Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed

Saturday, April 14, 2012

FORMER PRESIDENT OF ALGERIA, AHMED BEN BELLA DIES


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Passing of Former President Ben Bella
Press Statement Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 14, 2012
The United States would like to convey to the people of Algeria its sincerest condolences over the passing of former president Ahmed Ben Bella.

President Ben Bella is recognized for his contributions to Algeria's freedom, including negotiating the independence treaty with France. He became the first president of an independent Algeria, recognized in 1962 by American President John F. Kennedy, continuing a long history of friendly ties between our nations. Ahmed Ben Bella will remain a symbol of independence for the Algerian people and the United States looks forward to continuing its strong relationship with the people of Algeria.

CONNECTING THE AMERICAS 2022 INITIATIVE


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Connecting the Americas 2022
Fact Sheet Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 13, 2012
At the Sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, the United States joined Colombia and other leaders of the Western Hemisphere in committing to achieve universal access to electricity over the next decade through enhanced electrical interconnection. This initiative, developed by Colombia and called “Connecting the Americas 2022” will increase access to reliable, clean, and affordable electricity for the region’s 31 million citizens without it. Connecting the Americas 2022 supports the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA), launched by President Obama at the 2009 Summit of the Americas, which promotes regional collaboration on low-carbon development, energy security, and climate change.

Electrical Interconnection in the Americas
The Western Hemisphere produces one quarter of the world’s oil, almost one-third of its natural gas, and nearly 30 percent of global electricity, and is also endowed with abundant renewable energy resources. The region requires a 26 percent increase in new power generation capacity to meet annual projected GDP growth of as much as 6 percent over the next decade. Electrical interconnection benefits all countries by allowing those with excess power to export electricity to countries that have a power deficit. Interconnected power systems allow for greater integration of renewable energy resources, as well as power exchanges among countries with varying climate and seasonal needs. Interconnection expands the size of power markets, creating economies of scale, which can attract private investment, lower capital costs, and reduce electricity costs for consumers -- that makes businesses more competitive and helps create jobs. When coupled with national strategies to develop off-grid, mini-grid, or clean cook stoves, electrical interconnection will bring modern energy services to hundreds of millions who have limited or no access, including in this hemisphere.

Connecting the Americas 2022: The Decade for Electrical Interconnection
This hemisphere has made significant progress to integrate power sectors and promote cross-border trade in electricity with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), World Bank, Organization of American States (OAS), donors, and private companies. Connecting the Americas 2022 will serve as a framework for the Americas to reinforce regional and bi-national efforts to bring electricity to all parts of the hemisphere. Connecting the Americas 2022 is a platform for development and prosperity: it means education for children, cold chains for vaccines, reliable power for clinics and hospitals, and lower costs for business. Connecting the Americas 2022 will create a business climate that accelerates development of renewable energy and attracts private investment, big and small. Connecting the Americas 2022 will open markets that bring the best in power technology to markets that need low-cost and efficient solutions. Working through ECPA and other mechanisms, Connecting the Americas 2022 will tap the expertise, technology, and capital of individual countries, regulators, utilities, the private sector, and multilateral organizations and institutions.

U.S. Government Support for Connecting the Americas 2022
Ongoing and new technical assistance and capacity building programs through ECPA and other mechanisms include:
U.S. Department of State (State) grants to the Institute of the Americas to support policy dialogues among Central American energy ministers and regulators to overcome regulatory barriers to increasing intra-regional electricity trade. State will increase technical assistance to support the development of commercially sustainable regional power trade between Central America, Mexico, and Colombia.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) support for a completed feasibility study examining the potential for electrical interconnection between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which concluded that the interconnection is technically and economically possible.

State grant to the Organization of American States to determine the potential for electrical interconnection between Saint Kitts and Nevis and Puerto Rico. This grant also supports a policy dialogue with Caribbean Energy Ministers, the Caribbean Community, donor governments, and regional institutions to discuss the potential for electrical connection via sub-sea cables and renewable energy development.

State support for Smart Grid technology demonstration projects in Latin America.

Deepening the work of the U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Electricity Task Force to promote renewable energy markets between our two countries.

Enhancing cross-border trade in electricity through the U.S.-Canada Energy Consultative Mechanism.

Facilitating Smart Grid technology cooperation between DOE and Colombia through the U.S.-Colombia High Level Partnership Dialogue’s Energy Working Group.

New State-supported technical assistance to governments and utilities in Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis to develop their geothermal sectors and establish the commercial, regulatory, and legal frameworks needed to support inter-island sub-sea power connections.

New U.S. Trade and Development Agency Smart Grid Series that will host Mexican and Colombian regulatory and power utility company representatives in 2012 to familiarize them with the U.S. Smart Grid regulatory environment, technologies, and equipment, based on a successful Chilean program in 2011.

Creating commercial opportunities and expanding market access for U.S. investors and suppliers of power and communications systems and clean energy technology through trade missions and economic statecraft.

MODERN HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State New Haven, Connecticut
April 13, 2012
Later this year, we will mark the 150th anniversary of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, and as we remember the sad history of slavery in the United States and honor those who fought to end it, we must also recommit ourselves to delivering on the promise of freedom. Because around the world today, 27 million people are living in modern slavery, or what we call trafficking in persons.

That’s why this Administration has made the effort to combat modern slavery a top priority. Here at home, agencies across government are working together to prosecute traffickers, and to bring needed assistance to survivors. Around the world, we are working with governments to improve their response to this crime, and we are supporting anti-trafficking programs in 37 countries with foreign assistance. Our annualTrafficking in Persons Report is the most comprehensive assessment of what governments are doing to stop this crime, and I’m glad you’ve had the chance to hear from Lou de Baca about everything the State Department is doing to move this struggle forward.

Now, when I was a law student in these same classrooms and hallways, I had the opportunity to learn from brilliant scholars and legal minds, and to study cutting-edge ideas about civil rights and children’s issues. So it doesn’t surprise me that that Yale Law School is again leading the way as we develop new innovations and practices to help us fight this horrible crime.

I hope this conference has been an opportunity for all of you to share ideas and build partnerships that will strengthen our efforts to combat modern slavery. Thank you all for your tireless work to stop this crime.




U.S. OFFICIAL MAKES REMARKS ON EAST ASIA BEFORE TRIP

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks Before Departing for Japan, South Korea, India, and Singapore
Remarks Kurt M. Campbell
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Dulles Airport
Washington, DC
April 14, 2012
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: First of all, let me apologize for having you have to come out on a lovely Saturday like today. I’m leaving this morning for Japan, South Korea, India, and Singapore for regular consultations on a whole range of issues. In Japan, we will be talking about force posture issues. We will be discussing developments on Okinawa. We will be discussing regional dynamics and upcoming high-level diplomacy. In South Korea, we will review developments on the Peninsula and a variety of other efforts that the United States and South Korea are principally engaged in.

Part of the U.S. approach to the Asia-Pacific region is a deeper dialogue with India and encouraging India’s “Look East” strategy and so we will be talking about specific initiatives that we will be taking with Delhi to support that effort as part of our Asia-Pacific consultations with them. In Singapore, we will be talking about the upcoming ASEAN Regional Forum and various multilateral issues with respect to ASEAN and U.S.-Singapore bilateral relations.

Obviously a key issue of discussion during this trip will be recent developments with regard to North Korea. I think you will have seen through the President’s statement from the White House, the Susan Rice statement yesterday at the United Nations, the G8 statement and others a swift and sure response from the international community on the recent North Korea provocations. There is a very strong determination among international partners in the Asia-Pacific region to send a very clear message to discourage further provocations from North Korea. I’m very much looking forward to consulting closely with our partners and allies in the region about the way forward. I’m happy to take just a couple of questions before I go.

QUESTION: Is the Leap Day agreement completely annulled or is that something that you hope to work on?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I think Ben Rhodes explained clearly yesterday that it’s impossible to imagine under the current circumstances that we would move forward on that.

QUESTION: Japan seeks a resolution at the UN. Do you think the U.S. can work on that with Japan?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: First of all, Susan Rice is in charge of our diplomacy at the United Nations. We are in very close consultations both bilaterally and up in the UN in a multilateral dialogue with Japan on the way forward. I think Ambassador Rice really was very clear yesterday about where we stand in the diplomacy. I think the partnership with Japan on this issue has been very close. Yes, one last question.

QUESTION: Will you discuss additional steps, such as tougher sanctions, with your counterpart?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I think Ambassador Rice was clear at this juncture we’re not going to discuss specifics but we will be discussing with our partners in Asia on possible steps and areas of coordination that we will take going forward. Ok. Thank you all.


U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UN EXPLAINS VOTE ON RESOLUTION REGARDING SYRIAN GOVERNMENT


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, At the Adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2042
Susan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations New York, NY April 14, 2012
AS DELIVERED
After more than a year of brutal violence inflicted by the Government of Syria on its own people, after close to 10,000 deaths, after driving almost 45,000 Syrians out of their country and many more out of their homes, and after the grotesque destruction by Syria’s own armed forces of Syrian towns and neighborhoods, the Syrian government has claimed it is finally ready to step back from its murderous policies. Today, with this resolution, the Security Council has indicated it will judge the Syrian regime by its actions, not its words. The Council has authorized an advance group of monitors to verify the Syrian government’s compliance. In doing so, the Council has taken a step towards fulfilling its own responsibilities. And it’s about time.

On Thursday, the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Kofi Annan, reported that a "fragile calm appears to be prevailing" in Syria. We all hope it will continue to prevail. But we are under no illusions. Two days of diminished violence after a year of murderous rampage hardly proves that the regime is serious about honoring its commitments. Just today, Syrian forces resumed their brutal shelling of Homs, and shot innocent mourners at a funeral in Aleppo. This resumed violence casts serious doubts yet again on the regime’s commitment to a cessation of violence. Despite this aggression, the Syrian opposition has largely refrained from responding and has honorably sought to extend the fragile calm. The regime’s tanks, heavy weapons, and troops maintain their choke hold on population centers, ready to resume attacks at any time. Towns and large areas remain cut off, and the Asad regime maintains snipers and roadblocks throughout Syria. Reports continue to come in that protesters have been killed and arrested, and thousands of activists remain detained. The Syrian government must meet all of its commitments, not the bare minimum. And it must do so now.

The suffering of the Syrian people has gone on far too long. For many months they protested peacefully, only to be met with violent retribution from their own government. When some protesters finally dared to respond in self-defense, the retribution got immeasurably worse. The Arab League proposed a way forward to end the violence and meet the aspirations of the Syrian people. The regime of Bashar Asad responded with broken promises, only to be followed by intensified violence. In the final days before April 12th, we saw an outrageous escalation of violence by the Asad regime, including the stepped up use of heavy artillery on civilian areas and Syrian forces firing across borders into Turkey and Lebanon.

This horrific cycle has lasted way too long. The Syrian people must be allowed to exercise their rights and freedoms peacefully, without fear of attack, detention, torture, or death. We commend the opposition for the restraint it has shown in observing the ceasefire, after the brutality it has endured. And we demand that the Syrian government at last honor its commitments. Those commitments are plain to everyone. Both this Council and the League of Arab States have fully endorsed Mr. Annan's Six Point Plan. As Secretary Clinton noted, the plan is not a menu of options. It’s a comprehensive set of obligations that requires visible and verifiable actions by the Government of Syria.

The resolution just adopted reaffirms the Council’s support for all elements of the Envoy’s plan, including an immediate end to violence, securing humanitarian access, and a Syrian-led political transition that meets the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people. The resolution stresses that the Syrian government must immediately fulfil its remaining obligations to bring about a full cessation of violence. It emphasizes the necessity of the Syrian government immediately withdrawing all its troops and heavy weapons from population centers and returning its soldiers and their equipment to their barracks. It authorizes the Secretary-General to send an initial team of up to 30 observers to verify that the Syrian government is doing what it is obliged to do, including ensuring that the full monitoring mission can do its job, unimpeded, with full freedom of movement, full access to people and institutions, and unobstructed communications. The resolution also expresses the Council’s intention to establish a larger observer mission once the Secretary General presents a blueprint and if it is clear that the cease-fire is holding and the government is cooperating.

We see this advance team’s deployment as an important test of the Syrian government’s intentions. If the government obstructs their work, it will raise serious concerns about moving forward with the establishment of the full mission. We await the Secretary General's proposal for a full observation mission and express our willingness to work quickly with Council members to authorize such a mission, if indeed the Syrian government fulfils its commitments.

The United States expresses its appreciation again to Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan for his dedicated work to try to stop the violence, respect the rights of the Syrian people, and begin a transition towards a stable and legitimate governance. The opportunity is there; the burden is now on the Syrian government to seize it.


U.S. CONDEMNS MILITARY EFFORTS TO SEIZE POWER IN GUINEA-BISSAU


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Military Violence in Guinea-Bissau
Press Statement Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 14, 2012
We strongly condemn the attempt by certain elements of the military to forcibly seize power and undermine the legitimate civilian leadership of Guinea-Bissau. We regret that they have chosen to disrupt the democratic process, which already was challenged by the opposition’s call to boycott the second round of elections.

We urge all parties to put down their weapons, release government leaders immediately, and restore the legitimate civilian leadership.

We are deeply concerned about the safety of all those in Bissau, and call for maximum restraint on all sides. We will continue to work with our partners in the region and beyond as we monitor developments on the ground.

NEW PRESIDENT IN MALI SWORN-IN


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Interim President of Mali Sworn-in
Press Statement Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 12, 2012

The United States welcomes the April 12 inauguration of Diouncounda Traore as interim President of Mali to head a transition government tasked with organizing elections. We commend the leadership of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in working to restore civilian rule to Mali and its ongoing efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis in the north. We support these positive steps forward in the political transition process, and we urge all parties to facilitate the swift and complete restoration of civilian rule through free and fair elections.

We are deeply concerned about reports of human rights violations in the north. We strongly condemn all looting and violence, including violence against humanitarian and diplomatic missions and sexual and gender-based violence. The United States and the international community remind all parties of their obligations under international law, which holds combatants and their commanders to account for acts of conflict-related sexual violence and acts of aggression. We urge all armed groups to cease-fire, respect human rights, engage in dialogue with Mali’s civilian government, and allow assistance to reach populations in need unhindered.



EPA PROPOSES ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF SOME INFORMATION UNDER TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

FROM:  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Proposes Rule to Require Electronic Reporting for Chemical Information
WASHINGTON
— The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a proposed rule to require electronic reporting for certain information submitted to the agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).The action is an important milestone in the agency’s effort to increase transparency and public access to chemical information in order to help Americans protect their health and environment. Electronic reporting will increase the speed with which EPA can make information publicly available, increase accuracy, and provide the public with quick and easier access to chemical information.
“Administrator Lisa P. Jackson is committed to strengthening EPA's chemicals management program and increasing the public’s access to chemical information,” said Jim Jones, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “The agency is also committed to reducing reporting burdens and paper-based reporting in favor of electronic reporting. These measures will streamline the reporting process and reduce the administrative costs.”

Today’s proposed rule would require electronic reporting rather than paper-based reporting for various TSCA actions including submission of information relating to chemical testing, health and safety studies, and other information. When final, 
EPA will only accept data, reports, and other information submitted through EPA’s Central Data Exchange, a centralized portal that enables streamlined, electronic submission of data via the Internet. The agency will be soliciting comments on this proposed rule for 60 days.

Over the coming months, the agency will offer a number of opportunities for potential users to become familiar with the new requirements. These opportunities will include an initial webinar to introduce the web-based electronic reporting tool, follow-up webinars and testing of specific applications, and opportunities for submitters and others to provide feedback to the agency on their experiences using the tool before its release.
 

Navy News Service -Sailors install an overhead segment of a personnel transport module on a landing craft air cushion.

Navy News Service - Eye on the Fleet Current Collection

DOES IT RAIN FISH AND FROGS? MAYBE



FROM:  U.S. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS                        PHOTO:   U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Can it rain frogs, fish, and other objects?
There have been reports of raining frogs and fish dating back to ancient civilization. Of course, it doesn’t “rain” frogs or fish in the sense that it rains water - no one has ever seen frogs or fish vaporize into the air before a rainfall. However, strong winds, such as those in a tornado or hurricane, are powerful enough to lift animals, people, trees, and houses.  It is possible that they could suck up a school of fish or frogs and “rain” them elsewhere.

Many scientists believe tornadic waterspouts may be responsible for frog and fish rainfalls.  According to Complete Weather Resource (1997), “a tornadic waterspout is merely a tornado that forms over land and travels over the water.”  An especially strong kind of waterspout, they are not as strong as land based tornadoes, which can reach up to 310 miles per hour.  But tornadic waterspouts can reach 100 miles per hour, which can still be quite destructive.

A popular misconception is that waterspouts “rise out of the sea.” In reality, they begin in the air and descend toward the water’s surface. The first visible sign of a tornadic waterspout is usually a dark spot on the water’s surface, which is caused by a spinning column of low-pressure air stirring up the water from overhead.  As the spinning column of air, or vortex, gains momentum, the surrounding water is pulled into a spiral pattern of light and dark bands. Eventually a ring of spraying water, called the cascade,forms around the base.  The characteristic funnel extending from the sky toward the water’s surface becomes visible in the fourth stage of the waterspout’s development. At this point, it is considered a mature storm.

Like a tornado, a mature waterspout consists of a low-pressure central vortex surrounded by a rotating funnel of updrafts.  The vortex at the center of these storms is strong enough to “suck up” surrounding air, water, and small objects like a vacuum. These accumulated objects are deposited back to earth as “rain” when the waterspout loses its energy.  Most of the water seen in the funnel of a waterspout is actually condensate —moisture in the air resulting from the condensation of water vapor.

Professor Ernest Agee from Purdue University says, “I’ve seen small ponds literally emptied of their water by a passing tornado. So, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for frogs (or other living things) to ‘rain’ from the skies” (Chandler, 2004).  Most scientists agree that salt, stones, fish, or frogs can be pulled into a waterspout’s swirling updrafts and deposited once the waterspout hits land and loses its energy.

Although waterspouts are the most commonly offered explanation for animal rainfalls, some scientists, such as Doc Horsley from Southern Illinois University, theorize that any unusually powerful updraft could lift small organisms or organic material into the sky during a storm (Chandler, 2004). An updraft is a wind current caused by warm air from high pressure areas near the earth rising into cooler, low-pressure areas in the atmosphere. Because the cooling causes water in the air to condense, updrafts play an important role in cloud formation and storm development.  During thunderstorms, updrafts can reach speeds of more than 60 miles per hour— comparable to the winds of moderate-intensity waterspouts.

When it rained frogs in Kansas City in 1873, Scientific Americaconcluded that it must have been caused by a tornado or other land-based storm, since there were no swamps or other bodies of water in the vicinity (Cerveny, 2006).  Similarly, when it hailed frogs in Dubuque, Iowa on June 16, 1882, scientists speculated that small frogs were picked up by a powerful updraft and frozen into hail in the cold air above earth’s surface. Although no one has actually witnessed an updraft lifting frogs off the ground, the theory is scientifically plausible since updrafts regularly pick up lightweight debris and carry it considerable distances.

What is unusual in reports of animal rainfalls is the uniformity of the deposition.   When it rains frogs or fishes, witnesses reportonly fish or only frogs falling. According to William Hayden Smith of Washington University, this makes sense since objects of similar size and weight would naturally be deposited together. As winds lose their energy, the heavier objects fall first and smaller objects drop later.

                                                                     PHOTO:  NOAA 

Despite the numerous reports of raining animals, scientists still approach the area with skepticism. Many historical reports are provided by second or third-hand accounts, making their reliability questionable. Also, because of the popularity and mystery surrounding stories about raining animals, some people falsely report an animal rainfall after seeing large numbers of worms, frogs, or birds on the ground after a storm. However, these animals did not fall from the sky. Instead, storms fill in worm burrows, knock birds from trees and roofs, wash fish onto the shores of rivers and ponds, and drive frogs and other small animals from their habitats. People who live in suburban or urban environments tend to underestimate the number of organisms living around their homes. Therefore, they may suspect that animals came from the sky rather than their natural habitat.

Despite the cautious skepticism of the scientific community, a number of eyewitness reports strongly suggest rainfalls of frogs, fish, and other materials on occasion. For instance:

On October 23, 1947, A.D. Bajkov, a biologist with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife, was eating breakfast at a restaurant in Marksville, Louisiana when the waitress told him and his wife that fish were falling from the sky. “There were spots on Main Street, in the vicinity of the bank (a half block from the restaurant) averaging one fish per square yard. Automobiles and trucks were running over them. Fish also fell on the roofs of houses…I personally collected from Main Street and several yards on Monroe Street, a large jar of perfect specimens and preserved them in Formalin, in order to distribute them among various museums.”

On June 7, 2005, thousands of frogs rained on Odzaci, a small town in northwestern Serbia. Climatologist Slavisa Ignjatovic described the phenomenon as “not very unusual” because the strong winds that accompanied the storm could have easily picked up the frogs.

At the end of February, 2010, residents of Lajamanu, a small Australian town, saw hundreds of spangled perch fall from the sky. Christine Balmer was walking home when the rain/fish started to fall. “These fish fell in their hundreds and hundreds all over the place. The locals were running around everywhere to pick them up,” she reported.

EX-IMPORT BANK GIVES THUMBS-UP ON $80 MILLION SOLAR PROJECT LOAN IN INDIA


FROM:  U.S.  EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Ex-Im Bank Approves $80 Million in Export Financing for Solar Project in India
Ex-Im Bank Financing Supports U.S. Jobs in Eight States
WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Supporting U.S. jobs at companies in eight states, the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) approved an $80.32 million direct loan for the purchase of concentrated solar power technology by Reliance Power, Ltd. in Rajasthan, India. The project, “Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Private Limited,” is a subsidiary of Reliance Power and is being co-financed by the Asian Development Bank and FMO, the Dutch development bank.

While accompanying President Obama on his trip to India in November, 2010, Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg signed a $5 billion Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Anil Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Power. The MOU proposed the purchase of 900 megawatts of renewable energy generating equipment, in addition to the purchase of 8,000MWs of gas-fired technology from U.S. manufacturers and service providers over a period of five years. Since then, Ex-Im Bank has financed $760 million in three Reliance Power renewable energy transactions supporting 165 megawatts of solar and 2400MWs of gas.

U.S. companies potentially involved in the transaction include AREVA Solar Inc. (Mountain View, Calif.); E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (Wilmington, Del.); Clifford Chance Rogers Wells LLP (Washington, D.C.); 3M Company (St. Paul, Minn.); Sika Corp. (Lyndhurst, N.J.); CCI Corp. (Tulsa, Okla.); Certainteed Corp. (Valley Forge, Pa.); Huck International Inc. (Waco, Texas); and Weed Instrument Company Inc. (Round Rock, Texas).

"This transaction will give renewable energy U.S. exporters a larger footprint in India, and it will help them be competitive against the German and Chinese companies in this field," said Hochberg. “We are excited to be at the forefront of financing this innovative technology and meeting the demands in India for cutting-edge, American-made solar equipment.”

"The Ex-Im Bank loan is an important component in helping U.S. companies like AREVA Solar, and our subcontractors, compete for and execute solar energy projects in a competitive global market while creating American jobs and economic growth." said Bill Gallo, Chief Executive Officer, AREVA Solar.

“Reliance Power is proud to be a leader in India’s clean energy future. This is the second loan approval by Ex-Im in our renewable energy initiative,” stated Jayarama P. Chalasani, Chief Executive Officer of Reliance Power. “Our strategic tie-up with Ex-Im is unmatched in terms of its scope and size. This partnership plays an important role in meeting India's growing energy needs.” Chalasani discussed export potential for U.S. companies at the breakout session, “Exploring Opportunities in India,” today at the Ex-Im Bank 2012 Annual Conference.

The purchase will showcase a concentrated solar power technology known as compact linear Fresnel reflector (CLFR) from AREVA Solar Inc. CLFR technology boils water using a series of rotating flat mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto a central elevated system of tubes that contain water. The solar system produces superheated steam that is collected in a piping system and transported to a steam turbine to produce electricity. This project along with the Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project in Australia (44 MW under construction) are the first to use technology of this kind from AREVA Solar on a large commercial scale.  

Since fiscal year 2011, Ex-Im Bank has financed seven Indian solar power generating projects. With today’s transaction the Bank’s total authorizations for these projects is $256.7 million, supporting 205 megawatts, which would generate enough electricity to power about 250,000 homes in India. Ex-Im Bank is one of the largest financiers of renewable energy projects in India.

The demand for solar power in India is in part due to India's national solar initiative, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission. The initiative’s objective is to bring 20,000 megawatts of installed solar capacity into the nationwide grid by 2020. Seven percent of the energy installed capacity will be renewable energy in the country. Ex-Im Bank's support was needed due to a general lack of available long-term financing at commercially feasible terms for solar projects in India.

ABOUT EX-IM BANK
Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency that helps create and maintain U.S. jobs by filling gaps in private export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. In the past five years, Ex-Im Bank has earned for U.S. taxpayers nearly $1.9 billion above the cost of operations. The Bank provides a variety of financing mechanisms, including working capital guarantees, export-credit insurance and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and services.

Ex-Im Bank approved $32.7 billion in total authorizations in FY 2011 -- an all-time Ex-Im record. This total includes more than $6 billion directly supporting small-business export sales -- also an Ex-Im record. Ex-Im Bank's total authorizations are supporting an estimated $41 billion in U.S. export sales and approximately 290,000 American jobs in communities across the country.

FIRST LADY APPEARS ON 'COLBERT REPORT'


FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE



First Lady Lauds Military Families on 'Colbert Report'

American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 12, 2012 - The nation has been stepping up in "amazing ways" to support military families over the past year, First Lady Michelle Obama told the audience of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" last night.

From troops to veterans to family members, they're "the best our country has to offer," the first lady told host Stephen Colbert.
Obama appeared on the satirical late-night show to mark the one-year anniversary of the Joining Forces campaign, which aims to honor and support troops, veterans and military families.

Over the past year, Americans have hired more veterans, causing veteran unemployment to decrease at "some pretty significant rates," Obama said to resounding applause.
The nation also is opening doors to flexible employment for military spouses, the first lady said, noting employment is a "key issue" for military families, who move 10 times more often than the average American.

While the progress is encouraging, Obama said, "Until we get to zero, we still have a lot of work to do."

These employment opportunities are mutually beneficial. Veterans and spouses are able to help support their families, she said, and businesses gain highly trained and highly skilled workers who ultimately improve a company's "bottom line."
Noting government "can't do it all," the first lady issued a call to action to the nation. "Everyone has to step up in ways big and small," she said.
The nation owes military families a debt of gratitude, Obama said. She recalled meeting military families across the nation while on the campaign trail several years ago. Awed by their sacrifice, the first lady vowed to "be their voice and tell their stories" if she had the opportunity.
Military families often don't speak up about their challenges, and they don't complain. Rather, they've dealt with a decade of war with grace and courage, Obama said.
This strength also inspires those around them, Colbert said, noting veteran coworkers would help to boost office morale. People most likely would opt not to complain about minor work issues while in the presence of a war veteran.
Obama agreed. "It's hard to be a whiner around a veteran," she said. 

U.S. GIVES $482.05 MILLION TO UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
State Department Contributes an Additional $482.05 Million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DCApril 12, 2012 

The United States is pleased to announce a second contribution of $482.05 million toward the 2012 operations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The United States’ initial contribution of $125 million was announced on December 29, 2011 along with subsequent funding of $28.2 million toward emergency appeals this fiscal year for vulnerable populations from Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, and Mali. These contributions are funded through the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and help advance UNHCR initiatives worldwide.

Programmatically, U.S. funding will support refugee returns to countries such as Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo; local integration and resettlement; and protection and life-saving assistance. U.S. funding also supports the provision of water, shelter, food, healthcare, and education to refugees, internally displaced persons, and other persons under UNHCR’s care and protection in countries such as Iraq, Yemen, Nepal, Pakistan, Georgia, South Sudan, Chad, and Kenya.
Geographically, the contribution will support UNHCR’s Annual and Supplementary Program activities listed below:
Africa
$
218,425, 000
Asia and Pacific
$
61,800, 000
Europe
$
22,000,000
Middle East and North Africa
$
110,625,000
Syria Regional Response Plan
$
3,000,000
Western Hemisphere
$
15,525,000
Emergency Response activities
$
25,775,000
Global Operations
$
13,200,000
Headquarters
$
11,700,000
 

 
TOTAL
$
482,050,000
In 2011, the United States contributed more than $690 million to UNHCR through multiple tranches, a figure which included funding for on-going operations as well as special appeals for emergencies. We continue to salute the vital work of UNHCR, its many NGO partners, and refugee-hosting countries in providing protection to displaced populations around the world.

U.S. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT


FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending April 7, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 380,000, an increase of 13,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 367,000. The 4-week moving average was 368,500, an increase of 4,250 from the previous week's revised average of 364,250.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent for the week ending March 31, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.6 percent.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending March 31 was 3,251,000, a decrease of 98,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,349,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,334,250, a decrease of 35,750 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,370,000.


UNADJUSTED DATA
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 381,875 in the week ending April 7, an increase of 62,530 from the previous week. There were 448,029 initial claims in the comparable week in 2011.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.7 percent during the week ending March 31, a decrease of 0.2 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate of 2.9 percent. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,448,994, a decrease of 187,712 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 3.1 percent and the volume was 3,943,591.

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending March 24 was 6,952,876, a decrease of 97,833 from the previous week.

Extended benefits were available in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin during the week ending March 24.

Initial claims for UI benefits by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,157 in the week ending March 31, a decrease of 6 from the prior week. There were 2,274 initial claims by newly discharged veterans, a decrease of 147 from the preceding week.

There were 23,068 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending March 24, a decrease of 726 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 41,560, a decrease of 110 from the prior week.

States reported 2,794,553 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending March 24, a decrease of 20,555 from the prior week. There were 3,550,786 claimants in the comparable week in 2011. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending March 24 were in Alaska (5.8), Pennsylvania (4.3), Oregon (4.2), Montana (4.0),New Jersey (4.0), Puerto Rico (4.0), Rhode Island (4.0), California (3.9), Wisconsin (3.9), Connecticut (3.8), Idaho (3.8), and Illinois (3.8).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending March 31 were in Oregon (+2,079), Pennsylvania (+1,866), Illinois (+1,024), New Jersey (+725), and Alabama (+541), while the largest decreases were in Texas (-1,633), Florida (-1,556), New York (-1,216), Puerto Rico (-928), and Missouri (-754).







ARMED CONFLICT AND THE INTERNET DOMAIN


FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICES
Cyber Operations Give Leaders New Options, Official Says
By Cheryl Pellerin
WASHINGTON, April 12, 2012 - Senior Pentagon officials are working to determine how the centuries-old Law of Armed Conflict applies to potential conduct of operations in the newest military domain of the Internet, the deputy assistant secretary for cyber policy said yesterday.

"We're trying to think about cyber operations as a new form of policy tool that gives the president or the secretary of defense new options," Eric Rosenbach told American Forces Press Service.

"We're not actively looking to mount operations in cyberspace just to do it," he added. "We want to do it only when appropriate and when there's a good reason to do it and when we can do it in a way that allows us to [avoid using] kinetic tools."
Defense experts are helping update the rules of engagement for cyberspace, Rosenbach said, a job made tougher by a lack of agreement on definitions for even the most basic Internet-related language.

"It is a challenge to have different organizations and different individuals understand [the term] 'cyber' in the same way," the deputy assistant secretary said.

"Even within the Department of Defense and around the world, it's not clear to a lot of people what [cyber] means," he said. "From there it only gets more complicated."
At the Pentagon, where no clear definition has yet been determined, Rosenbach said, cyber tends to mean anything that involves a network.

"If it's on a network or connected to a network, there's some cyber aspect to it. It doesn't necessarily have to be connected to the Internet," he said.

In the policy world, he added, the most complex aspect of defining terms arises with words used to describe offensive and defensive cyber operations.

Until last November, Rosenbach said, defense officials didn't publicly discuss offensive cyber operations -- a sensitive topic in an organization that declines to speak openly about ongoing military operations.

The Senate Armed Services Committee last year asked department officials to answer 13 questions about its cyber policy, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. "One of the things that was clarified is that we do have the capability to conduct offensive cyber operations" if ordered to do so by the president of the United States, Rosenbach said.
"The dynamic and sensitive nature of cyberspace operations makes it difficult to declassify specific capabilities," DOD officials wrote.

"However," they added, "the department has the capability to conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our nation, allies and interests."

Thinking through the Law of Armed Conflict and what an armed attack and [other terms] mean is important to the DOD effort to update the rules of engagement, Rosenbach said.
The same cyber-language barrier also impedes international collaborations and agreements that potentially could help fight back against the steady rush of cyber intrusions that target organizations, firms and nations.

"We definitely spend a lot of time thinking about international engagements and international agreements," he said.
At DOD, the work begins with the closest allies and partners, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
"But I've also had very interesting and productive engagements with the French and the Germans, and it's not limited to European, western-type powers or even NATO," the deputy assistant secretary said.

"A couple of times ... in an unofficial capacity we have spoken with the Chinese, both in Beijing and in Washington, and really tried to engage," he added.

"One of the things we would like to do more is engage with the Chinese," Rosenbach said, " ... so we don't risk an accidental escalation of tension in cyberspace, [where] there is a lot of room for misunderstanding."

In the meantime, as the fight against crime and espionage on the Internet intensifies, Rosenbach said catastrophic cyber attacks are not the only serious threat.
"It's the kind of day-to-day onslaught, the death by 1,000 cuts, that we do see every day, and that's mostly in the economic environment, that really hurts the United States," he said.

"It's like a slow bleed of the country -- $10 million stolen from a firm here by organized crime, important intellectual property stolen from another major U.S. firm there," he said.
"Every day," he added, "it's the relentless theft or noise that makes it more difficult for the economy to grow and flourish that eventually bleeds the country and makes us less competitive in the world."

Against this threat, the Defense Department works with like-minded nations around the world and here at home with companies that form the critical defense industrial base, he said.

Overall, Rosenbach said, the DOD is doing very well defending DOD networks and is sensitive about protecting people's Fourth Amendment rights -- against unreasonable searches and seizures -- and respecting privacy.

"Because it's a new domain and people in the department and senior military officers tend to use a military-type language when talking about [the cyber domain], it often looks like we're more aggressive in cyberspace than we, in fact, are," Rosenbach said.
" ... We don't want to establish unhelpful norms [and] we don't want to use force in cyberspace unless we absolutely have to," he added. "So we're working to protect the nation but in a way that's not overly aggressive and [doesn't do] anything that Americans wouldn't be proud of."

TITANIUM AND THE U.S. NAVY


FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ARMED WITH SCIENCE
Written on APRIL 12, 2012 AT 7:14 AM by JTOZER
The Strength of Titanium For The Navy
From the Office of Naval Research

Steel may have met its match.
An Office of Naval Research (ONR)-funded project will produce a full-size ship hull section made entirely with marine grade titanium using a welding innovation that could help bring titanium into future Navy ship construction.

The contractor team building this section recently completed the industry’s longest friction-stir titanium alloy welds and aims to complete the ship hull section this summer. Friction stir welds more than 17 feet long joined the titanium alloy plates for the section’s deck.

“This fast, effective friction stir weld technique is now an affordable manufacturing process that takes advantage of titanium’s properties,” said Kelly Cooper, the program officer managing the project for ONR’s Sea Warfare and Weapons Department.
What it means for the Navy

Titanium metal and its alloys are desirable materials for ship hulls and other structures because of their high strength, light weight and corrosion-resistance. If constructed in titanium, Navy ships would have lighter weight for the same size—allowing for a bigger payload—and virtually no corrosion. But because titanium costs up to nine times more than steel and is technically difficult and expensive to manufacture into marine vessel hulls, it has been avoided by the shipbuilding industry.
But perhaps not for much longer.

Researchers at the University of New Orleans School of Naval Architecture and Textron Marine and Land Systems are demonstrating the feasibility of manufacturing titanium ship hull structures. Using lower cost marine grades of titanium, they fabricated a 20-foot-long main deck panel—composed of six titanium plates, joined together by friction stir welding—as part of technology studies for an experimental naval vessel called Transformable Craft, or T-Craft.




DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL SPEAKS ABOUT HUMAN TRAFFICKING


FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole Speaks at the Yale Law School Human Trafficking Symposium New Haven, Conn. ~ Thursday, April 12, 2012
Thank you, David [Fein], for that introduction.   Thank you Yale Law School, the Trade of Innocents team, the United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for organizing this important symposium.

I am honored to join with so many esteemed colleagues gathered here to talk about what more we can all do in the global fight against human trafficking.   The groups represented in this room have all been critical partners in trying to eradicate this scourge at home and abroad.

At the Department of Justice we have a number of components deeply involved in our effort to combat human trafficking.   These include the United States Attorney’s Offices, the Civil Rights Division’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and the FBI.   And the Office of Justice Programs funds task forces across the country. But even with all of those Department participants, we cannot win this fight alone.

That is why I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the vital importance of partnerships in the Department’s effort to combat human trafficking. Law enforcement agencies; federal, state, local, and international authorities; and non-governmental organizations such as the Polaris Project and the International Justice Mission all have key roles to play in advancing this critical mission.

It seems almost unfathomable that today in the 21st Century, we still live in a world where human trafficking persists.

And yet it exists and is often hiding in plain and painful sight. It’s the young woman who comes to America for the promise of a new life but finds herself enslaved and sold for sex.   Or the child who grew up here in America but ran away from home only to find herself the victim of her desperate acceptance of help from the wrong person.   Or the migrant worker who is deprived of identification, transportation, and access to money in order to ensure his total dependence on his employer.

The Department of Justice is resolutely committed to preventing and combating human trafficking in all its forms. For Attorney General Holder and I, this is a deeply held conviction. Earlier this month, I had the privilege of speaking about this modern day form of slavery at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.   Later this month, the Attorney General will be delivering an important speech on human trafficking at the Clinton Presidential Library.

Yet the Department’s commitment extends beyond mere words by its leadership and transcend into real action on the ground – action that has saved lives, delivered on the promise of freedom, and restored dignity to women, children and men held in bondage.

Last year, the Department set a new record in the number of defendants charged in human trafficking cases in a single year.   And over the last three years, there has been a 30-percent increase in the number of forced labor and adult sex trafficking cases charged.

Here in Connecticut, you have served as leaders in fighting human trafficking.   In 2008, Dennis Paris was sentenced to 30 years in prison, and ten other co-defendants were convicted in connection with a Hartford-based sex trafficking ring that targeted young, vulnerable women and girls.   And just last year, Jarell Sanderson was sentenced right here in New Haven to over 25 years in prison for the sex trafficking of a 14-year-old victim.

Now, there’s always a bit of a good news/bad news aspect to higher numbers of prosecutions because they reflect not only the good—an effective enforcement effort--but also the bad—the reality that these cases are there to be prosecuted.  

Yet it also reminds us that an absolutely essential element in bringing these prosecutions in the first instance has been a broad array of partnerships. These partnerships have proven to be force multipliers and yielded concrete results.  

Take the tragic and shocking case out of Virginia where an MS-13 gang member preyed on a 12-year-old girl.   He forced her into prostitution, seven days a week, using illegal drugs to keep her compliant.   The defendant and his fellow gang members aggressively marketed her for prostitution at apartments, hotels, and businesses.

Law enforcement agencies in partnership with victim advocates working through the Northern Virginia Human Trafficking Task Force, we're able to discover this crime, stop it, and last October—two years from the very day that the victim was first ensnared—her trafficker was sentenced to life in prison.

The Department also partners with federal authorities to combat human trafficking.

Last February, the Justice Department launched a Human Trafficking Enhanced Enforcement Initiative to take our counter-trafficking enforcement efforts to a new level.

As a part of this effort, Attorney General Holder, along with the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, announced the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team – or “ACTeam” – Initiative. This Initiative is an interagency collaboration among the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Labor aimed at streamlining federal criminal investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking offenses.

Following a rigorous interagency selection process, we launched six Pilot ACTeams around the country.   Today, these teams are fully operational and are developing high-impact human trafficking investigations and prosecutions.

As we continue to increase coordination at the federal level, we are also partnering with state and local law enforcement authorities and the National Association of Attorneys General on its Human Trafficking Initiative.

We are providing grant funding through an Enhanced Collaborative Model to state and local law enforcement partners – and to victim service organizations – pairing proactive law enforcement efforts to stop traffickers, with programs to help victims heal and rebuild their lives.

Also we are hosting regional training forums, delivering training and technical assistance to the broader anti-trafficking community, and developing training curricula for state prosecutors and judges.

Yet even as we leverage these domestic partnerships, we recognize, as the title of this symposium notes, that a global perspective on trafficking is needed. Pursuing justice within our borders is simply not enough.   That is why we are also taking steps to forge partnerships across borders.

One concrete example of this can be seen in Southeast Asia. During my visit to the Philippines last November, I had the honor of addressing the graduates of a course on Human Trafficking at the Philippine National Police Headquarters. The course was conducted by American and Philippine police instructors through DOJ’s International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP). Graduates of this course are now key partners on the front lines of the fight against human trafficking.

Closer to home, we are working with Mexican law enforcement authorities to dismantle sex trafficking networks operating on both sides of the   border. Our joint actions have brought freedom to victims, and secured landmark convictions and substantial sentences against the traffickers in a number of high-impact bilateral cases.

And we continue to work with our friends at the State Department to engage a wider number of international partners on this issue, and to ensure that they, too, are pursuing aggressive enforcement efforts against traffickers and have the tools to do so.   I am glad to see Ambassador CdeBaca will be speaking later in the afternoon to share the State Department’s perspective.

And so, in surveying these partnerships, while we can all be encouraged by our recent achievements in the fight against human trafficking, we have far more to do.


We must proceed with the humility of knowing that lives have been irreparably harmed and that justice alone can only bring a quantum of solace. It simply cannot undo the harm.

That is why, above and beyond all else, our various partnerships must focus on prevention. Prevention through prosecution of trafficking rings before they can ensnare other victims. Prevention through deterrence so that our prosecutions dissuade others who may follow suit.  Prevention through public awareness as films like Trade of Innocents importantly seek to generate. And, lastly, prevention through the education of potential victims who driven by fear, poverty, or lack of education often unwittingly place their lives in the hands of exploitative traffickers.

The efforts we all make in this area are of critical importance.   They are of critical importance to the victims, to their families and friends, and, frankly, to the fabric of our entire nation.    These are truly among the most vulnerable members of our communities and are in desperate need of our help.

I want to thank all of you for the efforts you have made and that you will continue to make to fight for justice on behalf of victims of human trafficking.   Without you they have little hope.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of my thoughts with you on this vital subject.

PROSECUTOR REFORMED GUANTANAMO TRIALS ENSURE JUSTICE


FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE



Prosecutor Says Reformed Guantanamo Trials Ensure Justice

By Jim Garamone
FORT MEADE, Md., April 12, 2012 - The chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba took exception with defense lawyers' characterizations of proceedings on the base as being done without the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins told a small news conference at the base that the reformed military commissions provide the protections of the U.S. Constitution and will follow the procedures of U.S. federal courts and military courts martials.

"All officials in the federal government have an obligation within their areas of responsibility to help fulfill these requirements, which are among the fundamental guarantees of fairness and justice demanded by our values," Martins said.

Martins spoke at the conclusion of a hearing on motions made for the trial of alleged Cole bombing mastermind Abd al-Rahim Hussein Mohammed Abdu al-Nashiri. The bombing killed 17 U.S. sailors and wounded 39 in Aden, Yemen in October 2000. Al-Nashiri is charged with capital crimes and could be put to death if found guilty. This tinges every decision the commission makes.

Defense motions questioned the prosecution on constitutional grounds, including that the charges violate the equal protection clause, that it was charging him under an ex post facto law, and that it was a bill of attainder. Trial judge Army Col. James Pohl denied all. He further denied a request for all documents given to the defense team be translated into Arabic. There are more than 70,000 pages to date.

The judge granted more time for the defense to present him with a theory of the case, their request for a Yemeni investigator, letters asking for Yemeni evidence and a motion asking for the amount of money and resources the government has expended on this prosecution.

Martins said the scene in the Guantanamo Bay courtroom proved the adversarial nature of American jurisprudence was alive and healthy in the reformed military commissions program.

"Contrary to dark suggestions of some whose minds appear already made up to oppose military commissions regardless of how they are conducted, these protections are implemented by officers, I submit, are worthy of the public trust," Martins said.

In the news conference, Martins listed the rights Al-Nashiri has. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. He has the right to present evidence, the right to cross-examine witnesses and compel the appearance of witnesses in his defense. The U.S. government has provided more than $100,000 to fund defense requests, which include a full time investigator, a translator and four lawyers – two military and two civilian.

The al-Nashiri prosecution is complicated, the general said. It is further complicated because the crime was 12 years ago, and in another country. Federal trials have stretched years in similar situations, he said.
"Those who state or imply that what you are seeing here would not happen in the federal systems are simply wrong," the general said.

The trials at Guantanamo, while few, are important to the United States and to justice, and are worth every penny invested in them, he said.

"Not only must we continue to pursue the truth for the victims of these bombings, but we must also pursue it because that is what justice requires," he said. "A civilized and open society facing very real and modern security threats can demand no less."

REMARKS OF HANNAH ROSENTHAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-SEMITISM


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks on Human Rights and Anti-Semitism
Remarks Hannah Rosenthal
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Human Rights Week at Madison East High School
Madison, Wisconsin
February 20, 2012
Hello, my name is Hannah Rosenthal, and I am the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the U.S. Department of State. Thank you for inviting me here today to participate in your human rights week. I am thrilled to return to Madison where I raised my children and speak to you, aspiring young leaders and future activists, about what it means to respect and promote human rights.
As the Special Envoy, I am charged with monitoring anti-Semitic incidents and combating such intolerance. But the truth is, I am in the relationship building business. I am here today because one need not be my age or have my title to do what I do. We must all share and strive for the same mission: to combat hate and intolerance to create a more peaceful and just world.

In order to fight hatred, we must begin with respecting the dignity of every individual, regardless of his or her beliefs. In fact, our differences make us human. You may have heard about the concept of the “other.” There are individuals in this world who would like us to view some people as outside the larger human family. These individuals define themselves against what they are not, and in turn target this other, this stranger.
The desire to stamp out or subjugate or ostracize certain individuals because of how they are, how they worship, or who they love stands as an obstacle for all members of society. Intolerance prevents us from achieving a just and peaceful society. And while the burden of intolerance is borne most severely by the victims, and their perpetrators are first and foremost to blame, we as society must not stand by idly. As passive bystanders we also pay a price.

So we must stand against this false sense of identity that differentiates and subjugates some individuals below others. We must expand the circle of rights and opportunities to all people – advancing their freedoms and possibilities.
Intolerance is a moral, a political, and a social ill. But it is also a solvable one. It is not unchangeable. We can, in fact, make hatred and intolerance something of the past. But this demands our attention. It’s not easy work, but it is urgent work.
This week at Madison East High School we observe Human Rights Week. At the State Department, though, every week is Human Rights Week.

At the State Department I work within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The Bureau was established in 1976 just a few months before Jimmy Carter became president. While in the White House, President Carter helped bring human rights to the forefront of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, and we strive to do the same with all countries to this day.

The primary and overarching goal of the Bureau is to promote freedom and democracy and protect human rights around the world. We seek to achieve this through several different means. For example, some days I meet with Ambassadors from different countries to discuss pressing human rights concerns. This is called bilateral diplomacy. On other days I participate in meetings with officials from international organizations or speak at conferences held by international organizations like the United Nations. Just a few weeks ago, I was in Paris to discuss the importance of Holocaust education at a conference sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This is called multilateral engagement. And every day I am constantly monitoring the news and reporting on incidents, while at the same time reaching out to the public. Public outreach is especially important because we know we cannot do this alone.
In the Bureau, we have what we call functional offices to promote freedom religion, Internet freedom, worker’s rights, disability rights and to combat anti-Semitism. We also have geographical offices that promote human rights throughout every region of the world. These offices follow human rights developments from Europe to the Middle East, from Latin America to Asia to Africa.

There is, however, so much more that we must do. We are constantly strengthening our policies and pushing ourselves and others to break down former walls of intolerance. Over the past three years, Secretary of State Clinton has made LGBT rights a priority of our human rights policy. As Secretary Clinton emphatically stated, “Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.”

At the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor we are inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, when the Nazis targeted and killed six million Jews, many nations pressed for a statement to help prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.

At three o’clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them. The rights enshrined in this document do not apply to a select few, but to all of humanity.

Anti-Semitism attacks the very idea that every individual is born free and equal in dignity and rights. But Jews, Christians, Muslims and all religious communities are all part of the same family we call humanity. As a child of a Holocaust survivor, anti-Semitism is something very personal to me. My father was arrested – on Kristallnacht, the unofficial pogrom that many think started the Holocaust – and sent with many of his congregants to prison and then to Buchenwald. He was the lucky one – every other person in his family perished at Auschwitz. I have dedicated my life to eradicating anti-Semitism and intolerance with a sense of urgency and passion that only my father could give me.
Over the past two years, I have been tracking anti-Semitism around the world, and have witnessed its alarming presence and growth.

First of all, anti-Semitism is not History, it is News. I run into people who think anti-Semitism ended when Hitler killed himself. More than six decades after the end of the Second World War, anti-Semitism is still alive and well, and evolving into new, contemporary forms of religious hatred, racism, and political, social and cultural bigotry.

This stems from the fact that traditional forms of anti-Semitism are passed from one generation to the next, updated to reflect current events. We are all familiar with ongoing hostile acts such as the defacing of property and the desecration of cemeteries with anti-Semitic graffiti. There are still accusations of blood libel, which are morphing from the centuries-old accusations by the Church that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood for rituals, to accusations that Jews kidnap children to steal their organs. Conspiracy theories continue to flourish, such as supposed Jewish control of the U.S. media and the world banking system, or that Jews were involved in executing the September 11 attacks. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” continue to be best sellers in many, many countries, and taught to religious students as truth. The ‘old fashioned’ anti-Semitism is alive and well.

A second phenomenon is Holocaust denial. It is being espoused by religious leaders, heads of State, such as in Iran, in academic institutions, and is a standard on hateful websites and other media outlets. As the generation of Holocaust survivors and death camp liberators reaches their eighties and nineties, the window is closing on those able to provide eyewitness accounts and thus we have a heightened sense of urgency to promote Holocaust education, create museums and memorials, and carry the memory and lessons of the Holocaust forward.

A third, disturbing trend is Holocaust glorification, which can be seen in parades honoring soldiers who fought in the Waffen SS, which glorifies Nazism under the guise of fighting the Soviets and obscures their roles in the Holocaust. Following a March 2011 commemoration in Latvia, a notorious neo-Nazi made blatantly anti-Semitic statements, including incitements to violence against Jews, on a television talk show. The growth of neo-Nazi groups is of special concern in Europe, and Holocaust glorification is especially virulent in Middle Eastern media – some that is state-owned and operated, which calls for a new Holocaust to finish the job. Truly bone-chilling.

A fourth concern is Holocaust relativism – where some governments, museums, academic research and the like are conflating the Holocaust with other terrible events that entailed great human suffering, like the Dirty War or the Soviet regime. No one, least of all myself, wants to weigh atrocities against each other, but to group these horrific chapters of history together is not only historically inaccurate, but also misses opportunities to learn important lessons from each of these historic events, even as we reflect on universal truths about the need to defend human rights and combat hatred in all of its forms. History must be precise – it must instruct, it must warn, and it must inspire us to learn the particular and universal values as we prepare to mend this fractured world.

The fifth trend is the increasing tendency of blurring the lines between opposition to the policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism. What I hear from our diplomatic missions, and from non-governmental organizations alike, is that this happens easily and often. I want to be clear – criticism of policies of the State of Israel is not anti-Semitism. But we record huge increases in anti-Semitism whenever there are hostilities in the Middle East. This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many to identify. But if all Jews are held responsible for the decisions of the sovereign State of Israel, when governments like Venezuela call upon and intimidate their Jewish communities to condemn Israeli actions – this is not objecting to a policy – this is anti-Semitism. When individual Jews are effectively banned or their conferences boycotted, or are held responsible for Israeli policy – this is not objecting to a policy – this is anti-Semitism.

Natan Sharansky identified three ways that he believes crosses the line: It is anti-Semitic when Israel is demonized, held to different standards or delegitimized. The U.S. is often the only “no” vote in international bodies where countries seem to have an obsession with singling out Israel for disproportionate condemnation.

The sixth trend is the growing nationalistic movements which target ‘the other’ – be they immigrants, or religious and ethnic minorities -- in the name of protecting the identity and ‘purity’ of their nation. When this fear or hatred of the ‘other’ occurs or when people try to find a scapegoat for the instability around them, it is never good for the Jews, or for that matter, other traditionally discriminated against minorities. The history of Europe, with Russian pogroms, Nazism, and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans provides sufficient evidence. And when government officials talk about protecting a country’s purity, we’ve seen that movie before.

These trends run counter to the principles outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we must continue to strive to attain them. There is still much work to be done.
Our human rights agenda for the 21st century is to make human rights a human reality. As the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, I have recognized that this won’t be possible without the help of you, our youth and future leaders.

Last year my colleague Farah Pandith, the Special Representative to Muslims Communities, and I launched a virtual campaign called “2011 Hours Against Hate,” using Facebook. Perhaps you have heard of it? We are asking you, young people around the world, to pledge a number of hours to volunteer to help or serve a population different than their own. We ask that you work with people who may look different, or pray differently or live differently. For example, a young Jew might volunteer time to read books at a Muslim pre-school, or a Russian Orthodox at a Jewish clinic, or a Muslim at a Baha’i food pantry. We encourage you to walk a mile in another person’s shoes.

Farah and I have met with hundreds of young people around the world – students and young professionals – in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Spain – countries that in their histories celebrated Jews and Muslims co-existing and thriving together. They want to DO something. And I have a feeling that YOU want to DO something too. They expressed strong interest in the campaign – and we have already surpassed our goal of 2011 hours pledged against hate. More recently, Farah and I met with youth and interfaith leaders in Saudi, Jordan and Lebanon, discussing reaching out to others and increasing tolerance and understanding among different religious groups. Really, we have just begun.

So while I fight anti-Semitism, I am also aware that hate is hate. Nothing justifies it – not economic instability, not international events, not an isolated pastor burning a Koran.

When history records this chapter I hope it will reflect our efforts to build a peaceful, fair, just, free world where people defend universal human rights and dignity. This is not a vision to be dismissed as naïve idealism – it is a real goal that should never be far from our thoughts.

Since the beginning of humankind, hate has been around, but since then too, good people of all faiths and backgrounds have striven to combat it. The Jewish tradition tells us that “you are not required to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.”

Together, we must confront and combat the many forms of hatred in our world today. Where there is hatred born of ignorance, we must teach and inspire. Where there is hatred born of blindness, we must expose people to a larger world of ideas and reach out, especially to youth, so they can see beyond their immediate circumstances. Where there is hatred whipped up by irresponsible leaders, we must call them out and answer as strongly as we can – and make their message totally unacceptable to all people of conscience.



MILLIONS OF NURSES TO BE TRAINED FOR PTSD AND TBI HEALTH CARE


FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Three Million Nurses to Receive PTSD, TBI Training
 April 11, 2012 by Alex Horton
One of the challenges of diagnosing and treating complex injuries like post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury is the sheer amount of qualified medical personnel who can recognize the often subtle signs of trauma.Joining Forces (which celebrated its one year anniversary today) is looking to solve part of that issue by training a corps of nurses in the coming years.

Over three million nurses will be trained on how to recognize and respond to PTSD and TBI, which will immediately impact the care of Veterans.
From Stars & Stripes:

Amy Garcia, chief nursing officer of the American Nurses Association, said the new initiative should have a more immediate impact on veterans care, because officials can introduce the lessons into professional development courses, medical journals and other nursing resources in a matter of weeks, not years.

“Our goal is to raise awareness of these issues, teach nurses to recognize the signs and symptoms, and help reduce the stigma of seeking care,” she said.

VA nurses are well trained in identifying PTSD and TBI, so this will mostly impact private care facilities that haven’t trained in these areas. But if a nurse at a private hospital comes to work at VA, it’ll be a big boost to have prior knowledge of two of the most pressing medical issues we work to address.

SEC OFFICIAL SAYS DEFRAUDED INVESTORS "DESERVE THEIR DAY IN COURT"

FROM:  SEC
Statement by Commissioner:
Defrauded Investors Deserve Their Day in Court
Dissenting Statement Regarding the Study on the Cross-Border Scope of the Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as required by Section 929Y of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
by
Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.
April 11, 2012
Today the Commission has authorized that a Study expressing the views of the Staff be sent to Congress. However, my conscience compels me to write separately to record my views on the Study. I write to convey my strong disappointment that the Study fails to satisfactorily answer the Congressional request, contains no specific recommendations, and does not portray a complete picture of the immense and irreparable investor harm that has resulted, and will continue to result, due to Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd.1
In the United States we have a strong belief that, whether rich or poor, we are all entitled to our day in court. Sadly, for many American investors this is no longer true.
If American investors are defrauded by a company that they have invested in – and that company is listed on a foreign exchange – investors may be unable to have their day in court and seek redress against this company for its lies and misrepresentations. Thus, investors have been stripped of a traditional American right.
This was not always the case. For decades, federal courts applied the same standard to determine whether U.S. federal securities law applied to frauds that took place, in whole or in part, outside of the United States. Under that standard, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and other antifraud provisions applied “when there was ‘significant U.S. fraudulent conduct that directly caused the plaintiffs losses’ (the conduct test) or when there were ‘significant effects’ on the U.S. securities markets (the effects test).” 2
Under the conduct test, an investor could bring a Section 10(b) claim if a sufficient level of conduct comprising the fraud occurred in the United States, even if the victims or the purchases and sales were overseas. 3
Under the effects test, an investor could bring a Section 10(b) claim in a transnational securities fraud when the conduct occurring in foreign countries caused foreseeable and substantial harm to U.S. interests. 4
As a result of the conduct and effects test, if an American investor was lied to or defrauded in a securities transaction, that investor had the ability to have his or her day in court and seek legal recourse, even if the securities transaction was overseas.
However, this dramatically changed when, in Morrison, the Supreme Court severely restricted the extraterritorial scope of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. After Morrison,investors are restricted to bringing Section 10(b) claims related to frauds in connection with the “purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, and the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States.”5 As a result of Morrison, investors have been stripped of the ability to seek redress against those who have harmed them in a transnational securities fraud.
The United States Congress, realizing the danger, immediately responded to mitigate the Supreme Court’s decision. The first step was to fully restore the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to bring enforcement actions6 under Section 10(b) in cases involving transnational securities fraud pursuant to the pre-Morrison tests of conduct and effect.7 The second step was to request that the Commission conduct a Study on the Extraterritorial Scope of the Private Rights of Action under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (“Study”).8
Section 929Y of Title IX of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) requires that the Commission’s Study provide recommendations to Congress on whether private rights of action under the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act should be extended to cover:
Conduct within the United States that constitutes a significant step in the furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors; and

Conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.9
The Study falls far short of providing Congress with an informed recommendation and falls far short in fulfilling the Commission’s mission to protect investors. I am particularly astonished that the Study states (at pages 58-59) that an option “would be for Congress to take no action” and, thus, would continue to deny American investors who have been harmed by fraud the ability to seek redress in court.
The evidence post-Morrison is stark and compelling. All of the predictions of the harm that the Morrison decision would inflict on investors have come to pass.10 It is clear thatMorrison has deprived investors of their private rights of action under the Exchange Act with respect to a wide range of potentially fraudulent conduct that the United States has a compelling interest to regulate.
The answer to the Congressional query about whether to re-establish extraterritorial private rights of action under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act through the application of the pre-Morrison tests of conduct and effect is an unequivocal yes.
The Study is incomplete in many ways, but I will just highlight the following:
It Fails to Adequately Explain how Private Rights of Action are a Vital Complement to SEC Actions and Essential to Investor Protection;

It Overstates the International Comity Concerns Associated with Restoring Investors’ Rights to Assert Private Claims Under Section 10(b);

It Does Not Accurately Portray Investor Harm Resulting from Morrison and Fails to Convey a Sense of Urgency as to the Harm Being Suffered; and

It Provides as an Option That Congress Take No Action at All Despite the Continuing Harm to Investors.
The Study should have recommended that Congress enact for private litigants a standard that is identical to the standard set forth in Section 929P of the Dodd-Frank Act – the standard for SEC and DOJ actions. The harm that has resulted and continues to result to investors is significant, and Congress should act to rectify this with haste.
A Private Right of Action Is a Vital Complement to an SEC Action and Essential For Investor Protection
The Study did not substantially address the importance of private rights of action as an essential tool for investor protection. The primary purpose of the Exchange Act is to “protect investors.”11 Given the explicit mandate provided in the Dodd-Frank Act to apply the U.S. securities laws to transnational frauds with strong connections to the United States,12 the purpose of the Exchange Act and the Commission’s core mission to protect investors, it is clear that investors must have private rights of action co-extensive with the Commission’s under Section 10(b). It is unrealistic to expect that the Commission will have the resources to police all securities frauds on its own, and as a result, it is essential that investors be given private rights of action to complement and complete the Commission’s efforts.
Congress has long recognized the importance of a private action. In the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Congress reaffirmed that “[p]rivate securities litigation is an indispensable tool with which defrauded investors can recover their losses without having to rely upon government action. Such private lawsuits promote public and global confidence in our capital markets and help deter wrongdoing and to guarantee that corporate officers, auditors, directors, lawyers, and others properly perform their jobs.”13
The Supreme Court itself also “has long recognized that meritorious private actions to enforce federal antifraud securities laws are an essential supplement to criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions brought, respectively, by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.”14 The Supreme Court has stated that this is especially true when it comes to actions under Section 10(b): “a private right of action under Section 10(b) of the [Exchange] Act and Rule 10b-5 has been consistently recognized for more than 35 years.”15
Private litigation has historically played a complementary role to government enforcement in the Section 10(b) context, and to preclude private litigation, even where government actions are theoretically available, would lead to a material deficiency in the enforcement of Section 10(b). If one aspect of Section 10(b) enforcement (the protection of U.S. investors in connection with their non-U.S. securities transactions) is reserved solely to the SEC and DOJ, and private actions remain limited, a serious gap in the securities law framework is created. This gap strips investors of the right to seek accountability and redress directly when they have been harmed.
The Study fails to adequately address the negative effects of the SEC’s limited resources on investor protection in transnational securities fraud matters. By contrast, our senior management has publicly spoken about SEC actions being detrimentally impacted by budget constraints.16 The truth of the matter is that the SEC, does not, and will not, ever have enough resources to investigate all of the fraud cases that exist. The SEC will never be able to seek justice in all of the potential transnational securities fraud matters. Thus, the SEC will not be able to seek redress for all investors who are harmed by those who violate the securities laws. Knowing this, we should support providing investors with the ability to protect themselves.
In fact, even if the SEC exercises its discretion to bring a case, rarely are investors made whole. Quite often, investors receive only pennies on the dollars for their losses.17Moreover, issuers, aware of the SEC’s inability to pursue all fraud, will not be incentivized to obey the law when they know that investors are barred from seeking accountability for wrongdoing.
Private litigation provides investors the opportunity to seek redress against those who harmed them.18 In light of the limited resources available to the SEC, private enforcement of the federal securities laws is a necessary tool to combat securities fraud. The currentMorrison prohibition of private litigation where government actions are permitted is resulting in harm to investors now.19
Historically, the Commission has consistently advocated private rights of action precisely because they are a vital complement to the Commission’s enforcement program in deterring misconduct.20 Investors who have been harmed must have the ability to seek redress. I believe that private litigation is critical to investor protection, especially in light of the Commission’s limited resources.
The Study Overstates the International Comity Concerns Associated with Restoring Investors’ Rights to Assert Private Claims under Section 10(b)
The Study provides that the enactment of the “Commission and DOJ conduct and effects tests for Section 10(b) private actions would involve policy trade-offs that could carry significant implications in many areas, including … international comity.”21 The Study states that “[i]nternational comity is frequently implicated in the context of transnational securities fraud, particularly given that issuers and investors may be located in multiple jurisdictions and various parts of their securities transactions may occur in each of these jurisdictions.”22 However, the Study did not provide a single instance where private securities fraud litigation has actually interfered with a non-U.S. sovereign’s ability to independently regulate its own securities market.
I do not believe that international comity should prevent investors from seeking to assert private claims under Section 10(b). The doctrine of international comity is implicated only when there is a true conflict between American law and the law of a foreign jurisdiction.23The Supreme Court has found that there is no conflict for purposes of comity “where a person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws of both.”24 In determining whether comity is implicated, courts will look to whether the respective laws or policies contradict one another, not to whether one set is stronger or more effective in achieving similar objectives.25
While I recognize that foreign nations have a significant interest in determining the legal remedies their own residents should receive, I believe the United States has a legitimate interest in making that determination for its citizens in the context of transnational securities, regardless of where the actual securities transaction occurred. I agree with the 42 law professors who signed a comment letter stating that international “comity does not require that the U.S. tolerate or protect fraudulent conduct that emanates from or has significant effects within its borders.”26 I believe it is also important to point out that international comity was not undermined by the application of the conduct and effects test in the 40 years of transnational securities fraud cases preceding Morrison. 27
In fact, comity concerns argue in favor of permitting even foreign fraud victims a remedy under the U.S. securities laws, to the extent they were damaged by conduct in the United States, even if the fraud relates to a security purchased on a foreign exchange.  Failure to accord such a remedy would allow the United States to be a platform for fraud and leave some fraud victims with no recourse in any jurisdiction.  As Judge Friendly noted:
This country would surely look askance if one of our neighbors stood by silently and permitted misrepresented securities to be poured into the United States.28
The conduct and effects test was designed, in part, to prevent the U.S. from being used as a launching pad for the exporting of fraud. Allowing investors the ability to bring a transnational fraud claim within the parameters of the conduct and effects test would, in fact, enhance international comity by promoting a global marketplace in which investors are protected.

Restoring Private Litigants’ Ability to Bring Transnational Fraud Claims Would Not Result In a Flood of Litigation in U.S. Courts
The Study failed to adequately discuss the evidence illustrating that restoring private litigants’ ability to bring transnational fraud claims would not result in a flood of litigation involving foreign issuers in U.S. courts. Section 929P itself includes limits that preclude the prosecution of Section 10(b) claims that have an insignificant connection to the U.S.29Accordingly, cases without sufficient material ties to the U.S. – whether in the context of significant conduct in the U.S. or a significant effect on U.S. investors – would not be prosecuted in its courts.30

In addition, the number of securities class actions against foreign issuers has historically been a small fraction of the number of securities fraud cases litigated under the U.S. federal securities laws. From 1996 through 2009, on average, only 9.7% of securities actions filed were against foreign issuers.31 Moreover, only 11% of the securities actions filed through the third quarter of 2010 (i.e., prior and subsequent to the Morrison decision in June 2010) were against companies domiciled in a foreign country.32 Of the over 530 suits settled in 2009, only approximately 50 of them were against defendants domiciled in a country outside the U.S.33 Statistical data indicates that restoring U.S. investors’ ability to bring transnational fraud claims would not result in a flood of litigation in U.S. courts.
The Study also fails to adequately discuss the fact that many meritorious litigation claims involving thousands upon thousands of investors are now no longer being brought. UnderMorrison, for example, cases such as In re Tyco International Ltd.,34 would have been dismissed. In this matter, Tyco International Ltd. (“Tyco”) misrepresented the value of several different companies Tyco acquired and misreported its financial condition. U.S. investors received, in part, $3.2 billion in monetary relief as a result of this private litigation.35 After Morrison, Tyco investors may not have had their day in court.
Thus, not only is there not a flood of litigation – there is now a severe curtailment of the ability of investors to seek redress as to fraudulent activity.
Morrison Weakens the Federal Securities Laws and Strips Investor Protections
The Study also did not adequately focus on how Morrison has harmed investors by weakening the federal securities laws and stripping investor protections. Under Morrison, the private right of action only reaches the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, or other domestic transactions.36 However, determining whether a transaction occurred domestically can prove difficult, and can result in anomalous results for investors worldwide.
Under Morrison, as applied, a private plaintiff trading outside the U.S. may not be able to recover for fraud “even if the securities at issue were registered and listed on a U.S. exchange unless it also can establish that the particular shares it traded were registered and listed on a U.S. exchange.”37  But in today’s global economy, many investors may not know where purchase orders for particular securities are actually carried out. As commentators have noted, “markets are moving to a point where the site of a trade is happenstance.”38 Investors cannot be certain when they place an order to purchase or sell securities – even those listed on a U.S. exchange – that their brokers will not use a foreign exchange to execute the order.  Many securities are often listed on at least two exchanges – one foreign and one domestic. In fact, such household names as GE, IBM, Pfizer, and Bank of America are traded on multiple domestic and foreign exchanges.39 As a result, depending on how these shares were purchased, holders of these securities may not have private rights of action, should fraud occur at these companies.
The Morrison test fails to recognize the realities of today’s modern global trading environment, and it punishes investors who often do not know whether their respective securities transactions were ultimately executed on a U.S or foreign exchange.40
As Justice Stevens’ concurrence in Morrison points out, the current Morrison test for private rights of action is also at odds with the primary purpose of the Exchange Act: to protect the interests of investors.41 Morrison and its recent progeny increasingly are making it clear that the anti-fraud protections of the Exchange Act will not be extended to those U.S. investors who purchase securities listed on non-U.S. exchanges, regardless of the extent of the fraudulent conduct that took place in the United States, or the effect of the effect of fraudulent conduct on the United States or on U.S. citizens.42 U.S. investors have been deprived rights to sue, even though the fraud is perpetuated upon them within the United States. The inability of investors to hold those responsible for committing fraud within the U.S. accountable for their actions leaves investors harmed and weakens confidence in the market as a whole.
In sum, the Morrison test disadvantages investors and is at odds with the very purpose of the securities laws.
The Study Did Not Adequately Address the Lack of Available Remedies Outside of the United States
The Study also did not adequately detail the lack of remedies available to investors if private rights of action were precluded for transnational securities fraud. Although remedies for U.S. investors are theoretically available outside of the United States, in reality, a number of hurdles exists – such as the need for U.S. investors to retain foreign counsel, the uncertainty about laws governing investors’ rights (including whether U.S. residents are even protected by foreign law), the lack of a developed class action mechanism, and the lack of contingency fee litigation. These are obstacles that effectively preclude a majority of U.S. investors from pursuing any relief for injuries suffered from securities purchased outside of the United States.43
The danger investors’ face is real. The practical reality is that investors have been stripped of certain legal remedies to address fraudulent activity that may occur in connection with their securities transactions.
Given this new harsh and tragic reality, it is only rational that the staff should issue a study that actually advocates for investors by recommending a clear direction that would enhance investor protection - and that supports over four decades of federal court jurisprudence that provided investors access to the federal securities laws in order to protect against fraud arising from purchased securities, even if purchased on foreign markets. Unfortunately, the staff has failed investors by shirking this basic obligation.
Conclusion
As I have stated above, Morrison and its recent progeny increasingly are making it clear that the anti-fraud protections of the Exchange Act will not be restored to those U.S. investors who purchase securities listed on non-U.S. exchanges, regardless of the extent of the fraudulent conduct in which foreign companies engage in the United States, or the effect of such conduct in the United States or on U.S. citizens.
Investor protection is at the core of the SEC’s mission; supporting all of its other responsibilities. Properly functioning financial markets require the protection of investors’ rights. U.S. investors expect to be protected by U.S. securities laws, regardless of where the securities transaction ultimately occurs. It is my view that investors should have a private right of action under the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act in transnational securities fraud cases, in accordance with the conduct and effects test. This would be consistent with the authority granted by Congress to the SEC and DOJ, as has been the case for 40 years prior to the Morrison decision.

1130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).
2Linda J. Silberman, Morrison v. National Australia Bank: Implications for Global Securities Class Actions, New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 11-41 (June 2011). See, e.g.Alfadda v. Fenn, 935 F. 2d 475, 478 (2d. Cir. 1991), Itoba Ltd. v. LEP Group PLC, 54 F.3d 121-22 (2d Cir. 1995). Courts also applied an admixture of the two tests. See generally, Dennis R. Dumas, United States Antifraud Jurisdiction Over Transnational Securities Transactions: Merger of the Conduct and Effects Tests, 16 U. PA. J. Int’l Bus. L. 721 (1995).
3Psimenos v. E.F. Hutton & Co. , 722 F.2d 1041, 1045 (2d Cir. 1983), S.A. v. Banque Paribas London, 147 F.3d 118, 125 (2d Cir. 1998).
4Mak v. Womcom Commodities Ltd. , 112 F.3d 287, 289 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) S.A.L., 730 F.2d 1103, 1108 (7 th Cir. 1984)). See also, Banque Paribas London, 147 F.3d at 125; S.A. v. Edperbrascan Corp. , 23 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
5Supra Note 1 at 2888. See also, Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2884 (“[I[t is in our view only transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities, to which § 10(b) applies.”).
6With respect to Commission and DOJ actions under Section 10(b), Dodd-Frank Act Section 929P(b) codified, the pre-Morrison view that the extraterritoriality inquiry is one of subject matter jurisdiction by adding the following provision to Section 27 of the Exchange Act:
(b) EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. – The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory shall have jurisdiction of an action or proceeding brought or instituted by the Commission or the United States alleging a violation of the antifraud provisions of this title involving –
(1) conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the securities transaction occurs outside the United States and involves only foreign investors; or
(2) conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.
7Section 929P of the Dodd-Frank Act was intended to negate the harmful effects of theMorrison decision and to protect investors affected by transnational frauds by codifying the authority to bring proceedings under the conduct and the effects tests developed by the federal courts regardless of the jurisdiction of the proceedings. Cong. Record, June 30, 2010, p. H5237, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-06-30/html/CREC-2010-06-30-pt1-PgH5233.htm.
8As required by Section 929Y of Title IX of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
9Supra Note 6.
10See, e.g., In re Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. PLC Sec. Litig. , No. 09 Civ. 300 (DAB), 2011 WL 167749 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2011); Plumbers’ Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Swiss Reinsurance Co., No. 08 Civ. 1958 (JGK), 2010 WL 3860397; In re Alstom SA Securities Litigation, No. 03 Civ. 6595 (VM), 2010 WL 3718863 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re Societe Generale Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 2495 (RMB), 2010 WL 3910286 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2010);Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group, 729 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re BancoSantander Securities – Optimal Litig., 732 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2010); andTerra Secs. ASA Konkursbo v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 7058 (VM), (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2010)
11See, Morrison , 130 S. Ct. at 2894 (“it is the ‘public interest’ and ‘interest of investors’ that are the objects of the statute’s solicitude”) (Stevens, J., concurring).
12Supra note 6.
13Securities Litigation Reform Act, Conference Report, H.R. 104-369, 104 th Cong., 1 st Sess. (Nov. 28, 1995), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt369/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt369.pdf.
14Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 28, 313 (2007); J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 432 (1964) (private rights of action under the securities laws are a “necessary supplement to Commission action.”).
15Herman & McLean v. Huddleston , 459 U.S. 375, 380 (1983).
16Testimony on Budget and Management of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by Robert Khuzami, Division of Enforcement, Meredith Cross, Director, Division of Corporation Finance, Robert Cook, Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Carlo di Florio, Director, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, Eileen Rominger, Director, Division of Investment Management, Before the United State House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, (March 10, 2011), available athttp://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts031011directors.htm. Testimony on the President’s FY 2012 Budget Request for the SEC by Chairman Mary Schapiro, Before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Committee on Appropriations (May 4, 2011), available athttp://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts050411mls.htm.
17Although the SEC recovered $140 million for investors defrauded by Enron, investors recovered more than $7 billion in private suits. See, Thomas C. Pearson, Enron’s Banks Escape Liability (2010), available athttp://www.bus.lsu.edu/accounting/faculty/lcrumbley/jfia/Articles/FullText/2010v2n1a5.pdf.
18See, e.g., Itoba Ltd. v. LEP Group PLC, 54 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1995); In re DaimlerChryslerAG Sec. Litig., Case No. 00-993 (D. Del.); and In re Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig., 238 F. Supp. 2d. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
19Supra note 10.
20With respect to implied rights under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the Commission filed amicus briefs in Matheson v. Armburst, 284 F.2d 670 (9 th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 870 (1961) (opposition to petition for certiorari only); Hooper v. Mountain States Sec. Corp., 282 F.2d 195 (5 th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 814 (1961); Errion v. Connell, 236 F.2d 447, 454 (9 th Cir. 1956); Fratt v. Robinson, 203 F.2d 627, 628 (9 th Cir. 1953);Slavin v. Germantown Fire Ins. Co., 174 F.2d 799, 800 (3d Cir. 1949); Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375 (1983); and Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975).
21Study by the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: “Study on the Extraterritorial Scope of the Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” at 60 (March 2012).
22Id. at 10.
23Hartford Fire Ins. Co v. California , 509 U.S. 764, 798 (1993).
24Id. (citing , Restatement (Third Foreign Relations Law, Section 403)).
25In re South African Apartheid Litig. , 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
26Comments by Forty-Two Law Professors, SEC File No. 4-617 (February 18, 2011),available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-617/4617-28.pdf.
27See, e.g., Alfadda v. Fenn , 935 F.2d 475, 478 (2d Cir. 1991); Grunenthal GmbH v. Hotz, 712 F.2d 421, 425 (9th Cir. 1983); Continental Grain(Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. Pacific Oilseeds, Inc., 592 F.2d 409, 421 (8th Cir. 1979); SEC v. Kasser, 548 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1977); Mak v. Wocom Commodities Ltd., 112 F.3d 287, 289 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) S.A.L., 730 F.2d 1103, 1108 (7th Cir. 1984)). See also, Banque Paribas London, 147 F.3d at 125. See also,Interbrew S.A. v. Edperbrascan Corp., 23 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). In re Parmalat Sec. Litig 375 F. Supp. 2d 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); In re Tyco International Ltd. 535 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.N.H. 2007); In re Nortel Networks Sec. Litig 238 F. Supp. 2d. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); and In re Deutsche Telekom AG Sec. Litig F. Supp 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). According to a group of sixty-nine institutional investors from outside of the United States (with over 2 trillion U.S. dollars in assets under management) restoring investors’ rights to assert private claims under Section 10(b) to the extent the Commission or DOJ is permitted will not undermine international comity. See, February 18, 2011 Letter from AGEST Superannuation Fund; Alecta pensionsförsäkring, ömsesidigt; AMF Fonder AB; AMF Pensionsförsäkring AB; APG Algemene Pensioen Groep N.V.; ASSETSuper Superannuation Fund; ATP - Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension; AUST (Q) Superannuation Fund; Australian Catholic Superannuation & Retirement Fund; Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees; Australian Reward Investment Alliance; Australian Superannuation Fund; Australia’s Unclaimed Super Fund; AustSafe Superannuation Fund; AVSuper Superannuation Fund; Catholic Superannuation Fund; Construction & Building Industry Superannuation Fund; Danica Pension; Danske Invest Management A/S; Electricity Supply Industry Superannuation Fund; Emergency Services & State Superannuation Fund; Energy Industries Superannuation Scheme; FIL Investments International; FirstSuper Superannuation Fund; Folksam; Forsta AP-Founden; GMB Trade Union; Health Employees Superannuation Trust Australia; Health Superannuation Fund; HOSTPLUS Superannuation Fund; Industriens Pension; KLP Kapitalforvaltning; Labour Union Co-operative Retirement Fund; Legalsuper Superannuation Fund; Local Government Superannuation Scheme; Local Super (SA-NT) Superannuation Fund; Maritime Superannuation Fund; Media Superannuation Fund; Merseyside Pension Fund; Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund; Non-Government Schools Superannuation Fund; Nordea Fondbolag Finland AB; Nordea Fondene Norge AS; Nordea Fonder AB; Nordea Investment Funds Company I S.A.; OMERS Administration Corporation; PFA Pension; PGGM Vermogensbeheer B.V. (PGGM Investments); Raiffiesien Capital Management; Retail Employees Superannuation Trust; Royal Mail Pension Plan; Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S; SKAGEN A/S; Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB; SPEC Superannuation Fund; State Superannuation Scheme // SAS Trustee Corporation; Statewide Superannuation Fund; Sunsuper Superannuation Fund; Swedbank Robur Fonder AB; Syntrus Achmea; Tasplan Superannuation Fund; Telstra Superannuation Fund; The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors; TWUSUPER Superannuation Fund; UniSuper Superannuation Fund; Universities Superannuation Scheme; Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company; VicSuper Superannuation Fund; and VisionSuper Superannuation Fund (AGEST, et al.”), available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-617/4617-42.pdf.
28IIT v. Vencap, Ltd ., 519 F.2d 1001, 1017 (2d Cir. 1975).
29Dodd-Frank Act Section 929P(b) requires “conduct within the United States that constitutes significant steps in furtherance of the violation, even if the violation is committed by a foreign adviser and involves only foreign investors; or conduct occurring outside the United States that has a foreseeable substantial effect within the United States.”
30U.S courts often have sustained defense motions for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over foreign investors under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (l) and, in class actions, at the class certification stage. In addition to these grounds, where a defendant has successfully shown that an adequate forum is available elsewhere, and that the private and public interests implicated in the case weighs strongly in favor of dismissal or removal to another forum courts have also dismissed actions under forum non conveniens. See,Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 504 U.S. 422, 436 (2007).
31See, Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Filings – 2010 Year in Review (2011).
32See, Advisen Quarterly Report – Q3 2010, at 11-12.
33See, Risk Metrics Blog, “Morrison v. National Australia Bank – the Dawn of a New Age” (June 25, 2010), available at http://blog.issgovernance.com/slw/2010/06/morrison-v-national-australia-bank---the-dawn-of-a-new-age.html.
34535 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.N.H. 2007)
35In re Tyco International Ltd. 535 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D.N.H. 2007) – The plaintiffs (the lead plaintiffs were several U.S. pension funds) also alleged that the individual defendants looted the company by misappropriating corporate funds in the form of undisclosed cash bonuses and forgiven loans. The proceeds were then used to reward the individual defendants for their participation in the accounting fraud scheme. The plaintiffs argued that this looting and accounting fraud scheme defrauded the investing public in violation of the federal securities laws. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information in various registration statements and publications, which concealed the corporate misconduct and mismanagement. Other example of pre-Morrison cases that would have been dismissed under Morrison include: In re Deutsche Telekom AG Sec. Litig. F. Supp. 2d 277 (SDNY 2002) – In this matter the prospectus and registration statement issued in connection Deutsche Telekom’s IPO were alleged to be materially false and misleading on the grounds that the documents (1) failed to disclose that Deutsche Telecom was at that time engaged in advanced merger talks with VoiceStream Wireless Corp., and (2) overstated Deutsche Telekom’s real estate portfolio by at least $1.8 billion dollars. U.S investors received in part $120 million in monetary relief as a result of this litigation. In re Nortel Networks Sec. Litig 238 F. Supp. 2d. 613 (2003 SDNY) – In this matter Nortel issued false and misleading press releases about its financial strength and projected growth. U.S. investors received in part $1.14 billion in monetary relief as a result of this litigation. In re Parmalat Sec. Litig. 375 F. Supp. 2d 278 (2004 SDNY) – In this matter Parmalat allegedly underreported its debts by nearly $10 billion and over-reported its net assets by $16.4 billion. The complaint alleged that insiders at Parmalat created a scheme involving misleading transactions and off-shore entities that created the appearance of financial health. U.S. investors received in part $86.8 million in monetary relief as a result of this litigation. In re Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. Litig 351 F. Supp. 2d 334 (2004 Dist MD) – In this matter accounting irregularities and discrepancies were discovered, which stemmed mainly from two company practices: (1) the company inflated the reporting of its income from vendor rebates or promotional allowances by its subsidiary USF; and (2) the company improperly attributed its revenues from joint ventures in which it did not have a controlling stake. As a result, on May 8, 2003 the company announced an $885 million restatement. U.S. investors received in part $1.1 billion in monetary relief as a result of this litigation.
36130 S. Ct. at 2888 (“Section 10(b) reaches the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance only in connection with the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, and the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States.”).
37Supra Note 26 at page 13.
38Supra Note 26 at page 7.
39See, General Electric Co. Investor Relations available athttp://www.ge.com/investors/personal_investing/index.html; International Business Machines Investor Relations available at http://www.ibm.com/investor/faq/item/stock-exchanges.wss; Pfizer Inc Investor Relations available athttp://www.pfizer.com/investors/shareholder_services/shareholder_faqs.jsp; and Bank of America Investor Relations available at http://investor.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71595&p=irol-contact
40See, e.g., letters from AGEST, et al, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-617/4617-42.pdf; CalPERS, available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-617/4617-43.pdf; National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (“NASCAT”), available athttp://www.sec.gov/comments/4-617/4617-18.pdf; Leandro Perucchi, available athttp://www.sec.gov/comments/4-617/4617-40.pdf; California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement System, Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System, State Board of Administration of Florida, North Carolina Department of State Treasurer, Connecticut Treasurer’s Office, Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System, Rhode Island General Treasurer, Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System, New York City Employees’ Retirement System, New York City Police Pension Fund, Teachers’ Retirement System of the City of New York, New York Fire Department Pension Fund, Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York, Pension Reserves Investment Management Board Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“CalSTRS, et al.”), available athttp://www.sec.gov/comments/4-617/4617-13.pdf.
41See, Morrison , 130 S. Ct. at 2894
42See, e.g., In re Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. PLC Sec. Litig. , No. 09 Civ. 300 (DAB), 2011 WL 167749 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2011); Plumbers’ Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Swiss Reinsurance Co., No. 08 Civ. 1958 (JGK), 2010 WL 3860397; In re Alstom SA Securities Litigation, No. 03 Civ. 6595 (VM), 2010 WL 3718863 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re Societe Generale Sec. Litig., No. 08 Civ. 2495 (RMB), 2010 WL 3910286 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2010);Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Group, 729 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re BancoSantander Securities – Optimal Litig., 732 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2010); andTerra Secs. ASA Konkursbo v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 7058 (VM), (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2010)
43See, John W. Moka III, et al., 2010 a Record Year for Securities Litigation – An Advisen Quarterly Report – 2010 Review, Advisen (Only “[t]hree percent of [securities suits] were filed in courts outside the United States”), available athttps://www.advisen.com/downloads/sec_lit_Q42010_report.pdf. See also, e.g., Johnathan Stempel and Sinead Cruise “Olympus investors may find courthouse door closed” Thomson Reuters (November 9, 2011), available athttp://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/11_-_November/Analysis__Olympus_investors_may_find_courthouse_door_closed/.