The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday scaled back the Securities and Exchange Commission’s power to recover ill-gotten profits from defendants’ misconduct, handing Wall Street firms a victory and dealing another blow to the regulator’s enforcement powers.

In a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the SEC’s recovery remedy known as “disgorgement” is subject to a five-year statute of limitations. The justices sided with New Mexico-based investment adviser Charles Kokesh, who previously was ordered by a judge to pay $2.4 million in penalties plus $34.9 million in disgorgement of illegal profits after the SEC sued him.

The decision marked the second time since 2013 that the Supreme Court has reined in the SEC’s enforcement powers. In the prior case, called Gabelli v. SEC, the justices unanimously ruled that civil monetary penalties are also subject to a five-year time bar.

The ruling represented a major victory for Wall Street firms, whose Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association trade group had urged the justices to curb the SEC’s powers in order to provide more certainty and predictability to the enforcement process.

Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that disgorgement counts as a penalty and is therefore bound by a five-year statute of limitations that already applies to “any civil fine, penalty or forfeiture.”

The SEC disgorgement process “bears all the hallmarks of penalty: It is imposed as a consequence of violating a public law and is intended to deter, not to compensate,” Sotomayor wrote.

“We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s opinion today, which grants important protection to defendants facing enforcement actions by the SEC and other agencies,” said Adam Unikowsky, one of Kokesh’s lawyers.

An SEC spokesman declined to comment on the ruling.

Kokesh was sued by the SEC in 2009 for misappropriating investors’ money. His penalties covered conduct within the five-year statute of limitations, but the disgorgement covered conduct that largely occurred outside that time frame.

Kokesh appealed to the Supreme Court after losing at the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Kokesh’s attorney argued that a disgorgement in the case constituted a punitive “forfeiture” that is time-barred.

The Justice Department argued that disgorgement is equitable relief that is not considered a punishment, but merely restores the defendant to the same position he was in prior to when the misconduct occurred.

Nick Morgan, a Los Angeles-based lawyer with the Paul Hastings law firm who represents clients being investigated by the SEC, said the ruling will especially affect complicated cases that require more time for the SEC to investigate.

“For the more complex cases, this will be a sea change for them, they will have to move more quickly,” Morgan said.
…

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Monday extended the deadline for U.S.-Mexico sugar trade negotiations by 24 hours, and sources on either side of the spat said U.S. industry added new demands after the governments struck a provisional deal.

Ross said extra time was needed to complete “final technical consultations” for a deal. At stake is the possibility of stiff U.S. duties and Mexican retaliation on imports of American high-fructose corn syrup ahead of wider trade talks expected in August.

An agreement in Washington would end a year of wrangling over Mexican sugar exports. The latest talks began in March, two months after President Donald Trump took power vowing a tougher line on trade to protect U.S. industry and jobs.

They are seen as a precursor to the more complex discussions on the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada.

“The two sides have come together in quite meaningful ways, but there remain a few technical details to work out,” Ross said in a statement as time was running out on a Monday deadline.

“We are quite optimistic that our two nations are on the precipice of an agreement we can all support, and so have decided that a short extension of the deadline is in everyone’s best interest.”

Ross did not provide details of the issues yet to be resolved in his statement.

ICE U.S. domestic raw sugar futures for July delivery finished down 2.9 percent at 27.66 cents per lb, in the largest one-day loss in over a year.

One Mexican official familiar with the talks described what was still being discussed as details of “implementation” of the main points already agreed.

The official and three other sources with direct knowledge of the talks earlier said an agreement had been struck between the governments. Another Mexican official and a U.S. industry source said the U.S. sugar industry later came back with additional demands outside of the terms agreed on earlier.

Those demands included changes to a “first refusal right” that would allow Mexico to sell U.S. refiners any additional sugar they needed beyond agreed quotas, one of the Mexican officials said.

That source said the cane refiner ASR Group, a partnership that includes the politically connected Fanjul family, was active in raising the new requirements. The Fanjuls own Domino Sugar, C&H, and Florida Crystals.

ASR Group declined to comment on its involvement in the talks.

In an earlier attempt to break the impasse, U.S. Commerce Secretary Ross came close to hammering out a compromise deal before a deadline in May, but that also fell through when the U.S. sugar lobby upped pressure on U.S. lawmakers, said two sources familiar with the talks.

The powerful lobby also includes Imperial Sugar, owned by Louis Dreyfus, and U.S. cane and beet growers.

A Washington-based source familiar with the negotiations said that the two sides had “come together” on the four largest issues separating the U.S. and Mexican sugar industries, but some technical details still needed to be worked out. The person declined to elaborate.

The agreed terms would lower the proportion of refined sugar Mexico can export to the United States to 30 percent of total exports, from 53 percent, one of the Mexican government sources said.

The agreement would also cut the quality of Mexico’s crude sugar exports to 99.2 percent, from 99.5 percent, the source said, tackling a key complaint of U.S. refiners, who have said Mexican crude sugar was close to refined and going straight to consumers.

It also contemplated an increase on the price paid for Mexican sugar, to 23 cents per lb for raw sugar and 28 cents for refined, the source said.

Corn refiners including Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Corn Products International and Tate & Lyle would be affected if a final deal is not reached and Mexico resorted to retaliatory tariffs against fructose syrup.
…

The Trump administration is considering possible sanctions on Venezuela’s vital energy sector, including state oil company PDVSA, senior White House officials said, in what would be a major escalation of U.S. efforts to pressure the country’s embattled leftist government amid a crackdown on the opposition.

The idea of striking at the core of Venezuela’s economy, which relies on oil for about 95 percent of export revenues, has been discussed at high levels of the administration as part of a wide-ranging review of U.S. options, but officials said it remains under debate and action is not imminent.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the United States could hit PDVSA as part of a “sectoral” sanctions package that would take aim at the OPEC nation’s entire energy industry for the first time.

Complicating factors

But they made clear the administration is moving cautiously, mindful that if such an unprecedented step is taken it could deepen the country’s economic and social crisis, in which millions suffer food shortages and soaring inflation. Two months of anti-government unrest has left more than 60 people dead.

Another complicating factor would be the potential impact on oil shipments to the United States. Venezuela is the third largest oil supplier for the U.S. after Canada and Saudi Arabia. It accounted for 8 percent of U.S. oil imports in March, according to U.S. government figures.

“It’s being considered,” one of the officials told Reuters, saying aides to President Donald Trump have been tasked to have a recommendation on oil sector sanctions ready if needed. “I don’t think we’re at a point to make a decision on it. But all options are on the table. We want to see the bad actors held to account.”

The U.S. deliberations on new sanctions come against the backdrop of the worst protests faced yet by socialist President Nicolas Maduro, who critics accuse of human rights abuses in a clampdown on the opposition.

Since Trump took office in January, he has stepped up targeted sanctions on Venezuela, including on the vice president, the chief judge and seven other Supreme Court justices. He has pressed the Organization of American States to do more to help resolve the crisis.

While Trump has taken a more active approach to Venezuela than his predecessor Barack Obama, he has so far stopped short of drastic economic moves that could hurt the Venezuelan people and give Maduro ammunition to accuse Washington of meddling.

The two administration officials said the United States is also prepared to impose further sanctions on senior officials it accuses of corruption, drug trafficking ties and involvement in what critics see as a campaign of political repression aimed at consolidating Maduro’s rule.

Oil sanctions big step

But broad measures against the country’s vital oil sector, for which the United States is the biggest customer, would significantly ratchet up Washington’s response. The United States has imposed sectoral sanctions against Russia’s energy, banking and defense industries over Moscow’s involvement in Ukraine’s separatist conflict.

The officials declined to specify the mechanisms under consideration and said the timing of any decision would depend heavily on developments on the ground in Venezuela.

Possibilities could include a blanket ban on Venezuelan oil imports and preventing PDVSA from trading and doing business in the United States, which would have a severe impact on PDVSA’s U.S. refining subsidiary Citgo.

A more modest approach, however, could be to bar PDVSA only from bidding on U.S. government contracts, as the Obama administration did in 2011 to punish the company for doing business with Iran. Those limited sanctions were rolled back after the 2015 international nuclear deal with Tehran.

The Venezuelan government and PDVSA did not respond to requests for comment.

U.S. officials recognize, however, that oil sanctions on Venezuela could exacerbate the suffering of the Venezuelan people without any guarantee of success against Maduro, who accuses Washington and Venezuelan opposition of fomenting an attempted coup.

Given the potential for regional spillover, any decision on oil sanctions would require consultation with Venezuela’s neighbors, the officials said.

“The concern we have is that it will be a very serious escalation,” one official said. “We’d have to be prepared to deal with the humanitarian consequences of essentially collapsing the government.”
…

The restaurant business can cause serious heartburn. It’s a mixed salad of bureaucracy, money, and paperwork that keeps some chefs from ever selling that first plate of food. But there may be hope as “restaurant incubators” offer chefs an alternative menu for success. Arash Arabasadi reports from Washington.
…

Diversification is a growing trend in some sectors of the agriculture industry. Some winemakers in the northwestern state of Oregon are branching out into marijuana as a new business venture. Faith Lapidus reports.
…

Rick Perry twice ran for president and appeared as a contestant on TV’s Dancing with the Stars.

But since becoming President Donald Trump’s energy secretary, Perry has kept a low profile and rarely has been seen publicly around Washington. Comedian Hasan Minhaj joked at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that Perry must be “sitting in a room full of plutonium waiting to become Spider-Man. That’s just my hunch.”

In truth, Perry has been busy — but far away from the capital.

He has toured Energy Department sites around the country, represented the Trump administration at a meeting in Italy and pledged to investigate a tunnel collapse at a radioactive waste storage site in Washington state.

Perry has visited a shuttered nuclear waste dump at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain and cautiously began a yearslong process to revive it.

Asia trip

On Thursday, Perry embarked on a nine-day trip to Asia, where he planned to check on the progress made since a 2011 nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, and reaffirm the U.S. commitment to help decontaminate and decommission damaged nuclear reactors. Perry also was to represent the United States at a clean-energy meeting in Beijing.

The former Texas governor says he’s having the time of his life running an agency he once pledged to eliminate. Perry has emerged as a strong defender of the department’s work, especially the 17 national labs that conduct cutting-edge research on everything from national security to renewable energy.

“I’m telling you officially the coolest job I’ve ever had is being secretary of energy … and it’s because of these labs,” Perry, 67, told an audience last month at Idaho National Laboratory, one of several he has visited since taking office in March.

“If you work at a national lab … you are making a difference,” Perry said.

The energy chief soon will have a chance to back up those words when he and other officials head to Capitol Hill to defend a budget proposal that slashes funding for science, renewables and energy efficiency.

Paris accord

Perry probably will be asked to defend Trump’s decision to withdraw from the landmark Paris climate accord. Perry said Thursday that the U.S. remains committed to clean energy and that he was confident officials could “drive economic growth and protect the environment at the same time.”

The administration has called for cutting the Office of Science, which includes 10 national labs, by 17 percent. The proposed budget would reduce spending for renewable and nuclear energy, eliminate the popular Energy Star program to enhance efficiency and gut an agency that promotes research and development of advanced energy technologies.

Perry, who served 14 years as Texas governor, likened the spending plan to an opening offer that he expects to see significantly changed in Congress.

“I will remind you this is not my first rodeo when it comes to budgeting,” he said during a recent tour of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. “Hopefully we will be able to make that argument to our friends in Congress — that what DOE is involved with plays a vital role, not only in the security of America but the economic well-being of the country as we go forward.”

Energy lobbyist Frank Maisano said Perry’s actions show instincts honed in his tenure as Texas’s longest-serving governor.

“He’s trying to find out what he needs to find out — hearing about these issues from the front lines,” Maisano said.

While Perry will never match the scientific expertise of his most recent predecessors at the Energy Department, nuclear physicists Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz, his political skills may offset that knowledge gap, Maisano said.

Renewable energy support

During his Oak Ridge visit, Perry pledged to be “a strong advocate” for Oak Ridge and other labs. He has spoken out in favor of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, noting that while he was governor, Texas maintained its traditional role as a top driller for oil and natural gas while emerging as the leading producer of wind power in the United States and a top 10 provider of solar power.

Abigail Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said she had “a very positive conversation” with Perry at a meeting in April.

“He was very interested in our technology and how it can be utilized,” she said in an interview.

Perry also “knew exactly where Texas was in solar installation,” Hopper said — No. 9 in the nation, compared with its top ranking among wind-producing states.

Hopper, a former Interior Department official under President Barack Obama, said she and Perry did not discuss her federal service — but did talk about how national labs can boost the solar industry.

“It was good to make that connection between the research and how it translates into the marketplace,” she said. “He gets it.”
…

Dozens of U.S. companies spoke out against President Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord. Analysts say the improving economic case for renewables has boosted support for green energy in the once-skeptical business community; but, as VOA’s Jim Randle reports, some coal companies supported the president’s action.
…

For the Italian government, it seemed like a recipe for success: create an official “Made in Italy” logo to defend the country’s finest food exports from an army of foreign impersonators.

On supermarket shelves worldwide, a star-shaped logo would mark out real Italian cheeses, hams, pasta and sparkling wines from those that only look or sound Italian, such as Parmesan made in New Zealand or Prosecco bottled in Brazil.

But Rome has discovered that even the simplest recipe can go wrong. Instead of unifying Italy’s food industry against a common enemy that is bagging billions of euros in sales, the government’s proposal for a Made in Italy certification quickly created bitter divisions.

A row has erupted over what it means to be truly Italian — should every single raw ingredient be made in Italy, for example — and now the project could be ditched altogether for lack of an industry consensus, according to two industry ministry sources who declined to be named as talks with food firms are ongoing.

“For now there is no final decision on whether to go ahead with the Made in Italy sign, we are studying it, we are doing technical checks,” said one of the sources, an industry ministry official who is working on the project.

“We will launch it only if it fully meets the requests of producers,” he said, adding that the food industry was split into several groups with conflicting views on the project.

The ministry announced the project at the end of last year, and began consultations with food producers in March, in response to industry complaints that foreign-made foods masquerading as Italian produce were costing the country billions of euros in lost export sales.

A logo guaranteeing Italian origin would enable exporters to grab some of the roughly 60 billion euros ($67 billion) in annual global sales generated by foreign imitations, according to Italy’s food producers’ lobby, Federalimentare.

Marketing experts agree. Brand Finance, a global consultancy that compiles an index of the world’s most valuable brands, estimates it could add up to 5 percent to the enterprise value of small- and medium-sized Italian food companies.

“Domestic companies would surely gain from such a logo given that Italy has a high reputation in the food sector and many of them are not well known outside the country,” said Massimo Pizzo, Italy managing director for Brand Finance.

However, Federalimentare’s members could not agree on a definition of Italian-made. Some took a hard line, insisting products be made entirely in Italy from ingredients sourced at home, while others argued for a less stringent approach.

‘If we open the door’

The consortium of producers of Parmigiano Reggiano, the king of Italian cheeses, insists on rigid standards for everyone.

“If we open the door to products with foreign ingredients, we are not talking of real Made in Italy … this is not the kind of help we are looking for,” said Riccardo Deserti, chairman of the consortium.

Under the consortium’s rules, recognized across the European Union, cheese can only be marketed as Parmigiano Reggiano, or by its English name Parmesan, if it is made according to a precise method within a restricted area around the town of Parma.

The consortium of Prosecco wine producers takes a similar stance, rejecting the idea of being put in the same authenticity category as products made with foreign raw materials.

On the other hand, some firms believe traditional Italian production methods should be enough to qualify for the logo.

Barilla, the world’s biggest pasta maker, wants to carry the Made in Italy logo though 16 of its 30 plants are abroad, including in the United States and Russia.

“We are Italian, we pay taxes in Italy and we run our foreign plants following the rules of the Italian quality,” Paolo Barilla, vice chairman of the family-owned business, told a food conference in March. A Barilla spokesman declined to make any further comment for this story.

One of Italy’s most identifiable food brands, the high-end food chain Eataly, draws a finer line on the issue.

It recently opened its first store in Moscow where an embargo on some European food imports forced it to make some cheeses from local ingredients. It sells mozzarella and burrata made in Russia, but not Parmigiano.

Olive and oak

Italian food producers can at least agree on one thing: Foreign rivals are competing unfairly by marketing distinctly Italian products, using words and symbols that suggest an Italian origin but listing the real provenance in fine print.

They point the finger at goods such as New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra’s Perfect Italiano range of Parmesan and Mozzarella cheeses or Garibaldi Prosecco made in Brazil by the Garibaldi Winery Cooperative.

“I totally agree with the idea of a Made in Italy sign,” Eataly founder Oscar Farinetti told Reuters at the inauguration of the store, but did not say whether he sided with the Italian-made purists or the likes of Barilla.

Contacted by Reuters, a Fonterra spokesperson said the group markets the two cheeses using their Italian names and featuring the Italian flag because they were launched by Natale Italiano, an Italian who migrated to Australia in the 1920s.

“While the brand is proud of its heritage, its packaging is evolving away from featuring the Italian flag,” Fonterra said.

The group did not disclose the turnover of the Perfect Italiano products.

Garibaldi Winery did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

The Rome government had proposed a Made in Italy logo employing the symbols of the Italian republic: a star framed by olive and oak branches.

The project, however, was constrained by EU rules.

The government planned to include products if their last “significant transformation” happened in Italy, the ministry official said — meaning, for example, sausages produced in Italy using imported meat would qualify for the label while ham made in a foreign plant of an Italian producer would not.

This would bring the logo into line with the European Customs Code governing country-of-origin labeling, but the plan satisfied neither side in the food fight; the purists balked at the idea of foreign ingredients being allowed, while other firms argued the rules were too stringent.

Hence the impasse that threatens the project.

“Even if we wanted to, we couldn’t use a different standard from the one used in Europe,” said the source.
…

The U.N. Security Council increased international pressure on North Korea on Friday to give up its pursuit of a nuclear bomb, adding 14 individuals and four companies to its sanctions lists.

The council unanimously voted to impose travel bans and asset freezes following North Korea’s stepped-up ballistic missile launches this year. The tests, including three last month alone, violate existing council resolutions demanding that Pyongyang cease such activity.

The United States, which drafted the resolution in consultation with China, took a strong stance, with U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley declaring that “all options for responding to future provocations must remain on the table.”

“Beyond diplomatic and financial consequences, the United States remains prepared to counteract North Korean aggression through other means, if necessary,” Haley said.

Future launches ‘unacceptable’

“The United States is fully committed to defending ourselves and our allies against North Korean aggression,” she added.  

Haley said future ballistic missile launches or nuclear tests would be “absolutely unacceptable,” and she urged Pyongyang to choose “a more constructive path toward stability, security and peace.”

Several of the individuals added to the sanctions list were elderly, including one man, Ri Yong Mu, 92. He is listed as the vice chairman of a state commission that deals with military and security affairs, including acquisition and procurement. At least two other designees are in their 80s, and two are 79.

“The individuals and entities that will be subject to the travel ban and asset freeze by this resolution include the senior DPRK officials and its core military operators that are directly responsible for the regime’s illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs,” South Korea’s U.N. ambassador, Cho Tae-yul, told the council.

Sanctions have financial sting

“Some DPRK businessmen and commercial entities are also newly designated, which I believe will help further restrict the DPRK’s ability to finance its illicit activities,” he added. DPRK is the customary acronym in English for North Korea’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

There is growing frustration in the international community with North Korea for its continued defiant behavior. Since January, Pyongyang has test-fired nine ballistic missiles, some landing close to South Korea, Japan and even Russia.

Even Beijing is reportedly increasingly weary of its rogue ally. China has condemned the launches and repeatedly called for a reduction in tensions on the Korean Peninsula and a return to talks.

“The current situation on the Korean Peninsula is complex and sensitive,” China’s Ambassador Liu Jieyi said. “At the same time, there is a critical window of opportunity for the nuclear issue of the peninsula to come back to the right track of dialogue and negotiations.”

US targets Russians

On Thursday, the United States imposed unilateral sanctions on three Russian firms and one individual for their support of North Korea’s weapons program. Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Vladimir Safronkov, expressed his government’s anger at the move.

“This step is something that is very puzzling and deeply disappointing,” Safronkov said, demanding an explanation from the United States.  

“It’s been shown that this is a destructive approach when instead of diplomatic instruments, the sledgehammer of sanctions is being used as a universal way of resolving issues,” Safronkov said. “And this fully applies to the current decision made by Washington; it is not helpful in settling the situation in the Korean Peninsula.”

He noted Moscow’s disappointment that relations with Washington had not improved since the start of the Trump administration and that sanctions remained a constant of U.S. policy.

“Instead of trying to work through the bilateral backlog in our work, Washington is doing exactly the opposite, and undertaking unfriendly steps which make it more difficult to normalize our dialogue and make it more difficult to cooperate in international affairs,” he added.

The United States’ unilateral sanctions on Moscow for its invasion and annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region in March 2014 remain in effect as well.
…

The price of oil has fallen sharply as investors bet that President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement will increase the country’s oil and gas production.

The cost of a barrel of crude slumped 2.4 percent, or $1.18, to $47.18 in electronic trading in New York on Friday, hours after Trump said the U.S. would immediately stop implementing the Paris deal. He said his administration could try to renegotiate the existing agreement or try to create a new one that is more favorable to the U.S.

The deal would have required the U.S. to reduce polluting emissions by more than a quarter below 2005 levels by 2025, potentially limiting the growth of high-emissions industries like oil and gas production. Economists, however, say that the climate deal would likely help create about as many jobs in renewable energy as it might cost in polluting industries.

U.S. oil production has already been increasing in recent months since the price of crude came off lows last year, making expensive shale oil extraction more economically viable.

“Now that U.S. President Trump has announced that the U.S. will be withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, it is expected that the U.S. will expand its oil production even more sharply,” said analysts at German bank Commerzbank.

The increase in U.S. production is neutralizing the efforts of the OPEC cartel and other major oil-producing nations, like Russia, to support prices by limiting their output. OPEC and 10 other countries led by Russia agreed last week to extend for nine months, to March, a production cut of 1.8 million barrels a day initially agreed on in November.

On Friday, the head of Russia’s state-controlled Rosneft oil giant said that that a rise in shale oil output in the U.S. would likely offset the effect from the OPEC and Russian production cuts.

Speaking at an economic forum in St.Petersburg, Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin said that the OPEC and Russian cuts fall short of “systemic measures that would lead to long term stabilization.”

He said that thanks to increasing efficiency, U.S. shale oil producers would likely deliver an additional 1.5 million barrels of crude a day to the market in 2018.
…