loss under section 143(1)- “Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 143 has six sub-clauses specifying the kinds of a. Such adjustments are in the nature of ‘arithmetical error in the return’; incorrect claim ‘apparent from any information in the return’; disallowance of loss if the return of the previous year with respect to which such loss is claimed was furnished ‘beyond the due date’; disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report if it has ‘not taken into account in computing the total income’; disallowance of deductions specified in sub-clause if the ‘return is furnished beyond the due date’; and addition of income as specified in sub-clause (vi) if it was not ‘included in computing the total income'”. The bench held that all these features deal with matters which are apparent from the return and the inconsistency is evident on the face of it. Upon causing such adjustments after due intimation or notice to the assessee, the element of tax, interest and fee is to be computed in terms of clause (b) of section 143(1), and if any refund is due, the same has to be granted in terms of clause (e). “Thus, at every stage in sub-section (1) the return submitted by the assessee forms the foundation…”, expressed Justice Lalit. Considering the nature of power exercisable under these two limbs of Section 143, the bench arrived at the “inescapable conclusion” that the processing of return under Section 143(1) must await the further exercise of power of scrutiny assessment under sub-sections (2) and (3)- “If the power under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act is initiated in a manner known to law, there cannot be any insistence that the processing under sub-section (1) of Section 143 be completed and refund be made before the scrutiny pursuant to notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 is over” The afore-stated conclusion of the court was further fortified by clear stipulation in sub-section (1D) of Section 143- “Irrespective of some change in the text of said provision which was sought to be introduced by Finance Act 2016 and not accepted by Finance Act, 2017, the legislative intent is clear from the expression, ‘… the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2)’ and by use of non-obstante clause. Though the period for which it would not be necessary to process the return was sought to be specified by Finance Act, 2016, mere absence of such period in the provision as it stands today, makes no difference” In the premises, the bench held that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under sub- section (1) of Section 143 of the Act and that the requirement to process the return shall stand overridden. Further, the court addressed the issue whether any intimation is required to be given to the assessee that because of initiation of proceedings under sub-section (2), processing of return in terms of sub-section (1) would stand deferred. Noting that Sub-section (1D) does not contemplate either issuance of any such intimation or further application of mind that the processing must be kept in abeyance, the bench concluded that it would not, therefore, be proper to read into said provision the requirement to send a separate intimation. “In our view, issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 is enough to trigger the required consequence. Any other intimation is neither contemplated by the statute nor would it achieve any purpose”, reads the judgment. Insofar as returns filed in respect of assessment years commencing on or after the 1st April, 2017, the Court acknowledged that a different regime has been contemplated by the Parliament- “Section 241-A of the Act requires a separate recording of satisfaction on part of the Assessing Officer that having regard to the fact that a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 143, the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue; whereafter, with the previous approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the refund can be withheld” The judgment held that since the statute now envisages exercise of power of withholding of refund in a particular manner, it goes without saying that for assessment year commencing after 01.04.2017 the requirements of Section 241-A of the Act must be satisfied. Accordingly, the bench concluded that the exercise of power on March 14, 2019, of sending an intimation to the appellant regarding withholding of refund for AY 2017-18, was not only after issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 and after recording due satisfaction in terms of Section 241-A of the Act, but was also well within the period contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 143 of the Act for causing due intimation The bench on Wednesday also directed the respondents to conclude the proceedings initiated under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act in respect of AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 as early as possible. Click here to download judgmentRead Judgment Next Story read more

[Central Vista Case] Decision Making Process Totally Opaque; Values Of Transparency Overlooked : Shyam Divan In Supreme Court

first_imgTop Stories[Central Vista Case] Decision Making Process Totally Opaque; Values Of Transparency Overlooked : Shyam Divan In Supreme Court Mehal Jain28 Oct 2020 9:43 AMShare This – x”In a case which required the highest standard of scrutiny, the response of the government has been ‘show us the law and we will show you how we complied with it’. They are taking to the Rule by Law rather than the Rule of Law! Everything from the conception and planning was done in an opaque manner, followed by a wiggly tender, intended to achieve a predetermined outcome! This case also challenges us as an institution! Is there a concept of democratic due process? What are its contours, its parameters? Where is it embedded- in the language of the Constitution, or the judgments of the Court?”The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on the challenge to the Central Vista project and the government’s proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyen’s Delhi. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjeev Khanna had earlier decided to hear the challenge on 3 issues, vis-à-vis change of land use, violations of municipal law, violations of…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on the challenge to the Central Vista project and the government’s proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyen’s Delhi. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjeev Khanna had earlier decided to hear the challenge on 3 issues, vis-à-vis change of land use, violations of municipal law, violations of environmental law. Subsequently, the Court disposed off the petitions challenging change in land use of plot number 1 of the Central Vista Project, adding that it will be taken up at a later stage as the decision on its usage had not yet been taken by the Government. On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan drew the bench’s attention to yet another representation to the government by a well-known architect for holding an open competition among architects for choosing the best concept and design for such a prestigious project. Yesterday, he had taken the court through the representations made by the Council of Architecture and the Indian Institute of Architects (IIA). He also indicated a press note released by the IIA, Northern Chapter, averring that any development in such a sensitive zone is to be planned in a holistic manner and that “the methodology of selection of the lowest bidder is akin to a supplier of goods”. “They wrote that the unseemly haste with which the government is proceeding shall bring about disastrous consequences- an unmitigated cultural and environmental disaster” “None of these representations received any response! The CPWD is going ahead with the current course of things…”, remarked Mr. Diwan. “So the emphasis on prior consultation, open design competition, objection to the lowest bidder auction is common in all the representations?’, asked Justice Khanwilkar. “All the objections are anchored to the global best practice, which is the established norm…it is important for the deepening of democracy in India and the value-based system that we follow”, replied the senior advocate. “Yes, open competition is the global best practice”, agreed Justice Khanwilkar. Mr. Diwan indicated, by way of examples, that for the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, conceptualised in 1986-89, an open single stage global design competition was held, where over 120 bids were received. For the Parliament Library, in 1989, a national design competition was conducted. And most recently,for the National War Memorial and Museum in 2016, a two-stage open global design competition was held where over 400 bids were received. “So in Lutyen’s Central Vista zone, this has been the norm. In stark contrast to this is the Central Vista redevelopment project, where a Quality Cost Based Selection (QCBS) Tender system has been employed…”, explained Mr. Diwan. Perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner, Justice Khanna asked, “For the War Memorial, it says that all the wining designs were rejected by the Delhi Urban Arts Commission?” Mr. Diwan assured that he shall revert to the court as to what the stage of the project is. “Is there any particular reason for giving us the names of the members of the statutory authorities which grant approvals?’, asked Justice Khanwilkar. Mr. Diwan replied in the negative. “The bid document states that they are creating a legacy for 150-200 years. But the time-lines provided clearly don’t support this…Your Lordships said that the court can’t go into whether 21 days are provided and whether it is enough as it is a policy matter. But is this a tender for a marriage hall or something much more profound and firm? They are acting as the trustee of a public trust here!”, he continued. “It was a 7-week process. As per the pre-bid meeting, 24 bidders had participated. A total of 6 bids were received. After the technical bids, presentations were to be made on approach and methodology to a jury whose composition is not known. Ultimately, 4 were selected for the financial bids. The tender was awarded to H1 Bidder ‘APC Designs’ at 229 crores”, submitted Mr. Diwan. “Did any of these 24 participants mention about the short time-lines? We’ll take note of it here itself”, asked Justice Khanwilkar. “Yes. At least 10 said we need more time. Alteast 10 sought 2-3 weeks or 3-4 weeks more time. They said they need more time to work out the approach and methodology and the vision and the master plan”, replied Mr. Diwan. “And in response, the government asked them to see the corrigendum by virtue of which an extension of 1 week was given? So they asked for 3-4 weeks but were given only 1 more week?”, observed Justice Khanwilkar. Continuing, Mr. Diwan contended, “This is the Parliament, Surely, after so many years, they must show to the public what studies preceded the NIT? But there are no studies in the public domain at all! Perhaps there were secret studies!”. He indicated the November 8, 2019 Proposed Development Guidelines issued by the INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage), on which the CPWD also leans, to submit that it was this level of detailed heritage impact assessment which was needed in the present case. Besides, he walked the court through the responses received to RTI queries by a journalist associated with India Today as on March 6 this year- “When asked about the composition of the committee to decide on the selection of the firm for the redevelopment of the Central Vista, there was no satisfactory response. We need to know who was part of the jury! The next question was ‘which buildings form par of the development plan?’ The reply was that comprehensive planning is in progress and these modalities are yet to be finalised! And this was on March 6! When it was inquired based on what criteria ACP Design was chosen, the response reads that the criteria is spelt out in the tender document which is public domain” “The most troubling reply is when they were asked if the PMO is involved in the selection, they replied ‘no’! So the CPWD is to decide whether the people of India get a new Parliament or a refurbished Parliament and it doesn’t even do that itself! It leaves it to a consultant who is unknown and could have even been a foreign party! This is the lowest threshold of a democracy! Just this one point is enough to strike down the whole project”, he urged. Next, he discussed that it was in a meeting held by the Central Vista Committee amid the lockdown, via video conferencing, where it granted its No-Objection to the construction of a new Parliament- “The minutes of the April 30 meeting of the Special Advisory Group of Central Vista and Central Secretariat show that it was not attended by 4 expert and independent members- the Commissioner, Planning, DDA; the President, IIA; the member representative, IIA; and the President, Town Planners, India…they just noted that some members expressed their inability to join the meeting on account of travel restrictions and as senior citizens, being confined to their houses, and also lack of technical capacity, and requested for a postponement. But naming the importance of the project for the nation and the timescale for its implementation as the reasons, the meeting was held anyway” “The minutes are of a previous meeting of April 23”, pointed out Justice Khanwilkar, upon which Mr. Diwan apologised. Next, Mr. Diwan pointed out that the Committee gave no reasons for according its clearance to the project; that under ‘Observations’, it merely stated ‘No Objections’ and that ‘the features of the new building are in sync with the existing building’ “I ask myself, when they are building institutions for preserving the heritage, is there anything to suggest that these gentlemen have done something other than abdicating? If you are in such a daring hurry, acting during the lockdown through video conferencing, then in view of the checks-and-balances in the Constitution, you are even more duty-bound to scrutinise, apply your mind and raise issues! This is necessary to inspire public confidence, because not everything reaches the court! But the Committee was completely overwhelmed and in thrall of the project and just rubber stamped its approval! It is illegal, null and void and not worth the paper it is written on!”, he argued. Moreover, he indicated the June 5 decision of the DUAC disapproving the proposal for the new Parliament building, and communicating its recommendations- “It is advised to integrate both buildings with adequate distance between the two…the elevation and design to be less overbearing and more representative of the democracy of India” “None of these documents are in the public domain! The public has the right to know whether the proposal was challenged or not! It is no defence secret!”, contended Mr. Diwan. Then, he referred to the July 1 decision of the DUAC communicating its approval to the proposal, in view of the “revised building plan” and “incorporation of observations” made by it. Mr. Diwan has sought a quashing of this decision. Then he continued to draw the bench’s attention to certain constitutional provisions: in as much the Preamble reads “We, the people of India…give to ourselves”, he advanced, “This is indicative of limited governance- a Constitutional governance which limits the authority of the State and keeps vast spaces open for the citizenry, because we have given this Constitution to ourselves!” “The Preamble asserts we are a ‘democratic, sovereign, Republic’. Democracy is the impulse which inspired the freedom movement! Being a sovereign and a republic, we cannot even imagine a situation where the CPWD leaves significant decisions to an unspecified firm, which may even be a foreign entity!”, he pressed. He indicated Article 49, on the protection of monuments, advancing that the Central Vista and the Parliament, being a continuous, living heritage, is a very important facet of the broad constitutional philosophy in Article 49. He relied on Article 51A(a), obligating all citizens to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions; 51A(c) making it the duty of every citizen to uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of the nation; 51A(f) obligating citizens to value and preserve the rich heritage of its composite culture. He mentioned Article 75(3) making the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the House of People, Article 245 on the pan-India extent of laws which may be made by Parliament and their extra-territorial operation; Lists I and III of the 7th Schedule; and Article 253 on the jurisdiction of the Parliament to frame legislations for giving effect to international agreements. “There is enormous importance that the Constitution gives to the Parliament in the hierarchy of structures it creates. It points to the weighty nature of the Parliament under the Constitution, as the icon of Indian democracy! This is much higher than just another tender matter!”, he advanced. “Was this issue raised in the Parliament in the question hour, or otherwise debated? Is there any record as to it and how it was responded to by the government?”, asked Justice Khanwilkar. Mr. Diwan assured the bench that he shall get back to the court on this.You Can’t Impose A Central Vista On People! No Norms Followed : Shyam Divan In Supreme CourtDemocratic due process & Judicial review “In a case which required the highest standard of scrutiny, the response of the government has been ‘show us the law and we will show you how we complied with it’. They are taking to the Rule by Law rather than the Rule of Law! Everything from the conception and planning was done in an opaque manner, followed by a wiggly tender, intended to achieve a predetermined outcome! This case also challenges us as an institution! Is there a concept of democratic due process? What are its contours, its parameters? Where is it embedded- in the language of the Constitution, or the judgments of the Court?”, argued Mr. Diwan. “Democratic due process is nothing but good habits which develop into a convention. And this begins before the NIT and continues at every stage- first, in arriving at a decision as to whether a new Parliament building is needed, and second, at the implementation. The government is the trustee for the public of the most valued treasure of the heritage of democracy!”, he urged. “The counter affidavit of the Respondents states that there are no statutory provisions for public consultation, heritage impact studies, design competition for redeveloping the Central Vista. The petitioners say that where Fundamental Rights are concerned and the Basic Structure of the Constitution and National Symbols are involved, there has to be wide public debate and impact assessment studies and the maximum possible participation! In Lok Prahari, Your Lordships have held that the principle of limited governance applies to heritage and that public property cannot just be handed out to a government functionary even if they have rendered yeoman service!”, he pressed. “Governments come and go. But when they are acting as trustees of property of such constitutional significance, they must comply with democratic norms…not just when they are elected, but throughout!…The Central Vista is not just for any one generation, but it is a living symbol of democracy!”, contended Mr. Diwan. “There were no empirical studies to justify the destruction of such property at huge cost to the public exchequer. Nothing to show that there are problems with the Central Vista and that the existing Parliament cannot be utilised. There is just a bare averment in their counter affidavit that there are studies but there is no such thing in the public domain…The process was totally opaque and the values of transparency, disclosure and the right to know were overlooked”, he argued. “This calls for heightened judicial scrutiny standards. Your Lordships may adopt a hands-off approach in a case of a tender of marriage hall, but here, on account of the arbitrariness and the unreasonableness of Executive action, the checks and balances of the Constitution have to be applied rigorously by the Court! The government ought to have identified the best method to preserve the heritage much before the Central Vista project commenced! Instead, they deliberately skirted any inquiry and arrived at a decision sans any public deliberation or consultation or discussion on the fairness of the method of procurement adopted!”, he pressed. Mr. Diwan cited examples of the procedures followed in the cases of the “Mother Parliament” of Westminster and the US Congress, both of which are equipped with modern facilities. “It is the global norm to have an expert inquiry as to whether to restore or to preserve…You can’t just get a consultant, marry him to the authorities who are required to apply their minds, finish all this in the lockdown and start construction! This is not due process!”, he submitted. “Judicial review is necessary to examine the decision-making process of the government! A hands-off approach would be incompatible with Article 13, and the recourse to 32 and 226 in case of violation of Fundamental Rights”, he said. Limited Government “When you are dealing with the Parliament, you have to have checks and balances- costs, scrutiny, repairs, what to do, when to do, how to do- at all stages. You can’t just leave it to the CPWD who also leaves it to an unknown consultant! It can be done only pursuant to a parliamentary legislation”, advanced Mr. Diwan, citing the UK Act as an example. “Even the present incumbents of the Parliament didn’t do anything. It is just the Executive wing, with the PMO not involved. This is unthinkable!”, he continued. “CJ Bobde has described privacy as a traveling right. That has some resonance in this case. Democracy is also a traveling right, it has no terminus. It demands expert views, sensitivity to heritage, consultation before embarking on the project, application of mind and not leaving it to the consultant, competition, a jury to evaluate how the design to be tested…this is nothing new”, he explained. “If you want to supplant the Parliament, you can only do it through a statute. Direct Parliamentary supervision or policy is needed. No doubt, the power of the Executive is co-extensive with the Parliament, but this is an apex situation, for altering the one-of-a-kind Central Vista, which is the root of democracy!”, suggested Mr. Diwan. “Or, if we are wrong about legislation, then the government must atleast hold consultation, ensure the maximum transparency at all stages of decision-making, fair competition, give adequate time to ensure maximum participation, and a diverse and representative jury of experts”, he continued. “Otherwise, the next government may come and say ‘I don’t like this’. Some government may want to shift the capital, like Mohammad Tughlaq! That cannot be allowed under our Constitution”, he advanced. Public Participation, Consultation and Right to Know Mr. Diwan discussed how this right has evolved- through Constitutional jurisprudence, the rights evolved by the court have come to be embedded in statutes, and how the right to know has acquired Constitutional status. “A large number of statutes are now engrafting some sort of stakeholder consultation. The emphasis is on participatory democracy”, he said. “We are dealing with Executive action. Here, surely, where there is administrative action, right of participation is important. But first, making the entire process accessible is necessary. When the Central Vista and the political heart of the country is being re-ordered, participation is a very important right, which has been ignored”, he continued. “If we accept this argument for public participation at the stage of planning or conception of the idea, then would it apply to all Grade 1 Heritage buildings?”, asked Justice Khanwilkar. “No, definitely not for all buildings of a high level Heritage priority. The Central Vista and the Parliament are sui generis case. The respondents have also recognised it, having called it “unique” and the “heart beat of modern India” in their documents”, replied Mr. Diwan. “There is no express provision for public involvement in our Constitution. Are you drawing support only from Article 19(1)(a)? Right to know is a part of participation, but which provision, overall scheme are you relying on?”, asked Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. Mr. Diwan shall reply to this query tomorrow.Advocates Gautam Bhatia and Vrinda Bhandari also appeared for the petitioners,The Petition has been filed through Advocate Shadan FarasatSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Ex-BARC CEO Partho Dasgupta Prima Facie “Mastermind” Of TRP Scam: Sessions Court Observes In Bail Order

first_imgNews UpdatesEx-BARC CEO Partho Dasgupta Prima Facie “Mastermind” Of TRP Scam: Sessions Court Observes In Bail Order Sharmeen Hakim2 Feb 2021 6:17 AMShare This – xThe City Civil and Sessions Court has said that prima facie Ex- Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) CEO Partho Dasgupta appears to be the “mastermind” of the TRP Scam, in a detailed order rejecting his bail application. Additional Sessions Judge MA Bhosale observed that it was true that 14 other accused were granted bail by the Magistrate’s Court, “.. but the case paper in…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe City Civil and Sessions Court has said that prima facie Ex- Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) CEO Partho Dasgupta appears to be the “mastermind” of the TRP Scam, in a detailed order rejecting his bail application. Additional Sessions Judge MA Bhosale observed that it was true that 14 other accused were granted bail by the Magistrate’s Court, “.. but the case paper in the present crime reflect that the accused (Dasgupta) is the mastermind of the entire crime and he is acting in his capacity of CEO to manipulate the television ratings…” Dasgupta was arrested on December 24, 2020 in the TRP Scam and is currently lodged in Taloja Prison. He was the BARC CEO between June 2013 to November 2019. Dasgupta approached the High Court soon after his bail application was rejected on January 16, a detailed order copy was made available only on Tuesday. Justice PD Naik hearing his bail application reserved his plea for hearing on February 9, at 4pm, after Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hirey sought time. In its order the Sessions Court observed that Dasgupta’s bail deserved rejection on the sole ground that further investigation into the Watsapp chats is required, and he may tamper with evidence if he is granted bail. Watsapp chats between Dasgupta and television news anchor Arnab Goswami form a part of the over 3,600 page chargesheet filed by the Mumbai Police against Dasgupta, earlier this month. The Court held that the case appears to be more than just TRP manipulation while referring to the Dasgupta’s Whatsapp chats and “It appears from the papers put forth before me it is not the case of simple manipulation of TRP but more than that, however, before forming any opinion regarding watsapp chats I am of the opinion that a thorough investigation is required.” The Court observed that it seems some “code words” were used by Dasgupta in the Watsapp chats and he would be the proper person to explain their meaning, for which, “face to face” investigation is required. The Judge further stated that the evidentiary value of the chats will be tested at the time of the trial. The Mumbai Police’s Crime Branch registered an FIR in the Television Rating Points Scam in October, last year, on a complaint by Hansa Research Group Private Ltd. In their chargesheet, the police has named Republic TV CEO Vikas Khanchandani, former BARC COO Romil Ramgarhia apart from Dasgupta.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

TRMC bids farewell to icon

first_imgLatest Stories By The Penny Hoarder Print Article You Might Like Acclaimed set designer featured at Art Talk today The photography of Jerry Siegel and the wall-size canvas paintings of Mike Howard are more than enough to draw a… read more Troy falls to No. 13 Clemson Mrs. Bettie King celebrated her retirement with her family and her TRMC family on Friday, including Teresa Grimes, CEO at TRMC.When inspirational author Shannon L. Adler penned the words, “Carve your name on hearts … a legacy is etched into the minds of others and the stories they share about you,” she could have been thinking of Bettie King.A continuous stream of co-workers, friends and family members flowed through the community room of Troy Regional Medical Center Thursday morning to expressed good wishes to King on her retirement from her 46-year career as hospital receptionist.“Bettie is the Troy Regional Medical Center icon,” said Karen Herring, TRMC marketing. “She is loved and respected by the hospital staff and the community. She has a wonderful, warm and caring spirit. We are going to miss Bettie but she deserves this time for herself and her family. We love her. Everybody loves Miss Bettie.” Around the WebMd: Do This Immediately if You Have Diabetes (Watch)Blood Sugar BlasterIf You Have Ringing Ears Do This Immediately (Ends Tinnitus)Healthier LivingHave an Enlarged Prostate? Urologist Reveals: Do This Immediately (Watch)Healthier LivingWomen Only: Stretch This Muscle to Stop Bladder Leakage (Watch)Healthier LivingRemoving Moles & Skin Tags Has Never Been This EasyEssential HealthGet Fortnite SkinsTCGThe content you see here is paid for by the advertiser or content provider whose link you click on, and is recommended to you by Revcontent. As the leading platform for native advertising and content recommendation, Revcontent uses interest based targeting to select content that we think will be of particular interest to you. We encourage you to view your opt out options in Revcontent’s Privacy PolicyWant your content to appear on sites like this?Increase Your Engagement Now!Want to report this publisher’s content as misinformation?Submit a ReportGot it, thanks!Remove Content Link?Please choose a reason below:Fake NewsMisleadingNot InterestedOffensiveRepetitiveSubmitCancel TRMC bids farewell to icon “I had 50 miles of lines to pull and plug,” King said laughing.Max Shiver was in charge of the building and grounds, “and hauling patients from Beard’s Hospital to the new facility in the bed of a pickup truck.”“The telephone lines were tied up all day with people calling wanting to know if the hospital was open and a hundred other things,” Shiver said. “Bettie was there smiling and taking calls. All the hospital rooms were filled and there were beds in all the halls. Bettie was working the switchboard and smiling.”For 46 years, Bettie King put a positive face on Troy Regional Medical Center. Published 10:42 pm Thursday, February 25, 2016 Skip Pike County Sheriff’s Office offering community child ID kits For King, Thursday was a happy day.“I love all these people,” she said. “I love this hospital and I love this community. I wouldn’t trade these 46 years for anything.”King came to TRMC when the doors opened in June 1969. She was one of three switchboard operators who were challenged with handling all the calls that came in that first day. The Penny Hoarder Issues “Urgent” Alert: 6 Companies… Plans underway for historic Pike County celebration Email the author Remember America’s heroes on Memorial Day Sponsored Content Bennie Jinright worked with King at the hospital for several years.“Bettie has not changed a bit,” Jinright said. “She’s the same every day. She had the same smile and the same positive attitude in 1983 that she does today. It’s unreal how anybody can keep smiling and be that positive for that long. Nobody but Miss Bettie.”When Dottie Black came to TRMC 11 years ago, King helped her get her feet on the ground.“Everything was new to me and I had so many questions,” Black said. “Miss Bettie knew all the answers. She was warm and inviting. She has been my inspiration to always smile and keep a good attitude. She is so precious to me.”With King’s retirement, TRMC has celebrated the lasting legacy of its last employee who helped open the doors of Troy’s brand new, modern hospital in 1969.Teresa Grimes, hospital CEO, said King had meant so much to the hospital and its staff and to the community. “She was the first person most people saw when they entered the hospital,” Grimes said. “She was the smiling, friendly face of TRMC. We are going to miss her tremendously. We wish her all the best in her retirement.” Book Nook to reopen By Jaine Treadwelllast_img read more

Tailward propagation of magnetic energy density variations With respect to substorm onset times

first_imgDuring geomagnetic substorms, around 1015 J of energy is extracted from the solar wind and processed by the Earth’s magnetosphere. Prior to the onset of substorm expansion phases, this energy is thought to be largely stored as an increase in the magnetic field in the magnetotail lobes. However, how, when, and where this energy is stored and released within the magnetotail is unclear. Using data from the Cluster spacecraft and substorm onsets from Substorm Onsets and Phases from Indices of the Electrojet (SOPHIE), we examine the variation in the lobe magnetic energy density with respect to substorm onset for 541 isolated onsets. Based on a cross‐correlation analysis and a simple model, we deduce the following: On average, the magnetic energy density increases approximately linearly in the hour preceding onset and decreases at a similar rate after onset. The timing and magnitude of these changes varies with downtail distance, with observations from the mid‐tail ( urn:x-wiley:jgra:media:jgra54303:jgra54303-math-0001) showing larger changes in the magnetic energy density that occur ∼20 min after changes in the near‐tail ( urn:x-wiley:jgra:media:jgra54303:jgra54303-math-0002). The decrease in energy density in the near‐tail region is observed before the ground onset identified by SOPHIE, implying that the substorm is driven from the magnetotail and propagates into the ionosphere. The implication of these results is that energy in the near‐tail region is released first during the substorm expansion phase, with energy conversion propagating away from the Earth with time.last_img read more

Okeechobee Knocks It Out Of The Park For Inaugural Year [Gallery/Recap]

first_imgWords and photos by Andrew Dolan. Full gallery at the bottom. Load remaining images Okeechobee Music & Arts Festival managed to do something that few festivals can in their first year: get everything right. Moreover, they did it in an area that has had a lack of camping music festivals over the years, making it all the more impressive.Located near Okeechobee Lake on an 800 acre property developed by Clifford Rosen, co-CEO of Soundslinger LLC, the prime location brought in more than 30,000 seasoned veterans and first time festival goers.Aside from impressive planning and execution for a first year event of its magnitude, Okeechobee succeeded in covering a spectrum of genres with a ton of crossover, attracting everyone from ravers to hippies. The acts this year included heavy hitters like Bassnectar, Skrillex, The Avett Brothers, Kendrick Lamar, Odesza, Robert Plant & the Sensational Space Shifters, Mumford & Sons, and Future, to name a few.The festivals grounds were cleverly named, from “UR Special” Road to “NSFW” and “JK” campgrounds, and situated into two main areas. “The Grove” consisted of main stages “Be”, “Here”, and “Now”, while the “Moonlight Oasis” held the smaller stages and “Jungle 51”, a secluded area in the forest that was practically a festival inside a festival.For a first year festival, Okeechobee did a fantastic job. With the number of stages, attendees, and acts, it was seriously impressive how smoothly things ran throughout the weekend. For a location that hasn’t seen a large camping festival in nearly 8 years, they’ve amassed a following of new festival goers that are probably feeling the festie blues right now for the first time.Even festival co-founder, Paul Peck, commented on its success in a statement. “I couldn’t be more pleased and excited. We had a feeling we were creating something special, but I’m still trying to process exactly what just took place here. Everything went perfectly as designed and our fans loved it in every way we hoped. There was a fantastic energy on site all weekend as one great moment lead to another. The Okeechobee community is an extraordinary one. We can’t wait to do this again next year.”Check out the official recap video below:last_img read more