Category Archives: National Vanguard

TAMPA, Fla., June 17, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BRP Group, Inc. (BRP Group or the Company) (NASDAQ: BRP), a rapidly growing independent insurance distribution firm delivering tailored insurance solutions, today announced an exclusive collaboration with Nasdaq, to offer tailored D&O Liability Insurance programs and solutions for companies listed on Nasdaq through its subsidiary, AHT Insurance.

AHT Insurance provides property and casualty, employee benefits, retirement, personal and international services for clients. They have specialized expertise and experience in providing D&O insurance services. AHT has created innovative and exclusive programs for Nasdaq listed companies, IPOs, and SPACs that incorporate both corporate governance initiatives and unique captive insurance risk transfer solutions.

Were thrilled about our new collaboration with Nasdaq, says Trevor Baldwin, BRP Groups Chief Executive Officer. BRP Group and AHT have deep expertise and experience in providing solutions that can meet the needs of the high-growth companies on The Nasdaq Stock Market.

Mike Tomasulo, AHTs National Management Liability practice leader added, D&O Insurance has become a major budget item for public companies, especially IPOs & SPACs. We understand that companies are looking for new and creative solutions to help them manage these increasing costs while also securing best in class coverage.

ABOUT AHT INSURANCE

AHT is an insurance brokerage and consulting firm offering property and casualty, employee benefits, retirement, personal and international services for clients throughout the United States. We support numerous industries and boast national recognition for practices in areas, such as technology, manufacturing, government contracting and nonprofits. Learn more at http://www.ahtinsurance.com.

ABOUT BRP GROUP

BRP Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRP) is an independent insurance distribution firm delivering tailored insurance and risk management insights and solutions that give our clients the peace of mind to pursue their purpose, passion and dreams. We are innovating the industry by taking a holistic and tailored approach to risk management, insurance and employee benefits, and support our clients, Colleagues, Insurance Company Partners and communities through the deployment of vanguard resources and capital to drive our growth. BRP represents over 600,000 clients across the United States and internationally. For more information, please visit http://www.baldwinriskpartners.com.

Story continues

NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release may contain various forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which represent BRP Groups expectations or beliefs concerning future events. Forward-looking statements are statements other than historical facts and may include statements that address future operating, financial or business performance or BRP Groups strategies or expectations. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as may, might, will, should, expects, plans, anticipates, believes, estimates, predicts, projects, potential, outlook or continue, or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are based on managements current expectations and beliefs and involve significant risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, developments and business decisions to differ materially from those contemplated by these statements.

Factors that could cause actual results or performance to differ from the expectations expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, those described under the caption Risk Factors in BRP Groups Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 and in BRP Groups other filings with the SEC, which are available free of charge on the Securities and Exchange Commission's website at: http://www.sec.gov, including those risks and other factors relevant to the business, financial condition and results of operations of BRP Group and factors related to the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on BRP Groups business, financial condition and results of operations. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those indicated. All forward-looking statements and all subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to BRP Group or to persons acting on behalf of BRP Group are expressly qualified in their entirety by reference to these risks and uncertainties. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and BRP Group does not undertake any obligation to update them in light of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required under applicable law.

Media Contact:Rachel DeAngelo | 813.387.6842rdeangelo@baldwinriskpartners.com

Read more:

BRP Group, Inc. Announces New Exclusive Collaboration With Nasdaq to Offer D&O Insurance Solutions - Yahoo Finance

The DoD Reporters Notebook is a weekly summary of personnel, acquisition, technology and management stories that may have fallen below your radar during the past week, but are nonetheless important. Its compiled and published each Monday by Federal News Network DoD reportersJared SerbuandScott Maucione.

The Defense Department has been dealing with the aftermath of privatizing its military housing, now a government watchdog thinks the Army should step up its oversight of temporary lodging as well.

The Army began privatizing its lodging in 2009 to save money, but a Government Accountability Office report found improvements are taking longer than anticipated, development plans have changed and there is a lack of data to actually determine if the program is achieving its intended objectives.

The Army determined in 2003 that over 80% of its lodging facilities were in need of either replacement or renovation at a cost estimate of over one billion dollars, the authors wrote. In addition, the vast majority of the facilities did not meet Army adequacy standards. Many of the lodging facilities had cinder-block walls, exterior corridors, linoleum floors, and lacked standardized in-room temperature control units, while others had deficiencies in the life-safety systems, such as fire alarms and sprinkler systems.

The Army said it has seen increases in guest satisfaction rates. It also extended its renovation plans out to 2029 years longer than originally intended and changed development plans to be more renovation-centric, as opposed to building new lodging.

The Pentagon has not included information on the Armys revised timeframe or development plans in its reports to Congress, the authors wrote. If DoD were to provide this additional information, Congress and other decision makers would be better able to determine whether the lodging program is achieving its intended objectives.

GAO also suspected that the Armys reported cost savings from the program are overblown.

The Army estimated a cost avoidance of approximately $606 million for official travel lodging costs from fiscal years 2009 through 2019, using a baseline that is higher than what the Defense Travel Management Office uses and what off-base commercial preferred hotels may charge, the GAO analysts wrote. However, the Army has not evaluated whether the calculation it uses or an alternative is the most accurate representation of the cost avoidance achieved.

GAO said DoD is being negligent in the way it collects data on the lodging as well. There are issues with how standardized the data is, leading to compliance reports that are not easily comparable year by year or installation to installation.

The watchdog is making four recommendations. One is that the Army provide key information about the lodging privatization program so that Congress can get a handle on the status of facilities and the timeframe for completing improvements.

GAO also wants DoD to look at how the Army is coming up with its cost avoidance numbers and calculate them against other scenarios.

DoD should create standardized methodologies for the data it collects on lodging and finally it should look into why some service members and civilians are inappropriately using off-base lodging for official travel.

DoD saw that issues with data collection and deferments on improvements ended up being huge issues for military families living in privatized housing.

The Pentagon and the military services repeatedly said they took their eye off the ball when it came to improving old houses with lead paint and to getting maintenance issues fixed for families.

The GAO report has some similarities, particularly in terms of oversight issues, to the 2006 report that warned about future problems with military housing those issues came to a head starting in 2019.

U.S. Transportation Command said it will partner with the Air Force in the services journey to use terrestrial rockets to deliver cargo and possibly humans anywhere in the world in short timeframes.

The combatant command announced last week that it will work with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), the Air Force and the Space Force to explore commercial capabilities in the field of space travel for global logistics.

AFRL will be leading the effort and TRANSCOM will provide a supporting role.

DoD has explored space transportation in the past, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Andrew Moore, who is managing the partnerships, said. Today, multiple factors are at play and it is the convergence of favorable costs, capacity, speed and access that makes commercial space mobility and logistics increasingly attractive.

The Air Force is relying heavily on private industry to build the capability.

Since industry bears the bulk of development costs, the government is in an opportune position to influence designs and be postured to utilize future capabilities, said Moore. The strategy aligns with the 2020 National Space Policy to develop government systems only when no suitable or cost-effective service is available.

According to Moore, it is similar to how the DoD works with commercial aircraft engineers to ensure compatible defense features such as the 463L pallet system, which is a common size platform for bundling and moving air cargo, and serves as the primary air cargo pallet for the U.S. Air Force, other air forces, and many civilian cargo transport aircraft.

The Air Force announced the vanguard program on June 4.

Rocket cargo is envisioned as a Defense Department interface with commercial capabilities, where we deliver up to 100 tons of cargo anywhere on the planet on tactical timelines, Maj. Gen. Heather Pringle, AFRL commander, said. This newest vanguard has the support of the entire Department of the Air Force, and if successful, will be partnered with the right team to transition this to warfighters.

As the private sector works, AFRL and the Space and Missile Center are planning prototypes and experiments to ensure cargo will be ready for terrestrial rocket travel.

That includes looking at ways to pre-certify cargo and containers to quicken the packing process, finding ways to quicken the logistics of packing and unpacking cargo and even entertaining the possibility of using the rockets to rapidly deploy troops.

The Air Force is working under the assumption that companies will develop landing pads around the world, but the service would also like to look into landing the rockets in austere environments that could deliver capabilities to nearly anywhere on the planet.

People always wonder why are we looking at this idea again. This idea [has] been around since the dawn of spaceflight, its always been an intriguing idea. We look at it about every 10 years and its never really made sense in the past, Greg Spanjers, Rocket Cargo program manager said. What has changed is a major emergence on the commercial side with much higher capability rockets at a much lower cost point than were used to seeing.

At this point, companies are using their own money for reentry systems and DoD does not have to do the initial investment.

Read more from the original source:

What's taking so long for the Army to update its on-base lodging? - Federal News Network

The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae) issues agency bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. GNMA guarantees principal and interest on mortgage-backed securities (MBS) backed by loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. New GNMAs are issued in $25,000 minimum denominations.

MBS are an investment in a pool of mortgage loans, which are the underlying asset and provide cash flow for the securities. MBS are commonly referred to as "pass-through" securities, as the principal and interest of the underlying mortgage loans "passes through" to the investor. All bondholders receive a monthly pro-rata distribution of principal and interest over the life of the security. MBS are issued with maturities of up to 30 years, though most mature earlier.

Each MBS has an average life, an estimate of the time remaining until the final principal payment. Average life will vary based on changes in principal payments, which are driven by interest rates and the speed by which mortgage holders prepay their loans.

Credit rating

Taxability

Liquidity

Fees

Risks

Read more:

Vanguard - Fixed income - GNMA

Food Producers, Retailers, Grocers, and Distributors Welcome

Vermont Business Magazine John Tunnicliffe, King Arthur Baking Companys Director will serve as keynote speaker at the Vermont Specialty Food Associations 2021 virtual Spring Annual Meeting on Wednesday, June 9th. VSFA members will convene virtually from 1:00pm to 3:30pm to learn from experts on managing production costs and selling on Instagram stories. This yearly event, typically drawing over 100 participants in person, is part of the association's ongoing effort to harness and develop educational resources for specialty food and beverage producers, retailers, and the small business community.

The virtual Spring Annual Meeting is open to all and is free to VSFA and Vermont Retail & Grocers Association members. Non-members will be charged a $10 registration fee. Those interested can find further information and registration at: bit.ly/vsfaspringmeeting

Each June the VSFA community comes together for a daylong networking and business education event, a valued opportunity for members to connect with each other while learning ways to sustain, grow, and manage their business. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, VSFA has pivoted and moved this years meeting to a virtual event in order to continue strengthening and supporting our community during these challenging times.

This 2.5-hour event will provide ample opportunity for participants to ask questions, share experiences and connect with other businesses within Vermont. Details of the event include: VSFAs annual meeting, a legislative update, and:

Keynote Speaker: Hear from John Tunnicliffe, Director of Camelot, King Arthur Baking Company, on how the company not only navigated a pandemic like the rest of us, but how they also managed a flour shortage, rebranding, and employee well-being.

Session 1: Cost of Food Sold: A conversation around managing your production costs - Have an open conversation with food producers and understand the variability of margins in the food sector, including best practices and what goes into determining product pricing.

Session 2: How to sell on Instagram stories - Learn how to better utilize Instagram stories to connect with your audience, share your brand's story, and convert followers into customers. Gain the tools you need to make creating Instagram stories easier and effective. Instagram has 500 Million users and 1/3 of the most viewed stories are from businesses.

View the full agenda, session descriptions, and speaker biographies here: bit.ly/vsfaspringmeeting

This event would not be possible without the support of our Event Sponsors. Thank you to ImageTek Labels, Rival Brands, and Vanguard Renewables.

To learn more about the work VSFA does, visit their website at http://www.vtspecialtyfoods.org, follow them on Facebook & Instagram, or call their office at (802) 839-1930.

About Vermont Specialty Food Association:

The Vermont Specialty Food Association is the leading information resource for all specialty food and beverage producers, service providers, and industry professionals. VSFA seeks to grow specialty food businesses and the Vermont industry through education, promotion, and statewide and national collaboration. It is the nation's oldest and most highly regarded specialty food association, celebrating over 30 years of service to the industry.

Source:Vermont Specialty Food Association 5.26.2021

The rest is here:

Vermont's Specialty Producers to focus on strategy and growth at annual meeting - Vermont Biz

The marine shipping sector consumes around 10 quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) of fuel and emits 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. Thats more than all of Germanys emissions, more than all of Saudi Arabias emissions and roughly equal to the emissions from all passenger vehicles in the United States. By any reasonable measure the shipping industry is a major global emitter, one of the economic sectors that must be fully decarbonized by midcentury to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Eliminating GHG emissions from marine shipping is an enormous undertaking, but the technological path forward has been reasonably clear for a few years. What has been missing is the requisite will among the shipping industry and regional and international regulators to require and implement the steps that need to be taken.

Greenhouse gas emissions can be eliminated from the marine sector largely by shifting from heavy fuel oil and marine diesel to zero-carbon fuels (ZCF) such as hydrogen and ammonia, as detailed by the Clean Air Task Force (see here and here), other nongovernmental organizations (here and here), academic and government experts (here and here) and financial institutions (here and here).

Ammonia, made by combining hydrogen with nitrogen captured from ambient air, looks like a particularly promising marine fuel, especially for transoceanic voyages provided the hydrogen and the nitrogen are sourced from processes that emit little to no greenhouse gas. It can be used in fuel cells or more conveniently, at least in the near term in retrofitted or purpose-built versions of the massive two- and four-stroke internal combustion engines that propel container ships, tankers and bulk carriers around the world.

Ammonia contains no carbon atoms, so no carbon dioxide is produced when it is converted into energy, regardless whether that conversion happens in a fuel cell or in a reciprocating engine. And, as explained more fully here, production technologies that use carbon capture and storage systems or renewable- or nuclear-derived electricity can make ammonia with little to no associated greenhouse gas emissions. To be clear, ammonia fuel presents real challenges its a toxic substance that requires careful handling, and harmful nitrogen oxide gases can form when ammonia is combusted but the challenges look to be manageable through a combination of time-tested safety protocols and modern emission control systems.

Because most transoceanic shipping occurs outside the claimed jurisdiction of national governments, regulatory authority over the shipping sector is thin and spotty.

The opportunity that ammonia produced with little-to-no lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions affords for shipping decarbonization is apparent to a growing set of innovative companies and institutions, many of which are taking steps toward full-scale commercialization of ammonia-fueled shipping technology. Some recent examples include:

These companies are at the vanguard of what is likely to be a challenging journey. Container ships and bulk carriers consumed 118 million metric tons of heavy fuel oil-equivalent fuel in 2018, per data from the U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO), accounting for half the sectors total fuel consumption. If those same ships ran on ammonia instead (assuming 1.89 metric tons of ammonia are needed to replace a metric ton of marine fuel, as indicated in this 2020 analysis by Kim et al.), they would have consumed 224 million metric tons of ammonia. Total global ammonia production is about 180 million metric tons per year, and almost all that ammonia is made using technologies that emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide.

Is there a way to make 224 million metric tons of ammonia with technologies that emit little to no CO2? More immediately, is there a way to supply a 5000 TEU container ship with the 33,000 metric tons of zero-carbon ammonia fuel it would consume during a years worth of voyages between, say, the ports of Los Angeles and Shanghai? (The second question is particularly relevant to coZEV, a joint effort by leading retail companies, CATF, the Aspen High Seas Initiative and other organizations to build demand for first-of-a-kind zero-emission container ship routes between major international seaports. The first such route is likely to be served by a 5000 TEU ammonia-fueled container ship.)

It will take about 400 new world-scale clean ammonia production plants to make the 224 million metric tons of zero-carbon ammonia required to decarbonize the global fleet of container ships and bulk carriers. (By world-scale, we mean a facility or complex that makes about 560,000 metric tons of ammonia per year from about 100,000 metric tons of hydrogen.)

That is an undeniably massive undertaking. We have the know-how to do it, though, and we can start making progress one clean ammonia plant and one zero-emissions vessel at a time. If one of the first world-scale clean ammonia plants was near a major port, just 6 percent of its annual output could fuel a 5,000 TEU emissions-free container ship for a year.

Whats needed is the will to push forward the will to develop and implement new policies and new business models aimed at driving down the price of zero-carbon ammonia and pulling it into the marine fuel market.

Because most transoceanic shipping occurs outside the claimed jurisdiction of national governments, regulatory authority over the shipping sector is thin and spotty. The authority that does exist is mostly reposed in the IMO, a conservative and consensus-driven institution headquartered in London.

The IMO has developed important environmental regulatory requirements, such as a 2020 regulation that sharply constrains vessels sulfur dioxide emissions, but its track record is full of environmental initiatives that were delayed, blocked or ineffectual.

Notably, the IMOs 2018 greenhouse gas reduction requirement is literally a half-measure it only requires the sector to reduce GHG emissions by "at least 50 percent by 2050" and the body has failed so far to establish meaningful mid-term milestones that could generate useful momentum. Efforts to strengthen GHG regulations have been frustrated by delegates from economically powerful countries and the shipping industry, which has a large consultative role in IMO proceedings.

It will take about 400 new world-scale clean ammonia production plants to make the 224 million metric tons of zero-carbon ammonia required to decarbonize the global fleet of container ships and bulk carriers.

Over the past year, however, as the global imperative to responsibly tackle climate change has solidified, other stakeholders in the marine space have begun charting a different course for the sector, oneconsistent with a 1.5 degree C limit on warming. A string of recent developments signal to the IMO and industry laggards that change is coming:

The emerging evidence of a will to decarbonize the marine sector among pioneering retail and commodity companies willing to invest in strategies to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the marine portion of their supply chains, among innovative shipbuilders and engine technology developers and, most recently, among key policymakers is just a start. But its a start we can build on.

Original post:

Zero-carbon fuels and marine shipping: Both a will and a way? | Greenbiz - GreenBiz

Fremont women's group to not 50th anniversary

FREMONT - Fremont Area Womens Connection, formerly known as Fremont Christian Women, will celebrate its 50th anniversary at the June 8 monthly luncheon. The event will be held at Anjulinas Catering, 2270 W. Hayes St., 11 a.m.-1 p.m.

All women are welcome to attend, especially those who have attended over the years as well as those who are new to the group.

During the program, Donna Thatcher will revisit memories of the pastwith a display of scrapbooks, photos, etc., and will introduce past chairwomen who are present.Donna Miller will sing a song she wrote and performed at the 40th anniversary, named "Thank You Neighbor."

More: Community Roundup: Girl Scouts earn awards for recycling dried-out markers

More: Bikers to rally in Elmore for annual 'Grub 'n Suds'

Guest speaker for the day is Janis Price, a former high school English teacher from Greencastle, Indiana, who serves on the national board of Stonecroft.She will share her story with a focus to Punctuate Your Life."

Cost of the luncheon is $14and reservations are needed by June 3 with phone/text to Donna at 419-680-2251 or email Carrol at fawcluncheon@gmail.com.Any cancellation will need to be received in the same way. Due to the closing of Anjulinas, June 8 will be the last luncheon held at that facility.

The July 13 luncheon will be held at Crystal Arbors Catering, located next to Big Lots on East State Street in Applewood Village Shopping Center.

More: Elmore's Whimsy & Blue celebrates building's 19th century roots

GIBSONBURG - Eagle Bay Cub Scout Day Camp 2021 will be held 8 a.m.-4 p.m. July 21 to July 23 at White Star Park, County Road65.

The camp will include swimming, archery, BB guns, wrist rocks, fishing, BMX bikes, games and more. Cost will be $45 if registered by June 21, and $55 if registered between June 21 and June 30. Additional family members are $35. Registration is due no later than June 30. To register go to erieshorescouncil.org/EB_DayCamp2021 or send a check to Erie Shores Council, EB Cub Day Camp Registration, PO Box 4, Woodville 43469.

Parents are advised to mark the child's name on everything they bring to camp. There will be a trading post for children to buy drinks, candy and souvenirs. Pack a sack lunch which will be placed in refrigeration.

Volunteers are also needed. Volunteer training will be 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.June 12, and 7 to 9 p.m. June 23 both in Fremont and 9-11 a.m. June 26, St. John Lutheran Church, Williston.

For more information call Mischele Cheek, 614-783-0051, Day Camp Director or email mfisher1918@yahoo.com.

Is a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants a good or bad idea?[Open this embed]

FREMONT - Vanguard-Sentinel Career andTechnology Centers, Adult Workforce Development announces the graduates of the Diversified Medical Occupations course, Class of 2021.

Graduates were presented with their Career Passports on May 18,. Each of these individuals successfully passed their credentialing exam with American Medical Technologists in April, and have been hired into their chosen profession.

Emma Durnwald, formerly of Lindsey, was also awarded the Work Ethic award and is employed as a Phlebotomist at Awan andAssociates, Allen Park Health Center in Allen Park, Michigan.

Madison Keesee, of Fremont, is employed as a Medical Assistant at NOMS ENT in Sandusky, Kierstan Seamon, formerly of Fremont, was also awarded the Attendance Award and has been employed as a Medical Assistant at DaVita Kidney Care in Butler, Indiana.

Ashley Montalva, of Clyde, was awarded the Attendance Award and the Award of Excellence, as well as being inducted into the National Adult Education Honor Society, for her outstanding achievements. Montalvahas been employed as a Phlebotomist at Magruder Hospital Laboratory.

Brad Elfring(Photo: Submitted)

FREMONT- Kendall Rieman, president/CEO of Croghan Colonial Bank, announced Brad Elfring as the bank's new SVP/Chief Financial Officer.

Im excited to see Brad continue to flourish in his role as leader of our Financial Department, said Rieman. He brings a great deal of knowledge and experience to the bank. Having joined Croghan in 2007 as an accountant, he has progressively earned increased responsibilities. This promotion reflects the contributions and impact he brings to Croghan.

As CFO, Elfringoversees the financial performance of Croghan and is responsible for financial reporting and controls. In addition to the everyday CFO responsibilities, he also provides oversight to Accounts Payable, Accounting, Internal Audit, and Marketing. Elfringis a member of the Executive Management Team, responsible for the management and oversight of all areas within the bank. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration degree with a Specialization in Accounting from Bowling Green State University. Heand his family reside in Clyde.

Croghan Colonial Bankserves Sandusky, Erie, Huron, Seneca, Lucas, and Ottawa Counties with offices in Fremont, Bellevue, Clyde, Curtice, Green Springs, Maumee, Monroeville, Norwalk, Port Clinton, Oak Harbor, Oregon, and Tiffin.

Read or Share this story: https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/news/2021/05/25/community-roundup-fremont-womens-group-note-50th-anniversary/5239334001/

Continued here:

Community Roundup: Fremont women's group to note 50th anniversary - The News-Messenger

What You Need to Know

Two senators have tossed another bill into the river of retirement legislation flowing into the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.

Sens. Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio,last week reintroducedS. 1770, the Retirement Security & Savings Act, which includes a few new provisions.

The Portman-Cardin legislationwill likely get rolled into theSecure Act 2.0, officially calledthe Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021, which was approved by a House panel in early May and is widely expected to pass the full House.

The bills we have seen introduced in the past weeks demonstrate that momentum is building for the enactment of another comprehensive bipartisan retirement bill, Paul Richman,chief government and political affairs officer for the Insured Retirement Institute, told ThinkAdvisor Monday in an email. We believe these bills form a strong foundation to help Americas workers and retirees build economic equity, strengthen their financial security, and protect their income to sustain them throughout their retirement years.

The Portman-Cardin bill plus the Grassley-Hassan-Lankford bill [Improving Access to Retirement Savings Act]comes close to the Neal-Brady [Secure Act 2.0] bill so theres lots to work with, an IRI spokesperson added.

Key provisions in the bill would:

The bill is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.

Read more:

New Bill Includes RMD Increase, Income Annuity and Student Loan Provisions - ThinkAdvisor

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on Friday said it had, in collaboration with a company, developed an antibody detection kit for spotting SARS-CoV-2 virus with a high sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 99%.

The DIPCOVAN kit was developed indigenously by the scientists, followed by extensive validation on more than 1,000 patient samples at various COVID designated hospitals in Delhi. Three batches of the product were validated during last one year. The antibody detection kit is approved by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in April 2021, it said in a statement.

In May 2021, the product received the regulatory approval of the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, for manufacture, sale and distribution.

The Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS), a laboratory of the DRDO, developed the kit in association with Vanguard Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., a development and manufacturing diagnostics company based in New Delhi.

DIPCOVAN was intended for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies in human serum or plasma, targeting SARS-CoV-2 related antigens and offering a significantly faster turnaround time as it required just 75 minutes to conduct the test without any cross-reactivity with other diseases. The kit has a shelf life of 18 months, the statement said.

Vanguard Diagnostics would commercially launch the product in June first week, the DRDO said. Readily available stock at the time of launch would be 100 kits (approx. 10,000 tests) with a production capacity of 500 kits a month after the launch. It is expected to be available at about 75 a test. The kit would be very useful for understanding COVID19 epidemiology and assessing an individual's previous SARSCoV2 exposure, it added.

Continue reading here:

Coronavirus | DRDO develops antibody detection kit - The Hindu

More than 3,100 companies trade on the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations exchange Nasdaq. They run the gamut from tech giants like Apple, Amazon and Microsoft to little-known pharmaceutical and clean energy start-ups. So any move by Nasdaq to enhance the governance of its listings has the potential to ripple through a wide swath of corporate America and beyond.

The exchange took a step in that direction in December with a proposal that at least two members of most listed companies boards cannot be straight white men. Small boards with five or fewer members will be allowed to have just one diverse director.

The move has drawn praise from the American Civil Liberties Union hardly known as a friend of big business. By pushing its listed companies to address racial and gender equity in corporate boards, Nasdaq is heeding the call of the moment, said Anthony Romero, the ACLUs executive director. Incremental change and window-dressing isnt going to cut it anymore as consumers, stakeholders and the government increasingly hold corporate Americas feet to the fire.

Critics accuse Nasdaq of trying to set quotas for corporate boards, but the exchange has noted that more than two dozen studies have found links between diverse boards and improved financial performance and corporate governance.

Under the proposal, all Nasdaq-listed companies will have between two and five years to comply with the new rules, or explain in writing why they have not. The Securities and Exchange Commission is set to rule on the proposal this summer.

Quartz estimates that the move will add at least 570 women to corporate boards, plus at least the same number who identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indigenous, LGBTQ or other minorities.

Welcome as Nasdaqs move is, it is not the first nor the most aggressive push for boardroom diversity. California passed one law in 2018 and another last year stipulating that, among other requirements, companies with nine or more directors must include at least three from under-represented groups. Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street powerhouse, said last July that it would take a company public only if the board includes at least one woman or member of a racial minority.

Such initiatives are bearing fruit. A record number of women took the reins of Fortune 500 companies last year, including at UPS, Clorox, Gap and Citigroup. Forty-one Fortune 500 companies now have female CEOs, up from 24 in 2018 and just two at the start of the millennium. The ball may be rolling more slowly than many would like. But at least it is rolling and in the right direction.

Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments are not putting their climate-change mouths where their money is.

The two asset-management giants, which together manage close to US$10 trillion, clearly recognize the benefit of investing in companies with strong environmental records. Fidelitys vast stable of mutual funds, for example, includes a water sustainability fund centred on new technologies to improve the availability of safe and affordable water.

Investors are increasingly seeking to meet their financial goals while contributing to positive social and environmental outcomes, Fidelity proclaims in its promotional material. As stewards of our clients capital, we endeavour to satisfy these aspirations.

One may be forgiven, however, for wondering whether these endeavours amount to much. Neither Vanguard nor Fidelity Investments signed a pledge by 30 mostly European money managers last December to invest only in companies with net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. (One signatory is Fidelity International, which was spun off in the 1980s.) Nor have they joined Climate Action 100+, a five-year global initiative by 400 investors to prod the largest corporate greenhouse-gas emitters to mend their ways.

InfluenceMap, a London-based climate-action advocacy group, notes in its latest Asset Managers and Climate Change report that the two firms lag their main U.S. rivals, BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors: Their transparency on the climate engagement process is poor with minimal references to transitioning companies in line with Paris goals or governance of lobbying practices.

Fidelity was the worst performer of 30 groups assessed by InfluenceMap in 2020, prompting the rebuke that it continues to show limited to no evidence of engaging on climate.

In contrast to the water sustainability fund, the report singles out Fidelitys Contrafund as particularly misaligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, given the funds holdings in oil production and the lack of investment in electric vehicle technology.

Vanguard supported just 21% and Fidelity 23% of all climate-related shareholder resolutions that they voted on during the 2020 proxy season. Together with Los Angelesbased Capital Group, they opposed every resolution related to climate policy lobbying as they had in the previous two years. By contrast, most leading European asset managers backed the vast majority of such resolutions.

As InfluenceMap puts it, The lack of support from the worlds largest asset managers on resolutions relating to lobbying, energy transition plans, and other key climate issues remains a barrier for forceful stewardship by investors on the climate emergency.

View original post here:

Heroes & zeros: Who's advancing diversity and who's selling out the climate? - Corporate Knights Magazine

The fiduciary defendants in a 403(b) university excessive fee suit say the plaintiffs have not only failed to make their casebut that theyve taken actions in their own account(s) that undermine their arguments.

The suit (Latasha Davis et al. v. Washington University in St. Louis et al.) was originallyfiled in June 2017by Latasha Davis and Jennifer Elliott on behalf of the plans more than 24,000 participants and beneficiaries. In October 2018,those claims were dismissedby Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, basically holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. However, nearly a year ago,noting that, at this point, the complaint only needed to give the district court enough to infer from what is alleged that the process was flawed, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals breathed new life into some of the claims brought against the fiduciaries of St. Louis-based Washington Universitys $3.8 billion 403(b) plan.

And now, the defendants in that case have challenged the ability of the plaintiffs to adequately represent the interests of the plans 27,000 current and former workers.

As a reminder, the suit claimed that the defendants violated ERISA by:

The Response(s)

In response, the Washington U. defendants note (Davis et al. v. Washington University in St. Louis et al., case number 4:17-cv-01641, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri) that the plaintiffs lump their disparate theories together and ask the Court to certify a class that indiscriminately includes everyone who ever participated in the Plan since April 28, 2011. Now, while that type of claim isnt all that unique, the defendants say its based on a flawed premise: that no matter what claimor injury they have personally, they can fairly and adequately represent the 27,000 current (andmany more former) Plan participants for any alleged fiduciary breach, at any time, simply becausethey sue on behalf of the Plan under ERISA 502(a)

On that point, however, they say that the plaintiffs scarcely even try, citing almost no actual evidence, relying instead on generic conclusions coupled with allegations in their SAC, referencing the plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (SAC). And in so doing, the defendants claim that the plaintiffs offer no insight into their own circumstances, alleged injury, interests, or any other facts that would allow the Court to assess their ability to protect the rights of absent class members, as Rule 23[i]requires.

The defendants start by noting that the burden of proof on Rule 23 is on the plaintiffsand they claim the plaintiffs here have not met that burden, and then state that they have failed to demonstrate that their claims and interests align sufficiently with those of absent class members, who invested in different funds and paid different fees at different times. Specifically, they claim that no factual basis has been provided for finding they have a sufficient stake in claims related to the 100-plus investments they never held or fees they never paid. In fact, no Plaintiff invested in any Vanguard fund before June 2016, when Vanguard was removed as a Plan recordkeepermeaning no named Plaintiff paid any fee to Vanguard over that critical period. Speaking of differences, the defendants say the plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria because they are subject to unique, individualized Defenses, notably that that they had actual knowledge of an alleged breach more than three years before the case was filed (and thus outside the statute of limitations for such claims).

And finally, they state that, even if the Court certifies a class (which it should not, they comment), any such class should be limited to the funds in which the named Plaintiffs invested or their challenges to TIAAs recordkeeping fees, the only such fees any proposed class representative ever paid.

Questionable Assertions?

As for the essence of the case itself, the defendants here also challenge other assertions made: the Plans investment line-up has not remained staticthat many key factual predicates to Plaintiffs claims have changed materially over the past decade, which their Motion obscures by relying almost entirely[ii]on the SACs allegations.

That while the plaintiffs alleged excessive fees resulted from the plans retention of two recordkeepers (TIAA and Vanguard)but that that couldnt have been the case after 2016 when they consolidated to TIAA, nor to the many who joined over the past five years, who could never have paid Vanguard a recordkeeping fee. In fact, aside from the difference in services between the two, the defendants claimed that none of the Plaintiffs invested in any Vanguard fund before June 2016, meaning they never paid Vanguard any recordkeeping or investment fee, leaving absent class members who did pay such fees without any representative possessing such a claim.

As for the dizzying and confusing array of investment optionswell, while that may have been true at one point, the defendants say that in May 2018 the plan not only streamlined its menu to around 30 options, but broadened it to other fund managers. Plaintiffs proposed class thus includesmany participants who never experienced the confusing menu on which Plaintiffs claims rely, they write.

Class Claims

There were also allegations that most Vanguard options offered were retail investor class versions, which had higher fees than the institutional class productsthough they write that the plaintiffs concede the Plan always offered the lowest-cost version of all TIAA funds. However, and to their point about representation of the class, they note that no participant who invested solely in TIAA options even has a share-class claimand that includes all three Plaintiffs for most of the proposed class period... And if that wasnt enough, the defendants state that discovery has confirmed that the Plan repeatedly moved to lower-cost share classes of Vanguard funds at different times over the class period.

As for allegations about revenue sharing, the defendants state that discovery confirms that they did, in fact, cap the amount of revenue sharing payments made to recordkeepers, and that, beyond that, the Plans fee structure changed materially since 2011.

But after four years of litigation and well over 100,000 pages of documents, the defendants claim that the certification attempt is based almost entirely on the SACs allegations, and that they do not support several assertions with any citation, to the SAC or otherwise. The defendants write that the deficiencies in their arguments obscure critical differences in the claims, circumstances, and interests of the 30,000-plus individuals Plaintiffs seek to represent.

More specifically, the defendants observe that the plaintiffs collectively invested in only eight of the roughly 120 options available in the plan, that all eight were offered by TIAA (none were managed by Vanguard), and that Plaintiffs thus paid nothing to Vanguard over this period (for recordkeeping, investment management, higher-cost share-classes, or anything else)meaning the many absent class members who did invest through Vanguard lack any representative with similar claims.

After Math

Beyond that, the defendants outlined a series of behaviors by the named plaintiffs that seemed at odds with their allegations. For example, they state that long after filing this lawsuit in June 2017, Ms. Davis and Ms. Elliott each chose to continue investing in some of the same funds they claim are too expensive and should never have been offered (the CREF Stock Account). Indeed, they note that despite alleging this actively-managed variable annuity charged 1,800% more in fees than the passively-managed Vanguard Institutional Index mutual fund, Ms. Davis not only held her existing assets in the CREF Stock Account, she increased them until she left the University in 2019. As of that werent enough, they continue that Ms. Davis indisputably knew she could choose a lower-fee option if that was her preference, because she did just that, also investing in the same Vanguard Institutional Index Fund her SAC suggests as a lower-cost alternative.

Ms. Elliotts decisions are even more instructive, they continue. While the response notes that she never invested in the CREF Stock Account or TIAA Real Estate Account before filing her complaintin 2018, after filing suit, Ms. Elliott moved money into, and continues to hold, both the CREF Stock Account and TIAA Real Estate Account, and she is the only Plaintiff who ever invested in the TIAA Real Estate Account.

These individuals cannot disclaim knowledge of the supposed problems with these fundsafter June 2017, as they had signed onto a class action claiming those very funds were so badlyflawed and expensive that no reasonable fiduciary would offer them, the response explains. Any loss they incurred by investing in these funds thus resulted from their own informed decision-making, not action by Defendants. Indeed, this also calls into serious question the extent to which Defendants alleged fiduciary breaches as to these funds were the cause of losses to these Plaintiffs before the lawsuit, considering they selected them even after indisputably knowing of the supposed deficiencies.

Plaintiffs (as opposed to their attorneys[iii]), the response states, have no personal stake in such claims,meaning they lack sufficient incentive to vigorously litigate them, maximize potential recovery, orotherwise protect the rights of absent class members.

What This Means

Weve noted before that in litigation there are always (at least) two sides to every story, and that however factual those assertions may turn out to be, the initial lawsuit in any action is only one side, and one generally crafted toward a particular result.

This filing is, of course, the other side of those arguments, andas advocacy often requiresmay well be just as slanted toward the perspective of the parties defending the suit. That said, the arguments made are instructive, both as to the legal standards, the arguments in support of their application to the case, and their probative value in similar situations that you may encounter in your practice(s).

[i]Now what, you may say, is Rule 23? As it turns out, itsets forththe prerequisite standards for plaintiffs to quality to represent the interests of a broader class of similarly impacted individuals. At a high level, the plaintiffs have to establish that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

[ii]In fairness, that actions have been taken to mitigate certain alleged wrongs wouldnt preclude an action for the period(s) of time in which they were a reality.

Original post:

University Pushes Back on Excessive Fee Class Claims - National Association of Plan Advisors