ReportWire

Tag: Crime/Legal Action

  • Phil Mickelson responds to sports betting allegations: ‘I never bet on the Ryder Cup’

    Phil Mickelson responds to sports betting allegations: ‘I never bet on the Ryder Cup’

    [ad_1]

    ‘I never bet on the Ryder Cup. While it is well known that I always enjoy a friendly wager on the course, I would never undermine the integrity of the game.’

    That was golf star Phil Mickelson responding to allegations he wagered more than $1 billion on football, basketball and baseball over the past three decades, and attempted to bet on the Ryder Cup, too.

    The claims were made by professional gambler and Las Vegas businessman Billy Walters in a book due out on Aug. 22, “Gambler: Secrets from a Life of Risk.” Walters said Mickelson placed hundreds of bets with him for exactly $220,000 and 1,115 bets for precisely $110,000 over the span of three decades. Walters claims that Mickelson also asked him to place a $400,000 bet on the U.S. team to win the 2012 Ryder Cup, a request that Walters said he declined, according to excerpts of the book reported by The FirePit Collective. 

    PGA Tour players are prohibited from wagering on events under the organization’s Integrity Program.

    “​​I have also been very open about my gambling addiction,” Mickelson continued in his statement shared on social media. “I have previously conveyed my remorse, took responsibility, have gotten help, have been fully committed to therapy that has positively impacted me and I feel good about where I am now.”

    Mickelson did not specifically address Walters’s claims that he wagered over $1 billion on sports, or that he lost more than $100 million on his bets during the multi-decade span.

    Walters is viewed as one of the more successful professional gamblers in recent memory, with sportsbooks limiting the amount he could wager at their establishments. He was convicted of insider trading in 2017 and served five years in federal prison. Mickelson was named in that insider-trading case; he was not accused of wrongdoing but agreed to pay back close to $1 million earned on a stock tip he received from Walters.

    Representatives for Mickelson did not respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment for this story.

    Mickelson was one of the first professional golfers to leave the PGA Tour for LIV Golf last year. He was offered roughly $200 million to join the Saudi-backed league, according to the Golf Channel’s Brentley Romine. The PGA Tour, the DP World Tour and the Saudi-backed LIV Golf circuit reached a landmark merger agreement in June that aims to create a single operation that would “unify” golf.

    See also: PGA Tour head: it will be ‘difficult’ to earn players trust after LIV merger

    And: Tiger Woods turned down LIV Golf offer in the ‘neighborhood’ of $700 million, says Greg Norman

    Some fellow professional golfers reacted to the alleged gambling issues by taking a few swings at Mickelson.

    “At least he can bet on the Ryder Cup this year because he won’t be a part of it,” golfer Rory McIlroy said on Thursday. McIlroy, one of the PGA Tour’s staunchest defenders in its battle against LIV Golf, has been critical of Mickelson and LIV on multiple occasions.

    Golfers including Mickelson and Dustin Johnson have been criticized for joining LIV Golf and turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s human-rights record. According to the U.S. State Department, Saudi Arabia has in recent years been linked to multiple human-rights violations, including unlawful killings; executions for nonviolent offenses; forced disappearances; torture and cases of cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners and detainees by government agents, among other offenses.

    Golfer Jordan Speith, a three-time major championship winner, said people in the golf world were “surprised” by the recent headlines about Mickelson.

    Mickelson’s alleged gambling predates the summer of 2018, when the Supreme Court lifted a U.S. ban on sports betting, allowing states to create legislation to legalize gambling. Since then, 34 states allow some form of legal sports betting, according to the latest tally by the American Gaming Association.

    It’s estimated that between 1% and 3% of the American adult population has some sort of gambling issue, although some groups believe the actual number could be even higher.

    “We didn’t have a good problem-gambling infrastructure in place prior to the expansion of sports betting, and we still don’t,” Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, was quoted as having told the Charlotte Observer in February.

    U.S. sportsbooks accepted $93 billion in sports bets in 2022, according to the American Gaming Association’s Tracker, a massive jump from the $57.22 billion wagered in 2021.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump pleads not guilty in Jan. 6 case

    Trump pleads not guilty in Jan. 6 case

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump entered pleas of not guilty Thursday at an arraignment in Washington, D.C., giving his formal response to his four-count indictment over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Trump, the frontrunner in polls for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has denied wrongdoing, and earlier Thursday he continued to criticize the legal proceedings as largely about helping President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in next year’s election.

    “The Dems don’t want to run against me or they would not be doing this unprecedented weaponization of ‘Justice.’ BUT SOON, IN 2024, IT WILL BE OUR TURN,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

    In Tuesday’s 45-page indictment, Trump was hit with charges that included conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

    Related: Bill Barr says Jan. 6 indictment is ‘legitimate’ and that Trump knew he lost the election

    The former president’s appearance in Washington is just one step in a legal battle that will likely take months or even years to play out.

    Special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday said his office “will seek a speedy trial” in the Jan. 6 case, but Trump defense attorney John Lauro has pushed back repeatedly on Smith’s statement, telling NPR on Wednesday that his side wants “a just trial, not simply a speedy trial,” and that the trial itself “could last six months or nine months or even a year.”

    Trump’s legal team looks likely to make change-of-venue requests, with the former president talking up West Virginia in a Truth Social post late Wednesday. He said the Jan. 6 case “will hopefully be moved to an impartial Venue, such as the politically unbiased nearby State of West Virginia! IMPOSSIBLE to get a fair trial in Washington, D.C., which is over 95% anti-Trump.”

    The next hearing in the case was reportedly scheduled for Aug. 28, which would be five days after the first GOP presidential primary debate.

    Trump also entered pleas of not guilty earlier this year in a Manhattan case over hush-money payments and in a Miami case over classified documents. Another investigation, in Georgia’s Fulton County, centers on efforts by Trump and his allies to undo that state’s 2020 election result. The county prosecutor said over the weekend that she will announce charging decisions by Sept. 1 in that probe.

    Biden told CNN Thursday that he was not planning to follow Trump’s arraignment, responding with an emphatic “no” when asked about it during a bike ride in Rehoboth Beach, Del., where he is vacationing this week.

    Now read: ‘You’re too honest’: Donald Trump’s alleged Jan. 6 conspiracies, explained

    And see: Trump indictment: What does arraignment mean, and what happens next?

    Plus: How DeSantis is leading Trump in cash on hand, even as the former president dominates in polls

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘You’re too honest’: Donald Trump’s alleged Jan. 6 conspiracies, explained

    ‘You’re too honest’: Donald Trump’s alleged Jan. 6 conspiracies, explained

    [ad_1]

    Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a conspiracy.

    Former President Donald Trump is accused by federal prosecutors of engaging in three major conspiracies ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot to subvert the process of counting and certifying the vote before Congress in his bid to hold on to power despite having lost the 2020 election.

    While spreading lies about how votes had been illegally cast, tampered with or miscounted in order to build mistrust among the public about the election’s outcome, special counsel Jack Smith says Trump and a group of six unnamed lawyers and advisers plotted to illegally meddle with the very basis of how presidential elections have been run in the U.S since its founding.

    A four-count indictment unsealed in federal court in Washington on Tuesday alleges that the group worked unrelentingly to tamper with how several states counted their ballots and the process by which states sent electors to Washington to finalize their vote. The indictment also accused Trump of pressuring the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence to intervene even though they had no standing to do so.   

    “Each of theses conspiracies — which built upon the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing about election fraud — targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election,” the indictment read.

    Trump has dismissed the charges as being purely politicized.

    “The lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union, and other authoritarian, dictatorial regimes,” a statement released by his campaign read. “President Trump has always followed the law and the constitution, with advice from many highly accomplished attorneys.”

    The charges allege three acts of conspiracy and one of obstructing an official proceeding. Here are the main legal arguments Smith makes against the former president:

    ‘We have lots of theories’

    Prosecutors say that starting almost immediately after the election on Nov. 3, 2020, Trump began a campaign to get officials in key states like Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to overturn the election results.

    Trump pressured state officials to throw the vote out based on allegations ranging from dead people voting to non-citizens casting ballots, and from voting machines being tampered to ballot-box stuffing, despite there being no evidence any of it had occurred. 

    “We don’t have evidence, but we have lots of theories,” one of Trump’s co-conspirators allegedly told the speaker of the house of Arizona, a Trump-backer, when asked what proof they had about electoral malfeasance.

    When officials in the states refused to go along with Trump’s request to decertify the results, the president continued to publicly trumpet false claims about voter fraud and attack local officials as “terrible people” who were in on the fraud, the indictment said.

    Smith said that Trump continued to make the claims despite having been told repeatedly by numerous people in multiple agencies — many of them his own supporters — that there was no truth to it and having lost case after case in court. 

    “When our research and campaign team can’t back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we’re 0-32 on our cases,” one senior campaign advisor said, according to the indictment. “It’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy s*** beamed down from the mothership.”

    Smith argues that this effort amounted to using deceit to subvert the election’s result, which is against the law. 

    Phony electors

    One key component of the conspiracy case against Trump revolves around efforts to create a competing slate of electors from each challenged state.

    As part of the presidential electoral process, every state sends electors to Washington to deliver the vote to congress. It’s a mostly ceremonial procedure, but Trump’s legal team is accused of hatching a plot to send a second group of electors who backed Trump from several states in order to create confusion in Congress and force legislators in Washington to have to debate the election’s outcome.  

    No matter that the second slate of electors hadn’t been approved by officials in the states they purported to represent and were not authorized in any way, the indictment says. The effort was so patently bogus that Trump’s team even referred to the group as “phony electors” in their own correspondence, the indictment stated. 

    In the indictment, Smith said the effort amounted to a conspiracy to commit fraud.  

    ‘You’re too honest’

    A third leg of the conspiracy allegedly involved pressuring officials at the Justice Department and Pence to intervene in the election even though they had no standing to do so.  

    The indictment says Trump and his co-conspirators repeatedly communicated with then acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and insisted that he declare ahead of the Jan. 6 certification of the election by Congress that there had been evidence of fraud.

    When Rosen said he would not do that because there was no such evidence, Trump allegedly threatened to replace him with one of the unnamed co-conspirators included in the indictment. 

    At one point, a deputy White House counsel told the co-conspirator that “there is no world, there is no option in  which you do not leave the White House,” and warned that there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump attempted to remain in office, to which the co-conspirator allegedly said: “That’s why there is an Insurrection Act.”

    For weeks ahead of the Jan. 6 certification hearing in Congress, Trump and his cohorts pressured Pence to refuse to certify the vote tally, a purely ceremonial task the vice president has presided over since the country’s founding. 

    Pence steadfastly refused to do so, saying his legal team had told him there was no constitutional basis for the vice president to be able to overturn an election at the last minute. In a phone call less than a week before Jan. 6, Trump allegedly berated Pence and told him, “You’re too honest.”

    When a senior White House advisor told one of the unnamed co-conspirators that if Pence tried to overturn the election it would lead to violence in the streets, the co-conspirator allegedly said that there had been times in the country’s history where violence was necessary to protect the Republic, the indictment said.

    In the days and hours leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, Trump posted several messages on Twitter stating that Pence had the authority to overturn the election and continuing to pressure him to do so. 

    Exploiting the chaos

    On Jan. 6, after Pence issued a statement saying he did not have the authority to not certify the vote, protests outside Congress turned violent, with hundreds of rioters clashing with police and storming the building, delaying the proceedings.

    During the standoff, some of Trump’s co-conspirators tried to reach members of Congress and the Senate to convince them to further delay the certifying process in order to buy Trump more time to convince state legislatures to nullify the already-approved votes, the indictment says.

    Later that afternoon, Trump tweeted: “See, this is what happens when they try to steal an election. These people are angry. These people are really angry about it. This is what happens.” 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump indicted by special counsel over efforts to overturn 2020 election

    Trump indicted by special counsel over efforts to overturn 2020 election

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday was indicted by a grand jury in Washington, D.C., in connection with the Justice Department’s probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Special counsel Jack Smith has been examining Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack. On that day, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to disrupt the congressional certification of the election results.

    In Tuesday’s 45-page indictment, Trump was hit with four charges: conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

    “The attack on our nation’s capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy,” Smith said at a news conference.

    “As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies — lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.”

    Trump is expected to be arraigned on Thursday in Washington.

    “In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens,” Smith also said.

    The indictment said Trump had six co-conspirators, and it indicated that four of the individuals were attorneys, one was a political consultant and another was a Justice Department official.

    Trump has denied wrongdoing and is the overwhelming favorite in polls for the GOP nomination for the 2024 presidential race, far ahead in a crowded field that includes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. The former president on July 18 said he’d gotten a letter informing him he is a target of that probe. He said he anticipated being indicted.

    Read: Trump says he’s a target of special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case

    The indictment ratchets up legal pressure for Trump as he seeks the 2024 GOP nomination and aims to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden. The former president is already facing federal charges in Florida that he mishandled classified documents after leaving the White House, and criminal charges in New York over a hush-money case. A separate election-interference investigation is underway in Georgia.

    Read more: Trump has now been indicted in a third case. Here’s where all the investigations stand.

    “This is nothing more than the latest corrupt chapter in the continued pathetic attempt by the Biden crime family and their weaponized Department of Justice to interfere with the 2024 presidential election, in which President Trump is the undisputed frontrunner, and leading by substantial margins,” said Trump’s 2024 campaign in a statement.

    “The lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union, and other authoritarian, dictatorial regimes,” the statement also said.

    In addition, Trump’s campaign made an effort to raise money off the latest indictment, sending an email from the 45th president that asked supporters to “make a contribution to show that you will NEVER SURRENDER our country to tyranny as the Deep State thugs try to JAIL me for life.”

    Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, who’s also seeking the GOP presidential nomination, said in a statement late Tuesday: “Today’s indictment serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” adding he will have more to day after reviewing the indictment.

    An indictment does not disqualify Trump from mounting a White House campaign. The only requirements to run for president, as laid out in the Constitution, are being a natural-born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of the U.S. for 14 years.

    Washington Watch: Donald Trump indicted again. Can he still run for president?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China-Founded Rivals Ramp Up War for American Shoppers

    China-Founded Rivals Ramp Up War for American Shoppers

    [ad_1]

    China-Founded Rivals Ramp Up War for American Shoppers

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump asked staffer to delete Mar-a-Lago camera footage, updated indictment alleges

    Trump asked staffer to delete Mar-a-Lago camera footage, updated indictment alleges

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Donald Trump faced new charges Thursday in a case accusing him of illegally possessing classified documents, with prosecutors alleging that he asked a staffer to delete camera footage at his Florida estate in an effort to obstruct a federal investigation into the records.

    The indictment includes new counts of obstruction and willful retention of national defense information, adding fresh detail to an indictment issued last month against Trump and a close aide. The additional charges came as a surprise at a time of escalating anticipation of a possible additional indictment in Washington over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The updated allegations make clear the vast — and unknown — scope of legal exposure faced by Trump as he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024 while fending off criminal cases in multiple cities.

    The new allegations from special counsel Jack Smith center on surveillance footage at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, evidence that has long been vital to the case. Trump is alleged to have asked to have the footage deleted after FBI and Justice Department investigators visited in June 2022 to collect classified documents he took with him after leaving the White House. The new indictment also charges him with i llegally holding onto a document he’s alleged to have shown off to visitors in New Jersey.

    A Trump spokesperson dismissed the new charges as “nothing more than a continued desperate and flailing attempt” by the Biden administration “to harass President Trump and those around him” and to influence the 2024 presidential race.

    Prosecutors accuse Trump of scheming with his valet, Walt Nauta, and a Mar-a-Lago property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, to conceal the footage from federal investigators after they issued a subpoena for it. Video from the property would ultimately play a significant role in the investigation because, prosecutors said, it captured Nauta moving boxes of documents in and out of a storage room — including one such incident a day before a Justice Department visit to the property.

    According to the indictment, Nauta met with De Oliveira on June 25, 2022, at Mar-a-Lago, where they went to a security guard booth where surveillance video was displayed on monitors and walked with a flashlight through a tunnel where the storage room was located, observing and pointing out surveillance cameras.

    Two days later, according to the indictment, De Oliveira walked with an unidentified Trump employee to an audio room, where De Oliveira asked how many days the server retained footage.

    De Oliveira, prosecutors said, told the other employee “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted” and asked, “What are we going to do?”

    During a voluntary interview with the FBI last January, prosecutors say, De Oliveira lied when he said he “never saw nothing” with regard to boxes at Mar-a-Lago.

    De Oliveira was added to the indictment, charged with obstruction and false statements related to an interview he gave the FBI earlier this year. His lawyer declined to comment Thursday evening.

    The new charges were filed as Trump is bracing for the prospect of charges related to his efforts to undo the 2020 election in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Last week, he revealed he had received a letter from the Justice Department informing him he was a target in that probe, suggesting that charges could be forthcoming, and his lawyers met with prosecutors on Smith’s office earlier Thursday to discuss that case.

    But despite the anticipation. the only charges filed Thursday were in Florida, not Washington.

    The superseding indictment also charges Trump with an additional count of willfully retaining national defense information, relating to a document he showed off to visitors at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club during an July 2021 interview for a memoir by his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows. Prosecutors have described the document as a Pentagon plan of attack and Meadows, in his subsequent book, said the country it concerned was Iran.

    According to the indictment, Trump returned that document, which was marked as top secret and not approved to show to foreign nationals, to the federal government on Jan. 17, 2022.

    Trump has denied he had secret documents before him when he spoke.

    “There wasn’t a document. I had lots of paper. I had copies of newspaper articles, I had copies of magazines, I had copies of everything,” he said in an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier.

    The count was notable because prosecutors until now had mostly been focused on the records that Trump had refused to return in response to a Justice Department subpoena last year.

    Both Trump and Nauta have pleaded not guilty to the original 38-count indictment. De Oliveira is due in court in Florida on Monday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • British billionaire owner of Tottenham football club charged with ‘brazen’ insider trading

    British billionaire owner of Tottenham football club charged with ‘brazen’ insider trading

    [ad_1]

    U.S. prosecutors have called an offsides on the British billionaire owner of Tottenham Hotspur soccer team, charging him with a “brazen insider-trading scheme,” in which he passed secret stock tips worth millions to his girlfriends, private pilots and assistants for years.

    Joe Lewis, 86, who is one of the richest people in the United Kingdom, is accused of taking inside information about companies in which he was a large investor and handing it out to people around him for them to use to get rich.  

    “Notwithstanding his vast personal wealth, Lewis provided the inside information to his employees, romantic partners, and friends as a way to give them compensation and gifts,” federal prosecutors wrote in an indictment filed in New York.

    Prosecutors say Lewis, who Forbes has estimated to be worth $6.1 billion, carried on with the scheme from 2013 through 2021, helping his employees and friends make millions of dollars in illicit gains. 

    Some people who benefited from Lewis’ loose lips included staff on his private, $250 million super yacht, the Aviva.

    In some cases, prosecutors allege Lewis gave his pilots short-term, $500,000 loans to buy stock and then pay him back after they scored big based on his tips.

    “Thanks to Lewis, those bets were a sure thing,” said Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. “That’s classic corporate corruption. It’s cheating and it is against the law.”

    Lewis’ private equity company, Tavistock Group, has investments in hundreds of companies ranging from agriculture, sports, resort properties and life-sciences businesses. The firm owns works of art by painters like Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse and Gustav Klimt.

    Investigators say Lewis shared information about publicly-traded life-science groups Solid Biosciences
    SLDB,
    +0.88%

    and Mirati Therapeutics
    MRTX,
    -2.43%
    ,
    as well as beef producer Australian Agricultural Co.
    AAC,
    -2.79%

    and a special purpose acquisition company, BCTG. 

    Prosecutors also allege that he hid how much of a stake he owned in cancer therapeutics company Mirati “through a pattern of false filings and misleading statements” in order to manipulate markets.  

    A message sent to representatives of Tavistock wasn’t immediately returned.

    Making his fortune as a currency trader, Lewis became more widely known when he acquired the Tottenham football club in 2001 for $35.5 million. 

    He has lived as a tax exile in the Bahamas for years. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AMC revises stock-conversion settlement plan after Friday’s surprise court setback

    AMC revises stock-conversion settlement plan after Friday’s surprise court setback

    [ad_1]

    AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. has submitted a revised proposal for its stock-conversion plan, after a judge rejected a settlement Friday that would have given a green light to the deal.

    In a letter to investors that was posted Sunday on Twitter, AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron said that a modified proposal was filed Saturday with the Delaware Chancery Court intended to address the court’s concerns. If the court agrees, Aron said he hopes to implement the plan “as soon as possible.”

    Movie-theater chain AMC
    AMC,
    +1.62%

     has wanted to turn its its so-called APE
    APE,
    -2.17%

    — or AMC Preferred Equity — preferred units into common stock as part of its battle to eliminate debt. But Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn on Friday rejected a settlement with opposing shareholders that would have allowed that conversion to move forward. That sent AMC shares rocketing more than 60% higher in after-hours trading Friday.

    “AMC must be in a position to raise equity capital,” Aron stressed in his letter Sunday, saying that if the company is unable to do so, the risk of running out of cash in 2024 or 2025 rises.

    “The risk of financial collapse is not whimsical,” Aron said, noting the bankruptcies of rival theater chain Cineworld/Regal and retailer Bey Bath & Beyond.

    AMC shares are up 8% year to date, but have sunk 54% over the past 12 months.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AMC Entertainment Shares Soar After Judge Blocks Equity Transactions

    AMC Entertainment Shares Soar After Judge Blocks Equity Transactions

    [ad_1]

    AMC Entertainment shares soared 70% after-hours Friday after a judge rejected a proposed court settlement that would have cleared the way for the movie-theater giant to complete a set of equity transactions enabling it to issue substantially more shares.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AMC stock surges 60% after Delaware judge puts brakes on APE-to-stock conversion plan

    AMC stock surges 60% after Delaware judge puts brakes on APE-to-stock conversion plan

    [ad_1]

    Shares of AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. rocketed more than 60% higher on Friday after a judge in Delaware shot down a settlement that would have allowed the movie-theater chain to move ahead with a plan, maligned by some investors, to dump more shares onto the market, according to reports.

    AMC
    AMC,
    +1.62%

    has wanted to turn its its so-called APE — or AMC Preferred Equity — preferred units into common stock. But Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn rejected an earlier settlement that would have allowed that conversion to move forward.

    The theater chain has been looking to find ways to boost its share count and sell more shares — a tack that helped it through the COVID-19 pandemic — as it tries to shore up its finances and rein in its debt, the Wall Street Journal noted.

    But not every investor was on board with the plan, amid worries about share dilution.

    “At this juncture, the Court’s only task is to approve or reject the proposed
    settlement,” wrote in the ruling, obtained by Bloomberg Law. “The focus of the settlement is on the claims presented in this case. The Court cannot address issues that do not pertain to the fairness of the settlement.”

    “Such issues raised by AMC stockholders include theories about synthetic shares, Wall Street corruption, dark pool trading, insider trading and RICO violations, and a request for a share count,” the ruling continued. “The Court’s role is limited to considering settlement-specific issues, like the strength of the plaintiffs’ claims, the consideration the class would receive, and the scope of the release the class would give in exchange for that consideration.”

    “To cut to the chase, the settlement cannot be approved as submitted,” the ruling added later.

    AMC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court Rules Against Uber. It’s a Victory for Drivers.

    Court Rules Against Uber. It’s a Victory for Drivers.

    [ad_1]


    • Order Reprints

    • Print Article

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC files appeal, again seeks to block Microsoft-Activision deal

    FTC files appeal, again seeks to block Microsoft-Activision deal

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday asked an appeals court to temporarily block Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc. while it challenges a ruling earlier this week green-lighting the deal.

    The FTC on Thursday asked U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley to postpone her ruling — which she promptly denied — and also appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to pause the acquisition “to preserve the status quo” while the case is reviewed, claiming it is likely to succeed in its appeal.

    According to the filing, the FTC claims the judge applied the wrong legal standard to its request for a preliminary injunction, and erred in a number of other matters.

    The deal is set to close in the coming days, and letting it happen will “irreparably harm the public interest and the FTC,” regulators said.

    Also see: GOP blasts FTC Chair Khan as a ‘bully’ after agency’s loss in Microsoft case

    In a response filed with the court, Microsoft said the FTC “failed to carry its burden on independent, fact-based grounds” and “dragged its heels” before appealing.

    “The court has already found that it would be inequitable” to order an injunction that could lead to “the potential scuttling of the merger,” Microsoft said, in asking for the FTC’s request to be denied.

    The FTC has claimed the tie-up of a major videogame platform — Microsoft’s
    MSFT,
    +1.62%

     Xbox — with a major videogame publisher — Activision
    ATVI,
    -0.51%

     makes the wildly popular “Call of Duty,” among other titles — would be harmful to the videogame industry and consumers.

    Microsoft has pledged to keep “Call of Duty” available to Sony’s
    SONY,
    +2.82%

     PlayStation console for 10 years, and will make it available for Nintendo’s 
    7974,
    -0.36%

     Switch and some cloud-gaming platforms.

    In her ruling clearing the deal Tuesday, Corley said the FTC did not show “this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition.”

    Bloomberg News reported late Thursday that Microsoft and Activision are considering giving up some control of their cloud-gaming business in the U.K. to win approval of British regulators, who — if the U.S. appeals court does not act — are the final hurdle to the deal closing on time.

    FTC Chair Lina Khan testified on Capitol Hill on Thursday, where Republican lawmakers assailed her actions and sharply criticized her agency’s court losses in trying to block the Microsoft-Activision deal and Meta’s
    META,
    +1.32%

    acquisition of a virtual-reality gaming company earlier this year.

    Read more: After Microsoft defeat, ‘toothless’ FTC needs to pick better battles if it wants to rein in Big Tech

    Also: FTC’s probe of OpenAI marks key moment in Khan’s push to rein in Big Tech

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC will appeal judge’s ruling clearing Microsoft-Activision deal

    FTC will appeal judge’s ruling clearing Microsoft-Activision deal

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Trade Commission late Wednesday filed notice that it will appeal a judge’s ruling this week that gave Microsoft Corp. the green light to proceed with its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc.

    In a filing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the FTC is seeking to overturn U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley’s ruling Tuesday, which said the deal would not hurt competition.

    “The District Court’s ruling makes crystal clear that this acquisition is good for both competition and consumers,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s vice chair and president, said in a statement.” We’re disappointed that the FTC is continuing to pursue what has become a demonstrably weak case, and we will oppose further efforts to delay the ability to move forward.” 

    The FTC has claimed the tie-up of a major videogame platform — Microsoft’s
    MSFT,
    +1.42%

    Xbox — with a major videogame publisher — Activision
    ATVI,
    -1.09%

    makes the wildly popular “Call of Duty,” among other titles — would be harmful to the videogame industry and consumers.

    “The facts haven’t changed,” an Activision spokesperson said Wednesday. “We’re confident the U.S. will remain among the 39 countries where the merger can close. We look forward to reinforcing the strength of our case in court, again.”

    Microsoft has pledged to keep “Call of Duty” available to Sony’s
    SONY,
    +1.78%

    PlayStation console for 10 years, and will make it available for Nintendo’s
    7974,
    +1.63%

    Switch and some cloud-gaming platforms.

    The deal faces a July 18 deadline, and still must gain regulatory approval in the U.K.

    Tuesday’s ruling was yet another antitrust setback for the FTC, which has failed to do much to rein in Big Tech, and one analyst told MarketWatch on Tuesday that the regulators need to do ” a much better job of picking their battles,”

    Read more: After Microsoft defeat, ‘toothless’ FTC needs to pick better battles if it wants to rein in Big Tech

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After Microsoft defeat, ‘toothless’ FTC needs to pick better battles if it wants to rein in Big Tech

    After Microsoft defeat, ‘toothless’ FTC needs to pick better battles if it wants to rein in Big Tech

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s defeat as it sought to block Microsoft Corp.’s acquisition of videogame maker Activision Blizzard is yet another setback for an increasingly toothless regulator that needs to pick better battles with Big Tech.

    On Tuesday morning, a federal judge denied the FTC’s injunction that was seeking to block the software giant’s proposed $69 billion acquisition of Activision
    ATVI,
    +10.02%
    ,
    best known for its hit videogame “Call of Duty.” The FTC argued that Microsoft
    MSFT,
    +0.19%

    could withhold “Call of Duty” and other Activision games from rival console platforms such as Sony’s PlayStation, and keep the games on its Xbox only.

    Microsoft, in a show of faith, committed in writing to keep “Call of Duty” on PlayStation on parity with Xbox for 10 years, agreed with Nintendo
    7974,
    +1.10%

    to bring “Call of Duty” to Switch and entered into several pacts to bring Activision content to several cloud gaming services, U.S. District Court Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley noted in her decision.

    “With these 10-year contracts that Microsoft made across the board with so many vendors, Nvidia
    NVDA,
    +0.53%
    ,
    Nintendo and others, 10 years is a really long time, in my opinion,” said Sarah Hindlian-Bowler, an analyst at Macquarie Equity Research, in an interview Tuesday. “It is long enough to cover the arrival and maturity of the cloud gaming market….She understands  that 10 years is a very long long time to make a guarantee of this kind.”

    Also read: Regulators face an antitrust dilemma after Meta launches Threads

    Hindlian-Bowler said that she had been in the minority of Wall Street analysts in not believing the U.S. government would be able to block this deal.

    “The assumption that this somehow decreases the market is going to prove to be wildly incorrect,” she said, adding that she does not believe that the U.K.’s  Competition and Markets Authority will be able to block the deal either.

    The latest upset at the FTC was also not too surprising to other Capitol Hill watchers, especially in the light of other high-profile setbacks by the agency and its once-heralded commissioner, Lina Khan. When she was sworn in as chair of the FTC in mid-2021, Khan was hailed as the sheriff who would rein in Big Tech.

    “It’s hard to say I am surprised by the ruling because Khan has had a fairly unsuccessful track record,” said Owen Tedford, a senior research analyst at Beacon Policy Advisors. “The regulators are pushing the boundaries, deals that previously would have gone unchallenged have now gone challenged. And they are breaking precedent because Khan and company have expressed a dislike of settlements.”

    The FTC’s attempts to sue Meta Platforms Inc.
    META,
    +1.42%

    have had some defeats so far. In February, a California judge denied the FTC’s attempts to block Meta from buying a virtual-reality startup called Within Unlimited. The FTC’s suit to reverse Meta’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, filed in 2021, is still plodding along.

    Additionally, the FTC recently filed a suit against Amazon.com Inc.
    AMZN,
    +1.30%
    ,
    alleging that it is too difficult for consumers to cancel their Prime accounts, and the agency is reportedly also mulling another far-reaching suit against Amazon alleging that the e-commerce giant punishes merchants who do not use its logistics services. One analyst has already made a case that the FTC will lose that fight too.

    “I think that the FTC is in need of some change, in need of some refreshing and in need of doing a much better job of picking their battles,” said Hindlian-Bowler. “This does feel toothless, a lot of the fights they are picking are toothless. And unfortunately, they are missing the real battle. They are missing TikTok, they are missing the real fights where we actually have national security at risk.”

    In February, one of the Republican commissioners on the FTC resigned, and wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal accusing Khan of disregarding the rule of law and due process.

    Compared to the European Union, which has had far more success implementing regulation to rein in Big Tech, the U.S. is still much weaker. “The EU seems to be having somewhat more success, levying big fines, getting these companies to change,” said Beacon’s Tedford. “The EU has passed these bills, but the U.S., despite these efforts, has not gotten there and is not going to get there for the next two years.”

    Money spent by Big Tech to lobby Congress in a huge part of the problem, whereas in Europe, “those lawmakers feel less beholden,” he added.

    More than a century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt, known for his “speak softly and carry a big stick” foreign policy, also used his bully pulpit to bust industrial monopolies.

    If Khan and her staff want to follow his lead and rein in Big Tech, they need to start picking their future battles more carefully — and carry bigger sticks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Americans are now being advised to reconsider travel to China

    Americans are now being advised to reconsider travel to China

    [ad_1]

    BEIJING (AP) — The U.S. recommended Americans reconsider traveling to China because of arbitrary law enforcement and exit bans and the risk of wrongful detentions.

    No specific cases were cited, but the advisory came after a 78-year-old U.S. citizen was sentenced to life in prison on spying charges in May.

    It also followed the passage last week of a sweeping Foreign Relations Law that threatens countermeasures against those seen as harming China’s interests.

    China also recently passed a broadly written counterespionage law that has sent a chill through the foreign business community, with offices being raided, as well as a law to sanction foreign critics.

    “The People’s Republic of China (PRC) government arbitrarily enforces local laws, including issuing exit bans on U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries, without fair and transparent process under the law,” the U.S. advisory said.

    “U.S. citizens traveling or residing in the PRC may be detained without access to U.S. consular services or information about their alleged crime,” it warned.

    Similar U.S. advisories issued for the semiautonomous Chinese regions of Hong Kong and Macao.

    The advisory also said that Chinese authorities “appear to have broad discretion to deem a wide range of documents, data, statistics, or materials as state secrets and to detain and prosecute foreign nationals for alleged espionage.”

    It listed a wide range of potential offenses from taking part in demonstrations to sending electronic messages critical of Chinese policies or even simply conducting research into areas deemed sensitive.

    Exit bans could be used to compel individuals to participate in Chinese government investigations, pressure family members to return from abroad, resolve civil disputes in favor of Chinese citizens and “gain bargaining leverage over foreign governments,” the advisory said.

    Similar advisories were issued for the semiautonomous Chinese regions of Hong Kong and Macao. They were dated Friday and emailed to journalists on Monday.

    The U.S. had issued similar advisories to its citizens in the past, but those in recent years had mainly warned of the dangers of being caught in strict and lengthy lockdowns while China closed its borders for three years under its draconian “zero-COVID” policy.

    China generally responds angrily to what it considers U.S. efforts to impugn its authoritarian Communist Party–led system. It has issued its own travel advisories concerning the U.S., warning of the dangers of crime, anti-Asian discrimination and the high cost of emergency medical assistance.

    From the archives (June 2020): Hong Kong bans insults to China’s national anthem

    Also (August 2021): Biden signs order to allow thousands of Hong Kong residents to stay in the U.S. amid Beijing’s crackdown

    China had no immediate response to the travel advisory on Monday.

    Details of the accusations against the accused spy John Shing-Wan Leung are not available, given China’s authoritarian political system and the ruling Communist Party’s absolute control over legal matters. Leung, who also holds permanent residency in Hong Kong, was detained in the southeastern city of Suzhou on April 15, 2021 — a time when China had closed its borders and tightly restricted movement of people domestically to control the spread of COVID-19.

    The warnings come as U.S.-China relations are at their lowest in years, over trade, technology, Taiwan and human rights, although the sides are taking some steps to improve the situation. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a long-delayed visit to Beijing last week and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is making a much-anticipated trip to Beijing this week. China also recently appointed a new ambassador to Washington, who presented his credentials in a meeting with President Joe Biden at the White House.

    Other incidents, however, have also pointed to the testiness in the relationship. China formally protested last month after Biden called Chinese leader Xi Jinping a “dictator,” days after Blinken’s visit.

    From the archives (February 2021): Biden says China faces ‘extreme competition’ from U.S. under his administration

    Also see (June 2020): Bolton book adds urgency to Trump bid to depict himself as a China hawk and to paint Biden as a Beijing apologist

    Capitol Report (June 2020): Trump asked China’s Xi to buy U.S. farm products to help him win re-election, Bolton book says

    Biden brushed off the protest, saying his words would have no negative impact on U.S.-China relations and that he still expects to meet with Xi sometime soon. Biden has also drawn rebukes from Beijing by explicitly saying the U.S. would defend self-governing Taiwan if China, which claims the island as its own territory, were to attack it.

    The White House’s John Kirby discusses President Joe Biden’s priorities when it comes to Ukraine, China and other national-security matters. Kirby, who will be interviewed by MarketWatch’s Victor Reklaitis, is the strategic-communications coordinator for Biden’s National Security Council.

    Biden said his blunt statements regarding China are “just not something I’m going to change very much.”

    See: Biden says he plans to meet with China’s Xi even after calling him a dictator

    Also: ‘Extremely absurd and irresponsible’: China fires back after Biden labels Xi a dictator

    From the archives (March 2023): Xi says U.S. is trying to hinder China in its quest for global influence

    The administration is also under pressure from both parties to take a tough line on China, making it one of the few issues on which most Democrats and Republicans agree.

    Along with several detained Americans, two Chinese-Australians, Cheng Lei, who formerly worked for China’s state broadcaster, and writer Yang Jun, have been held since 2020 and 2019, respectively, without word on their sentencing.

    Perhaps the most notorious case of arbitrary detention involved two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who were detained in China in 2018, shortly after Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, Huawei Technologies’ chief financial officer and the daughter of the tech powerhouse’s founder, on a U.S. extradition request.

    They were charged with national-security crimes that were never explained and released three years later after the U.S. settled fraud charges against Meng. Many countries labeled China’s action “hostage politics.”

    Read on (May 2023): Biden national-security adviser tells Chinese diplomat that U.S. seeks to move beyond spy-balloon episode

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court blocked student-loan cancellation. Here’s what happens next for your loans.

    The Supreme Court blocked student-loan cancellation. Here’s what happens next for your loans.

    [ad_1]

    Student-loan payments are poised to resume this fall without smaller balances now that the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked President Joe Biden’s loan cancellation plan.

    The Biden administration’s loan forgiveness initiative would have canceled up to $10,000 of debt for eligible borrowers, and in some cases up to $20,000.

    But the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that the executive branch overstepped its authority by trying to wipe out billions in student loan debt on its own.

    “Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree,” Chief Judge John Roberts said, writing for the 6-3 majority.

    Now it’s time for more than 40 million borrowers with federal student loans to figure out their next move. They are staring at more than $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. Add on private student loans, and the number climbs to $1.7 trillion.

    Federal student loan payments have been on hold since March 2020.

    On Friday, the Department of Education filed notice saying it would embark on a regulatory process that would seek an alternative pathway to student-debt relief. Activists have focused on a provision in the Higher Education Act, allowing the Department of Education to “compromise, waive, or release,” any right to collect on student loans. 

    Approximately 26 million people had either applied for loan forgiveness or were already eligible for the relief as of late last year, the  White House said.

    Here’s what to know.

    When do student-loan payments restart?

    In October, according to the Department of Education. Expect more specifics soon on those payments. “We will notify borrowers well before payments restart,” the department said.

    While payments start coming in October, interest starts accumulating on the loans in September. Loan balances have not been accumulating interest since the payment pause started in March 2020, during the pandemic’s early days.

    “We will also be in direct touch with borrowers and ramping up our communications with servicers well before repayment resumes to ensure borrowers and their families are receiving accurate and timely information about the return to repayment,” an Education Department spokesperson said.

    There’s a range of estimates on how much student-loan borrowers typically pay each month on their loans.

    According to Bank of America data, $180 was the median monthly student-loan payment as of January 2020. Federal Reserve research before the pause said the average monthly payment was $393, while the median payment was $222.

    Can I lower my payments?

    Possibly yes, with a range of income-driven repayment plans through the Education Department. These plans are supposed to make repaying loans more affordable by letting borrowers modify their monthly payments based on their income.

    While these plans already exist, the department is reworking them. As a result, more monthly income will be shielded from the calculations on what a person could repay for student loans each month, meaning payments will become more affordable. While the revised plans are not in effect yet, the existing plans are up and running.

    Many people will likely struggle to fit a student-loan bill back into their budget — the question is how far that financial hardship will go. Student-loan payments would be hitting at a time when car loan and credit-card delinquencies are already rising from their pandemic lows, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    Part of the Biden administration’s Supreme Court arguments pointed to the possible economic consequences of resuming student-loan payments without canceling some of the debt.

    Without cancellation, there will be a “surge” of loan defaults and delinquencies once payments resume, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices during oral arguments earlier this year.

    Analysts at Bank of America agree more delinquencies are coming once student loan payments resume.

    What if I miss my first payment?

    When deciding which debts have to get paid first, a student-loan bill might fall behind other monthly debts like a mortgage or a credit-card bill.

    Anywhere from roughly one-third to three-quarters of borrowers could miss their first student-loan bill when payments resume, according to projections from the credit score company VantageScore.

    A missed first payment — in theory — could eventually lead to an average 49- to 82-point reduction in a credit score ranging from 350 to 850, VantageScore researchers said.

    However, President Biden on Friday announced a temporary “ramp-up” — a 12-month grace period for borrowers who miss student-loan payments. If borrowers miss payments during this time, they won’t be reported to any of three main credit bureaus — Equifax 
    EFX,
    +0.37%
    ,
     TransUnion 
    TRU,
    +1.06%

     and Experian
    EXPGF,
    +0.80%

     — and they won’t go into default.

    The ramp-up will run from Oct. 1, 2023 through Sept. 30, 2024. 

    “This is not the same as the student-loan pause, but during this period — if you miss payments — this ‘on ramp’ will temporarily remove the threat of default or having your credit harmed,” Biden wrote in a tweet Friday.

    Prior to the payment pause and Biden’s ramp-up announcement, loan servicers waited for a borrower to miss three straight payments before they reported it to the credit reporting bureaus, according to Scott Buchanan, executive director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance.

    In the meantime, brace for potentially long call hold times, curtailed hours and loan servicer glitches, borrower advocates say. It stems back to Congressional cuts on the funding for vendor contracts that handle the day-to-day details of student-loan repayments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court knocks down Biden’s student-debt forgiveness plan

    Supreme Court knocks down Biden’s student-debt forgiveness plan

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court knocked down the Biden administration’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for a wide swath of borrowers, the court announced Friday. 

    The decision means that the White House won’t move forward with the plan for now, though it’s possible officials could try to launch a new version of the debt-forgiveness initiative using a different legal authority. Roughly 26 million borrowers applied for or were automatically eligible for debt relief under the Biden administration’s plan, which canceled up to $10,000 in student debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 and up to $20,000 in federal loans for borrowers who met that criteria and also used a Pell grant in college. 

    Americans owe $1.7 trillion of student loans and the White House had estimated that more than 40 million borrowers would benefit from the initiative. But almost as soon as the Biden administration announced the debt-forgiveness plan last year, opponents looked for ways to challenge it legally. Ultimately, two cases made it to the high court. 

    In one case, two student-loan borrowers sued over the debt-relief plan in part because the Department of Education didn’t submit it for public comment. That, they said, resulted in an initiative that arbitrarily left out or limited the amount of relief available to some student loan borrowers, like themselves. The suit filed by the borrowers was backed by the Job Creators Network, a conservative advocacy organization co-founded by Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, who also supported former President Donald Trump. 

    Six Republican-led states brought the other case on the basis that canceling debt could harm their state coffers. 

    The court considered two issues in these cases. The first is whether the plaintiffs had standing, or the ability to bring a lawsuit because they’ve been directly harmed by the policy. The second is whether the Biden administration overstepped in its executive authority when issuing the policy. In order for the justices to reach the second issue, or the merits of the case, they had to find that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. 

    Legal experts, including some who believed the Biden administration didn’t have the authority to authorize the debt-relief plan, were skeptical of the notion that the parties bringing the cases had standing to sue. During oral arguments in February, the court’s three liberal justices also questioned whether the parties who challenged debt forgiveness were actually injured by the policy. 

    In addition, one of the members of the court’s conservative wing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, asked pointed questions about the six states’ argument that they had standing to sue in part because the debt-relief plan would injure the state of Missouri. That claim surrounded the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA, a state-affiliated organization that services federal student loans. The states had argued if MOHELA lost accounts due to the debt-relief plan, its revenue would decline and that loss would hurt Missouri because of MOHELA’s ties to the state. 

    Despite these questions, Barrett agreed with the court’s five other conservative judges and found that the states have standing to sue. The three liberal justices dissented.

    “MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “It was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”

    The court’s decision in the states’ suit allowed the justices to get to the merits of the case. The parties challenging the debt-relief plan argued that the Department of Education went beyond the authority Congress delegated it in discharging student debt. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued to the justices that in canceling student debt, the Secretary of Education acted “within the heartland” of the authority Congress provided to him under the HEROES Act, a 2003 law that aims to ensure student-loan borrowers aren’t left worse off by a national emergency. 

    The court’s conservative majority sided with the states, with a 6-3 decision, striking down the debt-relief plan in its current form. 

    “The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal,” Roberts wrote.

    In the months leading up to the court’s decision, White House officials said there was no backup plan for if the Supreme Court knocked down the debt-forgiveness initiative. Advocates and activists have said that student-loan repayments shouldn’t resume until the Biden administration fulfills its promise to cancel some student debt.

    The bill President Joe Biden signed in June to raise the nation’s debt limit requires that the Department of Education end the pause on federal student loan, interest payments and collections 60 days after June 30, 2023. Interest on federal student loans will resume starting September 1 and payments will start to come due in October, according to the Department’s website.

    Advocates and activists have said for years that the Higher Education Act provides the Secretary of Education with the authority to discharge student loans. In ruling that the HEROES Act didn’t authorize the Biden administration’s debt-relief plan, the court left the option open for the Biden administration to create a loan-forgiveness program authorized under the HEA. 

    The court’s decision marks the latest development in a more-than-decade-long push to get the government to cancel student debt en masse. The idea, which has its origins in the Occupy Wall Street movement, made it to the presidential campaign stage during the 2020 cycle and was adopted by the White House last year.    

    Proponents of student debt cancellation and the Biden administration, have expressed concern that without some kind of relief a large swath of borrowers could slip into delinquency and default with the return of student loan payments later this year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nvidia, AMD stocks fall on report of new U.S. ban on AI chip exports to China

    Nvidia, AMD stocks fall on report of new U.S. ban on AI chip exports to China

    [ad_1]

    Shares of Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. slumped in the extended session Tuesday following a report that the Biden administration is considering a new ban on sales of AI chips to China.

    Nvidia shares
    NVDA,
    +3.06%

    A fell 3% after hours, following a 3.1% gain to close at $418.76, while AMD shares
    AMD,
    +2.68%

    also fell 3%, after a 2.7% gain in the regular session to close at $110.39.

    Late Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported the Commerce Department could further block sales of AI chips to China unless U.S. companies first obtain a special license.

    The ban would follow upon similar actions last year that threatened $400 million in Nvidia sales, but the company found a workaround in supplying a version of products that avoided the ban.

    Read: AMD launches new data-center AI chips, software to go up against Nvidia and Intel

    Both Nvidia and AMD have launched new AI chips this year: Nvidia in March and AMD earlier in the month. Last year’s release of Open AI’s ChatGPT generative AI — with billions of dollars invested by Microsoft Corp.
    MSFT,
    +1.82%

    — resulted in an explosion of interest in artificial-intelligence technology, prompting luminaries to herald the technology as the biggest thing in tech since … you name it.

    Read: Bill Gates says AI is only the second revolutionary tech advancement in his lifetime

    News of the possible ban happened to follow a claim earlier in the day from Baidu Inc.
    BIDU,
    +3.09%

    on the Chinese search company’s blog, which said its Ernie 3.5 version AI outperformed ChatGPT’s earlier version “in comprehensive ability scores,” and its latest iteration, GPT-4, which was released in mid-March, “in several Chinese-language capabilities.”

    Baidu’s claim appeared to be based upon performance metrics published in China Science Daily. On Wall Street, ADRs of Baidu were down 0.7% after hours, following a 3.1% gain to close at $143.90.

    As of Tuesday’s close, Nvidia shares were up 187% in 2023, and AMD shares were up 70% for the year.

    Read: Snowflake adds partnerships with Nvidia and Microsoft for AI double play

    Shares of Super Micro Computer Inc.
    SMCI,
    +4.47%
    ,
    which have benefited from AI, also declined 3% after hours, while shares of Intel Corp.
    INTC,
    +2.28%
    ,
    which supplies chips to data centers, saw shares decline 1% after hours.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘This is a game changer’: Ahead of Amazon Prime Day, a new law makes it harder for online sellers to hawk fake or stolen products

    ‘This is a game changer’: Ahead of Amazon Prime Day, a new law makes it harder for online sellers to hawk fake or stolen products

    [ad_1]

    Shopping online has just gotten safer.

    The INFORM Consumers Act, which went into effect Tuesday, aims to limit the sales of stolen and counterfeit products on e-commerce platforms. 

    The measure, which requires e-commerce sites to verify and disclose information about their high-volume third-party sellers, was passed into law following a lobbying campaign to address counterfeit products after being left out of the bipartisan Chips and Science Act last year.

    All online marketplaces, including eBay, Etsy, Poshmark and Amazon’s third-party sales platform, will now be required to collect information from high-volume sellers, defined as those selling 200 items or more totaling at least $5,000 over the previous 12 months. These third-party sellers must submit information such as a government-issued ID, a bank-account number, a working email address and phone number, and a taxpayer identification number. 

    Customers will also be able to find the verified contact information for bigger third-party sellers — those with sales of over $20,000 a year — and to get in touch with them outside of the e-commerce platform. In the past, consumers often had to engage within the platform operator in order to communicate with a seller. 

    Those bigger sellers will also have their full names and physical addresses listed on their product pages in addition to their contact information, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s business guide

    “This is a game changer,” said Teresa Murray, director of the consumer watchdog office at U.S. PIRG, a nonprofit that lobbies on behalf of the public interest. “For bad guys, stealing items has generally been the difficult part. Selling things online once you’ve stolen them is easy. We hope that with the INFORM Act, it’s not nearly as easy in the future.”

    ‘The only people opposing this may be thieves.’


    — Teresa Murray, U.S. PIRG

    The act goes into effect just weeks before Amazon Prime Day, when the world’s biggest e-commerce site rolls out discounts for Prime members. This year, Prime Day will be held over two days, on July 11 and 12.

    Picks: Amazon Prime Day is July 11-12. You’ll need the $139-a-year Prime membership to access the deals, but is it actually worth it?

    Also see: Amazon sued by FTC, which alleges people were ‘tricked and trapped’ into Prime subscriptions

    Several e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and eBay, supported the INFORM Consumers Act. TechNet, a national network of technology CEOs and senior executives representing what it calls the innovation economy, wrote to leaders in Congress last December, saying the law would improve consumer safety and increase transparency. 

    In a statement provided to MarketWatch, eBay
    EBAY,
    +2.32%

    said it “fully supports transparency and is committed to a safe selling and buying experience for our customers. We were proud to support” the law “to protect consumers from bad actors who seek to misuse online marketplaces, while also ensuring important protections for sellers. We are fully prepared to comply with the new law.”

    Etsy
    ETSY,
    +3.45%

    said it “has long been supportive of the INFORM Act passing into law, as a balanced and thoughtful approach to make the ecommerce landscape safer for both consumers and sellers.” In a statement provided to MarketWatch, the company said, “We are taking appropriate steps to comply with the INFORM Act requirements.”

    Amazon
    AMZN,
    +1.45%

    and Poshmark, owned by South Korea–based Naver Corp.
    035420,
    -0.59%
    ,
    did not immediately respond to MarketWatch requests for comment.

    Some analysts, however, said the new law lacks stronger protections that were included the SHOP SAFE Act, an earlier bill that did not get passed by Congress. The INFORM Act, they noted, does not hold online platforms liable when a third party sells harmful counterfeit products or when the platform has not followed certain best practices. 

    “Notably, the legislation is supported by Amazon and other marketplaces as it’s seen as a watered-down bill that would head off more stringent legislation like the SHOP SAFE Act,” Ben Koltun, director of research at Beacon Policy Advisors, wrote in a note last year.

    So how can consumers spot counterfeit or stolen items? A guide from PIRG has tips, such as keeping an eye out for products with suspiciously low prices or featuring misspellings or mislabeling or low-quality, photoshopped photos in their listings.

    PIRG also cautions consumers about purchasing medications online. Always check the legitimacy of online pharmacies, it says. 

    “Many online marketplaces haven’t been doing enough to protect consumers from sellers who appear to be peddling stolen or counterfeit goods,” Murray said. “The only people opposing this [new law] may be thieves.”

    Victor Reklaitis contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s final days: Extra bed sheets, secret phone calls and last-minute changes to his will

    Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s final days: Extra bed sheets, secret phone calls and last-minute changes to his will

    [ad_1]

    Less than 48 hours before being found dead in prison, Jeffrey Epstein met with his lawyers to sign a new version of his last will and testament. 

    The disgraced financier had been under psychological observation from a previous episode in which he was found hanging in his prison cell, but the provocative step of signing a new will went unnoticed by prison officials until after Epstein’s death.

    That lapse was one of many missteps and missed opportunities to stop Epstein from killing himself sometime in the early morning hours of Aug. 10, 2019, contained in an official report released Tuesday by the Department of Justice’s internal, investigative watchdog.

    The report stands by the initial determination that Epstein’s death was the result of suicide as there were no signs of foul play or that anyone had been anywhere near his cell after he was last seen alive by prison guards the night before.

    But the report also lays out in detail Epstein’s final days, including a number of curious steps he took in that time and a series of serious protocol breaches made by prison staff that would contribute to him being left unwatched long enough to kill himself.

    Epstein was arrested on July 6 of that year on federal sex-trafficking charges. He was ordered held without bail and eventually placed in the special housing unit of the Manhattan Correctional Center in New York while he awaited trial. There, inmates were kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, although Epstein spent much of his time meeting with his attorneys, the report said.

    From the beginning, Epstein had a cellmate. On the night of July 23, the cellmate began banging on the cell door and screaming for the guards. When officers arrived, they found Epstein hanging from the bunk bed ladder with an orange piece of cloth wrapped around his neck.

    The officers pulled Epstein down and managed to resuscitate him. When he later came to, he initially said he thought his cellmate had tried to kill him, but later said he could not recall what had happened. An investigation could not definitively conclude what had happened, the DOJ report said.

    Following the episode, Epstein was placed on suicide watch — in which he was continuously monitored by staff. When prison psychologists later determined that Epstein was no longer a risk to himself, they downgraded his status to “psychological observation,” meaning he could be returned to a cell and not be kept under continual watch. 

    Curiously, Epstein said he wanted his original cellmate back. When prison officials said they weren’t sure that was such a good idea, Epstein replied: “Yeah, but I don’t understand, you know, we were bunkies, everything was cool,” the report quoted him as saying.

    On July 30, prison staff were informed that Epstein needed to be assigned an “appropriate cellmate,” and he was housed with another inmate in a cell just 15 feet away from the guard station. That inmate later reported that Epstein was allowed to sleep on a mattress on the floor and was given an extra blanket, in violation of prison rules.

    On August 8, Epstein signed the new will. The following morning, Epstein’s cellmate was transferred out of the prison, leaving Epstein alone. 

    Later that day, more than 2,000 pages of documents were publicly released as part of court proceedings against Epstein’s long-time companion, Ghislaine Maxwell. The documents included extensive information that was damaging to Epstein.

    Maxwell was found guilty in 2021 of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

    That evening, after meeting with his lawyers, Epstein  was allowed to place an unmonitored phone call. The report said that while Epstein claimed he was calling his mother, he actually phoned “someone with whom he allegedly has a personal relationship,” the report stated.

    Epstein was last seen alive in his cell at 10:40 p.m. and was discovered dead by prison staff at 6:30 a.m. the following morning. He was once again found hanging from the upper bunk with a cord tied around his neck.

    According to the report, prison officials discovered extra sheets and bedding in the cell. An investigation revealed that the prison guards on duty that night, failed to conduct rounds of the cell block and check on Epstein every 30 minutes like they were supposed to, meaning Epstein was unwatched for nearly eight hours.

    The guards were later charged with falsifying records to show that they had done the required rounds while they were actually sleeping and surfing the internet. The two guards later reached deferred prosecution agreements with the federal prosecutors, in which charges against them were dropped after they performed community service and kept out of trouble for six months.  

    Some of the prison cameras in the cell block also had been malfunctioning for weeks so that while they provided a live feed of the area, they failed to record. A nearby camera that was fully operational showed no one entering the area after the guards last locked Epstein in his cell at 10:40 p.m. the night before he was found dead, the report said.

    An autopsy showed no signs of foul play or that Epstein had struggled with anyone prior to his death. Officials say they believe he had hanged himself.

    [ad_2]

    Source link