Zimbabwe is facing an 800MW power deficit and was unable to close that gap as it owed huge debts to Eskom and could not access further supplies. However, an agreement was reached last week, allowing the country to access 400MW of electricity per week from Eskom.
This has resulted in Zesa Holdings downgrading load shedding from Stage 2 to Stage 1.
Power will now only be cut off during peak hours of 5am to 10am and 5pm to 10pm.
Zesa spokesperson Fullard Gwasira was quoted by state media saying the new development will not result in load-shedding disappearing completely, but will mean it can be downgraded to Stage One.
“This power supply situation gives predictability to load-shedding and largely puts all customers in Stage 1 load-shedding. So there is significant relief, but it does not eliminate load- shedding,” he said.
Meanwhile ZESA has embarked on a blitz to identify and disconnect illegal connections in the country’s major cities.
Spokesman for the Movement for Democratic Change party Daniel Molokele said on Wednesday that the party has mobilized its supporters to protest on the streets in the capital, Harare, on Friday. The protests will spread to other cities next week, he said.
“Every Zimbabwean will be marching to end this suffering until we achieve a legitimate people’s government that will begin to address the serious challenges facing the country,” Molokele told a press conference. “Until that is achieved, we will not rest and we will continue to exercise our democratic right to demonstrate peacefully.”
He said the transitional government demanded by the opposition should address Zimbabwe’s deepening economic woes and ensure future credible elections following decades of disputed polls, the latest being last year’s July election that kept Mnangagwa in power.
Mnangagwa, 77, a longtime enforcer for former repressive ruler Robert Mugabe, promised sweeping political and economic reforms as part of a “new dawn” after taking power with the help of the military in November, 2017.
However, as Zimbabwe’s economic situation deteriorated and opposition to his rule intensified, Mnangagwa’s government has increasingly resorted to what critics say are strong-arm tactics. On Wednesday, the U.S embassy in Harare expressed concern over “renewed reports of abductions and assault of civil society members and opposition party members … Harassment and intimidation have no place in a democratic and pluralistic society.”
This followed reports by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights that some activists were abducted from their homes by unknown people and tortured over the planned Friday protest.
Government spokesman Nick Mangwana rejected allegations that the government was behind the abductions, while Information Minister Monica Mutsvangwa said Zimbabweans should stay away from the planned protests.
“Government calls on all progressive Zimbabweans to desist from being used by negative forces to destabilize their country as this will only prolong the hardships,” she said at a press conference Wednesday, urging dialogue “and other forms of constructive engagement.”
Violence rocked earlier protests in August last year and January this year, resulting in several deaths when the military intervened.
We’d like to express gratitude to our fantastic sponsors here at Above the Law:
If you’re interested in advertising on Above the Law or any other site in the Breaking Media network, please download our media kits or email advertising.
—ADVERTISEMENT—
Love ATL? Let’s make it official. Sign up for our newsletter.
We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.
According to data collected by the Internet Legal Research Group, which law school has the highest percentage of female faculty?
Hint: Sixteen law schools have women in 50 percent or higher of their faculty positions, but at the law school at the top of this list, 64.6 percent of the faculty are women.
I realize that for many readers of this website, “rural” is more of a concept than a daily lived experience. If you don’t encounter it for yourself, I can assure you that, even now, support for Donald Trump runs high in the agrarian communities of America.
To paraphrase comedian Sarah Silverman on this situation, you don’t have to like the liar to have compassion for the lied-to. And few have been lied to more than rural populations about what Donald Trump is supposedly doing for them.
Trump’s Policies Have Been An Economic Disaster For Farmers And Agricultural Economies
Trump did promise subsidies to farmers to help offset the effects of his trade war. However, most of the subsidies delivered so far have gone to the richest, largest corporate farms, not to mom-and-pop operations. Of the $8.4 billion in payments made to U.S. farmers through the end of April, more than half went to the top 10 percent in the farm economy, the farms that are already the biggest and most successful. According to Department of Agriculture data analyzed by Washington non-profit Environmental Working Group, the top one percent of farm aid recipients received average payments of more than $180,000. The bottom 80 percent got average payments of less than $5,000.
While farmers are a relatively small voting block — only about one percent of the U.S. population — for many rural and quasi-rural communities, farming is the backbone upon which a vast array of other economic activity is supported. Iconic tractor-maker John Deere, for instance, is based in what passes for a city on the Iowa border: Moline, Illinois, population 42,000. This year, John Deere explicitly blamed the trade war when it slashed its full-year profit and sales outlook. Meanwhile, John Deere rival CNH Industrial, registered in the Netherlands with corporate offices in London, has faced similar production slowdowns in its North American market. On the other hand, CNH reported a swollen order book for tractors and combines in its South American Market, particularly in Brazil, which China has turned to instead of the U.S. to fill its demand for soybeans.
By almost any objective measurement, Trump has been bad for farmers and farming economies. According to the chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, the median U.S. farm income will be -$1,449 this year. Most farmers are working just to lose money. Last week, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue met the issue with the trademark tact of this administration, telling a room full of Minnesota farmers:
What do you call two farmers in a basement? A whine cellar.
Classy.
Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren Meets Rural Concerns With Plan For Action
Of course, ask farmers what a Democrat has done for them lately, and they might be as hard-pressed to give you an answer as they would be if you asked them to name one Trump policy that has actually helped them. But at least a number of the Democratic presidential contenders have been making overtures to rural America.
“Trade war by tweet is not working for our farmers,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren in remarks to Iowans this August. When it comes to a concrete plan to build up rural America, she is a standout in the Democratic field (as she is in many other things). Warren’s plan includes breaking up corporate agribusiness monopolies, supporting family farms, and moving away from farm subsidies to instead guaranteeing prices for farm goods that at least match the cost of production. Her plan also includes improvements to education and affordable housing in rural communities, and an $85 billion grant designated to construct broadband networks in rural communities which still lack reliable, high-speed internet access.
Warren’s plan for rural America is untested, and nobody can blame rural Americans for being suspicious of politicians’ promises. But if Elizabeth Warren could implement one-tenth of what her plan calls for in rural America (or even just didn’t actively damage rural America), she would be a hell of a lot better for farmers and the economies they support than Donald Trump.
Jonathan Wolf is a litigation associate at a midsize, full-service Minnesota firm. He also teaches as an adjunct writing professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, has written for a wide variety of publications, and makes it both his business and his pleasure to be financially and scientifically literate. Any views he expresses are probably pure gold, but are nonetheless solely his own and should not be attributed to any organization with which he is affiliated. He wouldn’t want to share the credit anyway. He can be reached at jon_wolf@hotmail.com.
This S-1 filing is a word quilt made up of every bad idea from every IPO of the past five years.
In the spring of 2015, Etsy introduced us to the concept of a company going public while hemorrhaging money despite pulling down massive amounts of revenue.
Two years later, Snapchat introduced us to the new reality of a company going public with no profit plan at all, full acknowledgment that it existed entirely at the whim of a larger competitor, and a stock structure that put almost total control in the hands of its founder.
Weeks after that, Blue Apron filed for an IPO that valued it at almost $2 billion, despite a tacit admission that it might never be profitable, and existential threat in Amazon, batshit spending, shrinking revenue and almost all voting shares in the hands of the founders and their closest advisors.
All of those stocks — and more than a handful like them — were met with initial excitement from Wall Street before either plummeting immediately or immediately after their first earnings report reminded investors that they were nowhere near profitable, had no clear path to profitability due to private equity-fueled spending addictions, and would never be forced to change their behavior.
Since then, we’ve had a few more like Pinterest, Lyft, and Uber: IPOs that have been variations on the theme, borrowing elements from its predecessors in pursuit of its own batshit, pre-public money narrative. But today, we have the ultimate document. The thing that this whole counterfactual modern tech IPO market has been careening towards for five years.
And while we have been pretty public about how high our hopes were for the inherent satire of this document, we are delighted to report that this thing is better than we could have ever dreamed.
Is there the kind of self-pleasuring word nonsense that we’ve come to expect from WeWork? Only right off the bat:
We are a community company committed to maximum global impact. Our mission is to elevate the world’s consciousness. We have built a worldwide platform that supports growth, shared experiences and true success. We provide our members with flexible access to beautiful spaces, a culture of inclusivity and the energy of an inspired community, all connected by our extensive technology infrastructure. We believe our company has the power to elevate how people work, live and grow.
That means nothing! And neither do WeWork’s numbers!
But don’t worry, it’s totally clear where all that money is all going:
See? This is the simplified version.
But it’s not easy to draw a chart when you can barely separate the company from the man who founded it. And don’t take our word for it, take WeWork’s:
Adam has served as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company’s board of directors since our inception. From the day he WeWork, Adam has set the Company’s vision, strategic direction and execution priorities. Adam is a unique leader who has proven he can simultaneously wear the hats of visionary, operator and innovator, while thriving as a community and culture creator. Given his deep involvement in all aspects of the growth of our company, Adam’s personal dealings have evolved across a number of direct and indirect transactions and relationships with the Company. As we make the transition to a public company, we aim to provide clarity and transparency on the history of these relationships and transactions, as well as the background to the strategic governance decisions that have been made by Adam and the Company.
Which is why it seems cool that:
We have entered into a number of transactions with related parties, including our significant stockholders, directors and executive officers and other employees. For example, we have entered into several transactions with our Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Adam Neumann, including leases with landlord entities in which Adam has or had a significant ownership interest.
But it would be very uncool for future investors to fuck with Adam’s internal deals because:
Our future success depends in large part on the continued service of Adam Neumann, our Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, which cannot be ensured or guaranteed.
Adam Neumann, our Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, is critical to our operations. Adam has been key to setting our vision, strategic direction and execution priorities. We have no employment agreement in place with Adam, and there can be no assurance that Adam will continue to work for us or serve our interests in any capacity. If Adam does not continue to serve as our Chief Executive Officer, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Not that it would matter if those investors even wanted to get rid of him since:
Adam Neumann will control a majority of our voting stock upon completion of this offering.
So you should all just ignore:
In May 2019, Axios and Business Insider published online news articles that included quotes from Adam Neumann, our Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and Artie Minson, our Co-President and Chief Financial Officer, regarding our business strategy and results. In addition to these articles, there has been substantial additional press coverage regarding our business and this offering during the offering process, including coverage of the timing of this offering, the underwriters involved in this offering and the “analyst day” that we hosted in connection with this offering as well as coverage of our concurrent debt financing…We do not believe that our involvement in the May 2019 online news articles or other news articles constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act. However, if our involvement were held by a court to be in violation of the Securities Act, we could be required to repurchase the shares sold to purchasers in this offering at the original purchase price, plus statutory interest from the date of purchase, for a period of one year following the date of the violation. We would contest vigorously any claim that a violation of the Securities Act occurred and could incur considerable expense in contesting any such claim.
And, besides, he’s already elbow deep into WeWork from both sides of this IPO:
UBS AG, Stamford Branch, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch, affiliates of the underwriters in this offering, have provided a line of credit of up to $500 million to Adam Neumann, of which approximately $380 million principal amount was outstanding as of July 31, 2019.
This S-1 has it all.
WeWork is losing more money than is almost conceivable, is offering no plan or future profit whatsoever, is already exposed to a fast-growing co-working sector full of competitors, is still experimenting with what it actually does, and has placed an almost messianic faith in its founder…who also controls all the real stock and is making it clear he has no interest in clearing up the blurry line between his personal finances and those of the company in which he’s offering you actual shares for money.
WeWork isn’t the next IPO. It’s the last IPO, because this can never be topped.
We’re going to do a few more posts on this S-1 tomorrow, but for today we just want you all to sit back and enjoy it in full:
A$AP Rocky, giving the double. (Photo by Steven Lawton/Getty Images)
As operations of criminal justice go, this is fine. I can be fine with this. It’s not ideal, but it could have been worse.
Acclaimed performer A$AP Rocky was found guilty by a court in Sweden of assault, but will face no additional jail time. A$AP Rocky, whose real name is Rakim Mayers, and members of his entourage were arrested and charged with assault in Stockholm, after a street altercation. Mayers claims that he was harassed by two men and one woman, which resulted in a fight of self-defense. The woman claims that a member of Mayers’s group grabbed her backside, which resulted in a confrontation during which Mayers’s group became violent.
The case gained national and international attention after Kim Kardashian and Kanye West and Donald Trump became involved, but I refuse to care about that aspect and you can’t make me.
What I do see is a complicated case. You have a famous person claiming he was harassed on the streets, and I have no reason not to believe him. You have a woman claiming she was inappropriately touched, and I have no reason not to believe her. And you have an “aftermath” video of Rocky and friends throwing a 19-year-old to the ground and giving him a few punches, and I have no reason to not believe my own eyes.
Look at this case from the perspective of Swedish authorities. One of the alleged victims, Mustafa Jafari, is a Muslim immigrant. Unlike in our country, Sweden is interested in making their Muslim community feel safe and protected. From their perspective, an American (and you have to remember that internationally being an “American” tourist is one of the dumbest things you can be) attacked one of their vulnerable communities in the street. And his only defense amounts to “they started it.” My gut tells me that Mayers got railroaded a bit here, but if I think about it from the Swedish perspective, I kind of see why. And again, I don’t think a bunch of other American celebrities and our international embarrassment of a president did anything to make the Swedish authorities feel more positively disposed to A$AP Rocky.
But, they did release him. And, while a “guilty” verdict stings, it’s not like they demanded that he be extradited back to Sweden to serve additional jail time. The court ruled that the assault was not “of such a serious nature” that it demanded more punishment. That’s pretty much as close as a court can come to saying “what you did was wrong so… don’t do it again.”
Given all the factors at play, again, this seems fine. A$AP Rocky is home and free. Sweden has stood up for its Muslim community. Nobody has international egg on their faces. For a criminal justice outcome, this isn’t bad.
On the 31st of July 2018, Zimbabweans overwhelmingly voted for President Nelson Chamisa. That election was stolen in broad daylight and since then, the crisis of legitimacy has manifested itself through multi-layered challenges that have manifested themselves through power outages, water and fuel shortages, indecent wages, high prices and the erosion of the people’s dignity, among other challenges.
To express their displeasure at the serious challenges in the country, Zimbabweans will begin a series of peaceful demonstrations that will kick off in Harare on Friday, 16 August 2019. The preparations for the Free Zimbabwe march are at an advanced stage. All the necessary logistical preparations have been done and we are looking forward to a successful peaceful march by Zimbabweans on Friday.
The MDC is a peaceful and law-abiding party. To that end, we have complied with the requirements under both section 59 of the national Constitution and the Public Order and Security Act. There will be no party regalia as this is a peaceful march by the generality of the people of Zimbabwe who are suffering under the current crisis.
Every Zimbabwean will be marching to end this suffering until we achieve a legitimate people’s government that will begin to address the serious challenges facing the country. Until that is achieved, we will not rest and we will continue to exercise our democratic right to demonstrate peacefully.
On Friday, we will be marching for jobs, for affordable health care facilities, for electricity, for affordable education, availability of fuel and water and decent salaries for our civil servants and the ordinary workers of Zimbabwe. We shall march for the restoration of the people’s dignity and for the return of functional industries, for democracy, accountability and the respect of human rights. We will be marching against the culture and ailment of corruption, impunity, abductions, and the erosion of the people’s dignity, looting and embezzlement that have afflicted the country’s entire body politic.
We say no to the killing and torturing of innocent Zimbabweans and civic and democracy activists. We want to end illegitimacy and ensure that there is a people’s government.
We will be rolling out these peaceful and constitutional protests in all the towns. After Harare, the Zimbabweans citizens will be holding peaceful protests in Bulawayo next Monday, Gweru on Tuesday, Masvingo on Wednesday and Mutare on Thursday. The roll-out for other cities and towns will be announced later.
Our action will be peaceful and constitutional.
We urge everyone to be there and to be involved until we achieve a truly people’s government that will deliver change that delivers.
Wow, the hits just keep on coming for Jones Day. In addition to the class-action gender discrimination lawsuit that’s been filed against the firm (and which we’ve been following closely), they’re now facing a new discrimination lawsuit that goes after the firm’s non-gender neutral parental leave policy and their alleged practice of altering firm photos to make their attorneys more attractive/white. There are a bunch of allegations in the lawsuit which make for a not-so-good look for the firm, so hold tight as I go through them all.
Julia Sheketoff and Mark Savignac are a married couple that both used to work in the appellate practice in Jones Day’s D.C. office. Both former Supreme Court clerks, they say the firm’s parental leave creates an improper distinction between mothers and fathers who seek to take leave, and when Savignac complained about the policy, he was promptly fired. According to the firm’s parental leave policy, biological mothers who are primary caregivers receive 10 weeks of paid family leave as well as eight weeks of disability leave, compared with biological fathers who are also primary caregivers but only get 10 weeks of leave, while new adoptive parents (any gender) who are primary caregivers get the full 18 weeks of paid leave. The EEOC says that an employer may give a biological mother eight additional weeks of disability if it is linked to their physical recovery, but as reported by the New York Times, plaintiffs allege the difference in leave time is based on antiquated assumptions about gender roles:
But in their legal complaint, Mr. Savignac and Ms. Sheketoff argue that Jones Day awards mothers eight additional weeks of paid leave without regard to whether their physical condition warrants it. The plaintiffs write that the policy gives “female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over child care” and “reflects and reinforces archaic gender roles and sex-based stereotypes.”
And the filing points to more than just the policy as evidence of the way the firm reifies traditional gender roles; the complaint alleges a partner repeatedly made fun of the notion of men using parental leave:
The complaint, filed Tuesday, maintains that the firm and some of its partners promoted crude stereotypes about gender roles, with a prominent male partner asking rhetorically, “What would a man do on parental leave — watch his wife unload the dishwasher?” The same partner, the suit claims, teased a male associate for taking parental leave to care for a child.
The complaint also alleges that after Savignac complained about the firm’s leave policy — three days after, to be precise — he was fired, despite having a history of positive reviews:
“I was shocked; we truly never considered that they would fire me,” Mr. Savignac said. “We thought the law was so obvious.”
The firm has denied that its leave policy is discriminatory and said they fired Savignac over his attitude towards the firm:
Jones Day defended its policy, saying it grants birth mothers eight weeks of paid disability leave to avoid having to ask for medical evidence that they are still recovering from childbirth. The firm said the firing of Mr. Savignac had not been in retaliation for criticizing the leave policy, which it said he and Ms. Sheketoff had done in 2018 without repercussions. Rather, it said, it fired him because he had shown a “lack of courtesy” to colleagues and an “open hostility to the firm,” citing his email.
In an additional allegation that echoes other lawsuits against the firm, the complaint also takes aim at the firm’s infamous black box compensation system (yes, I’m going to continue calling it that despite what the firm says about it) saying that Sheketoff’s (who left the firm to work at a public defender’s office last year) compensation was lower than it should have been because she’s a woman:
Separately, the couple contends that the firm paid Ms. Sheketoff less than it would have paid a man because of her gender. “Julia’s salary was cut in relative terms based on a negative review from a partner who, in hindsight, clearly treated her worse because she is a woman,” said the couple’s email to the human resources director included in the complaint.
The firm denies Sheketoff’s salary was impacted by her gender, saying it was lower because of mixed reviews from partners.
And now for the most shocking allegation in the complaint, at least in my humble opinion: the complaint alleges that when Sheketoff had her picture taken for the firm’s website, the final image was edited to lighten her skin and narrow her nose. As the complaint notes, “[t]he apparent purpose of the alterations was to make was to make Julia appear more Caucasian and (in the opinion of the editor) more attractive.” The complaint says they edit the pictures of women at the firm on the reg (pointing to two of Sheketoff’s female friends at the firm) to make them prettier, while men are spared the photoshop treatment. In a perfect illustration on the way intersectionality works, in the case of this bi-racial woman, “prettier” = more white.
You can take a look at the original and edited versions of the picture for yourself:
Plaintiff in new discrimination lawsuit against Jones Day, the law firm that represents the Trump campaign, says the firm lightened her skin and narrowed her nose in a photo for its website, to make her look more Caucasian. Firm denies the allegation. https://t.co/K2SKpLMCgypic.twitter.com/hx0BgEqiyc
As former SCOTUS clerks, the couple was once used to bolster the firm’s recruitment of other clerks. Now Savignac says he regrets trying to convince others to work at Jones Day, “I feel bad about having worked to persuade other people who may have been misled.” Well, maybe if they read Above the Law…
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of