Connect with us

Business

Column: How UC betrays its doctors, students and patients on abortion

Published

on

Column: How UC betrays its doctors, students and patients on abortion

One yr in the past, the College of California Board of Regents voted to approve an uncompromising coverage governing the phrases of partnerships between UC’s medical faculties and Catholic hospital techniques.

The coverage led UC medical doctors to imagine that they might be permitted to offer any care they judged warranted for his or her sufferers, together with performing abortions and contraceptive implants which might be in any other case forbidden at Catholic healthcare services.

They couldn’t be required to switch or refer these sufferers to non-religious hospitals if transferring them or delaying therapy could be “detrimental to the affected person’s care,” as is commonly the case.

However someway the coverage language modified when the regents’ vote was translated into a proper UC coverage. The coverage now fails to ensure that UC medical doctors can carry out any process they deem essential, solely that they will prescribe and counsel sufferers about their choices.

Advertisement

And it now says medical doctors can refuse to switch a affected person provided that the transfer would “threat materials deterioration to the affected person’s situation.” That’s a stricter commonplace that medical doctors say deprives them of serious discretion to direct affected person therapy.

Many UC medical doctors say the coverage, because it’s now written, shouldn’t be a major enchancment over the scenario that prevailed earlier than the regents’ vote, when affiliation contracts usually subjected UC medical doctors to spiritual restrictions on care once they practiced in faith-based establishments.

“We’re taken again to the place we began,” Amy Autry, an OB/GYN professor at UC San Francisco’s regional campus in Fresno, advised the regent’s well being companies committee final month.

Though the coverage authorised by the regents final yr formally utilized to UC’s affiliations with hospitals with “policy-based restrictions on care,” in apply it primarily utilized to Catholic hospitals and their spiritual strictures on contraceptives, abortion, and gender-affirming procedures.

As at the moment written, Coverage 4405 betrays our values by requiring us to restrict the care we offer sufferers and by harming trainees and their future sufferers.

— Jody Steinauer, UC San Francisco

Advertisement

As handed virtually unanimously by the regents on June 23, 2021, (there was one abstention), the brand new coverage — drafted by then-board Chair John A. Pérez — was designed to settle the contentious situation of how the restrictions at Catholic healthcare techniques conformed to UC’s objective of offering “evidence-based, medically indicated care” to all sufferers, because the regents’ coverage assertion put it. Affiliating establishments and techniques would have till Dec. 31, 2023, to return into compliance with UC requirements.

As a substitute, buried within the model written by the workplace of UC President Michael V. Drake, which is now codified as Coverage 4405, is a gigantic loophole that leaves them nonetheless topic to church-imposed restrictions.

Put merely, though the coverage ensures that UC suppliers can “advise, refer, prescribe, or present emergency objects and companies with out restrictions,” it fails to ensure that UC suppliers can carry out any procedures they deem advisable or essential.

The variations in language between Pérez’s model and the ultimate coverage are refined and could also be opaque to laypersons. However to not medical suppliers, for whom they’re tantamount to the distinction between night time and day.

Advertisement

“As at the moment written, Coverage 4405 betrays our values by requiring us to restrict the care we offer sufferers and by harming trainees and their future sufferers,” Jody Steinauer, professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UC San Francisco, the system’s preeminent medical faculty, advised the regents committee on well being companies at its assembly June 15.

The coverage might deprive UC medical college students of the coaching they should present the total spectrum of medical care for his or her sufferers, Steinauer stated. “We all know that individuals skilled in restrictive hospitals don’t really be taught the fundamental expertise they need to,” she advised the regents committee.

“Many OB/GYN residents skilled in hospitals that limit their apply graduate not feeling comfy in necessary contraceptive and abortion expertise,” Steinauer stated. “They don’t seem to be ready to put an IUD, do post-partum sterilizations [that is, tubal ligations], provide complete early being pregnant loss care or do an abortion to avoid wasting somebody’s life.”

Some background could also be helpful. UC well being directors have lengthy stated that affiliations with outdoors healthcare system are essential as a result of the college and its medical facilities don’t have the room they should match all their sufferers and supply scientific coaching to all their medical and different healthcare college students.

UC goals to offer therapy and inculcate its college students on the highest degree of medical science. Catholic hospitals, nevertheless, usually adhere to the Moral and Spiritual Directives for Catholic Well being Care Providers, a set of pointers issued by the U.S. Convention of Catholic Bishops.

Advertisement

The ERDs label abortions, euthanasia, assisted suicide and direct sterilization “intrinsically evil” and prohibit them at Catholic services. In addition they bar such gender-affirming procedures as hysterectomies for transgender sufferers. They place the last word judgment about medical practices within the arms of native bishops.

The ERDs place the last word judgment about medical practices within the arms of native bishops. They label abortions, euthanasia, assisted suicide and direct sterilization “intrinsically evil” and prohibit them at Catholic services.

Which means, for instance, that the usual of care relevant to tubal ligations, which is that they need to be carried out as a part of the identical process as a Caesarian part, can’t be met at Catholic hospitals. As a substitute, ladies wanting the process must endure two surgical procedures, not only one — rising their well being dangers. The ERDs bar such gender-affirming procedures as hysterectomies for transgender sufferers.

UC’s affiliations with Catholic hospitals grew to become a flashpoint in 2019, when UCSF sought to develop its skilled affiliation with 4 hospitals owned by the Catholic chain Dignity Well being. After an uproar by UCSF personnel, the proposal was deserted.

It quickly grew to become clear that different affiliation contracts certain personnel related to virtually each UC medical heart to limitations on care once they have been working at areas that had restrictive insurance policies, mainly Catholic hospitals.

Advertisement

Pérez’s coverage was designed to inoculate UC personnel and college students from the imposition of the ERDs once they have been practising or coaching at Catholic services. The regents’ vote final yr was praised by many, together with myself, as a major counterstrike — certainly, one of many first in current reminiscence — in opposition to the regular encroachment of church restrictions into American healthcare.

Some UC professionals say they have been stunned by the change within the coverage’s language between the regents vote and publication of the formal coverage in April. “I used to be sad once I noticed the wordsmithing instantly,” sociologist Lori Freedman, an skilled on the affect of abortion politics on medical apply at UCSF, advised me. “I used to be very involved that the brand new language was not going to vary apply.”

Freedman and others have requested UC officers to clarify whether or not the coverage would permit UC professionals working at faith-based establishments with healthcare restrictions to carry out procedures similar to implanting an intrauterine system or different implantable contraceptive. “We by no means actually obtained solutions,” Freedman says.

The identical situation was raised on the regents’ month-to-month assembly Wednesday by Vanessa Jacoby, an affiliate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF and a number one critic of UC affiliations with Catholic well being techniques.

“Offering an abortion or an implantable contraceptive are procedures that don’t match the ‘advise, refer, prescribe’ phrasing of the present coverage,” Jacoby advised the board. “These procedures can’t be prescribed and picked up at a pharmacy.”

Advertisement

Jacoby known as the coverage’s suggestion that UC medical doctors might merely refer sufferers to a different facility “extremely regarding” as a result of referrals and transfers “create pointless delays in care that worsen well being outcomes for our sufferers.”

One motive that UC professionals are so delicate in regards to the language of the coverage is that it’s not arduous for spiritual establishments to intrude with medical doctors’ judgments with out seeming to take action.

A Catholic hospital may not inventory contraceptives in its drug formularies, in order that medical doctors prescribing an implantable drug or system can’t get hold of it for his or her sufferers on website. Hospitals can assert that staffing issues make the immediate scheduling of an abortion unimaginable. Specific language permitting medical doctors to carry out the procedures they prescribe would cut back the prospects of that taking place.

It ought to go with out saying that making certain that preserving UC’s skilled values is extra necessary at this time than ever, due to the Supreme Court docket’s eradication of the constitutional proper to abortion by means of its June 24 choice in Dobbs vs. Jackson Ladies’s Well being Group.

The Dobbs choice has thrown the entire panorama of reproductive healthcare into turmoil. Within the greater than 20 states imposing or planning extreme restrictions on abortion, sufferers and medical doctors are uncertain what medically pressing procedures may be carried out or medication prescribed with out working afoul of state legal guidelines.

Advertisement

The choice has made California, with its liberal abortion insurance policies, a sanctuary state for ladies looking for abortions or different reproductive well being companies. That in flip locations UC on the heart of reproductive healthcare coverage. Certainly, a lot of Wednesday’s regents assembly was occupied by a presentation on the impression that Dobbs can have on the college’s companies and coaching.

The Guttmacher Institute, an abortion advocacy group, calculates that the variety of ladies of reproductive age for which California can have the closest abortion clinics will improve 30-fold, to 1.3 million, the regents have been advised by Anne Foster, chief scientific officer of UC Well being, which administers UC’s well being skilled faculties and medical facilities.

As many as 16,000 sufferers per yr might journey to the state for care, Foster stated, straining services which might be already over capability.

Drake, a doctor who beforehand served as chancellor of UC Irvine and as UC’s vp for well being affairs, advised the regents that the Dobbs choice is “antithetical to the college’s mission and values.”

Drake stated UC “will proceed to offer the total vary of healthcare choices attainable in California, together with reproductive well being companies and to steadfastly advocate for the wants of our sufferers, college students, employees and the communities that we serve. We can even proceed to supply complete coaching to the following era of healthcare suppliers.”

Advertisement

But that doesn’t appear consonant with the gaps inherent in UC’s affiliation coverage with establishments that don’t meet these requirements, similar to faith-based hospitals that don’t provide complete companies to their sufferers or complete coaching to college students taking scientific rotations on their premises.

Drake’s workplace advised me that affiliation contracts topic to the brand new coverage “expressly require that UC suppliers, utilizing their impartial skilled judgment, are in a position to counsel on choices, switch or refer a affected person to a facility that gives abortion companies.” The workplace additionally stated UC medical doctors are in a position to “present any care they deem essential and acceptable in an emergency.” However the latter authority could be assured by federal legislation, even with out the UC coverage.

I sought remark from Pérez, who wasn’t in attendance at Wednesday’s regents assembly throughout its dialogue of the Supreme Court docket’s abortion choice. On the June assembly of the well being companies committee, which he chairs, he expressed skepticism about how effectively UC was ready to carry its Catholic associates to the college’s requirements.

He requested the system’s well being officers to report, for instance, on whether or not within the case of implantable contraceptives, UC suppliers at Catholic hospitals would have “the flexibility not solely to prescribe however to implant.”

He acknowledged the considerations raised by UC medical doctors about their “having the ability to interact within the apply of drugs the way in which one would at a facility that didn’t have restrictions. What I need to be certain is that modifications that we’re placing in our agreements are actual and that they’re not a veneer.”

Advertisement

Pérez famous that, based on UC’s figures, of 97 new contracts and renewals topic to negotiations between the college and associates over the past yr, just one resulted within the contract’s termination.

Pérez puzzled aloud whether or not that meant that UC contract officers weren’t being agency sufficient in regards to the college’s requirements once they negotiated agreements. “I don’t know whether or not to be elated,” he stated, “or to be suspect.”

There may be a simple repair to the confusion produced by what Freedman known as the “wordsmithing” of the regents coverage. A lightweight tweak of the language would suffice.

Freedman advised the regents committee that it ought to add three phrases to the coverage: “and carry out procedures” in order that it learn, “Clinicians ought to have the proper to make scientific selections and carry out procedures in step with the usual of care.”

The important thing query is who is absolutely accountable for medical apply when UC professionals and trainees are on website at Catholic hospitals — or every other establishments that impose non-scientific strictures on healthcare: the church or the college?

Advertisement

The one appropriate and accountable reply is the college. UC must make that unmistakably clear.

Business

U.S. Sues Southwest Airlines Over Chronic Delays

Published

on

U.S. Sues Southwest Airlines Over Chronic Delays

The federal government sued Southwest Airlines on Wednesday, accusing the airline of harming passengers who flew on two routes that were plagued by consistent delays in 2022.

In a lawsuit, the Transportation Department said it was seeking more than $2.1 million in civil penalties over the flights between airports in Chicago and Oakland, Calif., as well as Baltimore and Cleveland, that were chronically delayed over five months that year.

“Airlines have a legal obligation to ensure that their flight schedules provide travelers with realistic departure and arrival times,” the transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, said in a statement. “Today’s action sends a message to all airlines that the department is prepared to go to court in order to enforce passenger protections.”

Carriers are barred from operating unrealistic flight schedules, which the Transportation Department considers an unfair, deceptive and anticompetitive practice. A “chronically delayed” flight is defined as one that operates at least 10 times a month and is late by at least 30 minutes more than half the time.

In a statement, Southwest said it was “disappointed” that the department chose to sue over the flights that took place more than two years ago. The airline said it had operated 20 million flights since the Transportation Department enacted its policy against chronically delayed flights more than a decade ago, with no other violations.

Advertisement

“Any claim that these two flights represent an unrealistic schedule is simply not credible when compared with our performance over the past 15 years,” Southwest said.

Last year, Southwest canceled fewer than 1 percent of its flights, but more than 22 percent arrived at least 15 minutes later than scheduled, according to Cirium, an aviation data provider. Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines and American Airlines all had fewer such delays.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In it, the government said that a Southwest flight from Chicago to Oakland arrived late 19 out of 25 trips in April 2022, with delays averaging more than an hour. The consistent delays continued through August of that year, averaging an hour or more. On another flight, between Baltimore and Cleveland, average delay times reached as high as 96 minutes per month during the same period. In a statement, the department said that Southwest, rather than poor weather or air traffic control, was responsible for more than 90 percent of the delays.

“Holding out these chronically delayed flights disregarded consumers’ need to have reliable information about the real arrival time of a flight and harmed thousands of passengers traveling on these Southwest flights by causing disruptions to travel plans or other plans,” the department said in the lawsuit.

The government said Southwest had violated federal rules 58 times in August 2022 after four months of consistent delays. Each violation faces a civil penalty of up to $37,377, or more than $2.1 million in total, according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

The Transportation Department on Wednesday also said that it had penalized Frontier Airlines for chronically delayed flights, fining the airline $650,000. Half that amount was paid to the Treasury and the rest is slated to be forgiven if the airline has no more chronically delayed flights over the next three years.

This month, the department ordered JetBlue Airways to pay a $2 million fine for failing to address similarly delayed flights over a span of more than a year ending in November 2023, with half the money going to passengers affected by the delays.

Continue Reading

Business

California drops zero-emission truck rules after inaction by Biden's EPA

Published

on

California drops zero-emission truck rules after inaction by Biden's EPA

California government’s plan to phase out heavy-duty diesel trucks and diesel locomotives has been derailed.

The ambitious plan aimed at reducing local pollution and global greenhouse gases required special waivers from the federal government. The Biden administration hadn’t granted the waivers as of this week, and rather than face almost certain denial by the incoming Trump administration, the state withdrew its waiver request.

That means the far-reaching regulations issued by the California Air Resources Board in 2022 to ban new diesel truck sales by 2036 and force fleet owners to take them off the road by 2042 won’t be enforced. Known as the Advanced Clean Fleets rule, the idea was to replace those trucks with electric and hydrogen-powered versions, which dramatically reduce emissions but are currently two to three times more expensive.

“While we are disappointed that U.S. EPA was unable to act on all the requests in time, the withdrawal is an important step given the uncertainty presented by the incoming administration that previously attacked California’s programs to protect public health and the climate and has said will continue to oppose those programs,” CARB Chair Liane Randolph said in a prepared statement.

Environmentalists reacted with deep disappointment.

Advertisement

“To meet basic standards for healthy air, California has to shift to zero-emissions trucks and trains in the coming years. Diesel is one of the most dangerous kinds of air pollution for human health,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right to Zero campaign, said in a prepared statement. “We’ll be working tirelessly in the coming years — and calling on Gov. [Gavin] Newsom, state legislators, and our air quality regulators to join us — to clean up our freight system and fix the mess [U.S.] EPA’s inaction has created.”

The trucking industry is pleased at the result, but hopes to continue working with California on environmental issues.

“This rule was flawed, and was not reflective of reality,” said Matt Schrap, chief executive at the Harbor Trucking Assn. “Ideally this is an opportunity to take a step back and look at a program that would be more sustainable.”

Trucking representatives had filed a lawsuit to block the rules, arguing they would cause irreparable harm to the industry and the wider economy. Train operators said no zero-emission locomotives exist on the commercial market.

Schrap said “the most important thing is the EPA could have issued the waiver and they didn’t.”

Advertisement

The EPA said it acknowledges California’s withdrawal of the waiver requests “and as a result is taking no further action on CARB’s prior requests and considers these matters closed.”

President-elect Donald Trump is a champion of the fossil fuel industry, making it unlikely that his administration would have approved the California waivers. The state could, however, pursue waivers at some point in the future.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, California is allowed to set its own air standards, and other states are allowed to follow California’s lead. But federal government waivers are required. Most of California’s waivers have been granted, including approval in December of a California ban on new sales of gas-powered cars and light trucks by 2035.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos to Attend Trump’s Inauguration

Published

on

Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos to Attend Trump’s Inauguration

Corporate America had already raced to donate big sums to Donald Trump’s record-breaking inaugural fund. Now some of its leaders appear eager to jockey for prominent positions at the inauguration next week.

It’s a new reminder that for some of the nation’s biggest businesses, forging close ties to a president-elect who is promising hard-hitting policies like tariffs is a priority this time around.

Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are expected to be on the inauguration dais, according to NBC News, alongside Elon Musk and several cabinet picks.

The presence of Musk isn’t a surprise, given the Tesla chief’s significant support of and huge influence over Trump. But the other tech moguls have only more recently been seen as supporters of the administration. (Indeed, Bezos frequently sparred with Trump during his first presidential term.)

It’s the latest effort by Bezos and Zuckerberg to burnish their Trump credentials. At the DealBook Summit in December, Bezos — whose Amazon has faced scrutiny under the Biden administration and whose Blue Origin is hoping to win government rocket contracts — said that he was “very hopeful” about Trump’s efforts to reduce regulation.

Advertisement

And Zuckerberg recently announced significant changes to Meta’s content moderation policy, including relaxing restrictions on speech seen as protecting groups including L.G.B.T.Q. people that won praise from Trump and other conservatives. On the inauguration front, Zuckerberg is also co-hosting a reception alongside the longtime Trump backers Miriam Adelson, Tilman Fertitta and Todd Ricketts.

Both tech moguls have visited Mar-a-Lago since the election, with Zuckerberg having done so more than once.

Coca-Cola took a different tack. The drinks giant’s C.E.O., James Quincey, gave Trump what an aide called the “first ever Presidential Commemorative Inaugural Diet Coke bottle.”

More broadly, business leaders want a piece of the inauguration action. The Times previously reported that the Trump inaugural fund had surpassed $170 million, a record, and that even major donors have been wait-listed for events.

Others are throwing unofficial events around Washington, including an “Inaugural Crypto Ball” that will feature Snoop Dogg, with tickets starting at $5,000, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Advertisement

It’s a reminder that C.E.O.s are reading the room, and preparing their companies for a president who has proposed creating an “External Revenue Service” to oversee what he has promised will be wide-ranging tariffs.

David Urban, a longtime Trump adviser who’s hosting a pre-inauguration event, told The Journal, “This is the world order, and if we’re going to succeed, we need to get with the world order.”

  • In other Trump news: The president-elect is expected to appear via videoconference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which starts on Inauguration Day, according to Semafor.

Investors brace for the latest inflation data. The Consumer Price Index report, due out at 8:30 a.m. Eastern, is expected to show that inflation ticked up last month, most likely because of climbing food and fuel costs. Global bond markets have been rattled as slow progress on slowing inflation has prompted the Fed to slash its forecast for interest rate cuts.

More Trump cabinet picks will appear before the Senate on Wednesday. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, the choice for secretary of state, is expected to field questions about his views on the Middle East, Ukraine and China, but is expected to be confirmed. Russell Vought, the pick to run the Office of Management and Budget, will most likely be asked about his advocacy for drastically shrinking the federal government, a key Trump objective. And Sean Duffy, the Fox Business host chosen to lead the Transportation Department, will probably face questions on how he would oversee matters including aviation safety and autonomous vehicles, the latter of which is a priority for Elon Musk.

Meta plans to lay off another 5 percent of its employees. Mark Zuckerberg, the tech giant’s C.E.O., told staff members to prepare for “extensive performance-based cuts” as the company braces for “an intense year.” The social media giant faces intense competition in the race to commercialize artificial intelligence.

Advertisement

A new bill would give TikTok a reprieve from a ban in the United States. Senator Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he planned to introduce the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act, which would give the video platform 270 additional days to be divested from its Chinese parent, ByteDance before being blacklisted. It’s the latest effort to buy TikTok time, as the app faces a Jan. 19 deadline set by a law; President-elect Donald Trump has opposed the potential ban as well.

JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock, the giant money manager, just reported earnings. (In short: Both handily beat analyst expectations.)

But the Wall Street giants are likely to face questioning on a particular issue on Wednesday: Which top lieutenants are in line to replace their larger-than-life C.E.O.s, Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink.

Who’s out:

  • Daniel Pinto, who had long been Dimon’s right-hand man, said he would officially drop his responsibilities as JPMorgan’s C.O.O. in June and retire at the end of 2026. Jenn Piepszak, the co-C.E.O. of the company’s core commercial and investment bank, has become C.O.O.

  • And Mark Wiedman, the head of BlackRock’s global client business and a top contender to succeed Fink, is planning to leave, according to news reports.

What Wall Street is gossiping about JPMorgan: Even in taking the C.O.O. role, JPMorgan said that Piepszak wasn’t interested in succeeding Dimon “at this time.” DealBook hears that while she genuinely appears not to want to pursue the top job, the phrasing covers her in case she changes her mind.

Advertisement

For now, that means the most likely candidates for the top spot are Marianne Lake, the company’s head of consumer and community banking; Troy Rohrbaugh, the other co-head of the commercial and investment bank; and Doug Petno, a co-head of global banking.

The buzz around BlackRock: Wiedman reportedly didn’t want to keep waiting to succeed Fink and is expected to seek a C.E.O. position elsewhere. (So sudden was his departure that he’s forfeiting about $8 million worth of stock options and, according to The Wall Street Journal, he doesn’t have another job lined up yet.)

Fink said on CNBC on Wednesday that Wiedman’s departure had been in the works for some time, with the executive having expressed a desire to leave about six months ago.

Other candidates to take over for Fink include Martin Small, BlackRock’s C.F.O.; Rob Goldstein, the firm’s C.O.O.; and Rachel Lord, the head of international.

But Dimon and Fink aren’t going anywhere just yet. Dimon, 68, said only last year that he might not be in the role in five years. And Fink, 72, said in July that he was working on succession planning: “When I do believe the next generation is ready, I’m out.”

Advertisement

Another battle between Elon Musk and the S.E.C. erupted on Tuesday, with the agency suing the tech mogul over his 2022 purchase of Twitter.

It’s unclear what happens to the lawsuit once President-elect Donald Trump, who counts Musk as a close ally, takes office. But the agency’s reputation as an independent watchdog may be at stake.

A recap: The S.E.C. accused Musk of violating securities laws in his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company.

The agency said that Musk had failed to disclose his Twitter ownership stake for a pivotal 11-day stretch before revealing his intentions to purchase the company. That breach allowed him to buy up at least $150 million worth of Twitter shares at a lower price — to the detriment of existing shareholders, the agency argues.

The S.E.C. isn’t just seeking to fine Musk. It wants him to pay back the windfall. “That’s unusual,” Ann Lipton, a professor at Tulane Law School, told DealBook.

Advertisement

Alex Spiro, Musk’s lawyer, called the latest action a “sham” and accused the agency of waging a “multiyear campaign of harassment” against him.

The showdown sets up a tough question for the S.E.C. Will Paul Atkins, the president-elect’s widely respected pick to lead the agency, drop the case? Such a move could call the bedrock principle of S.E.C. independence into question.

Jay Clayton, who led the agency during Trump’s first term, earned the respect of the business community for running it in a largely drama-free manner. It was under Clayton that the S.E.C. sued Musk over his statements about taking Tesla private.

Musk, who is set to become Trump’s cost-cutting czar and is expected to have office space in the White House complex, has called for the “comprehensive overhaul” of agencies like the S.E.C. The billionaire said he would also like to see “punitive action against those individuals who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gain.”

  • In related news: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Capital One, accusing it of cheating its depositors out of $2 billion in interest payments.

Deals

Advertisement
  • DAZN, the streaming network backed by the billionaire businessman Len Blavatnik, is closing in on funding from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund as the kingdom continues to expand its sports footprint. (NYT)

  • The Justice Department sued KKR, accusing the investment giant of withholding information during government reviews for several of its deals. KKR filed a countersuit. (Bloomberg)

  • OpenAI added Adebayo Ogunlesi, the billionaire co-founder of the infrastructure investment firm Global Infrastructure Partners, to its board. (FT)

Politics and policy

Best of the rest

We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.

Continue Reading

Trending