IMF approves US$206 million in emergency funding for Sri Lanka

Vithanage Erandi Kawshalya Madhushani, JadeTimes Staff

V.E.K Madhushani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Economic

---

Image Source -: The Official Government News

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has approved approximately US$206 million in emergency financial assistance for Sri Lanka under the Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI), aimed at addressing urgent economic pressures caused by Cyclone Ditwah.

The cyclone, which struck on November 28, resulted in the loss of more than 600 lives, displaced over 100,000 people, and caused widespread damage to infrastructure and livelihoods. The disaster has placed significant strain on public finances and the country’s balance of payments.

The Government of Sri Lanka welcomed the IMF’s timely support, noting that the funds will be used to meet immediate humanitarian needs and to support recovery and reconstruction efforts. The government also reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, accountability, and strict adherence to public financial management laws in the use of the assistance, while maintaining fiscal discipline and ensuring debt sustainability.

Due to the time required to fully assess the economic impact of the disaster, the IMF has postponed the Fifth Review of Sri Lanka’s Extended Fund Facility (EFF) programme. Discussions on the review are expected to resume in early 2026.

IMF Deputy Managing Director Kenji Okamura said the emergency funding would help Sri Lanka address urgent humanitarian and reconstruction needs. He added that Sri Lankan authorities remain committed to fiscal prudence, transparency, and the continuation of economic reforms as the country recovers from both the cyclone and its recent financial crisis.

Delaware Supreme Court Restores Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla Pay Package in Groundbreaking Ruling

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Business

---

Image Source: Marc Piasecki / Getty Images file

In a landmark decision, the Delaware Supreme Court on Friday reinstated what was once the largest compensation package in corporate history for Elon Musk, restoring a 2018 plan valued at up to $56 billion at its inception and potentially far higher given Tesla’s soaring stock price. The ruling, a reversal of a lower court’s 2024 decision that rescinded the package amid allegations of director conflicts and undisclosed facts, marks a turning point in how executive compensation is litigated and perceived within the state’s business-friendly legal framework.

The 2018 plan granted Musk the right to acquire roughly 304 million Tesla shares at a deeply discounted price if certain milestones were achieved, a structure that proponents argued aligned management incentives with long-term shareholder value. At the time, Tesla was transitioning from a startup to a dominant force in the electric vehicle market, and the board believed the package would attract and retain a visionary leader capable of accelerating the company’s trajectory. By early November, with Tesla’s stock performing exceptionally well, the theoretical value of the options had ballooned to approximately $120 billion, though actual realization would depend on future performance and exercise conditions.

Despite the dramatic upside, Musk did not exercise these options, and a series of legal battles followed. In 2024, Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick concluded that Tesla’s directors faced conflicts and that material facts were inadequately disclosed to shareholders, resulting in the plan’s rescission. The latest appellate decision, however, overturns that ruling, reinstating the 2018 package and allowing Musk to pursue potential compensation under the terms originally approved by Tesla’s board and shareholders.

The decision has broader implications for corporate governance and the governance of executive pay. It raises questions about the balance between rewarding leadership and protecting shareholder interests, particularly in blue-chip companies that carry enormous market capitalization and have intensified investor scrutiny over compensation practices. Delaware, home to a substantial portion of U.S. public companies, remains at the center of discussions about how best to structure, disclose, and adjudicate executive compensation amid evolving expectations from investors and regulators.

As Musk continues to lead Tesla’s forays into autonomous driving, robotics, and energy initiatives, the reinstated plan could shape incentives not only for the company’s leadership but also for how boards evaluate governance risks and communicate with shareholders about compensation arrangements in a rapidly changing technology sector.

Federal Judge Orders Release as Immigration Detention Over Abrego Garcia Case Highlights Policy Tensions

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA

---

Image Source: Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

A federal judge in Maryland ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration overstepped its authority by continuing to detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania. The decision centers on ongoing efforts to deport Abrego Garcia after a series of legal and administrative complexities that began with his removal to El Salvador in March and a subsequent return to the United States over the summer.

In an opinion issued by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, the court found there was no final order of removal in place to justify continued detention, describing Abrego Garcia’s removal as not reasonably foreseeable, imminent, or in line with due process. The judge wrote that since his wrongful detention abroad, he has been re-detained without lawful authority, prompting the release order issued on the day of the ruling.

Following the decision, Abrego Garcia’s defense team announced that he had been released from custody. Reports indicated that he was transported to a private residence in Maryland, where he was seen arriving with a jacket pulled up over his face, and did not speak to reporters gathered outside the location. His lead attorney characterized the ruling as a significant vindication of due process and the rule of law, noting that the government cannot detain a person indefinitely without lawful authority and asserting that all involved agencies must adhere to the court’s directives.

The Department of Homeland Security responded with criticism of the judge’s ruling, describing it as judicial activism. The department maintained that the administration has faced ongoing legal battles over its immigration enforcement strategies, including the high-profile remand and removal efforts against Abrego Garcia. DHS communications emphasized the administration’s stance that the government has a legitimate basis for detaining individuals subject to removal orders and pursuing compliance through the courts.

Abrego Garcia’s case has drawn widespread attention to the broader policy debate surrounding immigration enforcement, detention practices, and the authority of executive agencies in managing complex removal procedures. The court’s decision adds another chapter to a protracted legal saga that has spanned multiple jurisdictions and highlighted the clash between executive actions and judicial oversight. Abrego Garcia is scheduled to appear in connection with related proceedings in Tennessee, where he faces separate human smuggling charges, with a January trial date set in Nashville.