phl-bos

phl-bos TEL AVIV, Dec 24 — Exhausted by more than 14 months of war, the wives and mothers of Israeli soldiers are uniting in protest against exemptions from conscription for ultra-Orthodox men. For several Saturday evenings, the bridge over a key highway that runs between Bnei Brak, an ultra-Orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv, and Givat Shmuel, a bastion of religious Zionists whose sons and husbands proudly serve in the army, has been the scene of a tense standoff. Ultra-Orthodox residents passed by, some running, as protesters holding Israeli flags and banners shouted through megaphones demanding “conscription for all”. The military has asked for extra manpower in light of the war in Gaza and connected conflicts, while the Supreme Court ruled in June that the state must draft ultra-Orthodox Jewish men into military service. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition government includes members of two ultra-Orthodox parties, and he has feared that ending the exemption could break up his coalition. The coalition is moving ahead with legislation that would protect the exemption for the vast majority of Haredim (the Hebrew name for ultra-Orthodox Jews, meaning “God-fearing”) from military service. Political and religious ultra-Orthodox leaders, whose decisions are often binding on their followers, continue to strongly oppose service in the military. They say that prayer and religious study protects the country as much as combat. ‘Help from our brothers’ Military service is mandatory in Israel, but under agreements forged at Israel’s creation, when the Haredim were only a very small community, those who devote themselves to the study of sacred Jewish texts can avoid conscription. The ultra-Orthodox account for 14 percent of Israel’s Jewish population, according to the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), representing about 1.3 million people. About 66,000 of those of conscription age are exempted, according to the army. Michal Vilian, a 60-year-old resident of Givat Shmuel, has been participating in weekly demonstrations organised since last month by “Partners for Bearing the Burden”, a religious women’s collective. All four of her sons and her son-in-law have been called up as reservists, almost without leave since the war began, and been deployed to Gaza, Lebanon and, more recently, Syria. “We are here to ask for help from our brothers who live just across the bridge, to tell them to lend a hand, a shoulder, and to share the burden”, said the doctor, sporting the turban worn by religious Zionist women. Religious Zionist Jews are allied with the ultra-Orthodox factions in Netanyahu’s coalition, and their political leaders have been willing to compromise on the issue of Haredim exemptions. Even for them, though, the burden of the war has become too heavy. Since October 7, 2023, 818 soldiers have been killed, including during the Hamas attack on Israel as well as in the Gaza ground operation, the Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon and operations in the occupied West Bank. With a disproportionately high number of combat deaths due to their above average participation in the military, they share the anger of the majority of Israelis on this issue, said Amotz Asa-El, a researcher at the Shalom Hartman Institute. That anger was now “overflowing,” he said. ‘Not the Torah’ The exemption is “perceived by the vast majority of the rest of the population as being at their expense in the most physical, existential sense of the term,” he added. At its peak, just days after Hamas’s attack, up to 300,000 reservists were mobilised in the ranks of the army. This number has now dropped to 100,000, or around one percent of the total Israeli population, according to figures from the Reservists’ Wives Forum. One of the founders of the Forum, Rotem Avidar Tzalik, a 34-year-old lawyer, said she has been living in a “parallel reality” for more than a year, with her husband, a member of a special unit, called up for more than 200 days. A mother of three young children, she said the weight of mobilisation had become unbearable for families because of the economic and psychological difficulties it caused. In the Israeli parliament, where she advocates for the rights of reservists’ families, her approach to the issue of ultra-Orthodox conscription is pragmatic, emphasizing that it is only one aspect of broader changes needed. She points out, however, that any increase in their conscription, “even by just a thousand,” beyond the few thousand who already serve, would have a “huge impact” for reservists by allowing them to reduce the burden. Shvut Raanan, a 31-year-old lawyer, also an active member of the Forum, said the Haredim’s arguments did not stand up to scrutiny. “It has never worked that way in religious history... it is clear that this is not the Torah,” said the mother of four young children, citing various Jewish religious figures who called for Jewish people to fight. — AFP

Dr Charlotte Proudman, who specialises in family law, had faced a Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary tribunal over a 14-part Twitter thread criticising a judge’s ruling over a domestic abuse case, saying it echoed a “boys’ club”. However, the five charges against the 36-year-old were dropped on Thursday. In an interview with The Times, Dr Proudman described the position of Mark Neale, the board’s director-general, as “untenable” and said its chairwoman, Kathryn Stone, should also stand down. “They need a change, not just in those two individuals, though, because, of course, it seeps down to the rest of the organisation,” she said. She told the paper she “genuinely” wanted to work with the Bar Standards Board in helping them to understand how misogyny and sexism have impacted women at the bar. However, she said that “under the current leadership, it’s just not going to be possible”. The charges alleged Dr Proudman had “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they amounted to professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge” in the case. The women’s rights campaigner was also accused of behaving in a way “which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public placed in her and in the profession”, and that she “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the public” by making the posts. But panel chairman Nicholas Ainley found her tweets are protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right of freedom of expression. He said her tweets did not “gravely damage” the judiciary, which would “put them outside” of Article 10 protection, even if they “might not have been pleasant for any judge to read” or even “hurtful”. “We take the view that the judiciary of England and Wales is far more robust than that,” he said. The panel also concluded that some of the tweets were only inaccurate “to a minor degree” and not to the extent necessary for a charge of a lack of integrity. Speaking after the hearing, Dr Proudman told the PA news agency: “This ruling is a victory for women’s rights and a right to freedom of speech. “The prosecution against me brought by my regulatory body, the Bar Standards Board, should never have happened and I said that from day one. “I criticised a domestic abuse judgment. Everyone should have the right to do that, whether you’re a barrister or not. Our justice system, which I strongly believe in, is robust enough to withstand criticism from me.” She believes her tweets help “foster confidence” in the justice system, adding: “Only that way can we go about building change and a better treatment for all victims, women and children and men who are affected by domestic abuse.” Explaining that the BSB appears to have spent almost £40,000 “of barristers’ money” on instructing counsel in her case, she added: “I think it’s shameful that they’re using our money to pay for, in my view, malicious, vexatious prosecutions which I have no doubt was a personal attack against me as a woman and as a feminist, as an outspoken critic and advocate for women’s rights.” Dr Proudman called for “systemic change” within the board. “They don’t understand gender, they don’t understand diversity, I don’t think they’ve ever heard of the concept misogyny and certainly not institutional misogyny,” she said. “Until they recognise the deeply rooted, entrenched issue of bullying, harassment, sexism at the bar, for which I have suffered relentlessly... and own up to it I don’t think we’re going to see any change and I have no confidence in them.” She told of how male barristers have called her insulting names on social media and made derogatory comments about her. In the posts on April 6 2022, Dr Proudman referenced a case in which her client alleged she had been subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by her husband, a part-time judge, meaning she had been “unable to freely enter” the couple’s “post-nuptial” financial agreement. Commenting on the ruling by Family Court judge Sir Jonathan Cohen, Dr Proudman wrote: “I represented Amanda Traharne. “She said she was coerced into signing a post-nuptial agreement by her husband (who is a part-time judge). I lost the case. “I do not accept the Judge’s reasoning. I will never accept the minimisation of domestic abuse.” She continued: “Demeaning the significance of domestic abuse has the affect of silencing victims and rendering perpetrators invisible. “This judgement has echoes of (t)he ‘boys club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.” In the thread, Dr Proudman wrote that the judge had described the relationship of the couple as “tempestuous”, which she argued was a “trivialisation” of domestic abuse. “Tempestuous? Lose his temper? Isn’t this the trivialisation of domestic abuse & gendered language. This is not normal married life,” she wrote.

A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company's challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court's opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case. “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting ans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” Though the case is squarely in the court system, it's also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action . The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits , that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect. The European Union on Friday expressed similar concerns as it investigates intelligence that suggests Russia possibly abused the platform to influence the elections in Romania. TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government. Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republicans and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September. In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three denied TikTok’s petition. In the court's ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok's main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder, or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to "suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok. “Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing,” Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China. Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion. TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators — for which the company is covering legal costs — as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organizations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok. “This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organization. “We hope that the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word.” Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers who had pushed for the legislation celebrated the court's ruling. "I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership,” said Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China. Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-authored the law, said “it's time for ByteDance to accept” the law. To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data. The company has also argued the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient. Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm — the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan — would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content. Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital.

None

College Football Playoff live rankings: Updated 12-team bracket revealed in fourth CFP poll of 2024 | Sporting News

Sam Darnold sensed the backside pressure as soon as he dropped back with Minnesota trailing by four points late in the fourth quarter in Seattle, so he moved into a safe space in the pocket and did precisely what the Vikings would prefer him to do with the game on the line. He threw the ball down the field to Justin Jefferson. The perfectly placed throw near the sideline beat double coverage for a 39-yard touchdown that put the Vikings back in front with 3:51 remaining in a 27-24 victory over the Seahawks on Sunday. “It was a great call,” said Jefferson, who had 10 receptions for 144 yards and two scores, all season highs. “I’m not going to say too much about that play, but something went on where me and Sam were on the same page, and he found me and we went up.” The Vikings were understandably coy about the context around the go-ahead touchdown , when Darnold made a difficult on-the-run pass just over cornerback Tariq Woolen that Jefferson deftly twisted to catch next to his backside hip so he could shield the ball from late-breaking safety Julian Love. Darnold saw Love's shoulders initially shaded inside just enough to believe he couldn't retreat fast enough to prevent Jefferson from getting the ball. Jefferson also applied some improvisation to his route that Darnold clearly and properly read during the play. “I want those guys to have some freedom in those moments,” coach Kevin O'Connell said. “We do a lot of things with Justin and Sam, seeing the coverage and then with some route opportunities to get to at the line of scrimmage, and I think those guys have just gotten so comfortable with that stuff.” Darnold's long-delayed breakout performance under O'Connell has been one of the stories of the NFL this season, one that wouldn't have unfolded as neatly for the third overall pick in the 2018 draft without such synergy between him and his superstar wide receiver. If the Vikings (13-2) win their last two games, they will not only be NFC North champions for the second time in three years but also get the No. 1 seed and the lone first-round bye in the NFC for the playoffs. “Every single game we’re finding different ways to overcome adversity, overcome the different stuff defenses have thrown towards us," Jefferson said. “Sam has done a great job being a leader.” The pass rush was strong, with Andrew Van Ginkel recording two sacks and pressure leading to both interceptions of Seahawks quarterback Geno Smith. The Vikings were credited with eight hits on Smith. The Vikings converted only three of 12 third downs, their second-worst rate of the season. Theo Jackson, who saw significant playing time at safety with Harrison Smith out, had the game-sealing interception with 49 seconds left. Tight end Josh Oliver has played 47% of the snaps the last two games, his two lowest usage rates of the season. He dropped the only pass he was thrown on Sunday. The defense ought to get a big boost this week with the expected return of the 13-year veteran Smith from his first absence in two years when he was sidelined at Seattle with a foot injury. Linebacker Ivan Pace, who has missed four games on injured reserve with a hamstring strain, is also on track to be back with his return to practice. Backup defensive lineman Jalen Redmond, who didn't play against the Seahawks because of a concussion, has made progress through the protocol, O'Connell said. Backup cornerback Fabian Moreau, who was inactive at Seattle with a hip injury, will continue to be evaluated throughout the week. 13.6% — That's the third-down conversion allowance rate for the Vikings over the last two games, with Chicago and Seattle combining to go just 3 for 22. The Vikings rank second in the NFL in third-down defense at 33.7% for the season and also rank second on fourth down at 36.7%. The Vikings host Green Bay on Sunday, with the kickoff moved to the late afternoon showcase spot on Fox. If Minnesota loses to the Packers, the Lions will clinch the NFC North and the Vikings would open the playoffs on the road as the No. 5 seed at best. Even if the Lions were to lose at San Francisco on Monday night, the Vikings would need to win at Detroit on Jan. 5 to take the division title. AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFL

Maidwell Cleaning: Transforming Perceptions in the Cleaning IndustryCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce stock rises Friday, outperforms market

Can Bitcoin Get to $200,000 in 2025?

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec 6, 2024-- Certain BlackRock closed-end funds (the “Funds”) announced distributions today as detailed below. Municipal Funds: Declaration- 12/6/2024 Ex-Date- 12/16/2024 Record- 12/16/2024 Payable- 12/31/2024 Taxable Municipal Fund: Declaration- 12/6/2024 Ex-Date- 12/16/2024 Record- 12/16/2024 Payable- 12/23/2024 Taxable Fixed Income Funds: Declaration- 12/6/2024 Ex-Date- 12/16/2024 Record- 12/16/2024 Payable- 12/23/2024 Equity Funds: Declaration- 12/6/2024 Ex-Date- 12/16/2024 Record- 12/16/2024 Payable- 12/23/2024 Multi-Asset Funds: Declaration- 12/6/2024 Ex-Date- 12/16/2024 Record- 12/16/2024 Payable- 12/23/2024 * In order to comply with the requirements of Section 19 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), each of the Funds noted above posted to the DTC bulletin board and sent to its shareholders of record as of the applicable record date a Section 19 notice with the previous distribution payment. The Section 19 notice was provided for informational purposes only and not for tax reporting purposes. This information can be found in the “Closed-End Funds” section of www.blackrock.com . As applicable, the final determination of the source and tax characteristics of all distributions in 2024 will be made after the end of the year. BlackRock Capital Allocation Term Trust (NYSE: BCAT), BlackRock ESG Capital Allocation Term Trust (NYSE: ECAT), BlackRock Science and Technology Term Trust (NYSE: BSTZ), BlackRock Health Sciences Term Trust (NYSE: BMEZ) and BlackRock Innovation and Growth Term Trust (NYSE: BIGZ) have adopted a managed distribution plan (a “Plan”) to support a level monthly distribution of income, capital gains and/or return of capital, or in the case of BMEZ, BSTZ, BIGZ, ECAT and BCAT a monthly distribution based on an annual rate of 12% (for BMEZ, BSTZ and BIGZ) and 20% (for ECAT and BCAT) of the Fund’s 12-month rolling average daily net asset value calculated 5 business days prior to declaration date of each distribution. The December 2024 distribution for each of BMEZ, BSTZ, BIGZ, ECAT and BCAT was calculated based on the average net asset value from 11/28/2023 to 11/27/2024. Below are the 12-month rolling average daily net asset values used to calculate BMEZ, BSTZ, BIGZ, ECAT and BCAT’s December distributions: BMEZ: $17.808095 BSTZ: $21.799921 BIGZ: $8.675040 ECAT: $18.410000 BCAT: $17.351032 The fixed amounts distributed per share or distribution rate, as applicable, are subject to change at the discretion of each Fund’s Board of Directors/Trustees. Under its Plan, each Fund will distribute all available investment income to its shareholders, consistent with its investment objectives and as required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). If sufficient income (inclusive of net investment income and short-term capital gains) is not available on a monthly basis, a Fund will distribute long-term capital gains and/or return capital to its shareholders in order to maintain a level distribution. Each Fund’s estimated sources of the distributions paid as of November 29, 2024 and for its current fiscal year are as follows: 1 The Fund estimates that it has distributed more than its income and net-realized capital gains in the current fiscal year; therefore, a portion of your distribution may be a return of capital. A return of capital may occur, for example, when some or all of the shareholder’s investment is paid back to the shareholder. A return of capital distribution does not necessarily reflect the Fund's investment performance and should not be confused with ‘yield’ or ‘income’. When distributions exceed total return performance, the difference will reduce the Fund’s net asset value per share. The amounts and sources of distributions reported are only estimates and are being provided to you pursuant to regulatory requirements and are not being provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for tax reporting purposes will depend upon each Fund’s investment experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. The Fund will send you a Form 1099-DIV for the calendar year that will tell you how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes. * Portfolio launched within the past 5 years; the performance and distribution rate information presented for this Fund reflects data from inception to 10/31/2024. Shareholders should not draw any conclusions about a Fund’s investment performance from the amount of the Fund’s current distributions or from the terms of the Fund’s Plan. BlackRock Enhanced Government Fund, Inc. (NYSE: EGF), BlackRock Debt Strategies Fund, Inc. (NYSE: DSU), BlackRock Floating Rate Income Strategies Fund, Inc. (NYSE: FRA), BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (NYSE: BGT), BlackRock Corporate High Yield Fund, Inc. (NYSE: HYT), BlackRock Credit Allocation Income Trust (NYSE: BTZ), BlackRock Limited Duration Income Trust (NYSE: BLW), BlackRock Core Bond Trust (NYSE: BHK), BlackRock Multi-Sector Income Trust (NYSE: BIT), BlackRock Income Trust, Inc. (NYSE: BKT) and BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (NYSE: BBN) have adopted a Plan to support a level monthly distribution of income, capital gains and/or return of capital. The fixed amounts distributed per share are subject to change at the discretion of each Fund’s Board of Directors/Trustees. Under its Plan, each Fund will distribute all available net income to its shareholders, consistent with its investment objectives and as required by the Code. If sufficient income (inclusive of net investment income and short-term capital gains) is not available on a monthly basis, a Fund will distribute long-term capital gains and/or return capital to its stockholders in order to maintain a level distribution. Each of the above-listed Funds is currently not relying on any exemptive relief from Section 19(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Each Fund expects that distributions under the Plan will exceed current income and capital gains and therefore will likely include a return of capital. Each Fund may make additional distributions from time to time, including additional capital gain distributions at the end of the taxable year, if required to meet requirements imposed by the Code and/or the 1940 Act. Each Fund’s estimated sources of the distributions paid as of November 29, 2024 and for its current fiscal year are as follows: 2 The Fund estimates that it has distributed more than its income and net-realized capital gains in the current fiscal year; therefore, a portion of your distribution may be a return of capital. A return of capital may occur, for example, when some or all of the shareholder’s investment is paid back to the shareholder. A return of capital distribution does not necessarily reflect the Fund's investment performance and should not be confused with ‘yield’ or ‘income’. When distributions exceed total return performance, the difference will reduce the Fund’s net asset value per share. The amounts and sources of distributions reported are only estimates and are being provided to you pursuant to regulatory requirements and are not being provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for tax reporting purposes will depend upon each Fund’s investment experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. Each Fund will send its stockholders a Form 1099-DIV for the calendar year that will illustrate how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes. No conclusions should be drawn about a Fund’s investment performance from the amount of the Fund’s distributions or from the terms of the Fund’s Plan. The amount distributed per share under a Plan is subject to change at the discretion of the applicable Fund’s Board. Each Plan will be subject to ongoing review by the Board to determine whether the Plan should be continued, modified or terminated. The Board may amend the terms of a Plan or suspend or terminate a Plan at any time without prior notice to the Fund’s shareholders if it deems such actions to be in the best interest of the Fund or its shareholders. The amendment or termination of a Plan could have an adverse effect on the market price of the Fund's shares. About BlackRock BlackRock’s purpose is to help more and more people experience financial well-being. As a fiduciary to investors and a leading provider of financial technology, we help millions of people build savings that serve them throughout their lives by making investing easier and more affordable. For additional information on BlackRock, please visit www.blackrock.com/corporate Availability of Fund Updates BlackRock will update performance and certain other data for the Funds on a monthly basis on its website in the “Closed-end Funds” section of www.blackrock.com as well as certain other material information as necessary from time to time. Investors and others are advised to check the website for updated performance information and the release of other material information about the Funds. This reference to BlackRock’s website is intended to allow investors public access to information regarding the Funds and does not, and is not intended to, incorporate BlackRock’s website in this release. Forward-Looking Statements This press release, and other statements that BlackRock or a Fund may make, may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, with respect to a Fund’s or BlackRock’s future financial or business performance, strategies or expectations. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words or phrases such as “trend,” “potential,” “opportunity,” “pipeline,” “believe,” “comfortable,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “current,” “intention,” “estimate,” “position,” “assume,” “outlook,” “continue,” “remain,” “maintain,” “sustain,” “seek,” “achieve,” and similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “may” or similar expressions. BlackRock cautions that forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties, which change over time. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and BlackRock assumes no duty to and does not undertake to update forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements and future results could differ materially from historical performance. With respect to the Funds, the following factors, among others, could cause actual events to differ materially from forward-looking statements or historical performance: (1) changes and volatility in political, economic or industry conditions, the interest rate environment, foreign exchange rates or financial and capital markets, which could result in changes in demand for the Funds or in a Fund’s net asset value; (2) the relative and absolute investment performance of a Fund and its investments; (3) the impact of increased competition; (4) the unfavorable resolution of any legal proceedings; (5) the extent and timing of any distributions or share repurchases; (6) the impact, extent and timing of technological changes; (7) the impact of legislative and regulatory actions and reforms, and regulatory, supervisory or enforcement actions of government agencies relating to a Fund or BlackRock, as applicable; (8) terrorist activities, international hostilities, health epidemics and/or pandemics and natural disasters, which may adversely affect the general economy, domestic and local financial and capital markets, specific industries or BlackRock; (9) BlackRock’s ability to attract and retain highly talented professionals; (10) the impact of BlackRock electing to provide support to its products from time to time; and (11) the impact of problems at other financial institutions or the failure or negative performance of products at other financial institutions. Annual and Semi-Annual Reports and other regulatory filings of the Funds with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are accessible on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov and on BlackRock’s website at www.blackrock.com , and may discuss these or other factors that affect the Funds. The information contained on BlackRock’s website is not a part of this press release. View source version on businesswire.com : https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241206448100/en/ 1-800-882-0052 KEYWORD: NEW YORK UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: ASSET MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FINANCE SOURCE: BlackRock Closed-End Funds Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 12/06/2024 04:56 PM/DISC: 12/06/2024 04:56 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241206448100/en

A Campbell River resident is celebrating the milestone of becoming Canada’s first-ever student pilot to fly solo in an electric airplane. Catherine Check said she has wanted to be a pilot since she was five years old and decided a few years ago to pursue it as a profession. After gaining experience with conventional airplanes, her instructor at Sealand Flight School offered her the opportunity to test an electric plane. On Dec. 18, with about 10 hours of training experience, the 18-year-old became the country's first-ever student pilot to fly solo in an electric airplane. "The plane is a lot lighter, so you feel more turbulence," Check said. "But at the same time, the technology difference is remarkable." Flying the electric plane felt safer than a conventional plane, Check explained, because she could monitor what's happening with the engine, batteries, and power more confidentially during the 50-minute flight. "It's really safe in my opinion," she said. "Because it's a glider, it's not going to go in a nosedive." Check said the achievement means a lot to her, as she is a female pilot in a male-dominated field. She said she hopes her success will encourage others to consider becoming pilots, especially because the future of air travel is more sustainable. Called a Velis Electro, the electric plane Check flew is ultra-quiet. It produces zero emissions and is expected to be less expensive than conventional training aircraft. According to Sealand Flight School, the flight represents a major milestone in the aviation industry’s pursuit of sustainability. With the backing of Clean BC, BC Hydro, and Transport Canada, Sealand Flight is leading this initiative and takes immense pride in Check's achievement. “After sending students solo in conventional airplanes for over 20 years, it was exciting and rewarding to watch Catherine solo in an electric airplane for the first time,” said Ian Lamont, the company's chief flight instructor. This pioneering initiative serves as a foundation for implementing more commercial zero-emissions aircrafts reads a media release from the flight school. Through the electric airplane training flights, Canada's regulators and industry members are studying and evaluating how aviation can feasibly adopt these emerging technologies, it says.

Most Americans, like most Canadians, probably have no idea how important Canada is to American energy security and its comparatively cheap gasoline. But they may soon find out. Should Donald Trump’s threats of 25 per cent tariffs across the board on Canadian imports include oil and natural gas, there would be a crude awakening. American consumers would invariably be hit with price hikes at the gas pumps, should Canadian oil producers be hit with 25 per cent tariffs, as about one-third of American refining capacity is configured for heavy crude, most of which comes from Alberta’s oil sands. American LNG exporters would also feel the pain, as some of the natural gas used to feed LNG terminals on the Gulf Coast comes from Alberta and B.C. via pipeline. Trump’s threat of across-the-board tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports is sending “shockwaves” through the Canadian business community, said Bridgitte Anderson, president of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade (GVBOT) at an energy and resources forum Tuesday in Vancouver. “The president-elect is threatening 25 per cent across the board on all Canadian projects,” said Lisa Baiton, president of the Canadian Petroleum Producers (CAPP). “This would be catastrophic for Canada's economy. And these kinds of events underscore the impacts of global instability and show how our resource sector, the economy and national security are all highly interdependent.” B.C. lumber exports to the U.S. are already subject to duties of about 15 per cent. Presumably, blanket tariffs on Canadian goods would add another 10 per cent. During his previous administration, Trump implemented tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, but energy exports, like oil and gas were not included. While it’s not yet clear whether the threatened tariffs would include energy exports -- oil, natural gas and electricity -- Trump did make a point of upper-casing his threat to suggest they would apply to everything. “On January 20 th , as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25 per cent Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social network on November 24. The five top exports from Canada to the U.S., in order of value, are crude oil and refined petroleum products, automotive parts, natural gas, electricity, and lumber and wood products. Business groups and chambers of commerce in Canada are reacting to the threat with alarm. “A tariff of this magnitude will have significant consequences for B.C. businesses of all sizes and will negatively impact communities and workers across British Columbia,” said BC Chamber of Commerce president Fiona Famulak. “These proposed tariffs would have devastating consequences for our local businesses, further straining supply chains and diminishing the economic recovery we’ve worked so hard to achieve,” said Surrey Board of Trade spokesman Jasroop Gosal. “Some might say that the president-elect's tariff threat is meant to be provocative," Baiton said. “I would say it's expected. And Canada needs to remember how closely integrated our market is in the U.S. “Our supply chains are highly intertwined. In 2022, Canada exported, in U.S. dollars $438 billion to the US, and a significant portion of that – or 27 per cent of that -- Canada's merchandise exports to the U.S. were energy related, including oil, gas, electricity and uranium." What’s not well understood about Canada’s role in American energy security is the configuration of American oil refineries. Many of the large refineries in the U.S. – notably in the midwest and Gulf Coast -- are built to refine heavy crude, not the lighter oil produced in the U.S. in its shale oil sector. As a result of this, 61 per cent of the crude oil imported by the U.S. comes from Canada, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Canadian heavy crude accounts for about 24 per cent of all crude oil consumption in the U.S. Depending on where oil prices are at, a 25 per cent tariff could add about $20 to the price of a barrel of oil for refiners, which would invariably result in higher prices for gasoline in the U.S. As for natural gas, in 2022, 99 per cent of American imports of natural gas were from Canada, according to the EIA, most of it from Alberta and B.C. The U.S. imported three trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2022. Some of the natural gas now exported to the U.S. from Alberta and B.C. now feed LNG projects on the Gulf Coast, which would be affected by higher natural gas prices, as a result of tariffs. “Imposing tariffs on products like energy would cause chaos for our very integrated markets and our very integrated supply chains, and would have a devastating effect on Canada," Baiton said. "So whether that tariff threat comes to fruition or not, Canada is at a very real point of inflection.” [email protected] twitter.com/nbennett_bivNo, UnitedHealthcare didn’t post a job listing for a new CEO the day after Brian Thompson’s death