Wicked: For Good
Out now
Was the decision to split this Broadway musical big-screen adaptation into two parts motivated by art or money? Part two is here, so you can judge for yourself. The Wizard of Oz-inspired story picks up with…
Three pence: a small charge per mile for an electric vehicle, but a giant conceptual leap for Britain.
Chancellors of the exchequer have long resisted any form of road pricing as politically toxic. That may be about to change next week: Rachel Reeves, perhaps inured to being pilloried for any money-raising proposal, is expected to introduce a charge explicitly linked to how far EVs drive.
The Treasury has all but confirmed some kind of charge will be announced at next week’s budget, but the details have not been revealed. According to an initial report in the Telegraph, EV drivers could from 2028 pay a supplement based on how far they had driven that year on top of their annual road tax, or vehicle excise duty (VED). That could be a self-declared estimate of distance or a check on the odometer at an MOT.
According to Department for Transport (DfT) figures, battery electric cars – with lower running costs than petrol – are used more: clocking up about 8,900 miles on average in 2024. At 3p a mile, that would bring in £267 a car from the 1.4m EVs currently on the road – about £375m a year in total.
The transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, was at pains to rule out a national road pricing scheme in the face of Commons attacks on Thursday – although a later “clarification” made clear that the EV pay-per-mile was still on the table.
The long-term picture is a looming shortfall in motoring tax revenues, as income from fuel duty evaporates in the transition to EVs. Petrol and diesel cars effectively pay a charge linked to how far they drive – but via fuel consumption at the pump.
Fuel duty of 52.95p a litre (roughly 5p a mile in average cars) will bring in £24.4bn this financial year, according to the latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, but the billions will dwindle away from 2030, when the ban on new pure petrol and diesel cars comes in.
The challenge is to find a fair replacement for an unsustainable system – and overcome longstanding resistance on the right to any form of road charging, bundled up in the culture wars around London’s ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) and low-traffic neighbourhoods with their claims of curtailed freedoms and increased surveillance.
Some economists have championed schemes that would price roads by time and congestion – potentially fairer and a better tool to manage road use, but bringing in another level of tracking.
Any scheme should be kept simple, says Steve Gooding, the director of the RAC Foundation motoring thinktank. Although, when it comes to privacy, he adds: “The amount of data being generated by the modern car is phenomenal. If the DfT or DVLA start tracking their movements, people think Big Brother is watching. But Elon [Musk] – they’re not that fussed.”
A wider concern is that pay-per-mile would discourage drivers from switching to electric vehicles, crucial for cutting carbon emissions. Manufacturers, businesses and motoring groups such as Ford, AutoTrader and the AA have all spoken out on the timing of new charges at this point in the transition. Carmakers must, under Britain’s ZEV mandate, ensure one in three cars sold next year are zero-emission, rising to 80% by 2030 (with hybrids allowed to make up the remaining 20%).
While grants remain of up to £3,750 on new electric vehicles and – for some – the running costs remain much cheaper, some discounts or tax and charge exemptions have already ended. Transport for London recently confirmed EVs would be liable for the capital’s congestion charge from next year, and zero-emission cars started paying VED in April.
According to a report for the Social Market Foundation (SMF) thinktank, New Zealand provides a cautionary tale. EVs were made liable last year for its road-user charge, which previously only applied to diesel vehicles, whereby drivers buy paper permits in units of 1,000km (621 miles). The move, allied to the end of buyer grants and tax exemptions, led to a sharp drop in new EV sales – now just 4% of the market, having peak 19%.
SMF says that Iceland, which also brought EVs into pay-per-mile schemes last year, maintained incentives and differentials in pricing and had a much smaller decline in market share.
Advocates for the new technology are alarmed. The Electric Vehicle Association England, a group representing drivers, warned in a letter to the chancellor that consumer sentiment was still sceptical about EVs.
For many, running costs are no longer the incentive they once were – particularly for those reliant on public charging points, usually in poorer areas and without a driveway. Ginny Buckley, the chief executive of Electrifying.com, an EV reviews platform and marketplace, says: “If you can’t rely on off-peak, affordable home charging and you’re reliant on the public charging network, for many people it will cost you more per mile to run your EV than it will a petrol car.”
Graham Parkhurst, a professor of sustainable mobility at the University of the West of England, describes the vast difference between domestic chargers and public charging points – which attract VAT at 20% on top – as a “political timebomb”, further dividing the haves and have-nots.
Even long-term proponents of pay-per-mile such as Parkhurst warn of the need to tread carefully: “Charging according to how much a vehicle moves makes sense. Fuel duty does that. But we need time to work out how to do this in the context of wider transport taxation. To the extent we need cars, it’s much better that they are electric,” he says.
The thinktank the Resolution Foundation recommends a charge based on miles driven and weight be brought in only for future EV sales, as part of VED.
Tanya Sinclair, the chief executive of the industry group Electric Vehicles UK, agrees that motoring taxes need fundamental reform – but the government needs to be absolutely clear it wants people to switch to EVs. “Anything that muddies that message – such as giving a grant with one hand and introducing pay-per-mile with the other – undermines that clarity for the consumer,” she says.
A government spokesperson says it would “look at further support measures” for EVs, but adds: “Fuel duty covers petrol and diesel, but there’s no equivalent for electric vehicles. We want a fairer system for all drivers whilst backing the transition to electric vehicles.”
For Gooding “the best time to introduce road pricing would have been a while ago – but politics has been an interesting place”. The cross-party transport select committee recommended the urgent introduction of road pricing – replacing all motoring taxes for every type of vehicle – in 2022. But no ministers have fancied it; London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, battered by anti-Ulez hostility, last year had to rule out even considering a pricing scheme, despite once talking of it as the sensible option.
Piloting a new policy is, Gooding says, best done “with the smallest number you can get away with – and if it’s only EVs, that’s better than trying to introduce some kind of complicated charge for the 34m cars we’ve already got”.
For some, including Buckley and the Campaign for Better Transport, an obvious, if also politically contentious, answer remains: end the 15-year freeze on fuel duty and the temporary 5p cut in place since 2022.
Had the levy stayed the same in real terms, almost £150bn would have accrued to the public purse, according to SMF. Whatever pay-per-mile scheme evolves, Reeves “must ensure operating taxes on EVs remain lower than on petrol”, it says. “The simplest way to maintain that difference is to raise fuel duty.”
Now & Sky
Summed up in a sentence A bleakly tender adaptation of Nick Cave’s novel about a hugely troubling father-and-son road trip, featuring a brilliant turn from Matt Smith.
What our…
The history of the game Zork is a long and winding one, starting with MUDs and kin on university mainframes – where students entertained themselves in between their studies – and ending with the game being ported to home…
EAST LANSING, Mich. – A four-goal second period by Wisconsin and third-period game-winner from Ryan Botterill helped erase a two-goal deficit and fuel the seventh-ranked Badger men’s hockey team’s 5-4 win over the No. 1 Michigan State Spartans…
Dall TM, Gallo PD, Chakrabarti R, West T, Semilla AP, Storm MV. An aging population and growing disease burden will require a large and specialized health care workforce by 2025. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(11):2013–20.
Schaeffer D, Hämel K. Kooperative Versorgungsmodelle. Eine international vergleichende betrachtung. In: Jungbauer-Gans M, Kriwy P, editors. Handbuch gesundheitssoziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2017. pp. 1–18.
Needleman J, Buerhaus P, Pankratz VS, Leibson CL, Stevens SR, Harris M. Nurse staffing and inpatient hospital mortality. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):1037–45.
Lang TA, Hodge M, Olson V, Romano PS, Kravitz RL. Nurse-patient ratios: a systematic review on the effects of nurse staffing on patient, nurse employee, and hospital outcomes. J Nurs Adm. 2004;34(7–8):326–37.
Pickard L. A growing care gap? The supply of unpaid care for older people by their adult children in England to 2032. Aging Soc. 2015;35(1):96–123.
Ehrlich H, McKenney M, Elkbuli A. The need for actions to protect our geriatrics and maintain proper care at U.S. Long-Term care facilities. J Trauma Nurs. 2020;27(4):193–4.
Pruszyński J, Cianciara D, Pruszyńska I, Włodarczyk-Pruszyńska I. Staff shortages and inappropriate work conditions as a challenge geriatrics and contemporary healthcare service at large faces. J Educ Health Sport. 2022;12(7):136–47.
Brivio P, Paladini MS, Racagni G, Riva MA, Calabrese F, Molteni R. From healthy aging to frailty: in search of the underlying mechanisms. Curr Med Chem. 2019;26(20):3685–701.
Bierman AS, Tinetti ME. Precision medicine to precision care: managing Multimorbidity. Lancet. 2016;388(10061):2721–3.
Landi F, Liperoti R, Russo A, Capoluongo E, Barillaro C, Pahor M, et al. Disability, more than multimorbidity, was predictive of mortality among older persons aged 80 years and older. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):752–9.
Ouslander JG, Berenson RA. Reducing unnecessary hospitalizations of nursing home residents. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(13):1165–7.
Marcantonio ER. Delirium in hospitalized older adults. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(15):1456–66.
Field MJ, Committee on Evaluating. Telemedicine: Telemedicine: A Guide to Assessing Telecommunications for Health Care. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1996. Available from: URL: http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=3377053.
Harst L, Lantzsch H, Scheibe M. Theories predicting End-User acceptance of telemedicine use: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(5):e13117.
Sood S, Mbarika V, Jugoo S, Dookhy R, Doarn CR, Prakash N, et al. What is telemedicine? A collection of 104 peer-reviewed perspectives and theoretical underpinnings. Telemed J E Health. 2007;13(5):573–90.
Chen W, Flanagan A, Nippak PM, Nicin M, Sinha SK. Understanding the experience of geriatric care professionals in using telemedicine to care for older patients in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: mixed methods study. JMIR Aging. 2022;5(3):e34952.
Elbaz S, Cinalioglu K, Sekhon K, Gruber J, Rigas C, Bodenstein K, et al. A systematic review of telemedicine for older adults with dementia during COVID-19: an alternative to In-person health services? Front Neurol. 2021;12:761965.
Donelan K, Barreto EA, Sossong S, Michael C, Estrada JJ, Cohen AB, et al. Patient and clinician experiences with telehealth for patient follow-up care. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25(1):40–4.
Edirippulige S, Martin-Khan M, Beattie E, Smith AC, Gray LC. A systematic review of telemedicine services for residents in long term care facilities. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(3):127–32.
Thaker DA, Monypenny R, Olver I, Sabesan S. Cost savings from a telemedicine model of care in Northern Queensland, Australia. Med J Aust. 2013;199(6):414–7.
Sabesan S, Roberts LJ, Aiken P, Joshi A, Larkins S. Timely access to specialist medical oncology services closer to home for rural patients: experience from the Townsville teleoncology model. Aust J Rural Health. 2014;22(4):156–9.
Barbosa W, Zhou K, Waddell E, Myers T, Dorsey ER. Improving access to care: telemedicine across medical domains. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42:463–81.
Huang F, Blaschke S, Lucas H. Beyond pilotitis: taking digital health interventions to the National level in China and Uganda. Global Health. 2017;13(1):49.
Wade V, Eliott J. The role of the champion in telehealth service development: a qualitative analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(8):490–2.
Moffatt JJ, Eley DS. Barriers to the up-take of telemedicine in Australia – a view from providers. RRH. 2011;11(2):1581.
Keenan AJ, Tsourtos G, Tieman J. The value of applying ethical principles in telehealth practices: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e25698.
Joseph V, West RM, Shickle D, Keen J, Clamp S. Key challenges in the development and implementation of telehealth projects. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(2):71–7.
Offermann-van Heek J. Perspektiven-abhängige Wahrnehmung von Altern und Pflege verbunden mit der Akzeptanz unterstützender Technik (1st Edition). Aachen: Apprimus Verlag. [Dissertation, HCIC Center, RWTH Aachen University].
Kuhlmey A, Blüher S, Nordheim J, Zöllick J. Technik in der Pflege – Einstellungen von professionell pflegenden zu Chancen und Risiken neuer Technologien und technischer assistenzsysteme. Abschlussbericht für das Zentrum für Qualität in der Pflege (ZQP); 2019. https://www.zqp.de/wp-content/uploads/ZQP-Bericht-Technik-profPflege.pdf
Piras I, Barbieri B, Bellini D, Pibiri V, de Simone S, Mondo M, et al. Nurses’ experience with telecare: a qualitative analysis of perceptions and implications for caring and the nursing profession. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):908.
Kamal SA, Shafiq M, Kakria P. Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Technol Soc. 2020;60:101212.
Rahimi B, Nadri H, Lotfnezhad Afshar H, Timpka T. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Appl Clin Inf. 2018;9(3):604–34.
Davis FD, Perceived, Usefulness. Perceived ease of Use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003:425–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Livesay K, Petersen S, Walter R, Zhao L, Butler-Henderson K, Abdolkhani R. Sociotechnical challenges of digital health in nursing practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: National study. JMIR Nurs. 2023;6:e46819.
Karsh B-T, Holden RJ, Alper SJ, Or CKL. A human factors engineering paradigm for patient safety: designing to support the performance of the healthcare professional. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(Suppl 1):i59–65.
May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4:29.
Hastall MR, Dockweiler C, Mühlhaus J. Achieving end user acceptance: Building blocks for an Evidence-Based user-Centered framework for health technology development and assessment. In: Antona M, Stephanidis C, editors. Universal access in Human–Computer Interaction. Human and technological environments. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 13–25. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
Garavand A, Aslani N, Nadri H, Abedini S, Dehghan S. Acceptance of telemedicine technology among physicians: A systematic review. Inf Med Unlocked. 2022;30:100943.
Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):146.
Mair FS, May C, O’Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90(5):357–64.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Harrison R, Jones B, Gardner P, Lawton R. Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):144.
Cormi C, Chrusciel J, Fayol A, van Rechem M, Abou-Amsha K, Tixier M et al. The use of telemedicine in nursing homes: A Mixed-Method study to identify critical factors when connecting with a general hospital. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18(21):11148.
Kozikowski A, Shotwell J, Wool E, Slaboda JC, Abrashkin KA, Rhodes K, et al. Care team perspectives and acceptance of telehealth in scaling a Home-Based primary care program: qualitative study. JMIR Aging. 2019;2(1):e12415.
Øyen KR, Sunde OS, Solheim M, Moricz S, Ytrehus S. Understanding attitudes toward information and communication technology in home-care: information and communication technology as a market good within Norwegian welfare services. Inf Health Soc Care. 2018;43(3):300–9.
Toh HJ, Chia J, Koh E, Lam K, Magpantay GC, de Leon CM et al. User Perceptions of the Telemedicine Programme in Nursing Homes – The Singapore Perspective. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health. SCITEPRESS – Science and and Technology Publications; 2015. pp. 97–105. https://www.scitepress.org/papers/2015/54369/54369.pdf
Appleman ER, O’Connor MK, Rockefeller W, Morin P, Moo LR. Using video telehealth to deliver Patient-Centered collaborative care: the G-IMPACT pilot. Clin Gerontol. 2022;45(4):1010–19.
O’Sullivan JL, Gellert P, Hesse B, Jordan L-M, Möller S, Voigt-Antons J-N et al. Exploring attitudes of healthcare professionals towards ICT-based interventions for nursing home residents with dementia: A mixed-methods approach. Contemp Nurse. 2018; 54(1):13–25. Available from: URL: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true%26;db=psyh%26;AN=2018-21753-003%26;site=ehost-live.
Chang J-Y, Chen L-K, Chang C-C. Perspectives and expectations for telemedicine opportunities from families of nursing home residents and caregivers in nursing homes. Int J Med Inf. 2009;78(7):494–502.
Piau A, Vautier C, de Mauleon A, Tchalla A, Rumeau P, Nourhashemi F, et al. Health workers perception on telemedicine in management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in long-term care facilities: two years follow-up. Geriatr Nurs. 2020;41(6):1000–5.
Plunger P, Eitenberger M, Kletecka-Pulker M, Wochele-Thoma T, Klager E, Ruf AK et al. Using telemedicine in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-perspective view on the implementation process. Nurs Open. 2022;9(2):1155-63.
Sävenstedt S, Bucht G, Norberg L, Sandman PO. Nurse-doctor interaction in teleconsultations between a hospital and a geriatric nursing home. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(1):11–8.
Silsand L, Severinsen G-H, Berntsen G. Preservation of person-centered care through videoconferencing for patient follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic: case study of a multidisciplinary care team. JMIR Form Res. 2021;5(3):e25220.
van der Cingel M, Bulle-Smid L, Holterman S, Prins H, Keuning W, Hettinga M. From clinical reasoning to ehealth interventions; a study on how nurses asses care and ehealth in home care. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021;50:102925.
Bagot K, Moloczij N, Arthurson L, Hair C, Hancock S, Bladin CF, et al. Nurses’ role in implementing and sustaining acute telemedicine: A Mixed-Methods, Pre-Post design using an extended technology acceptance model. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2020;52(1):34–46.
Newbould L, Ariss S, Mountain G, Hawley MS. Exploring factors that affect the uptake and sustainability of videoconferencing for healthcare provision for older adults in care homes: a realist evaluation. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):13.
DelliFraine JL, Dansky KH, Rumberger JS. The use of knowledge management in telemedicine and perceived effects on patient care activities. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management. 2009;10(3):196–209. Available from: URL:https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L354694172&from=export.
Eastman P, Dowd A, White J, Carter J, Ely M. Telehealth: rapid adoption in community palliative care due to COVID-19: patient and professional evaluation. BMJ Support Palliat Care; 2021;14:e438-e442.
Lemon C, Liu N, Lane S, Sud A, Branley J, Khadra M, et al. Changes in user perceptions of a telemedicine system over time: from initial implementation to everyday use. Telemed J E Health. 2018;24(7):552–9.
Omboni S, Padwal RS, Alessa T, Benczúr B, Green BB, Hubbard I, et al. The worldwide impact of telemedicine during COVID-19: current evidence and recommendations for the future. Connect Health. 2022;1:7–35.
Cresswell K, Sheikh A. Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. Int J Med Inf. 2013;82(5):e73–86.
Magi CE, Longobucco Y, Amato C, Camedda C, Balestri C, El Aoufy K, et al. Enhancing the comfort of hospitalized elderly patients: pain management strategies for painful nursing procedures. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024;11:1390695.
Solimini R, Busardò FP, Gibelli F, Sirignano A, Ricci G. Ethical and legal challenges of telemedicine in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Med (Kaunas). 2021;57(12):1314.
Nittari G, Khuman R, Baldoni S, Pallotta G, Battineni G, Sirignano A, et al. Telemedicine practice: review of the current ethical and legal challenges. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(12):1427–37.
Mort M, Roberts C, Pols J, Domenech M, Moser I. Ethical implications of home Telecare for older people: a framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expect. 2015;18(3):438–49.
Langarizadeh M, Moghbeli F, Aliabadi A. Application of ethics for providing telemedicine services and information technology. Med Arch. 2017;71(5):351–5.
Thomas EE, Taylor ML, Ward EC, Hwang R, Cook R, Ross J-A et al. Beyond forced telehealth adoption: A framework to sustain telehealth among allied health services. J Telemed Telecare 2022;30(3):559-69.
Gallegos-Rejas VM, Thomas EE, Kelly JT, Smith AC. A multi-stakeholder approach is needed to reduce the digital divide and encourage equitable access to telehealth. J Telemed Telecare. 2023;29(1):73–8.
Wetzlmair L-C, O’Carroll V, O’Malley AS, Murray S. Teleconsultation in health and social care professions education: A systematic review. Clin Teach. 2022;19(5):e13519.
World Health Organization. Consolidated telemedicine implementation guide; 2022. [cited 2024 Jul 21]. Available from: URL: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/364221/9789240059184-eng.pdf?sequence=1.
Orrange S, Patel A, Mack WJ, Cassetta J. Patient satisfaction and trust in telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective observational study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2021;8(2):e28589.
Yee V, Bajaj SS, Stanford FC. Paradox of telemedicine: Building or neglecting trust and equity. Lancet Digit Health. 2022;4(7):e480–1.
Barchielli C, Marullo C, Bonciani M, Vainieri M. Nurses and the acceptance of innovations in technology-intensive contexts: the need for tailored management strategies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):639.
Venkatesh, Thong. Xu. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012;36(1):157.
Kissi J, Dai B, Dogbe CS, Banahene J, Ernest O. Predictive factors of physicians’ satisfaction with telemedicine services acceptance. Health Inf J. 2020;26(3):1866–80.
Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):75.
Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:72.
BOGOTÁ, Colombia, Nov. 22, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — The Republic of Colombia’s (“Colombia“) previously announced tender offer (the “Tender Offer“) to purchase its outstanding global bonds listed in the table below (“Old Bonds“), on the terms and subject to the conditions contained in the Offer to Purchase, dated November 14, 2025 (the “Offer to Purchase“), expired as scheduled (i) for the U.S. Dollar Bonds at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on Wednesday, November 19, 2025 (the “U.S. Dollar Bonds Tender Period Expiration Time“) and (ii) for the Non-U.S. Dollar Bonds at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on Friday, November 21, 2025 (the “Non-U.S. Dollar Bonds Tender Period Expiration Time” and, together with the Non-U.S. Dollar Bonds Tender Period Expiration Time, the “Expiration Time“).
The aggregate purchase price to be paid for the Old Bonds to be acquired in the Tender Offer (the “Maximum Purchase Amount“) is U.S.$4,004,530,326.16 in the aggregate and as set out below for each of the accepted Old Bonds, excluding accrued interest. As such, Colombia has decided to accept validly tendered Old Bonds in the amounts shown in the table below. The table below also provides the aggregate principal amount of Old Bonds tendered at or before the applicable Expiration Time. Appropriate adjustments will be made so that purchases are made in the minimum denominations set forth in the Offer to Purchase.
Old Bonds
|
Old Bonds |
Security Identifier |
Maximum Purchase Amount |
Aggregate Principal Amount of Old Bonds Tendered at the Applicable Expiration Time |
Aggregate Principal Amount of Old Bonds Accepted |
|
3.875% Global Bonds due 2026 |
ISIN: XS1385239006 Common Code: 138523900 |
U.S.$319,719,576.20 |
€275,552,000 |
€275,552,000 |
|
9.850% Global TES Bonds due |
ISIN: XS0306322065 Common Code: 030632206 |
U.S.$430,413,562.46 |
Ps.1,599,731,000,000 |
Ps.1,599,731,000,000 |
|
3.875% Global Bonds due 2027 |
CUSIP: 195325DL6 ISIN: US195325DL65 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$342,668,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
4.500% Global Bonds due 2029 |
CUSIP: 195325DP7 ISIN: US195325DP79 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$656,155,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
3.000% Global Bonds due 2030 |
CUSIP: 195325DR3 ISIN: US195325DR36 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$635,568,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
7.375% Global Bonds due 2030 |
CUSIP: 195325 ER2 ISIN: US195325ER27 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$1,193,626,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
10.375% Global Bonds due 2033 |
CUSIP: 195325BB0 ISIN: US195325BB02 |
U.S.$201,047,840.00 |
U.S.$157,376,000 |
U.S.$157,376,000 |
|
8.000% Global Bonds due 2033 |
CUSIP: 195325EF8 ISIN: US195325EF88 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$804,328,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
7.500% Global Bonds due 2034 |
CUSIP: 195325EG6 ISIN: US195325EG61 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$1,193,528,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
8.500% Global Bonds due 2035 |
CUSIP: 195325ES0 ISIN: US195325ES00 |
U.S.$1,541,757,160.00 |
U.S.$1,329,101,000 |
U.S.$1,329,101,000 |
|
8.000% Global Bonds due 2035 |
CUSIP: 195325EL5 ISIN: US195325EL56 |
U.S.$253,951,875.00 |
U.S.$954,847,000 |
U.S.$227,250,000 |
|
7.750% Global Bonds due 2036 |
CUSIP: 195325EP6 ISIN: US195325EP60 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$1,098,921,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
7.375% Global Bonds due 2037 |
CUSIP: 195325BK0 ISIN: US195325BK01 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$484,810,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
6.125% Global Bonds due 2041 |
CUSIP:195325BM6 ISIN: US195325BM66 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$427,136,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
5.000% Global Bonds due 2045 |
CUSIP: 195325CU7 ISIN: US195325CU73 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$622,372,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
8.750% Global Bonds due 2053 |
CUSIP: 195325EM3 ISIN: US195325EM30 |
U.S.$1,257,640,312.50 |
U.S.$1,054,625,000 |
U.S.$1,054,625,000 |
|
8.375% Global Bonds due 2054 |
CUSIP: 195325EQ4 ISIN: US195325EQ44 |
U.S.$0 |
U.S.$1,085,538,000 |
U.S.$0 |
|
(1) In the case of the COP 2027 Global Bonds, the Purchase Price and related accrued interest is to be paid in U.S. dollars, in an amount determined by converting the Purchase Price and related accrued interest to U.S. dollars at a currency exchange rate equal to COP 3,716.73 per U.S. Dollar. |
The settlement of the Tender Offer is scheduled to occur on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 (the “Tender Offer Settlement Date“), subject to the conditions in the Offer to Purchase, including the Financing Condition (as defined in the Offer to Purchase) and subject to change without notice. Completion of the Tender Offer remains subject to the conditions contained in the Offer to Purchase and Colombia’s sole discretion.
As provided in the Offer to Purchase, in determining the amount of Old Bonds to be purchased against the Maximum Purchase Amount and available for purchases pursuant to the Offer, the aggregate U.S. dollar-equivalent purchase price of (i) the EUR 2026 Global Bonds was calculated at the exchange rate for the Euro to U.S. Dollar equal to U.S.$ 1.1537 per Euro, and (ii) the COP 2027 Global Bonds, was calculated at the exchange rate equal to COP 3,716.73 per U.S. Dollar.
The Offer to Purchase may be downloaded from the Information Agent’s website at www.gbsc-usa.com/colombia or obtained from the Information Agent, Global Bondholder Services Corporation, at +1 (855) 654-2014 or from any of the Dealer Managers.
The Dealer Managers for the Tender Offer are:
|
Dealer Managers |
|||
|
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Attention: Liability Management 200 West Street New York, New York 10282 United States of America Toll Free: +1 (800) 828-3182 Collect: +1 (212) 357-1452 |
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Attention: Latin American Debt Capital Markets 270 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 United States of America Toll-Free: +1 (866) 846-2874 Collect: +1 (212) 834-7279 |
Santander U.S. Capital Markets LLC Attention: Liability Management 437 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 United States of America U.S. Toll Free: +1 (855) 404-3636 U.S. Collect: +1 (212) 350-0660 Email (U.S.): [email protected] Email (Europe) (Banco Santander, S.A.): [email protected] |
|
Questions regarding the Tender Offer may be directed to the Dealer Managers at the above contact.
Contact information for the Tender Agent and Information Agent:
Global Bondholder Services Corporation
65 Broadway, Suite 404
New York, New York 10006
Attn: Corporate Actions Banks and Brokers call: +1 (212) 430-3774
Toll free: +1 (855) 654-2014
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.gbsc-usa.com/colombia/
Important Notice
The distribution of materials relating to the Tender Offer and the transactions contemplated by the Tender Offer may be restricted by law in certain jurisdictions. The Tender Offer is void in all jurisdictions where it is prohibited. If materials relating to the Tender Offer come into a holder’s possession, the holder is required by Colombia to inform itself of and to observe all of these restrictions. The materials relating to the Tender Offer, including this communication, do not constitute, and may not be used in connection with, an offer or solicitation in any place where offers or solicitations are not permitted by law. If a jurisdiction requires that the Tender Offer be made by a licensed broker or dealer and a Dealer Manager or any affiliate of a Dealer Manager is a licensed broker or dealer in that jurisdiction, the Tender Offer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be made by the Dealer Manager or such affiliate on behalf of Colombia in that jurisdiction. Owners who may lawfully participate in the Tender Offer in accordance with the terms thereof are referred to as “holders.”
This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities nor will there be any sale of Old Bonds or any offer made pursuant to the Tender Offer in any state or other jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or other jurisdiction. The offering of any securities will be made only by means of a prospectus supplement and the accompanying prospectus and an offer to purchase in Canada, under applicable exemptions from any prospectus or registration requirements.
The Tender Offer is made in Canada only to a person deemed to be a principal that is an accredited investor, as defined in National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus Exemptions or subsection 73.3(1) of the Securities Act (Ontario), and is a permitted client, as defined in National Instrument 31-103 Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations, and who is not an individual.
The Offer to Purchase, and any other documents or materials related to such offers have not been and will not be registered with the Italian Securities Exchange Commission (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa, the “CONSOB“) pursuant to applicable Italian laws and regulations. The Tender Offer is being carried out pursuant to the exemptions provided for, with respect to the Tender Offer, in Article 101 bis, paragraph 3 bis of Legislative Decree No. 58 of 24 February 1998, as amended (the “Consolidated Financial Act“) and Article 35 bis, paragraph 4, of CONSOB Regulation No. 11971 of 14 May 1999, as amended.
Holders or beneficial owners of the Old Bonds that are resident and/or located in Italy can tender the Old Bonds for purchase through authorized persons (such as investment firms, banks or financial intermediaries permitted to conduct such activities in Italy in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, the Consolidated Financial Act, the CONSOB Regulation No. 20307 of 15 February 2018, as amended, and Legislative Decree No. 385 of September 1, 1993, as amended) and in compliance with any other applicable laws and regulations or with any requirements imposed by CONSOB or any other Italian authority. Each intermediary must comply with the applicable laws and regulations concerning information duties vis à vis its clients in connection with the bonds or the relevant offering.
The Offer to Purchase, nor any other documents or materials relating to the Tender Offer have been approved by, or will be submitted for the approval of, the Mexican National Banking and Securities Commission (Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores, the “CNBV“) and, therefore, the Old Bonds have not been, and may not be offered or sold publicly in Mexico. However, investors that qualify as institutional or qualified investors pursuant to the private placement exemption set forth in article 8 of the Mexican Securities Market Law (Ley del Mercado de Valores) may be contacted in connection with, and may participate in, the Tender Offer. The participation in the Tender Offer will be made under such investor’s own responsibility.
The Tender Offer is not intended for any person who is not qualified as an institutional investor, in accordance with provisions set forth in Resolution SMV No. 021-2013-SMV-01 issued by Superintendency of Capital Markets (Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores) of Peru, and as subsequently amended. No legal, financial, tax or any other kind of advice is hereby being provided.
The Offer to Purchase has not been and will not be registered as a prospectus with the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The Tender Offer constitutes an offering of securities in Singapore pursuant to the Securities and Futures Act, Chapter 289 of Singapore (the “SFA“).
Neither the communication of the Offer to Purchase nor any other offer material relating to the Tender Offer has been approved by an authorized person for the purposes of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended, the “FSMA“). Accordingly, the Offer to Purchase is not being distributed to, and must not be passed on to, the general public in the United Kingdom (“UK“). The Offer to Purchase is only being distributed to and is only directed at (i) persons who are outside the UK; (ii) investment professionals falling within Article 19(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (as amended, the “Order“); or (iii) high net worth entities and other persons to whom it may be lawfully communicated falling within Article 49(2)(a) to (d) of the Order (all such persons falling within (i)-(iii) together being referred to as “relevant persons”). Any investment or investment activity to which the Offer to Purchase relates is available only to relevant persons and will be engaged in only with relevant persons. Any person who is not a relevant person should not act or rely on the Offer to Purchase or any of its contents.
SOURCE Republic of Colombia
FORT WORTH, Texas – Memphis women’s soccer’s season came to an end on Friday night in the NCAA Second Round at the hands of No. 2 seed TCU, 4-0.
The seventh-seeded Tigers finish with a 17-1-3 record as the final undefeated team in the…