Fidson Healthcare Limited (FIDSON.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Health sector has released it’s 2011 annual report.For more information about Fidson Healthcare Limited (FIDSON.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Fidson Healthcare Limited (FIDSON.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Fidson Healthcare Limited (FIDSON.ng) 2011 annual report.Company ProfileFidson Healthcare Limited manufactures and sells pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products in Nigeria including over-the-counter, ethical and consumer products. The company produces various drug classes for antacid and ulcer care, anti-diabetic, anti-malaria, anti-diarrhea, anti-psychotic as well as osteo-care, pain relief, colds and flu, thrombo-prophylactics and cardio-vascular products. Fidson Healthcare Limited also produces a range of nutraceuticals (health) products. The company was incorporated in 1995 and its head office is in Shomolu, Nigeria. Fidson Healthcare Limited is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
Prestige Assurance Plc (PRESTI.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Insurance sector has released it’s 2020 interim results for the third quarter.For more information about Prestige Assurance Plc (PRESTI.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Prestige Assurance Plc (PRESTI.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Prestige Assurance Plc (PRESTI.ng) 2020 interim results for the third quarter.Company ProfilePrestige Assurance Plc is an insurance company in Nigeria licensed to cover all classes on non-life insurance. The company offers products for motor, marine, bond, engineering, fire, aviation, oil and gas, and general insurance. Prestige Assurance Plc also provides all risk insurance and products for group personal accident, burglary, fidelity guarantee, workmen’s compensation, machinery breakdown, fire and allied perils, consequential loss insurance and liability insurance. Prestige Assurance Plc is a subsidiary of The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai. It was founded in 1952. The company’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. Prestige Assurance Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
Hotelest Limited (HTLS.mu) listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius under the Tourism sector has released it’s 2020 interim results for the first quarter.For more information about Hotelest Limited (HTLS.mu) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Hotelest Limited (HTLS.mu) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Hotelest Limited (HTLS.mu) 2020 interim results for the first quarter.Company ProfileHotelest Limited is based in Port Louis, Mauritius and is engaged in the tourism and hospitality industry where, through the company’s subsidiary, Constance Hotels Services Limited, owns and operates hotels. Hotelest Limited is listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius.
Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. 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. 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. It is still far too early to say we are heading into post-lockdown exactly. But to paraphrase Churchill, perhaps we are at least seeing the end of the beginning. Now seems like a perfect opportunity, then, to consider some big names like Tesco (LSE: TSCO).Supermarket sweepSupermarkets, of course, have been deemed essential since the start of lockdown. Tesco and others reported a boost in sales on the back of panic buying in the early days. Since then, along with rivals Sainsbury’s and Ocado, Tesco has seen online shopping come into its own.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…I suspect then, that supermarkets are one of the few sectors that may truly benefit from Covid-19. Extra costs have been incurred through social distancing measurers in stores, of course. But sales levels have continued through lockdown, so Tesco seems to be in a strong position.In fact a report this week showed that sales at Tesco and Sainsbury’s outstripped rival Aldi for the first time in a decade. In the 12 weeks to 16 May, which encompasses all of lockdown and the preceding three weeks of panic buying, saw sales at Tesco rise 11.7%.Interestingly, lockdown may have forced a fundamental shift in the online shopping arena for Tesco. The company has expanded its delivery and click-and-collect facilities in order to meet increased demand.It is also conceivable that consumer preference for shopping methods may have also shifted. People are spending more on each shop, which makes sense. Think of online delivery for a big weekly shop rather than popping into your local Tesco to pick up your dinner each night.It also seems likely that at least some of those consumers who shifted to online shopping by necessity, will stay with it for convenience. With its already strong online presence and newly expanded capacity, Tesco seems in prime place to take advantage.Changing the benchmarkOne spect that does put me off Tesco as an investment, however, is recent a recent technicality. Tesco removed Ocado from a custom benchmark it uses to measure its performance. By removing Ocado, Tesco was able to pay out bonuses for outperforming its peers.Tesco’s argument was that Ocado is a technology firm and therefore no longer comparable to supermarkets. However, I think this is questionable. Admittedly, Ocado has started to sell its own automated warehouse model. But then Tesco has a range of businesses, not just grocery sales.Using this technicality to allow bonuses to be paid worries me. At the very least, it doesn’t seem the most robust management attitude towards increasing shareholder value.Looking at the share price itself, which has hovered in the 210p to 260p range for a while, doesn’t help. I can’t help but think there may be more value to be had by looking at one of the other supermarkets. “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Enter Your Email Address Image source: Getty Images. Karl has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Tesco. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. 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. Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! As lockdown draws to a close, what will it mean for the Tesco share price? Karl Loomes | Thursday, 28th May, 2020 | More on: TSCO See all posts by Karl Loomes
Keep track of goings-on in Japan with our Rugby World Cup home page.Follow Rugby World magazine on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. LATEST RUGBY WORLD MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION DEALS Jacob Whitehead has selected a ‘fab five’ of Tests between England and France before their key Pool C encounter Build-up: Owen Farrell in training ahead of England v France (Getty Images) France 9 England 14, Parc des Princes 2007 A game remembered for a mistake, a loss to the old enemy, the death of a dream. France have lost three World Cup finals but, in a way, this semi-final defeat was the cruellest of them all.It was a home World Cup; they’d battled through the group stages despite losing to Argentina in their first game and then sensationally defeated the All Blacks. Sebastien Chabal was rampaging, Yannick Jauzion was galloping, Bernard Laporte was playing more mind games than a chess grandmaster and, for a brief while, it seemed that destiny was on the French side.In contrast, England had been thrashed by South Africa in the group stages and scraped to a famous win over Australia in a performance more than the sum of their parts. But surely this would be a step too far.However, in the second minute, Josh Lewsey scored a try – or so the scoreboard would simply say. In reality, this was a classic French mishap, borne from the baffling selection decision of placing centre Damien Traille at full-back, and a laissez-faire attitude towards risk management. A kick from Andy Gomarsall was tracked by Traille, who dallied enough with the bouncing ball for Lewsey to pick it up and crash over.Over time: Damien Traille fails to stop Josh Lewsey scoring at RWC 2007 (Getty Images)Lionel Beauxis kicked France back into the lead at 9-8 and then, with 13 minutes left, his side had the chance to seal their place in the final. Jauzion’s cross-field kick was palmed into play by Julien Bonnaire to the onrushing Vincent Clerc, who had the line at his mercy. Then came The Tackle 2.0.Joe Worsley, diving at full-stretch, his extension the only thing between France and the World Cup final, got a fingernail on Clerc’s heels. He tripped, and with his balance went France’s World Cup hopes.Jonny Wilkinson did Jonny Wilkinson things as he scored a penalty and a drop-goal to seal England’s place in their second consecutive final. The host nation mourned, Chabal cried on the pitch, the English celebrated. French revenge would come four years later.England 55 France 35, Twickenham 2015 Some games are simply nuts. This one had in-goal mishaps, a fly-half’s soul being separated from his body, props running in length-of-the-field scores and 12 (12!) tries.The Six Nations title was on the line in this match. Ireland, Wales and England had all lost one game, and the side with superior points difference would take the title. When the chips had fallen, England, playing last, had a simple proposition – beat France by 26 points to win the championship.England’s first try after two minutes was reminiscent of the great French sides of the Eighties, with Ben Youngs finishing a flowing move orchestrated by George Ford. Their bid for the title was on course.Until, suddenly, it wasn’t. Sebastien Tillous-Borde scooped a loose ball up on halfway and outstripped the English cover defence, which was comprised only of, er, Dan Cole. Noa Nakaitaci was put away beautifully by his team to score.A Courtney Lawes hit on rookie 10 Jules Plisson saw the Frenchman cut in two (The Tackle 3.0?), a hit which revitalised England, who scored through Anthony Watson and Youngs again to lead 27-15 at half-time.In the second half, Maxime Mermoz crashed over under the posts for France, but England replied with two tries in quick succession – first Ford was the grateful recipient of the ball from a Youngs break and then Jack Nowell continued to enjoy his debut Six Nations campaign.And then came my favourite moment of the match. Antoine Dupont, Cobus Reinach, Chris Ashton – all brilliant modern exponents of the support line. Let me add one more name to that list – French prop Vincent Debaty.Nakaitaci’s break was swift and swerving, but he did not outrun the then 33-year-old French loosehead. Debaty burst into the camera shot like a Hollywood villain, flopping over the line with the relish of the man who knows, whatever happens, he will never again finish a length-of-field French try at Twickenham. Vincent Debaty we salute you.Further tries from Billy Vunipola and Nowell were matched by Benjamin Kayser, and when the dust settled England had won the match by 20 points but lost the championship on points difference by six.France had repelled the final English assault on the line, and although they’d lost the game, did they have the last laugh? Five of the Best England v France MatchesLe Crunch. England and France’s Rugby World Cup match in Yokohama this weekend needs little hype. The chance to top the pool at one of the most open tournaments in rugby history. One of the most storied rivalries in world rugby. A chance for France to make up for the embarrassment of a 44-8 defeat in this year’s Six Nations. An opportunity for England to avenge their loss at the hands of Les Bleus in their 2011 World Cup quarter-final.England and France have gone toe-to-toe with each other since 1906, with England winning 58 matches to France’s 40 as well as seven draws. Some have been classics, some have been colourless, most have been chaotic.With that in mind, here’s our rundown of the five best games between the sides to get you in the mood for the 106th edition of Le Crunch…England 21 France 19, Twickenham 1991 Geoff Cooke’s side met France in a Grand Slam decider at Twickenham in 1991, desperate to win ahead of an assault on the Webb Ellis Cup.They would eventually prevail 21-19, but this was a game in which England’s Five Nations triumph was almost entirely forgotten. People generally remember only one thing from it. That try from Philippe Saint-Andre – aka the greatest ever scored (other options are available).England were two scores ahead and cruising. France needed something to happen, and when Pierre Berbizier caught the ball in the dead-ball area, he passed to legendary centre Serge Blanco. A man with more than his fair share of genius, Blanco set out from under his own posts, hope surely more prevalent in his head than expectation. He drew in Jeremy Guscott and a few slick passes set fly-half Didier Camberabero away down the right wing.Most mortals who attempted to chip the ball and catch it at full pace would look about as graceful as a camel attempting to roller-skate. Not so Camberabero, whose kick-and-gather was more reminiscent of a scene from Swan Lake than something usually seen in the carnage of Le Crunch. One more kick into space would see Saint-Andre fly onto the ball like an Exocet missile, downing the ball under the English posts. Twenty seconds, four passes, two kicks, one of the greatest tries of all time.France 10 England 19, Parc des Princes 1991 Six months later and the two sides would meet once more in the quarter-finals of the World Cup, a match played in the bear-pit of the Parc des Princes. It was the epitome of a bruising encounter – when several English players came off the pitch shirtless, their torsos were the colour of France’s blue jerseys.Just as the meeting in the Five Nations that year has survived in our collective memory as that try, the World Cup encounter has become known for that tackle, a recollection to make the most stony-hearted of English forwards misty-eyed.Mickey Skinner is known as one of the great rugby characters off the field, but demonstrated his on-field prowess in a seismic collision as England defended their line at 10-10.All smiles: Mickey Skinner congratulates Will Carling on his try v France at RWC 1991 (Getty Images)French No 8 Marc Cecillon picked the ball up at the base of the scrum and seeing only English backs ahead of him, began to stride towards the try-line. It seems strange to say that a man of Skinner’s size could pass unseen, but hide he did, before suddenly popping into Cecillon’s path due to some questionable binding.Tucking himself low, he picked up the French giant, and repelled him five metres. If a tackle was ever a hydraulic press, this was it. The French siege on the English line was defended, and when Will Carling stole the ball in a maul after a towering Richard Hill box-kick to score the winning try, England were into the semi-final.England 17 France 18, Twickenham 2005 One of the remarkable things about French rugby is the way they’ve almost created a position: le petit general, a scrum-half who controls the game like a fly-half. Fabien Galthie, Philippe Carbonneau, Jean-Baptiste Elissalde, Morgan Parra. But perhaps the greatest performance in that mould came from Dimitri Yachvili in 2005.Yachvili’s grandfather was in the French resistance, a role which his grandson adopted single-handedly in dragging France back from a 17-6 half-time deficit. England were at a low ebb, two years into their post-World Cup hangover and firmly in the dark days of the Andy Robinson era.Fine nine: Dimitri Yachvili celebrates beating England at Twickenham in 2005 (Getty Images)Yet tries from a fit and firing Olly Barkley and man for all seasons Josh Lewsey put England within touching distance of a much-needed win. And then Yachvili took over. His first penalty, from out wide in the fifth minute, was a warning sign, and he nibbled away England’s lead to see his side eight points behind with half an hour to play.Therein followed a masterclass in control and courage. Yachvili led his side around the field with a variety of kicks and flicks, strangling England’s chances in that second period. His unerring accuracy with the boot seemed to get to England’s kickers, with Barkley missing three efforts.With 11 minutes left, Yachvili put his side ahead with his sixth penalty. Charlie Hodgson had one final chance for England but put his drop-goal attempt wide under pressure. The man in the vicinity? Yachvili.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb 8, 2021– Gemini Therapeutics, a clinical stage precision medicine company developing innovative treatments for genetically defined age-related macular degeneration (AMD), today announced the completion of its business combination with FS Development Corp. (Nasdaq: FSDC), a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) sponsored by Foresite Capital. Gemini Therapeutics, Inc., the resulting combined company, will commence trading its shares today on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “GMTX.” Gross proceeds from this transaction totaled approximately $216 million, which included funds held in FSDC’s trust account and the concurrent private investment in public equity (PIPE) financing. The shareholders of FSDC approved the transaction on February 3, 2021. The transaction was previously approved by Gemini Therapeutics’ shareholders. Gemini Therapeutics’ management team will continue to be led by Chief Executive Officer Jason Meyenburg. “We could not be more excited to enter the capital markets as a leading-edge precision medicine company focused on pioneering first-in-class medicines intended to restore regulation of the complement system in the eye and throughout the body,” said Mr. Meyenburg. “I want to thank all those involved in making this transaction a success, including our new and existing investors, and the Gemini and FSDC teams.” “Gemini’s impressive work with patients losing their vision because of genetically driven macular degeneration is the reason we knew they were the right candidate to merge with FSDC,” said Jim Tananbaum, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Foresite Capital and President and Chief Executive Officer of FS Development Corp. “We are excited about the potential to help further develop innovative new treatment options for patients.” Summary of Transaction On October 15, 2020, Gemini Therapeutics, a privately held biotechnology company, entered into a definitive business combination agreement with FS Development Corp., a SPAC sponsored by Foresite Capital, that was created for the purpose of entering into a business combination with a biopharmaceutical company focused on the next generation of medicines utilizing genetics. As a result of the business combination, Gemini Therapeutics received proceeds of approximately $216 million, prior to transaction expenses, which includes cash proceeds of approximately $121 million from FSDC’s trust account (after redemptions of $1,200) and $95 million from PIPE investors led by Foresite Capital, as well as Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC, Wellington Management, Boxer Capital of Tavistock Group, Alyeska Investment Group, L.P., Suvretta Capital Management, CVF, DAFNA Capital, and Acorn Bioventures, in addition to existing Gemini Therapeutics shareholders including Orbimed Healthcare Fund Management, Atlas Venture, Lightstone Ventures and Wu Capital. The description of the business combination contained herein is only a high-level summary and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the underlying documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A more detailed description of the terms of the transaction has been provided in a registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by FSDC. Advisors Jefferies LLC and SVB Leerink acted as co-lead private placement agents for FS Development Corp. Jefferies LLC also acted as lead financial and capital markets advisor to FS Development Corp. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC acted as lead financial advisor to Gemini in the transaction. Stifel acted as additional capital markets advisor to Gemini. Goodwin Procter LLP acted as legal counsel to Gemini. White & Case LLP acted as legal counsel to FS Development Corp. About GEM103 Gemini’s lead program, GEM103, is a pioneering precision medicine approach, targeting trial enrichment with genetically-defined patients. GEM103 targets a genetically-defined subset of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients with complement dysregulation. Of the 15 million dry AMD patients, approximately 40% (or six million) have variants in the complement factor H (CFH) gene. Such loss-of-function variants are associated with increased dry AMD disease risk. GEM103 is believed to be the first ever recombinant native complement modulator, full-length recombinant complement factor H (rCFH) protein. When delivered by intravitreal injection, GEM103 has the potential to address unmet medical need in genetically-defined subsets of AMD patients by circumventing dysfunctional CFH loss-of-function variants and slowing the progression of their retinal disease. About Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive retinal disease affecting millions of older adults, and the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the western world. Symptoms, which include blurry vision, loss of night vision and loss of central vision, make activities of daily living such as reading, driving and even recognizing faces progressively more difficult. Third-party reports indicate there are approximately 16 million patients with AMD in the United States alone. Dry AMD, which results from an interaction of environmental and genetic risk factors, represents about 90% of that population (or about 15 million) in the US compared to about 1.4 million with wet AMD. Genetic risk of developing dry AMD is significant, with approximately 70% attributable risk of advanced disease to heritability, while aging and smoking confer the strongest non-genetic risk. CFH risk variants occur in approximately 40% of patients with dry AMD and these patients have a significantly increased risk of developing the disease as well as progression from intermediate AMD to GA. The complement system, of which CFH is a modulator, is dysregulated in patients with these risk variants, and results in amplification of aberrant inflammatory responses in the eye. Over time, this dysregulation leads to damage to the macular region of the retina. About Gemini Therapeutics Gemini Therapeutics is a clinical stage precision medicine company developing novel therapeutic compounds to treat genetically defined age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Gemini’s lead candidate, GEM103, is a recombinant form of the human complement factor H protein (CFH), and is designed to address both complement hyperactivity and restore retinal health in patients with AMD. GEM103 is currently in a Phase 2a trial in dry AMD patients with a CFH risk variant. The company has generated a rich pipeline including recombinant proteins, gene therapies, and monoclonal antibodies. For more information, visit www.geminitherapeutics.com. Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this press release and the information incorporated herein by reference may constitute “forward-looking statements” for purposes of the federal securities laws. Our forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our or our management team’s expectations, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future, including those relating to the success, cost and timing of our product development activities and clinical trials, including our estimates regarding when data will be reported from ongoing clinical trials and the timing to commence future clinical trials, the potential attributes and benefits of our product candidates, including GEM103, our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval for our product candidates and our ability to obtain funding for our operations when needed. Forward-looking statements include statements relating to our management team’s expectations, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. In addition, any statements that refer to projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intends,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects. There can be no assurance that future developments affecting us will be those that we have anticipated. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties (some of which are beyond our control) or other assumptions that may cause actual results or performance to be materially different from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors described under the heading “Risk Factors” in the final proxy/prospectus for our recently completed business combination, and those that are included in any of our future filings with the SEC. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should any of our assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary in material respects from those projected in these forward-looking statements. Some of these risks and uncertainties may in the future be amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic and there may be additional risks that we consider immaterial or which are unknown. It is not possible to predict or identify all such risks. Our forward-looking statements only speak as of the date they are made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable securities laws. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210208005228/en/ CONTACT: Gemini Investor Contact:Argot Partners Sherri Spear 212-600-1902 [email protected] Media Contact:Argot Partners Joshua R. Mansbach 212-600-1902 [email protected] KEYWORD: MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: HEALTH GENETICS GENERAL HEALTH CLINICAL TRIALS PHARMACEUTICAL OPTICAL BIOTECHNOLOGY SOURCE: Gemini Therapeutics Copyright Business Wire 2021. PUB: 02/08/2021 07:00 AM/DISC: 02/08/2021 07:01 AM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210208005228/en By Digital AIM Web Support – February 8, 2021 WhatsApp Facebook Gemini Therapeutics Debuts as Publicly Traded Precision Medicine Company Focused on Age-Related Macular Degeneration WhatsApp Previous articleHip Hop Hall of Fame Café & Museum Gallery to Open in Harlem, NYC in 2021 With Hip Hop “History” and “Activism Black Lives Matter” Exhibits – Post Covid VaccineNext articleNext-Gen Proteomics Company Nautilus Biotechnology to List on Nasdaq Through Merger with Arya Sciences Acquisition Corp III Digital AIM Web Support Twitter Twitter Local NewsBusiness Pinterest Facebook Pinterest TAGS
ColumnsOrder To Ordinance : Background And Features Of The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 Vidhi Thaker27 April 2020 10:38 PMShare This – xThe recent Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 may be viewed as a by-product of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a doctor from Nagpur, Maharashtra (Dr. Jerryl Banait v. Union of India). The PIL originally sought availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for medical professionals, and subsequently highlighted…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 recent Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 may be viewed as a by-product of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a doctor from Nagpur, Maharashtra (Dr. Jerryl Banait v. Union of India). The PIL originally sought availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for medical professionals, and subsequently highlighted the plight of doctors and nurses due to incidents of violence. This article traces the origin of the Ordinance from the directions of the Supreme Court, moving onto internal Memos of Ministries, and ultimately into the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. Nations across the globe have pushed their economic stability, healthcare sector and legal system beyond unimaginable boundaries to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. In India, in addition to the hurdle of the pandemic itself, instances of violence against healthcare professionals acted as an impediment to the smooth operation of medical facilities. Healthcare professionals had to turn to existing legislations to seek protection against acts of violence. However, their concerns were not addressed satisfactorily by the law at the time being in force. Noting the unavailability of effective protective measures for healthcare workers, the Supreme Court in Dr. Jerryl Banait (supra) vide Order dated 08.04.2020 inter alia directed the Governments (Union and States) to provide police security to medical professional working in hospitals where patients diagnosed, or suspected of COVID-19 were housed. The protection was extended to medical staff who would visit places to conduct screening of people. The Court further directed the State to take necessary action against those persons who obstruct medical professionals in the discharge of their duties. The directions of the Supreme Court prompted the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue a Memo dated 11th April 2020 bearing No. 11034/01/2020-IS-IV, followed by Memo dated 22nd April 2020 bearing No.40-10/2020-DM-I(A) inter alia directing the Chief Secretaries / Administrators of all States / Union Territories to take necessary action to ensure compliance of the abovementioned Order passed by the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare published Draft Measures for ensuring safety of healthcare workers for COVID-19 services. These measures inter alia provided for human resources management, medical safety, timely payments, psychological support, training/ capacity building, life insurance, etc. for healthcare workers. The directions and measures issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare provided a layer of protection to healthcare workers. However, the mistreatment extended to medical professionals called for a more concrete legislation to protect them. On 22nd April 2020, sensing the urgency of the situation, the President of India took recourse of promulgating the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (“2020 Ordinance”), as the Parliament was not in session. The 2020 Ordinance sought to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (“Act of 1897”), and was brought into force forthwith. Until passing of the 2020 Ordinance, India was hanging on to the 123-year-old unamended Act of 1897. In addition to the Epidemic Diseases Act, provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 were invoked to restrict movement of people, initiate action against rumor-mongers, and provide access to emergency funds. Prior to the issuance of the 2020 Ordinance, the Prevention of Violence against Doctors, Medical Professional and Medical Institutions Bill, 2018 was introduced on 28th December, 2018, and was pending consideration. Interestingly, another Bill known as the Healthcare Service Personnel and Clinical Establishments (Prohibition of Violence and Damage to Property) Bill 2019 was proposed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which contained provisions similar to the 2020 Ordinance. The Bill was approved by the Law Ministry, however during inter-ministerial consultations, the Ministry of Home Affairs opined that there could not be a separate legislation to protect the members of a particular profession. In addition to the aforementioned Bills, the States of Assam, Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Tripura have passed separate State legislations to protect the rights of healthcare workers. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE 2020 ORDINANCE Definitions under the Ordinance – “Acts of Violence” The Ordinance inserted Section 1A(a), which provides for an inclusive definition of “acts of violence” in the form of harassment, intimidation, actual harm or injury, or any act that prevents a healthcare professional from discharging his/her duties, either within the premises of a clinical establishment, or otherwise. It includes loss / damage to property and documents in custody of a healthcare professional. These acts of violence are prohibited under the newly inserted Section 2 B. “Healthcare Service Personnel” Sub-clause (b) to Section 1A provides a wide scope to the term “Healthcare Service Personnel” to include doctors, nurses, paramedical workers, community health workers, etc., who may come in direct contact with affected patients, and may be at risk of contracting the disease. “Property” Section 1A(c) defines the term property to include clinical establishments, quarantine/ isolation facility, mobile medical units, or any other property wherein a health care service personnel has direct interest, in relation to the epidemic. Punishment prescribed under the Ordinance – The Ordinance inserted Sections 3(2) and 3(3) which provide for punishment as under – PROVISION OFFENCE PUNISHMENT Section 3(2) Punishment for commission or abetment of an Act of Violence. Note: This offence is Compoundable u/S. 3B. Imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 months, which may extend to 5 years And Fine of not less than Rs. 50,000/-, which may extend to Rs. 2,00,000/- Section 3(3) Punishment for grievous hurt caused to a Healthcare Service Personnel. Note: According to Section 3C, the Court shall presume that the person has committed the offence. According to Section 3D, the Court shall presume existence of culpable mental state. Imprisonment for a term of not less than 6 months, which may extend to 7 years. And Fine of not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- which may extend to Rs. 5,00,000/- Cognizance, Investigation and Trial of Offences: – Nature of Offence Section 3A(i) as inserted by the Ordinance provides that the offences u/S. 3(2) and 3(3) shall be cognizable and non-bailable. Consequently, the law shall be set in motion by registration of a First Information Report against the offenders. Investigation The investigation of the offences under this Ordinance shall be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector [Section 3A (ii)]. Further, as per Section 3A(iii), the investigation must be completed within a period of 30 days from the registration of the F.I.R. [Section 3A(iii)] Trial The trial of offences committed under the Ordinance shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible. Further, when the trial is at the stage of examination of witnesses, it shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis till all witnesses have been examined. The provision lays down an upper limit of one year to conclude the trial, with a further extension not exceeding six months at a time. [Section 3A(iv)] Compensation under the Ordinance: In case of Hurt/ Grievous Hurt Section 3E (1) provides that in addition to the punishment prescribed under Sections 3(2) and 3(3), the offender shall be liable to pay compensation for causing hurt or grievous hurt to any healthcare service personnel. Such compensation may be determined by the Court. In case of damage to Property Section 3E(2) provides that in case of damage to property or loss caused, the compensation payable shall be twice the amount of fair market value of the damaged property, or loss caused, as may be determined by the Court. The compensation provided in terms of Sections 3E (1) and (2) shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act 1890, in case of failure to pay the same. Concluding remarks: With the increasing amount of pressure on healthcare personnel, their protection takes precedence over other issues. The 2020 Ordinance brings a sigh of relief to such professionals. However, like any other legislation, the true test of the 2020 Ordinance lies in its effective implementation. Views Are Personal Only.(Vidhi Thaker is Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant at the Supreme Court of India. Prastut Dalvi is practing Lawyer at Supreme Court of India)  Writ Petition (C) Diary No. 10795 of 2020. Next Story
News UpdatesDelhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Acquitted In Criminal Defamation Case Filed by BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri Karan Tripathi28 Oct 2020 8:11 AMShare This – xThe Rouse Avenue Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of First Class on Wednesday acquitted the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of the criminal defamation charges levelled against him by the BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri in 2015. Mr. Bidhuri had alleged that Mr. Kejriwal had made defamatory remarks against him in a programme aired on 17.07.2015 and repeated on 18.07.2015…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 Rouse Avenue Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of First Class on Wednesday acquitted the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of the criminal defamation charges levelled against him by the BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri in 2015. Mr. Bidhuri had alleged that Mr. Kejriwal had made defamatory remarks against him in a programme aired on 17.07.2015 and repeated on 18.07.2015 and 19.07.2015 on TV news channel namely ‘AajTak’ wherein Mr. Kejriwal was interviewed by Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai of AajTak TV Channel. It was alleged by Mr. Bidhuri that the statement made by Mr. Kejriwal in the said interview to the effect that, “Ramesh Bidhuri Ke Khilaf Bade Bade Sangeen Charges Hein, Unko Pakda Aapne” (There are some serious charges levied against Ramesh Bidhuri. Did you catch him?) had resulted in implanting suspicion and lack of confidence among his voters and supporters. He alleged that, he was told of the said interview by his supporters and voters while he was at the party office. This had resulted in lowering his dignity in the eyes of public at large. Mr. Bidhuri claimed to have seen the re-telecast of the interview on 19.07.2015 and had alleged that the words spoken by Mr. Kejriwal were uttered with a deliberate and malicious intent to defame and tarnish his reputation despite knowing them to be false. Mr. Arvind Kejriwal in his statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. had denied and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case and he had not made any defamatory and derogatory remarks against the complainant. He had also stated that the statement made by him was general to highlight the discriminatory attitude of Delhi police against the supporters and leaders of Aam Aadmi Party. Ld. Sr. Adv. Ajay Burman appearing for the complainant Mr. Bidhuri had vehemently argued that they had successfully discharged the burden of proof by leading cogent evidence on record thereby establishing all the ingredients of the offence made out u/s 499 of IPC. He had also argued that the defamatory statement given by the accused Mr. Kejriwal, during interview had been admitted by him in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and that he had not denied the same during the cross examination of complainant’s witnesses, hence, the accused was liable to be convicted u/s 500 IPC. It was also argued that that the exception 1 of section 499 IPC pleaded by accused had not been established as neither he had proved on record the involvement of complainant in heinous offences nor he could establish that the statement made by him was for public good. Reliance was placed on various judgements including Sanjay Mishra v. NCT of Delhi (2012 SCC Online Del 1779) to support their claims. Ld. Senior Advocate Ms. Rebecca John appearing for the accused sought for his acquittal on the ground that complainant had miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 499 IPC as neither he could lead any substantial evidence in the form of documents nor the oral evidence led by the complainant witnesses. It was also argued that statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was not an admission of facts but an explanation qua his remarks and hence, the onus of proof was never discharged by the prosecution. She had concluded her arguments by asserting that accused had led sufficient evidence on record to show the pendency of several criminal cases against the complainant which he also had admitted in the affidavit filed before election commission and thus the complainant cannot be said to have come before the court with clean hands. Reliance was placed on a number of judicial precedents including Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of AP, [(1997) 7 SCC 431] in furtherance of their arguments. After due consideration of the arguments made by both the parties and evidence brought on record, ACMM Vishal Pahuja acquitted Mr. Kejriwal of the charge levied against him on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. He held that the downloaded version of the alleged interview on a CD produced as secondary evidence before the court along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act by the complainant, had failed to specify from which server it had been downloaded. Furthermore, the downloaded version of the interview was not an edited/adulterated version had also not been established. The Court ruled that, the three requisites for establishing the offence of criminal defamation namely Making or publishing an imputation concerning a personSuch imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representationsThe said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned were not established beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant. The evidence lead on record by the complainant was held to be insufficient to hold the accused guilty. Mr. Arvind Kejriwal was represented by Sr. Adv. Rebecca John. Mr. Ramesh Bidhuri was represented by Sr. Adv. Ajay Burman. Click here to download the order Read Order Next Story
Michael Anthony/iStockBy EMILY SHAPIRO, ABC News(HOUSTON) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is opening up about his decision to end the state mask mandate, stressing that he still urges residents to take precautions, but Texans “no longer need government running our lives.”On March 10, Texas’ mask order will end and businesses can reopen at full capacity, Abbott announced Tuesday.In a Thursday interview with ABC Houston station KTRK, Abbott said the decision “was a product of the data that we have seen.”Thursday marked the lowest positivity rate and number of hospitalizations since October, Abbott said. Over 50% of Texans ages 65 and older have received at least one vaccine shot, he added.“All the metrics are moving in the right direction,” he told KTRK. “The numbers are adequate for people to be able to go back to work, open up and get back to a sense of normalcy, especially for our kids and schools, while at the same time making sure that people do follow the best practices.”“We are still urging people to continue to wear the mask,” Abbott said.In the face of backlash over his decision, including from President Joe Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, Abbott conceded, “There’s never going to be a uniform agreement on this.”The governor added, “If businesses don’t feel safe opening, they should not be required to.”Abbott stressed, “We no longer need government running our lives. Instead, everybody must continue to assume their own individual responsibility to take the actions that they have already mastered to make sure that they will not be contracting COVID-19.”Biden on Wednesday called Abbott’s ruling “Neanderthal thinking.”“I hope everybody has realized by now these masks make a difference,” Biden told reporters in the Oval Office.“The last thing we need is the Neanderthal thinking that in the meantime, ‘Everything’s fine, take off your mask,’” Biden said.Fauci said Abbott’s decision was “quite risky.”“If you look at the amount of infection that is in the community right now, even though the slope is coming down sharply, if you look at the last seven day average, it’s plateaued,” Fauci said Wednesday in a livestream with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union President Marc Perrone.“That’s a dangerous sign because when that has happened in the past, when you pull back on measures of public health, invariably you’ve seen a surge back up,” Fauci said.Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves also said Tuesday that county mask mandates would be lifted and businesses could “operate at full capacity without any state-imposed rules.” Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey took a more conservative approach, announcing Thursday that she was extending the state’s mask mandate until April 9.Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Three Spanish warships currently deployed off the coast of Somalia rendezvoused in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday, October 3.The Operation Atalanta flagship, ESPS Galicia and ESPS Victoria performed a simultaneous refuel with American supply ship, USNS Carl Brashaer.ESPS Galicia ensured that her fuel tanks were fully topped up in preparation for her journey home to Rota, Spain, when she departs the EU Naval Force later this week.ESPS Meteoro also refuelled from USNS Carl Brashaer, before joining a Spanish formation with ESPS Galicia and ESPS Meteoro. The formation of ships practiced close-quarters manoeuvring, before separating to continue their patrols.ESPS Victoria will join Operation Atalanta on Tuesday 6 October.[mappress mapid=”17099″]Images: EU Naval Force View post tag: Gulf of Aden Share this article Three Spanish Warships Meet in the Gulf of Aden Back to overview,Home naval-today Three Spanish Warships Meet in the Gulf of Aden View post tag: Spanish Authorities View post tag: africa View post tag: Warships October 5, 2015