Want to scan your crypto wallet for risks? Check: AML crypto BTC, USDT, ETH. Checking cryptocurrency wallets for dirty money.

Travel Company Thomas Cook Collapses, Stranding Customers Worldwide

The world’s oldest travel company, UK-based Thomas Cook—which operates hotels and resorts around the world as well as its own airlines—all but collapsed this week, cancelling all of the company’s bookings (including flights and holiday packages), and closing its retail locations. The shutdown left 600,000 customers stranded, and Reuters called the effort to get passengers home “the biggest ever peacetime repatriation,” with 64 flights bringing 14,700 back to the United Kingdom on Monday, and hundreds of thousands more are expected to be transported over the next two weeks. The collapse also leaves more than 20,000 employees out of work.

Thomas Cook was buried in debt, partially due to its reluctance to adapt quickly to online travel booking and worries about Brexit, and lenders stopped funding the company. The company had requested £900 million ($1.1 billion) from its creditors and the Chinese company Fosun, Thomas Cook’s largest shareholder, but the deal did not materialize. According to The Guardian, as the company slipped further into debt, payment card companies like American Express and Barclays also limited cash collections and payment services to mitigate harm from a collapse.

The UK government also denied Thomas Cook a last-minute $310 million bailout, partially because, as UK business secretary Andrea Leadsom said, “Thomas Cook is sitting on trying to service £1.7 billion [$2.1 billion] of debt, and it would have been a waste of taxpayers’ money to be throwing good money after bad.” Reportedly, the Turkish government and some Spanish hotel businesses offered to front £200 million ($247 million) to save the company if the UK government would guarantee the investment. But the UK government rejected the deal, saying that the amount would not have sustained the company for more than two weeks.

buy vidalista online https://ozgurmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/vidalista.html no prescription pharmacy

Leadsom said that she also asked for an expedited investigation into the corporate collapse by the UK’s Insolvency Service—a branch of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that handles corporate liquidations and personal bankruptcy cases, including investigating companies’ bankruptcies for misconduct.  Others raised the issue of company higher-ups earning millions while the company sank, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying, “I have questions for one about whether it’s right that the directors, or whoever, the board, should pay themselves large sums when businesses can go down the tubes like that.” The UK’s Financial Reporting Council said that it may investigate Thomas Cook’s auditors, PwC and EY, in relation to the company’s collapse.

For stranded passengers, the UK government and other airlines are stepping in to ensure everyone can make it home. In 2017, when UK company Monarch Airlines went under, the government brought all passengers home, and it appears they will do the same in this case. Of the 600,000 stranded customers, 150,000 to 160,000 are British, and UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab told the BBC that the country will be arranging alternative flights for those travelers. Customers with tickets on Thomas Cook subsidiary airline Condor will be fine, as Condor will continue to function after a £380 million loan from the German government.

Others will be able to take seats on flights provided by a variety of airlines, including US-based provider Atlas Air, British Airways, Lufthansa, and possibly Malaysian Airlines, among others.

Regarding payment, things may get more complicated. According to the BBC, UK travelers who booked a package trip are covered by the Air Travel Organiser’s Licence (ATOL), an insurance program that will cover the cost of repatriating travelers.

buy pepcid online https://ozgurmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/pepcid.html no prescription pharmacy

Those who just bought flights will reportedly have to appeal to their travel insurance or credit card companies for refunds. Hotels and resorts are also reportedly asking guests who booked through Thomas Cook to pay out of pocket for their stays, as the company’s payment is in question.

Trade Dispute Worries US Companies in China

As the Trump administration wages an economic battle with China in the form of reciprocating tariffs and other economic measures, it may not be a great time to be an American company operating in China. The US-China Business Council (USCBC), an organization made up of 200 U.

buy arimidex online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/arimidex.html no prescription pharmacy

S. companies that do business with China, released its annual member survey, finding the trade dispute—and the ongoing political tensions underlying it—are a huge concern for these companies and may be adding to worries about doing business in China.

Since the Trump administration declared a tariff on billions of dollars of Chinese exports in June 2018, the United States and China have traded retaliatory economic measures.

buy xenical online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/xenical.html no prescription pharmacy

Negotiators from the countries are preparing to meet in October, hoping to break a deadlock, even as each side moves to put pressure on the other’s economy.

Last month, President Trump announced increased tariff rates on Chinese imports, and tweeted that American companies were “hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” Some U.S. business groups condemned the moves and the president’s rhetoric, including the National Retail Federation. “It’s impossible for businesses to plan for the future in this type of environment,” said David French, the federation’s senior vice president of government affairs. These moves are an outgrowth of continued tensions, both economic and political, between the two countries.

It is no wonder then, that between 2018 and 2019, the percentage of USCBC members who said that their company’s business had been affected by US-China “trade tensions” increased from 73% to 81%. Of the reasons companies reduced or stopped planning investment in China in the past year, 60% of respondents cited “increased costs of uncertainties from US-China tensions.”

Among the real-world results of the trade dispute, USCBC members reported that the biggest impact was “lost sales due to tariffs implemented by China” (49%) and “shifts in suppliers or sourcing due to uncertainty of continued supply” (43%). The majority of the other concerns have to do with uncertainty or stigma attached to U.S. companies in China. Additionally, 26% of respondents projected that their current year revenue from China would decrease, compared to 9% in 2018.

The USCBC reported that “respondent optimism about China market prospects five years from now is at a historic low,” with the country’s stringent regulatory environment posing the largest driver of long-term doubt for U.S. companies. Indeed, the survey showed that, for 2019, 14% had a pessimistic or somewhat pessimistic five-year outlook, while 21% were neutral, an increase of 5% for both since 2018. However, the trade disputes are a major driver of short-term pessimism.

Also, when asked about cyber-related issues with doing business in China, 64% of respondents reported that “U.S.-China political tensions” were their biggest worry. And with good cause: According to cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike’s 2019 Global Threat Report, in the past year, the firm “observed an increasing operational tempo from China-based adversaries, which is only likely to accelerate as Sino-U.S. relations continue to worsen.”

And the impact reaches far broader than just companies that do business in China, like the members of the USCBC. As reported in the Risk Management article “The Business Impact of Trump Tariffs,” because many companies have complex, interconnected international supply chains, the trade dispute has a much broader effect on a wider array of businesses and industries. For example, a tariff on Chinese solar panels does not just hurt Chinese solar panel companies, it hurts U.S. manufacturers that supply parts for those panels, and U.S. companies that rely on components from Chinese manufacturers are affected as well.

Insulin Pumps Recalled After Hacking Vulnerability Revealed

After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concern this week that some of its internet-connected insulin pumps are vulnerable to hacking and could not be patched, medical device manufacturer Medtronic Plc has announced that they would offer an exchange for the 4,000 patients who are reportedly using the vulnerable devices. If patients are using vulnerable out-of-warranty models, Medtronic is offering a newer replacement at a discounted price, and in-warranty models will be replaced free of charge.

The Medtronic insulin pumps in question work by regularly providing insulin to the patient with the help of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), which uses Bluetooth to connect to a computer via a CareLink USB device. This system allows patients to remotely send the device commands and share data with their health care providers. These devices are part of an industry-wide push to connect medical devices to the internet (as part of the wider internet of things, or IoT) to allow more efficient and cost-effective communication between patients and providers.

While the exact nature of the insulin pump vulnerability is unclear at this time—neither the FDA nor Medtronic has disclosed any technical details—the danger from someone exploiting the vulnerability is very serious and could be potentially fatal. According to the FDA, “an unauthorized person (someone other than a patient, patient caregiver, or health care provider) could potentially connect wirelessly to a nearby MiniMed insulin pump with cybersecurity vulnerabilities. This person could change the pump’s settings to either over-deliver insulin to a patient, leading to low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), or stop insulin delivery, leading to high blood sugar and diabetic ketoacidosis.” In a letter to patients using one of the vulnerable pumps, Medtronic confirmed the potential danger, saying that “An unauthorized person with special technical skills and equipment could potentially connect wirelessly to a nearby insulin pump to change settings and control insulin delivery.”

Fortunately, there have not been any reported cases of anyone exploiting the vulnerability, but it is not the case of such an issue affecting these devices. In 2011, a security researcher was able to hijack nearby Medtronic insulin pumps, giving him the ability to deliver potentially fatal doses of insulin to patients within 300 feet. After the vulnerability was revealed, Medtronic released a statement saying that it was working to improve their devices’ security.

This March, it was also revealed that Medtronic’s connected pacemakers, clinic programmers and home monitors were also vulnerable to hacking. In that case, Dutch security researchers discovered the security flaws, which the company reportedly initially denied before the FDA began an investigation. The agency later issued a warning about the pacemakers, and Medtronic released a patch for the software. As with the insulin pumps, there were no reported cases of anyone taking advantage of the security flaw before the fix was implemented.

Speaking to CBS News after the March incident, the FDA’s Dr. Suzanne Schwartz said, “Any device can be hacked and that’s often not understood,” adding that companies are not prepared for this reality and that “we still have a ways to go.” This week, the FDA released a set of recommendations regarding the latest insulin pump vulnerability, including a suggestion to patients: “Talk to your health care provider about a prescription to switch to a model with more cybersecurity protection.”

Such cases highlight the continuing potential risks of internet-connected medical devices. As discussed in the recent Risk Management article “Diagnosis: Risk—The Product Liability Challenges of Diagnostic Health Tech,” cyber vulnerability is only one of the many challenges for manufacturers and users of connected medical devices. These devices—especially ones that provide medical diagnostic data—have scores of built-in product liabilities that could land their manufacturers (as well as any number of other companies in the devices’ chain of distribution) in legal trouble if something goes awry.

Assessing the Legal Risks in AI—And Opportunities for Risk Managers

Last year, Amazon made headlines for a developing a human resources hiring tool fueled by machine learning and artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, the tool came to light not as another groundbreaking innovation from the company, but for the notable gender bias the tool had learned from the data input and amplified in the candidates it highlighted for hiring.

buy oseltamivir online thecifhw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/oseltamivir.html no prescription pharmacy

As Reuters reported, the models detected patterns from resumes of candidates from the previous decade and the resulting hiring decisions, but these decisions reflect that the tech industry is disproportionately male. The program, in turn, learned to favor male candidates.

buy robaxin online thecifhw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/robaxin.html no prescription pharmacy

As AI technology draws increasing attention and its applications proliferate, businesses that create or use such technology face a wide range of complex risks, from clear-cut reputation risk to rapidly evolving regulatory risk. At last week’s RIMS NeXtGen Forum 2019, litigators Todd J. Burke and Scarlett Trazo of Gowling WLG pointed toward such ethical implications and complex evolving regulatory requirements as highlighting the key opportunities for risk management to get involved at every point in the AI field.

For example, Burke and Trazo noted that employees who will be interacting with AI will need to be trained to understand its application and outcomes. In cases where AI is being deployed improperly, failure to train the employees involved to ensure best practices are being followed in good faith could present legal exposure for the company. Risk managers with technical savvy and a long-view lens will be critical in spotting such liabilities for their employers, and potentially even helping to shape the responsible use of emerging technology.

buy inderal online thecifhw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/inderal.html no prescription pharmacy

To help risk managers assess the risks of AI in application or help guide the process of developing and deploying AI in their enterprises, Burke and Trazo offered the following “Checklist for AI Risk”:

  • Understanding: You should understand what your organization is trying to achieve by implementing AI solutions.
  • Data Integrity and Ownership: Organizations should place an emphasis on the quality of data being used to train AI and determine the ownership of any improvements created by AI.
  • Monitoring Outcomes: You should monitor the outcomes of AI and implement control measures to avoid unintended outcomes.
  • Transparency: Algorithmic decision-making should shift from the “black box” to the “glass box.”
  • Bias and Discrimination: You should be proactive in ensuring the neutrality of outcomes to avoid bias and discrimination.
  • Ethical Review and Regulatory Compliance: You should ensure that your use of AI is in line with current and anticipated ethical and regulatory frameworks.
  • Safety and Security: You should ensure that AI is not only safe to use but also secure against cyberattacks. You should develop a contingency plan should AI malfunction or other mishaps occur.
  • Impact on the Workforce: You should determine how the implementation of AI will impact your workforce.

For more information about artificial intelligence, check out these articles from Risk Management: