Is Mercedes Intentionally Detuning Its EVs To Charge $1,200 Yearly "Acceleration" Fee

Is Mercedes Intentionally Detuning Its EVs To Charge $1,200 Yearly "Acceleration" Fee.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytNov 24th, 2022

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors

Nonprofit Blood Donation Service Starts Matching Unvaccinated Patients With Donors Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Swiss naturopathic physician George Della Pietra believes people worldwide should be free to choose whether to get a COVID-19 vaccine injection or not. He believes the same should hold for those receiving transfusions with “vaccinated” blood. “The problem is right now we have no choice,” said Della Pietra, founder of the nonprofit Safe Blood Donation service in 2021, matching unvaccinated blood recipients with donors in 65 countries. “It was very clear from the beginning that the COVID hype was way out of control,” Della Pietra said. “It was not as dangerous as they say it was. “As a naturopath, I can make no sense of this pandemic, which was never really a pandemic. It leaves space for so many explanations.” Della Pietra believes that an mRNA injection is more dangerous than the pharmaceutical companies are willing to admit. He said the growing numbers of adverse reactions are reason to question their safety and effectiveness. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that vaccinated and boosted people made up 58.6 percent (6,512) of the COVID-19 deaths in August—up from 41 percent in January. “We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Cynthia Cox, the Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation told The Washington Post in an article on Nov. 23. Nearly 70 percent of the world’s 8 billion people have received at least one mRNA injection for COVID-19 since the vaccines began rolling out in 2021 at the height of the virus’s spread. Each of the three primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contains COVID-19 “spike protein” fragments, which bind at the cellular level to stimulate an immune response to the virus. Della Pietra believes these spike proteins produce “classic symptoms”—namely blood clots—that “horrified” him. “I’ve never seen anything similar—and I’m not talking only about spike proteins,” Della Pietra told The Epoch Times in a phone interview. “It’s unbelievable because we never had this problem before. It’s been only two years. They want to keep the narrative [that an mRNA vaccine] is not dangerous.” A man looks at his phone while donating blood at Vitalant blood donation center in San Francisco on Jan. 11, 2022. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Although donated blood and plasma must undergo a cleansing process before transfusion, Safe Blood Donation says this is not enough to remove all mRNA ingredients. “I’m talking about graphene oxide and non-declared inorganic components in the vaccine, which we can see in the blood. When I see them, I have no idea how we can get rid of them again,” Della Pietra said. Looking at the abnormalities in vaccinated blood, he said, “OK, we have a problem.” People are receiving the vaccine “more or less through the back door.” “You can not avoid it anymore.” In the United States alone, there are approximately 16 million units of donated blood annually. Of those units, about 643,000 are “autologous”—self-donated—and the number is increasing yearly, according to Della Pietra said that, to his knowledge, Safe Blood Donation, based in Switzerland, is the first unvaccinated blood donation service of its kind. “So, there is no blood bank with mRNA-free blood yet, not even with us,” Safe Blood Donation states on its website. “And, although we have already asked hundreds of clinics, at the moment—at least in Europe—all of them still refuse to allow the human right of free blood choice with them—or at least do not want to be mentioned because otherwise, they fear reprisals.” A nurse works as employees donate blood during a blood drive held in a bloodmobile in Los Angeles on March 19, 2020. (Mario Tama/Getty Images) Della Pietra said the main goal of Safe Blood Donation is not to start an mRNA-free blood bank. Rather, it is to make it possible to match unvaccinated blood donors and unvaccinated recipients, “which we bring together in a clinic (medical partner) that allows the choice of blood donor.” Medical website Seed Scientific said that blood banks and biotech companies will offer as much as $1,000 monthly for blood donations. While Della Pietra said there are no unvaccinated blood banks, he sees the demand for unvaccinated blood rising. “This is why I decided to do [SafeBlood Donation]. I wanted to make a network for unvaccinated people looking for a blood donor because they need it—whether they have scheduled surgery or an emergency,” he said. Safe Blood Donation began working in the United States about a month ago, building an infrastructure of medical partners. However, in the current medical environment, central blood banks such as the Red Cross do not segregate their blood donations based on their vaccinated or unvaccinated status. Rendering of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins binding to ACE2 receptors. (Shutterstock) “The American Red Cross does not facilitate designated donations for standard blood needs, as this process often takes longer and is more resource intensive than obtaining a blood product through our normal process,” the Red Cross told The Epoch Times in an email. “In a small number of situations, there is an exception for rare blood types where compatible blood types are extremely difficult to find. A rare blood type is defined as one that is present in less than 1/1000 people. “We want to emphasize that the Red Cross adheres to all donor and product requirements as determined by the FDA to ensure the safety of the blood supply and is committed to continuing to provide life-saving blood products for patients across the country.” The National Library of Medicine said that “across study sites, the average hospital cost per unit transfused was $155 and the average charge per patient was $219.” Still, the Red Cross, which provides 40 percent of the nation’s blood donations, said “no studies” demonstrate adverse outcomes from transfusions of blood products collected from vaccinated donors. Read more here... Tyler Durden Sun, 12/04/2022 - 20:55.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedge5 hr. 45 min. ago

I"ve made $974,000 in revenue in the last year as a freelance copywriter and only work 5 hours a day. Here"s how I taught myself the skills needed to win clients.

Chris Orzechowski found his first freelance clients in Facebook groups by offering free consultations while he was still a special-ed teacher. Chris Orzechowski.Courtesy of Chris Orzechowski Chris Orzechowski is a freelance copywriter who turned his side hustle into a business in 2017. He learned skills through online coaching and courses, books, and blogs. He gets a lot of clients through his email list, which he's built by publishing content regularly. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Chris Orzechowski, a freelance copywriter and e-commerce email-marketing strategist based in Westfield, New Jersey. Insider has verified his yearly revenue with documentation. The following has been edited for length and clarity.I originally became a freelance copywriter to supplement my income as a public-school teacher. I started studying copywriting in 2013, but I didn't get my first paying client until 2015.My first idea was to start blogging on the side in hopes that I could monetize a website. I launched a few sites, and nothing worked all that well, but I learned a ton of skills in the process.My most recent site, in 2013, was a blog that was all about coaching wrestling. It built a decent following and even made a little money through affiliate marketing. But after six months of working five to six hours a night on the website and not making that much money, I knew something had to change.Around that time, I learned about copywriting and that people would pay you to write ads for them, whether in an email, on a sales page, or in a video. I knew I could write, and I enjoyed it. So I bet that if I spent enough time learning, I could figure out how to assemble a piece of writing that someone would pay me for.I went on Amazon and bought a dozen books on copywriting, including "Scientific Advertising" and "The Ultimate Sales Letter." I also started reading blog posts and consuming content from top copywriters including André Chaperon, Frank Kern, and Russell Brunson, and I invested in online courses such as CopyHour and Copy Chief.Then I started putting myself out there to try to get clients. Eventually I landed my first-ever writing gig. It paid $300, and I wrote a bunch of emails, five website pages, a product insert (an ad that rides along with whatever item you've purchased), and a couple other small deliverables. The project took me a good three weeks, but I didn't care. I couldn't believe someone paid me to write something for them. Life was never the same after that.In the past 12 months I've made $974,000 in top-line revenue — collected before expenses and taxes — from my copywriting business, and I have clients in more than 30 countries. I put in about four to five hours a day on my business, on average, and spend the other part of my day helping my wife take care of our two young boys.In 2015, I was at a crossroadsToward the end of my second year of teaching, I was let go. I was crushed, but my copywriting business had started to take off. I made about $7,000 in project fees that year.I had two options: I could try to find another job, or go into freelance copywriting full time. I wish I had a cool "burn the lifeboats" story, but I tucked my tail between my legs and found another teaching job.Could I have sprinted and gotten enough clients to replace my lost income? Maybe, but my girlfriend (now wife) and I were shopping for our first home. I was planning on proposing that summer. I couldn't risk it. So I told myself I'd work my ass off every single night and weekend to build my copywriting side hustle to the point where it could support me.My new job was teaching eighth-grade special-education math at a middle school in my hometown. It paid $54,427. I'd work on my side gig on my lunch break and after I'd get home at 4 p.m. until about 9 or 10 p.m. On Saturdays and Sundays I'd log anywhere from four to eight hours of extra work. By 2016, I'd made around $52,000 from client work — almost as much as my day job.I pumped most of the money I made from copywriting back into training, coaching, and business development. One of my biggest expenses was a five-week coaching program called Real Free Life by Kevin Rogers that cost $5,000. I also invested in ongoing coaching with Rogers so I could continue to grow and learn. I subscribed to several other marketing and copywriting memberships and communities — including Ryan Lee and John Carlton — so I could learn from different teachers.Eventually I felt ready to make the jumpIn 2017, at the halfway point in my fourth year of teaching (my second year at my second teaching job), I met with my principal for a midyear evaluation. The first thing he said to me was "Chris, I feel like your head and heart aren't in this. Unless you turn it around and start showing me something, I'm not going to renew your contract."I was making money from my side gig. I had clients — including one on retainer for about eight months at that point — and I had confidence, a portfolio, and a network. My rationale was: Imagine if I had my best 40 hours of the week to focus on the business instead of my worst 40 hours.A week later, I walked into the principal's office and handed him my resignation letter. I was free.When I started copywriting full time, I tried everything to get clientsA lot of people recommended cold-emailing. I did that at first and got almost no response. The few people who did respond weren't serious.It wasn't until I shifted to targeting business owners who expressed a need for copywriting help that I started to get traction. I found most of my early clients in various Facebook groups. Sometimes people would post about a project they needed help with or a job opening. Other times people would ask for feedback on their ads and emails, so I'd essentially give people free public consults. I started filming Loom videos of me going through their copy and giving them suggestions. Then I'd reply to their post with a link to the video.A lot of other people in those groups would watch these videos and see my feedback. I'd friend as many of these people as possible, and when they needed a writer, I was the guy they'd call.I also did some other stuff. One time I offered a free one-on-one, 60-minute email-marketing training session in one of the Facebook groups. I wound up giving the same slideshow presentation 24 times in two weeks to entrepreneurs who wanted to learn about email copywriting. It was painful, but it helped me hone my pitch.As I got more clients, I looked for more ways to market myselfI started noticing trends in what my prospects would ask about, such as how to structure an email launch sequence or how to increase open rates. So I decided that whenever I had a handful of people asking me the same question, I'd write an article answering it.I posted these articles on Medium because I didn't have a website. Once I launched my website, I started posting the articles there, in an email newsletter, and on my social-media pages. Eventually I stumbled into some pretty decent SEO, and people started finding my articles and website on Google.These people would sign up for my email list as well. As my list grew, I started emailing more to establish a relationship with my subscribers. Now I email just about every day. I also hold periodic webinars when I'm launching new products and enrolling new cohorts of students into my coaching programs.I also create video content for my YouTube channel. All the traffic flows back toward my email list, which I care about more than anything else in my business. My email list is where I get the lion's share of my clients. It's where most of my consulting work comes from, and it's a platform I own.There are a few things I did to charge — and get people to pay — high fees for my workFirst, I made myself "niche famous." Nobody would ever recognize me on the street, but I've become well known in the copywriting space because I've been publishing content on the topic every week for more than five years.Second, I embraced the laws of supply and demand. I'm only one guy, and I get new client leads on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis. I don't have time to work with everyone, so I can pick the cream of the crop and work only with people I really want to work with, at the fee I want to charge. If a client balks at my fee, that's fine; I've got clients lined up down the block and around the corner.Finally, I published content about the results I've gotten. Whenever I do a launch or email campaign that works well, I break it down so that other people can replicate that success in their own business, and I overwhelm people with proof. People are sold by the time they get on the phone with me.I don't spend a second convincing anyone they should hire me. That's what my content is for.If you want to make big money as a copywriter, you have to refuse to listen to reasonYou have to believe in yourself, even when you know your colleagues, friends, and even your family members think you're crazy.During the pandemic, I wanted to quit my business every week for two years straight. I was in a huge phase of growth, and I was reinvesting a ton of capital back into the business — and it felt like the whole world was conspiring against me.But when I laid my head down at night, I reminded myself why I was doing this. One reason was that my son was born a couple weeks after the lockdowns went into place. I had no idea what was going to happen, but I knew it was not time to slow down. I wasn't going to let my family down.I also knew that a lot of people needed my help. There were people who were just like me, trying to scale their businesses so they could leave their day jobs. There were clients who were trying to make sales to make payroll and keep their lights on. How could I fail them? I couldn't — it just wasn't an option. The only path was forward.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderDec 1st, 2022

From giant kites to foldable wings, here"s what container ships could look like by 2050 as companies race to decarbonize their supply chains

Companies are racing to find a sustainable — and scalable — replacement for gas-guzzling container ships. Here's what they've come up with so far. ©PIRIOU / courtesy of TransOceanic Wind Transport Shipping giants are racing to find scalable green alternatives to gas-guzzling container ships. From rotor sails and giant kites to retractable wings, some firms are attempting to re-invent the sail.  Other shipping giants are betting big on green methanol fuel derived from agricultural waste. With pressure from regulators to decarbonize international shipping, companies big and small are racing to identify green alternatives to the gas-guzzling container ships that account for an estimated 3% of global greenhouse emissions.Many of the ideas floating around today leverage some form of high-tech sail, a futuristic take on the wind-powered voyages that have transported goods for as long as global trade has existed. Geir Fagerheim, SVP of Marine Operations at the Swedish shipping company Wallenius Wilhelmsen, told Insider that a variety of factors need to be considered when designing a wind-powered cargo ship, including safety, functionality, crew comfort, and most importantly, speed. Oceanbird.Wallenius Marine"There's big pressure on having the shortest possible transit times on the ocean," he said. "But obviously, when you're going to push the vessels very fast and drive down transit time, it also comes at a very high environmental cost in the form of fuel consumption and emissions."In collaboration with several partners, Wallenius Wilhelmsen designed "Oceanbird," a cargo ship powered by retractable wing-like sails that the company claims will be able to carry 7,000 cars and reduce emissions by 90%.Developing the tech behind any sustainable cargo ship is impressive in itself, Fagerheim said, as ocean-faring vessels must carry all the energy they need along with them, compared to say an electric vehicle that can stop on the road to charge up. Combined with the lack of emissions-free fuel, wind is positioned to be the industry's most accessible clean energy source. Veer's clean cargo ship concept uses DynaRig sail technology and green hydrogen fuel cell engines to optimize speed.Courtesy of VeerBut the real challenge, Fagerheim said, is convincing clients to get onboard with the boat's slower transit time compared to a traditional container ship. No matter how innovative the tech itself is, he explained, it doesn't matter unless companies buy into the idea that a slightly slower delivery time is a worthy tradeoff.Together, the two challenges make maritime shipping "the hardest industry to abate in terms of carbon emissions," Fagerheim told Insider. TOWT's "cargo sailboat" scheduled to launch in June 2023 will hold 1,100 tonnes. By comparison, conventional container ships can handle loads of over 38,000 tonnes.©PIRIOU / courtesy of TransOceanic Wind TransportBut as more shoppers prioritize sustainability, some big name brands are pledging to use sustainable cargo ships once the designs become a reality. In September, cosmetics giant Lush announced it would ship products on the first vessel built by Veer, a ship-builder aiming to have two 100% emissions-free container ships on the water by the end of 2024.The start-up recently received an "approval in principal" from the American Bureau of Shipping, a classification that confirms the engineering behind untested technological concepts. Veer's cargo ship concept uses DynaRig sail technology and green hydrogen fuel cell engines to optimize transit times, and is designed to only carry lighter cargo. "Speed is a critical part of this design," Danielle Doggett, the founder and CEO of Veer, told Insider. "If we're committed to being completely zero emissions regardless, why not go fast? Why not create a performance sailing vessel?""I want to create the fastest container sailing ship that we can create," she added. Courtesy of AirseasBuilding entire new fleets of ships can get expensive. One company's solution is a parasail-like kite that automatically unfurls through a ship's front bridge window at the press of a button, towing the ship forward. The "Seawing" kite leads to a 20% decrease in gas emissions, according to Airseas. "K" Line, a Japanese shipping company, has signed a contract to purchase 50 of the automated kites over the next 20 years. Aircraft manufacturer Airbus has also placed an order, the company says, though how many is unclear. Norsepower's sea-cargo rotor sails create airflow through the "Magnus effect" and can fold up and down.Courtesy of Sea-CargoMaersk, one of the world's largest shipping companies, is betting that green methanol fuel is the key to reaching its net-zero emissions target by 2050. In October, the shipping giant ordered an additional six container vessels with dual-fuel engines able to operate on the sustainable fuel, bringing the total number to 19. The problem with methanol is that there isn't enough of the fuel to even account for 1% of the industry's yearly fuel consumption, as Grist reported last year. A render of Maersk's new methanol vessels.Courtesy of MaerskPalle Laursen, Chief Fleet & Technical Officer at Maersk, said green methanol is the best scalable sustainable fuel solution of the decade and that investing in its production "adds further momentum to the rapid scaling of availability needed to bring down the premium on the gas."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 23rd, 2022

Canadian Solar Reports Third Quarter 2022 Results

GUELPH, ON, Nov. 22, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Canadian Solar Inc. ("Canadian Solar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CSIQ) today announced financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2022, with 57% year-over-year ("yoy") revenue growth and net income of $1.12 per diluted share as the Company continues to prioritize profitable growth. Highlights 18.8% gross margin exceeds the guidance range of 15.0% to 16.5%. 57% increase in revenue to $1.93 billion, compared to $1.23 billion in 3Q 2021. 123% increase in net income attributable to Canadian Solar to $1.12 per diluted share compared to $0.52 per diluted share in 3Q 2021. 62% increase in solar module shipments to 6.0 GW, compared to 3.7 GW in 3Q 2021. Global Energy battery storage project development pipeline expands to 40 GWh and solar project development pipeline at 25 GWp, as of September 30, 2022. Company expects full year 2023 module shipments to be in the range of 30 GW to 35 GW, representing 56% yoy growth at the mid-point of the range. Carve-out IPO of CSI Solar Co., Ltd. ("CSI Solar" or the "CSI Solar subsidiary") back on track awaiting completion of CSRC registration. Dr. Shawn Qu, Chairman and CEO, commented, "We achieved a 123% increase in net income on a year-over-year basis, despite the headwinds from ongoing COVID-19 shutdowns and macroeconomic challenges. We continue to execute our long-term strategy and build on our competitive position with a further expansion of our upstream capacity and increased level of vertical integration in our solar manufacturing capacity. The benefits of greater control over our supply chain and an improved cost structure will further strengthen our competitive moat, driving a differentiated value proposition for our customers through better products with lower carbon footprint. We are also actively evaluating options in the U.S. market given the recent passing of the Inflation Reduction Act and its potential positive impact as another growth catalyst. Finally, after a short procedural pause, CSI Solar's carve-out IPO is back on track awaiting registration with the China Securities Regulatory Commission." Yan Zhuang, President of Canadian Solar's CSI Solar subsidiary, said, "We achieved significant growth in both profit and volume during the third quarter, driven by strong demand, ongoing reductions in manufacturing cost, and currency benefits from a strong U.S. Dollar relative to the Renminbi. CSI Solar continues to successfully balance growth and profitability, prioritizing margins by enhancing our pricing power in higher-priced markets and delivering greater system-value to our customers. With that in mind, we officially launched two proprietary battery storage products, the SolBank for large utility scale applications and the EP Cube for residential applications, which received an overwhelmingly positive response from customers. CSI Solar's battery storage turnkey pipeline at the end of the third quarter more than doubled to 25 GWh, with several new projects across the U.S. and Europe recently signed. Supported by strong partnerships through the battery storage supply chain, we are confident that energy storage will become an increasingly important driver of our long-term growth and value creation." Ismael Guerrero, Corporate VP and President of Canadian Solar's Global Energy subsidiary, said, "The third quarter was, as anticipated, a sequentially smaller but profitable quarter for Global Energy as we monetized around 890 MWp of solar projects. The majority of projects sold were earlier-stage pre-construction projects in the U.S. and Brazil, and a small operational project in Japan, supporting a 47% gross margin during the quarter. Strategically, we are focusing more resources on developing battery storage projects, both stand-alone and hybrid, where we have an edge and can not only help our customers de-carbonize operations and electric grids, but also de-risk project portfolios, enhance overall project values and meaningfully contribute to the stability and reliability of the grid." Dr. Huifeng Chang, Senior VP and CFO, added, "In the third quarter, we achieved 57% revenue growth year-over-year and expanded our gross margin to 18.8%, delivering net income of $1.12 per diluted share. Our team continues to do a great job managing inventory levels to support our customers, while maintaining a healthy balance sheet to support our long-term working capital, product roadmap and capacity expansion strategy. We ended the quarter with a total cash position of $2.0 billion and remain well positioned to benefit from the acceleration in growth the industry is seeing worldwide in both solar and battery storage." Third Quarter 2022 Results Total module shipments recognized as revenues in the third quarter of 2022 were 6.0 GW, up 62% yoy. Of the total, 196 MW were shipped to the Company's own utility-scale solar power projects. Net revenues in the third quarter of 2022 were up 57% yoy and down 16% quarter-over-quarter ("qoq") to $1.93 billion. The sequential decline primarily reflects lower revenue from project sales and battery storage solutions and a small decline in module average selling price ("ASP"). This was partially offset by higher solar module shipment volumes. The yoy improvement was mainly driven by an increase in module shipments and ASPs. Gross profit in the third quarter of 2022 was $363 million, up 59% yoy and down 2% qoq. Gross margin in the third quarter of 2022 was 18.8%, compared to 16.0% in the second quarter 2022, and considerably above prior guidance. The sequential gross margin increase was mainly driven by lower manufacturing costs that were also attributable to the depreciation of the Renminbi relative to the U.S. Dollar, higher margin contribution from project sales, and lower sales from battery storage solutions. Total operating expenses in the third quarter of 2022 were $274 million compared to $255 million in the second quarter of 2022 and $176 million in the third quarter of 2021. The sequential increase was mainly driven by an impairment charge related to certain manufacturing assets and higher shipping and handling expenses. Depreciation and amortization charges in the third quarter of 2022 were $56 million, compared to $63 million in the second quarter of 2022 and $71 million in the third quarter of 2021. Net interest income in the third quarter of 2022 was $4 million, compared to net interest expense of $15 million in the second quarter of 2022 and net interest expense of $11 million in the third quarter of 2021. The increase in net interest income was mainly driven by a one-time interest benefit of $17 million deriving from the interest income generated by the anti-dumping and countervailing duty deposit refunds. Net foreign exchange and derivative gain in the third quarter of 2022 was $39 million, compared to a net gain of $6 million in the second quarter of 2022 and a net loss of $14 million in the third quarter of 2021. The net foreign exchange gain was mainly driven by the strengthening of the U.S. Dollar against the Renminbi. Net income attributable to Canadian Solar in the third quarter of 2022 was $78 million, or $1.12 per diluted share ("diluted EPS"), compared to net income of $74 million, or $1.07 per diluted share, in the second quarter of 2022, and net income of $35 million, or $0.52 per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2021. For the three months ended September 30, 2022, diluted EPS of $1.12 was calculated to include the dilution effect of the outstanding convertible notes. Diluted EPS of $1.12 was calculated from total earnings of $80 million, adding back the 2.5% coupon of $1.3 million, divided by 71.4 million diluted shares, including 6.3 million shares issuable upon the conversion of the convertible notes. For the three months ended June 30, 2022, diluted EPS of $1.07 was calculated from total earnings of $76 million, adjusted for the effects of the convertible notes. For the three months ended September 30, 2021, diluted EPS of $0.52 was calculated from total earnings of $37 million, adjusted for the effects of the convertible notes. Net cash flow provided by operating activities in the third quarter of 2022 was $68 million, compared to $293 million in the second quarter of 2022. The decrease in operating cash inflow was mainly driven by changes in working capital. Total debt was $2.7 billion as of September 30 and June 30, 2022. Non-recourse debt used to finance solar power projects increased to $311 million as of September 30, 2022, from $264 million as of June 30, 2022. Corporate Structure The Company has two business segments: Global Energy and CSI Solar, which operate as follows: The Global Energy segment carries out the Company's global project development activities for both solar and battery storage project development, which include sourcing land, interconnection agreements, structuring power purchase agreements (PPAs) and other permits and requirements. The Global Energy segment develops both stand-alone solar and stand-alone battery storage projects, as well as hybrid solar plus storage projects. Its monetization strategies vary between develop-to-sell, build-to-sell, and build-to-own, depending on business strategies and market conditions, with the goal of maximizing returns, accelerating cash turn, and minimizing capital risk. The CSI Solar segment consists of solar module manufacturing and total system solutions, including inverters, solar system kits and EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) services. The CSI Solar segment also includes the Company's battery storage system integration business, delivering bankable, end-to-end, turnkey battery storage solutions for utility scale, commercial and industrial, and residential applications. These storage systems solutions are complemented with long-term service agreements, including future battery capacity augmentation services. Global Energy Segment Canadian Solar has one of the world's largest and most geographically diversified utility-scale solar and energy storage project development platforms, with a strong track record of originating, developing, financing, and building over 7.3 GWp of solar power plants across six continents. The Company has built a leadership position in solar project development with 25 GWp total pipeline, as well as in energy storage project development with 40 GWh of aggregate pipeline. The continued pipeline expansion and strong project development track record will support Global Energy's growth in three key areas:  1.      Project sales: The Company plans to grow its volume of project sales by a compound annual growth rate of approximately 50% to 2026, while holding and accumulating assets through investment vehicles (see below) in order to better capture asset value. 2.      Investment vehicles: The Company is optimizing its project monetization strategy by establishing local investment vehicles that will help maximize the value of its project assets. The Company also intends to retain minority ownership in these vehicles. By 2026, the Company plans to reach 1.3 GW of combined net ownership in solar power projects through these vehicles. This approach will help the Company build and grow a stable base of long-term cash flows from contracted electricity. The Company plans to recycle a large portion of the capital into developing new solar projects for growth. Meanwhile, the Company expects to capture additional operational value throughout the partial ownership period, including long-term cash flows from power sales, O&M, asset management and other services (see point 3). The Company currently owns a 15% stake in the Canadian Solar Infrastructure Fund ("CSIF", TSE: 9284), the largest Japanese infrastructure fund listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and has also established the CSFS Fund I, a closed-ended alternative investment fund of a similar nature in Italy. Through launching these localized vehicles, Canadian Solar is building its expertise in designing investment vehicles in local markets that will help maximize the value of its project assets. 3.      Services: The Company currently manages over 3.6 GW of operational projects under long-term O&M agreements, and an additional 2.2 GW of contracted projects that will be operated and maintained by the Company once they are placed in operation. The Company's target is to reach 20 GW of projects under O&M agreements by 2026. Management targets to achieve the following over the next few years: Global Energy Targets 2021A 2022E 2023E 2024E 2025E 2026E Annual Project Sales, GWp 2.1 2.2-2.3 2.8-3.3 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.3-4.8 Operational O&M Projects, GWp 2.1 4.2 7.5 11 15 20 Net Cumulative Projects Retained, MWp* 292 360 630 1,000 1,100 1,300 Gross Cumulative Projects Retained, MWp* 748 1,400 2,580 3,500 4,000 5,000 *Net projects retained represents CSIQ's net partial ownership of solar projects; the gross number represents the aggregate gross size of projects, including the share which is not owned by CSIQ. Project Pipeline – Solar As of September 30, 2022, the Company's total project pipeline was 25.0 GWp, including 1.0 GWp under construction, 5.2 GWp of backlog, and 18.8 GWp of projects in advanced and early-stage pipelines. We have updated our project pipeline classification as follows: Backlog projects are late-stage projects that have passed their Risk Cliff Date and are expected to start construction in the next 1-4 years. A project's Risk Cliff Date is the date on which the project passes the last high-risk development stage and varies depending on the country where it is located. This is usually after the projects have received all the required environmental and regulatory approvals, and entered into interconnection agreements, feed-in tariff ("FIT") arrangements and PPAs. Over 90% of projects in backlog are contracted (i.e., have secured a PPA or FIT), and the remaining are reasonably assured of securing PPAs. Advanced pipeline projects are mid-stage projects that have secured or have more than 90% certainty of securing an interconnection agreement. Early-stage pipeline projects are early-stage projects controlled by Canadian Solar that are in the process of securing interconnection. The following table presents Global Energy's total solar project development pipeline.   Total Project Pipeline (as of September 30, 2022) – MWp* Region In Construction Backlog Advanced Pipeline Early-Stage Pipeline Total North America - 603 2,125 3,818 6,546 Latin America 730** 3,211** 2,072 608 6,621 Europe, the Middle East and Africa ("EMEA") 21 379 4,067 1,880 6,347 Japan 46 156 - 105 307 Asia Pacific excluding Japan and China - 3 135 1,842 1,980 China 250 800** - 2,150 3,200 Total 1,047 5,152 8,399 10,403 25,001 *All numbers are gross MWp. **Including 189 MWp in construction and 670 MWp in backlog that are owned by or already sold to third parties.   Project Pipeline – Battery Storage In addition to developing utility-scale solar power projects, the Global Energy segment has also been developing hybrid solar plus energy storage projects, as well as stand-alone battery storage projects. The Company co-hosts energy storage facilities with solar power plants on the same piece of land for nearly all projects under development. By using a single interconnection point per project, the Company expects to significantly enhance the efficiency of its development and the value of its assets under development. Canadian Solar's storage development business model also includes signing storage tolling agreements with a variety of power purchasers, including community choice aggregators, investor-owned utilities, universities, and public utility districts. In addition, the Company has signed development services agreements to retrofit operational solar projects with battery storage, many of which were previously developed by the Company. The table below sets forth Global Energy's total battery storage project development pipeline. Storage Project Development Backlog and Pipeline (as of September 30, 2022) – MWh Region In Construction Backlog Advanced Pipeline Early-Stage Pipeline Total North America 1,400* - 4,776 8,600 14,776 Latin America - 2,300 1,806 970 5,076 EMEA - 82 2,608 6,000 8,690 Japan - - - 19 19 Asia Pacific, excluding Japan and China 20 462 - 2,320 2,802 China - 300 - 8,700 9,000 Total 1,420 3,144 9,190 26,609 40,363 * Including 1,120 MWh that have already been sold to a third party.   Projects in Operation - Solar and Battery Storage Power Plants As of September 30, 2022, the Company's solar power plants in operation totaled 508 MWp, with a combined estimated net resale value of approximately $575 million to Canadian Solar. The estimated resale value is based on selling prices that Canadian Solar is currently negotiating or comparable asset sales. Solar Power Plants in Operation – MWp* Latin America Japan Asia Pacific ex. Japan and China China Total 277 134 15 82 508 *All numbers are net MWp owned by Canadian Solar; total gross MWp of projects is 903 MWp, including volume that is already sold to third parties.   Operating Results The following table presents select unaudited results of operations data of the Global Energy segment for the periods indicated. Global Energy Segment Financial Results (In Thousands of U.S. Dollars, Except Percentages) Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended September 30,2022 June 30,2022 September 30,2021 September 30,2022 September 30,2021 Net revenues 100,925 553,984 139,989 747,875 891,665 Cost of revenues 53,366 473,979 78,848 602,475 705,740 Gross profit 47,559 80,005 61,141 145,400 185,925 Operating expenses 20,512 24,326 30,442 63,685 74,018 Income from operations* 27,047 55,679 30,699 81,715 111,907 Gross margin 47.1 % 14.4 % 43.7 % 19.4 % 20.9 % Operating margin 26.8 % 10.1 % 21.9 % 10.9 % 12.6 % * Income from operations reflects management's allocation and estimate as some services are shared by the Company's two business segments.   CSI Solar Segment Solar Modules CSI Solar shipped 6.0 GW of solar modules to more than 70 countries in the third quarter of 2022. The top five markets ranked by shipments were China, the U.S., Brazil, Spain and Germany. CSI Solar's 2022 and 2023 solar capacity expansion targets are set forth below. Solar Manufacturing Capacity, GW* Sep. 2022 Actual Dec. 2022Plan Jun. 2023 Plan Dec. 2023 Plan Ingot 14.4 20.4 20.4 25.0 Wafer 15.3 20.0 20.0 25.0 Cell 17.3 19.8 26.6 35.0 Module 31.3 32.2 36.7 50.0 *Nameplate annualized capacities at said point in time. Capacity expansion plans are subject to change without notice based on market conditions and capital allocation plans.   Battery Storage Solutions Within CSI Solar, the battery storage solutions team, namely CSI Energy Storage, provides customers with competitive turnkey, integrated, utility-scale battery storage solutions, including bankable and fully wrapped capacity and performance guarantees. These guarantees are complemented with long-term service agreements, which include future battery capacity augmentation services and bring in long-term, stable income. The table below sets forth CSI Energy Storage's project pipeline as of September 30, 2022, including projects contracted under long term service agreement.   LTSA (Long Term Service Agreement) Contracted/ In Construction Forecast Pipeline Total Storage (MWh) 861 2,372 4,304 17,345 24,882   LTSA projects are operational battery storage projects delivered by CSI Solar that are under multi-year long-term service agreements and generate recurring earnings. Contracted/in construction projects are expected to be delivered within the next 12 to 18 months. Forecast projects include those that have more than 75% probability of being contracted within the next 12 months, and the remaining pipeline includes projects that have received exclusivity agreements or have been shortlisted, but still have a below 75% probability of being contracted. In September 2022, CSI Solar launched the SolBank, an exciting new, self-manufactured battery storage product. The SolBank is a lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) chemistry-based battery enclosure with up to 2.8 MWh of usable energy capacity, specifically engineered for utility-scale applications. The SolBank is designed with liquid cooling and humidity control, active balancing BMS (Battery Management System) technologies, and complies with the latest international safety and compliance standards. CSI Energy Storage produces the SolBank on fully automated, state-of-the-art production and testing facilities. The table below sets forth CSI Energy Storage's battery storage manufacturing capacity expansion targets. Battery Storage ManufacturingCapacity, GWh* Sep. 2022 Actual Dec. 2022 Plan Dec. 2023 Plan SolBank 2.5 2.5 10.0 *Nameplate annualized capacities at said point in time. Capacity expansion plans are subject to change without notice based on market conditions and capital allocation plans.   Operating Results  The following table presents select unaudited results of operations data of the ...Full story available on»»

Category: earningsSource: benzingaNov 22nd, 2022

Medtronic reports second quarter fiscal 2023 financial results

Earnings delivered despite slower market procedure volume and supply recovery; Growth driven by TAVR, Pacing, U.S. Core Spine, and International Diabetes DUBLIN, Nov. 22, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Medtronic plc (NYSE:MDT) today announced financial results for its second quarter of fiscal year 2023, which ended October 28, 2022. Key Highlights Revenue of $7.6 billion decreased 3% as reported and increased 2% organic GAAP diluted EPS of $0.32 decreased 67%; non-GAAP diluted EPS of $1.30 decreased 2% Company updates guidance; expects organic revenue to accelerate in second half "We're taking decisive actions to improve the performance of the company."-Geoff Martha, Chairman & CEO The company reported worldwide revenue of $7.585 billion, a decrease of 3% as reported and an increase of 2% on an organic basis. The organic comparison excludes a $457 million negative impact from foreign currency translation and a $25 million contribution from the company's fiscal first quarter acquisition of Intersect ENT, which is reported in the Specialty Therapies division in the Neuroscience Portfolio. Unless otherwise stated, all revenue growth rates in this press release are on an organic basis, which excludes the impact of foreign currency translation and revenue from the Intersect ENT acquisition. The company's second quarter organic revenue results reflect slower supply recovery or lower than anticipated underlying market procedure volumes in certain businesses and the pricing impact of volume-based procurement in China. These challenges were partially offset by strength in certain product lines, including Transcatheter Aortic Valves (TAVR), Cardiac Pacing, Core Spine in the United States, and Diabetes in International. As reported, second quarter GAAP net income and diluted earnings per share (EPS) were $427 million and $0.32, respectively, both decreases of 67%. As detailed in the financial schedules included at the end of this release, second quarter non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted EPS were $1.725 billion and $1.30, respectively, decreases of 4% and 2%, respectively. Included in the company's GAAP earnings is a $764 million income tax reserve adjustment that was a direct result of the previously disclosed U.S. Tax Court opinion issued in the fiscal second quarter. The company's earnings decline also reflects the continued macroeconomic impact of inflation on materials, direct labor, freight, and utilities. Second quarter U.S. revenue of $4.069 billion represented 54% of company revenue and increased 2% as reported and 1% organic. Non-U.S. developed market revenue of $2.157 billion represented 28% of company revenue and decreased 13% as reported and increased 3% organic. Emerging Markets revenue of $1.359 billion represented 18% of company revenue and decreased 1% as reported and increased 4% organic. "Slower than predicted procedure and supply recovery drove revenue below our expectations this quarter. We continue to take decisive actions to improve the overall performance of the company, including streamlining our organizational structure, strengthening our supply chain, driving a performance culture, and strategically allocating capital to support our best growth opportunities with the investments they deserve," said Geoff Martha, Medtronic chairman and chief executive officer. "We're seeing the benefit of these changes – along with new incentives and strong execution – in certain businesses, and we're focused on ensuring these efforts translate into improved performance across the company. Looking ahead, we're confident we have a clear path to delivering durable growth and increased shareholder value."  Cardiovascular PortfolioThe Cardiovascular Portfolio includes the Cardiac Rhythm & Heart Failure (CRHF), Structural Heart & Aortic (SHA), and Coronary & Peripheral Vascular (CPV) divisions. Cardiovascular revenue of $2.773 billion decreased 2% as reported and increased 4% organic, with all three divisions returning to growth this quarter, including a high-single digit increase in SHA and low-single digit increases in CRHF and CPV, all on an organic basis. Cardiac Rhythm & Heart Failure revenue of $1.431 billion decreased 3% as reported and increased 3% organic. Cardiac Rhythm Management revenue increased mid-single digits, with mid-single digit growth in Cardiac Pacing Therapies driven by high-teens growth in Leadless Pacemakers from continued global adoption of Micra™ transcatheter pacing systems. Cardiovascular Diagnostics revenue increased low-single digits, as procedures remain under pressure market-wide. Cardiac Ablation Solutions revenue increased low-single digits, including low-double digit growth in the United States on the continued adoption of its Arctic Front™ cryoablation catheters. The company completed its acquisition of Affera in the second quarter, expanding its cardiac ablation portfolio to include technology under development, including its first-ever cardiac mapping and navigation platform that encompasses a differentiated, fully integrated diagnostic, focal pulsed field, and radiofrequency ablation solution. Structural Heart & Aortic revenue of $757 million increased 1% as reported and 8% organic. Structural Heart increased low-double digits, including mid-teens growth in transcatheter aortic valves (TAVR). Aortic increased mid-single digits with high-single digit growth in thoracic stent graft systems. Cardiac Surgery increased mid-single digits, driven by growth in surgical valves and perfusion systems. Coronary & Peripheral Vascular revenue of $584 million decreased 4% as reported and increased 2% organic. Coronary & Renal Denervation increased low-single digits on U.S. share gains from the recent launch of the Onyx Frontier™ drug-eluting stent, despite overall market percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures remaining flat in developed markets. Earlier this month, the company submitted the final module of the Symplicity Spyral™ renal denervation system premarket approval package to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Peripheral Vascular Health increased low-single digits, with growth in vascular embolization, drug-coated balloons, and superficial venous, partially offset by declines in directional atherectomy, peripheral stents, and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloons. Medical Surgical PortfolioThe Medical Surgical Portfolio includes the Surgical Innovations (SI) and the Respiratory, Gastrointestinal & Renal (RGR) divisions. Medical Surgical revenue of $2.070 billion decreased 10% as reported and 3% organic, with a low-double digit decline in RGR and partially offset by low-single digit growth in SI. Excluding the impact of ventilator sales given the increased COVID-19 related demand in the prior year, Medical Surgical revenue decreased 1% organic. Surgical Innovations revenue of $1.398 billion decreased 7% as reported and increased 1% organic. Advanced Surgical Instruments decreased low-single digits given expected acute supply chain shortages of raw materials and the impact of China provincial volume-based procurement (VBP) stapling tenders. These declines were partially offset by strength in Hernia & Wound Management, which increased mid-single digits. In Surgical Robotics, the company received three significant regulatory approvals for its Hugo™ robotic-assisted surgery system: Conformité Européenne (CE) Mark clearance for a general surgery indication, Health Canada license for a general laparoscopic surgery indication, and Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) approval for urological and gynecological indications in Japan. Respiratory, Gastrointestinal & Renal revenue of $671 million decreased 16% as reported and 11% organic. RGR revenue decreased 5% organic excluding the impact of ventilator sales. Respiratory Interventions decreased mid-twenties, with sales of ventilators declining low-fifties as demand continued to be well below pre-pandemic levels as expected. Patient Monitoring decreased mid-single digits, with expected low-double digit declines in Nellcor™ pulse oximetry products as COVID tailwinds abate, offset by low-double digit growth in Perioperative Complications products. The company announced last month its intention to separate the combined Respiratory Interventions and Patient Monitoring businesses. Gastrointestinal revenue decreased low-single digits given non-emergent procedure softness in the market, including low-double digit declines in Hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) products partially offset by low-single digit growth in Chronic and Colorectal products. Renal Care Solutions decreased low-double digits given product availability challenges. Medtronic announced in May its intention to contribute its Renal Care Solutions business into a new, independent kidney care-focused medical device company together with DaVita. Neuroscience PortfolioThe Neuroscience Portfolio includes the Cranial & Spinal Technologies (CST), Specialty Therapies, and Neuromodulation divisions. Neuroscience revenue of $2.186 billion increased 2% as reported and 5% organic, with a high-single digit increase in Specialty Therapies, a mid-single digit increase in CST, and a flat result year-over-year in Neuromodulation, all on an organic basis. Cranial & Spinal Technologies revenue of $1.081 billion increased 1% as reported and 5% organic. Spine & Biologics increased mid-single digits, with mid-teens growth in the United States partially offset by the impact of the China national volume-based procurement (VBP) spine tender. Neurosurgery increased high-single digits, with double digit growth in robotics, navigation, and powered surgical instruments. Specialty Therapies revenue of $686 million increased 8% as reported and 9% organic. Neurovascular increased high-single digits, with double digit growth in mechanical thrombectomy, aspiration, flow diversion, and liquid embolic products. Pelvic Health increased low-single digits on continued profitable growth despite competitive pressure. ENT increased high-teens on an organic basis driven by strength in Straightshot™ microdebriders, NIM Vital™ nerve monitoring systems, and StealthStation™ ENT navigation systems. Neuromodulation revenue of $419 million decreased 4% as reported and was flat year-over-year organic. Pain Therapies increased mid-single digits, with high-single digit growth in Targeted Drug Delivery and mid-single digit growth in Pain Stim. Interventional decreased mid-single digits on product availability challenges and competitive pressure. Brain Modulation decreased low-single digits, as significant declines of replacement devices were partially offset by increased share of initial implants from the continued adoption of the Percept™ PC deep brain stimulation (DBS) system and SenSight™ directional DBS lead system. DiabetesDiabetes revenue of $556 million decreased 5% as reported and increased 3% organic. U.S. revenue declined low-double digits, given the absence of new product approvals. This was offset by mid-teens growth in non-U.S. developed markets and low-double digit growth in emerging markets. International sales were driven by high-teens growth of insulin pumps, low-twenties growth of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) products, and high-single digit growth in consumable sales. GuidanceThe company today issued revenue growth guidance for the remainder of the fiscal year and updated its fiscal year 2023 EPS guidance range. The company expects fiscal year 2023 second half revenue growth of 3.5% to 4.0% on an organic basis, an acceleration over the first half. If foreign currency exchange rates as of the beginning of November hold, revenue growth in fiscal year 2023 would be negatively affected by approximately $1.740 billion to $1.840 billion versus the previously stated $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion impact. The company now expects fiscal year 2023 diluted non-GAAP EPS in the range of $5.25 to $5.30. EPS guidance includes an estimated 18 cent negative impact from foreign currency at rates as of the beginning November. "We continue to expect organic revenue growth acceleration, with the second half growing faster than the first. However, given a slower pace of market and supply recovery, we're reducing our revenue expectations for the remainder of the year," said Karen Parkhill, Medtronic chief financial officer. "On the bottom line, we are driving expense reductions throughout the company to help offset the lower revenue and the effects of cost inflation. We are also committed to investing appropriately for the long-term, allocating capital to our most promising growth drivers and executing tuck-in acquisitions, all designed to reach more patients and create greater value for our shareholders." Webcast InformationMedtronic will host a webcast today, November 22, at 8:00 a.m. EST (7:00 a.m. CST) to provide information about its businesses for the public, investors, analysts, and news media. This webcast can be accessed by clicking on the Events icon at, and this earnings release will be archived at Within 24 hours of the webcast, a replay of the webcast and transcript of the company's prepared remarks will be available by clicking on the Events icon at Medtronic plans to report its fiscal year 2023 third and fourth quarter results on February 21, 2023, and Thursday, May 25, 2023, respectively. Confirmation and additional details will be provided closer to the specific event. Financial Schedules The second quarter financial schedules and non-GAAP reconciliations can be viewed by clicking on the Investor Events link at To view a printable PDF of the financial schedules and non-GAAP reconciliations, click here. To view the second quarter earnings presentation, click here.   MEDTRONIC PLC WORLD WIDE REVENUE(1) (Unaudited) SECOND QUARTER SECOND QUARTER YEAR-TO-DATE REPORTED CONSTANT CURRENCY REPORTED CONSTANT CURRENCY (in millions) FY23 FY22 Growth Currency Impact(2) FY23 Growth(3) FY23 FY22 Growth Currency Impact(2) FY23 Growth(3) Cardiovascular $    2,773 $    2,827 (1.9) % $     (177) $    2,950 4.4 % $    5,486 $    5,717 (4.0) % $     (315) $    5,801 1.5 % Cardiac Rhythm & Heart Failure 1,431 1,471 (2.7) (91) 1,522 3.5 2,824 2,954 (4.4) (162) 2,986 1.1 Structural Heart & Aortic 757 750 0.9 (54) 811 8.1 1,499 1,537 (2.5) (96) 1,595 3.8 Coronary & Peripheral Vascular 584 606 (3.6) (32) 616 1.7 1,163 1,226 (5.1) (57) 1,220 (0.5) Medical Surgical 2,070 2,299 (10.0) (149) 2,219 (3.5) 4,071 4,621 (11.9) (264) 4,335 (6.2) Surgical Innovations 1,398 1,497 (6.6) (107) 1,505 0.5 2,736 3,051 (10.3) (189) 2,925 (4.1) Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, & Renal 671 802 (16.3) (42) 713 (11.1) 1,335 1,570 (15.0) (75) 1,410 (10.2) Neuroscience 2,186 2,136 2.3 (85) 2,271 6.3 4,301 4,340 (0.9) (149) 4,450 2.5 Cranial & Spinal Technologies 1,081 1,067 1.3 (35) 1,116 4.6 2,124 2,189 (3.0) (64) 2,188 — Specialty Therapies 686 634 8.2 (31) 717 13.1 1,353 1,275 6.1 (53) 1,406 10.3 Neuromodulation 419 435 (3.7) (18) 437 0.5 824 875 (5.8) (33) 857 (2.1) Diabetes 556 585 (5.0) (47) 603 3.1 1,098 1,157 (5.1) (80) 1,178 1.8 TOTAL $    7,585 $    7,847 (3.3) % $     (457) $    8,042 2.5 % $   14,955 $   15,835 (5.6) % $     (808) $   15,763 (0.5) % (1) The data in this schedule has been intentionally rounded to the nearest million and, therefore, may not sum. (2) The currency impact to revenue measures the change in revenue between current and prior year periods using constant exchange rates. (3) The three and six months ended October 28, 2022 includes $25 million and $45 million, respectively, of inorganic revenue related to the Intersect ENT acquisition, which is included in the reported results of the Specialty Therapies division of the Neuroscience portfolio. When excluding the impact of currency and the inorganic Intersect ENT revenue for three and six months ended October 28, 2022, revenue increased 2.2 percent organic and declined 0.7 percent organic, respectively.   MEDTRONIC PLC U.S.(1)(2) REVENUE SECOND QUARTER SECOND QUARTER YEAR-TO-DATE REPORTED REPORTED (in millions) FY23 FY22 Growth(3) FY23 FY22 Growth(3) Cardiovascular $          1,424 $          1,373 3.7 % $          2,722 $          2,793 (2.5) % Cardiac Rhythm & Heart Failure 790 761 3.8 1,507 1,530 (1.5) Structural Heart & Aortic 348 327 6.4 660 674 (2.1) Coronary & Peripheral Vascular 286 286 — 555 589 (5.8) Medical Surgical 905 970 (6.7) 1,748 1,959 (10.8) Surgical Innovations 560 550 1.8 1,069 1,170 (8.6) Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, & Renal 345 420 (17.9) 679 790 (14.1) Neuroscience 1,512 1,394 8.5 2,931 2,840 3.2 Cranial & Spinal Technologies 817 749 9.1 1,580 1,544 2.3 Specialty Therapies 403 354 13.8 784 714 9.8 Neuromodulation 291 291 — 567 582 (2.6) Diabetes 228 261 (12.6) 434 506 (14.2) TOTAL $          4,069 $          3,997 1.8 % $          7,835 $          8,098 (3.2) % (1) U.S. includes the United States and U.S. territories. (2) The data in this schedule has been intentionally rounded to the nearest million and, therefore, may not sum. (3) The three and six months ended October 28, 2022 includes $25 million and $45 million, respectively, of inorganic revenue related to the Intersect ENT acquisition, which is included in the reported results of the Specialty Therapies division of the Neuroscience portfolio. When excluding the impact of currency and the inorganic Intersect ENT revenue for three and six months ended October 28, 2022, revenue increased 1.2 percent organic and declined 3.8 percent organic, respectively.   MEDTRONIC PLC WORLD WIDE REVENUE: GEOGRAPHIC (1)(2) (Unaudited) SECOND QUARTER SECOND QUARTER YEAR-TO-DATE REPORTED CONSTANT CURRENCY REPORTED CONSTANT CURRENCY (in millions) FY23 FY22 Growth Currency Impact(3) FY23 Growth(4) FY23 FY22 Growth Currency Impact(3) FY23 Growth(4) U.S. $     1,424 $     1,373 3.7 % $         — $     1,424 3.7 % $     2,722 $     2,793 (2.5) % $         — $     2,722 (2.5) % Non-U.S. Developed 802 948 (15.4) (148) 950 0.2 1,694 1,952 (13.2) (271) 1,965 0.7 Emerging Markets 546 506 7.9 (28) 574 13.4 1,070 972 10.1 (44) 1,114 14.6 Cardiovascular 2,773 2,827 (1.9) (177) 2,950 4.4 5,486 5,717 (4.0) (315) 5,801 1.5 U.S. 905 970 (6.7) — 905 (6.7) 1,748 1,959 (10.8) — 1,748 (10.8) Non-U.S. Developed 719 841 (14.5) (129) 848 0.8 1,485 1,710 (13.2) (233) 1,718 0.5 Emerging Markets 446 488 (8.6) (19) 465 (4.7) 838 951 (11.9) (30) 868 (8.7) Medical Surgical 2,070 2,299 (10.0) (149) 2,219 (3.5) 4,071 4,621 (11.9) (264) 4,335 (6.2) U.S. 1,512 1,394 8.5 — 1,512 8.5 2,931 2,840 3.2 — 2,931 3.2 Non-U.S. Developed 382 433 (11.8) (70) 452 4.4 788 898 (12.2) (126) 914.....»»

Category: earningsSource: benzingaNov 22nd, 2022

Toxic workplace culture is the top reason people quit their jobs. Here are 26 signs you have a bad boss fueling your unhappiness.

Aggression and unprofessionalism from a manager or CEO can impact your mental health, research shows. Elon Musk.Adrees Latif/Reuters A top reason people quit their jobs is because of toxic workplace cultures, per MIT.  Elon Musk's recent "extremely hardcore" ultimatum is an example of bad leadership. If you don't quit, there are some ways to mend your relationship like trying to find common ground. Elon Musk recently gave Twitter workers an ultimatum: Either agree to the company's "extremely hardcore" reset of its working culture or leave with a severance package. Hundreds of workers, per reports, said "goodbye." That type of ultimatum is characteristic of poor leadership, and at least at Twitter, workers aren't having it. "A bad boss won't just jeopardize your career growth — they'll also negatively impact your personal life," says Lynn Taylor, a national workplace expert, author, and leadership coach. "A good manager will bring out the best in you and have a more uplifting affect on all aspects of your life."It's important to know whether you've got a bad boss on your hands so you can "take measures to mitigate the stress and own greater power in the relationship" as soon as possible, she adds. Some ways you can try mending your relationship include looking for commonalities to bond over, and proactively offering to help lighten their workload, CNN reported.Based on an interview with Taylor and using the books "Bad Bosses, Crazy Coworkers & Other Office Idiots" by Vicky Oliver and "The Asshole Survival Guide" by Bob Sutton, Insider compiled 26 signs your boss will eventually crush all happiness you're clinging to — and steps you can take along the way.Elon Musk's failed ultimatum to employees is characteristic of a leadership style many would characterize as overly aggressive.The Wolf of Wall Street/Paramount PicturesYour boss lies.Antonio Guillem/ShutterstockA boss who lies is untrustworthy — not a good foundation for a productive relationship. "Some can become so immune to their own stories that they can convince themselves that the lies are true," says Taylor. "They may legitimize their fibbing by rationalizing that others do it, deflect this character flaw by pointing the finger to others, or use mistruths to generally hide blunders."Other bad bosses just can't face the fallout that will result from telling the truth."Examine what motivates your boss to lie," she suggests. "Make sure you have all your facts before you start any questioning. And remember that it's best to encourage honesty than to go on the offense or use sarcasm."Your boss is never, ever wrong.Luis Alvarez/Getty ImagesLearning to admit that you're wrong is one of the best things you can do for your colleagues.Ask Lexi Reese, the COO of Gusto and a former Googler, and she'll tell you the best thing a boss can do is communicate to their reports the type of leader they aspire to be and then say, "But I also am human and I'll probably f—k it up." Most importantly, the boss should encourage their reports to let them know when they're falling short.If your boss refuses to admit that they're wrong, this means they're not willing to go out of their comfort zone for you.A national independent study by Lynn Taylor Consulting found that 91% of employees said that owning up to one's mistakes as a manager was an important factor in employee job satisfaction."Admitting to mistakes sends a message to your employees that it's a safe environment to take smart risks — and without that, you're sapping innovation," Taylor says.Your boss overpromises.WeStudio/ShutterstockAn overpromising boss is an untrustworthy boss. "You might have been promised a series of promotions, increased responsibility, or a raise, but all you get is silence," says Taylor. "It's often helpful to get to the truth through emails, if one-on-one discussions are getting you nowhere. If the responses aren't coming via email, or at all, be wary." They're quick to blame you for mistakes, but rarely express gratitude when you succeed.Getty ImagesDoes your boss put you down in front of others? If you let it go once, it'll happen over and over again. Good bosses know they should have this conversation with their employees in private.Oliver suggests apologizing to your boss behind closed doors."While it may sound counterintuitive to apologize to someone for something that clearly wasn't your fault, amazing things happen when you can bring yourself to do so," she writes. "An intimate bond is forged. All you have to say is something akin to, 'I blame myself for your outburst earlier today. Clearly, I've been relying on you too much. If you have any issues with me, I'd appreciate hearing about them in the privacy of my office.'"Your boss expects you to be just like them.Larry Busacca/Getty ImagesMost people like others who are similar to them.But good bosses know that different types of personalities can improve their team. According to Goldman Sachs HR head Sally Boyle, the best thing a manager can do to help their employees succeed is get to know them as individuals.If your boss is constantly trying to cast their image onto everything you do, try following one or two of their suggestions and thank them for the rest. Stay true to your colors, but also show that you value your boss' suggestions.Your boss is a micromanager.Scientist Matt Manahan looks at data as he works in a laboratory at the Merck company facilities in Kenilworth, N.J.AP Photo/Mel EvansIs your boss so pushy and overbearing that you find yourself unable to accomplish anything efficiently? This may be a perpetual problem, so get ready for it early.If they want a play-by-play of every meeting, email, and call, then take detailed notes of every business interaction and send them to your boss, suggests Oliver. Your boss will think that they're on top of things and will leave you alone."By over-communicating with a micromanager or needy boss, you'll diffuse their desire to constantly check in, while you build all-important trust at the same time," says Taylor.They have a pesky habit of calling you on your day off.Heino Kalis/ReutersYou put in your hours and get permission for a long weekend off, but your boss doesn't hesitate to call you during your off hours. To deal with this kind of boss, Oliver says you need to set your boundaries early."'Separation anxiety' can kick in if you have a power-hungry boss, and you inadvertently chip away at that power," adds Taylor. "You're best served to instill a sense of comfort with a terrible boss who's demanding, much as you would with a 'terrible two' toddler — whether you plan to take a day off, leave early, arrive late, or take vacation." If you're going to be gone, give ample warning and let them know that things are under control, with appropriate detail.Your boss has favorites.Delmaine Donson/Getty ImagesThis will cloud their ability to recognize your skills and the value you add to the company. They also fail to see that they're treating you unfairly."No matter how hard you work, or the results you achieve, they somehow become dwarfed by those of the teacher's pet," Taylor explains. "It's worth modeling good behavior in this scenario, praising others on your staff or those in other departments, for their team effort. You're giving recognition to those who deserve it and demonstrating the powerful impact that has for people like you."They don't want to hear your viewpoint.REUTERS/ Issei KatoStubborn bosses are as common as company water coolers. "But there's a fine line between appearing insubordinate and arguing your case," says Taylor. If there's something in it for your boss, you have the best chance of changing behavior. "Avoid the temptation to fight the same battles repeatedly. Change your argument to find compromise, and document your case if you're passionate about your perspective. Just don't win the battle and lose the war."Your boss hogs the limelight.REUTERS/Larry DowningDoes your boss constantly use the word "I" when associating with success? Do they fail to invite you to meetings to present your own work?They may be intentionally keeping you out of the limelight so that they can stay in it, warns Oliver."Territorialism is in the DNA of a bad boss," Taylor adds. "They can become glory hogs and take credit for your hard work. Your best option is to manage up and understand the real root of the problem."Their feedback isn't relevant.Rafa Elias/GettyDo you feel like you've gained nothing after receiving feedback from your boss? Is it so vague that it's not helpful? Your boss may either be unsure of what to tell you, meaning they're not equipped for the job, or they don't want to tell you anything useful, says Oliver.Your boss could be withholding information in order to have some kind of advantage. This person is not a team player."You'll have to decide if your career will remain stagnant reporting to this boss; if a lateral move is possible; or if you can still grow due to interactions with other senior members of the team," says Taylor.Your boss gossips. Getty ImagesWhen your manager spreads rumors or gossips about the staff, it's disheartening and awkward — and entirely unprofessional. "Your terrible boss may try to drag you in, but you're better off diplomatically staying out of the fray," says Taylor. "Otherwise, you may find yourself inadvertently alienating others if word spreads further."Try segues that bring current projects back into focus: "Hmm, I hadn't heard that. But while I have your attention, I'd like to mention some good news about the XYZ account."They tease or flirt.Andrew Burton / Getty ImagesJokes that are at your expense can be upsetting. Bad bosses have trouble seeing that by relentlessly teasing people who aren't their equals, it can be hurtful, Taylor explains. "They lack the emotional intelligence to see the difference between humor and insults."Equally as inappropriate, or worse, are bosses who cross the line and flirt. "It may not qualify as sexual harassment (if it does, don't allow it and speak up early)," she says, "but it might be unwanted comments that are borderline, and seem flirtatious or awkward."If the comments are merely friendly and build rapport, great. If anything more than that, you have reason to push back and address it privately. Your boss constantly changes their mind.Tesla Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, reacts to a reporter's question following the electric automaker’s initial public offering on Nasdaq, Tuesday, June, 29, 2010 in New York.AP Photo/Mark LennihanDoes this sound familiar? In the morning, they tell you one thing. After lunch, it's a different story. "Pick the [suggestion] that benefits you most and pursue that direction," Oliver advises. "Kick the habit of being dependent on him in the first place. Never ask for permission. Instead, simply inform him of your intentions. If he has a problem with any of your decisions, he'll let you know."Taylor says fickle bosses are challenging, because they can trigger never-ending false starts. "And that can affect the initiatives you give to your team, causing a colossal productivity and morale drain."It's often better to wait before going full bore on a whim from this kind of boss, she says. "Also, you can be the voice of reason by asking non-threatening, thoughtful questions about the newest idea or flavor of the day. That can give a terrible boss pause, and foster a more strategic approach next time you're given an 'urgent' project."You're not given a chance to grow.Crystal Cox/Business InsiderThere are few things more aggravating at work than being kept stagnant with the same routine responsibilities over a long period of time, especially after you've voiced interest in expanding your level of contribution."If you feel your sentiments are going unheard, you may still proactively demonstrate your more strategic skills on a current project and propose them to your boss; contribute new ideas to your boss' pet project; get more specific with how your background and credentials could specifically be better tapped for XYZ initiatives; or, with your manager's permission, offer to volunteer on a related department's project where your skill set applies, building on your existing credentials," says Taylor.They're passive aggressive or ignore you.Business InsiderOne of the most unnerving, telltale signs of a terrible boss is one who rarely lets you know where you (or they) stand. "Most employees would rather get direct criticism from their manager than face a seemingly pleasant, but backstabbing boss," Taylor explains.If they're simply not attentive, that's also a problem. "When your boss has the attention span of a fly, it not only saps your motivation; you feel like you're spinning your wheels," she says. "Try observing how others get the manager's attention." Your boss has mood swings.Visitors at Knott's Berry Farm ride the new HangTime rollercoaster during it's first day of public operation in Buena Park on Friday, May 11, 2018.Jeff Gritchen/Digital First Media/Orange County Register via Getty Images"Not everyone is even-keeled all the time. But a bad boss can be a charmer in the morning and a Raging Bull an hour later, depending on events of the day," Taylor says. "You can easily overreact and follow suit with the wide swings. Or, you can be the even-tempered professional who suppresses the 'sky is falling' dynamic."By offering rational thinking — "That's true, but we have until tomorrow to finish the project, and that's more than enough time," for example — you can demonstrate a more constructive approach. "Realize, too, that this yo-yo behavior is rarely directed solely at you."Your boss never discusses your future with you.Reuters / Lee Jae WonAre the discussions with your manager mostly transactional, with rare discussions about your future growth path? A good boss will discuss your prospects for long-term growth within the company — and not just during your performance evaluation, Taylor explains. "Savvy bosses check in with their team on a regular basis, rather than being reactive or waiting for an emergency, such as your brand-new job offer."It's getting harder for you to wake up in the morning.Reuters/Dan KitwoodIf you have a knot in your gut every time you have to face your boss, or if it's taking you twice as long to drag yourself out of bed every morning, take notice. You may just have a terrible boss."The worst thing you can do is nothing," says Taylor. "Better to first examine if this is a relationship worth salvaging with some diplomatic, high-road tactics."Your boss throws tantrums easily.ShutterstockNo one should be subjected to an out-of-control boss. In fact, leadership experts say the most effective managers are pretty boring, i.e. emotionally stable.If you've noticed your boss getting out of control, "your next step might be to check out your favorite job board," says Taylor.But if your manager only has occasional outbursts, you may be able to work through the situation."Consider the acronym CALM:Communicate — more frequently and in a venue that works for your bossAnticipate problems before they worsen, and have solutionsLaugh — use levity to help your boss keep a rational perspectiveManage up — set limits with your bosses diplomatically, and let them see the benefits of your suggestions.Timing is important with emotionally prone bosses. Don't go into the lion's den in your zeal for approvals, and certainly avoid early mornings, just before lunch, or after some bad company news."Your boss is self-centered.shironosov/Getty ImagesDoes you boss truly believe that the world revolves around them? "Some bosses immediately take the conversation to themselves; what happened to them, their latest golf score, a conversation they had ... you get the picture," Taylor says. "You can become more adept at getting to your agenda by saying something like, 'That's interesting. It reminds me of the project you gave me yesterday.' And then don't stop talking until you've safely equalized the conversation."None of your coworkers speak up.Fizkes/ShutterstockIf someone is scared of their boss, they're not going to speak up, "The Asshole Survival Guide" guide author said. "When people with less power try to speak up, they get shut down," Sutton told Business Insider. "There's sort of a cold silence as leaders talk. That, to me, is a sign of fear." It's an indication not everyone's ideas are heard and that there are stark differences in the way people at different levels are treated, he said.Your ideas never go anywhere.GaudiLab/ShutterstockThere's a certain type of evil boss that will never tell you "No" to your face. Instead, they'll listen to your ideas, and then let them fall by the wayside, according to Sutton."They pretend to enthusiastically agree with every decision you make or idea that you have, but rather than telling you when they disagree, they never actually implement the ideas, or do the exact opposite, or intentionally implement the decisions or ideas so badly that failure is inevitable. Then they bad-mouth you and other colleagues behind your backs for your terrible ideas and judgment," Sutton writes. Your work is never enough.Christopher Furlong/Getty Images"It's 8:30 am and your inbox is crashing the corporate server due to your boss' excessive requests and inquiries," Taylor says. "You could work 24/7 and still find your boss dissatisfied."Your manager must realize that you have limited time in a day, and can't do all things (well) at once. If you don't speak up, your boss will keep pushing. Projects are suddenly whisked away.Brendon Thorne/Getty"You're given the plum project of the year on Friday, but on Monday, John is now somehow in charge," Taylor says. "It feels like the rug was just pulled from under your cubicle."You have the right to get clarity, albeit tactfully, she explains. You want to avoid: "Why is John handling my project?!" Use a cool-down period to collect your thoughts, diffusing any signs of emotion.Try something like this in a face-to-face meeting: "I want to do the best job I can here and was really looking forward to managing that project. What happened that changed that plan?""You may not be the only one on the receiving side of this form of mismanagement, so don't assume you're being singled out," she says. "If you're seeing a pattern of losing work assignments, ask to handle specific new projects and gauge the responses before making your next move."Your boss operates by irrational fear.David Rogers/Getty ImagesIf your boss acts as if the world is coming to an end, that spawns fear throughout the office and hurts your concentration. "Try to be a beacon of rationality by posing the 'what ifs' to your boss, and point out the positives of the situation with real facts," Taylor says.Jacquelyn Smith and Vivian Giang contributed to earlier versions of this article which was originally published in 2016. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: dealsSource: nytNov 18th, 2022

Gen. Flynn Warns Of An FBI Perjury Trap For Trump, "Like They Tried To Set Me Up"

Gen. Flynn Warns Of An FBI Perjury Trap For Trump, 'Like They Tried To Set Me Up' Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClear Investigations, With the D.C. Beltway awash in rumors that former President Trump will be indicted after the Nov. 8 midterms, the FBI may have “set a perjury trap” at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, according to his former national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.   In June, the FBI suspected Trump hid classified papers from his presidential collection that it had subpoenaed on behalf of the National Archives, which sought them after Trump left the White House. Two months later, agents raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, seizing more than 11,000 documents, of which fewer than 1% were marked classified.   Now a federal grand jury is investigating whether Trump and his aides conspired to conceal the documents from agents and made false statements when certifying they produced all of them.   Flynn told RealClearInvestigations that the FBI and DOJ are using semantics to target Trump.  Flynn points out that FBI agents in a May 11 subpoena asked Trump for all documents in his custody “bearing classification markings,” as opposed to classified documents, which he says was a carefully worded distinction designed to trip up the former president. The FBI declined to comment.  What’s the Difference?  Flynn says that Trump and the custodian of his records likely believed many documents were no longer classified or had classification markings that had been voided or revised. Therefore, he speculates, his lawyers searched for and turned over records they believed to still be classified, and in turn, certified that they were in full compliance with the subpoena.  Christina Bobb, Trump lawyer: Questioned by prosecutors. Christina Bobb, one of Trump’s lawyers acting as the custodian of his records, certified in a sworn statement on June 3 that “any and all responsive documents” had been handed over and that none were withheld. It now appears that the statement was untrue, since many documents marked classified were still at Mar-a-Lago. Bobb, who has hired a criminal defense attorney, recently was questioned by prosecutors who reportedly want to know if Trump directed her to make the statement.   Flynn said that the parsing of the subpoena suggests trickery. He said agents and prosecutors were very clever asking for documents that bear classification markings rather than classified documents, which may have led Trump and his custodian into a "perjury trap."   “The way they stated specifically what they were looking for — documents that have classified markings versus classified documents— it is a semantics drill that a team of smart but corrupt lawyers in DOJ would come up with,” Flynn said in an interview with RCI.   “The FBI arrives and asks very specific questions and DJT's lawyers think everything is fine when they leave,” he added. "But then they go back to a sequestered grand jury and the entrapment drill begins."   Prosecutors used similar hedging words to describe the documents seized in the Mar-a-Lago raid. In an Aug. 25 court filing, Jay Bratt, the Justice official running the investigation, said that “the government executed a search warrant at the premises owned by the former president and seized documents marked as classified.” Again, he did not say they found classified information. On June 3, Bratt and a handful of FBI agents visited Mar-a-Lago and picked up a batch of documents from Trump and his lawyers, while allegedly thanking them for their cooperation. They advised only that they add a more secure lock to the storage facility.  Flynn said it might as well have been a “sting operation.” If they thought additional documents remained there, he explained, they could have issued another subpoena for them. Instead, they secretly monitored Trump’s security camera footage for months before returning on Aug. 8 with an army of more than 30 armed agents who rummaged through every bedroom and closet at Trump’s home — including those of his wife and son.   Flynn said the FBI and Justice Department, who prosecuted him for lying to FBI agents, are using similar tactics against Trump. The charges against Flynn were later dropped, but the FBI and DOJ succeeded in pushing him out of the White House. “They are trying to set up the former president at Mar-a-Lago like they tried to set me up,” Flynn told RCI.   Flynn is not alone in his suspicions. Some FBI vets point to other signs their old agency may have played dirty pool at Mar-a-Lago. Former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker pointed to unredacted portions of the FBI affidavit supporting the search warrant which suggest that investigators may have set Trump up for failure. It turns out that Trump, by keeping the records at his estate, may actually have been complying with recent Justice Department directives not to move them.   “What stood out to me in the affidavit was how he was ordered to keep the records on the premises until further notice and then was hit with a search warrant because he kept the records on the premises,” Swecker told RCI.   The affidavit reveals that on June 8, Bratt wrote to Trump’s lawyer demanding that his papers remain in storage at Mar-a-Lago. “We ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice,” the official requested.   But then several weeks later, the FBI asked a magistrate judge in West Palm Beach for permission to search Trump’s property because there was probable cause to believe that “presidential records remain at the premises,” according to the Aug. 5 affidavit.  What’s more, the affidavit complained that Trump’s locked basement storage facility and his office were “not currently authorized locations for the storage of classified information.” Added the Washington-based special FBI agent who swore out the warrant: “I do not believe that any spaces within the premises have been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of FPOTUS’s [Former President of the United States’] presidential administration on Jan. 20, 2021.” But Flynn and others say the FBI likely believed this to be the case because of the little-known fact that President Biden broke with longstanding tradition when he took office and ordered the intelligence community to stop giving intelligence briefings to his predecessor; that effectively decertified the special secure room known as a “SCIF" — Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility — which Trump had set up at Mar-a-Lago to receive daily intelligence briefings and classified reports when he vacationed there as president. All former presidents receive such briefings, which are conducted in such secure rooms th eymaintain in their home offices. But Biden argued that because Trump was “erratic,” he posed a potential national security threat. Biden therefore ordered he be cut off from receiving the same reports provided Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. As a result, DOJ appears to now be punishing Trump for allegedly storing and mishandling sensitive government documents in a room that was once authorized for such storage but only became unauthorized when Biden cancelled Trump’s classified briefings. That’s not Trump’s fault, Flynn argued. He said it was Biden’s actions that set Trump up for prosecutors to make the complaint against him. Biden Involved Despite repeated and unqualified White House denials that politics played any role in this drama, Biden was involved in the Mar-a-Lago fray. In April, correspondence reveals, the Justice Department asked the president to request that the National Archives provide the FBI access to boxes of documents Trump had earlier turned over to the White House-controlled agency. The next month, the FBI subpoenaed Trump for additional records. Nonetheless, Biden has insisted he and the White House were completely in the dark about the Mar-a-Lago raid and investigation.   Swecker doubts the government has a prosecutable case, judging from the affidavit and other court filings, which make clear the raid developed from a civil dispute between Trump and the National Archives, which says it is seeking missing presidential records.  Merrick Garland, Attorney General: Trying to humiliate Trump? He said he thinks Attorney General Merrick Garland, who personally approved the unprecedented action against a former president, was trying to publicly humiliate Trump ahead of the November midterm election, which features Trump-supporting Republicans in key races.   “I really think this case is un-prosecutable and was more of a thumb in Trump’s eye by Attorney General Garland,” Swecker said. It has been reported that Trump will announce his plans to run again in 2024 after Tuesday’s midterm elections.   Others, however, are convinced there is sufficient evidence to indict Trump on obstruction charges.   “Not only did Trump, through his team, falsely represent that all remaining classified documents were in the envelope they’d turned over, [but] prosecutors stress that the search 'cast serious doubt on the claim in the certification that there had been a ‘diligent search’ for records responsive to the grand jury subpoena,’ ” said former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who defended Trump throughout the FBI’s and DOJ’s discredited Russiagate investigation.   Therefore, “I believe Trump is likely to be charged with obstruction of justice and causing false statements to be made to investigators,” he added.   Under the relevant federal statutes, however, prosecutors must prove that Trump “knowingly” concealed documents with the intent to obstruct the Mar-a-Lago investigation. Which is to say they have to produce evidence that the former president intentionally withheld subpoenaed records and that it wasn’t just an oversight.   So far, unsealed court filings do not indicate they have evidence of knowing concealment by Trump. Prosecutors have been careful to say in their filings that documents were “likely” concealed and that efforts were “likely” taken to obstruct the investigation, indicating they still lack solid evidence. And Trump is not mentioned as a target in any of the filings.   “It is not clear from the filing if the FBI has evidence of intentional acts of concealment as opposed to negligence,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said.  Kash Patel, Trump aide: Reportedly has agreed to testify in exchange for immunity. However, Bloomberg News recently reported that prosecutors “believe there is sufficient evidence” to charge Trump with obstruction, according to “people familiar with the matter” cited by Bloomberg. The outlet said the team of attorneys handling the case “has not yet made a formal recommendation” to Garland, who would make the final decision to bring charges in the politically radioactive case. The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the attorney general were to charge a former president, he and his reputation would be on the hook for the highest-profile criminal case in American history.In a sign Garland might be serious about indicting Trump, he recently assigned David Raskin — one of the department’s most experienced national security prosecutors — to the Trump investigation. Raskin has successfully prosecuted federal employees whohave kept classified documents unlawfully.  Prosecutors have questioned several aides, including the Trump lawyer who signed the certification letter and a Mar-a-Lago valet who allegedly moved documents from a storage room. Next, they plan to grill Trump’s representative to the National Archives, Kash Patel, about how Trump, his aides and his lawyers dealt with requests from the government to return the records. Patel, who declined comment, reportedly has agreed to testify before the grand jury in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution. Jurors are deliberating in heavily Democratic D.C., increasing the odds of indictment.   As for the alleged false statements, legal analysts say the Trump team left wiggle room in the sworn certification when it claimed a “diligent” search was conducted. They note that “diligent" is a legally ambiguous term open to interpretation. And the government itself demonstrated that searching for the subpoenaed documents was like looking for needles in a haystack. It took some 35 agents searching Trump’s sprawling estate for several hours to locate just 100 with classified markings out of 11,000 documents seized,which suggests Trump’s custodian could have reasonably overlooked them.  Also, Trump’s presidential papers were “intermixed” in file boxes with newspaper and magazine articles, photos, various printouts, and other items making them difficult to identify. The National Archives said 15 boxes retrieved several months earlier from Mar-a-Lago contained “newspapers, magazines, print news articles, photos, miscellaneous print-outs, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records” — and most of the boxes included classified records that “were unfoldered, intermixed withother records, and otherwise improperly identified.”   Much speculation has been made of 46 "empty folders with classified banners” found in the FBI raid. In one recent court filing, investigators speculated that classified “materials may once have been stored in these folders,” suggesting Trump or his aides removed subpoenaed documents from the folders and secreted them elsewhere.   But legal analysts point out that it could also mean that Trump’s team previously turned over the contents of the folders to the Archives — or to FBI agents in June. Or it could mean the classified contents were mixed in with other files or loosely stored in file boxes with other documents, given that the Archives noted that it found classified records “unfoldered” in the 15 boxes Trump transferred to the Archives early this year. Or it could simply mean there was never anything in them.   Prosecutors have also raised suspicions Trump’s lawyers were trying to hide something when they allegedly cordoned investigators off from some boxes kept in a basement storage room during their June 3 visit.   Although agents were permitted to visit the storage room, “the former president’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained,” Bratt said in a court filing. A Democrat, Bratt has donated exclusively to fellow Democrats, as well as the DNC, according to FEC records.   Trump’s legal team has told the court that DOJ “significantly mischaracterized” the June meeting with Bobb and another lawyer, but did not elaborate.  History of Animus Whatever the truth of what happened at Mar-a-Lago, it is clear there is a history of animus between federal law enforcement and Trump and his aides.    As one of the FBI’s and DOJ’s original Trump-era targets, Flynn is understandably suspicious that they may be engaging in similar skulduggery now, possibly setting Trump up in the Mar-a-Lago imbroglio.    It appeared to many that the FBI broke normal protocols and essentially set a perjury trap for Flynn in early 2017, when it sent agents to the White House to question Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser over his December 2016 calls with Russia’s U.S. ambassador during the presidential transition. In those conversations, which then-FBI Director James Comey privately described as “legit,” indicating there was no real basis for investigation, Flynn urged Russia not to engage in an escalating tit-for-tat with the outgoing Obama administration, which had just issued sanctions against Moscow for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election.   A declassified FBI email from counterintelligence official Peter Strzok dated Jan. 21, 2017 — the day after Flynn took office — reveals that the FBI schemed to use a “defensive briefing” on a national security issue for Flynn as a “pretext” to interviewing him about the phone calls, which the FBI had intercepted, and catching him in a lie. Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony.   Handwritten notes from Strzok’s then-immediate boss Bill Priestap reveal the intent of their planned Jan. 24 meeting with Flynn inside the White House. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute [Flynn] or get him fired?” Priestap wrote.   For such a serious legal matter, the FBI’s own protocols would have entailed going through the White House counsel’s office. Instead, it arranged the meeting directly with Flynn, who was flattered to speak with two national security agents and was unguarded in answering their questions. Going in, the FBI agreed not to suggest Flynn bring a lawyer to the interview. And they never instructed him that any false statements he made could constitute a crime.   Years later, Comey would brag about sending agents in to ambush Flynn and get him to allegedly lie about his conversations with the ambassador. “I sent them,” he told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during a 2018 forum.   James Comey, ex-FBI director: The Flynn ambush interview was “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration.” Tyler Durden Tue, 11/15/2022 - 10:10.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 15th, 2022

Trump Org is battling prosecutors over 3 little words that could swing the New York tax-fraud trial

Hint: The 3 little words are not "I love you." Instead, it's a legal phrase that could decide who wins the ongoing Trump Organization tax-fraud trial. Former President Donald Trump, left, and the exterior of Trump Tower, where the Trump Organization is headquartered.Justin Sullivan/Getty Images, left. Nicolas Economou/Getty Images, right. The tax-fraud trial of Donald Trump's real-estate empire is about to start its fourth week. The Manhattan case involves 2 million documents. But just three words could swing the outcome. It's the legal phrase "in behalf of —" and it's the subject of a heated, behind-the-scenes battle.  Donald Trump's business empire is in a pitched, behind-the-scenes battle with prosecutors over three little words that could make or break the company's ongoing Manhattan tax-fraud trial.The three words are "in behalf of."That's not a typo.It's "in behalf of," not "on behalf of," a stilted, musty-sounding phrase that has smart and seasoned lawyers on both sides of the case reaching for legal treatises, decades-old case law, and even as they scramble to define it.The words have permeated the three-week-old trial taking place at New York Supreme Court in lower Manhattan, though the jury has barely heard reference to them.They are crucial to each of the 15 criminal charges against the Trump Organization — charges alleging that the former president's real-estate and golf-resort company conspired with its own top financial executives in a 15-year tax-dodge scheme.And they will loom large when testimony concludes in mid-December and New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan instructs jurors on how to apply New York's corporate liability law in reaching a verdict.It's not enough, they'll be told, for Trump Org executives to get caught selfishly stuffing their pockets. To find the Trump Organization guilty of fraud, the jury must find that its executives not only broke the law but did so while acting "within the scope of his or her employment and in behalf of the corporation." But a nagging and very reasonable question remains unanswered, and it's only a matter of time before it's posed by jurors themselves: What on earth does acting "in behalf of" a company even mean? Even the judge hasn't quite figured it out."We do not yet know," New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan told the warring lawyers before testimony began Thursday, looking down the road toward deliberations, "how we will instruct them if they ask for additional instructions."  The tax dodge is the easy part Not quite halfway through their case, prosecutors are having a relatively easy, if plodding, time of proving to jurors that the Trump Organization's two top money men indeed ran a 15-year tax-dodge scheme, their guilt being the first element of the law in deciding if the company, too, is guilty.It helps that both men have already admitted their roles in the scheme.The former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, pleaded guilty in August, admitting that he conspired with the company's top payroll guy, Jeffrey McConney, to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in executive pay each year from tax authorities.Weisselberg, who's due to testify next week, personally enjoyed some $1.76 million in rent-free apartments, luxury cars and other goodies over the years, perks logged as compensation in internal company ledgers but never noted on W-2 forms.And on Monday, McConney, who is testifying under a grant of immunity, will spend his fourth day on the witness stand, where he's been corroborating that he, Weisselberg, and other Trump executives, including the company's top lawyer and its chief operating officer, all received significant chunks of their yearly pay in the form of these untaxed fringe benefits. The looming leap for prosecutors, though, is proving that at least Weisselberg, the trial's most important witness, was motivated by more than what one defense lawyer downplayed in opening statements as "individual, personal greed."Which is where those powerful, perplexing three words come in.Bilge and thermometersIn a case based on 2 million documents, the defense hopes the short phrase could swing the whole case its way."If the People fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acts were done 'in behalf of' the Corporate Defendants but were instead for Weisselberg's (or others') benefit, then the jury must acquit the Corporate Defendants," Trump Organization lawyers argued in a mid-October filing.Prosecutors, meanwhile, find the three words so worrisome, they asked the judge — unsuccessfully — to strike them from the case entirely.In defense of their love or hate of the three words, the sides have cited a gamut of arcane case law and other source material.That includes a 2017 federal appellate decision on a Liberian cargo ship that dumped 2,640 gallons of oily bilge off the coast of North Carolina, and a 1992 New York appellate decision on a Brooklyn thermometer company convicted in an employee's mercury poisoning.Oddly, that case, People v. Pymm Thermometer, was a landmark prosecution brought by then-Brooklyn District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman, an ardent Trump critic.Holtzman — who, as a US Congresswoman, voted to impeach Richard Nixon — is the author of "The Case For Impeaching Trump." She found it odd, to say the least, that lawyers for Trump's business tried to use her thermometer case to their advantage.  "It's paradoxical that a case that I brought to hold a company and its officers accountable is being used by a company that's trying to avoid being held accountable," she said, declining to comment otherwise on an ongoing trial.First of many battlesThe first face-off over "in behalf of" came just days before jury selection began on October 24, as the sides sparred over what prospective jurors would be told about the trial and over what interim interpretation of "in behalf of" they should rely on for opening statements."As evidenced by the papers you both submitted and research that we have been doing, it is far from clear what 'in behalf of 'means,'" the judge said at that October 20 pre-trial conference."We are all wrestling with this at this point," agreed defense lawyer Alan Futerfas.The defense wanted "in behalf of" defined as "for the benefit of," and for jurors to be told the Trump Organization can only be found guilty if Weisselberg and McConney broke the law while intending to benefit the company.But the only witnesses who could give jurors direct evidence of Weisselberg and McConney's intentions would be Weisselberg and McConney themselves.The trouble is, both men, while technically DA witnesses, remain on Trump's payroll, and their lawyers are paid for by Trump's company. Both continue to meet with the defense in preparing their testimony.They must testify truthfully or face severe prison terms. But Weisselberg's guilty plea, though written by prosecutors, makes no mention of any intent to benefit Trump's company. Neither, so far as the public record has shown, does McConney's grand jury testimony.Faced with the threat of Weisselberg sticking to both his plea and the company line by testifying— as defense lawyer Michael van der Veen promised in opening statements — that "Weisselberg did it for Weisselberg," it's no wonder prosecutors did not at all like this "intent to benefit" definition at all.They asked the judge to instruct jurors that the company is guilty if its executives merely broke the law while performing "the business of the corporation." Merchan, the judge, told the parties he needed more time for a decision. At a second pre-trial conference the next day, the parties went at it again. One of the lead prosecutors, Joshua Steinglass, pushed back once more against "this notion that we have to prove intent to benefit the company." "There is a real dearth of authority on this subject," the judge acknowledged in response. "Honestly, I wish I had the time to write on it. I think it is very interesting." Then he rendered his interim decision.Much of the case law being cited, the judge said, was not quite on point, including the bilge and thermometer decisions. For the time being, he said, he favors "the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase 'in behalf of.'" For this, he turned to, which defines "in behalf of" as "in the interest of, or for the benefit of."The judge said he'd also rely on a classic legal guide, "New York Criminal Law," which requires proof of "conduct engaged in for the corporation's benefit and not mere personal gain" before a company can be found guilty.So at least for now, the defense got pretty much what it asked for.But both sides are expected to file lengthy motions, called "requests to charge," in the coming weeks, as they continue to fight over what instructions the judge will give jurors when they step out of the deliberations room, weeks from now, and ask for guidance on those three little words that could swing the trial.Attorneys for Trump Organization and a spokesperson for the district attorney's office declined to comment. A lawyer for Weisselberg, Nicholas Gravante, also declined to comment, except to say, "Mr. Weisselberg has continued to meet and prepare with both sides." Gravante, of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, added, "He looks forward to testifying so he can take one more step towards having this unfortunate situation behind him."  Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytNov 13th, 2022

This new $450,000 electric car combines the retro style of a 1960s Mustang with the minimalist interior of a Tesla

The Tesla has a bigger interior and better range, but the Kia EV6 is cheaper, charges faster, and doesn't have pesky touchscreen controls. The Kia EV6, left, and the Tesla Model Y.Tim Levin/Insider I drove the Tesla Model Y and the Kia EV6 to see how the two electric SUVs stacked up.  The Model Y has a big, minimalist interior and an iPad-like touchscreen. The EV6 is sporty, cheaper, and great for people who want a more traditional interior.  So you want to go electric and you're wondering which car to buy.On the one hand, there's Tesla, the brand that's synonymous with electric vehicles in the US. On the other, there are electric up-and-comers like Kia.The South Korean brand sells one of the most exciting and fast-selling EVs: the EV6 SUV. It's sporty, sleekly styled, and excels in the all-important range department.But can it stand up to Elon Musk's incredibly popular Model Y SUV? I drove both to find out.Which is cheaper?The 2022 Kia EV6 GT-Line.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Kia starts at $41,400, significantly less than the $65,990 Model Y. Equipping the EV6 with all-wheel drive bumps up its price by $10,000 and brings its capability and cost more in line with the Model Y.What about range?The Tesla Model Y.Tim Levin/InsiderTesla sells some of the longest-range EVs on the market. The base Model Y offers 330 miles — and that's with efficiency-sapping all-wheel drive as standard.Kia is nipping at its heels with a robust 310 miles of range in the EV6's $47,500 Wind RWD trim. Base models get 232 miles of range, while all-wheel-drive ones get 274, as rated by the Environmental Protection Agency.How fast do they charge?The Model Y.Tim Levin/InsiderThe EV6 is one of the quickest-charging electric cars you can buy. It can boost its battery level from 10% to 80% in 18 minutes when plugged into a sufficiently high-powered station, according to Kia. That would take closer to 30 minutes for the Y.Still, while Kias rely on home charging or fast-charging third-party stations, Tesla owners can plug into exclusive Supercharger stations, which are common and exceedingly simple to operate.How do they drive?The EV6 GT-Line.Tim Levin/InsiderBoth cars deliver snappy steering that makes them more fun to drive than other SUVs. The Tesla is more agile, but it sacrifices ride comfort.The Model Y offers beastly acceleration that throws you back into your seat. The EV6 is available with a powerful all-wheel-drive layout, but I tested the rear-wheel-drive model that trades acceleration for extra driving range. What about interior and cargo space?The EV6 GT-Line.Tim Levin/InsiderThe vehicles are comparable in size, but the Tesla offers much more room for passengers and cargo. The Model Y's interior feels big and open, thanks in part to its big glass roof, and total storage space measures in at 76.2 cubic feet, including a front trunk.The EV6 offers 50.2 cubic feet of storage with the seats folded and lacks a proper frunk.The Model Y.Tim Levin/InsiderSome buyers might prefer the Kia's sporty and bold interior over Tesla's minimalist and button-free aesthetic. People who are repelled by using a touchscreen to control everything should steer clear of the Model Y. How does the tech stack up?The Model Y.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Model Y's big touchscreen makes it a tech fan's dream. It offers fun features like video games, along with more useful ones like a Sentry Mode, which watches passersby using the car's many exterior cameras. The system regularly gets software updates and new features. The EV6 GT-Line.Tim Levin/InsiderThough the Kia also has a snappy display, it's not quite an iPhone on wheels and has more conventional controls than the Tesla. But it does have two outlets that provide enough electricity to power household appliances.VerdictThe EV6 GT-Line.Tim Levin/InsiderIt's a toss-up. Both are great electric options that satisfy different desires and price points.I'd pick the Kia because it was fun to drive, charged super quickly, and offered almost as much range as the Tesla with more analog controls and a more accessible price point.But if you prize a minimalist interior, tech features out the wazoo, and Supercharger convenience, go with the Model Y.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 12th, 2022

Novo Reports Q3 2022 Financial Results

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Nov. 11, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --  Novo Resources Corp. ("Novo" or the "Company") (TSX:NVO, NVO.WT &, NVO.WT.A)) (OTCQX:NSRPF) reports its financial results for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2022. All amounts are expressed in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise noted. This news release should be read together with Novo's management's discussion and analysis (the "MD&A") and condensed interim consolidated financial statements (the "Financial Statements") for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2022 ("YTD 2022") which are available under Novo's profile on SEDAR ( The three-month period ended September 30, 2022 is referred to as "Q3 2022" in this news release. Q3 2022 Highlights Revenue of $28.0 million from the sale of 12,426 ounces of gold from the Company's Beatons Creek gold project (the "Beatons Creek Project") in Q3 2022 at an average realized price1 of $2,255 / A$2,528 / US$1,728 per ounce of gold, and revenue of $89.5 million from the sale of 38,168 ounces of gold in YTD 2022 at an average realized price1 of $2,347 / A$2,588 / US$1,830 per ounce of gold Debt free, with cash and cash equivalents of $65.3 million as at September 30, 2022 Aggregate investment portfolio balance of $20.6 million2, which includes Novo's holdings in ASX-listed joint venture partners GBM Resources Limited and Kalamazoo Resources Limited, as well as holdings in unlisted companies include Elementum 3D, Inc. ("E3D") Sale of remaining 6.75 million shares of New Found Gold Corp. (TSXV:NFG) completed on August 5, 2022 at $8.45 per share for gross proceeds of $57.0 million ("Tranche 2"). Gross proceeds from the sale of Novo's 15 million New Found shares were $125.9 million ("New Found Transaction")3 Repayment of the Company's senior secured US$40 million credit facility ("Credit Facility") with Sprott Resource Lending Corp. ("Sprott") on August 12, 2022 without prepayment penalties4, resulting in the Company being debt free Continuing focus on high-priority exploration targets, with exploration spend of $8.2 million in Q3 2022 and $23.6 million in YTD 2022 Recognition of a non-cash impairment charge of $48.3 million in Q3 2022 against the Beatons Creek Project due to uncertainty regarding the timing of the receipt of the Fresh mining approvals and results of the updated Mineral Resource estimate which affect its current economic status5 Completion of the operational wind-down at the Beatons Creek Project and the Golden Eagle processing facility ("Golden Eagle Plant") and transition to care and maintenance5, with mining of the Oxide mineral resource completed in August 2022 and processing completed in September 2022 Remainder of page left intentionally blank Financial Highlights In thousands of CAD,   For the three months ended For the nine months ended except where noted   September 30, 2022 September 30, 2021 September 30, 2022 September 30, 2021 Gold sold Oz Au 12,426   18,753   38,168   36,209               Average realized price1 $/oz 2,255   2,295   2,347   2,278   Average realized price1 AUD$/oz 2,528   2,480   2,588   2,398   Average realized price1 USD$/oz 1,728   1,822   1,830   1,820               Total revenue $ 27,987   42,964   89,547   82,386   Cost of goods sold $ (32,261 ) (33,577 ) (112,161 ) (72,999 ) General and exploration expenditure $ (11,378 ) (9,964 ) (34,319 ) (15,213 ) Impairment of non-current assets $ (48,255 ) -   (48,255 ) -   Other income, net $ 4,067   87,688   23,021   88,694   Finance items $ (873 ) (2,777 ) (8,093 ) (13,940 ) Income tax expense $ 1,602   (7,884 ) (596 ) (7,884 ) Net loss for the period after tax $ (59,111 ) 76,450   (90,856 ) 61,044   Basic and diluted loss per common share $/share (0.24 ) 0.31   (0.37 ) 0.26               EBITDA1 $ (52,049 ) 91,402   (58,653 ) 93,789   Adjusted EBITDA1 $ (7,861 ) 3,714   (33,419 ) 5,095               Adjusted earnings1 $ (16,525 ) (3,194 ) (65,026 ) (34,355 ) Adjusted earnings per common share1 $/share (0.07 ) (0.01 ) (0.26 ) (0.14 )             Total cash costs1 $/oz 2,224   1,558   2,288   1,710   Total cash costs1 AUD$/oz 2,494   1,683   2,522   1,800   Total cash costs1 USD$/oz 1,704   1,236   1,784   1,367               AISC1 $/oz 2,991   2,034   2,955   2,457   AISC1 AUD$/oz 3,353   2,198   3,257   2,587   AISC1 USD$/oz 2,292   1,615   2,303   1,963   Novo generated revenue of $28.0 million in Q3 2022 from the sale of 12,426 ounces of gold at an average realized price1 of $2,255 / A$2,528 / US$1,728 per ounce of gold, and $89.5 million in YTD 2022 from the sale of 38,168 ounces of gold at an average realized price1 of $2,347 / A$2,588 / US$1,830 per ounce of gold. 405,071 tonnes of mineralized material were processed through the Golden Eagle Plant in Q3 2022 equating to an annual processing rate of approximately 1.6 million tonnes per annum, and 1,198,283 tonnes of mineralized material were processed in YTD 2022 prior to completion of processing in September 2022. Processed material had an average head grade of 1.03 g/t Au with average recovery of 90.74% resulting in 13,137 ounces of gold produced in Q3 2022, and an average head grade of 1.07 g/t Au with average recovery of 91.98% resulting in 39,125 ounces of gold produced6 in YTD 2022. The Company generated a net loss of $(59.1) million or $(0.24) per share in Q3 2022 and a net loss of $(90.9) million or $(0.37) per share in YTD 2022. Adjusted losses1 were $(16.5) million or $(0.07) per share in Q3 2022 and $(65.0) million or $(0.26) per share in YTD 2022. Adjustments to net losses for the period include non-operational income, non-cash foreign exchange gains, non-cash gains resulting from the movement in the fair value of certain marketable securities, and the impairment loss incurred in Q3 2022. The Company recognized a non-cash impairment expense of $48.3 million related to the Company's Beatons Creek Project in Q3 2022 due to uncertainty regarding the timing of the receipt of the Fresh mining approvals and results of the updated Mineral Resource estimate on the Beatons Creek Project which affect its current economic status5. The carrying value of the assets which comprise the Beatons Creek Project cash generating unit have now been written down to their recoverable value. The Company is committed to aggressively advancing its highly prospective exploration portfolio and devoted $23.6 million to such efforts in YTD 2022. Financial Position In thousands of CAD, September 30, 2022 December 31, 2021 December 31, 2020 January 31, 2020 except where noted $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 Cash 65,153 32,345 40,494 28,703 Short-term investments 147 108 195 88 Working capital1 46,448 3,925 14,071 26,051 Marketable securities 20,569 156,209 18,770 14,457 Available liquidity1 71,741 102,868 59,623 42,501 Total assets 267,041 462,682 456,408 158,049 Current liabilities excluding current portion of financial liabilities 19,492 19,805 12,083 1,082 Non-current liabilities excluding non-current portion of financial liabilities 37,032 36,342 28,615 - Financial liabilities (current and non-current) 16,458 75,608 86,271 8,565 Total liabilities 72,982 148,420 126,969 9,647 Shareholders' equity 194,059 314,262 329,439 148,402 The Company held cash and cash equivalents of $65.3 million as at September 30, 2022, with a working capital1 balance of $46.4 million. Subsequent to completion of the New Found Transaction, the Company completed repayment of the Credit Facility totaling US$40.1 million on August 12, 20224 to become debt free. No prepayment penalties applied to the Credit Facility repayment, and all residual security interests have been discharged. Tax payable of $6.1 million represents the estimated capital gains tax payable in Canada on the New Found Transaction after application of Novo's available Canadian tax losses through June 30, 2022. The Company will determine its aggregate capital gains tax liability through December 31, 2022 in early 2023 and intends to apply available tax losses in order to decrease any amount payable. Deferred tax liabilities represent the Company's estimate of capital gains tax payable on the fair value of the Company's remaining marketable securities. Non-IFRS Measures Certain non-IFRS measures have been included in this news release. The Company believes that these measures, in addition to measures prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting ...Full story available on»»

Category: earningsSource: benzingaNov 11th, 2022

China Revises Military Doctrine To Focus On Troop Deployments Overseas

China Revises Military Doctrine To Focus On Troop Deployments Overseas The Chinese People's Liberation Army is expected to undergo continued expansion and modernization following last month's CCP five-yearly national congress, which made key revisions to the Communist Party constitution. This included changes on the nation's military posture. One of those revisions stated the need to "elevate our people's armed forces to world-class standards" - according to an addition to the party constitution, as translated in the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post. This is being seen as aimed at expansion of deployed assets overseas, also following widespread reports within the past year that Beijing is seeking to establish a string of bases on Africa's Atlantic coast.  PLA troops & officers attend opening ceremony of China’s military base in Djibouti in August 2017. AFP/Getty Images. The revised constitution included an official explanation published alongside it which stated "Overseas safety and security has become a major issue that we must address" - in particular citing the need for beefed-up counterterror forces to better protect against attacks on Chinese institutes and companies in foreign countries. According to further commentary of the changes via the SCMP: Drawing on examples from China's military defeats in the 19th century, it said international politics still followed the "law of the jungle", with the strong in charge and able to uphold their will. The impact of a lagging military on national security would be fatal, it added. It remains that compared to the United States or even Russia, China's oversees military presence is tiny or almost non-existent. China has had a naval facility which opened in 2017 in Djibouti, long considered its main and lone military base abroad - not counting reports of one or possibly two outposts in Tajikistan, and the string of small bases in China's backyard, on manmade island-bases in the South China Sea. But as Foreign Policy, The Economist, and other Western geopolitical-focused publications have long previewed, China has ambitions for many more, especially in Africa. "Tanzania, Cambodia, and the UAE are on China’s wish list— and now Kiribati, within striking distance of Hawaii," an FP report stated in summer 2021. China's military ambitions abroad, via The Economist Source: The Economist This week President Xi Jinping again reaffirmed his commitment to focusing on "preparing for war" with the country's security "increasingly unstable and uncertain," according to his latest declaration. Tyler Durden Wed, 11/09/2022 - 22:40.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeNov 9th, 2022

I tested six-figure electric cars from Porsche and Mercedes. I"d buy one for its stunning quickness and the other for its opulent interior.

The $209,000 Porsche Taycan and $141,000 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 are fantastic four-door electric cars that are great in different ways. The Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 (top) and Porsche Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo.Tim Levin/Insider You don't need to buy a Tesla if you want a fancy, electric four-door.  Porsche sells the $86,700 Taycan and Mercedes sells the $102,000 EQS.  I drove fully-loaded versions of both cars to see how they stack up.  So you want to buy a luxurious electric car but can't decide between the Porsche Taycan and the Mercedes-Benz EQS?First off: Congratulations on being rich. Testing out the German cars showed me that both are fantastic options for getting around in fancy, zero-emission fashion. But each is great in its own way.The 2021 Porsche Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo.Tim Levin/InsiderThis comparison isn't exactly apples-to-apples. The $209,000 Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo Porsche lent me is the highest-performance Taycan available and the hatchback edition. The $141,000 EQS 580 Mercedes provided is also the top-of-the-line model, but there is another, speedier version, the AMG-EQS, which is more comparable to the sporty Taycan.Still, this showdown gave me a solid idea of what these cars bring to the table and how they stack up. How much do they cost?The 2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Taycan starts at $86,700. The EQS comes in at around $102,000. What about range?The 2021 Porsche Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Mercedes earns an impressive EPA rating of 350 miles in the base EQS 450+ configuration while the all-wheel-drive EQS 580 clocks in at 340 miles. The sedan's blob-like shape may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it does cut down on drag, which helps with range. The Taycan's range looks so-so on paper; the 2021 model I tested was rated for only 202 miles. (The 2023 Taycan maxes out at 246 miles, according to the EPA.)But EPA estimates don't always tell the full story. I observed a range closer to 250 miles, and Edmunds drove a 2020 Taycan 323 miles on a single charge. It pushed an EQS 450+ 422 miles. How do they drive?The 2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Taycan is without a doubt the more entertaining car to drive. The 750-horsepower Turbo S is breathtakingly, incomprehensibly quick, promising to rocket to 60 mph in 2.7 seconds. Its steering is precise and it handles impeccably. The tradeoff is that it rides on the stiff side. The EQS delights in a whole different way by gliding ever so smoothly and quietly down the road. While the EQS 580 I drove lacks the brutal acceleration of the Taycan, it's still pretty quick. How fast do they charge?The 2021 Porsche Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Taycan promises some of the quickest charging times in the biz. When connected to a sufficiently powerful fast-charging station (270 kilowatts and up), the Taycan can recharge from 5-80% in 22.5 minutes. The EQS maxes out at 200 kilowatts and promises to recharge from 10-80% in 31 minutes. However, since the Mercedes has a bigger battery and more range, charging times in terms of mileage added in a given time period are similar. How do they stack up inside?The 2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Mercedes smacks you right in the face with a plush, spacious interior filled with leather and high-end materials. High points include options for massaging seats all around and a 56-inch "Hyperscreen" display for folks who simply can't get enough tech.The 2022 Mercedes-Benz EQS 580.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Porsche also has a long list of luxurious options, but it gives off a sportier vibe. You have to climb down into its tight driver's seat, which hugs you and keeps you in place around turns. Its back seats are more cramped than the EQS's ample back row. My test car also came with several touchscreens, but I found Mercedes's tech easier to use. VerdictThe 2021 Porsche Taycan Turbo S Cross Turismo.Tim Levin/InsiderThe Taycan Turbo S blew me away with its ridiculous quickness and fantastic handling. It's a driver's car for people who care about having fun while they get from A to B. The EQS is equally awesome, but it's all about cocooning passengers in a quiet, rolling business lounge. To sum things up: The Porsche is a car to drive; the Mercedes is a car to be driven in. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 8th, 2022

What We Know—and Don’t Know—About Elon Musk’s Ever-Changing Verification Plans

Musk's plans to charge for blue-check Twitter accounts could have side effects Elon Musk has long argued that the user-verification system on Twitter is broken. But since taking over the company last week, there have been contradictory reports on how, exactly, he intends to improve upon it. On Tuesday, he wrote on Twitter that he planned to charge $8 a month to become a verified Twitter user, known as a “blue check”—but many questions remain. Here’s what we do and don’t know about his plans, and the potential ramifications of his actions upon the platform’s users. How Twitter’s verification system works right now Musk described the current verification setup as a “lords & peasants system” on Tuesday. Many people on Twitter view verified accounts as a central driver of the platform’s elitist structure. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] But the origins of the blue-check system had much less to do with social status than instilling trust in the platform. In 2009, Twitter needed a way to prove to their users that a person was who they claimed to be, because the site was suffering from a rash of imposters. That year, the St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa sued Twitter over an account that purported to be him and which mocked two deaths in the Cardinals organization. Kanye West also complained of Twitter impersonators and vowed to never use the site, writing: “Everything that Twitter offers, I need less of.” Twitter then quickly announced a beta version of a verification system, intended for “public officials, public agencies, famous artists, athletes, and other well known individuals at risk of impersonation.” Since then, Twitter has established a process by which they verify users who are “authentic, notable and active.” Blue checks are given out to journalists, government officials, brands, and other public figures. For many, they signify a trusted source of information, and a way for the everyday user to separate real news from the increasing volume of misinformation and static. However, a cadre of conservative voices has said that the system, which they say creates a “blue check mark brigade,” taints the flow of public information with left-wing bias. (Many of those critics, naturally, are also verified—and Twitter admitted that its algorithm actually showed a right-wing bias in 2021.) Musk has tweeted displeasure with the system several times over the years: “Verified should be far more widespread, simply that someone is who they claim to be,” he wrote in 2020. Read more: Inside Twitter’s Chaotic First Weekend Under Elon Musk Musk’s plans to change verification This week, after Musk took over the company, the Verge reported that he planned to charge $20 a month for blue checkmarks. The idea was met with widespread backlash: “They should pay me. If that gets instituted, I’m gone like Enron,” Stephen King tweeted. Many prominent journalists joined in on the criticism, including Nate Silver, Kara Swisher, and Emily Nussbaum. The one good reason to have a blue check is to avoid impersonators. When people start paying for them, they’ll mainly signify that a person is a sucker—and as trolling intensifies, big users will leave. Maybe that’s for the best, but it’ll certainly increase disinfo & chaos — Emily Nussbaum (@emilynussbaum) November 1, 2022 Their arguments were reinforced by the results of a poll issued by Musk ally Jason Calacanis, which showed that 81% of respondents wouldn’t pay for a blue check. “Interesting,” Musk responded. The next day, Musk launched a Twitter thread that announced verification for $8 a month. (Like many of Musk’s tweets about platform changes, it wasn’t clear whether this was a proposal or a done deal.) The new tiered service would give verified users a boost in how many people see their tweets; show them half as many ads; and give them the ability to post longer video and audio clips. Publications seeking verified accounts would be able to bypass the fee, he wrote. This new system, which Musk called “Blue,” would transform Twitter’s existing verification system, which, although free, has drawn fire for being inconsistent and without clear rules for who gets verified and when. The relationship between this new “Blue” tier and the existing Twitter Blue service—which is not tied to verification, and offers features including an edit button—is unclear. Musk argued that the new system would “destroy the bots,” because any verified account that engaged in spam or scams would be suspended. Although his originally reported proposal had the plan at $20 per month, he lowered the proposed cost in a tweet to King, writing: “We need to pay the bills somehow! Twitter cannot rely entirely on advertisers. How about $8?” What Musk’s changes would mean for Twitter users If Musk indeed goes through with the plan, what could the ramifications be for Twitter users? The first possible ripple effect: trolls and other bad actors could buy a larger presence on the platform. Twitter has dealt with this exact problem before: when it experimented with opening up verifications to a wider range of people, it verified Jason Kessler, the man previously responsible for the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Twitter’s content moderation is already under fire. On Wednesday, three civil rights leaders, including Rev. Al Sharpton, penned a letter to Musk decrying the rise of racial and religious hatred on the site over the weekend. “In flippantly declaring that, ‘the bird is freed,’ you might have unwittingly freed people to unleash the worst of human nature with communities of color and religious minorities bearing the greatest burden,” they wrote. It’s also possible that scams could rise. Public figures on Twitter are already besieged by imposters who trick victims with crypto scams. Under a less-stringent verification system, it would be very easy to imagine scammers buying up blue-checked accounts and looping victims into scams before they get shut down. The fact that Musk is reportedly slashing a significant amount of his workforce doesn’t bode well in the company’s ability to sift through violations reports quickly. However, it’s entirely possible that Musk could combine the new verification system with the old: requiring those who have requested verification to provide some sort of ID confirmation in addition to spending $8. If this happens, the number of bots could decrease, and the new system would simply act as a quasi-tax upon Twitter super-users who want their content elevated. How Twitter is dealing with misinformation under Musk Then there’s the constantly looming threat of misinformation. Musk’s attitudes toward misinformation on the site gained heightened attention this week when he tweeted out a far-right conspiracy theory about Nancy Pelosi’s husband. Some users believe the widespread dissemination of the blue check would be disastrous toward trust on the site: “Without a free way for notable accounts to confirm they were real, it would be easier for fake accounts posing as banks, government agencies or notable people to fool innocent users and spread fake news,” James Ball wrote in the New Statesman. However, Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a professor at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies told TIME that she isn’t sure that a change to verification would make the misinformation problem worse than it already is. “The reality we have right now is that even people who are known and identified are perfectly comfortable spreading incorrect and false information,” she says. “For every one person trying to produce good information, there are one or two people on Twitter doing the opposite with a blue check. And then, of course, there’s the people that are just trying to be celebrities, talking about their cute puppies or the latest album.” Lastly, there’s the question of Twitter’s bottom line, which is surely one of Musk’s priorities. The company is now loaded with $13 billion in debt, and has not turned a profit for eight of the past 10 years. But even if all of the estimated 400,000 of Twitter’s verified accounts agreed to pay the $8 a year, that would only net Twitter $3.2 million—a drop in the bucket compared to their $5 billion yearly revenue, most of which comes from advertisements. In fact, to have more dodgy information and less trust on the site from verified users could make brands more skittish to advertise on the platform. Advertisers are already pulling back: on Monday, the New York Times reported that the advertising giant IPG issued a recommendation that its clients temporarily pause their spending on Twitter because of moderation concerns. On Tuesday, more than 40 activist organizations penned an open letter to Twitter’s top advertisers including Apple and Coca-Cola urging them to boycott the platform if its safety standards were lowered. “We know that brand safety is of the utmost importance to you,” the letter reads. “As such, you also have a moral and civic obligation to take a stand against the degradation of one of the world’s most influential communications platforms.”.....»»

Category: topSource: timeNov 2nd, 2022

I switched from a hybrid car to a $25,000 electric Mini Cooper. It"s my first EV and it"s so fun to drive.

Earlier this year, writer Andrew Lambrecht went on a search for a fun electric car on a budget. That led him to the Mini Cooper SE, and he loves it. Andrew Lambrecht's 2023 red Mini Cooper SE.Andrew Lambrecht Andrew Lambrecht sold his 2016 Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid and used the money to buy a new car. He went with the 2023 Mini Cooper SE, which is a fully electric model priced at just over $25,000.  Lambrecht said the Mini SE proves affordable electric vehicles don't have to be boring.  When Steve Jobs unveiled the original iPhone in 2007, it had its fair share of critics. People said it wasn't revolutionary, would fail, and certainly wasn't the future. Yet here we all are 15 years later, still using iPhones. They were the future then, and they still are now. I think electric cars will be the same.EVs generally offer better performance, efficiency, and reliability than their gasoline counterparts. But they're still in the early stages of adoption, making up only around 5% of new-car sales in the US. Despite the hesitancy of the masses, I've owned electrified vehicles for nearly two years.I bought my first fully electric car, the Mini Cooper SE, in July.There are many things to love about EVsElectric cars offer an incredibly smooth powertrain with nearly instantaneous accelerator response. The responsive accelerator makes even the most basic EVs feel incredibly quick.Besides the local and broader environmental benefits, electric cars are cheap to run. With very little annual maintenance and far less expensive "fueling" costs, driving an EV made plenty of sense. Before purchasing my electric Mini, I drove a 2016 Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid I bought secondhand for $15,000My Volt was an outstanding vehicle: It had an electric range of 53 miles and a total range of 420 miles with a gasoline generator. Even in gasoline mode, it'd still get over 40 mpg. For a transitory vehicle to wean oneself off of fossil fuels, the Volt is an excellent option in the used-car market.Lambrecht's 2016 Chevrolet Volt.Andrew LambrechtOnce 2021 rolled around, used-car prices went haywire. By the end of the year, Vroom, an online car buying and selling website, offered me a ridiculous $20,338 for my Volt (which I put more than 6,000 miles on), netting me a profit of $5,338 minus taxes and insurance. I accepted the offer, and within a few days, my Volt was hauled off.With the profit from selling my old car, I planned to buy a 'newer' used electric carI first considered the BMW i3. Used i3s used to be relatively affordable, but their prices had risen dramatically with the heightened prices for used cars.In early 2021, I could easily find used i3s for around $15,000, but a year later they had increased in value by nearly $10,000. Spending $25,000 for an out-of-warranty BMW didn't feel like the best financial decision, so I reverted to Plan B.A white 2018 Nissan Leaf.Andrew LambrechtThe 2022 Nissan Leaf started at $27,400, and the Mini Cooper SE started at $29,900. I gravitated toward the Mini Cooper SE, despite it costing slightly more, because it shares many of its technical components with the BMW i3 since BMW Group owns Mini. I decided the Mini was the best decision. I was excited to place my order, but then Mini removed the base $29,900 Signature model from the online configurator and replaced it with a $34,225 Signature Plus one.My hopes for owning the Mini practically vanished I decided to call my local BMW center before totally giving up. My local BMW dealership in Charlotte, Hendrick Mini, had a limited number of allocation slots available for special order 2023 Signature models. Upon hearing the news, I zoomed over and put a $250 deposit down in March 2022.I was hit with extra dealer fees — like mandatory window tinting and door-edge guards — but my final price was $32,963, including destination fees and taxes. Once I applied for the credit, my total would trend down to $25,453.After I placed my order, I followed its production timeline and eagerly awaited its arrival. In early July, I was notified that my vehicle was ready. After filling out the paperwork, the shiny red Mini sitting in the lot was now mine.A red 2023 Mini Cooper SE.Andrew LambrechtUnlike my Volt, everything in the Mini felt very high qualityI'd never driven a Cooper SE before, as most dealerships don't have models to test drive, but my first time behind the wheel beat my expectations.The first thing I noticed was its upscale interior. Despite being a base model, there are plenty of soft-touch materials coating the interior, aluminum control knobs for the windows, and toggle switches for many cabin functionalities.The interior of Lambrecht's 2023 red Mini Cooper SE.Andrew LambrechtThe Mini's infotainment system with wireless Apple CarPlay is intuitive and highly responsive. This is because the Mini's infotainment software is based on BMW's iDrive system — much higher-end technology for an under-$40,000 car. It even has an app with remote functionalities such as cabin preconditioning, which on hot summer days is incredibly convenient.The vehicle's standard safety features include lane-keep assist, automatic emergency braking, and rear parking sensors paired to a backup camera. Unfortunately, there's no adaptive cruise control available on the base model, but it's hard to complain, because it's one of the least expensive electric vehicles on the market right now.The Mini Cooper SE is great to driveDespite weighing around 300 pounds more than the internal combustion Cooper S, the SE has a lower center of gravity with the batteries being placed down low. Around corners, the little Cooper cuts through curves like a champ.With all electric vehicles, acceleration seems to be a central point, and the Mini's 181 horsepower powertrain does not disappoint. From a standstill, the Mini seems to ramp up its power and peak at around the 35-mph mark. That said, at around 35 mph, the Mini feels very quick with wide open throttle.The Mini claims it takes 6.9 seconds to accelerate to 60 mph, but MotorTrend recorded a mere 6.0 with the one-foot rollout, the same as a RWD Mustang Mach-E.The front of a 2023 red Mini Cooper SE.Andrew LambrechtAs for the Mini's range, it houses a 32.6kWh (28.9kWh usable) liquid-cooled lithium-ion battery pack, with an EPA-estimated range of 114 miles. The EPA's 114-mile estimate seems to hold up very well. I think 130 miles would be realistic with relatively nice driving and air conditioning. That said, high-speed freeway driving takes the most significant toll on range, but over 100 miles of range should still be possible.I charge primarily at home via a 220V level 2 socket. A purchase of a Cooper SE includes a 110V level 1 and a 220V level 2 charger. Due to the Mini's 7.2kW onboard charger, it only takes around four hours to go from a zero to completely charged.With typical daily driving around 25 miles, charging takes as little as an hourIn North Carolina, a full charge costs a little under $3.50. Additionally, the Mini is Level 3 DC fast charging compatible, albeit the charge rate is pretty low at just 50kW. Many new electric vehicles on the market can accept around 100 to 250+ kW. This lower acceptance rate means slower charging times. A zero to 80% charge takes around 36 minutes. It isn't slow, but it's in line with its competition in the same price range.The gas cap on a 2023 red Mini Cooper SE.Andrew LambrechtWhile I haven't taken it to a DC fast charger yet, I plan on doing so soon since I'll be taking my Mini on an upcoming 200-mile road trip.I've enjoyed every moment of owning my Mini Cooper SE. It's one of the most enjoyable cars I've ever driven, let alone owned. From its brilliant driving dynamics to its classic Mini styling, the Cooper SE proves that affordable electric vehicles don't have to be boring.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytNov 2nd, 2022

ONEOK Announces 10% Increase in Third Quarter 2022 Net Income

Affirms 2022 Financial Guidance Midpoints Provides 2023 Outlook TULSA, Okla., Nov. 1, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE:OKE) today announced third quarter 2022 results, affirmed its full-year 2022 financial guidance midpoints and provided a 2023 outlook. ONEOK expects a more than 10% increase in 2023 net income and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (adjusted EBITDA), compared with its 2022 guidance midpoints. The company's 2023 outlook is driven by expected continued strength in fee-based earnings and rates, stable to growing producer activity providing higher natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL) volumes, and favorable commodity prices, net of hedging. Third Quarter 2022 Results, Compared With Third Quarter 2021: 10% increase in net income to $431.8 million, resulting in 96 cents per diluted share. 4% increase in adjusted EBITDA to $902.4 million. 17% increase in Rocky Mountain region NGL raw feed throughput volumes. 9% increase in Rocky Mountain region natural gas volumes processed. 32% increase in natural gas gathering and processing segment adjusted EBITDA. 14% increase in natural gas pipelines segment adjusted EBITDA. ONEOK received notice that its insurers agreed to pay a $100 million unallocated first installment of insurance proceeds related to the Medford incident. "Year-over-year earnings and volume growth highlights strong demand in the market for our products and services, continuing to provide growth opportunities for our business ahead," said Pierce H. Norton II, ONEOK president and chief executive officer. "Our more than 10% earnings growth outlook in 2023 is driven by an expectation for increased volumes, higher earnings from fee-based services in all three of our business segments and continued demand for the essential products and services ONEOK provides. "Our dedication to intentional and disciplined growth continues, with an unwavering focus on the safety, reliability and sustainability of our operations," added Norton. THIRD QUARTER 2022 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended September 30, September 30, 2022 2021 2022 2021 (Millions of dollars, except per share amounts) Net income $        431.8 $        392.0 $     1,237.3 $     1,120.3 Diluted earnings per common share (a) $          0.96 $          0.88 $          2.76 $          2.50 Adjusted EBITDA (b) $        902.4 $        865.2 $     2,652.3 $     2,533.1 Operating income $        699.2 $        667.9 $     2,050.6 $     1,944.1 Operating costs $        286.1 $        265.2 $        827.5 $        770.9 Depreciation and amortization $        157.1 $        154.5 $        468.7 $        468.6 Equity in net earnings from investments $          39.2 $          28.6 $        111.2 $          87.6 Maintenance capital $          65.4 $          42.3 $        159.8 $        113.5 Capital expenditures (includes maintenance) $        326.7 $        166.2 $        886.0 $        490.3 (a) Amounts for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2022, includes our $5 million property insurance deductible and an approximately $30 million earnings impact in the Natural Gas Liquids segment from the 45-day waiting period for business interruption coverage related to the Medford incident, which together represent $0.06 per diluted share after tax. (b) Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (adjusted EBITDA) is a non-GAAP measure. Reconciliation to the relevant GAAP measure is included in this news release. HIGHLIGHTS: Third quarter 2022 net income of $431.8 million, a 10% increase compared with the third quarter 2021. Third quarter 2022 adjusted EBITDA of $902.4 million, a 4% increase compared with the third quarter 2021. In October 2022, ONEOK declared a quarterly dividend of 93.5 cents per share, or $3.74 per share on an annualized basis. As of September 2022, ONEOK received an MSCI ESG Rating of AAA. As of Sept. 30, 2022, ONEOK's annualized run-rate net debt-to-EBITDA ratio was 3.8 times. ONEOK began a compression electrification project on its Viking Gas Transmission pipeline to improve operational reliability and provide potential future greenhouse gas emissions reductions on the system. The project is expected to cost approximately $95 million and be complete in the third quarter 2023. ONEOK announced an agreement with several Oklahoma energy companies and organizations to fund an effort to transform the state into a hub for energy technology startups. The effort aims to attract startups to the region by providing access to early-stage venture capital and other resources. THIRD QUARTER 2022 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ONEOK's higher third quarter 2022 net income and adjusted EBITDA, compared with the third quarter 2021, benefited from increased natural gas and NGL volumes in the Rocky Mountain region, higher realized commodity prices and average fee rates in the natural gas gathering and processing segment, higher average fee rates in the natural gas liquids segment and increased storage rates in the natural gas pipelines segment. Net income for the period also benefited from lower interest expense related to increased capitalized interest and lower debt balances, and higher equity in net earnings from investments. Net income for the third quarter 2022 includes the impact of ONEOK's $5 million property insurance deductible and approximately $30 million of losses related to the 45-day business interruption coverage waiting period associated with the Medford incident. Additionally, third quarter results were impacted by decreased optimization and marketing activities in the natural gas liquids segment, higher operating costs primarily related to outside services expenses and property taxes, and higher income taxes. ONEOK expects total capital expenditures, including growth and maintenance capital, of approximately $1.2 billion in 2022. Expected 2022 capital expenditures increased relative to previous estimates due primarily to acceleration of spend on the MB-5 fractionator and smaller projects that were not previously planned for 2022, such as the Viking compression electrification project in the Natural Gas Pipelines segment. Medford Facility Incident Update ONEOK's Medford, Oklahoma, NGL fractionation facility remains out of service following a fire at the facility during the third quarter. ONEOK continues to provide midstream services while the facility is inoperable. In September 2022, ONEOK received notice that its insurers agreed to pay an unallocated first installment of insurance proceeds of $100 million. To date, ONEOK has received approximately $45 million of this amount and expects to receive the remainder before year end. ONEOK has applied the cash received to the outstanding insurance receivables. During the third quarter 2022, ONEOK incurred costs subsequent to the 45-day business interruption waiting period of $21.7 million, primarily related to third-party fractionation costs, and recorded a partial impairment charge of $6.7 million, representing the value associated with certain Medford facility property based on limited assessments to date. There is no income statement impact of these incurred business interruption costs or impairment charges, as they are fully offset by insurance receivables. BUSINESS SEGMENT RESULTS: Natural Gas Liquids Segment Adjusted EBITDA for the ...Full story available on»»

Category: earningsSource: benzingaNov 1st, 2022

Tesla"s Cybertruck is finally getting built next year. Here"s everything Elon Musk has let slip about the controversial pickup and Tesla"s other future vehicles.

Tesla is working on a supercar with 620 miles of range, a self-driving taxi without a steering wheel, and an electric big rig. Tesla is working on the Cybertruck pickup, Roadster supercar, and a dedicated self-driving taxi.Tesla Tesla plans to launch several models in the coming years. They're in various stages of development.  Deliveries of the semi-truck are scheduled to start in December.  Elon Musk says an electric pickup truck, sports car, and self-driving taxi will follow. The long-delayed Tesla Cybertruck will finally go into mass production in late 2023, Reuters reported on Tuesday. The pickup truck is one of several models that Tesla fans are patiently waiting on, including a semi-truck, a supercar, and a self-driving taxi. Elon Musk has also floated the possibility of a cheaper vehicle, an ATV, and a van. Many of these vehicles have already faced long delays, and there's no telling exactly when — or if — they'll come to market. But that hasn't stopped Musk from musing about their designs and wacky features. CybertruckTesla's CybertruckFrederic J. Brown/AFPTesla made a splash when it unveiled the funky-looking Cybertruck pickup at an event 2019 — and not for all the right reasons. First off, the truck's windows were advertised as armored but broke twice during an on-stage demonstration. Some onlookers couldn't get over its weird design. The truck is now supposed to enter early production in 2023, but its price and specs are unknown after Tesla removed details about the Cybertruck from its website.Some fun facts about the pickup, according to Musk: It will be able to serve briefly as a boat and there will be a four-motor version that can spin in place like a tank. Last year, Musk said the truck won't have door handles and that its side mirrors will be removable. RoadsterTesla Roadster.TeslaTesla started out with a two-seater sports car called the Roadster. Now it's bringing it back as a $200,000 supercar that promises to hit 60 mph in under two seconds and drive 620 miles on a full charge. Musk has said it will have cold-air thrusters that will boost acceleration and enable it to hover short distances. We'll believe it when we see it. When the Roadster debuted in 2017, Tesla said it would be on the road by 2020. Now it's targeting 2023. SemiTeslaTesla revealed the Semi in 2017 with lofty goals to revolutionize long-haul trucking. Now the company plans to deliver the first trucks to Pepsi in December, three years behind schedule. The Semi, which will be built at Tesla's factory in Nevada, will be able to travel up to 500 miles on a full charge, Tesla claims. On an earnings call in October, Musk clarified that that range estimate accounts for cargo. It promises to recoup 70% of its range in 30 minutes when plugged into a fast-charger. RobotaxiMusk first mentioned the robotaxi at an event marking the opening of Tesla's factory in Texas.SUZANNE CORDEIRO / AFPIn April, Musk said Tesla would eventually produce a "dedicated" self-driving taxi with "futuristic" looks. Later that month on an earnings call, he said that the robotaxi will be built without a steering wheel or pedals and that it should go into production by 2024. Small, $25,000 carElon Musk announces a future $25,000 EV at Tesla's Sept. 22 "Battery Day" event.Tesla on YouTubeIn 2020, Musk said Tesla was working on a $25,000 car that would be available "about three years from now." Musk squashed hopes that the budget model was imminent when he said in January that Tesla had shelved the project. Then on Tesla's most recent earnings call in October, Musk renewed speculation about the cheap vehicle when he mentioned that Tesla's next vehicle platform will be smaller and cost about half as much as that of the Model 3 and Model Y. He said sales of that future model will quickly dwarf all other Tesla vehicles combined.It's unclear whether Musk was referring to the same $25,000 car he mentioned before or the robotaxi. CyberquadTesla Cybertruck and Cyberquad.Ringo H.W. Chiu/Associated PressTesla revealed the Cyberquad ATV at the same time as the Cybertruck but hasn't said much about it since. (It did briefly sell a kids version for $1,900, which has now been recalled.) According to Musk, the adult model will go on sale alongside the Cybertruck as an option. VanTesla's current lineup of cars.TeslaOn a few different occasions, Musk has mentioned the potential for a Tesla van. On Joe Rogan's podcast last year, Musk said it could be powered by built-in solar panels.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 1st, 2022

46 landmark Supreme Court cases that changed American life as we knew it

The US Supreme Court has made many sweeping, landmark decisions. Here's a primer on 46 of the most important ones, and how they changed American life. Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022.AP Photo/J. Scott ApplewhiteThe US Supreme Court was formed in 1789. It's gone from five seats to 10, and is now fixed at nine.It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year, but its choices have had a huge impact on the country. Some decisions have empowered women, helped protect the environment, or guaranteed a person's right to expression. Others have strengthened racist laws, enabled forced sterilization, and allowed unequal schooling.Here is a guide to 46 of the Supreme Court's most impactful decisions.Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.The US Supreme Court, the court of last resort, has undeniably changed the country.It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year that have sweeping effects on American life.Some have changed race relations for the better, empowered women, given the press freedom to operate, guaranteed a person's right to expression, or reiterated that the president is not above the law.Not every decision has aged well. Other decisions have enforced slavery or create uneven schooling in the US.Most recently, the court overturned a landmark case that legalized abortion in 1973.Here are 45 of the most important cases the Supreme Court has ever decided.Marbury v. Madison (1803)President James Madison.Wikimedia CommonsThe case: Before President Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, lame duck John Adams and Congress created new courts and appointed dozens of judges, including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. But the new administration's Secretary of State James Madison wouldn't validate the appointment. So Marbury sued.The decision: The justices ruled unanimously that Madison's refusal was illegal, and that the law Marbury had sued under was also unconstitutional. More importantly, this ruling held that the Supreme Court had the power of "judicial review" to decide whether a law or executive action is constitutional. This essentially gave the high court the legal authority for every decision it would make in the future.Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)A steamboat passes beneath Brooklyn Bridge on its way to the Atlantic.APThe case: In 1808, New York state gave Aaron Ogden a 20-year license to operate his steamboats on waters within the state. Thomas Gibson, another steam boat operator and Ogden's former business partner, was also working in the area, with a license from the federal government. Ogden claimed Gibbons was undercutting his business by unfairly competing. He wanted Gibbons to stop operating, and argued his license was enforceable, even though it was on interstate waters. Gibbons argued that the US Constitution gave Congress power over interstate commerce.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held states cannot interfere with Congress's ability to regulate commerce. State laws had to yield to constitutional acts by Congress, so the court ruled in Gibbon's favor. It was an important early decision finding that federal governments had the ability to determine interstate commerce.Worcester v. Georgia (1832)Samuel Worcester.WikimediaThe case: In 1828, Georgia passed laws prohibiting anyone except Native Americans from living on Native American land. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was living on Native American land and refused to apply for a license. He was arrested and appealed, arguing his removal was a violation of his constitutional rights, as Georgia had no jurisdiction on Native American land.The decision: The Supreme Court held, 5-1, that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign "distinct community." It struck down the Georgia law prohibiting white people living on Native American land. The case was important because it set out the relationship between tribes, states, and the federal government. It meant that interaction with Native American states became a federal process, and provided some sovereignty when interacting with the US government.But it wasn't always enforced. Then-President Andrew Jackson said, "John Marshall has issued his decision. Let him enforce it."Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney.WikimediaThe case: In 1785, Massachusetts gave the Charles River Bridge Company a charter to build a bridge between Boston and Cambridge. In exchange for covering the costs of building and maintaining it, the company could collect tolls until the charter ended.But in 1828, a second company was authorized to build a competing bridge that would be free to the public, Charles River Bridge sought an injunction to prevent the second bridge from being built.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-2 that the authority given to Charles River never granted them a monopoly, and that general welfare would be enhanced with a second bridge. The court said the responsibility of government was to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community.Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)A painting of Dred Scott by Louis Schultze.Bettmann / GettyThe case: This case arose from a suit brought by a slave in Missouri named Dred Scott. Scott had lived for a time in the free state of Illinois. When his master died in 1849, he sued the widow, arguing his time in the slave-free state made him a free man.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that since Scott's ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, he could not be an American citizen. Since he wasn't a citizen, he had no jurisdiction to sue, which also meant that black people living free in the north were barred from federal courts.  The court also held that under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were property, and any law that deprived a slave-owner of their property was unconstitutional.The decision is thought to be one of the factors that led to the Civil War.Munn v. Illinois (1877)Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the majority opinion.WikimediaThe case: In 1871, Illinois passed legislation that set the maximum rate private companies could charge for storing and transporting agricultural goods. Munn, a grain warehouse, charged too much and was found guilty of violating the law. It appealed, arguing the regulation was an unconstitutional removal of property.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the law was constitutional, and that the state can regulate private industries when it affects the public. Since storage facilities were devoted to the public, they could be regulated. This case allowed states to regulate businesses within their borders. It was important because it showed how private enterprises could be publicly regulated.Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)John Marshall Harlan.WikimediaThe case: Homer Plessy, who was black under Louisiana law of the time, boarded a train and sat in a car that was reserved for white passengers. When he refused to move, he was arrested. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act, which required all railroads to provide equal but separate accommodation, was violating his rights under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-1 that "separate but equal" accommodations for whites and blacks did not violate the 14th Amendment.Justice John Marshall Harlan, known as the "great dissenter," wrote that the Constitution was color-blind, and the US had no class system. "There is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens; there is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," he wrote. Despite his dissent, the decision solidified the "separate but equal" doctrine for the next six decades.Lochner v. New York (1905)Justice Rufus W. Peckham wrote the majority opinion.WikimediaThe case: In 1897, New York passed a labor law limiting the working week for bakers to 60 hours. Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian baker, was fined twice, because his employees worked more than 60 hours. Lochner appealed, arguing the law was unconstitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the New York law was unconstitutional. The court said the law interfered with the contract between an employer and and his employees.This decision was widely condemned. For the next three decades, the court struck down minimum wage laws, rights to organize, and child safety laws using Lochner as precedent, before reversing course and allowing such laws.Abrams v. United States (1919)Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902.WikimediaThe case: In New York, five Russian anti-war activists were arrested under the 1917 Espionage Act for printing and distributing 5,000 leaflets that criticized the US's role in World War I. They also advocated for a general strike, and had put out a call to arms if the US intervened in Russia. They were sentenced to prison for up to 20 years. They appealed.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the Espionage Act was valid, and that it was a crime to willfully publish "disloyal" language about US politics, arguing that such speech was not protected by the First Amendment.One of the most important things to come out of this case is Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion. He argued that the government should only regulate people's expression when it was required to save the country.Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)Justice George Sutherland wrote the opinion.WikimediaThe case: The 1921 Maternity Act gave states money for programs aimed to help mothers and their infants. A woman named Frothingham thought the act would lead to an increase in her taxes, so she tried to sue the federal government. The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held she did not have standing because the injury was too small and indeterminable. It led to the legal concept of a "particularized" injury, which needs to be traced to a legal violation. Without this decision, it would be a lot easier to take a suit to court.Buck v. Bell (1927)Dr. John H. Bell was the superintendent at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded.WikimediaThe case: A young woman named Carrie Buck was diagnosed with "feeble mindedness," and committed to a state institution after she was raped by her foster parent's nephew, and had his child. Her mother had also been diagnosed as feeble minded. Under the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act, she was to be sterilized against her will, since she was seen as unfit to procreate. Buck's appointed guardian sued, hoping to have the Supreme Court find sterilization constitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that there was nothing in the Eighth or 14th Amendments that said Carrie Buck could not be sterilized.In his opinion, Justice Oliver Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes … Three generations of imbeciles are enough."After this case, sterilizations did not cease until the 1960s, and more than 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent. The case has never been overturned.Near v. Minnesota (1931)Floyd B. Olson.Bettmann / GettyThe case: The 1925 Public Nuisance Bill, also known as the "Minnesota gag law," allowed judges to close down newspapers that were deemed obscene or slanderous. In 1927, the Saturday Press, a newspaper based in Minneapolis, began to publish articles attacking several public officials. One of them accused a politician named Floyd B. Olson of being a pawn to a conspiracy. Olson filed a complaint. A judge, using the 1925 law, issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper. The newspaper appealed under the First Amendment's right to a free press.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Public Nuisance law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Hughes wrote, "This statute ... raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion of state action."The case stopped journalists from being censored, and enabled the press to fulfill its role as watchdog, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.Wickard v. Filburn (1942)Robert H. Jackson wrote the opinion.WikimediaThe case: The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, enacted to stabilize agricultural prices after the Great Depression, restricted how much wheat could be grown, to avoid another recession. The Department of Agriculture fined Roscoe Filburn, a wheat farmer in Ohio, for growing too much. He sued, arguing Congress didn't have the authority, since he'd never planned to sell all of the wheat. The issue was whether Congress had the authority to regulate local wheat production.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress had the power to regulate activities in the industry, and within states, when the activities had substantial effects on interstate commerce. So, even though Filburn's wheat wasn't all going to make it into the market, growing it still altered supply and demand in a national market.This case led to the federal government having more power to regulate the economy, and also enabled federal regulation of things like workplace safety and civil rights. Not everyone has been in favor of this case. Notably, the late Justice Antonia Scalia used to laugh at it.Brown v. Board of Education (1954)A woman explains the case to her daughter outside the Supreme Court.Bettmann / GettyThe case: In the 1950s, Linda Brown had to take a dangerous route to school, because the only school that was closer was for white students. Her father, Oliver Brown, believed this was a breach of the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Brown, along with a dozen other parents, challenged the segregation policy on behalf of their 20 children.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. A second decision called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation. This decision knocked down the doctrine of "separate but equal" from Plessy v. Ferguson, which had allowed mixed race schools, transportation, and facilities to exist as long as they were "equal."The Atlantic described Chief Justice Earl Warren's "ringing opinion" as "the belated mid course correction that began America's transformation into a truly multiracial world nation."Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Dollree Mapp escorted into 105th Precinct in New York in 1970.APThe case: When Ohio police thought a suspected bomber was hiding out in Dollree Mapp's house, they forced their way in without a warrant. When Mapp asked where the warrant was, they held up a piece of paper. In their search of her house, they found pornographic materials. They arrested Mapp and later convicted her for being in possession of obscene materials. She appealed.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 that any violation of the Fourth Amendment's right against unlawful searches and seizures made evidence inadmissible in court. Justice Clark wrote in his majority opinion that "the exclusionary rule," which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, was essential.This case has led to the redefining of the rights of people being accused and limits how police can obtain evidence.Engel v. Vitale (1962)The parents who brought suit against public schoolroom prayer in the Herricks School District pose with some of their children in 1962.APThe case: In New York, schools adopted a daily prayer after it was required by state law. Some parents argued it was a violation of individuals' rights, but the school board said it wasn't, since students could opt out. Five families led by parent Steven Engel disagreed, and sued on the basis that it violated the religion clause of the First Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-1 that reading an official prayer at school violated the constitution, because it was an "establishment of religion." Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority: "It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."The case meant any state-enforced prayer, or reading of the bible in a public school would be suspected. It also was a key case showing the enforcement of separation between church and state.Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Clarence Gideon.Bettmann / GettyThe case: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a pool hall. He requested a lawyer to defend him, but Florida's state court rejected him. After defending himself poorly Gideon went to prison. Giddeon appealed, and the issue was whether the right to counsel extended to felony defendants in state courts.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that state courts were required to appoint attorneys for those who could not afford their own counsel.The US justice system would not be what it is today without this decision. The decision affirms that "lawyers in criminals courts are necessities, not luxuries." However, the quality of criminal defense services varies across the country.Reynold v. Sims (1964)Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1964.Charles Tasnadi / APThe case: This case stemmed from the apportionment scheme in Alabama. Under the 14th Amendment, each voter's intentions are meant to have equal weight, but in Alabama, legislative districts were no longer accurately representing the amount of people who lived in them, especially in the cities, where populations had grown rapidly. The issue was whether this breached the "equal protection clause" in the 14th Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that Alabama's apportionment scheme had breached the 14th Amendment. The justices ruled that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and equal participation is crucial. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the majority: "legislators represent people, not trees or acres."This decision made the government more democratic.Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)President Lyndon B. Johnson shake hands with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. after presenting him with a pen used to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964.APThe case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Georgia refused to provide accommodation for black people, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the practice. Two hours after the act was passed, the motel asked the court to stop the enforcement of a clause in Title II, which forbid racist discrimination by public accommodation providers. The motel argued it exceeded Congress's power.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the act was not exceeding Congress's power. It reasoned that discrimination by businesses had a big impact on black people traveling, even when it was a small business, since negative effects could be far-reaching when added up. It was especially the case here, since 75% of the guests staying at the motel came from out of state.This was the first case to challenge the Civil Rights Act, and by upholding it, the act was legitimatized and strengthened. The law would go on to be used to dismantle many other forms of racist discrimination.New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan (second left) celebrates his $500,000 libel suit victory.Bettmann / GettyThe case: This case was about an advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that was published in The New York Times in 1960. The ad was looking for donations to defend Martin Luther King Jr. and criticized the Montgomery police. The ad had factual errors, and L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, sued The Times for defamation, though he wasn't mentioned. In Alabama, Sullivan won and The Times was ordered to pay $500,000. The paper appealed.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that while regular defamation requires that a defendant knows a statement is false or reckless, when it's a public figure, the defendant must act with "actual malice" — meaning they must know it was false or have a "reckless disregard" for the truth.This decision strengthens the freedom of the American press, which has the strongest protections in the world, ensuring debate on public issues is robust and open.Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Ernesto Miranda with his attorney in 1967.Bettmann / GettyThe case: In 1963, police obtained a written confession from Ernesto Miranda that said he had kidnapped and raped a woman. However, they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Miranda appealed on the basis that his confession had been gained unconstitutionally.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that law enforcement must advise suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. Evidence could not be used in a trial unless the warnings had been given and knowingly waived.Police work, and the well-known "you have the right to remain silent" would not be so firmly entrenched into society (or TV shows and movies) without this decision. People know their rights, and police know they have to read them to suspects.Loving v. Virginia (1967)Richard P. Loving and wife Mildred in 1965.APThe case: Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were from Virginia, where inter-racial marriage was illegal. In 1958, they got married in D.C. and then returned home. On their return, they were charged with breaking the law and sentenced to one year in prison. A judge suspended their sentence as long as they didn't return to the state together for 25 years. Loving wrote to then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy and asked for his help, and he referred them to the ACLU, which helped them sue.The decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Warren wrote, "Under our constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state."In a watershed moment for civil rights, the case found that people of any race, anywhere in the US, can get married, striking down laws banning inter-racial marriage in 16 states. The case was later cited in same-sex marriage cases.Terry v. Ohio (1968)Justice William O. Douglas.Wikimedia.The case: In 1963, three men were suspiciously walking back and forth in a block in Cleveland, Ohio, and a detective thought they were preparing to rob a store. He approached them, identified himself, then frisked them and found two concealed guns. One of the men was convicted for having the gun. The man appealed. The issue was whether police frisking violated the Fourth Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the search was reasonable since the men were acting suspiciously, warranting inquiry. If circumstances justify a belief that an individual is armed and dangerous, the justices ruled, the officer may pat down the outside of an individual's clothing.Justice William O. Douglas, the lone dissenter, did not think the standard for search and seizures should have been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." He wrote: "Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country."This case opened up the police's ability to investigate activity they deem suspicious.Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)Clarence Brandenburg and Richard Hanna, following their arrests in 1964.APThe case: Clarence Brandenburg was arrested after making racist remarks and claiming the government was suppressing the "Caucasian race" to a gathering of Ku Klux Klan members in a field in Ohio. He also mentioned action might need to be taken, and was filmed by media he had invited to the gathering. The state law criminalized advocating violence as a means of accomplishing political reform, and he was sentenced to up to 10 years prison. The issue was whether speech advocating for violence was protected by the First Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held per curiam, which means in the name of the court rather than the judges, that his freedom of speech had been violated. It found that speech may only be outlawed when it is directly inciting "imminent lawless action." It also found that abstract discussions are not the same as actual preparation to engage in violence. This case broadened protections for political dissent.Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)Ida Phillips.APThe case: Ida Phillips applied for a job at the Martin Marietta Corporation, a missile plant in Orlando. She had seven children, and the business had a hiring policy excluding mothers with pre-school children, believing them to be unreliable. Phillips alleged she'd been denied employment because of her sex. The issue was whether this was discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was complicated, because the company hired women for the job, just not women with young children.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that it was discriminatory, since it was based on the sex of the applicant, even if it was about motherhood.However, it did send the case back to lower courts to give the corporation a chance to present evidence about the impeded ability of mothers with young children. And the judges were uneasy about the idea that both sexes were equally equipped to do all jobs. Justice Hugo Black asked Phillips' lawyer, "Does the law require that the employer give the woman a job of digging ditches and things of that kind?"All nine justices at the time were men.Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)Amish children head to classes.Amy Sancetta / APThe case: In Wisconsin, children were required by law to attend school until they were 16. But three Amish families refused to send their children to school after eighth grade, when most children are 14, resulting in $5 fines from the state. (Amish families think the content of secondary and higher education conflicts with their life of austerity.) They argued the compulsory attendance violated their rights under the First Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise Clause.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Amish families' right to religious freedom was not overridden by the state's interest in education. It held that sending the children to high school would threaten the Amish way of life. Freedom of religion was seen as more important than the state's interest in education, and this case created an exception for Amish people, and others in similar situations.The justices agreed overall on the ruling, but Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent arguing that the children's viewpoint wasn't being considered, worried that they may miss out on an education if they're not asked whether they want to go to high school.Roe v. Wade (1973)Demonstrators.Cynthia Johnson / The LIFE Images Collection / GettyThe case: This case stemmed from a Texas law that said abortion was illegal unless, by doctor's orders, it was to save a woman's life. An anonymous plaintiff called Jane Roe (who was later identified as Norma McCorvey) filed against the Dallas County district attorney, arguing the law was unconstitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that overly restrictive legislation around abortion was unconstitutional. Based on a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment, the state was not allowed to regulate a woman's decision.This case overruled any laws that made abortion illegal before a fetus was viable, giving women more power when it comes to their bodies and having children. It made access to abortion a constitutional right.San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)Children work on their various assignments in this open classroom in Crystal City, Texas, June 3, 1974.Ted Powers / APThe case: In the late 1960s, schools in Texas could use local property taxes to boost revenue. So schools that were based in poorer areas had less revenue, because the property taxes were lower. A class-action suit was filed on behalf of children living in poorer areas. The issue here was whether the system violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there is no constitutional right to an equal education. The opinion said it should not be unconstitutional, because "burdens or benefits" fall unevenly, depending on the wealth of the areas in which citizens live.In Time Magazine's list of the worst Supreme Court cases since 1960, the editors concluded this case enforced the idea that discrimination against the poor did not violate the Constitution, and education wasn't a fundamental right.United States v. Nixon (1974)Former President Richard Nixon.Charles Tasnadi, File/APThe case: This case was triggered by the Watergate scandal, when a special prosecutor asked for tapes that President Richard Nixon had recorded in the White House. He refused, saying he had "executive privilege" that allowed him to withhold sensitive information in order to maintain confidential communications and to maintain national security. Nixon released edited versions, but not the complete tapes, leading to Nixon and the prosecutor both filing petitions to be heard in the Supreme Court.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that while there was limited executive privilege for military or diplomacy reasons, it wasn't enough in this case. Nixon had to hand over the tapes. The case led to Nixon's resignation, and also ensures that the president does not have unlimited privilege to withhold information from other branches of government. "Not even the president is above the law," Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe said.O'Conner v. Donaldson (1975)Kenneth Donaldson holds a copy of a Supreme Court opinion in 1975.Charles Bennet / APThe case: After Kenneth Donaldson told his parents he thought his neighbor was poisoning his food, he was examined and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Against his will, he was committed to a state hospital for the next 15 years. During that time, two different people volunteered to be responsible for him, but the hospital refused to release him. He sued, saying the hospital staff had "intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his right to liberty."The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that mental patients could not be confined in institutions against their will, if they weren't dangerous and were capable of surviving in society. In the opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote: "May the state fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the state, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric."The decision established the legal threshold for people posing a danger to themselves or others.Buckley v. Valeo (1976)Senator James L. Buckley in 1975.APThe case: This was a case about freedom of speech, in particular about spending limits by, or for, candidates running for office. Sen. James L. Buckley, and a coalition of groups, filed a suit arguing that the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limited spending and required spending disclosures, weren't constitutional.The decision: The court held per curiam that independent spending was a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it also concluded that contributions could be capped. This is an important decision for campaign spending. It helped lead the way to the rising of political action committees, or PACs. It also led to the enforcement of reporting campaign spending.First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti (1978)Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti, left in 1976.APThe case: Several plaintiffs, including the First National Bank of Boston, wanted to challenge a proposed increase on personal income taxes for high-wage earners in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs wanted to pay for advertising to criticize it, but they could only spend money if they were "materially affected," based on a Massachusetts law, which restricted what corporations could spend in politics. Attorney General Francis Bellotti said the bank wasn't materially affected. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provision.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional. The court concluded that the First Amendment protected corporations, since they were made up of shareholders who decided their corporation should engage on public issues. This case opened the door to Citizens United.Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)Allan Bakke on his first day at Medical School.Walt Zeboski / APThe case: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old Vietnam war veteran, was rejected from medical school at the University of California twice. Every year, the school accepted 100 people, and 16 of those accepted were from "minority groups." He argued his rejections were due to "reverse racism", since his grades were better than the 16 people who got in on minority seats.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that Bakke should be admitted. However, it also said race could be taken into account to promote diversity on campuses.Six different justices wrote opinions. In one opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."Since this case, despite affirming that race could be taken into account, the percentage of black freshman in the US has not changed. A 2017 analysis found they make up 6% of freshmen, but are 15% of college-age Americans.Strickland v. Washington (1984)Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1967.John Rous / APThe case: David Washington was sentenced to death after he pleaded guilty to murder. But this case arose out of what his lawyer didn't do during the trial. His lawyer failed to call any character witnesses or get a psychiatric evaluation. Washington appealed, arguing his counsel's assistance was constitutionally ineffective.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that ineffective counsel only violated the Sixth Amendment when the performance was deficient. For this, counsel assistance had to fall below an objective reasonableness standard, and there needed to be a "reasonable probability" the result would have been different had counsel not failed.Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in dissent: "My objection to the performance standard adopted by the Court is that it is so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation ... To tell lawyers and the lower courts that counsel for a criminal defendant must behave 'reasonably' and must act like 'a reasonably competent attorney' is to tell them almost nothing."This case makes it difficult for defendants to prove ineffective assistance claims, since they need to show that it's outside the range of professional competence and that the client was prejudiced by it.Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)Chevron.Marco Bello / ReutersThe case: In 1977, Congress added an amendment to the Clean Air Act, requiring states to establish programs to reduce power plant pollution. In the amendment, entire power plants were treated as a single unit within a "bubble", even if they had multiple smoke stacks. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) thought the bubble interpretation dulled the law, and sued the EPA.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bubble policy was valid. It found that if the law is clear then agencies must follow it, and when a a law does not have a clear meaning, the courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation of the law.This is one of the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time, and this standard became known as the "Chevron Defense."Texas v. Johnson (1989)Gregory Johnson speaking against constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, outside Capitol.Cynthia Johnson / The LIFE Images Collection / GettyThe case: During a protest in 1984 against then-President Ronald Reagan and local corporations in Dallas, Gregory Johnson covered the American flag in kerosene then lit it on fire, offending witnesses. He was arrested and charged with desecrating a venerated object, which was banned under Texas law. He was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay $2,000. He appealed, on the basis that the law was in breach of his First Amendment rights.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable ... We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."Despite former President George H. Bush proposing to add an anti flag burning amendment to the constitution, this case still protects unpopular political expression in the US today.Michael H. v Gerald D. (1989)Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority.REUTERS/Darren OrnitzThe case: A man, for the purposes of the case named Michael, had an affair with a woman who later had a child. Blood tests indicated he was the father. He wanted visitation rights, but under California law, the child is presumed to be from the marriage, and another person can only challenge that within the child's first two years of life. Michael was too late, and sued. The issue was whether the California law violated the man's chance to establish paternity.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that a biological father does not have a fundamental right to obtain parental rights, after the presumed father had acted in a responsible way for the child. A woman's husband is to be presumed father of her children, regardless of anyone else's claim.Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health (1990)Family photo of Nancy Cruzan.APThe case: In 1983, Nancy Cruzan, a 25-year-old woman, was in a car crash that resulted in her falling into a vegetative state. She was on life support for five years, and had no chance of recovery, but doctors estimated she could have lived on life support for another 30 years. Her parents asked for her to be disconnected, but the hospital refused without a court order. Before the car crash, Nancy had said she would not want to live if she were sick or injured and could not live "at least halfway normally." Her parents asked for a court order to remove her from life support.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there was a right to die, but the state had the right to stop the family, unless there was "clear and convincing" evidence that it was her wish to die.This was the first time the court had ruled on a right-to-die case. It didn't set national guidelines, and left it to be decided on a state-by-state basis. In the month after the case, 300,000 requests were made for advance-directive forms, so people could make it known in advance what should happen to them if they became incapacitated.Lawrence v. Texas (2003)John Lawrence and Tyron Garner celebrate their victory in 2003.Michael Stravato / APThe case: Police entered a private residence on a false report about a weapons disturbance, and found Lawrence and Garner engaging in a consensual sexual act. They were arrested and convicted under Texas law, which forbid two people of the same sex to have sex. The issue for this case was whether the 14th Amendment protected them.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Texas law violated their right to liberty, under the "Due Process Clause," which allowed them to engage in their conduct without government intervention.This was seen as a victory for LGBT rights, removing what one law professor called "the reflexive assumption of gay people's inferiority," and overturning 14 state laws across the US.Georgia v. Randolph (2006)Police enter a property.Jae C. Hong / APThe case: After a fight at home between a separated couple, a woman called the police and told them to come in, then showed them cocaine she said her husband was using. The husband was later charged with possession, even though he had told the police they couldn't come in. The issue was whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one person gives consent, but the other refuses.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-3 that in at least a few circumstances the right to search and enter is not valid if one of the occupants says they can't, ruling in the husband's favor.This case narrows the scope for when police can enter and search homes without warrants. They can still enter to protect someone from harm or to chase a fleeing suspect, for example.Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion.WikimediaThe case: This case came about in 1999, when Massachusetts, 11 other states, and several environmental organizations petitioned for the EPA to start regulating carbon dioxide coming out of new motor vehicles, since it was a pollutant. The EPA denied the petition, saying it did not have the legal authority to regulate it.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the EPA had the right to regulate heat-trapping gases coming from automobiles, and that the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant had been written with sweeping language so that it would not become obsolete.According to James Salzman, a professor of law and environmental policy at Duke University, the majority's acknowledgement of climate change science put this case on the legal map. And since it made it almost impossible for the EPA not to regulate, the decision sent a message to other agencies that they also had to deal with climate change.District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)Robert A. Levy and Dick Anthony Heller outside the Supreme Court in 2008.Pablo Martinez Monsivais / APThe case: Richard Heller, a security guard who lived in D.C. and carried a gun for work, was not allowed to have a gun at home, due to the city's laws. He thought the laws were too restricting and made it impossible to defend himself. Heller, along with five others, sued, arguing it was a violation of the Second Amendment. They were funded by Robert Levy, a libertarian lawyer from the Cato Institute.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. It was the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment.In 2019, former-Justice John Paul Stevens said it was the worst decision during his 34-year tenure, representing "the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court's history." He said an amendment should be added to the Constitution to overrule the case, to stop gun massacres like what had happened in Las Vegas or Sandy Hook.Citizens United v. FEC (2010)Citizens United President David Bossie outside the Supreme Court.Lauren Victoria Burke / APThe case: A non-profit organization called Citizens United made a disparaging film about Hilary Clinton and they wanted to run an advertisement for it during the 2008 election. But the Federal Election Campaign Act banned corporations and unions from spending money to advocate during elections. So Citizens United couldn't show the film since it mentioned Clinton, who was a presidential candidate at the time. Citizens United argued the ban was unconstitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that corporations and unions can spend as much as they like to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. The ruling gave corporations protections under the First Amendment's right to free speech.Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent of the ruling, that it was "a rejection of the common sense of the American people," and a threat to democracy.The decision changed how politics works in the US. In the 2014 senate elections, outside spending had more than doubled to $486 million since 2010.National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius speaks to the media outside the Supreme Court in 2015.Alex Wong / GettyThe case: President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, and to decrease the cost of healthcare. Twenty-six states, several people, and the National Federation of Independent Business sued to overturn the law. The first issue was whether it was legal to require people to purchase health insurance with an individual mandate. The second was whether a provision forcing states to cover more people or lose federal funding was unconstitutionally coercive.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the individual mandate was legitimate, because it was in essence a tax, and struck down the provision that would withhold funds for states which did not expand the program.It wasn't without dissent, though. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the decision was a "vast judicial overreaching," which would create a "debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation."Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice after the U.S Supreme Court hands down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage June 26, 2015 outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC.Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesThe case: James Obergefell and John Arthur, a couple from Ohio, got married in Maryland. In Ohio, same-sex marriage was not allowed on death certificates. Arthur was chronically ill and wanted to have Obergefell on his death certificate. Along with three couples from Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, they sued their states, claiming they were in breach of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state shall ... deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry, including same-sex marriages. Every state in the US now legally recognizes same-sex marriage. Before this case, 13 states still had a ban on gay marriage.Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)An anti-abortion supporter sits outside the Jackson Women's Health Organization, which closed within weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.Rogelio V. Solis/APThe case: In March 2018, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's only abortion clinic since 2006, sued the state for enacting a law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lawsuit argued that the rule was unconstitutional due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Dobbs refers to Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs, the state's Department of Health officer, but he had little to do with the overall case.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law. However, on top of the ruling, five of the justices in the majority opinion also ruled to overturn Roe, repealing a landmark case that made abortion legal in the US for nearly five decades. Chief Justice John Roberts was the only member of the court's conservative majority who believed the court should not have outright overruled Roe.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: dealsSource: nytOct 31st, 2022

Spooky Torts: The 2022 List Of Litigation Horrors

Spooky Torts: The 2022 List Of Litigation Horrors Authored by Jonathan Turley, Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween of course remains a holiday seemingly designed for personal injury lawyers around the world and this year’s additions show why. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. Particularly with the recent tragedy in South Korea, our annual listing is not intended to belittle the serious losses that can occur on this and other holidays. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. So, with no further ado, here is this year’s updated list of actual cases related to Halloween. In October 2021, Danielle Thomas, former exotic dancer known as “Pole Assassin” (and the girlfriend of Texas special teams coach Jeff Banks), found herself embroiled in a Halloween tort after the monkey previously used in her act bit a wandering child at the house of horror she created for Halloween. Thomas considers the monkey Gia to be her “emotional support animal.” Thomas goes all out for the holiday and converted her home into a house of horrors, including a maze. She said that the area with Gia was closed off and, as for petting, “no one is allowed to touch her!”  She publicly insisted “No one was viciously attack this a lie, a whole lie! She was not apart of any haunted house, the kid did not have permission to be on the other side of my property!” She even posted a walk-through video of the scene to show the steps that a child would have to take to get to the monkey. Don’t worry folks I got the #MonkeyGate video — Christian Sykes (@ctsykes13) November 2, 2021 She insists in the video that she knows all of the governing legal rules and shows the path in detail. It is not helpful on the defense side: it is not a long path and easy to see how a child might get lost. She later deleted her account (likely after her attorney regained consciousness). The case raises an array of torts including animal liability, licensee liability, negligence, and attractive nuisance claims. In 2022, we often added conversion to the usual torts where multiple versions of the new giant skeleton were stolen, including one particularly ham-handed effort in Austin, Texas caught on video tape: * * * In Berea, Ohio, the promoters of the 7 Floors of Hell haunted house at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds appreciate realism but one employee took it a bit too far. An actor brandished this real bowie knife as a prop while pretending to stab an 11-year-old boy’s foot. He then stabbed him. The accident occurred when the actor, 22, approached the boy and stabbed at the ground as a scare tactic. He got too close and accidentally cut through the child’s shoe, piercing a toe. The injury was not serious since the boy was treated at the scene and continued through the haunted house. The case raises an interesting question of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts by employees in the course of employment. The question is what is in the scope of employment.  The question is often whether an employee was on a “detour” or “frolic.”  A detour can be outside of an employer’s policies or guidelines but will be the basis for liability as sufficiently related to the employment.  A frolic is a more serious deviation where the employee is acting in his own capacity or for his own interests. In this case, the actor was clearly within his scope of employment in trying to scare the visitors. However, he admitted that he bought the knife in his personal capacity and agreed it “was not a good idea” to use it at the haunted house, according to FOX 8. That still does not negate the negligence — both direct and vicarious liability. There was a failure to monitor employees and safeguard the scene. His negligence is also likely attributable to the employer. Finally, this would constitute battery as a reckless, though unintended, act. * * * In 2020, parents in Indiana were given a warning in a Facebook post that the Indiana State Police seized holiday edibles featuring packaging that resembles that of actual name brands — but with the word “medicated” printed on the wrapper along with cannabis symbols. The packaging makes it easy for homeowners to confuse packages and give out drugged candy.  Indeed, last year, two children were given THC-infused gummies while trick-or-treating, according to police in Waterford, Conn.. Such candies include the main active ingredient linked to the psychedelic effects of cannabis – the plant from which marijuana is derived. Even an accidental distribution of such infused candies would constitute child endangerment and be subject to both negligence and strict liability actions in torts. * * * I previously have written how the fear of razor blades in apples appears an urban legend. Well, give it enough time and someone will prove you wrong. That is the allegation of Waterbury, Connecticut police who say that Jason A. Racz, 37, put razor blades in candy bags of at least two trick-or-treaters. Racz’ razor defense may not be particularly convincing to the average juror. According to police, “Racz explained that the razor blades were accidentally spilled or put into the candy bowl he used to hand out candy from.” However, police noted that he “provided no explanation as to how the razor blades were handed out to the children along with the candy.” The charge was brought soon after Halloween in 2019. Racz is now charged with risk of injury to a minor, reckless endangerment and interfering with a police officer. He could also be charged with battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it is not clear if any children were injured. *  *  * Steven Novak, an artist from Dallas, Texas, believes that Halloween should be a bit more than a traditional plastic pumpkin and a smiling ghost.  Police were called to his home in Texas over a possible murder. They found a dummy impaled on a chainsaw with fake blood; another dummy hanging from his roof; a wheelbarrow full of fake dismembered body parts and other gory scenes.  Neighbors called the display too traumatizing.  Police responded by taking pictures for their families. A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. There must be not just outrageous conduct but conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression . . . even when accompanied by buckets of fake blood. *  *  * The Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom in Pennsylvania tells customers that, if they come to their Halloween Haunt, “Fear is waiting for you.” In 2019, a new case was filed by Shannon Sacco and her daughter over injuries sustained from “unreasonable scaring.” They are seeking $150,000. The Allentown Morning Call reported that “M.S.” went with friends to the amusement park and was immediately approached by costumed characters. She said that she told them that she did not want to be scared and backed away. A little further on into the park however a costumed employee allegedly ran up behind her and shouted loudly. The startled girl fell forward and suffered what were serious but unspecified injuries. She alleges ongoing medical issues and inability to return to fully functioning activities. The lawsuit also alleges that the park failed to inform Sacco or her daughter that they could buy a glow-in-the-dark “No Boo” necklace to ward off costumed employees. The obvious issue beyond the alleged negligence of the Park is the plaintiffs’ own conduct. Pennsylvania is a comparative negligence state so contributory negligence by the plaintiffs would not be a bar to recovery. See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. However, it is a modified comparative negligence state so they must show that they are 50 percent or less at fault. If they are found 51 percent at fault, they are barred entirely from recovery. Even if they can recover, their damages are reduced by the percentage of their own fault in going to a park during a Halloween-themed event. *  *  * In 2019, there is a rare public petition to shutdown a haunted house that has been declared to be a “torture chamber.” The move to “shut down McKamey Manor” that has been signed by thousands who believe Russ McKamey, the owner of McKamey Manor, has made his house so scary that it constitutes torture, including an allegation of waterboarding of visitors. The haunted house requires participants to get a doctor’s note and sign a 40-page waiver before they enter. People are seeking the closure of the houses located in Summertown, Tennessee and Huntsville, Alabama. McKamey insists that it is just a “crazy haunted house” and stops well short of the legal-definition of torture. The question is whether consent vitiates any extreme frights or contacts. He is also clear in both the waiver and the website that the house is an “extreme haunted attraction” for legal adults who “must be in GREAT HEALTH to participate.” Not only do people enter with full knowledge but there is no charge. McKamey owns five dogs and only requires a bag of dog food for entry. Presumably the food is cursed. *  *  * An earlier case was recently made public from an accident on October 15, 2011 in San Diego. Scott Griffin and friends went to the Haunted Trail in San Diego. The ticket warns of “high-impact scares” along a mile path with actors brandishing weapons and scary items. Griffen, 44, and his friends went on the trail and were going out of what they thought was an exit. Suddenly an actor jumped out as part of what the attraction called “the Carrie effect” of a last minute scare. While Griffen said that he tried to back away, the actor followed him with a running chain saw. He fell backwards and injured his wrists. The 2013 lawsuit against the Haunted Hotel, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleged negligence and assault. However, Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal granted a motion to dismiss based on assumption of the risk. She noted that Griffin “was still within the scare experience that he purchased.” After all, “Who would want to go to a haunted house that is not scary?” Griffen then appealed and the attorney for the Haunted Hotel quoted Hunter S. Thompson: “Buy the ticket, take the ride.” Again, the court agreed. In upholding the lower court, Justice Gilbert Nares wrote, “Being chased within the physical confines of the Haunted Trail by a chain saw–carrying maniac is a fundamental part and inherent risk of this amusement. Griffin voluntarily paid money to experience it.” *  *  * In 2018, a case emerged in Madison, Tennessee from the Nashville Nightmare Haunted House.   James “Jay” Yochim and three of his pals went to the attraction composed of  four separate haunted houses, an escape room, carnival games and food vendors.  In the attraction, people are chased by characters with chainsaws and other weapons.  They were not surprised therefore when a man believed to be an employee in a Halloween costume handed Tawnya Greenfield a knife and told her to stab Yochim.  She did and thought it was all pretend until blood started to pour from Yochim’s arm. The knife was real and the man was heard apologizing “I didn’t know my knife was that sharp.” It is not clear how even stabbing with a dull knife would be considered safe. The attraction issued a statement: “As we have continued to review the information, we believe that an employee was involved in some way, and he has been placed on leave until we can determine his involvement. We are going over all of our safety protocols with all of our staff again, as the safety and security of all of our patrons is always our main concern. We have not been contacted by the police, but we will cooperate fully with any official investigation.” The next scary moment is likely to be in the form of a torts complaint.  Negligence against the company under respondeat superior is an obvious start. There is also a novel battery charge where he could claim that he was stabbed by trickery or deceit of a third person. There are also premises liability issues for invitees.  As for Greenfield, she claims to have lacked consent due to a misrepresentation.  She could be charged with negligence or a recklessness-based theory of battery, though that seems less likely.  Finally, there is an interesting possible claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in being tricked or misled into stabbing an individual. *  *  * Last year, a 21-year-old man surnamed Cheung was killed by a moving coffin in a haunted house in Hong Kong’s Ocean Park.   The attraction is called “Buried Alive” and involves hopping into coffins for a downward slide into a dark and scary space. The ride promises to provide people with the “experience of being buried alive alone, before fighting their way out of their dark and eerie grave.” Cheung took a wrong turn and went backstage — only to be hit by one of the metal coffins.  The hit in the head killed Cheung who was found later in the haunted house. While there is no word of a tort lawsuit (and tort actions are rarer in Hong Kong), the case is typical of Halloween torts involving haunted houses.  The decor often emphasizes spooky and dark environs which both encourage terror and torts among the participants.  In this case, an obvious claim could be made that it is negligence to allow such easy access to the operational area of the coffin ride — particularly in a dark space.  As a business invitee, Cheung would have a strong case in the United States. *  *  * A previous addition to the Spooky torts was the odd case of Assistant Prosecutor Chris White. White clearly does not like spiders, even fake ones. That much was clear given his response to finding fake spiders scattered around the West Virginia office for Halloween. White pulled a gun and threatened to shoot the fake spiders, explaining that he is “deathly afraid of spiders.” It appears that his arachnophobia (fear of spiders) was not matched by a hoplophobia (fear of firearms). The other employees were reportedly shaken up and Logan County Prosecuting Attorney John Bennett later suspended White. Bennett said “He said they had spiders everyplace and he said he told them it wasn’t funny, and he couldn’t stand them, and he did indeed get a gun out. It had no clip in it, of course they wouldn’t know that, I wouldn’t either if I looked at it, to tell you the truth.” It is not clear how White thought threatening the decorative spiders would keep them at bay or whether he was trying to deter those who sought to deck out the office in a Halloween theme. He was not charged by his colleagues with a crime but was suspended for his conduct. This is not our first interaction with White. He was the prosecutor in the controversial (and in my view groundless) prosecution of Jared Marcum, who was arrested after wearing a NRA tee shirt to school. *  *  * Another new case from the last year involves a murder. Donnie Cochenour Jr., 27, got a seasonal break (at least temporarily) on detecting his alleged murder of Rebecca J. Cade, 31. Cade’s body was left hanging on a fence and was mistaken by neighbors as a Halloween decoration. The “decoration” was found by a man walking his dog and reported by construction workers. A large rock was found with blood on it nearby. Donnie Cochenour Jr., 27, was later arrested and ordered held on $2 million bond after he pleaded not guilty to murder. Cade apparently had known Cochenour since he was a child — a relationship going back 20 years. Cochenour reportedly admitted that they had a physical altercation in the field. Police found a blood trail that indicates that Cade was running from Cochenour and tried to climb the fence in an attempt to get away. She was found hanging from her sleeve and is believed to have died on the fence from blunt force trauma to the head and neck. Her body exhibited “defensive wounds.” When police arrested Cochenour, they found blood on is clothing. *  *  * In 2015, federal and state governments were cracking down on cosmetic contact lenses to give people spooky eyes. Owners and operators of 10 Southern California businesses were criminally charged in federal court with illegally selling cosmetic contact lenses without prescriptions. Some of the products that were purchased in connection with this investigation were contaminated with dangerous pathogens that can cause eye injury, blindness and loss of the eye. The products are likely to result in a slew of product liability actions. *  *  * Another 2015 case reflects that the scariest part of shopping for Halloween costumes or decorations may be the trip to the Party Store. Shanisha L. Saulsberry sued U.S. Toy Company, Inc. after she was injured shopping for Halloween costumes and a store rack fell on her. The jury awarded Saulsberry $7,216.00 for economic damages. She appealed the damages after evidence of her injuries were kept out of the trial by the court. However, the Missouri appellate court affirmed the ruling. *  *  * The case of Castiglione v. James F. Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, shows a classic Halloween tort. The lawsuit alleged that, on Halloween 2007, the defendant’s son threw an egg which hit the plaintiff’s daughter in the eye, causing her injuries. The plaintiff also brought criminal charges against the defendant’s son arising from this incident and the defendant’s son pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). However, at his deposition, the defendant’s son denied throwing the egg which allegedly struck the plaintiff’s daughter. Because of the age of the accused, the case turned on the youthful offender statute (CPL art 720) that provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders which provides “Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court, all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the division of criminal justice services, relating to a case involving a youth who has been adjudicated a youthful offender, are confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency [with certain exceptions not relevant here]” (CPL 720.35 [2]). This covers both the physical documents constituting the official record and the information contained within those documents. Thus, in relation to the Halloween egging, the boy was protected from having to disclose information or answer questions regarding the facts underlying the adjudication *  *  * We discussed the perils of pranks and “jump frights,” particularly with people who do not necessarily consent. In the case of Christian Faith Benge, there appears to have been consent in visiting a haunted house. The sophomore from New Miami High School in Ohio died from a prior medical condition at the at Land of Illusion haunted house. She was halfway through the house with about 100 friends and family members when she collapsed. She had an enlarged heart four times its normal size. She also was born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, which prevents the lungs from developing normally. This added stress to the heart. In such a case, consent and comparative negligence issues effectively bar recovery in most cases. It is a terrible loss of a wonderful young lady. However, some fatalities do not always come with liability and this appears such a case. Source: Journal News *  *  * As discussed earlier, In Franklin County, Tennessee, children may want to avoid the house of Dale Bryant Farris, 65, this Halloween . . . or houses near him. Bryant was arrested after shooting a 15-year-old boy who was with kids toilet-papering their principal’s front yard. Bryant came out of his house a couple of houses down from the home of Principal Ken Bishop and allegedly fired at least two blasts — one hitting a 15-year-old boy in the right foot, inner left knee, right palm, right thigh and right side of his torso above the waistline. Tennessee is a Castle Doctrine state and we have seen past cases like the notorious Tom Horn case in Texas where homeowners claimed the right to shoot intruders on the property of their neighbors. It is not clear if Bryant will argue that he was trying to stop intruders under the law, but it does not appear a good fit with the purpose or language of the law. Farris faces a charge of aggravated assault and another of reckless endangerment. He could also face civil liability from the boy’s family. This would include assault and battery. There is a privilege of both self-defense and defense of others. This privilege included reasonable mistaken self-defense or defense of others. This would not fit such a claim since he effectively pursued the boys by going to a neighbor’s property and there was no appearance of a threat or weapon since they were only armed with toilet paper. The good news is that Farris can now discard the need for a costume. He can go as himself at Halloween . . . as soon as he is out of jail. *  *  * As shown below, Halloween nooses have a bad record at parties. In 2012, a club called Pink Punters had a decorative noose that it had used for a number of years that allowed party goers to take pictures as a hanging victim on Halloween. Of course, you guessed it. A 25-year old man was found hanging from the noose in an accidental self-lynching at the nightclub in England. The case would appear easy to defend in light of the assumption of the risk and patent danger. The noose did not actually tighten around necks. Moreover, this is England where tort claims can be more challenging. In the United States, however, there would remain the question of a foreseeable accident in light of the fact that patrons are drinking heavily and drugs are often present at nightclubs. Since patrons are known to put their heads in the noose, the combination is intoxication and a noose is not a particularly good mix. *  *  * Grant v. Grant. A potential criminal and tort case comes to us from Pennsylvania where, at a family Halloween bonfire, Janet Grant spotted a skunk and told her son Thomas Grant to fetch a shotgun and shoot it. When he returned, Janet Grant shined a flashlight on the animal while her son shot it. It was only then that they discovered that Thomas Grant had just shot his eight-year-old cousin in her black and white Halloween costume. What is amazing is that authorities say that they are considering possible animal gaming charges. Fortunately, the little girl survived with a wound to the shoulder and abdomen. The police in Beaver County have not brought charges and alcohol does not appear to have been a factor. Putting aside the family connection (which presumably makes the likelihood of a lawsuit unlikely), there is a basis for both battery and negligence in such a wounding. With children in the area, the discharge of the firearm would seem pretty unreasonable even with the effort to illuminate “the animal.” Moreover, this would have to have been a pretty large skunk to be the size of an eight-year-old child. Just for the record, the average weight of a standard spotted skunk in that area is a little over 1 pound. The biggest skunk is a hog-nosed skunk that can reach up to 18 pounds. *  *  * We also have a potential duel case out of Aiken, South Carolina from one year ago. A 10-year-old Aiken trick-or-treater pulled a gun on a woman who joked that she wanted take his candy on Halloween. Police found that his brother, also ten, had his own weapon. The 28-year-old woman said that she merely joked with a group of 10 or so kids that she wanted their candy when the ten-year-old pulled out a 9 mm handgun and said “no you’re not.” While the magazine was not in the gun, he had a fully loaded magazine in his possession. His brother had the second gun. Both appear to have belonged to their grandfather. The children were released to their parents and surprisingly there is no mention of charges against the grandfather. While the guns appear to have been taken without his permission, it shows great negligence in the handling and storage of the guns. What would be interesting is a torts lawsuit by the woman for assault against the grandfather. The actions of third parties often cut off liability as a matter of proximate causation, though courts have held that you can be liable for creating circumstances where crimes or intentional torts are foreseeable. For example, a landlord was held liable in for crimes committed in his building in Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue. Here the grandfather’s negligence led to the use of the guns by these children. While a lawsuit is unlikely, it would certainly be an interesting — and not unwarranted — claim. *  *  * Tauton High School District The Massachusetts case of Smith v. Taunton High School involves a Halloween prank gone bad. A teacher at Taunton High School asked a 15-year-old student to answer a knock on the classroom door. The boy was startled when he came face to face with a man in a mask and carrying what appeared to be a running chainsaw. The student fell back, tripped and fractured a kneecap. His family is now suing though the state cap on such lawsuits is $100,000. Dussault said the family is preparing a lawsuit, but is exploring ways to avoid a trial and do better than the $100,000 cap when suing city employees. This could make for an interesting case, but would be better for the Plaintiffs as a bench versus a jury trial. Many jurors are likely to view this as simply an attempt at good fun by the teacher and an unforeseeable accident. Source: CBS *  *  * In Florida, a woman has sued for defamation, harassment and emotional distress after her neighbor set up decorations that included an insane asylum sign that pointed to her yard and a fake tombstone with an inscription she viewed as a reference to her single status. It read, “At 48 she had no mate no date/ It’s no debate she looks 88.” This could be a wonderful example of an opinion defense to defamation. As for emotional distress, I think the cause of the distress pre-dates Halloween. *  *  * Pieczonka v. Great America (2012) A family is suing Great America for a tort in 2011 at Great Falls. Father Marian Pieczonka alleged in his complaint that his young daughter Natalie was at the park in Gurnee, Illinois for the Halloween-themed Fright Fest when a park employee dressed in costume jumped out of a port-a-potty and shot her with a squirt gun. He then reported chased the screaming girl until she fell and suffered injuries involving scrapes and bruises. The lawsuit alleges negligence in encouraging employees to chase patrons given the tripping hazards. They are asking $30,000 in the one count complaint but could face assumption or comparative negligence questions, particularly in knowingly attending an event called “Fright Fest” where employees were known to jump out at patrons. *  *  * A lawsuit appears inevitable after a tragic accident in St. Louis where a 17-year-old girl is in a critical condition after she became tangled in a noose at a Halloween haunted house called Creepyworld. The girl was working as an actress at the attraction and was found unconscious. What is particularly chilling is that people appeared to have walked by her hanging in the house and thought she was a realistic prop. Notably, the attraction had people walk through to check on the well-being of actors and she was discovered but not for some time after the accident. She is in critical condition. Creepyworld employs 100 people and can expect a negligence lawsuit. *  *  * Rabindranath v. Wallace (2010) Peter Wallace, 24, was returning on a train with fellow Hiberinian soccer fans in England — many dressed in costumes (which the English call “fancy dress.”) One man was dressed as a sheep and Wallace thought it was funny to constantly flick his lighter near the cotton balls covering his body — until he burst into flames. Friends then made the matter worse by trying to douse the flames but throwing alcohol on the flaming man-sheep. Even worse, the victim Arjuna Rabindranath, 24, is an Aberdeen soccer fan. Rabindranath’s costume was composed of a white tracksuit and cotton wool. Outcome: Wallace is the heir to a large farm estate and agreed to pay damages to the victim, who experienced extensive burns. What is fascinating is the causation issue. Here, Wallace clearly caused the initial injury which was then made worse by the world’s most dim-witted rescue attempt in the use of alcohol to douse a fire. In the United States, the original tortfeasor is liable for such injuries caused by negligent rescues. Indeed, he is liable for injured rescuers. The rescuers can also be sued in most states. However, many areas of Europe have good Samaritan laws protecting such rescuers. Notably, Wallace had a previous football-related conviction which was dealt with by a fine. In this latest case, he agreed to pay 25,000 in compensation. The case is obviously similar to one of our prior Halloween winners below: Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson *  *  * Perper v. Forum Novelties (2010) Sherri Perper, 56, of Queens, New York has filed a personal injury lawsuit due to defective shoes allegedly acquired from Forum Novelties. The shoes were over-sized clown shoes that she was wearing as part of her Halloween costume in 2008. She tripped and fell. She is reportedly claiming that the shoes were dangerous. While “open and obvious” is no longer an absolute defense in such products cases, such arguments may still be made to counter claims of defective products. In most jurisdictions, you must show that the product is more dangerous than the expectations of the ordinary consumer. It is hard to see how Perper could be surprised that it is a bit difficult to walk in over-sized shoes. Then there is the problem of assumption of the risk. *  *  * Dickson v. Hustonville Haunted House and Greg Walker (2009) Glenda Dickson, 51, broke four vertebrae in her back when she fell out of a second story window left open at the Hustonville Haunted House, owned by Greg Walker. Dickson was in a room called “The Crying Lady in the Bed” when one of the actors came up behind the group and started screaming. Everyone jumped in fright and Dickson jumped back through an open window that was covered with a sheet — a remarkably negligent act by the haunted house operator. She landed on a fire escape and then fell down some stairs. *  *  * Maryland v. Janik (2009) Sgt. Eric Janik, 37, went to a haunted house called the House of Screams with friends and when confronted by a character dressed as Leatherface with a chainsaw (sans the chain, of course), Janik pulled out his service weapon and pointed it at the man, who immediately dropped character, dropped the chainsaw, and ran like a bat out of Halloween Hell. Outcome: Janik is charged with assault and reckless endangerment for his actions. Charges pending. *  *  * Patrick v. South Carolina (2009) Quentin Patrick, 22, an ex-convict in Sumter, South Carolina shot and killed a trick-or-treater T.J. Darrisaw who came to his home on Halloween — spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door. T.J.’s 9-year- old brother, Ahmadre Darrisaw, and their father, Freddie Grinnell, were injured but were released after being treated at a hospital. Patrick left his porch light on — a general signal for kids that the house was open for trick and treating. The boy’s mother and toddler sibling were in the car. Patrick emptied the AK-47 — shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock. He said that he had been previously robbed. That may be so, but it is unclear what an ex-con was doing with a gun, let alone an AK-47. OUTCOME: Charges pending for murder. *  *  * Kentucky v. Watkins (2008) As a Halloween prank, restaurant manager Joe Watkins of the Chicken Ranch in Paris, Kentucky thought it was funny to lie in a pool of blood on the floor. After seeing Watkins on the floor, the woman went screaming from the restaurant to report the murder. Watkins said that the prank was for another employee and that he tried to call the woman back on her cell phone. OUTCOME: Under Kentucky law, a person can be charged with a false police report, even if he is not the one who filed it. The police charged Watkins for causing the woman to file the report — a highly questionable charge. *  *  * Mays v. Gretna Athletic Boosters␣95-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 01/17/96) “Defendant operated a haunted house at Mel Ott Playground in Gretna to raise money for athletic programs. The haunted house was constructed of 2×4s and black visqueen. There were numerous cubbyholes where “scary” exhibits were displayed. One booster club member was stationed at the entrance and one at the exit. Approximately eighteen people participated in the haunted house by working the exhibits inside. Near and along the entrance of the haunted house was a bathroom building constructed of cinder blocks. Black visqueen covered this wall. Plaintiff and her daughter’s friend, about 10 years old, entered the haunted house on October 29, 1988. It was nighttime and was dark inside. Plaintiff testified someone jumped out and hollered, scaring the child into running. Plaintiff was also frightened and began to run. She ran directly into the visqueen-covered cinder block wall. There was no lighting in that part of the haunted house. Plaintiff hit the wall face first and began bleeding profusely from her nose. She testified two surgeries were required to repair her nose.” OUTCOME: In order to get the proper effect, haunted houses are dark and contain scary and/or shocking exhibits. Patrons in a Halloween haunted house are expected to be surprised, startled and scared by the exhibits but the operator does not have a duty to guard against patrons reacting in bizarre, frightened and unpredictable ways. Operators are duty bound to protect patrons only from unreasonably dangerous conditions, not from every conceivable danger. As found by the Trial Court, defendant met this duty by constructing the haunted house with rooms of adequate size and providing adequate personnel and supervision for patrons entering the house. Defendant’s duty did not extend to protecting plaintiff from running in a dark room into a wall. Our review of the entire record herein does not reveal manifest error committed by the Trial Court or that the Trial Court’s decision was clearly wrong. Plaintiff has not shown the haunted house was unreasonably dangerous or that defendant’s actions were unreasonable. Thus, the Trial Court judgment must be affirmed. *  *  * Powell v. Jacor Communications␣ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 320 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.2003) “On October 15, 1999, Powell visited a Halloween season haunted house in Lexington, Kentucky that was owned and operated by Jacor. She was allegedly hit in the head with an unidentified object by a person she claims was dressed as a ghost. Powell was knocked unconscious and injured. She contends that she suffered a concussion and was put on bed rest and given medications by emergency-room physicians. Powell further claims that she now suffers from several neuropsychological disorders as a result of the incident.” OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations. *  *  * Kansas City Light & Power Company v. Trimble␣ 315 Mo. 32; 285 S.W. 455 (1926) Excerpt: “A shapely pole to which, twenty-two feet from the ground is attached a non-insulated electric wire . . Upon a shapely pole were standard steps eighteen inches apart; about seventeen feet from the ground were telephone wires, and five feet above them was a non-insulated electric light wire. On Halloween, about nine o’clock, a bright fourteen-year-old boy and two companions met close to the pole, and some girls dressed as clowns came down the street. As they came near the boy, saying, “Who dares me to walk the wire?” began climbing the pole, using the steps, and ascended to the telephone cables, and thereupon his companions warned him about the live wire and told him to come down. He crawled upon the telephone cables to a distance of about ten feet from the pole, and when he reached that point a companion again warned him of the live wire over his head, and threatened to throw a rock at him and knock him off if he did not come down. Whereupon he turned about and crawled back to the pole, and there raised himself to a standing position, and then his foot slipped, and involuntarily he threw up his arm, his hand clutched the live wire, and he was shocked to death.” OUTCOME: Frankly, I am not sure why the pole was so “shapely” but the result was disappointing for the plaintiffs. Kansas City Light & Power Company v. Trimble: The court held that the appellate court extended the attractive nuisance doctrine beyond the court’s ruling decisions. The court held that appellate court’s opinion on the contributory negligence doctrine conflicted with the court’s ruling decisions. The court held that the administrator’s case should never have been submitted to the jury. The court quashed the appellate opinion. “To my mind it is inconceivable that a bright, intelligent boy, doing well in school, past fourteen years of age and living in the city, would not understand and appreciate the fact that it would be dangerous to come in contact with an electric wire, and that he was undertaking a dangerous feat in climbing up the pole; but even if it may be said that men might differ on that proposition, still in this case he was warned of the wire and of the danger on account of the wire and that, too, before he had reached a situation where there was any occasion or necessity of clutching the wire to avoid a fall. Not only was he twice warned but he was repeatedly told and urged to come down.” *  *  * Purtell v. Mason␣ 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49064 (E.D. Ill. 2006) “The Purtells filed the present lawsuit against Defendant Village of Bloomingdale Police Officer Bruce Mason after he requested that they remove certain Halloween tombstone “decorations” from their property. Evidence presented at trial revealed that the Purtells placed the tombstones referring to their neighbors in their front yard facing the street. The tombstones specifically referred to their neighbors, who saw the language on the tombstones. For instance, the tombstone that referred to the Purtells’ neighbor James Garbarz stated: Here Lies Jimmy, The OlDe Towne IdioT MeAn As sin even withouT his Gin No LonGer Does He wear That sTupiD Old Grin . . . Oh no, noT where they’ve sent Him! The tombstone referring to the Purtells’ neighbor Betty Garbarz read: BeTTe wAsN’T ReADy, BuT here she Lies Ever since that night she DieD. 12 feet Deep in this trench . . . Still wasn’T Deep enough For that wenches Stench! In addition, the Purtells placed a Halloween tombstone in their yard concerning their neighbor Diane Lesner stating: Dyean was Known for Lying So She was fried. Now underneath these daises is where she goes crazy!! Moreover, the jury heard testimony that Diane Lesner, James Garbarz, and Betty Garbarz were upset because their names appeared on the tombstones. Betty Garbarz testified that she was so upset by the language on the tombstones that she contacted the Village of Bloomingdale Police Department. She further testified that she never had any doubt that the “Bette” tombstone referred to her. After seeing the tombstones, she stated that she was ashamed and humiliated, but did not talk to Jeffrey Purtell about them because she was afraid of him. Defense counsel also presented evidence that the neighbors thought the language on the tombstones constituted threats and that they were alarmed and disturbed by their names being on the tombstones. James Garbarz testified that he interpreted the “Jimmy” tombstone as a threat and told the police that he felt threatened by the tombstone. He also testified that he had concerns about his safety and what Jeffrey Purtell might do to him.” OUTCOME: The court denied the homeowners’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to and motion for a new trial. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to Officer Mason, a rational jury could conclude that the language on the tombstones constituted threats, that the neighbors were afraid of Jeffrey Purtell, and that they feared for their safety. As such the Court will not disturb the jury’s conclusion that the tombstones constituted fighting words — “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” *  *  * Goodwin v. Walmart 2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 78 “On October 12, 1993, Randall Goodwin went to a Wal-Mart store located on 6th Street in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He entered through the front door and walked toward the sporting goods department. In route, he turned down an aisle known as the seasonal aisle. At that time, it was stocked with items for Halloween. This aisle could be observed from the cash registers. Mr. Goodwin took only a few steps down the aisle when he allegedly stepped on a wig and fell, landing on his right hip. As a result of the fall, Mr. Goodwin suffered severe physical injury to his back, including a ruptured disk. Kelly Evans, an employee for appellee, was standing at the end of her check-out stand when Mr. Goodwin approached her and informed her that he had fallen on an item in the seasonal aisle. She stated that she “saw what he was talking about.” OUTCOME: Judgment affirmed because the pleadings, depositions, and related summary judgment evidence did not show that there was any genuine issue of material fact as appellant customer did not establish a plastic bag containing the Halloween wig which allegedly caused him to slip and fall was on the floor as the result of appellee’s negligence or it had been on the floor for such a period of time that appellee knew or should have known about it. *  *  * Eversole v. Wasson␣ 80 Ill. App. 3d 94 (Ill. 1980) Excerpt: “The following allegations of count I, directed against defendant Wasson, were incorporated in count II against the school district: (1) plaintiff was a student at Villa Grove High School which was controlled and administered by the defendant school district, (2) defendant Wasson was employed by the school district as a teacher at the high school, (3) on November 1, 1978, at approximately 12:30 p.m., Wasson was at the high school in his regular capacity as a teacher and plaintiff was attending a regularly scheduled class, (4) Wasson sought and received permission from another teacher to take plaintiff from that teacher’s class and talk to him in the hallway, (5) once in the hallway, Wasson accused plaintiff of being one of several students he believed had smashed Wasson’s Halloween pumpkin at Wasson’s home, (6) without provocation from plaintiff, Wasson berated plaintiff, called him vile names, and threatened him with physical violence while shaking his fist in plaintiff’s face which placed plaintiff in fear of bodily injury, (7) Wasson then struck plaintiff about the head and face with both an open hand and a closed fist and shook and shoved him violently, (8) as a result, plaintiff was bruised about the head, neck, and shoulders; experienced pain and suffering in his head, body, and limbs; and became emotionally distraught causing his school performance and participation to be adversely affected . . .” OUTCOME: The court affirmed that portion of the lower court’s order that dismissed the count against the school district and reversed that portion of the lower court’s order that entered a judgment in bar of action as to this count. The court remanded the case to the lower court with directions to allow the student to replead his count against the school district. *  *  * Holman v. Illinois 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 372 (1995) “The Claimant was attending a Halloween party at the Illinois State Museum with her grandson on October 26, 1990. The party had been advertised locally in the newspaper and through flier advertisements. The advertisement requested that children be accompanied by an adult, to come in costume and to bring a flashlight. The museum had set up different display rooms to hand out candy to the children and give the appearance of a “haunted house.” The Claimant entered the Discovery Room with her grandson. Under normal conditions the room is arranged with tables and low-seated benches for children to use in the museum’s regular displays. These tables and benches had been moved into the upper-right-hand corner of the Discovery Room next to the wall. In the middle of the room, there was a “slime pot” display where the children received the Halloween treat. The overhead fluorescent lights were turned off; however, the track lights on the left side of the room were turned on and dim. The track lights on the right side of the room near the tables and benches were not lit. The room was dark enough that the children’s flashlights could be clearly seen. There were approximately 40-50 people in the room at the time of the accident. The Claimant entered the room with her grandson. They proceeded in the direction of the pot in the middle of the room to see what was going in the pot. Her grandson then ran around the pot to the right corner toward the wall. As the Claimant followed, she tripped over the corner of a bench stored in that section of the room. She fell, making contact with the left corner of the bench. She experienced great pain in her upper left arm. The staff helped her to her feet. Her father was called and she went to the emergency room. Claimant has testified that she did not see the low-seating bench because it was so dimly lit in the Discovery Room. The Claimant was treated at the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with a fracture of the proximal humeral head of her left arm as a result of the fall. Claimant returned home, but was unable to work for 12 to 13 weeks.” OUTCOME: “The Claimant has met her burden of proof. She has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the State acted negligently in placing furnishings in a dimly-lit room where visitors could not know of their location. The State did not exercise its duty of reasonable care. For the foregoing reasons, the Claimant is granted an award of $20,000.” *  *  * Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson 771 F. Supp. 196 “Plaintiffs Susan and Frank Ferlito, husband and wife, attended a Halloween party in 1984 dressed as Mary (Mrs. Ferlito) and her little lamb (Mr. Ferlito). Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. She had also used defendant’s product to fashion a headpiece, complete with ears. The costume covered Mr. Ferlito from his head to his ankles, except for his face and hands, which were blackened with Halloween paint. At the party Mr. Ferlito attempted to light his cigarette by using a butane lighter. The flame passed close to his left arm, and the cotton batting on his left sleeve ignited. Plaintiffs sued defendant for injuries they suffered from burns which covered approximately one-third of Mr. Ferlito’s body.” OUTCOME: Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson: Plaintiffs repeatedly stated in their response brief that plaintiff Susan Ferlito testified that “she would never again use cotton batting to make a costume.” Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendant JJP’s Motion for J.N.O.V., pp. 1, 3, 4, 5. However, a review of the trial transcript reveals that plaintiff Susan Ferlito never testified that she would never again use cotton batting to make a costume. More importantly, the transcript contains no statement by plaintiff Susan Ferlito that a flammability warning on defendant JJP’s product would have dissuaded her from using the cotton batting to construct the costume in the first place. At oral argument counsel for plaintiffs conceded that there was no testimony during the trial that either plaintiff Susan Ferlito or her husband, plaintiff Frank J. Ferlito, would  have acted any different if there had been a flammability warning on the product’s package. The absence of such testimony is fatal to plaintiffs’ case; for without it, plaintiffs have failed to prove proximate cause, one of the essential elements of their negligence claim. In addition, both plaintiffs testified that they knew that cotton batting burns when it is exposed to flame. Susan Ferlito testified that she knew at the time she purchased the cotton batting that it would burn if exposed to an open flame. Frank Ferlito testified that he knew at the time he appeared at the Halloween party that cotton batting would burn if exposed to an open flame. His additional testimony that he would not have intentionally put a flame to the cotton batting shows that he recognized the risk of injury of which he claims JJP should have warned. Because both plaintiffs were already aware of the danger, a warning by JJP would have been superfluous. Therefore, a reasonable jury could not have found that JJP’s failure to provide a warning was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. The evidence in this case clearly demonstrated that neither the use to which plaintiffs put JJP’s product nor the injuries arising from that use were foreseeable. But in Trivino v. Jamesway Corporation, the following result: The mother purchased cosmetic puffs and pajamas from the retailer. The mother glued the puffs onto the pajamas to create a costume for her child. While wearing the costume, the child leaned over the electric stove. The costume caught on fire, injuring the child. Plaintiffs brought a personal injury action against the retailer. The retailer filed a third party complaint against the manufacturer of the puffs, and the puff manufacturer filed a fourth party complaint against the manufacturer of the fibers used in the puffs. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the actions against the manufacturers. On appeal, the court modified the judgment, holding that the mother’s use of the puffs was not unforeseeable as a matter of law and was a question for the jury. The court held that because the puffs were not made of cotton, as thought by the mother, there were fact issues as to the puffs’ flammability and defendants’ duty to warn. The court held that there was no prejudice to the retailer in permitting plaintiffs to amend their bill of particulars. OUTCOME: The court modified the trial court’s judgment to grant plaintiffs’ motion to amend their bill of particulars, deny the retailer’s motion for summary judgment, and reinstate the third party actions against the manufacturers. Tyler Durden Mon, 10/31/2022 - 19:05.....»»

Category: blogSource: zerohedgeOct 31st, 2022

Tesla is finally building its Semi truck. Here"s what we know about future models like the Cybertruck, Roadster supercar, and more.

Elon Musk is planning several new Teslas for the near future, including a $200,000 supercar with a 250-mph top speed and an ATV. Tesla is working on the Cybertruck pickup, Roadster supercar, and a dedicated self-driving taxi.Tesla Tesla plans to launch several models in the coming years. They're in various stages of development.  Deliveries of the semi-truck are scheduled to start in December.  Elon Musk says an electric pickup truck, sports car, and self-driving taxi will follow. Tesla currently sells four models, but Elon Musk has grand plans to launch a range of new vehicles in coming years. The company is working on a semi-truck, a cyberpunk pickup, and a supercar, and Musk has mentioned several other potential projects. Many of these vehicles have already faced long delays, and there's no guarantee they'll all see the light of day. SemiThe interior of the upcoming Tesla Semi.TeslaTesla revealed the Semi in 2017 with lofty goals to revolutionize long-haul trucking. Now the company plans to deliver the first trucks to Pepsi in December, three years behind schedule. The Semi, which will be built at Tesla's factory in Nevada, will be able to travel up to 500 miles on a full charge, Tesla claims. It promises to recoup 70% of its range in 30 minutes when plugged into a fast-charger. CybertruckTesla's CybertruckFrederic J. Brown/AFPTesla made a splash when it unveiled the funky-looking Cybertruck pickup at an event 2019 — and not for all the right reasons. First off, the truck's windows were advertised as bulletproof but broke twice during an on-stage demonstration. Some onlookers couldn't get over its weird design. The truck is now supposed to enter early production in 2023, but its price and specs are unknown after Tesla removed details about the Cybertruck from its website. Some fun facts about the pickup, according to Musk: It will be able to serve briefly as a boat and there will be a four-motor version that can spin in place like a tank. RoadsterTesla Roadster.TeslaTesla started out with a two-seater sports car called the Roadster. Now it's bringing it back as a $200,000 supercar that promises to hit 60 mph in under two seconds and drive 620 miles on a full charge. Musk has said it will have cold-air thrusters that will boost acceleration and enable it to hover short distances. We'll believe it when we see it. When the Roadster debuted in 2017, Tesla said it would be on the road by 2020. Now it's targeting 2023. RobotaxiMusk first mentioned the robotaxi at an event marking the opening of Tesla's factory in Texas.SUZANNE CORDEIRO / AFPIn April, Musk said Tesla would eventually produce a "dedicated" self-driving taxi with "futuristic" looks. Later that month on an earnings call, he said that the robotaxi will be built without a steering wheel or pedals and that it should go into production by 2024. Small, $25,000 carElon Musk announces a future $25,000 EV at Tesla's Sept. 22 "Battery Day" event.Tesla on YouTubeIn 2020, Musk said Tesla was working on a $25,000 car that would be available "about three years from now." Musk squashed hopes that the budget model was imminent when he said in January that Tesla had shelved the project. Then on Tesla's most recent earnings call in October, Musk renewed speculation about the cheap vehicle when he mentioned that Tesla's next vehicle platform will be smaller and cost about half as much as that of the Model 3 and Model Y. He said sales of that future model will quickly dwarf all other Tesla vehicles combined.It's unclear whether Musk was referring to the same $25,000 car he mentioned before or the robotaxi. CyberquadTesla Cybertruck and Cyberquad.Ringo H.W. Chiu/Associated PressTesla revealed the Cyberquad ATV at the same time as the Cybertruck but hasn't said much about it since. (It did briefly sell a kids version for $1,900, which has now been recalled.) According to Musk, the adult model will go on sale alongside the Cybertruck as an option. VanTesla's current lineup of cars.TeslaOn a few different occasions, Musk has mentioned the potential for a Tesla van. On Joe Rogan's podcast last year, Musk said it could be powered by built-in solar panels.Tesla would join Ford, GM, Rivian, and Mercedes, all of whom now sell electric delivery vans. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytOct 29th, 2022

Sometimes it pays to get fired. Twitter"s top executives stand to make a total of $88 million between them if Elon Musk ousts them. Here"s the payday for each executive.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and top lawyer Vijaya Gadde were jettisoned by Musk on Thursday evening. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images, Andrew Kelly/Reuters Elon Musk is expected to make significant changes to Twitter's ranks, and layoffs are likely. The current CEO and CFO were ousted on Thursday evening. Other execs are expected to leave too. Each will receive a large payday should they be fired by Musk. Getting fired by Elon Musk will prove very lucrative for Twitter's top executives.Musk just took over Twitter after a tumultuous few months in which he offered to buy it for $44 billion, tried to back out of the deal, was sued by Twitter and ultimately agreed to buy it again. Now in charge, Musk is expected to reorganize the business and cut the workforce.Although the amount of Musk's intended cuts is unclear, any such move is expected to include most of Twitter's C-suite, people familiar with the acquisition deal have told Insider. On Thursday evening, the CEO, CFO, and top lawyer were already gone.Getting fired by Musk will likely give the executives some of the largest payouts they've ever seen. Through "change in control" provisions in employment contracts for top leadership, they will receive a certain amount of severance and an automatic acceleration of their shares, so long as Musk fires them. The provisions are disclosed in regulatory filings.Agrawal, who saw Musk turn on him months ago, is set to receive the largest payout of $38.7 million, due largely to the entirety of his shares vesting upon his firing.Ned Segal, Twitter's chief financial officer, is set to receive a $25.4 million payout for getting fired.Vijaya Gadde, the chief legal officer, will leave with $12.5 million.Sarah Personette, the chief customer officer, would get $11.2 million.In the months between Musk taking a large investor stake in the company and becoming its new owner, Twitter's executives have remained largely silent in public. When Agrawal attempted back in April to chastise Musk for some of his public comments about the platform, it led to Musk quickly turning on him and announcing his intent to take over the company. Now Musk will likely have to pay Agrawal on the way out.Are you a Twitter employee or someone else with insight to share? Contact Kali Hays at, on secure messaging app Signal at 949-280-0267, or through Twitter DM at @hayskali. Reach out using a non-work device.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderOct 28th, 2022