A few brief comments before the link:
1. Why are the votes on Iran and Sudan so frequently linked together? Is it purely convenience? They are two completely separate issues which should be addressed individually.
2. If one of the countries begins to act "properly", does the legislation have to be completely rewritten and re-passed?
3. What sense does it make to "half-divest"? What point does that make? It would seem this approach would dilute the message/punishment by more than half?
Ohio Pension Funds to Dump Shares in Iran and Sudan-linked Companies
June 9, 2007 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Ohio’s five public pension funds will drop half of their investments in companies that have business links to Sudan and Iran, making it the next in swelling list of states adopting such measures, the Associated Press reported.
The bill passed on Thursday, the deadline for the pension systems to respond to one lawmaker's offer to kill legislation that would make such divestment mandatory if the systems agreed to give up half of their investments in such companies. The five systems will divest half of their investments by the end of the year, the AP reported.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This website will bring together news and opinion on the developing practice of targeted divestiture. Targeted divestiture is used as a tool that allows states, nations and other entities to express opinion or protest against the actions of countries or individual companies. States can mandate that pension funds and other large pools of capital divest from companies operating in targeted regions.
Blog Archive
Links
No comments:
Post a Comment