She studied at the watchmaking school in La Chaux-de-Fonds, obtaining a federal certificate as a watchmaker-repairer in 1988. Eric Klein was honoured in the Spirit of Enterprise category, for his visionary character, his ability to understand the watch industry on a systemic level and his implementation of innovative and dynamic industrial processes aimed at guaranteeing excellence in product manufacturing and quality.Ĭraftsmanship and creation: Carole Kasapiīorn in France and educated in Paris, Carole Kasapi has been fascinated by mechanical watchmaking since childhood. ![]() Anthony Turner was the winner in the History and Research category, for his exceptional career as an independent consultant in watchmaking research and heritage, and for his historical and technical knowledge of horological objects and valuing collections. This year, the Prix Gaïa jury, comprising 12 figures active in the watchmaking field, rewarded: Carole Kasapi won the Craftsmanship and Creation category, for conceiving and developing mechanisms that brilliantly combine design, function and reliability, for her involvement in many areas of the watchmaking industry and for her generosity in sharing her passion. ![]() Frédéric Maire, director of the Cinémathèque Suisse, was the guest of honour at this event, which welcomed numerous passionate enthusiasts of the industry. As is its custom each year in mid-September, the Gaïa Prize rewards new personalities who work or have worked in the field of watchmaking, its art and culture.įor the first time since its creation, a female watchmaker has received this distinction and for the third time, the Horizon Gaïa scholarship was awarded to a young student.Ī highlight of the watchmaking year, the Gaïa Awards ceremony was held on September 16 th at the Musée International d’Horlogerie (MIH) in La Chaux-de-Fonds.
0 Comments
When it comes to retirement, passive income is the way to go. Pro: Dividend Stocks Can Be a Great Source of Passive Income for Retirement Investopedia defines dividends as, “A dividend is the distribution of a company’s earnings to its shareholders and is determined by the company’s board of directors. “ 15 Pros and Cons of Dividend Stocks 1. Not all companies pay dividends on their stock, so not all stocks are dividend stocks. What Is a Dividend Stock?ĭividend stocks are shares of companies that pay investors some of their profits at regular intervals (usually quarterly). ![]() Dividend stocks in particular, can be an interesting solution for retirees, especially those interested in boosting regular income. In reality, over the last thirty years, stocks have become a lot less risky for retail investors who are able to invest in funds that own stocks in a diversified portfolio. One assumption is that stocks are a lot riskier than bonds and that bonds offer steady income rather than just gaining in value. And when you’re 55, 45% of your money should go to stocks and just over half should go to bonds.īut these rules make a lot of assumptions, most of them based on investing wisdom from the 1980s. So if you’re 25, 75% of your money should go into stocks and 25% should go into bonds. ![]() For example, the “ rule of 100” says you should subtract your age from 100 and the answer is how much you should invest in stocks. Most retirement savings strategies tell you to invest in stocks when you’re young and bonds when you get close to retirement. Colo.), a lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act. Colo.) On December 27, 2016, the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in Arnal v. On remand, the plaintiffs alleged that HUD violated the APA because the regulation impermissibly interprets the FHA to provide for disparate impact claims against insurance underwriting and pricing practices that exceed the contours of disparate impact claims permitted by Inclusive Communities. HUD's opening brief, filed August 30, 2016, and its reply brief, filed October 28, 2016, argued that the plaintiffs misread Inclusive Communities and misconstrue the Rule's requirements.Īrnal v. On September 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court's decision and remanded for consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. On November 7, 2014, the district court denied HUD's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. ![]() HUD (D.D.C.) The plaintiffs, homeowners insurance trade associations, filed a lawsuit on June 26, 2013, alleging HUD violated the Administrative Procedure Act in its February 2013 regulation formalizing that the Fair Housing Act provides for disparate impact liability. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 8, 2001.Īmerican Insurance Association v. On March 22, 2000, the appellate court reversed the district courts' judgment for the defendants by holding that "in a case alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act the discrimination itself is the harm," and directed the district court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and to hold a new jury trial on whether the plaintiffs should be awarded punitive damages. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on June 3, 1999, the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief arguing that the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether to award punitive damages. The judge then refused to let the jury consider whether to grant punitive damages. However, the jury declined to award the couple any compensatory damages, even a nominal amount. Riga (3rd Cir.) A federal court jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania found that the defendants had discriminated against an African American couple by lying about the availability of a rental unit. The Division's brief argues that the Townships' commencement of eminent domain proceedings in this case constitutes the implementation of a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA.Īlexander v. The Township argued on summary judgment that eminent domain proceedings are not covered by RLUIPA. The Township commenced eminent domain proceedings against the Albanian Association Fund's land while its application for a conditional use permit to construct a mosque on that land was pending before the Township's Planning Board. N.J.), a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) case brought by plaintiffs who are seeking to construct a mosque in the Township. N.J.) On July 20, 2007, the court granted the United States' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Albanian Associated Fund, Inc. ![]() The court agreed, finding that the failure to provide “unimpeded access” to the front door to persons who use wheelchairs, including not just those who live in the unit but also a “neighbor, friend, or family member, a political candidate, or a repairman,” is “in effect, to send them away as if unwelcome,” and “precisely the discrimination the FHAA forbids.”Īlbanian Associated Fund, Inc. ![]() The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that, under the Act, the front doors and walkways are “public use and common use portions” of covered dwellings and therefore required to be accessible, regardless whether there is another accessible route into the unit. Defendants argued that their only obligation was to provide an accessible route into the unit, which, they alleged, they had done by providing an accessible route through the garage. At issue was whether, under the Fair Housing Act’s accessibility requirements for newly-constructed multifamily dwellings, the front door and walkway leading to a covered unit are required to be accessible to persons with disabilities. On August 10, 2020, the court issued an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in Ability Center, et al. |