Pep Guardiola denies rumours of a rift with Kevin De BruyneCommanders place kicker Austin Seibert on injured reserve4 Compelling Singapore Stocks That Could Ride the AI Wave to Greater Prosperity
BY MELISSA GOLDIN Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont’s high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents’ wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella’s suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella’s son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school’s assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct” that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Related Articles National News | Eminem’s mother Debbie Nelson, whose rocky relationship fueled the rapper’s lyrics, dies at age 69 National News | Judge weighs whether to order Fani Willis to comply with lawmakers’ subpoenas over Trump case National News | Are you a former SmileDirectClub customer? You might be eligible for a refund National News | Justice Department announces sweeping reforms to curb suicides in federal prisons and jails National News | Defense makes closing argument in murder trial of Cash App founder Bob Lee Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn’t say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court’s mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.”The bill to ban social media for children under 16 will be a “test” for Peter Dutton’s leadership, says Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth. Speaking on Nine’s Today , Rishworth said there was bipartisan support for the bill, but that Dutton was losing control of his caucus. “Just a couple of weeks ago, Peter Dutton said he would facilitate this important piece of legislation and support the government. And now we see our senators defying him,” she said. “So this is a test for Peter Dutton and his leadership.” Also on Today was Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie, who said there were still concerns about digital ID laws and privacy. “Given the [is] censoring the Australian public bill from the Senate this week, we want to make sure we get strong, robust laws that don’t damage privacy and make compulsory Australians having to have digital IDs,” she said. “We do want strong, robust laws to protect kids under 16 on social media platforms. We’ve been out of the blocks before the government on this. We need to get the legislation right so it does actually get the outcomes we want. And we need to make sure that those protections exist in the legislation.” Read more about the debate within the Coalition on the ban here. An alternative proposal to the social media ban on children under 16 has been put forth by independent MP Zoe Daniel, who claims a ban doesn’t tackle the underlying issues that harm young people. Daniel’s bill would implement an overarching statutory duty of care on social media companies, with the goal being “safety by design”. “What you need to make that work is the companies to assess the risks, mitigate the risks, and be transparent about how they’re doing that,” Daniel told ABC News Breakfast. “The bill also has a provision to enable users to have control over the algorithm as exists overseas, particularly in the EU, enabling users to either reset or turn off their algorithm if they wish.” Independent MP Zoe Daniel. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen Daniel says her work in the space began with tackling eating disorders, with a working group revealing the damage the algorithm was doing to sufferers by delivering them more content about eating disorders. She says the same trend is seen in a range of public health issues including gambling. “The problem with the algorithm is that in many ways, it compounds negative behaviour, and particularly for young people - that can send young people into a real spiral,” Daniel said. “The legislation is based on international best practice, so in effect, it cherry-picks the best of legislation that is already in place in Europe and in the UK.” The Goldstein MP said the government have been responsive to her proposal, and flagged they would consider duty of care eventually. But Daniel hopes the government will consider her bill now. “I understand why they want to do [the under 16s social media ban] because it is a lever to pull now and it makes parents feel better, but it actually makes zero difference to what is happening on the platforms. It doesn’t manage the algorithm or force the platforms to do anything about what is happening in their environment.” Social media companies, including Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta, have taken aim at the “rushed” consultation process for the ban on children under 16. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland introduced the world-leading reform to parliament last Thursday, which she said would make the online environment better for young people. The consultation period for groups and individuals to make submissions closed on Friday. A Senate committee held a one-day hearing on Monday and is due to report back on Tuesday. In submissions to the inquiry, several groups, including social media companies, pointed to the short notice period. Snap Inc. wrote that “the extremely compressed timeline” had allowed stakeholders little more than 24 hours to provide a response, which “severely” constrained thorough analysis and informed debate. X, formerly Twitter, also criticised the “unreasonably short time frame of one day”, writing that it has “serious concerns as to the lawfulness of the bill”. Meta, which owns Facebook, wrote that there had been “minimal consultation or engagement” and urged the government to wait for the results of the age assurance trial before progressing with the legislation. TikTok said that despite the “time-limited review”, there was a range of “serious, unresolved problems” that the government must clarify to ensure there wouldn’t be unintended consequences for all Australians. AAP Labor has gained a crucial concession from the Greens after a year of dispute over a $5.5 billion plan to help young Australians buy their first homes, securing the policy with a stunning back down from the minor party. The decisions late on Monday delivered a big victory to the federal government in the final week of parliament for the year, but other bills are on the brink of defeat after Senate crossbenchers blasted Labor for trying to rush through changes on the environment, political donations and other issues. Read more about the status of the bills on the brink, including the social media ban, political donation changes and environmental reforms, here. Good morning and welcome to the national news blog. My name is Josefine Ganko, and as always, I’ll lead our coverage for the first half of the day. It’s Tuesday, November 26. Here’s what’s making news this morning. Let’s get into it.
San Diego County supervisor Jim Desmond joins Faulkner Focus to discuss a vote from the San Diego County board of supervisors on a measure blocking police from working with federal immigration enforcement. San Diego County has voted to further block county cooperation with federal immigration authorities ahead of an expected deportation push by the incoming Trump administration next year – a move quickly slammed by a top local Republican. The resolution goes further than California’s existing ‘sanctuary’ law, which generally limits law enforcement's cooperation with ICE. The vote was approved in a 3-1 vote by San Diego County’s board of supervisors. The resolution says that the county will not provide assistance or cooperation to ICE "including by giving ICE agents access to individuals or allowing them to use County facilities for investigative interviews or other purposes, expending County time or resources responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding individuals’ incarceration status or release dates, or otherwise participating in any civil immigration enforcement activities." BLUE STATE COUNTY TEES UP VOTE ON ‘KNEE-JERK’ RESOLUTION TO PROTECT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM DEPORTATION ICE agents make arrests on September 25, 2019, in Revere, Massachusetts. ( Photo by Matt Stone/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images) When ICE is aware of a suspected illegal immigrant in local or state custody, it will lodge a detainer with law enforcement, typically requesting that the agency is notified ahead of their release and in some cases held until ICE can take custody of them. ICE says this helps detain illegal immigrants without having to go into communities and gets illegal immigrant offenders off the streets. Sanctuary proponents say that such policies chill cooperation between law enforcement and otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. " When federal immigration authorities , including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Border Patrol, coerce local law enforcement to carry out deportations, family members are separated and community trust in law enforcement and local government is destroyed," an overview of the resolution claims. "Witnesses and victims who are undocumented or who have loved ones who are undocumented are afraid to come to the County for help, which includes calling local law enforcement. This puts the public safety of all San Diegans at risk." ANOTHER MAJOR BLUE CITY DOUBLES DOWN ON VOW TO OBSTRUCT TRUMP'S MASS DEPORTATION PLAN Former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Thomas Homan speaks during the third day of the 2024 Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on July 17, 2024. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) The vote comes just over a month before President-elect Trump will be sworn into office. He has pledged to launch a "historic" mass deportation operation once in office to remove millions of illegal immigrants from the country. San Diego County Board of Supervisors Chair Nora Vargas said that California’s current sanctuary laws restricting ICE deportations don’t go far enough. "While the California Values Act significantly expanded protection from deportation to California residents, it fell short of protecting all residents, because it allowed agencies to still notify ICE of release dates and transfers individuals to ICE without a warrant in some circumstances," she said. The resolution echoes a similar policy enacted in 2019 by Santa Clara County. CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS Supervisor Jim Desmond, a Republican who provided the sole nay vote on the resolution, slammed the passage of the law. He previously told Fox News Digital that the move was part of an effort by some Democrats to "Trump-proof" the state. On Tuesday he said the vote is a "direct betrayal of the people we are sworn to protect." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "This reckless measure not only goes far beyond California's already extreme Sanctuary State laws but actively endangers our communities by shielding illegal immigrant criminals from deportation. Consider this: under this policy, law enforcement is prohibited from notifying ICE about individuals, in custody, who have committed violent and heinous crimes, including: Rape and stalking, Assault and battery, Burglary, Child abuse and more," he said. He said he has already been in touch with members of the incoming Trump administration and "will fight relentlessly to undo this disastrous policy and ensure that illegal immigrant criminals are removed from our neighborhoods." Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, primarily covering immigration and border security. He can be reached at adam.shaw2@fox.com or on Twitter .POET Technologies Completes US$25 Million Registered Direct Offering
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) — The NFL removed New England Patriots safety Jabrill Peppers from the commissioner exempt list on Monday, making him eligible to participate in practice and play in the team’s games. Read this article for free: Already have an account? To continue reading, please subscribe: * FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) — The NFL removed New England Patriots safety Jabrill Peppers from the commissioner exempt list on Monday, making him eligible to participate in practice and play in the team’s games. Read unlimited articles for free today: Already have an account? FOXBOROUGH, Mass. (AP) — The NFL removed New England Patriots safety Jabrill Peppers from the commissioner exempt list on Monday, making him eligible to participate in practice and play in the team’s games. Peppers missed seven games since being placed on the list on Oct. 9 after he was arrested and charged with shoving his girlfriend’s head into a wall and choking her. The league said its review is ongoing and is not affected by the change in Peppers’ roster status. Braintree, Massachusetts, police said they were called to a home for an altercation between two people on Oct. 7, and a woman told them Peppers choked her. Police said they found at the home a clear plastic bag containing a white powder, which later tested positive for cocaine. Peppers, 29, pleaded not guilty in Quincy District Court to charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and possession of a Class “B” substance believed to be cocaine. At a court appearance last week a trial date was set for Jan. 22. “Any act of domestic violence is unacceptable for us,” Patriots coach Jerod Mayo said after the arrest. “With that being said, I do think that Jabrill has to go through the system, has to continue to go through due process. We’ll see how that works out.” A 2017 first-round draft choice by Cleveland, Peppers spent two seasons with the Browns and three with the New York Giants before coming to New England in 2022. He was signed to an extension this summer. He played in the first four games of the season and missed one with a shoulder injury before going on the exempt list, which allows NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to place a player on paid leave while reviewing his case. ___ AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nfl Advertisement
Pizza Hut hopes a major store change will win back customersMercedes-Benz has unveiled a , enabling users to interact with their vehicles directly from their wrists and further integrating cars with connected devices. Previously, offered a mobile app that provided various functions for owners, such as remote locking and unlocking, checking vehicle status, and even sending navigation destinations to the car's infotainment system. However, the new Apple Watch app optimizes these features for on-the-go access. The new app is accessible on Apple Watches running watchOS 9 or later. It requires the Mercedes-Benz mobile app to be installed on the connected iPhone. The features you'll get on the Apple Watch app depend on the model of your car. Like the mobile app, it is only compatible with Mercedes-Benz models from 2019 onward. The Apple Watch app offers functionalities like finding your parked car and receiving turn-by-turn navigation right on your watch. This can be particularly useful in unfamiliar areas or when navigating tight parking lots. The app also allows users to remotely lock and unlock their vehicles, a handy feature for quick errands or when you forget your keys. However, there are questions about the long-term impact and limitations of such technology. While the convenience factor is undeniable, some may wonder if relying on a smartwatch for car functions could pose security risks. For instance, what happens if your Apple Watch is lost or stolen? Does this compromise the security of your vehicle? Mercedes-Benz has likely implemented security measures within the app, but it's a concern some users may have. Additionally, the app's functionality might be limited compared to the full-fledged mobile app. It's unclear if features like climate control or pre-heating the car will be available on the Apple Watch version. Despite these potential limitations, the launch of the Mercedes-Benz Apple Watch app represents a growing trend in the automotive industry. As car manufacturers prioritize in-car technology and connectivity, we can expect to see more wearable device integration in the future. This could expand to controlling features like music and climate directly from your wrist.
Surv Essex: Transforming Property Dreams Across Essex with Expert Architectural, Surveying, and Party Wall Services
Mister Car Wash's general counsel sells $4,360 in stock
BY MELISSA GOLDIN Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont’s high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents’ wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella’s suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella’s son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school’s assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct” that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Related Articles National News | Eminem’s mother Debbie Nelson, whose rocky relationship fueled the rapper’s lyrics, dies at age 69 National News | Founder of failed crypto lending platform Celsius Network pleads guilty to fraud charges National News | Judge weighs whether to order Fani Willis to comply with lawmakers’ subpoenas over Trump case National News | Are you a former SmileDirectClub customer? You might be eligible for a refund National News | Justice Department announces sweeping reforms to curb suicides in federal prisons and jails Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn’t say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court’s mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.”
The Barbados Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) said Friday it is ramping up initiatives to equip local businesses with the tools and strategies needed to thrive in the digital age, with a strong emphasis on artificial intelligence and innovation. BCCI President, James Clarke, noted the chamber’s role in advocating for government policies and incentives to encourage businesses to invest in technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance competitiveness. “The BCCI has a role in assisting the business sector in building a culture of innovation,” Clarke told Barbados TODAY. “The BCCI also has a role in lobbying the government on policies and incentives designed to encourage businesses to invest in, and leverage digital technologies to enhance business efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness.” Clarke also referred to the Chamber of Commerce’s focus on fostering collaboration among industry leaders through platforms like the CEOs Digital Roundtable. The event, hosted recently by the chamber, provided C-suite executives with insights into achieving sustainable enterprises and enhancing the value of goods and services through digital transformation. “A key strategy of the BCCI is to facilitate platforms for engagement among CEOs, directors and other decision-makers on digital transformation and how they can achieve sustainable business enterprises and enhance the value proposition of their goods and services by integrating AI and other digital technologies,” Clarke said. You Might Be Interested In Business owners disappointed NEW YEAR’S MESSAGE – CHTA -Caribbean Tourism: Adapting to Change NEW YEAR’S MESSAGE – BCCUL – Credit Unions ready to play greater role “It is anticipated that the chamber will host more of these sessions in 2025 to assist businesses with the tools and practical guidance to navigate this new digital environment in which we operate.” His comments further align with findings from a recent KPMG survey, which revealed that 64 per cent of global CEOs identified AI as their top investment priority for 2024. Despite economic uncertainty, the survey of over 1 300 business leaders worldwide found that 92 per cent plan to boost employee headcount over the next three years, reflecting optimism about growth. In a recent release, KPMG in CARICOM Country Leader Raymond Campbell commented on the survey’s relevance to the Caribbean, noting: “Over the last ten years, CEOs have sought to create confidence in a number of ways, notably increasing investment in innovation and tech, placing people at the heart of growth strategies, and renewing their commitment to ESG [environmental, social and governance] and sustainability as a source of value creation.” He added: “AI is poised to revolutionise island communities by addressing their unique challenges and unlocking new opportunities. AI-powered predictive analytics can help island businesses optimise their operations, such as supply chain management and inventory control. Additionally, AI-driven personalisation can enhance customer experiences, leading to increased satisfaction and loyalty.” The survey also highlighted challenges to AI adoption, with 61 per cent of CEOs sharing ethical concerns as the most difficult to address. A lack of regulation (50 per cent) and technical skill shortages (48 per cent) were also flagged as key obstacles. Furthermore, while 76 per cent of CEOs believed AI would not fundamentally impact the number of jobs, 58 per cent admitted that generative AI has made them rethink the skills required for entry-level roles. The survey revealed that CEOs are renewing their commitment to ESG goals, with some 24 per cent acknowledging that failing to meet ESG expectations could give competitors an edge. Head of ESG at KPMG Islands Group, Arnaud van Dijk said: “In our islands, we have recently seen firsthand the encouraging shift of many CEOs prioritising sustainability, with most planning to formalise their ESG strategies within the next two years.” He noted the challenges in reporting ESG efforts: “Reporting in a meaningful way to stakeholders is taking up significant resources.” “The exciting opportunity now is unlocking the full potential of ESG, turning these strategies into real value that drives both meaningful impact and long-term business success,” Van Dijk said. In response to the report, the BCCI president reaffirmed the chamber’s commitment to helping businesses remain competitive, noting that its efforts to host more engagement sessions and advocate for policies supporting digital transformation would equip businesses with the tools needed to thrive in the digital age. (SM)None
Titans showing signs of growing tougher under 1st-year coach Brian Callahan
BlackRock Announces Distribution Increases for Certain Closed-End FundsNone
Global Outage Management Market Set For 18.4% Growth, Reaching $2.27 Billion By 2028
TransMedics Gr TMDX has outperformed the market over the past 5 years by 16.16% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 29.7%. Currently, TransMedics Gr has a market capitalization of $2.32 billion. Buying $1000 In TMDX: If an investor had bought $1000 of TMDX stock 5 years ago, it would be worth $3,679.47 today based on a price of $69.26 for TMDX at the time of writing. TransMedics Gr's Performance Over Last 5 Years Finally -- what's the point of all this? The key insight to take from this article is to note how much of a difference compounded returns can make in your cash growth over a period of time. This article was generated by Benzinga's automated content engine and reviewed by an editor. © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.In first contacts with Syrian rebels, US urges them to form inclusive, transitional governmentKerry Butler talks about her Off-Broadway show ‘Mama, I’m a Big Girl Now!’Pep Guardiola denies rumours of a rift with Kevin De Bruyne