Joe Biden went on to lead the counting of votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania, with very narrow margins, reversing the initial advantage that Donald Trump has maintained since the beginning of the vote count.

When Donald Trump lost the lead in Michigan and Wisconsin, almost concomitantly, it was a harbinger that the election result, albeit at a slow pace, is heading for Joe Biden’s victory.

There is a logic to Joe Biden’s late reaction in counting votes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The postal vote for the presidential election had a majority of voters likely to vote for Democrats. These votes are commonly counted by the latter.

Wisconsin state electoral law states that when there is a difference of less than or equal to 0.5%, between the first two candidates there will be a recount of the votes, with financial costs being paid by the State of Wisconsin.

When the difference between 0.51% and 1% the recount of the votes can be requested by the candidates. However, all financial costs to carry out the recount will be paid by the applicant applicant.

In Georgia, the state electoral law states that when the difference between the first two candidates to equal or less than 0.5%, a new vote count can be requested. And the financial cost of this recount of votes will be paid by the State of Georgia.

President Donald Trump has promised to take the decision of the presidential election winner to the United States Supreme Court. Trump wants the votes received by mail and counted after election day to be invalidated. The president also accuses Democrats of committing fraud in sending ballots. Trump claims that many votes received by the post office were sent by others who were not the actual voting owners.

President Donald Trump theoretically has a majority of United States Supreme Court ministers. Amy Coney Barrett’s choice and approval to serve on the Supreme Court strengthened a more conservative view of the Court.

However, obviously all judges vote according to their personal beliefs and any outcome or decision is absolutely unpredictable.

Even if Joe Biden to be elected the next president, in this election the great partisan division of the population between Republicans and Democrats was clear.

Uber and lyft face labor challenges that threaten the future survival of these new technology companies.

However, Uber and Lyft have good reason to celebrate. California voters approved Proposition 22, which allows these companies not to maintain employment links with passenger drivers.

This means that these tech companies will not have to extend the generous benefits of California’s labor law to drivers.

Proposal 22 states that the driver will be entitled to a minimum fare when transporting a passenger. And the driver may also be entitled to a health care benefit.

These benefits that Proposition 22 defines for workers will increase the operating costs of Uber Technologies Inc and Lyft Inc, however they will be much lower costs than the labor law establishes for the full-time workers of most traditional companies.

The financial relief for Uber and Lyft generated by the approval of Proposal 22 is valid only for California. But the new rules that regulate labor relations between these technological passenger transport companies and drivers may serve as an example and be adopted in other states.

Labor legislation in most countries is obsolete and, commonly, it conflicts with new new technological companies, from the most diverse segments.

Chinese stock market regulators called Jack Ma and other executives of the Ant Group to a meeting, with the aim of further investigating the IPO of simultaneous listing on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock exchanges.

The Ant Group was separated from its controller and Chinese e-commerce giant, Alibaba. Since then, Grupo Ant, owner of Alipay, which is China’s most popular payment and loan application, has also become a giant financial company and has started to compete and annoy traditional banks.

But banking activity requires strict inspection, with the purpose of guaranteeing the solvency and credibility of the financial market. Each country in its own regulatory framework for the financial market.

Some laws that govern the banking market are international. The Basel Accord, which is also known as the International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards, establishes common parameters of liquidity and accountability for the banking system in most countries.

And Chinese financial market regulators understand that Alipay has to be subject to the same rules and requirements that are made with traditional banks.

Alipay effectively operates similarly to traditional banks, since it provides loans and sells coexisting financial products and services in banks, which are offered by the largest Chinese banking institutions.

The Ant Group’s initial public offering was expected to be the largest IPO in history, surpassing the launch of shares in the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, also known as Saudi Aramco, which took place in 2019 and raised $25.6 billion.

The Ant Group has also partnered with major Chinese banks, acting as an intermediary between borrowers, including companies and individuals. Thus, Grupo Ant does not need to operate with its own capital.

In a statement to the market, Grupo Ant stated: β€œWe will keep in close communications with the Shanghai Stock Exchange and relevant regulators, and wait for their further notice with respect to further developments of our offering and listing process.”

The suspension of the double listing of the company’s initial public offering poses an obstacle to Jack Ma’s ambitions to transform Grupo Ant into the largest financial intermediation and banking company in the world.

The COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic did not spare the Duke of Cambridge and heir to the royal crown, Prince William. The Duke of Cambridge chose not to disclose his period of convalescence from the disease, which occurred in April. This was the period of greatest turbulence in the United Kingdom, when the highest rates of daily infections were recorded.

Queen Elizabeth II’s speech that sought to reassure and motivate the population about the COVID-19 pandemic occurred a few days before Prince William was infected with the coronavirus. At the same time, Prince Charles and Prime Minister Boris Johson were diagnosed with the disease.

The period of convalescence from the illness of the Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George until his full recovery was two weeks. Charles opted for self-isolation and the restoration of his full health was relatively smooth, without any setbacks.

However, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s state of health worsened and generated great concern among the UK’s top officials. Johnson was admitted to the ICU for three days and after staying for a week in the hospital, he fully recovered from the virus infection.

Prince William analyzed that a disclosure that the first two heirs in the line of succession to the royal throne were infected with the coronavirus could lead to widespread panic in the population, disrupting the United Kingdom’s effort to contain and eradicate the pandemic.