Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.
AdvertisementClick Here to Read MoreAdvertisementASE and the ASE Education Foundation have announced the following staff changes effective Jan. 1. After seven years of leading the Education Foundation, Trish Serratore has decided to transition to part-time status and will move back to ASE as senior vice president of communications. ASE Senior Vice President Mike Coley will take over her position as president of the ASE Education Foundation.A 30-year veteran of ASE, Serratore will be responsible for company communications and will advance awareness about ASE and its value and purpose through industry, consumer and governmental interface.“We are glad to have Trish back on the ASE side. Her longtime experience in the industry and most recently with the Foundation are key to our future initiatives,” said Tim Zilke, ASE president and CEO.Coley has been with ASE for more than 20 years, serving in several capacities, including overseeing the ASE Test Development department. He has both engineering and MBA degrees and previously taught automotive service technology part-time at the local community college.“These changes play to the strengths of our staff. Mike brings a wealth of knowledge and operational experience to the Foundation position,” added Zilke.In other recent staff changes at ASE, Allison Guth, vice president, finance, will now also oversee ASE information technology functions. John Tisdale has been named assistant vice president, special testing programs and Dave Milne has been named assistant vice president, traditional testing programs.AdvertisementFor more information about ASE, visit the website at ase.com.
The Port of Wells dredging scheme is scheduled to commence on the 21th April 2014.The port’s dredger “Kari Hege” will be engaged in dredging operations in the main channel north of number 4 buoy, between buoys 2 and 4.All material dredged from these areas will be placed on the berm which is marked by the port hand channel buoys.The locations which will be dredged are dictated by the regular survey results.[mappress]Press Release, April 18, 2014
Brazil’s Petrobras has completed drilling extension well 3-BRSA-1253D-ESS / 3-ESS-219D (Petrobras nomenclature), informally known as Pudim, at a water depth of 1,886 meters, in the Espírito Santo Basin post-salt.According to Petrobras, the completion of this well, which had been announced on October 7, 2014, confirmed the presence of excellent quality oil through log data analysis, fluid samples and cable test conducted in reservoirs located at a depth of some 4,300 meters. Drilling ended at a depth of 4,670 meters.Then, a cased-hole drill-stem test was conducted at the 4,305 to 4,383 meter interval that confirmed the presence of light oil of approximately 35° API.The well is located in the Brigadeiro Discovery Evaluation Plan (PAD) area, 121 km from the city of Vitória, in Espírito Santo state.Petrobras is the operator (65%) of the consortium responsible for the exploration of the Brigadeiro Discovery Evaluation Plan (PAD), in partnership with PTTEP Brasil Investimentos em Exploração e Produção de Petróleo e Gás Ltda (20%) and Inpex Petróleo Santos Ltda (15%).[mappress mapid=”1015″]
Jan De Nul has just announced that Sas van Vreeswijk (SPC) achieved financial close of the PPS project ‘Construction 3rd lock chamber Princess Beatrix Lock and widening Lek Canal’. Sas van Vreeswijk consists of TDP NV (in partnership with investment companies TINC and DG Infra Yield), BESIX Group NV, RebelValley B.V., Heijmans Nederland B.V. and Jan De Nul NV.The financial close is a key milestone for this project with a net present value of approximately 133 million euro. The project’s financing requirement amounts to approximately 184 million euro.The shareholder capital is supplemented with loans from BNG Bank, DekaBank and KBC Bank. BNG Bank also serves as the agent of the lenders.The DBFM contract was signed by Rijkswaterstaat (the Directorate-General of Public Works and Water Management) and Sas van Vreeswijk on 15 January 2016.Third Lock ChamberRijkswaterstaat aims to improve passage for barges through the Lek Canal near Nieuwegein and to reduce waiting times at the Beatrix Lock.The project includes the construction of a third lock chamber, the renovation of the existing two lock chambers, the widening of the Lek Canal and the construction of lock approaches and berths in the canal.The Lek Canal, which incorporates the Princess Beatrix Lock, connects the Amsterdam Rhine Canal to the Lek River, and is an important waterway between the ports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam.The completion of the construction works is anticipated by 2019, when the 27-year maintenance period will start.[mappress mapid=”21945″]
Ezekiel v Orakpo  3 All ER 659 considered; Thompson v Elmbridge Borough Council  LS Gaz R 2456 considered; Smith (a bankrupt) v Braintree District Council  3 All ER 897 considered; Razzaq v Pala  BPIR 726 considered; Greenwich London Borough Council v Regan  EGCS 15 considered; Harlow District Council v Hall  All ER (D) 393 (Feb) considered. (2) It was settled law that s 285(3)(b) of the Act was implicitly limited to legal proceedings against the bankrupt ‘in respect of that debt’; it was qualified in the same way as s 285(3)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, proceedings for an order for possession of property subject to a tenancy, including an assured tenancy, on the ground of rent arrears, in which no claim was made for arrears provable in the tenant’s bankruptcy, were not subject to the automatic stay in s 285(3)(b) of the Act. Neither was an order for possession of property subject to a tenancy, including an assured tenancy, on the ground of arrears of rent, which was the subject of the tenant’s DRO, a ‘remedy in respect of the debt’ within the meaning of s 251G(2)(a) of the Act, whether the order was an outright or conditional suspended order for possession. Proceedings for possession of property subject to an assured tenancy on the ground of rent arrears, which were provable in the tenant’s bankruptcy or were the subject of the tenant’s DRO, should not normally be stayed under s 285(1) or (2) or s 251G(3) of the Act. On the hearing of such proceedings, no order could be made for payment of arrears, nor should a suspended order for possession be made conditional on payment of such arrears. Consequently, although the judge had made no error in S’s case, the judge in G’s case had erred in making the order conditional on the payment of arrears (see , ,  of the judgment). The order in G’s case would be varied deleting the order for payment of the rent arrears, and confining the weekly instalments to costs (see  of the judgment). Sharples and another v Places for People Homes Ltd: Court of Appeal, Civil Division (Lords Justice Mummery, Etherton, Mr Justice Wilson): 15 July 2011 The two claims involved common issues about the effect of a person’s insolvency on the right of a landlord to obtain an order for possession of a dwelling let on an assured tenancy, on the ground of rent arrears. In the first claim, the defendant, S, fell into arrears on her rent, and was adjudged bankrupt in May 2009. Her landlord issued proceedings seeking possession. S submitted that as the rent arrears were provable in her bankruptcy, the court was prevented from making an order for possession against her by virtue of s 285(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act). That section precluded any creditor of the bankrupt from taking action against the bankrupt in respect of that debt. The judge refused to make an order for payment of the rent arrears since they were a debt provable in the bankruptcy, but held that s 285(3) of the Act did not preclude the making of an order for possession. In the second claim, the defendant, G, fell into arrears on his rent, and a debt relief order (DRO) was made. When a DRO was made, s 251G of the Act imposed a moratorium which prevented a creditor from taking action in respect of the debt without the permission of the court. G contended that the proceedings for possession, instituted by his landlord, should be stayed in view of the DRO. The judge rejected that argument, and made an order for possession, directing that the order was not to be enforced so long as G paid his landlord £5 per week in respect of rent arrears and costs. Both S and G appealed, and their appeals were heard together. The issue in the first case was whether the making of a possession order in respect of a dwelling let on an assured tenancy was precluded, following the making of a bankruptcy order against the tenant, by s 285(3)(a) of the Act. S submitted first that s 285 of the 1986 Act was intended to protect the interests of one unsecured creditor against another, and granting the order for possession would give one creditor an improper advantage. Secondly, S submitted that the legislative policy was to enable a tenant under an assured tenancy or a secure tenancy to remain in their home. Such tenancies were excluded from the bankrupt’s estate, but, by virtue of s 285(b) were nevertheless property to which s 285 applied. G adopted S’s submissions, and further contended that s 251G(2) of the Act prohibited the making of the order, and further that on any footing, the order should not have been made conditional on payment of arrears; it should have been made conditional only on payment of current rent. S’s appeal would be dismissed. G’s appeal would be allowed in part. (1) The grant of a tenancy, including an assured tenancy, created a property interest in the tenant which was an incumbrance on the landlord’s title. An order for possession was a remedy which restored to the landlord full proprietary rights, including rights of occupation and letting. The failure to pay rent was a breach of a contractual obligation. Neither forfeiture, nor a court order for possession, nor recovery of possession by the landlord, nor an order for bankruptcy, eliminated the personal indebtedness constituted by the rent arrears. It followed, as a matter of general principle, that an order for possession of property, whether let under an ordinary contractual tenancy or a secure or assured tenancy, was not a remedy ‘in respect of’ the debt represented by the rent arrears which gave the landlord an entitlement to the order for possession (see  of the judgment). Recovery of possession – Tenant’s insolvency Edward Bartley Jones QC (instructed by Whiteheads) for the first claimant. Jonathan Manning and Victoria Osler (instructed by Owen White) for the second claimant. Jan Luba QC and Ben McCormack (instructed by Glaisyers) for S. Kerry Bretherton (instructed by Turpin and Miller) for G.
Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters Subscribe now for unlimited access Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY
Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe now for unlimited access Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN
Trump rescued from stalled elevator Author: CNN Newssource SHARE Do you see a typo or an error? Let us know. COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CNN) – Donald Trump and members of his Secret Service detail were briefly trapped in an elevator Friday before a campaign rally in Colorado Springs.They were rescued by firefighters with the Colorado Springs Fire Department, which lowered a ladder into the elevator, allowing Trump and his entourage to climb out.Two Trump campaign sources confirmed the incident to CNN. The story was first reported by the Denver Post.Trump eventually took the stage at the rally, where he opened his remarks by blasting the local fire marshal for shutting off entry to his campaign event due to capacity restrictions.“This is why our country doesn’t work,” Trump said as he slammed the Colorado Springs fire marshal during the rally, moments after the department’s firefighters rescued him. The paper reported that Trump said the fire marshal “didn’t know what he was doing and ‘was probably a Democrat.’ ”Fire marshal Brett Lacey told a local TV station that organizers handed out too many tickets and the venue couldn’t accommodate all of the people who wanted to attend.“There’s an old adage that when a fire marshal walks into a room, milk curdles. So because we’re always looking out for public safety and trying to make certain venues go off successfully and safely sometimes there are people that aren’t very happy with some of the rules and regulations we’re required to enforce. But it doesn’t bother me at all,” Lacey said. Published: August 1, 2016 1:43 PM EDT Updated: August 1, 2016 1:44 PM EDT
USA: Union Pacific confirmed on October 8 that it had acquired complete ownership of a former Rock Island line which links Texas and Kansas through the western part of Oklahoma.The line has been acquired under a lease-purchase agreement signed on November 1 1982. After the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad filed for bankruptcy, the state of Oklahoma purchased the 565 km route through Enid, El Reno, Oklahoma City, Chickasha, Duncan and Lawton under a deal with Oklahoma-Kansas-Texas Railroad as the new operator. Union Pacific subsequently acquired the OKT network through a series of mergers, and last year completed payment of $35m plus accrued interest to buy the line.‘This type of agreement was unique, but we felt it was critical that we preserve the rail corridors and work towards getting them back in the hands of private industry’, said Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation Gary Ridley. ‘The railroad tracks that were saved 30 years ago are a valuable part of the transportation network and are bustling with activity today.’ The north – south route is currently being used to deliver frac sand and pipes for oil and gas companies operating in the Anadarko Basin.Documents transferring ownership to UP were signed by Ridley and the railway’s Assistant Vice-President, Real Estate, Tony Love at a meeting of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation Commission. Love presented Ridley with a Union Pacific Railroad Partnership Coin, which commemorates UP’s 150th anniversary. He thanked ODoT for its ‘foresight’, which had ‘paid off for rail shippers in western Oklahoma and throughout the country’.Between 2007 and 2011 UP invested more than $214m in Oklahoma, where it operates almost 2 000 km of route.