Kamis, 05 Desember 2019

United's Oscar Munoz to step down as CEO, President Scott Kirby will take over - CNBC

United Airlines announced Thursday that CEO Oscar Munoz will turn over day-to-day management of the airline next spring to President Scott Kirby, who will become company's chief executive officer.

The change happens in May, when Munoz becomes executive chairman, succeeding Jane Garvey, 75, who is retiring from the board.

The announcement ends speculation Kirby could be hired to replace Doug Parker as CEO of American Airlines, where shares are down 26% in the last year. Kirby was Parker's top lieutenant for a decade as Parker merged America West with U.S. Air and later merged U.S. Air with American, creating the nation's largest airline. Kirby said in October he would not be leaving United.

GP: Oscar Munoz, chief executive officer of United Continental Holdings Inc., speaks during a Bloomberg Television interview in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., on Wednesday, April 24, 2019.

Jim Young | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A spokesperson for United told CNBC that rumors of the 52-year-old Kirby possibly leaving United did not play a role in the decision to elevate him to chief executive. Instead, the company said, the board and Munoz felt it was time to begin the process of a smooth transition to the next CEO.

"With United in a stronger position than ever, now is the right time to begin the process of turning over the baton to a new leader," Munoz said in Thursday's announcement.

The move is one many in the airline industry and on Wall Street have anticipated for some time. Kirby, who was hired by Munoz in 2016 with a mandate to improve the airline's execution, has been a driving force in improving United's performance and profit growth during the last two years.

In a videotaped message sent to United employees announcing the leadership change, Kirby thanked Munoz for hiring him in 2016. "I will be a much better executive today, will be a much better CEO and a better person, for what I learned from you and following in the footsteps of an incredible leader," Kirby said.

Munoz tenure: Turmoil then growth

Munoz, 60, will turn over the CEO job with United in much better shape than the day he took the job four years ago. Back then, Munoz, who was on the United board, was suddenly tapped to run the airline after Jeff Smisek was forced to resign as CEO due to a federal investigation into United adding flights to influence decisions made by a New York Port Authority official.

Within a month of becoming CEO, Munoz suffered a heart attack that forced him to take a medical leave. In early 2016 Munoz received a heart transplant, keeping him out of work for weeks.

When he returned, Munoz found an airline trailing its competitors in almost every important metric, including earnings growth, profit margin and customer service. Things got worse in April 2017, when a major scandal erupted after security officers dragged a passenger off a United flight that was oversold.

Video of the passenger, Dr. David Dao, being pulled down the aisle was played repeatedly on news reports around the world. United was blasted not only for forcibly having a passenger kicked off a flight, but also for how poorly it handled the crisis. Munoz made things worse when his initial comments about what happened were criticized as being cold and uncaring. "This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers," Munoz said in a statement the morning after the incident. It took several days before Munoz and United changed their tone and fully apologized to Dao.

By then, the damage was done. Munoz's handling of the crisis prompted the United board to drop plans to elevate him to chairman. The CEO vowed to improve customer service and its image of treating passengers with indifference. That reputation was reinforced in early 2018 when a United flight attendant had a passenger put a pet dog in an overhead bin, where it died during a flight from New York to Houston. Once again, news reports portrayed United as a heartless airline. Within hours, Munoz issued a public apology and once again said his airline would do better.

Adding capacity, soaring in 2019

By early 2018, United was doing better in many areas, largely because of Kirby's initiatives. After years of cutting routes and service in smaller cities around the U.S., United switched started to aggressively increase capacity. It added flights from secondary cities like Rochester, Minnesota, to United's hubs, especially Chicago, Denver and Houston. The idea was that boosting traffic through hubs would lead to greater efficiencies and higher profit margins.

While many feared Kirby's plan would spark fare wars and dilute earnings, analyst Hunter Keay from Wolfe Research said the strategy was vintage Kirby, "Arguably, United has no choice but to either shrink drastically or to pursue this path, and Scott Kirby wasn't hired to shrink anything," Keay told clients.

The strategy has paid off with United growing its net profit from $2.1 billion in 2017 to $2.5 billion last year. In 2019 United has already earned $2.3 billion through the third quarter and raised its full-year earnings guidance in October.

Kirby's CEO strategy: Improve execution

After 20 years in the airline business where he has consistently boosted revenues and margins, Kirby is widely viewed as one of the best in the industry at making routes and operations more profitable.

As CEO, he'll oversee the third consecutive year where United grows capacity 4% to 6%. As has been a hallmark of his growth strategies in the past, Kirby is likely to further leverage traffic through United's hubs. And while the airline's profit margins have improved, they still trail Delta's.

In short, Kirby still has plenty of room to grow United's profits, especially if he can further improve United's performance when it comes to customer service. "I love the fact that almost every time I get feedback from employees, 99.9% of the time it is something about how do we make this airline better for our customers," Kirby said in a video e-mailed to employees. "That is an incredible amount of energy, innovations and creativity, and that's the foundation that a great airline is built on."

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiW2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNuYmMuY29tLzIwMTkvMTIvMDUvb3NjYXItbXVub3otdG8tc3RlcC1kb3duLWFzLWNlby1vZi11bml0ZWQtYWlybGluZXMtdWFsLmh0bWzSAV9odHRwczovL3d3dy5jbmJjLmNvbS9hbXAvMjAxOS8xMi8wNS9vc2Nhci1tdW5vei10by1zdGVwLWRvd24tYXMtY2VvLW9mLXVuaXRlZC1haXJsaW5lcy11YWwuaHRtbA?oc=5

2019-12-05 13:01:00Z
52780464123360

Another big luxury deal may be brewing - CNN

Kering, the owner of luxury brands including Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, has held exploratory talks to buy Italian apparel company Moncler, according to Bloomberg.
Moncler is best known for its puffy winter coats. Its shares shot up by 9% on Thursday, while Kering stock posted a more modest rise of 1.3%. When asked about the report, Kering (PPRUF) declined to comment.
Moncler said in a statement that its chairman and CEO, Remo Ruffini, interacts "from time to time" with "other sector participants, including the Kering group, in order to explore strategic potential opportunities."
"At the moment, however, there is not any concrete hypothesis under consideration," the company added.
What's so great about Moncler (MONRF)? Our colleagues at CNN Style point to its innovative approach to leadership: One project involves asking multiple creative directors to produce individual collections that are released on a rolling calendar. This allows new products to be marketed on a monthly instead of seasonal basis.
Should the deal be completed, it would help Kering compete with rival French luxury group LVMH. The owner of Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior announced last month that it would buy Tiffany & Co. in a deal that values the jeweller at about $16.2 billion.
LVMH (LVMHF) on a roll: The luxury conglomerate led by billionaire Bernard Arnault is having a great year, with shares increasing nearly 55% so far. Earlier in 2019, LVMH acquired Rihanna's Fenty and Fenty Beauty fashion and cosmetics lines, which have enjoyed huge success with a diverse swath of young women.
It's all working out well for Arnault. With a fortune of $106 billion, he could soon overtake Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates to become the world's richest person.

Time for the biggest IPO ever?

Saudi Arabia's state oil company is poised to price what could be the biggest IPO in history.
Saudi Aramco said last month that it was aiming to sell about 1.5% of its 200 billion shares in a partial privatization for between 30 riyals ($8) and 32 riyals ($8.53) each. A final decision on price is expected to be announced on Thursday.
The competition: Alibaba's (BABA) 2014 debut on the New York Stock Exchange, so far the world's biggest IPO, raised $25 billion. Aramco will top that if the price is set at the top of its range.
High expectations: The Saudi government initially discussed floating 5% of the company in 2018 in the hope of raising as much as $100 billion. It was looking at international markets such as New York or London, as well as Riyadh.
Yet the project was shelved amid concerns about legal complications in the United States, as well as doubts about the $2 trillion valuation reportedly sought by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The deal was revived earlier this year after Aramco pulled off a successful international bond sale. But international investors are less convinced about buying Aramco stock: Among their concerns: Low oil prices, the climate crisis and geopolitical risks.
Meanwhile, in Vienna: OPEC and its allies are once again being forced to consider dramatic action to avert a crash in oil prices.
The cartel led by Saudi Arabia is reportedly working towards an agreement with OPEC producers and others including Russia to extend and deepen production cuts designed to put a floor beneath prices. Meetings take place Thursday and Friday.
If the group fails to cut production, the world oil market will be oversupplied by about 800,000 barrels per day during the first half of 2020, according to consulting firm Rystad Energy.
The ensuing supply glut would spark a "significant oil price correction," driving Brent crude into the low $40s for a short period of time, Rystad predicted. That represents a plunge of about 30% from current levels of nearly $63 a barrel.

Silicon Valley faces a major loss in trade talks

Tech companies have long relied on just a few sentences of US law — Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act — to avoid legal trouble over what internet users write and post on their platforms.
The legal provision has proved hugely valuable to the industry, helping to give rise to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter by ensuring that the platforms would not be held responsible for the actions of their users.
According to the Wall Street Journal, internet companies have been lobbying for the legal protections to be included in the new US trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. But in a sign of growing skepticism in Washington toward Big Tech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco in Congress, is pushing to strip them out of the deal.
Another sign of discontent: Several US civil rights leaders recently invited to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's home have slammed what they say is a "lackluster response" to their concerns.
"Our communities are being targeted by bad actors on Facebook and the company has a moral obligation to fix this ongoing problem," the group said in a statement. "Facebook's lackluster response to our serious concerns is devoid of any commitments to implement substantive measures and changes to its policies."
Dollar General (DG), Kroger (KR) and Tiffany & Co. report earnings before US markets open. American Outdoor Brands (AOBC) and Ulta Beauty (ULTA) will follow after the close.
Also today:
The US trade balance for October arrives at 8:30 a.m. ET.
Coming tomorrow: The US jobs report for November will give fresh insight into America's economic health.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiTGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8xMi8wNS9pbnZlc3RpbmcvcHJlbWFya2V0LXN0b2Nrcy10cmFkaW5nL2luZGV4Lmh0bWzSAVBodHRwczovL2FtcC5jbm4uY29tL2Nubi8yMDE5LzEyLzA1L2ludmVzdGluZy9wcmVtYXJrZXQtc3RvY2tzLXRyYWRpbmcvaW5kZXguaHRtbA?oc=5

2019-12-05 11:29:00Z
CAIiEOSHSxnrmYESXfQMhDVCtiEqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU

Takata airbag fault forces recall of another 1.4 million vehicles - CNN

These cars were recalled on Wednesday, authorities in the United States said.
As with the wider ongoing recall, the new fault can cause airbag inflators to explode, under-inflate or spew out shrapnel at passengers, raising the risk of serious injury or death, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The airbags involved in the latest recall were found to have "a manufacturing issue," and were fitted to "some brands of 1995-2000 vehicles," the agency said in a notice posted on its website. It gave no further details.
Takata produced and sold around 4.5 million of the airbags with the new fault globally in the late 1990s, but only a fraction of the vehicles fitted with them are likely still being driven, according to government documents.
Honda recalls 1.6 million vehicles over Takata airbags
As many as 41.6 million vehicles with Takata airbags have been recalled in the United States so far, according to the US Department of Transportation. In total, 34 auto brands have been affected, from Ferrari (RACE)to Ford (F).
Ruptured airbags have been linked to at least 29 deaths and hundreds of injuries around the globe, according to the Australian government.
The crisis caused Takata to file for bankruptcy in 2017. The Japanese company then sold most of its operations to Key Safety Systems, a Chinese-owned company based in Michigan, for $1.6 billion.
US federal safety regulators have previously said that it could take until 2023 for the recall to be complete — a full 15 years after the first car was ordered back to the workshop.
In the coming month, Takata will be working with automakers to assess which vehicles could be affected by its latest problem, according to US authorities.
"As this work progresses, numerous vehicle recalls will likely be announced," they said.
— Chris Isidore contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiTGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8xMi8wNS9idXNpbmVzcy90YWthdGEtYWlyYmFnLXJlY2FsbC1zY2xpL2luZGV4Lmh0bWzSAVBodHRwczovL2FtcC5jbm4uY29tL2Nubi8yMDE5LzEyLzA1L2J1c2luZXNzL3Rha2F0YS1haXJiYWctcmVjYWxsLXNjbGkvaW5kZXguaHRtbA?oc=5

2019-12-05 10:13:00Z
52780460507165

How Trump's Trade War Went From Method to Madness - Bloomberg

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiK2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9Nk9EOExJcWxsd2fSAQA?oc=5

2019-12-05 11:00:01Z
52780455211231

China gives little indication US trade talks are progressing - CNBC

Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesman Gao Feng speaks at a press conference in Beijing, days ahead of an imminent US-China trade war, on July 5, 2018.

Greg Baker | AFP | Getty Images

BEIJING — China's official spokespeople are keeping quiet on trade talks with the U.S. amid growing uncertainty on when even a phase-one agreement can be reached.

"China believes if both sides reach a phase-one agreement, relevant tariffs must be lowered," Gao Feng, Ministry of Commerce spokesman, said Thursday, according to a CNBC translation of his Mandarin-language remarks.

The comments reiterated the position Beijing has expressed in the last few weeks, since both countries indicated a rollback of tariffs would be part of a so-called phase-one agreement.

On Thursday, Gao noted both trade delegations remain in communication, but disclosed few additional details about the negotiations.

He did not provide a direct response when asked about China's view on additional U.S. tariffs, which are set to take effect Dec. 15. Gao also did not provide details on the unreliable entities list. The commerce ministry raised the threat of such a designation in late May, shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump's administration put Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei on a blacklist that effectively prevents it from buying from American suppliers.

Trade tensions between the world's two largest economies have persisted for more than a year, with each country applying tariffs to billions of dollars' worth of goods from the other.

Both sides appeared close to reaching a phased agreement by the end of this year, but earlier this week, Trump said it might be better to wait until after the November 2020 U.S. presidential election to strike a trade deal with China.

"We do not set a deadline for reaching an agreement or not," Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman Hua Chunying said in response on Wednesday during a daily press conference, according to an official transcript.

"Our attitude has always been clear, that is, consultations must be based on equality and mutual respect, and that the outcome must be mutually beneficial and acceptable to both sides," she said. "We hope that some people in the U.S. will earnestly heed the call of its people."

In the last two weeks, frictions between the U.S. and China intensified after the U.S. government pushed ahead with legislation supporting protesters against the central government in Hong Kong, and the Uighur minority in Xinjiang. Chinese state media and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have made firm statements against what Beijing considers U.S. interference in "internal" affairs, and suspended review of requests by U.S. military ships and aircraft to visit Hong Kong.

When asked Thursday whether the unreliable entities list is part of China's threatened retaliation to these developments, Commerce Ministry's Gao referred reporters to comments from the relevant department.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiYWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNuYmMuY29tLzIwMTkvMTIvMDUvY2hpbmEtZ2l2ZXMtbGl0dGxlLWluZGljYXRpb24tdXMtdHJhZGUtdGFsa3MtYXJlLXByb2dyZXNzaW5nLmh0bWzSAWVodHRwczovL3d3dy5jbmJjLmNvbS9hbXAvMjAxOS8xMi8wNS9jaGluYS1naXZlcy1saXR0bGUtaW5kaWNhdGlvbi11cy10cmFkZS10YWxrcy1hcmUtcHJvZ3Jlc3NpbmcuaHRtbA?oc=5

2019-12-05 08:35:00Z
52780455211231

Caver Unsworth testifies he felt ‘dirtied’ by Musk’s ‘pedo guy’ tweet - The Verge

People, including my editors, keep asking me who “won the day.” I have been thinking about other things, like whether the marble behind the Honorable Stephen Wilson is an actual slab, or just a veneer over particle board, and whether I will get kicked out of the courtroom if I go check it out before court is in session.

But mostly, I have been thinking about insults. The main point of contention has been whether “pedo guy” qualifies as an insult or a statement of fact. As Ken White, the lawyer and pundit, points out, insults — like hyperbole, shit-talking, and “other expressions not reasonably taken literally as assertions of fact” — are not defamation, which is why John Oliver can perform the song at the end of this Last Week Tonight segment with confidence. In White’s view, Elon Musk has a defensible case, though this is not the same thing as a winning case.

Insults are the kind of thing one might want to call a linguist to discuss, you know, as an expert witness. The core of the case — to me, at least — seems to rest there. For instance, say someone calls me an asshole. This is both an opinion and insulting; possibly it is also true. In any event, it’s not defamation.

“Pedo guy” is way less clear-cut as an insult than “asshole.” The relevant parts of Musk’s testimony today largely centered on his view that it was an insult. Unfortunately, I also heard a great deal of testimony that doesn’t seem remotely relevant to this question, from Musk and others.

By the end of the day, though, the plaintiff Vernon Unsworth gave compelling testimony about how Musk’s words had affected him. Unsworth indicated he’d taken Musk’s words as an accusation, not an insult, and felt “dirtied” by them.

“Rude and contemptuous”

Alex Spiro, Musk’s counsel, had more nervous energy than yesterday — he was practically vibrating. He began by asking Musk how he became involved in the Thailand cave rescue in the first place. Several emails were introduced into evidence, including with Rick Stanton, the head of the rescue operations, showing that Musk’s help was indeed welcomed. There was a great deal of detail I did not care about regarding the specs on the minisub. We were shown a video of the minisub in a pool. We were then treated to a series of Musk’s tweets where he said nice things about rescuers and noted that his team hasn’t done anything directly useful to the effort. Musk said that after he left for his Shanghai meeting, 20 to 25 engineers stayed behind.

Eventually, Musk testified that he was upset because Unsworth denigrated the efforts of Musk’s team of engineers and because Unsworth falsely said Musk was thrown out of the cave; he also did not appreciate the “rude and contemptuous” tone of the interview. (Musk is something of an expert in rude and contemptuous: there was that time on a quarterly conference call with analysts, Musk cut someone off with, “Next. Boring bonehead questions are not cool.”)

The tweets at the center of the defamation case were “obviously a very off-the-cuff response,” Musk testified. He also said the tweets were deleted “within hours of publishing,” partly as a result of media attention and because “a lot of people said you probably shouldn’t write that.” Musk also said that he did not know when he tweeted that Unsworth was central to the rescue. “I thought he was some random ex-pat guy.” Musk also said, accurately, that lots of people are mean to him online and he is frequently criticized.

We are then shown the tweets in question again. Musk explains that “obv” means “obviously,” that “no problemo” is “a phrase Bart Simpson uses — the Simpsons used to be cool,” and “really did ask for it” refers to what Musk views as an “unprovoked attack on my team and me, with a bunch of false statements.”

As for Musk’s follow-up statements: “Bet you a signed dollar,” Musk explained, is a low-stakes wager meaning “it’s not impossible.” He then said: “It’s possible that if someone goes to Colorado a lot, they’re going for weed.” Musk paused. “Not if they’re coming from California though.”

Musk’s Twitter usage was particularly high-volume last year. Musk sent an estimated 100 to 200 tweets per month, he testified. He also said that he views it as a mitigating factor that he didn’t name Unsworth in the tweets. According to Musk, the first time anyone asked him if “pedo guy” meant “pedophile” was at the deposition. This seems unlikely; at least one journalist surely asked Musk about this.

Spiro got out a large calendar for demonstrative purposes. “The jury is familiar, hopefully, with the month of July,” Spiro said. Spiro then began asking Musk questions about the private investigator he retained to look into Unsworth — an investigator who turned out to be a con man. Musk said that before he sent the “strange that he hasn’t sued me” tweet, the con man P.I. had passed false information to an employee (Jared Birchall, who we hear from later) who told Musk about it.

The email to Ryan Mac at Buzzfeed was brought up again; he must be getting sick of it. We are treated to a discussion of what “off the record” means — according to Musk, that means not for publication. (I see several journalists make faces; most of us understand “off the record” as a mutual agreement. A source cannot demand it unilaterally, which is ultimately why Mac published his story.) A second email is pulled up with “on background” at the top. Musk explains that he believes “on background” means the information can be used, but not attributed to him. (In my experience, every source has a different notion about what “on background” means, and this has to be negotiated every time, which is a goddamn nightmare.)

“If I write something on Twitter, it will get reported”

L. Lin Wood, Unsworth’s attorney, was up next for the re-cross; thankfully, he had dropped the bumbling manner from yesterday. Wood said Unsworth doesn’t have a Twitter account, and wondered how Unsworth was supposed to know Musk had apologized. “Most things I say on Twitter get press,” Musk said. “If I write something on Twitter, it will get reported.” Musk adds that it seemed appropriate to him that the apology was on the same medium as the insult.

Wood then pulled up just an absolute fuckload of Musk’s tweets, and asked Musk if they belong to him. “I don’t remember every tweet,” Musk said. This did not seem to be the point, as procedurally Wood was trying to get the tweets entered into evidence. Many of them are about the minisub — which is referred to variously as a minisub, a pod, or a tube, but which I will continue calling a minisub for consistency’s sake. Musk said he was soliciting feedback from the public. “I tweet a lot, in general,” Musk said, accurately.

It looked to me like Wood was trying to suggest the volume of minisub tweets smacked of a PR stunt, particularly after Musk testified that he knows his tweets will be reported on. Musk insisted he was soliciting feedback. “There are some pretty smart people out there,” Musk said. Tesla vehicle design, in particular, is something he cites as having incorporated a lot of Twitter feedback.

Wood switched tacks to language. He and Musk discussed pedophilia, which may refer to thought (a sexual attraction to children) or action (statutory rape). Musk said that if an adult were to marry a 12-year-old, that is probably pedophilia. “Pedo guy,” however, is more flippant, Musk said. “Mother-effer doesn’t literally mean incest,” Musk said, because he apparently did not want to say “fuck” in court.

As this discussion of the meaning of “pedo,” “pedo guy,” and “pedophile” was happening, Unsworth began to look progressively more unhappy. He puffed out his cheeks. His mouth worked. I couldn’t see Unsworth yesterday — he was obscured by a poster board — but today I didn’t see him look at Musk once. Unsworth appeared to be upset by the discussion, but his back was to the jury.

“All the press I read, including the British press, viewed this as an insult,” Musk testified. He also said he remembered the coverage as being negative about him. Wood began asking about specific countries’ press, which is how I discovered Musk doesn’t read news from Scandinavia, the Netherlands, or Belgium. Judge Wilson interjected to ask what languages Musk does know, since the judge thought that might be faster. Musk said he spoke a little Spanish, French, and German. Judge Wilson tells Wood that he will allow inquiries about news from South America, the Carribean, and German-speaking Switzerland.

The jurors are then sent away for recess while the lawyers argue about whether a Google alert can be introduced to the court. Whatever Wood wanted to introduce has a headline from Vox — a media outlet that unfortunately Judge Wilson is not familiar with, and which he spells aloud — that uses “pedophile.” Ultimately the exhibit was excluded from the proceedings.

When everyone returned from their brief break, Wood asked Musk if anyone at Tesla had pointed out that his tweet had tanked the stock. Musk said that he got concerned notes from shareholders, but since Tesla is publicly traded, anyone can see its price at any time. Wood asked Musk to give a current estimate of Musk’s net worth. Musk hedged: he has stock and debt against that stock; the stock value fluctuates. Wood asked for a range. Musk said he didn’t know. Wood then reads from Musk’s deposition, where the estimate is about $20 billion. Musk said that with SpaceX and Tesla stock combined, yes, that sounds right. There is no mention of how much debt Musk has outstanding against the stock.

Musk was then dismissed. As he exited the courtroom, he turned back to the jury, waved, and then left.

He’s a Brick… house

The next witness was Jared Birchall, also known as James Brickhouse. Birchall, in contrast to every other witness today, did not wear a jacket; instead he was wearing a white shirt with blue checks. Birchall said he was 17 or 18 years into a career in finance and was hired by Musk to run Musk’s family office.

Wood asked Birchall a series of questions that established, mainly, that Musk is Birchall’s boss. It didn’t sound like Musk micromanages Birchall, however. Wood displayed a non-disclosure agreement that Birchall entered into with James Howard, a con man who purported to be a private investigator. Howard had attempted to contact Musk, saying that he had dirt on Unsworth.

It emerged that Birchall had dealt with Howard largely under a pseudonym, James Brickhouse. I was somewhat disappointed that Birchall didn’t think up something more fun, like Pierce Inverarity. Birchall said he came up with the name himself and that Musk hadn’t known about it. He’d used the Brickhouse pseudonym before, to book travel and buy domain names.

Birchall couldn’t sign the NDA under the pseudonym, though, as that would render the contract unenforceable, so he swapped out his email display name to “Jared Birchall for James Brickhouse.” Every other communication, however, took place under the pseudonym, except one, when Birchall accidentally sent an email under his own name.

According to Birchall, Howard had cited Paul Allen and George Soros as previous employers. Birchall did not, however, try to contact anyone to determine if this was true. So here’s a valuable hiring lesson for everyone: call the references.

Wood displayed another email from Birchall to Howard. “We would like you to immediately move forward with ‘leaking’ this information to the UK press,” the email reads. Bullet points follow, containing false information about Unsworth that I am not especially interested in repeating. Birchall said the email was meant to “encourage investigative journalism.” In the email, Birchall pointed to a line where he wrote “share the facts,” and said he understood the bullet points to be facts and he wanted to make sure the press was given correct information.

Then it was time for lunch.

Justballs.com

When we returned, Michael Lifrak, another of Musk’s lawyers, began asking Birchall questions. Birchall was aware of Musk’s Unsworth tweets but said he did not discuss them with Musk. Lifrak asks if Musk would harm Unsworth in any way. “He would never do that,” Birchall said.

When Birchall received the referral for Howard, the con man PI, Musk had clearly expressed that he expected litigation. Lifrak displayed a Birchall email to Howard: “We believe there are planned attacks in the media and/or a lawsuit that are imminent. With that said, we aren’t looking to frame anyone.” Lifrak asked if anything was published with the false information Howard supplied. Birchall said no.

We then move back to the Brickhouse pseudonym, which I find easier to remember than Birchall’s actual name. Birchall said that working with a public figure means trying to maintain that person’s privacy and described that as the core of what he does.

At this point an email is displayed wherein “James Brickhouse” is trying to buy the domain name justballs.com. If you are frightened to click the URL, please know I have done that for you and its contents are (1) “This page is under construction — coming soon!” and (2) related searches, virtually all of which have to do with baseball. There was no testimony about why Birchall would be buying justballs.com on Musk’s behalf or what Musk was planning to do with it.

The reason Birchall used his pseudonym in this transaction, he explained, was because if people knew Musk were involved, they’d likely raise the price. In any event, Birchall did not succeed in purchasing justballs.com.

Birchall then said that when he relayed Howard’s information from Musk, “as human nature would have it, the most alarming things were what I had shared.” Referring to Musk’s email to Buzzfeed, Birchall said the language was harsher than he would have used but the content was what he understood Howard’s investigation to have unearthed. At the time, Birchall did not know Musk had emailed Buzzfeed. I imagine he rather quickly found out. Lifrak rested.

“Leaking to press is a PR stunt, isn’t it?” Wood asked on recross. Birchall repeated that he wanted to encourage investigative journalism. Musk had gotten a significant amount of negative publicity from the “pedo guy” tweet. Leaking, then, would be a way to “balance” the coverage. Wood said that meant Howard’s hiring wasn’t a litigation defense strategy; it was a PR strategy.

This led to a grouchy exchange about what phrases Birchall used with Musk when he gave Musk the phony information, leading to a series of sustained objections to Wood. Wood appeared to be growing frustrated.

A great deal of irritating cross-talk

The next witness, Rick Stanton, was the one who bewildered me the most today. He was the leader of the cave divers who rescued the Thai soccer team and their coach, and he sat very upright in the witness stand, like a clean-shaven Jason Statham. Stanton, a retired firefighter, has been involved in rescues around the world and has done cave diving for most of his adult life, he said.

Unsworth cracked a smile when Stanton referred to “spelunking, as you say.” Apparently this is more commonly called “caving” in the UK. Stanton testified that Unsworth got him involved in the rescue, and that within 6 hours of Unsworth passing Stanton’s name to the authorities, Stanton was on a plane to Thailand.

Matt Wood, son of L. Lin Wood, conducted the direct examination, and to minimize confusion, I will be calling him by his first name and will continue referring to his father by their (shared) last name. Anyway, Matt began asking questions about the rescue and conditions in the cave. Judge Wilson broke in: “Clearly the witness did something heroic, but that’s not what this case is about.” The judge instructed Matt to get back to what’s more relevant.

Stanton obviously thinks highly of Unsworth; his testimony about Unsworth was glowing. During the two weeks Stanton was in Thailand, he was in “constant contact” with Unsworth, he testified. Stanton confirmed he was also in contact with Musk, and that he had instructed Musk on the minisub. At the time Musk and Stanton corresponded, the method the divers used to rescue the soccer team was a totally untested technique, Stanton said. Musk was a possible plan B.

Matt began asking Stanton questions about the minisub. Spiro, Musk’s counsel, objected. Judge Wilson sustained the objection; the question of whether the minisub worked was not relevant to the defamation claim, the judge ruled.

Spiro rose to conduct his cross-examination. He asked how many people were involved in the exploration and rescue; Stanton responded that six to eight people laid the guide line under water in the caves. Stanton again credited Unsworth with giving the team advice and creating a map. There was then a tedious discussion about maps I am going to elide because I don’t see what it has to do with defamation.

Then, Spiro asked if there was a rule against speaking to the press. No, Stanton said. “A rule is enforceable.” There were guidelines against speaking to the media. Unsworth didn’t ask if he could speak to the media, but it also wasn’t Stanton’s decision. Stanton became aware “after the event” that Unsworth had spoken to CNN.

Spiro hauled out his giant calendar again, and began asking Stanton questions about a conspiracy theory that the divers had purposely not rescued the boys. This got Stanton’s hackles up. Spiro attempted to clarify that he personally didn’t believe it was true. There was then a great deal of irritating cross talk between Spiro, Judge Wilson and Wood; I was unable to write quickly enough to keep up with it. Several jurors glanced longingly at the clock.

Spiro displayed a WhatsApp chat between Stanton and Unsworth dated August 6th, 2018. Unsworth asked Stanton if Stanton had saved his emails with Elon Musk. Stanton said yes. Unsworth asked Stanton to find them and forward them. Stanton testified that he gave Unsworth the emails without knowing why Unsworth wanted them. There were no further questions for Stanton and we all took a break.

I kept wondering why Stanton was there — to establish what we all knew already, that Unsworth was a hero? To establish the minisub wouldn’t work? I couldn’t see the relevance of either of those things to the defamation claim. His testimony about the emails wasn’t necessary — as Unsworth, who took the stand next — would also speak to them.

“I still feel dirtied”

When we came back, Vernon Unsworth took the stand, wearing a blue suit with a pale pink shirt and more saturated pink tie; like Stanton, his hair was cropped close. Stanton had stayed for Unsworth’s testimony and was seated in front of me.

Unsworth said he had been a financial consultant since 1987 and splits time between London and Thailand, about three months in each place. He had first visited Thailand in 2011, with his companion, and first explored the cave system in 2012. Unsworth estimated he’d spent hundreds of hours on solo trips through the cave.

Unsworth said that he’d actually planned to enter the cave the same day the soccer team did, but realized he needed to renew his visa. He first became aware of the missing children and their coach when his companion awoke to an awful lot of missed calls, including from her father. Unsworth was asked to help locate the people because he knew the cave system so well. When he arrived at the cave, he discovered water in a crucial section. He tried to stop the water getting in, using sandbags and digging equipment, but couldn’t do it — and had become concerned that more water would cut off him and the other rescuers.

At this point, Taylor Wilson, the lawyer who was conducting Unsworth’s examination, was scolded by Judge Wilson about his questioning style. Unsworth was providing narration, Judge Wilson said. Wilson-plaintiff’s-lawyer was encouraged by Judge Wilson — presumably no relation — to ask questions differently.

Then we came to the CNN interview. Unsworth explained that based on the video he’d seen of Musk’s minisub, he determined it was unworkable. As for his untrue statement that Musk had been asked to leave, Unsworth was essentially repeating gossip. “It’s what I heard generally around the cave rescue area on the day of the 10th,” he said. There’d been an order that the only people to go into the cave on the rescue days were the rescuers.

Unsworth testified that he doesn’t use Twitter, which makes him wiser than me. His companion showed him Musk’s tweets — he doesn’t recall when, or in what medium, specifically. His lawyer Wilson asked him what he took the tweets to mean. “I took it to mean I was being branded a pedophile,” Unsworth said. “It’s disgusting.”

Wilson, the lawyer, asked about the emotional impact. There was a long pause. Unsworth was visibly upset. “Feels very raw. Feel humiliated, ashamed, dirtied.” Unsworth’s voice broke. “I was given a life sentence without parole. At times I feel very vulnerable. It hurts to talk about it.” Unsworth said he felt very isolated and had tried to deal with the shame he felt on his own.

“I was obviously aware of the media coverage,” Unsworth said. He wasn’t sure how many times it was repeated. The media coverage was “very hurtful. I find it disgusting. I find it hard to read the words, never mind talk about it.” Unsworth said he’d lost self-confidence, though he had good and bad days. Wilson, the lawyer, asked if Unsworth still felt humiliated, and Unsworth said yes. “I still feel dirtied.”

The jury appeared rapt.

Unsworth has received awards for his participation in the rescue, but they haven’t changed his feelings about Musk. Unsworth said he nearly didn’t attend the ceremony to be accepted as a Member of the Order of the British Empire; he went only for his mother, niece, and companion. When he looked at the press coverage, though, he saw a comment about the “pedo guy” tweet, which sank his spirits. Wilson asked him how he felt about the MBE. “I enjoyed it as much as I could,” he said.

Since his role in the rescue, Unsworth has been a consultant for three books and two documentaries, both for National Geographic. He has made about $3,000 for his work. He’s also given pro bono presentations in Thailand about the experience.

Bill Pryce, one of Musk’s lawyers who had the general air of a middle school principal, rose for the cross. He displayed the WhatsApp chat between Unsworth and Stanton, noting that the date was August 8, the same date that L. Lin Wood had sent Musk a letter explaining he was preparing a civil complaint. Unsworth said the date was a coincidence; he just wanted to inform himself about the correspondence.

Pryce then pulled up text messages Unsworth had sent to a friend. Unsworth had, in the texts, described the Navy Seals as having “given up” as of July 5, before the rescue took place. Unsworth explained he didn’t mean that literally. Pryce pounced, and began asking Unsworth about other colloquialisms Unsworth had used, such as “lost the plot” and “tetchy.” I was not super clear on the point here.

The emails between Stanton and Musk that Stanton had forwarded to Unsworth were then forwarded to Unsworth’s lawyers. Pryce displayed another email of Unsworth’s, in which details Stanton sent to Unsworth about the cave system were forwarded by Unsworth to Jonathan Head of the BBC. “For your eyes only and not to be reported on!!!” Unsworth wrote in the email. “Hopefully you will understand why Elon Musk’s submarine would not have worked.” Another text from Unsworth was displayed, where he’d sent a request for the measurements of the minisub.

The cross was difficult to watch. It seemed clear Pryce was trying to establish that Unsworth was pursuing his argument with Musk; part of the defense’s argument between men strategy. But given how Unsworth behaved when Musk was testifying — while he was facing away from the jury, who couldn’t see him and thus won’t consider his expressions — I am convinced that Unsworth does feel humiliated, dirtied, and ashamed.

What remains in question is whether “pedo guy” should be counted as an insult or a statement of fact. Though Musk gave testimony that he felt it was an insult, Unsworth gave testimony he felt it was an accusation. I don’t know who the jury will find more believable.

One thing, however, seems true, though it is not testimony and I don’t know if the jury will consider it: this entire process has been more grueling for Unsworth than Musk. Unsworth has been in the court for the entire trial, listening to testimony he clearly finds hard to bear; Musk showed up for his testimony and vanished.

The trial will resume tomorrow at 9AM PT.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMic2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRoZXZlcmdlLmNvbS8yMDE5LzEyLzUvMjA5OTY2ODAvZWxvbi1tdXNrLXRlc3RpbW9ueS12ZXJub24tdW5zd29ydGgtdHdlZXQtaHVtaWxpYXRlZC1kaXJ0aWVkLWRlZmFtYXRpb27SAYABaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhldmVyZ2UuY29tL3BsYXRmb3JtL2FtcC8yMDE5LzEyLzUvMjA5OTY2ODAvZWxvbi1tdXNrLXRlc3RpbW9ueS12ZXJub24tdW5zd29ydGgtdHdlZXQtaHVtaWxpYXRlZC1kaXJ0aWVkLWRlZmFtYXRpb24?oc=5

2019-12-05 07:40:58Z
52780460410583

Huawei launches new legal challenge against US ban - BBC News

Chinese telecoms giant Huawei has launched a legal challenge to a decision by US regulators to classify it as a national security threat.

It comes after the US Federal Communications Commission put curbs on rural mobile providers using a $8.5bn (£6.5bn) government fund to buy Huawei equipment.

The firm said evidence that it was a threat to security "does not exist".

The move is the latest in a series of challenges between Huawei and the US.

The company has asked the US Court of Appeal to overturn the decision.

Speaking at a news conference at Huawei's headquarters in Shenzhen, the company's chief legal officer, Song Liuping, said: "The US government has never presented real evidence to show that Huawei is a national security threat. That's because this evidence does not exist."

This is the second legal challenge this year by the company as it fights back against the Trump administration's policies.

Huawei launched similar legal action in May, challenging a decision to ban US government agencies from buying its equipment.

The company has been drawn into the disputes against the backdrop of the bitter trade war between the world's two biggest economies.

It has a leading role in manufacturing and selling key technology for next generation 5G telecoms infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Washington has been pressuring other nations to not allow Huawei to build their critical 5G telecoms infrastructure.

At the Nato summit in the UK on Wednesday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the decision on whether to allow Huawei a role in building Britain's 5G networks would be based on ensuring continued co-operation with the US over intelligence sharing.

"On Huawei and 5G, I don't want this country to be unnecessarily hostile to investment from overseas," Mr Johnson said.

"On the other hand, we cannot prejudice our vital national security. Nor can we prejudice our ability to co-operate with other vital... security partners - and that will be the key criteria that informs our decision about Huawei."

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiKmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9idXNpbmVzcy01MDY2NzU5NtIBLmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hbXAvYnVzaW5lc3MtNTA2Njc1OTY?oc=5

2019-12-05 08:25:47Z
52780460321752