MUMBAI (Reuters) – The Reserve Bank of India has appealed to the country’s top court to let banks classify loans as nonperforming, saying a ban imposed to help borrowers in the COVID-19 pandemic could greatly harm the nation’s financial system.

FILE PHOTO: A security guard’s reflection is seen next to the logo of the Reserve Bank Of India (RBI) at the RBI headquarters in Mumbai, India, June 6, 2019. REUTERS/Francis Mascarenhas/File Photo

The central bank, in a filing to the Supreme Court late on Friday, warned that failure to immediately lift an interim stay on banks classifying any loan as a non-performing asset (NPA) would also undermine the central bank’s regulatory mandate.

The court granted the stay last month, responding to a plea filed by an Indian optician, later joined by a wide range of borrowers whose income or revenue was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court is set to rule on the matter on Tuesday. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences not only for millions of borrowers, but also for banks and the country, as state-run banks dominate the sector.

To help borrowers weather pandemic-related stress, the RBI has let banks offer a moratorium on loan payments for up to six months and permitted a one-time restructuring of accounts.

The RBI’s measures ensured that accounts that were standard prior to the implementation of the nationwide lockdown in late March, would not be classified as NPAs if the borrowers made use of the moratorium, which allowed repayments to be delayed until the end of August but with the loans continuing to accrue interest.

The central bank’s appeal followed a request by the court for further details from the RBI and government on their plans to help the borrowers.

The RBI responded by detailing the wide range of measures it

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government said in a court filing on Thursday it was appealing a judge’s ruling that prevented it from prohibiting new downloads of the Chinese-owned short video-sharing app TikTok.

The Justice Department said it appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In late September, a U.S. judge temporarily blocked a Trump administration order that was set to bar Apple Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google from offering new TikTok downloads.

China’s ByteDance, which owns TikTok, has been under pressure to sell the popular app. The White House contends that TikTok poses national security concerns as personal data collected on 100 million Americans who use the app could be obtained by China’s government. Any deal will also still need to be reviewed by the U.S. government’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Negotiations are under way for Walmart Inc and Oracle Corp to take stakes in a new company, TikTok Global, that would oversee U.S. operations.

But key terms of the deal – including who will have majority ownership – are in dispute. ByteDance has also said any deal will need to be approved by China. Beijing has revised its list of technologies subject to export bans in a way that gives it a say over any TikTok deal.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

Copyright 2020 Thomson Reuters.

Source Article

The Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision to lift a ban that opens the door for “dark money” contributions to political races will increase the risk of corruption in the state’s politics, according to watchdog groups.

The ruling reinstated a 2017 law in which the Republican-led legislature allowed any group that the IRS classified as a nonprofit not to disclose its donors, regardless of whether the voter-created Citizens Clean Elections Commission approved. Organizations aren’t disqualified under the law even if they use funding to elect or oust candidates.

DEMOCRATIC SENATE CONTENDER MARK KELLY SAYS 2020 WINNER SHOULD MAKE SUPREME COURT PICK

The ruling essentially defangs the commission, which voters set up up to determine whether an organization was really a charity or a political action committee (PAC) and thus required to disclose its donors.

Political parties will now be able to spend unlimited amounts on behalf of their candidates without disclosure, and individuals and special interests can pay the legal fees of candidates without the expenditures counting against mandated caps on financial aid.

Nonetheless, included in Tuesday’s decision was what Tuscon.com called a “key victory” for challenger Arizona Advocacy Network.

The appellate court judges said GOP lawmakers did not have a right to limit the Clean Elections Commission’s regulations to only independent expenditures made on behalf of candidates who are accepting public financing.

That qualifier preserves the right of the commission to require disclosure of all money spent on candidates, even if it can no longer force reporting of the original source.

While the Arizona Advocacy Network appreciates the court’s recognition of the role the commission plays in protecting democracy, the ruling “also gave the seal of approval to various legal loopholes created by the Arizona legislature for the sake of allowing unlimited amounts of corporate money to flow into our