PwC begins valuation of GuySuCo assets

first_img– despite int’l firm facing ban, fraud charge in IndiaDespite being handed a two-year ban last week for allegedly overstating the earnings and assets of Indian software company Satyam Computer Services, the international audit firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) on Monday commenced the process of evaluating the assets of the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo).According to the Special Purpose Unit (SPU), which falls under the National Industrial & Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL), PwC was selected from a field of the top four international financial services’ providers, and has for the last seven years been ranked as the most prestigious accounting firm in the world.The agreement between NICIL and PwC was signed on Friday, January 12, 2018, and work commenced on Monday with meetings held between PwC and the SPU team at its La Bonne Intention offices.PwC Caribbean Partner, Wilfred BaghalooPwC will hold its first meeting with the CEO of GuySuCo today, in order to carry out the valuation of all assets. In addition to the valuation, PwC is expected to provide other advisory and financial services.Having met with the sugar company, SPU Head Colvin Heath-London has said he is encouraged that the SPU was able to get the PwC team in Guyana speedily. “With the current developments in the sugarcane sector, we are working to bring stability to the industry and affected communities as quickly as possible,” he explained.Heath-London has said, “The work of PwC, given their vast experience in this type of process, will help all decision-makers to arrive at the best decisions for the assets of GuySuCo; for other businesses that are in the GuySuCo supply chain; and, most importantly, for the workers, who are uncertain about their future.”Meanwhile, PwC’s Caribbean partner, Wilfred Baghaloo, has said he looks forward to the opportunity of working with the Government and people of Guyana to find a practical economic solution to the privatisation of the three sugar estates on a timely basis. While noting that this will be a challenging task, Baghaloo has said the PwC is equipped to ensure that the project is successful.And while PwC will be tasked with ensuring a level playing field for all interested parties and stakeholders as the process goes forward, a report originating from international news agency Reuters and other news sites in India has claimed that PwC has been handed a two-year ban last week for allegedly overstating the earnings and assets of the Indian software company Satyam Computer Services.The report states that PricewaterhouseCoopers was the audit firm at the time the more-than US$1 billion fraud occurred. It was the founder of the company, Ramalinga Raju, who blew the whistle on the fraud in 2009, costing shareholders billions and shaking the industry.Besides the ban, Reuters said, the Securities and Exchange Board of India has handed down an order for PricewaterhouseCoopers Bangalore and two of its former partners to pay 131 million rupees, or US$2 million, plus interest, in forfeited funds. This must be done within 45 days, with the ban taking effect on March 31.In its defence, PricewaterhouseCoopers is quoted as saying it would appeal the regulator’s decision in court. It has defended itself by affirming that there was no “intentional” wrongdoing in the fraud at Satyam.When asked about this issue on Monday, Baghaloo said, “I cannot comment too much on this as the matter is subject to an appeal. In summary, the matter relates to a 2009 event relating to a specific company and a specific stock exchange. We continue to service our numerous clients in India, and we continue to enjoy their support and confidence. As it relates to the task at hand in Guyana, our long history of strong commitment to excellence, integrity, innovation and quality will continue.”GuySuCo, which is saddled with billions of dollars in debt, is currently engaged in divesting its assets to get cash to meet its operational and other expenses. At the same time, Government is forging ahead with downsizing the industry, citing the economic feasibility of the sector.At present, a Special Purpose Unit (SPU) is in charge of this process. That unit was first announced by Agriculture Minister Noel Holder when he presented to the National Assembly a policy paper on the future of the sugar industry. Some $130 million have been allocated “to provide for the establishment of a Special Purpose Unit to manage the reform of the sugar industry”.In July, the Government had presented a supplementary request to tap the national coffers. The National Assembly has since approved the monies for the Unit.At the time that monies were being approved for the SPU, Finance Minister Winston Jordan had said Government was unclear as to what it was looking to earn from the sale of the GuySuCo assets, since those assets had still needed to be properly evaluated.PwC, which was awarded the$60 million contract, will lead the divestment process, including updating valuations of the assets of GuySuCo. PwC’s work on the GuySuCo project is expected to last eight months.last_img read more

After Raiders victory, coach Jon Gruden mocks Bears disco celebration: ‘Let’s all start dancing!’

first_imgCLICK HERE if you are having a problem viewing the photos or video on a mobile device They don’t have to teach this at pro football class. Those who make it to the NFL figure it out on their own:Gloat while you can. After the Chicago Bears defeated the Minnesota Vikings in Week 4, the Bears repaired to their locker room which was decked out as an honest-to-Roger-Goodell 1970s-era disco. You are dubious. You should be. But it’s true. Step into Club Dub. If Richard Gere, Andy …last_img

Archive Classic: How Darwinism Produces Job Security

first_imgThis entry from 12/22/2003 we have referenced often, because it illustrates how Darwin changed science into storytelling.How Darwinism Produces Job Security  Posted 12/22/2003 by David F. Coppedge (Visited 90 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 One thing Darwinism has going for it: it provides endless opportunities to research stories that are nearly impossible to prove.A case in point was provided in the Dec. 18, 2003 issue of Nature.1  John R. Hutchinson (Royal Veterinary College, UK), in a News and Views article on bird evolution, reviewed the new angle that flight might have first begun when theropod dinosaurs stretched out their forelimbs to act as stabilizers or spoilers while running up slopes (see 01/16/2003 headline).  Before Montana vertebrate morphologist Ken Dial came up with this hypothesis, two competing ideas for the origin of flight produced a “rather stale dichotomy” according to Hutchinson: the ground-up (cursorial) hypothesis, that running dinosaurs leaped into the air, and the tree-down (arboreal) hypothesis, that tree-dwelling dinosaurs leaped out of trees (see 01/29/2003 headline).Hutchinson does not pretend that the problem has been solved by any means; at most, “this work may illuminate the origin of flight in birds.” But by providing a possible use for a non-flying limb, which might improve over time, it removes an implausible point of the plot: “This is a compelling solution for the evolutionary conundrum, ‘What use is half a wing?’” Most of the story of the transition from birds to dinosaurs, however, remains difficult, including the evolution of feathers (see 10/30/2003 and 08/21/2001 headlines) and the need for the simultaneous evolution of many other specialized structures such as the avian lung (see 10/31/2003 headline).  But to Hutchinson, this is not a failure of the story, but a bonus: “There are plenty of issues yet to be explored, of course, which is a good thing for many researchers, including Bundle and Dial, who admit as much” (emphasis added in all quotes).  In other words, the new hypothesis, that flight began to evolve when forelimbs were used as spoilers (wing-assisted incline running, or WAIR), opens up a new job market.  Many new experimental tests can now be attempted by researchers.  Hutchinson provides some examples:Physics: “The relative roles of inertial and aerodynamic forces remain unknown, as do the energetics of WAIR.”Role of the Tail: “I wonder how much hindlimb function changes between level running and WAIR, or how the third locomotor module, the tail, might influence WAIR.”Role of the Feet: “If WAIR is so important in the natural history of ground (or other) birds, and if it is vital for birds to generate frictional forces to improve traction, might their feet be specialized accordingly?”WAIR use by living birds: “Likewise, it is not known how broadly distributed and crucial WAIR is for the thousands of species of extant birds, especially those such as tinamous, kiwis and ostriches that retain many ancestral avian traits (for example, spending a relatively short time in the nest after hatching, or frequenting more terrestrial than arboreal environments), although Bundle and Dial provide some tantalizing speculations.”Form and Function: “Finally, how closely are specific anatomical features of birds linked to functions integral to WAIR?”Interdisciplinary Research: “On the wish-list for the future would be the establishment of secure links between form and function for the group — Aves or Neornithes — that includes all extant birds and all descendants of their most recent common ancestor.  If that could be done, then the more difficult historical questions of how WAIR evolved would become tractable because relationships between form and function could be traced across evolutionary lineages.”It appears, therefore, that the new hypothesis is no spoiler itself; it is a door of opportunity, a fresh wind taking the story of bird evolution out of the doldrums:Without such broader knowledge, it is uncertain how essential WAIR was for any extinct members of the theropod lineage, including the earliest birds.  Regardless, this work will continue to stimulate research on flight and its evolution.  The debate over whether flight originated in tree- or ground-living creatures is centuries old.  The WAIR hypothesis has provided a biologically plausible alternative to that rather stale dichotomy.21John R. Hutchinson, “Biomechanics: Early birds surmount steep slopes,” Nature 426, 777 – 778 (18 December 2003); doi:10.1038/426777a.2Note: Ken Dial published his WAIR theory in January 2003 and has propounded it ever since, with many evolutionists finding it plausible; search “WAIR” or “Ken Dial” for subsequent developments, e.g. 5/01/06, 12/03/12, 5/28/13.  For difficulties accounting for the origin of flight by evolutionary processes, see the film Flight: The Genius of Birds (2013) by Illustra Media.Caught in the act!  This is an important principle to understand about Darwinism, and why it has become so successful, and why it has taken over the intellectual world.  It no longer matters whether a hypothesis is true or not, but only whether it keeps lazy scientists employed as storytellers.  Evolutionary science has been liberated from repeatability, testability and observability.  The key word is now plausibility, which being translated, means science has become fiction.  After all, any good novel or short story is plausible, isn’t it?  (Since there are no Laws of Plausibility, at least it will be plausible to somebody, especially the storyteller.)For Darwinists studying the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, to really do their job rigorously, they would have to identify every beneficial mutation or gene duplication, connect it to an actual functional advantage, and monitor its spread through a population.  They would have to find every transitional fossil, know its date accurately, trace the development of all the flight-related hardware and software in the genes (including feathers, perching feet, hollow bones, avian lungs, specialized organs, modified brain, body size, metabolic rate, specialized muscles and tendons, and behavioral instincts, such as knowing how to take off and land and use thermals), explain how these morphological changes proceed from embryo to adult, and much more.  Clearly, doing all this is impossible.  Moreover, they would need to uncover, by experiment, new natural laws that create increasing levels of complexity and information against the inexorable pressure of entropy.  Even if in some fantasyland they could perform these impossible experiments, they would never know if it matched prehistory without getting into a time machine and watching the whole story unfold.This is too hard, so evolutionists changed the rules.  They don’t like doing science the old way, the way Joule and Faraday and Mendel did it.  It’s so much easier to just flop on the sofa and speculate.  When the NSF comes around and wonders how the grant money is being spent, the Darwinist can show the photo album from the last vacation in the Bahamas (see 12/03/03 headline), or show a home-video clip of partridge chicks running up a ramp in the lab, or demonstrate the latest computer games (see 05/08/03 headline) enough to look busy.  And so that Eugenie Scott can brag about all the scientific literature that supports evolution, the Darwinist can have his or her grad student write it up in specialized jargon for Nature or Science or National Geographic, ending with the typical benediction about all the wonderful stories that the latest new twist on the plot opens up.  Look through the Links on “Darwin and Evolution” and check if this is not indeed the situation.Calling all Baloney Detectors.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  We’ve been hoodwinked.  All along, Eugenie Scott and the rest of the Darwin Party have been browbeating their critics that they just don’t understand “science” and that to do “science” we must play by “the rules.”  But she didn’t explain that the rules were changed when the Darwin Party came to power.  Old Charlie was clever.  He had a vivid imagination and a gift of gab, and instead of proving his story, he said, “It’s plausible, isn’t it?  Prove me wrong!”  So we took the bait and headed off on an impossible quest, trying to prove a universal negative, instead of calling his bluff and making him prove his story right.  While we were distracted, he rounded up the Starving Storytellers, gave them lab coats and became their patron saint.  They have been in his debt ever since.Anti-evolutionists have been snookered into trying to prove that this or that alleged feathered dinosaur really isn’t an ancestor to birds, or that this or that microevolutionary change cannot be extrapolated endlessly, without realizing that they are trying to beat Hobbes at Calvinball.  As long as the Darwinists are free to make up stories that can never be proved, it’s hopeless to call them on the carpet.  The one who sets the rules controls the game.The reason Darwin Party members are so vehement against critics is that their jobs are at stake.  The founding fathers of science declared independence from speculation by framing an unwritten constitution which demanded that scientific results be observable, testable and repeatable.  But later presidents, giving into pressure from special interest groups that found the work too hard, started entitlement programs like the Great Society for Storytellers.  The GSS took over labs, removed the flasks and ammeters, and set up couches surrounding banquet tables filled with “tantalizing speculations” (see 09/18/03 commentary).  Eventually, Big Science became a bloated bureaucracy distributing limited grant money to more and more storyteller banquets, while those rugged individualists who still believed in the founding principles of science were being burdened to support the growing welfare state.  Those few who called for fairness were accused of hate speech, and ridiculed as irrational, superstitious obscurantists who simply didn’t understand “science.”If people woke up and realized that Darwinists are not pulling their fair share, that real science was subsidizing the Darwinists’ endless quest for a good story, some heads might roll.  Science itself, however, would go on.  The good old science that builds space stations and discovers molecular motors, that explores Mars and digs up dinosaur bones and classifies hummingbirds, would do just fine.  Medicine would still advance, high school science fairs would still be popular, microscopes and telescopes would continue to sell, and discoveries would continue to pour forth.  But if the public demanded accountability, then all the useless, distracting, parasitic welfare programs promoted by the Darwin Party would dry up.  Certain loudmouth bums and welfare queens would be stuck holding up signs saying, Will Tell Stories for Food.This should not be taken as a tirade against Darwinists.  We are actually very tolerant of them.  If they want to continue to loaf and watch Charlie’s angles, that’s fine; there are even some creationists who like some episodes.  But teach it in the theater class, not the science class.last_img read more

Casey Makes a Bet

first_img Start Free Trial Already a member? Log in Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details. This article is only available to GBA Prime Memberscenter_img (With apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer)Bob Casey’s business worries made him grumble, whine, and moan;His solar thermal enterprise was dropping like a stone.While certain clients wanted water heated by the sun,The calls and jobs were rare these days, which wasn’t very fun.The contractor regretted his decision long agoTo be a solar plumber; now his life was full of woe.Old Casey’s face was worried; he had wrinkles in his brow;Hot water panels weren’t requested very often now.But on a roof in Mudville, when the morning sun was bright,Old Casey felt quite cheerful in the warm December light.Soon, winter would arrive, but now the weather felt like fall,And Casey had a solar thermal system to install.He liked to work on rooftops — Casey had no fear of heights —And from the ridge he looked upon the neighbor’s Christmas lights.OTHER PARODIES2014 Parody: The Raven2012 Parody: The Grinch2011 Parody: Macbeth2010 Parody: Christmas Carols2009 Parody: ’Twas the Night Before ChristmasHe heard a truck pull up next door, and looking down, he sawJosé, the handsome PV guy, blue-eyed and square of jaw.José set up a ladder and he quickly set to work,And Casey thought, “I hate that guy! He really is a jerk!José, the irksome fellow with the brand-new V-8 truck,A thriving PV business, pretty wife, and all the luck!”When Casey understood José was working right next door,The competition freaked him out; he mumbled, “This is war.”José was cutting conduit; he worked with speed and skill;When Casey saw his rival work, he had an urge to kill.And Casey thought, “I’ll race him! That’s exactly what I’ll do!For every panel he puts up, I’ll… last_img read more

How Did Private Companies Become The Guardians Of Our Online Privacy?

first_imgMassive Non-Desk Workforce is an Opportunity fo… Tags:#Government#privacy Related Posts antone gonsalves IT + Project Management: A Love Affaircenter_img Cognitive Automation is the Immediate Future of… U.S. government surveillance of email, search and other online activities is on the rise, while laws protecting people’s privacy remain murky. As a result, private Internet and communications service providers – and even apps makers – have become the gatekeepers of our personal data and our first line of defense against government prying.By The NumbersThe unwanted role forced onto private companies was highlighted this week in Google’s latest report on the number of requests for user information it receives from government entities in the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. led the world in asking Google to hand over user data, with 7,969 requests in the first half of this year.That number has been rising steadily since the last half of 2009, which is the period covered in Google’s first Transparency Report. Back then, U.S. law enforcement and other government officials made fewer than half as many requests.The rest of the world is following close behind. Worldwide, Google received 20,938 inquiries from government entities, compared to 12,539 in 2009. “This is the sixth time we’ve released this data, and one trend has become clear: Government surveillance is on the rise,” said Dorothy Chou, Google’s senior policy analyst, in the company’s blog.Eroding Privacy ProtectionsWhile U.S. government’s thirst for online information about its citizens is increasing, privacy protections are weakening as a result of Congress’ failure to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), created more than 25 years ago to set standards for law enforcement access to electronic communications and associated data.The digital world is vastly different than it was when the ECPA was passed, so the act has become a “patchwork of confusing standards that have been interpreted inconsistently by the courts,” according to Digital Due Process, a coalition of privacy advocates, think tanks and major companies lobbying for major changes in the ECPA. Member companies include Apple, Amazon, AT&T, Facebook, Google and Microsoft.Without clear legal standards, companies like Google and others must rely on their own lawyers to decide whether law enforcement is acting within its authority or in violation of people’s privacy rights.Placing private companies in the role of privacy protector is unfair to the companies involved – which typically want nothing to do with the issue – and to the individuals involved, who find themselves at the whim of how a particular company interprets its legal and practical responsibilites to balance privacy protection with government cooperation.Privacy protection rightly belongs to Congress. “The burden shouldn’t really be on the companies,” said Jim Dempsey, vice president of public policy for the Center For Democracy and Technology, which is also a member of Digital Due Process.Murky Laws = Inconsistent ProtectionsOne area where federal law is particularly fuzzy is in government access to the content of people’s calendars, email and other content stored online – in the news in the wake of the General Petraeus scandal. Federal prosecutors take the position that need only issue a subpoena for law enforcement to access most online content. Google and other large companies routinely fight such attempts, unless prosecutors obtain a court warrant.“To its credit, Google demands a warrant for access to content,” Dempsey noted. “If the government tries to get it without a warrant, Google fights back, and a lot of the other big providers fight back. Where the smaller guys stand, it varies all over the board.”Without explicit checks and balances from lawmakers, online privacy rights in the U.S. start with the resources and the will of the company that happens to hold the online data in question. For law enforcement, it’s an ongoing battle during investigations into what may be serious crimes, such as terrorism, fraud and child pornography.It’s Even Worse OverseasThe U.S. is hardly alone in aggressively seeking customer data from service providers. Five of the top 10 countries requesting data from Google are in Europe, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. “The laws in other countries are equally as weak as the laws in the United States, if not weaker,” Dempsey warned.In countries such as China, meanwhile, the New York Times reported Tuesday that authorities are putting increasing pressure on “private” Internet companies not just to share customer data, but to censor Web content as well.What other countries choose to do is hardly an excuse for U.S. lawmakers to stick with the clearly unacceptable status quo. It’s time for Congress to take the lead in protecting the online privacy of American citizens. 3 Areas of Your Business that Need Tech Nowlast_img read more