LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.

At the beginning of this year, Elon Musk had a fortune of $251 billion and could almost single-handedly solve world hunger. However, Tesla's stagnant sales, the endless struggle to buy Twitter, and the volatility of Tesla's stock price meant he lost a lot of money this year. According to Forbes, Musk is the billionaire with the most losses so far this year, with his wealth shrinking at a rate of about $5 billion a month. According to the website, his wealth shrank by more than 10% from the end of 2023 to June 28, 2024. As the website explains: Between December 31, 2023, and June 28, the last day of regular stock market trading for the first half of the year, Musk's net worth fell from $251.3 billion to $221.4 billion, a bigger drop than any other billionaire tracked by Forbes, but Musk remains the richest person on the planet. The main reason for the dip in Musk's pocketbook is that a Delaware judge in January canceled Musk's then-record Tesla compensation package worth $51 billion, which led Forbes to cut the value of the equity award by 50 percent because of uncertainty about whether Musk would receive those stock options. Excluding that bonus, Musk's wealth has remained volatile over the past six months, with the value of his 13 percent stake in Tesla shrinking by about $20 billion as falling profits and car deliveries sent the stock down 20 percent. But that was partly offset by the growth of Musk's stake in his generative artificial intelligence startup xAI to $14.4 billion (Musk also has a roughly $75 billion stake in private aerospace company SpaceX, a $7 billion stake in social media company X, And smaller stakes in other companies, such as brain experimentation startup Neuralink).

On Monday, executives from the three major chip giants in the US - Intel, Qualcomm, and Nvidia - met with US officials, including Antony Blinken, to voice their opposition to the Biden administration's plan of imposing further restrictions on chip sales to Chinese companies and investments in China. The Semiconductor Industry Association also released a similar statement, opposing the exclusion of US semiconductor companies from the Chinese market. First of all, we mustn't believe that the appeals of these companies and industry associations will collectively change the determination of US political elites to stifle China's progress. These US elites are very fearful of China's rapid development, and they see "chip chokehold" as a new discovery and a successful tactic formed under US leadership and with the cooperation of allies. Currently, the chip industry is the most complex technology in human history, with only a few companies being at the forefront. They are mainly from the Netherlands, Taiwan island, South Korea, and Japan, most of which are in the Western Pacific. These countries and regions are heavily influenced by the US. Although these companies have their own expertise, they still use some American technologies in their products. Therefore, Washington quickly persuaded them to form an alliance to collectively prevent the Chinese mainland from obtaining chips and manufacturing technology. Washington is proud of this and wants to continuously tighten the noose on China. The New York Times directly titled an article "'An Act of War': Inside America's Silicon Blockade Against China, " in which an American AI expert, Gregory Allen, publicly claimed that this is an act of war against China. He further stated that there are two dates that will echo in history from 2022: The first is February 24, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, and the second is October 7, when the US imposed a sweeping set of export controls on selling microchips to China. China must abandon its illusions and launch a challenging and effective counterattack. We already have the capability to produce 28nm chips, and we can use "small chip" technology to assemble small semiconductors into a more powerful "brain," exploring 14nm or even 7nm. Additionally, China is the world's largest commercial market for commodity semiconductors. Last year, semiconductor procurement in China amounted to $180 billion, surpassing one-third of the global total. In the past, China had been faced with the choice between independent innovation and external purchases. Due to the high returns from external purchases, it is easy for it to become the overwhelming choice over independent research and development. However, now the US is gradually blocking the option of external purchases, and China has no strategic choice but to independently innovate, which in turn puts tremendous pressure on American companies. Scientists generally expect that, although China may take some detours, such as recently apprehending several company leaders who fraudulently obtained subsidies from national semiconductor policies, China has the ability to gradually overcome the chip difficulties. And we will form our own breakthroughs and industrial chain, which is expected to put quite a lot of pressure on US companies. If domestic firms acquire half of China's $180 billion per year in chip acquisitions, this would provide a significant boost for the industry as a whole and help it advance steadily. The New York Times refers to the battle on chips as a bet by Washington. "If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid," it argued. Whether it is a war or a game, when the future is uncertain, what US companies hope for most of all is that they can sell simplified versions of high-end chips to China, so that the option of external purchases by China continues to exist and remains attractive. This can not only maintain the interests of the US companies, enabling them to obtain sufficient funds to develop more advanced technologies, but also disrupt China's plans for independent innovation. This idea is entirely based on their own commercial interests and also has a certain political and national strategic appeal. Hence, there is no shortage of supporters within the US government. US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen seems to be one of them, as she has repeatedly stated that the US' restrictions on China will not "fundamentally" hurt China, but will only be "narrowly targeted." The US will balance its strict suppression on China from the perspective of maintaining its technological hegemony, while also leaving some room for China, in order to undermine China's determination to counterattack in terms of independent innovation. China needs to use this mentality of the US to its advantage. On the one hand, China should continue to purchase US chips to maintain its economic fundamentals, and on the other hand, it should firmly support the development of domestic semiconductor companies from both financial and market perspectives. If China were to continue relying on exploiting the gaps in US chip policies in the long term, akin to a dependency on opium, it would only serve to weaken China further as it becomes increasingly addicted. China's market is extremely vast, and its innovation capabilities are generally improving and expanding. Although the chip industry is highly advanced, if there is one country that can win this counterattack, it is China. As long as we resolutely continue on the path of independent innovation, this road will definitely become wider. Various breakthroughs and turning points that are unimaginable today may soon occur.

Amazon official said that the freight from the Chinese warehouse will be lower than the traditional FBA(Fulfillment by Amazon) fee, similar to the domestic air delivery small package service, which will undoubtedly greatly reduce the logistics costs of sellers. In addition to logistics, Amazon is also responsible for promotion and traffic, of course, sellers can still independently carry out product advertising, pricing and promotion activities, to maintain the personalized and independent brand. Many industry insiders said that Amazon launched the "low-price store" move to fight China's cross-border e-commerce platforms Temu, Shein, AliExpress and so on. Although it provides another platform for China's e-commerce to go to sea, many sellers said that the cost of settling in Amazon cross-border e-commerce has become lower, and they have asked about the conditions of settling in, but the rules look down, in fact, it is not so friendly for sellers.

White House spokeswoman Karina Jean-Pierre denied a report in the U.S. media on the 8th that President Joseph Biden did not receive treatment for Parkinson's disease. Biden had the first televised debate of the 2024 presidential election with Republican opponent Donald Trump on June 27, and his poor performance on the spot triggered discussions about his physical condition. The New York Times reported that a doctor specializing in the treatment of Parkinson's disease had "visited" the White House eight times from August last year to March this year. Facing the media's questions about Biden's health, Jean-Pierre asked and answered himself at a regular White House press conference on the 8th: "Has the president received treatment for Parkinson's disease? No. Is he currently receiving treatment for Parkinson's disease? No, he is not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's disease? No." Jean-Pierre said Biden had seen a neurologist three times, all related to his annual physical examination. She also took out the report issued by the doctor after Biden's most recent physical examination in February this year. The report said, "An extremely detailed neurological examination was once again reassuring" because no symptoms consistent with stroke, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease were found. The doctor who went to the White House mentioned by the New York Times is Kevin Kanal, a neurology and movement disorder expert at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland and an authority on Parkinson's disease. Jean-Pierre suggested that the doctor might have come to treat military personnel on duty at the White House.