Tuesday, October 27, 2026
'WaPo: Flávio Bolsonaro 'Terrified' Of Prison As He Drops Election Annulment Bid'
"Flávio has given up. He's terrified. He is worried his father will die in jail, that he himself will be jailed this week and that he may have a long prison term ahead."
That assessment, given to The Washington Post by a Bolsonaro family adviser, comes as Flávio Bolsonaro abandons his attempt to invalidate Brazil's presidential runoff following his defeat to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The retreat marks a reversal for the right-wing candidate, who had initially rejected Sunday's result and demanded that the election be annulled.
Rather than seek to overturn the entire vote, Bolsonaro is now preparing a separate legal challenge aimed at disqualifying Lula and his running mate.
Bolsonaro Drops Annulment Demand
Bolsonaro changed course on Monday, October 26, a day after the runoff and shortly after U.S. President Donald Trump questioned the election's conduct.
His new strategy centers on allegations that Lula exploited the advantages of incumbency, including increases in social benefits close to election day.
The proposed lawsuit would seek to disqualify the Lula-Alckmin ticket rather than invalidate the nationwide vote. Such legal challenges rarely succeed.
Bolsonaro continued to reject the legitimacy of his defeat despite abandoning the annulment effort.
"I wasn't the one who lost; the system won," he said, pledging to use his position in Congress to organize opposition to the incoming administration.
Valdemar Costa Neto, president of Bolsonaro's Liberal Party, meanwhile formally acknowledged Lula's victory while criticizing government spending before the election.
Supreme Court Tightens Restrictions
Bolsonaro's reversal coincided with an escalation in legal pressure from Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF).
On Monday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered him to surrender his ordinary and diplomatic passports within 24 hours, invalidated the documents and prohibited him from leaving Brazil.
The ruling also barred contact with lawyer Willer Tomaz, whose name appears in one of the investigations involving Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro said he would follow the order but disputed the implication that he might attempt to escape the country. He characterized the restrictions as intimidation.
He also linked the decision partly to an earlier statement by his brother Eduardo Bolsonaro suggesting that he should leave Brazil in the event of defeat.
The former presidential candidate is the subject of at least two STF investigations and denies wrongdoing.
One concerns suspected money laundering connected to Tomaz, betting businesses and an offshore entity, Alcazar Holdings.
The other examines the financing of Dark Horse, a film about former president Jair Bolsonaro, including alleged connections involving Daniel Vorcaro and Banco Master.
The proceedings add to the family's legal difficulties. Jair Bolsonaro remains under house arrest following his conviction over an attempt to overturn the 2022 presidential election, for which he received a sentence of approximately 27 years.
Lula Wins By More Than 4 Million Votes
Lula secured approximately 51.79% of the October 25 runoff, equivalent to 64.26 million votes, against Bolsonaro's 48.21%, or about 59.83 million.
The difference of roughly 4.43 million votes delivered Lula a fourth, non-consecutive presidential term.
The outcome reversed the positions from the October 4 first round, when Bolsonaro finished ahead with approximately 47.03% against Lula's 45.16%.
It was the first time since Brazil resumed direct presidential elections that a candidate finishing second in the opening round had won the runoff.
Foreign leaders moved quickly to recognize Lula's victory, while Brazilian financial markets and the real reacted negatively.
Dispute Over Extended Voting
Bolsonaro's initial annulment demand focused on a decision by STF Justice Cristiano Zanin to extend polling nationwide by two hours because of transportation difficulties.
Zanin previously served as Lula's lawyer, a connection Bolsonaro highlighted when criticizing the decision.
Both presidential campaigns had requested additional voting time.
Bolsonaro nevertheless portrayed the extension as an unfair alteration of electoral procedures, calling it an "outrage" and accusing Lula's allies of changing the rules during the contest.
Approximately 34,000 to 35,000 votes were recorded during the additional period, a fraction of Lula's winning margin.
Kassio Nunes Marques, the head of Brazil's electoral court and a judicial appointee of Jair Bolsonaro, concluded that the extension had not changed the outcome.
Trump Questions Election, Stops Short Of Intervention
Trump added to the controversy on Monday by questioning the credibility of the Brazilian vote.
Speaking to reporters, he suggested that the election appeared manipulated and described the extended polling period as unusual, without presenting evidence.
He also distanced himself from direct involvement in the dispute, emphasizing that he had not endorsed either candidate and expressing a favorable view of Lula.
His remarks preceded Bolsonaro's decision to withdraw the annulment demand.
The defeated candidate's remaining legal strategy now targets Lula's eligibility, while his own movements are restricted and Supreme Court investigations continue.
Cumberland plans NDA for Duchenne program
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: CPIX), ("Cumberland" or the "Company") an innovation-focused biopharmaceutical company developing new products for rare diseases, today provided an update on its ifetroban product candidate in development as a potential treatment for the cardiomyopathy associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD"). The Company announced plans to submit a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for ifetroban as a potential treatment for the cardiomyopathy associated with DMD.
Cumberland requested a pre-NDA meeting with FDA, which was held this fall. During the pre-NDA meeting, the discussions involved the format and content and of the planned submission including the needed reports and requested analysis. Cumberland is proposing the FIGHT DMD™ trial as the pivotal study to be combined with comparison data from two natural history databases to support product approval. Following the meeting FDA granted the Company's request for a rolling review of the NDA, which allows completed sections of the application to be provided to the FDA for review, prior to the submission of the entire application.
Cumberland's decision to submit the NDA followed an End-of-Phase 2 meeting with FDA in September 2025 and a follow-up Type C meeting in January 2026. FDA suggested a Phase 3 trial and raised several issues regarding the Phase 2 study results including the suitability of the LVEF endpoint, comparator related questions and the development of the statistical analysis plan. In response, the Company provided additional data supporting its efficacy findings, natural history data from a second DMD registry, and documentation of how the statistical analysis plan was developed.
Monday, October 26, 2026
S. Arabia said to offer Houthis $1B deal to stop strikes
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman's visit to Iran was intended to secure a ceasefire with Yemen's Houthi rebels under an agreement according to which Saudi Arabia would transfer $1 billion to this Iranian-backed group through Tehran, Israel Hayom reported on Monday.
Diplomatic sources told the outlet that the defense minister even brought the money to Tehran today.
One of the sources said that the conflict between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis concerns the implementation of the agreements reached three years ago, under which Riyadh was required to provide direct financial aid to the rebel group as part of efforts to secure a peace deal. The funds were intended, among other things, to pay public-sector salaries in areas under Houthi control and to rebuild civilian infrastructure, while the Houthis were supposed to respect the ceasefire and end their attacks against Saudi Arabia.
“Buy-borrow-die": The 3-step wealth strategy explained
“Buy-borrow-die” is a three-step strategy: you invest your money, borrow against those investments when you need cash (rather than selling them) and eventually pass the portfolio on to your heirs.
If selling would mean a sizable capital gains tax bill – or force you to exit positions you’d prefer to keep – then maybe not. You might want to instead consider a “buy-borrow-die” planning approach, which can help you potentially save on capital gains taxes and quickly access the liquidity you need through strategic investing and planning.
This strategy may make sense if you’ve built up a large investment account outside of retirement plans, especially if your investments have grown a lot and selling would trigger a big tax bill. But if your investments are more concentrated or volatile, you might need to sell soon or your finances are tight – then this approach may not be for you. It’s usually best for those who need cash for near-term needs or goals, but don’t want to give up their long-term investments – and who have enough income or savings to keep up with loan payments if markets get bumpy.
This approach typically involves three steps:Buy assets intended to grow over time, such as a diversified mix of stocks and bonds, in a taxable investment account.
Borrow against those assets to raise cash for spending or other goals as opposed to selling securities. This avoids realizing capital gains, which could trigger capital gains tax. Borrowing also allows your investments to continue compounding. Investment proceeds are not considered taxable income until the assets are liquidated.
Pass down your assets at death to your inheritors as part of an overall estate plan and wealth transfer, which effectively reduces capital gains tax if the inheritor sells. Your debt and interest payments will also pass down as well.
By borrowing against your portfolio, you may be able to preserve more of your wealth. Read on to learn more about how this strategy works, as well as its potential benefits and risks.
The potential benefits of borrowing against your investment portfolio
Investors may have portfolios with large, unrealized gains, meaning their investments are worth more than what they paid. Selling those assets may trigger capital gains tax; in 2026, this can be as high as 20% for single filers with taxable incomes greater than $545,500 or married joint filers with taxable incomes greater than $613,700.
Acquiring cash through borrowing against an investment portfolio can be used for a variety of financial goals, including:
Tax payments
Lifestyle spending
Business or investment opportunities
Philanthropy
Specialty assets, such as a yacht or luxury car
While reasons for borrowing may vary, the underlying appeal is often the same: creating liquidity in the short term without disrupting your long-term investment plan.
How to approach a buy-borrow-die strategy
Successfully executing a buy-borrow-die approach starts with getting the foundation right and making sure each step supports the next. That involves building a portfolio designed for long-term growth and flexibility, using borrowing selectively to meet liquidity needs, and coordinating repayment with your broader tax and estate plan. Here’s how the three steps fit together.
The strategy starts long before you borrow. The goal is to build a liquid, diversified portfolio that can potentially increase in value over time. This can include both tangible and intangible assets, such as:
Mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs)
Money market funds and short-term Treasury funds
It is common practice to hold funds earmarked for a specific future use in more liquid investments, such as stocks and bonds.
Using investments that are easy to turn into cash is just one of several key principles you should keep in mind when building a flexible investment portfolio that can serve as reliable collateral if you ever need to borrow. You should also avoid putting all your eggs in one basket; if your portfolio is largely tied up in one stock or one industry, its value can suddenly drop, which would be a problem if you’re relying on it as a backup for a loan.
Ideally, you should invest in assets that can enjoy long-term growth while generating passive income. Once you’ve built your portfolio accordingly, you can then consider borrowing against a portion of it to meet your near-term cash needs without forcing a sale at an inopportune time.
There are several ways you can borrow against your assets, depending on the asset and your goals. A securities-based line of credit (SBLOC) is a common tool used to implement a buy-borrow-die strategy. Specifically, it’s a line of credit secured by eligible marketable securities – like stocks, bonds or mutual funds – held in a brokerage account. The investor does not have to sell the underlying securities but must pay back the cash they use, with interest.
Interest rates on SBLOCs can be variable but may be lower than those on traditional loans and lines of credit. Borrowers may be able to choose to make interest-only payments or principal payments, offering additional flexibility. Sometimes, there is no setup fee, credit check or financial disclosure required for an SBLOC. Borrowers can also decide what cadence their repayment schedule follows.
Of note, a borrower’s credit limit, known as the advance rate, can vary by institution as well as the overall value and type of holdings in the portfolio.
A buy-borrow-die strategy can be used as a generational wealth transfer and estate planning tool for families. Rather than selling investments to satisfy liquidity needs, borrowing against a growing portfolio provides a lifelong stream of cash for the owner while preserving assets for their heirs.
Under current U.S. tax law, heirs may receive assets with a “stepped-up” cost basis equal to the fair market value on the date of the owner’s death. This effectively reduces – and, in some cases, eliminates – embedded capital gains tax if the inheritor sells, therefore minimizing a burdensome tax bill while maintaining the long-term value of the assets. Should heirs choose not to sell their assets, they may also choose to follow the buy-borrow-die strategy and continue to build wealth for the next generation of inheritors.
Compare this approach to gifting: If an investor were to gift securities to a would-be heir instead of holding them until death, the owner’s cost basis would carry over to the recipient at the time of the gift, potentially resulting in significant capital gains tax when the recipient later sells the asset.
By contrast, under a buy-borrow-die strategy, the loan doesn’t disappear at death; it typically becomes a debt of the estate and must be repaid, often using estate cash or by selling or transferring pledged assets, potentially reducing what heirs ultimately receive.
Where a buy-borrow-die strategy is implemented, families should take care to address SBLOC debt repayment and asset transfer in the estate plan. Speaking to a trusts and estates attorney can help you figure out the best way to manage this.
To see how the buy-borrow-die strategy works, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: Jordan has a $1,000,000 taxable investment portfolio with an original cost basis of $250,000 and an unrealized gain of $750,000. Jordan needs $200,000 in cash today, expects the portfolio to earn 7% annually and is planning over a 10-year horizon assuming a 23.8% long-term capital gains rate. He can take one of two options:
In other words, selling will reduce how much stays invested and can compound over time, while borrowing can keep the portfolio invested until it’s time to pass down the money through a coordinated estate plan.
As with any financial product, there are potential risks to consider when you borrow against securities. If the value of your collateral drops, you could face a margin call, which means you’ll need to deposit additional funds or sell securities to reduce the size of the loan. If you’re unable to satisfy the requirements, the lender has the right to sell some or all of your securities. Selling those securities could trigger capital gains tax. That’s why this approach tends to work best when borrowing is modest relative to the size of the overall portfolio, leaving a cushion to help absorb market swings.
If your loan has a variable rate, the cost of borrowing may change over time as interest rates move. For longer-term needs, it can help to plan for a range of rate scenarios and confirm the repayment approach still works. If you prefer more predictable payments, a fixed-rate term loan (or another fixed-rate option) may be a better fit.
Used thoughtfully, a buy-borrow-die approach can help you meet liquidity needs while staying invested. It’s typically best suited for investors with a sizable, diversified taxable portfolio, strong cash flow and a clear plan for managing borrowing costs and market volatility. Be sure to consider the risks – including margin calls, variable interest rates and the possibility of forced sales that could trigger tax charges.
Because borrowing has estate-planning nuances, you should speak to a tax and legal professional to understand how this approach fits into your wealth transfer strategy. Before moving forward, consider reviewing your approach with a J.P. Morgan advisor to make sure it fits your balance sheet and long-term plans.
https://www.chase.com/personal/investments/learning-and-insights/article/how-the-buy-borrow-die-strategy-works
NYC sanctuary DAs ordered prosecutors to cut charges to keep illegals in US: House GOP report
New York City’s elected Democratic district attorneys are bending over backwards to keep illegal immigrants in the US, instructing prosecutors to downgrade charges to those considered “a non-deportable offense,” according to a stunning House Judiciary Committee report shared with The Post.
The GOP-led panel found that Bronx DA Darcel Clark trains her subordinates “to conceal facts from the record of conviction” and “pursue alternative charges” that would keep non-citizens free to roam in America.
Not even cases involving child sex crimes are off-limits — with Clark’s office asking assistant DAs in a 2019 guide to “immigration-conscious plea bargaining” to “[o]ffer something that does not have the child’s age as an element of the crime.”
Meanwhile, in Queens, DA Melinda Katz has told her prosecutors to “exercise extreme caution” and “not get caught up in the label of [f]elonies, [m]isdemeanors” for illegal aliens, according to the report published five months after the committee sent requests for information on the Big Apple’s so-called “sanctuary” policies to prosecutor’s offices in all five boroughs, as well as the NYPD and Department of Correction.
Those policies have had deadly consequences, as in the case of a 92-year-old Queens woman who was murdered by a Guyanese migrant, Reeaz Khan, after a federal detainer was lodged against him in 2020.
Katz’s office later secured a 22 years to life sentence against Khan.
The report found versions of the practice in every borough. The Brooklyn DA’s office has explicitly sought an “immigration-neutral” disposition since 2017, having staff trained “to avoid disproportionate collateral consequence, such as deportation, while maintaining public safety.”
In some cases, prosecutors in Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez’s office are instructed to offer “a plea for a lesser offense in light of the disproportionate immigration consequences a higher level offense may result in.”
Staten Island DA Michael McMahon has a whole unit dedicated to asking ICE to delay deportations.
But Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office told the committee his once-expansive immigration policy is “outdated,” while admitting prosecutors still consider citizenship status on a case-by-case basis.
In 2022, Bragg had issued a memo to prosecutors requesting that they “seek dispositions that avoid immigration consequences for all misdemeanors, and all felonies for which non-carceral outcomes are the presumptive outcome.”
“When did protecting a criminal’s immigration status become a part of a DA’s job description?” asked New York City Council Member Joann Ariola.
“Our DA’s are entrusted with upholding the law and protecting the public,” Ariola told The Post. “If that’s not their priority, then they’ve got it backwards.”
According to the report, the NYPD has received nearly 10,000 detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for illegal aliens charged with crimes in the past 12 months — and honored none.
The Department of Homeland Security revealed earlier this month that 16,070 detainer requests had been ignored by authorities across the Empire State, which, like New York City, doesn’t cooperate with federal immigration officials as a sanctuary jurisdiction.
In a report authored by Katz’s office last year, the Queens DA was confirmed to employ an “immigration specialist,” whose sole purpose is helping assistant DAs “navigate through plea options and assist in framing dispositions that will prevent unwanted immigration consequences.”
In 2020 alone, the “immigration specialist” helped get 21 convictions reduced or thrown out entirely. In six cases, Katz urged then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo to grant a pardon to prevent deportation.
Bronx DA Clark has also bragged that since 2020, “[p]rosecutors in my office must thoughtfully consider employment, immigration, family unification, and the broad range of other potential collateral consequences when initiating a prosecution.”
The House Judiciary Committee obtained office training materials from March 2023 titled “Crimmigration,” in which Bronx prosecutors were explicitly told to, “[a]s appropriate,” “strive to ensure that a conviction for certain offenses does not lead to unintended and severe consequences such as deportation that can tear families apart and destabilize communities.”
Screenshots of the “Immigration-Conscious Plea Bargaining” training from 2019 reproduced in the report also revealed that prosecutors were urged to “Offer a Non-Deportable Offense” for defendants to consider copping to.
Those training materials further suggest that prosecutors should consider pursuing charges for so-called “legally impossible” offenses — when a defendant believes they are committing a crime, but actually are not — because “[l]egally impossible crimes cannot serve as the basis for [immigration] removal proceedings” when appealed in the US federal court system.
The legal impossibilities often have a defendant being accused of having “two contradictory mental states … at the same time,” per the report.
In cases involving weapons offenses, Bronx prosecutors are instructed in training materials to “[k]eep the firearm out of the record of conviction” and “[o]ffer something that does not specify a firearm” in plea bargaining.
Accused wife-beaters get the same treatment. Prosecutors are told to “[k]eep the domestic relationship out of the record of conviction.” In stalking cases, they’re encouraged to offer a charge without “repeated instances or an intent to instill fear.”
Republicans argue this practice carries consequences beyond immigration court, and the same omissions that keep a defendant off ICE’s radar can keep him out of sight of law enforcement as well.
In Queens, the approach shows up in practice, not just in training. In a May 26 email obtained by the committee, an assistant DA in Katz’s office told a NYPD detective the office had “basically made a [plea] deal which is ‘immigration safe,’” assuring them that the defendant still pleaded guilty to multiple crimes and spent time behind bars.
Ken Frydman, a Democratic operative and also a police union rep, said, “Immigration specialists typically help immigrants navigate the immigration process, not help get convictions reduced or thrown out in order to keep illegal immigrants in the US.”
According to the Judiciary Committee, Katz spurned the committee’s initial May request, arguing state prosecutions fall outside Congress’ oversight jurisdiction.
She relented only after Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) sent a second letter in August warning they might issue a subpoena.
Reps for the Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Manhattan DA’s offices didn’t respond to requests for comment.