Latest news with #SPO
Russia Today
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Compulsory work for refugees introduced in EU country
Burgenland state in Austria has introduced a scheme requiring asylum seekers to work for their host municipalities. Those who repeatedly refuse will see their welfare benefits cut to the bare minimum. Speaking last Wednesday, State Councilor Daniela Winkler from the Social Democratic Party (SPO) explained that 'migration must be financially and socially viable,' adding that the measures are meant to reflect 'fairness towards the population.' The 'Burgenland Model', approved by the regional legislature in December 2024, is set to launch on July 1. Winkler argued that as asylum seekers 'become committed contributors to the community… prejudices disappear, and integration becomes a tangible experience.' According to the official, 'the structured daily routine provides asylum seekers with stability and meaning during a period of uncertainty.' The local authorities have estimated that there are around 130 asylum seekers of working age currently residing in Burgenland, who appear to be eligible for the 'model.' The scheme envisages asylum seekers being deployed to areas where additional hands are most needed, depending on the locality. 'It's not about symbolic employment, but rather real, everyday tasks,' Winkler clarified. According to a statement on the SPO's website, eligible jobs include landscape and winter maintenance, cleaning, delivery services, and 'simple auxiliary tasks' in nursing homes and libraries. Refugees in caregiving roles will work up to 20 hours weekly, while other community service roles require up to 30 hours. They will be paid €1.60 per hour ($1.90) Those who have repeatedly refused to participate in the scheme without a valid reason will have their welfare payments and services slashed. However, asylum seekers will retain access to basic accommodation, food, and medical care under all circumstances The Burgenland state councilor clarified that an asylum seeker who refuses to perform compulsory social services can, for instance, expect to be removed from a state-provided apartment, and given simply a 'place to sleep' instead. On Wednesday, the head of the regional SPO chapter, Roland Furst, also stated that Burgenland has put a cap of 330 people on asylum seeker admittance per year. He also called for asylum and deportation procedures to be sped up. According to official statistics, Burgenland's population stood at 301,790 as of January 1, 2025. Carinthia, another Austrian state, is reportedly developing a similar mandatory employment scheme for asylum seekers.
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
5 Revealing Analyst Questions From PubMatic's Q1 Earnings Call
PubMatic's first quarter results reflected resilience in the face of sector headwinds, as the company's performance was shaped by both ongoing challenges and emerging opportunities within the programmatic advertising landscape. Management emphasized that, while revenue declined year over year, core business areas such as connected TV (CTV) and supply path optimization (SPO) experienced robust growth. CEO Rajeev Goel highlighted that 'excluding the affected DSP and political spend, year-over-year revenue growth accelerated to 21%,' underscoring the strength in newer media channels and data-driven offerings. The company continues to adapt to shifting advertiser preferences and industry changes, helping to offset softness in certain display segments. Is now the time to buy PUBM? Find out in our full research report (it's free). Revenue: $63.83 million vs analyst estimates of $62.09 million (4.3% year-on-year decline, 2.8% beat) Adjusted EPS: -$0.04 vs analyst estimates of -$0.07 ($0.03 beat) Adjusted Operating Income: -$2.21 million vs analyst estimates of -$14.38 million (-3.5% margin, 84.7% beat) Revenue Guidance for Q2 CY2025 is $68 million at the midpoint, roughly in line with what analysts were expecting EBITDA guidance for Q2 CY2025 is $10.5 million at the midpoint, below analyst estimates of $11.36 million Operating Margin: -18.6%, down from -8.3% in the same quarter last year Market Capitalization: $565.9 million While we enjoy listening to the management's commentary, our favorite part of earnings calls are the analyst questions. Those are unscripted and can often highlight topics that management teams would rather avoid or topics where the answer is complicated. Here is what has caught our attention. Eric Martinuzzi (Lake Street Capital) inquired about the impact of the Google AdTech antitrust ruling. CEO Rajeev Goel explained that customers are increasingly considering alternatives to Google, and highlighted PubMatic's potential to gain share as industry dynamics evolve. Zach Cummins (B. Riley) asked for updates on key DSP partner volumes and the effect on display revenue. CFO Steve Pantelick described stability with this partner and expects to lap the impact by the end of Q2, citing growth opportunities beyond the current technical shift. Simran Biswal (RBC) questioned macro spending trends and resilience of CTV and emerging products. Goel responded that advertiser budgets remain steady, while secular shifts toward streaming and lower-funnel performance channels favor PubMatic's offerings. Jacob Armstrong (KeyBanc) probed how higher-margin CTV revenues will be balanced between margin expansion and reinvestment. Pantelick emphasized a disciplined approach, reinvesting in secular growth areas while maintaining adjusted profitability. Andrew Boone (JMP) sought clarity on the roadmap for new products and bridging normalized growth to reported results. Goel outlined a focus on first-party data, supply chain efficiency, and performance optimization, while Pantelick detailed the impact of DSP and political ad headwinds on growth figures. In the coming quarters, our team will closely monitor (1) the pace of CTV and omni-channel video adoption, particularly as advertisers shift budgets from linear TV to streaming; (2) the rollout and client uptake of new AI-powered buying and curation tools; and (3) stabilization in display and emerging product segments as the company laps DSP and political advertising headwinds. Execution in international markets and agency direct sales will also be important indicators of sustained momentum. PubMatic currently trades at $11.68, up from $10.99 just before the earnings. Is the company at an inflection point that warrants a buy or sell? See for yourself in our full research report (it's free). Market indices reached historic highs following Donald Trump's presidential victory in November 2024, but the outlook for 2025 is clouded by new trade policies that could impact business confidence and growth. While this has caused many investors to adopt a "fearful" wait-and-see approach, we're leaning into our best ideas that can grow regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate. Take advantage of Mr. Market by checking out our Top 9 Market-Beating Stocks. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 183% over the last five years (as of March 31st 2025). Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-micro-cap company Tecnoglass (+1,754% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today.
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Blockades Loom Again as Libya Seeks Global Oil Investment
Given that around 97% of its government revenues come from oil, it might seem obvious to all Libya's principal factions that increasing production is a very good idea. There is plenty of scope to do so, as before the removal of long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 it had easily been able to produce around 1.65 million bpd of predominantly high-quality light, sweet crude oil. Additionally positive back then was that production had been on a rising trend, up from about 1.4 million bpd in 2000. Further increases were on the horizon to push output close to the circa-3 million bpd achieved in the late 1960s, with the National Oil Corporation (NOC) planning to roll out enhanced oil recovery techniques at maturing oil fields to that effect. Up until very recently, new plans were progressing well from the 'Strategic Programs Office' (SPO) to boost oil production from the current 1.4 million bpd level up to 1.6 million bpd within a year or so and then to 2 million bpd by 2028/29. However, rising political unrest again threatens not only to derail this process but also to see the imposition of widespread blockades on Libya's existing oil output as well. At the beginning of this year, oil minister Khalifa Abdulsadek stated that the country still required US$3-4 billion to reach the 2026/27 1.6 million bpd production target. Towards this end, early March saw Libya announce plans to launch its first oil exploration bidding round in over 17 years, with 22 areas up for grabs across the country, which still has 48 billion barrels of proved crude oil reserves in place -- the largest in Africa. These include major sites in the Sirte, Murzuq, and Ghadamis basins as well as in the offshore Mediterranean region. According to an update from the Oil Ministry in the middle of last month, the bidding had already attracted more than 40 applicants, including some of the world's biggest and most technologically advanced oil firms. U.S. supermajor ConocoPhillips is one firm that has voiced its interest in expanding its operations in Libya, in which it currently runs the Waha concession. Other interest is likely to come from major firms from Europe, for which Libya has become one country targeted to substitute for lost supplies from Russia due to sanctions resulting from its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. These may well include Italy's Eni, Spain's Repsol, Austria's OMV, and the U.K.'s BP, has been told by sources close to the bidding process. Each of these firms were quick to resume exploration activities in Libya following blockades last August that halted around 700,000 bpd of oil production, despite a 10-year hiatus in their activities said, it may be that their patience will be tested again very soon as the possibility of new blockades rises sharply following the 12 May assassination of Abdul Ghani al-Kiklii – a militia leader and head of the Presidential Council-affiliated Stability Support Apparatus (SSA). According to a source who works closely with U.S. diplomatic initiatives in the country, spoken to by last week, al-Kiklii was specifically targeted as retaliation for the shooting of Salaheddin Elnajih, chairman of the Libyan Post Telecommunications and Information Technology Company and an appointee of the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) Prime Minister, Abdulhamid Dbeibah. The GNU is the successor to the previous Government of National Accord (GNA). More broadly, the killing has been seen by rival factions as part of ongoing manoeuvres by Dbeibah and his supporters to consolidate his power through the elimination of key rivals in his main opposition groups. Following all this, it remains to be seen precisely how these opposition groups will react, but it is unlikely to portend well for the GNU government's plans to boost oil production. One group in particular may believe that the timing is right to launch another major offensive, political, economic and/or military, against the GNU, and this is Libya's alternative government – the Government of National Stability (GNS), based in the east – which in turn is backed by Khalifa Haftar, the leader of the Libyan National Army. Early signs of trouble ahead was a report on 28 May that the NOC's headquarters in the GNU-controlled Tripoli had been stormed by gunmen, although the NOC later bizarrely said that this had only been 'a limited personal dispute'. Nonetheless, shortly after the GNS's Haftar threatened to declare blockades of key Libyan oil fields again due to such attacks on institutions such as the NOC and suggested that its headquarters be moved into the eastern area – controlled by the GNS and his army – which would be 'safe'. He has made it clear since an agreement signed on 18 September 2020 that there can be no reconciliation in Libya between the opposing GNU and GNS governments so long as there is no sustainable equitable way for the country's oil revenues to be distributed between the rival groups. More specifically, at the time of signing the 2020 agreement that ended an economically devastating series of oil blockades across Libya, Haftar and his opposite number from the then-GNA at the signing, Ahmed Maiteeq, made an in-principle agreement to look into establishing a commission not only to determine how oil revenues across Libya are distributed but also to consider the implementation of several measures designed to stabilise the country's perilous financial position. The blockade from 18 January to 18 September cost the country at least US$9.8 billion in lost hydrocarbons revenues. Key to this tentative agreement was the formation of a joint technical committee, which would – according to the official statement: 'Oversee oil revenues and ensure the fair distribution of resources… and control the implementation of the terms of the agreement during the next three months, provided that its work is evaluated at the end of the 2020 and a plan is defined for the next year.' In order to address the fact that the then-GNA – and now GNU -- effectively held sway over the NOC and, by extension, the Central Bank of Libya (in which the revenues are physically held), the committee would also 'prepare a unified budget that meets the needs of each party… and the reconciliation of any dispute over budget allocations… and will require the Central Bank [in Tripoli] to cover the monthly or quarterly payments approved in the budget without any delay, and as soon as the joint technical committee requests the transfer.' Due to the influence of various domestic and international disruptive elements – notably Russia – since that idea was mooted it has never been properly implemented. However, there is still hope from several quarters – including the U.S. and U.N. – that such a deal could work well, and indeed that it might still be able to solve the ongoing impasse over the country's oil and gas revenues. In the meantime and in the absence of such a deal, it looks highly likely that Libya will remain subject to further oil blockades and shutdowns as part of the ongoing struggle its warring factions for control over Libya's oil resources. By Simon Watkins for More Top Reads From this article on Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hindu
03-06-2025
- General
- The Hindu
No contempt if Parliament, legislatures simply make laws: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has said any law made by Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to contempt of court. A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while disposing of a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others. The contempt plea alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with its 2011 directions to stop support to vigilante groups such as Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists. The petition contended that there has been contempt of the order of the apex court as the Chhattisgarh government has legislated the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 which authorised an auxiliary armed force to assist security forces in dealing with Maoist/Naxal violence and legalising existing SPOs by inducting them as members. Besides accusing the Chhattisgarh government of not acknowledging the directions on Salwa Judum, the petitioners said instead of "desisting" from using SPOs and disarming them, the State government passed the "Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011" regularising all SPOs with effect from the date of the top court order on July 5, 2011. They alleged that the State government has also not vacated all school buildings and ashrams from the occupation of the security forces nor has it compensated the victims of Salwa Judum and SPOs. The top court on May 15 said the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order passed by the top court by Chhattisgarh cannot be an act of contempt. Delicate balance The top court said in order to ensure that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional objectives of establishing an egalitarian social order, the balance between the respective sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained. "Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a constitutional court, the said enactment would have the force of law." The Bench added, "However, if any party wishes that the said Act be struck down for being unconstitutional, then legal remedies in that regard would have to be resorted to before the competent court of law." Considering the situation prevailing in Chhattisgarh over decades, the Bench outlined the need for "specific steps" to bring peace and rehabilitation in the affected areas through coordinated measures of the State and the Central government. "It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India, having regard to Article 315 of the Constitution, to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen," the court said. Judiciary is vested under the Constitution with the power to resolve interpretive doubts and disputes about the validity or otherwise of an enacted law by Parliament or any state legislature, the Bench added. "However, the interpretative power of a constitutional court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a court," it noted. The verdict pointed out that central to the legislative function was the power of the legislative organ to enact and amend laws. "Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a court, including this court, for simply making the law," the Bench said. The top court underlined the legislature's powers to pass a law; to remove the basis of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been struck down by a constitutional court by amending or varying it so as to give effect to the judgment of a constitutional court which has struck down a portion of an enactment or for that matter the entire enactment. "This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours. This doctrine also emphasises on the principle of checks and balances under our Constitution which is a healthy aspect of distribution of powers, particularly legislative powers." The order went on, "Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity."
Time of India
03-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
No contempt of court if Parliament, state legislature simply make laws: Supreme Court
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court has said any law made by Parliament or a state legislature cannot be held to contempt of court A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while disposing of a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and contempt plea alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with its 2011 directions to stop support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against petition contended that there has been contempt of the order of the apex court as the Chhattisgarh government has legislated the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 which authorised an auxiliary armed force to assist security forces in dealing with Maoist/Naxal violence and legalising existing SPOs by inducting them as accusing the Chhattisgarh Government of not acknowledging the directions on Salwa Judum, the petitioners said instead of "desisting" from using SPOs and disarming them, the state government passed the "Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011" regularising all SPOs with effect from the date of the top court order on July 5, alleged that state government has also not vacated all school buildings and ashrams from the occupation of the security force nor has it compensated the victims of Salwa Judum and top court on May 15 said that the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order passed by the top court by Chhattisgarh cannot be an act of top court said in order to ensure that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional objectives of establishing an egalitarian social order, the balance between the respective sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained."Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law."The bench added, "However, if any party wishes that the said Act be struck down for being unconstitutional, then legal remedies in that regard would have to be resorted to before the competent court of law."Considering the situation prevailing in Chhattisgarh over decades, the bench outlined the need for "specific steps" to bring peace and rehabilitation in the affected areas through coordinated measures of the state and the Central Government."It is duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India , having regard to Article 315 of the Constitution, to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen," the court is vested under the Constitution with the power to resolve interpretive doubts and disputes about the validity or otherwise of an enacted law by Parliament or any state legislature, the bench added."However, the interpretative power of a Constitutional Court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a Court," it verdict pointed out that central to the legislative function was the power of the legislative organ to enact and amend laws."Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a Court, including this Court, for simply making the law," the bench top court underlined the legislature's powers to pass a law; to remove the basis of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been struck down by a constitutional court by amending or varying it so as to give effect to the judgment of a constitutional court which has struck down a portion of an enactment or for that matter the entire enactment."This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours. This doctrine also emphasises on the principle of checks and balances under our Constitution which is a healthy aspect of distribution of powers, particularly legislative powers."The order went on, "Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity ."
