bonds

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that he will induct former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, retired San Francisco Giants outfielder Barry Bonds, the musician Joni Mitchell, the band Metallica and actors Edward Asner and Robin Williams to the California Hall of Fame next month.

The list includes a total of 18 Californians selected by the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, for their contributions to film, viticulture, sports, dining, art, literature, music, education, politics and business.

“This historic class reflects the very best of California and what’s possible when people have the courage to think big and make a difference,” Newsom said in a statement. “Their legacy will inspire the next generation to keep pushing boundaries and showing the world what Californians can do.”

The California Hall of Fame began in 2006 under former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Over 180 inductees, who are required to live in California for at least five years, have been recognized over the last 20 years.

This year’s inductees include:

• The late Edward Asner, the first actor to win Emmys for playing the same role, Lou Grant, in both a comedy and a drama and a former president of the Screen Actors Guild.
• Andy Beckstoffer, a vineyard owner and leader in American viticulture, whom the governor is honoring for “pioneering precision farming technologies and advancing farm worker equity, he helped reshape vineyard stewardship and the industry’s economics.”

  

  Barry Bonds attends the 2025 BBWAA Dinner at New York Hilton Midtown.

  (Roy Rochlin / Getty Images)

• Barry Bonds, the left fielder who played 15 seasons with the San Francisco Giants. Bonds holds MLB records for career and single season home runs, and the most National League MVP Awards, among other baseball accolades.
• The late Betty Charbonnet Reid Soskin, the oldest full-time National Park Service ranger who retired at age 100 and “inspired generations by bringing history to life through her own experiences of segregation and resilience.”
• Dominique Crenn, the celebrated chef and co-owner of Atelier Crenn in San Francisco and the first woman chef in the United States to earn three Michelin stars.
• Guillermo del Toro, the Oscar-winning filmmaker.
• Shepard Fairey, the street and graphic artist best known for his 2008 portrait of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.
• Maxine Hong Kingston, an author and the recipient of the National Book Critics Circle Award for General Nonfiction, the National Book Award, National Humanities Medal and the National Medal of Arts.
• The late Diane Ladd, a three-time Academy Award nominated actress, the mother of actor Laura Dern and a 30-year member of the SAG-AFTRA National Board.

  

  Rock star Huey Lewis.

  (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

• Huey Lewis, the musican and frontman of the Grammy Award-winning band Huey Lewis and the News.
• The late Felicitas Méndez, an advocate for public education who challenged Mexican American student segregation.
• Metallica, the San Francisco rock band that has sold 125 million albums worldwide and is a member of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
• Joni Mitchell, the acclaimed singer and songwriter and member of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

  

  Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaks to the media Tuesday in Washington.

  (Aaron Schwartz / Getty Images)

• Nancy Pelosi, the Bay Area politician who served nearly four decades in Congress and became the first woman elected speaker of the House.
• Bonnie Raitt, the 13-time Grammy Award winner and member of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
• The late Rob and Michele Reiner, who the governor’s office said “built careers in entertainment while collaborating on public education and civil rights initiatives in California.”
• Susie Tompkins Buell, the co-founder of the brands Esprit and the North Face, who is being recognized for her work that “challenged the notion that business success and social responsibility were separate pursuits, pairing extraordinary growth with progressive workplace practices and socially conscious marketing.”
• Robin Williams, the late actor, comedian, Academy Award, Emmy and Grammy winner.

A BRITISH DC show star has been reportedly ‘ruled out’ as James Bond – with bosses said to be ‘looking for a certain body type.’

A total of four actors are understood to be in the running for the part with Callum Turner, Josh O’Connor and Jack Lowden, all 36, understood to have attended the final screen tests.

The identity of the fourth star has been kept under wraps – leading to fan speculation as to who it is.

One such name is London-born Aaron Pierre, who plays John Stewart/Green Lantern in DC Comics-inspired Lanterns.

However, a Hollywood Insider podcast has seemingly ruled out the 32-year-old for 007.

Pop culture critic and author Joanna Robinson featured as a guest on The Big Picture podcast.

MY SPY

Rumoured James Bond star backed for 007 role by his VERY famous Hollywood co-star

LICENCE TO THRILL

Unexpected new Brit star ‘lined up to be James Bond’, say bookies

She, along with hosts Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins discussed Aaron Pierre earlier in the episode.

Sean then wondered out loud whether Aaron Pierre was the unidentified James Bond auditionee.

Joanna revealed she knew the mystery actor’s identity, but couldn’t disclose it while on air.

Sean said: “We also heard some rumours. I don’t believe [Aaron Pierre] is in the mix.”

As the others remarked Aaron should be, Sean continued: “That’s what I’m saying. It’s like, obvious.

“The one thing I would say would be a strike against that is that [Daniel] Craig was also kind of a bruiser Bond.

“I think Pierre because of his physique and strength as a performer, he would also be kind of a bruiser bond.

“The sense I’m getting is that they’re going to go back to kind of a lithe boy.

“That’s the energy they want instead of a “I will choke you out” Bond.”

One of the frontrunners, Jack Lowden, has received backing from one of his Hollywood co-stars.

Jack, who plays River Cartwright in Apple TV’s Slow Horses, stars alongside Kristin Scott Thomas.

The actress confessed he would be “very, very good” if he was to land the role.

Speaking to The Times, the 66-year-old star said: “Oh god, I wish I knew.

“He’s got that twinkle, he’s cheeky and he’s a very, very good actor.”

On October 27, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that the PDVSA 2020 bonds and the pledge of 50.1% of the shares of CITGO Holding are valid under Venezuelan law.

The decision is Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A., No. 25-2652, slip op. at 51, 60 (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2026). This is a case that divided Venezuelan public opinion and legal circles. Much of the public debate tracked the nation’s political divide, with defenders of the bonds more commonly associated with the Maduro side and their opponents more commonly associated with the political opposition. Those who challenged the bonds argued that they were invalid because they were not approved by the National Assembly under article 150 of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution. They were asking the courts to treat the 2020 bonds and the CITGO pledge as void from the start, so the bondholders could not enforce the notes or foreclose on the pledged CITGO shares. But the 2020 bonds did not create a debt out of nothing. They refinanced preexisting PDVSA debt. Paying what is owed should not be controversial; and the law is, or should be, what it is, no matter what political side one supports.

This case was started by a lawsuit brought in the US by PDVSA entities under the ad hoc board appointed by the interim government of Juan Guaidó, and highly promoted by Venezuelan political opponents of Maduro. The problem they faced is that PDVSA had never subjected its past debt transactions to legislative approval, whether under article 126 of the 1961 Venezuelan Constitution or article 150 of the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution. That is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

The 2015 National Assembly rejected the CITGO pledge in September 2016, but did not state that the indenture itself was a national public interest contract under article 150.

There was also no previous case holding that the contracts or indentures governing PDVSA bond issuances were national public interest contracts. The binding decisions of the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), as the US Court of Appeals read them, pointed in the other direction: national public interest contracts are contracts entered into by the Republic, or competent organs of the National Executive, and do not include contracts entered into by state owned companies in the Decentralized Public Administration, such as PDVSA. There were other TSJ decisions involving the Central Bank and mixed companies (in this case, allowing contracts without the National Assembly’s approval), but none decided that a PDVSA bond issuance or the CITGO pledge was a national public interest contract. 

But the lawyers hired by the interim government of Juan Guaidó argued that these bonds were different because they were secured by 50.1% of the shares of CITGO Holding, an asset of obvious importance to Venezuela. That was the novel step in the argument. There were older cases and legal writings discussing article 150 and public interest contracts, but no preexisting judicial authority had held that a PDVSA debt transaction, or a pledge of CITGO, became a national public interest contract requiring National Assembly approval. The older authorities that PDVSA invoked did not decide that proposition. What was new was not article 150 itself. It was the attempt to apply article 150 to this transaction.

The National Assembly elected in 2015 categorically rejected the CITGO pledge in a September 27, 2016 acuerdo. But that did not state that the indenture itself was a national public interest contract under article 150. That specific conclusion came in October 2019, after the transaction had closed and the controversy had fully developed, when the National Assembly stated that the 2020 Bond indenture violated article 150 because it was a national public interest contract executed with foreign companies without parliamentary authorization. The PDVSA plaintiffs, acting through the ad hoc board recognized in the United States, then submitted expert legal opinions advancing that same position.

There was no preexisting judicial holding applying article 150 to a PDVSA bond issuance or to the CITGO pledge. PDVSA’s historical practice ran the other way, and the courts ultimately rejected that application of article 150 of the Venezuelan Constitution.

The case has been litigated since 2019. The district court in New York initially ruled for the creditors under New York law. After the New York Court of Appeals held in 2024 that Venezuelan law governs the validity of the securities, the Second Circuit vacated that judgment and remanded. On remand, the district court considered additional expert legal submissions and again held that the bonds and collateral were valid, this time under Venezuelan law. The Second Circuit affirmed yesterday.

PDVSA had another argument: even if article 150 did not itself invalidate the bonds, it argued that US courts had to give effect to the National Assembly resolutions under the act of state doctrine, a rule that generally prevents US courts from questioning official sovereign acts carried out by a foreign government within its own territory. The court rejected that argument as well. Even assuming that the resolutions were sovereign acts intended to invalidate the transaction, the relevant transaction and property were outside Venezuela. The bonds, the depository arrangements and the collateral were centered abroad, particularly in New York. The court therefore held that the act of state doctrine did not require a US court to give the resolutions the extraterritorial effect PDVSA sought.

That record also matters when lawyers involved in the case later comment publicly on it. A novel litigation theory should not be described as if it had been settled Venezuelan law all along. It was not. There was no preexisting judicial holding applying article 150 to a PDVSA bond issuance or to the CITGO pledge. PDVSA’s historical practice ran the other way, and the courts ultimately rejected that application of article 150 of the Venezuelan Constitution. That history is relevant to credibility when lawyers or experts later present advocacy developed in litigation as a neutral account of what Venezuelan law clearly required from the beginning. Lawyers who participated in the case or publicly advocated its legal theory should disclose that context when commenting on it. Readers can then decide what weight to give their views.

Creditors may continue trying to collect the CITGO collateral. Whether and when they can actually reach it is a different question.

What does all of this mean in practical terms? It does not mean that the bondholders own CITGO today or can seize it tomorrow. It means that PDVSA lost its central defense to the 2020 bonds and the CITGO pledge. PDVSA cannot avoid those obligations by arguing that the Venezuelan Constitution required prior approval from the National Assembly. The bonds and the collateral are legally valid. The creditors may therefore continue trying to collect. Whether and when they can actually reach the CITGO collateral is a different question involving enforcement proceedings, US sanctions administered by OFAC and the separate Delaware proceedings involving other creditors of Venezuela.

The PDVSA entities may now ask the US Court of Appeals to rehear the case or seek rehearing by the full court, sitting en banc. They may also petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. That would be a request for discretionary review, not another appeal as of right. If the judgment stands, the case will return to the district court and the creditors can continue pursuing their contract and enforcement claims. OFAC may still control whether and when a transfer or sale involving the CITGO collateral can occur, and the separate Delaware creditor proceedings remain important.

The political argument over the PDVSA 2020 bonds may continue, but the legal argument is now much narrower. After seven years of litigation, the district court and the court of appeals, applying Venezuelan law, have concluded that the bonds and the collateral are valid. Politics may still affect when creditors get paid. It no longer supplies a persuasive legal basis for saying that the debt or the pledge never validly existed.

TWO major stars have been ruled out as the mystery fourth actor currently vying to be the next James Bond.

The coveted role has been up for grabs following the release of 007 blockbuster No Time To Die in 2021, Craig’s fifth and final outing as the Martini-swilling secret agent.

Final screen tests were held with four remaining hopefuls at London’s Bray Studios over the weekend, but an official announcement is yet to be made by new franchise owners Amazon MGM Studios.

It’s understood that three of those actors – understood to be Jack Lowden, Callum Turner and Josh O’Connor – were joined by a fourth, currently unnamed star, as decisive auditions got underway.

But two British actors, both previously linked with the role, have been ruled out as the final candidate – widely thought to be Jack Barton.

“We’ve heard, reliably so, that Harris Dickinson and Nicholas Hoult are not the 4th person. Testing is said to be occurring today and going into the weekend,” read an article shared by The Hollywood Reporter on Friday.

READ MORE ABOUT BOND HERE

STRONG CASE

A-lister touted as next James Bond drops massive hint he’s landed the role

LICENCE TO THRILL

James Bond fans ‘work out’ secret fourth actor up for 007 role

Dickinson, 30, is currently in the midst of back-to-back shooting schedules for director Sam Mendes’ ambitious four-film Beatles project, in which he will play John Lennon.

Meanwhile, Hoult, 36, has four major films in post-production – among them the eagerly anticipated DC adventure Man Of Tomorrow, which sees him reprise his role as Superman nemesis Lex Luthor.

Australian star Jacob Elordi is also out the running, while the much-fancied Idris Elba, Theo James and James Norton are believed to be out of contention.

Instead, Amazon MGM Studios are said to be keen on the lesser known Barton, 31, whose past screen credits include the popular Netflix drama Heartstopper.

Other than a handful of other minor TV roles, little else is known about the young actor, but he reportedly impressed producers enough to earn critical screen tests alongside his three Bond rivals.

Despite Barton’s emergence, fans remain convinced they have already worked out who the final star in the James Bond race is – and Taylor Swift fans will be very familiar with him.

The latest Bond theory suggests that the singer’s ex-boyfriend Joe Alwyn, 35, who she dated for six years until 2023, is the secret actor.

Fans believe the link to the actor and the 007 role is Bond casting director Nina Gold, 59.

Taking to Reddit to discuss, a fan wrote: “Nina Gold was one of the casting directors for Thor, too, and cast Joe in his first movie role. She knows him as far back as drama school”

Agreeing this person penned: “Nina Gold is doing the casting and knows Joe and cast him in the brutalist and Hamnet so he’s known by the department and may be on the radar of the casting team”

A third added: “Yeah, and he is supposed to be filming in NYC for a Rom com. but was in London this week for a friend’s wedding and potentially this audition.”

A fourth agreed: “Never thought about him as a contender before, but it makes sense.”

Daniel Craig’s fifth and final outing as James Bond was five years ago, and since then a whole host of high-profile actors have been linked to the famous franchise.

But Amazon MGM Studios, who paid $20million for full creative control of the franchise, is said to be picking a more “alternative” actor, rather than a mainstream Hollywood star.

Published on
21/10/2026 – 11:49 GMT+2

French yields have been rising for weeks as lawmakers wrangle over a 2027 budget that calls for billions of euros in spending cuts to reduce a debt pile that now stands at around 120% of France’s GDP – one of the highest levels in the eurozone and well above the EU limit of 60%.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The French Treasury’s OAT bond is also used to set interest rates across a wide swath of the economy, meaning borrowing costs could begin rising for businesses and households.

The last time it was that high was during the dot-com financial crisis.

The spread between the 10-year yield and the German 10-year bond, considered the European benchmark of creditworthiness, also surged to nearly 160 basis points.

The bond selloff puts further pressure on the government ahead of a decision Friday by the ratings agency Moody’s on France’s sovereign credit rating, with most economists expecting a downgrade that would automatically raise the government’s borrowing costs.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu is trying to get a 2027 budget approved in parliament despite not having a political majority for the €43 billion ($48bn) in spending cuts he seeks.

Even if approved, the budget would bring France’s deficit down to only 5% of GDP next year, well above the 3% limit for EU members.

Meanwhile, protests over the weekend calling in part for more spending on schools and other public services, degenerated into the worst street violence seen in years.

Additional sources • AFP

The bond market (US10Y), (US30Y), (US2Y) has taken control of the current market narrative, creating ripple effects across non-investment-grade technology companies and neo-cloud providers, according to Tyler Radke, Citi’s co-head of U.S. software research.

In an interview with CNBC, Radke pointed