Enzo ransomware attack

 On April 6, 2023, Enzo Biochem, Inc. (the "Company") experienced a ransomware attack that impacted certain information technology systems. In response, the Company promptly deployed containment measures, including disconnecting its systems from the internet, and launched an investigation with assistance from third-party cybersecurity experts. The Company has activated its disaster recovery plan, which allows it to continue operations while it brings its systems back online.

On April 11, 2023, the Company became aware that certain data was extracted from the Company's information technology systems as part of this incident. The investigation of this incident and the assessment of its impact is ongoing.

The Company's facilities remain open, and it continues to provide services to its patients and partners using established back-up processes and other downtime procedures. However, these back-up procedures can create operational challenges and have caused delays in the processing of laboratory specimens. The Company is actively engaged in fully restoring or replacing affected systems, which is expected to be largely complete in the coming days.

The Company is also evaluating the extent of the incident and working diligently to mitigate its effects. The Company has incurred, and may continue to incur, certain expenses related to this attack, including expenses to respond to, remediate and investigate this matter. Further, the Company remains subject to risks and uncertainties as a result of the incident, including as a result of the data that was extracted from the Company's network as noted above.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ENZO-BIOCHEM-INC-12466/news/ENZO-BIOCHEM-INC-Other-Events-Financial-Statements-and-Exhibits-form-8-K-43489954/

Appeals Court Ruling May Threaten DOJ Position In Dozens Of Jan. 6 Cases

 by Gary Bai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An April 7 decision issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals may jeopardize a key legal backing used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute participants of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, according to attorney Albert Watkins.

“What this opinion did do was, it practically begged for other [Jan. 6] cases to be brought up to the Court of Appeals that would permit a more balanced opinion,” Watkins, who has represented four Jan. 6 defendants, including released prisoner Jacob Chansley, told The Epoch Times in an interview on April 11.

Watkins’ comment came after a three-judge panel at the D.C. Court of Appeals, on April 7, struck down a lower court’s ruling in a 2–1 vote, dismissing a federal charge against three Jan. 6 defendants, and rejected the lower court’s reasoning about the scope of the obstruction charge.

While the higher court’s ruling (pdf) allowed the DOJ’s prosecution of these three specific defendants—Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller—to continue, the impact of the higher court’s opinion extends beyond these cases, the attorney said.

According to Watkins, this extended impact has to do with the interpretation of a term about “corrupt” intention in the wording of obstruction charges, considering that the DOJ has been using the obstruction charge as an “attractive” legal tool to prosecute Jan. 6 cases and score plea agreements.

According to a provision in the statute for obstruction charge (18 U.S. Code § 1512 2(c)), “Whoever corruptly … otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

A narrowed definition of this provision could hinder the DOJ’s ability to use the charge further and introduce uncertainties in the ongoing trials, the attorney indicated. The DOJ had charged more than 200 Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction-related charges.

“It should cause a certain degree of trepidation on the part of the Department of Justice about utilizing—in a very footloose and fancy-free fashion—the obstruction of an official proceeding charge as the count of choice for pleas,” Watkins said. “I will say it was, in many respects, an extraordinary opinion—more time was spent addressing potential issues not before the court than the issues actually before the court.”

‘Corrupt Intent’

The key issue here is the interpretation of a necessary component of the obstruction charge (18 U.S. Code § 1512 (c)(2))—namely, the definition of “corrupt intent.”

The appeals court ruling indicates that the DOJ prosecutors set forth an interpretation of “corrupt” criminal obstructive conduct as having “a broad meaning that encompasses all forms of obstructive conduct, including appellees’ allegedly violent efforts to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

But all three judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals expressed some level of concern in their April 7 ruling about whether the government’s current interpretation of “corrupt” intent is appropriate.

Biden appointee Florence Pan, who wrote the majority opinion, indicated that the definition of “corrupt” intent should be determined in a later case.

“At least one pending case on this court’s docket squarely raises the definition of ‘corruptly’ under § 1512(c),” Pan wrote. “It is more prudent to delay addressing the meaning of ‘corrupt’ intent until that issue is properly presented to the court.”

‘Implausibly Broad’

Trump appointee Justin Walker, in his opinion partially concurring with the ruling, diverged from Pan’s view that “corrupt intent” should be interpreted later and wrote in his opinion that the term should be precisely defined to avoid criminalizing legal civil discourse.

Establishing a corrupt intent requires proving that a defendant intended to “obtain a benefit that he knows is unlawful,” Walker wrote, adding that this interpretation is narrower than the one offered by the government.

Without a narrowed definition, Walker wrote, the obstruction charge could become “implausibly broad” and thus “criminalize many lawful attempts to ‘influence’ congressional proceedings—protests or lobbying, for example.”

A narrowed definition could be applied to a “hypothetical” Jan. 6 protestor, Walker noted.

“This rioter joined the throng outside Congress because he was angry at the nation’s elites. He saw the riot as an opportunity to display his bravado. Though likely guilty of other crimes, he did not act ‘corruptly’ under [the statute] because he did not intend to procure a benefit by obstructing the Electoral College vote count,” Walker wrote.

It is yet to be seen if Walker’s opinion will become a binding precedent on the lower courts. Walker contends that it should be: He cited the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Marks v. United States (1977), which says the “narrowest” concurring opinion should be the binding opinion. Pan, objecting to this point in a footnote, says that the D.C. Court of Appeals “has never applied Marks to its own cases” and that “only one federal appellate court has done so.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/appeals-court-ruling-may-threaten-doj-position-dozens-jan-6-cases-lawyer

UN Seeks Vast New Powers For Global Emergencies

 by Alex Newman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The United Nations is seeking vast new powers and stronger “global governance” tools to deal with international emergencies such as pandemics and economic crises, a new U.N. policy brief has revealed, and the Biden administration appears to support the proposal.

The plan to create an “Emergency Platform,” which would involve a set of protocols activated during crises that could affect billions of people, has already drawn strong concern and criticism from U.S. policymakers and analysts.

Among those expressing concern is House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), whose committee oversees U.S. foreign policy and involvement in international organizations.

“We must be sure that any global protocol or platform operated by the U.N. respects U.S. national sovereignty and U.S. taxpayer dollars,” McCaul told The Epoch Times.

He also noted his concern that the proposed platform expands the authority and funding of the U.S. and the definitions of “emergency” and “crisis” to include, for instance, climate change.

U.N. documents and statements released in March by key leaders of the global organization make clear that climate change is a major piece of the U.N. emergencies agenda.

Other critics who spoke with The Epoch Times expressed concern about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within the U.N., the global organization’s well-documented corruption problems, and its track record of dealing with previous emergencies.

“Allowing the U.N. to deal with this is the equivalent of putting the CCP in charge of global emergencies,” former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Kevin Moley told The Epoch Times.

UN Vision for Global Crises Response

In a policy brief dubbed “Our Common Agenda” headlined “Strengthening the International Response to Complex Shocks – An Emergency Platform,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres laid out his vision for empowering the global organization to deal with global crises.

“The challenges we face can only be addressed through stronger international cooperation,” Guterres declared, calling for “strengthening global governance” for current and future generations.

The policy brief builds on an earlier “Common Agenda” document and comes as U.N. leaders outline the plans for a “Summit of the Future” set to be held during the General Assembly’s annual high-level meeting in September.

If it gets a green light from member states, the global emergency protocols would be “triggered automatically” in case of a global crisis, “regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved,” the U.N. chief said.

The protocols would bring all sorts of institutions together, including national governments, international institutions, and the private sector. Ultimately, all would have to recognize the “primary role of intergovernmental organs [such as U.N. agencies] in decision-making,” the document states.

“The Emergency Platform, once convened, would be a tool for the United Nations system to implement decisions taken by relevant organs,” according to the policy brief.

State Department Supportive

A spokesman for the U.S. State Department suggested that the Biden administration backs the plan.

“The administration has made clear its firm belief that U.S. national security is best served by engaging actively and comprehensively with the UN and other international organizations,” the spokesman told The Epoch Times in an e-mailed statement about the proposal.

“The U.N. is only as effective, transparent, and accountable as its membership demands, and the U.S. works tirelessly to ensure the U.N. meets those demands.”

The U.N. proposal was unveiled as multibillionaire Bill Gates, one of the most prominent voices during the COVID-19 crisis and a major financier of the World Health Organization (WHO) and vaccines, called for a global “fire department” to address international health emergencies.

Writing in The New York Times last month, Gates said a “Global Health Emergency Corps” could “spring into action at a moment’s notice when danger emerges.”

“The Global Health Emergency Corps will represent massive progress toward a pandemic-free future,” Gates wrote in the op-ed. “The ‌question ‌‌is whether we have the foresight to invest in that future now before it’s too late.”

UN Emergencies Protocol

Guterres, who is asking governments to approve his plan later this year, said risks are growing and becoming more complex.

“Enhanced international cooperation is the only way we can adequately respond to these shocks, and the United Nations is the only organization with the reach and legitimacy to convene at the highest level and galvanize global action,” he said. “We must keep strengthening the multilateral system so that it is fit to face the challenges of tomorrow.”

Exactly what would constitute an emergency that would trigger the U.N. emergency response wasn’t made clear.

However, the document states that crises without “global consequences” would “not necessarily” be categorized as an emergency requiring U.N. intervention. In other words, some crises that don’t have global consequences might trigger a U.N. response.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/un-seeks-vast-new-powers-global-emergencies

Teva gets CRL on Humira biosimilar

 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (NYSE and TASE: TEVA) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter (CRL) to its partner Alvotech (NASDAQ: ALVO) for the Biologics License Application (BLA) for AVT02, a high-concentration biosimilar candidate for Humira® (adalimumab). The CRL stated that the application could not be approved at this time based on deficiencies associated with Alvotech’s manufacturing facility that must be satisfactorily resolved. Additional review of the details following the recent FDA’s re-inspection and CRL are being assessed to determine next steps.

While this outcome is disappointing, Teva remains fully committed to its leadership in biosimilars and the partnership with Alvotech. The Company remains optimistic about additional compounds in the pipeline and further progress with AVT02.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/complete-response-letter-received-avt02-005300311.html

Unitedhealth ups 2023 guidance

 The company increased its full year net earnings outlook to $23.25 to $23.75 per share and adjusted net earnings to $24.50 to $25.00 per share.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unitedhealth-group-reports-first-quarter-095500604.html

U.S. Supreme Court won't halt $6 billion student debt settlement

 The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday refused to halt a legal settlement that would erase more than $6 billion in debt owed by former students of colleges - many of them for-profit institutions - who have said they were misled by schools about academics and job prospects.

The justices turned away a request from three colleges that are challenging a settlement between the U.S. Education Department and borrowers that linked the colleges to claims of "substantial misconduct," an allegation they dispute.

Three of the schools identified in the settlement - for-profit Lincoln Educational Services Corp and American National University Inc as well as nonprofit Everglades College Inc - challenged the agreement after it was approved by a federal judge in California last November. Around 3,500 borrowers entitled to automatic loan discharge under the settlement attended one of the three schools.

The decision was separate from a case pending before the high court over the legality of President Joe Biden's plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt for about 40 million borrowers. A ruling in that case is expected by the end of June.

The latest dispute stemmed from a class-action settlement under which the Education Department would automatically cancel the debt of nearly 200,000 borrowers who attended 151 schools.

The schools have been accused of boosting enrollment through aggressive sales tactics as well as misrepresentations about the quality of their academic offerings, graduates' career prospects and networking opportunities, according to Eileen Connor, director of litigation at the Project on Predatory Student Lending, a group that represents borrowers involved in the settlement.

"Today's swift and decisive action from the highest court should end, once and for all, any ongoing debate about the legitimacy of this settlement. The message is clear: the rights of student borrowers will not falter, even in the face of well-funded, overblown political attacks masquerading as legal argument," Connor told Reuters.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-wont-halt-201629223.html

Asia shares up as Singapore joins the pause camp

 Asian shares firmed on Friday as Singapore became the latest country to pause its policy tightening and markets became more confident the likely next hike in U.S. rates would be the last this cycle.

The dovish signals helped keep non-yielding gold near one-year highs, while the euro led the currency pack as the European Central Bank stays stubbornly hawkish.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) surprised many by leaving policy unchanged, saying the tightening already underway would ensure inflation slowed sharply later this year.

The MAS joined central banks in Canada and Australia in putting hikes on hold, while the U.S. Federal Reserve was seen nearer pausing after a soft producer price report.

Futures still imply a 67% chance the Fed will raise rates in May, but then almost zero chance of a further increase and maybe 50 basis points of cuts by year end.

Figures on U.S. retail sales are due later in the session and some analysts are warning the risk is for a downside surprise, which would support the dovish turn.

The prospect of a peak for rates helped offset worries about recession and MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan nudged up 0.4%.

Japan's Nikkei added 1.1% and Singapore stocks 0.5%.

Chinese blue chips firmed 0.2%, with the economic outlook brightened by a surprisingly upbeat trade performance.

"The stronger-than-expected March China export gain suggests that the economic recovery is more broadly-based than our expectations, and we have revised up our 1Q GDP forecast," wrote analysts at JPMorgan in a note, forecasitng a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 10.2% quarter-on-quarter from 9.0% previously.

EUROSTOXX 50 futures added 0.3% and FTSE futures 0.2%. S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq futures were steady after sharp gains overnight. 

Investors are now bracing for earnings from Citigroup Inc, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase & Co which could test the bullish mood given recent stress in the sector.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asia-shares-singapore-joins-pause-015741568.html