RedForce Debt Management CEO Julius Nyamazana says the country’s mounting municipal debt woes are a result of political interference and a failure to enforce policies, accusing l ... If you are an active subscriber and the article is not showing, please log out and back in. Free access to articles from 12:00.
NCAA Field Hockey: Saint Joseph’s stuns UNC, will take on Northwestern for titleInjuries pile up, 49ers uncertain QB Brock Purdy can return Sunday
By JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press HOUSTON (AP) — An elaborate parody appears to be behind an effort to resurrect Enron, the Houston-based energy company that exemplified the worst in American corporate fraud and greed after it went bankrupt in 2001. If its return is comedic, some former employees who lost everything in Enron’s collapse aren’t laughing. “It’s a pretty sick joke and it disparages the people that did work there. And why would you want to even bring it back up again?” said former Enron employee Diana Peters, who represented workers in the company’s bankruptcy proceedings. Here’s what to know about the history of Enron and the purported effort to bring it back. Once the nation’s seventh-largest company, Enron filed for bankruptcy protection on Dec. 2, 2001, after years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions of dollars in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable. The energy company’s collapse put more than 5,000 people out of work, wiped out more than $2 billion in employee pensions and rendered $60 billion in Enron stock worthless. Its aftershocks were felt throughout the energy sector. Twenty-four Enron executives , including former CEO Jeffrey Skilling , were eventually convicted for their roles in the fraud. Enron founder Ken Lay’s convictions were vacated after he died of heart disease following his 2006 trial. On Monday — the 23rd anniversary of the bankruptcy filing — a company representing itself as Enron announced in a news release that it was relaunching as a “company dedicated to solving the global energy crisis.” It also posted a video on social media, advertised on at least one Houston billboard and a took out a full-page ad in the Houston Chronicle In the minute-long video that was full of generic corporate jargon, the company talks about “growth” and “rebirth.” It ends with the words, “We’re back. Can we talk?” Enron’s new website features a company store, where various items featuring the brand’s tilted “E” logo are for sale, including a $118 hoodie. In an email, company spokesperson Will Chabot said the new Enron was not doing any interviews yet, but that “We’ll have more to share soon.” Signs point to the comeback being a joke. In the “terms of use and conditions of sale” on the company’s website, it says “the information on the website about Enron is First Amendment protected parody, represents performance art, and is for entertainment purposes only.” Documents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office show that College Company, an Arkansas-based LLC, owns the Enron trademark. The co-founder of College Company is Connor Gaydos, who helped create a joke conspiracy theory that claims all birds are actually surveillance drones for the government. Peters said that since learning about the “relaunch” of Enron, she has spoken with several other former employees and they are also upset by it. She said the apparent stunt was “in poor taste.” “If it’s a joke, it’s rude, extremely rude. And I hope that they realize it and apologize to all of the Enron employees,” Peters said. Peters, who is 74 years old, said she is still working in information technology because “I lost everything in Enron, and so my Social Security doesn’t always take care of things I need done.” “Enron’s downfall taught us critical lessons about corporate ethics, accountability, and the consequences of unchecked ambition. Enron’s legacy was the employees in the trenches. Leave Enron buried,” she said. Follow Juan A. Lozano on X at https://x.com/juanlozano70After Juan Soto's megadeal, could MLB see a $1 billion contract? Probably not soon
“All of us, we really don’t realize where things land in our body over a lifetime of different experiences and where we hold it to protect ourselves,” Jolie said in a recent interview. “We hold it in our stomachs. We hold it in our chest. We breathe from a different place when we’re nervous or we’re sad. “The first few weeks were the hardest because my body had to open and I had to breathe again,” she adds. “And that was a discovery of how much I wasn’t.” In Pablo Larraín’s “Maria,” which Netflix released in theaters Wednesday before it begins streaming on Dec. 11, Jolie gives, if not the performance of her career, then certainly of her last decade. Beginning with 2010’s “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” Jolie has spent recent years directing films while prioritizing raising her six children. “So my choices for quite a few years were whatever was smart financially and short. I worked very little the last eight years,” says Jolie. “And I was kind of drained. I couldn’t for a while.” But her youngest kids are now 16. And for the first time in years, Jolie is back in the spotlight, in full movie-star mode. Her commanding performance in “Maria” seems assured of bringing Jolie her third Oscar nomination. (She won supporting actress in 2000 for “Girl, Interrupted.”) For an actress whose filmography might lack a signature movie, “Maria” may be Jolie's defining role. Jolie's oldest children, Maddox and Pax, worked on the set of the film. There, they saw a version of their mother they hadn't seen before. “They had certainly seen me sad in my life. But I don’t cry in front of my children like that,” Jolie says of the emotion Callas dredged up in her. “That was a moment in realizing they were going to be with me, side by side, in this process of really understanding the depth of some of the pain I carry.” Jolie, who met a reporter earlier this fall at the Carlyle Hotel, didn't speak in any detail of that pain. But it was hard not to sense some it had to do with her lengthy and ongoing divorce from Brad Pitt, with whom she had six children. Just prior to meeting, a judge allowed Pitt’s remaining claim against Jolie, over the French winery Château Miraval, to proceed. On Monday, a judge ruled that Pitt must disclose documents Jolie’s legal team have sought that they allege include “communications concerning abuse.” Pitt has denied ever being abusive. The result of the U.S. presidential election was also just days old, though Jolie — special envoy for the United Nations Refugee Agency from 2012 to 2022 – wasn’t inclined to talk politics. Asked about Donald Trump’s win , she responded, “Global storytelling is essential,” before adding: “That’s what I’m focusing on. Listening. Listening to the voices of people in my country and around the world.” Balancing such things — reports concerning her private life, questions that accompany someone of her fame — is a big reason why Jolie is so suited to the part of Callas. The film takes place during the American-born soprano’s final days. (She died of a heart attack at 53 in 1977.) Spending much of her time in her grand Paris apartment, Callas hasn’t sung publicly in years; she’s lost her voice. Imprisoned by the myth she’s created, Callas is redefining herself and her voice. An instructor tells her he wants to hear “Callas, not Maria." The movie, of course, is more concerned with Maria. It’s Larrain’s third portrait of 20th century female icon, following “Jackie” (with Natalie Portman as Jacqueline Kennedy) and “Spencer” (with Kristen Stewart as Princess Diana). As Callas, Jolie is wonderfully regal — a self-possessed diva who deliciously, in lines penned by screenwriter Steven Knight, spouts lines like: “I took liberties all my life and the world took liberties with me.” Asked if she identified with that line, Jolie answered, “Yeah, yeah.” Then she took a long pause. “I’m sure people will read a lot into this and there’s probably a lot I could say but don’t want to feed into,” Jolie eventually continues. “I know she was a public person because she loved her work. And I’m a public person because I love my work, not because I like being public. I think some people are more comfortable with a public life, and I’ve never been fully comfortable with it.” When Larraín first approached Jolie about the role, he screened “Spencer” for her. That film, like “Jackie” and “Maria,” eschews a biopic approach to instead intimately focus on a specific moment of crisis. Larraín was convinced Jolie was meant for the role. “I felt she could have that magnetism,” Larraín says. “The enigmatic diva that’s come to a point in her life where she has to take control of her life again. But the weight of her experience, of her music, of her singing, everything, is on her back. And she carries that. It’s someone who’s already loaded with a life that’s been intense.” “There’s a loneliness that we both share,” Jolie says. “That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think people can be alone and lonely sometimes, and that can be part of who they are.” Larraín, the Chilean filmmaker, grew up in Santiago going to the opera, and he has long yearned to bring its full power and majesty to a movie. In Callas, he heard something that transfixed him. “I hear something near perfection, but at the same time, it’s something that’s about to be destroyed,” Larraín says. “So it’s as fragile and as strong as possible. It lives in both extremes. That’s why it’s so moving. I hear a voice that’s about to be broken, but it doesn’t.” In Callas’ less perfect moments singing in the film, Larraín fuses archival recordings of Callas with Jolie’s own voice. Some mix of the two runs throughout “Maria.” “Early in the process,” Jolie says, “I discovered that you can’t fake-sing opera.” Jolie has said she never sang before, not even karaoke. But the experience has left her with a newfound appreciation of opera and its healing properties. “I wonder if it’s something you lean into as you get older,” Jolie says. “Maybe your depth of pain is bigger, your depth of loss is bigger, and that sound in opera meets that, the enormity of it.” If Larraín’s approach to “Maria” is predicated on an unknowingness, he's inclined to say something similar about his star. “Because of media and social media, some people might think that they know a lot about Angelina,” he says. “Maria, I read nine biographies of her. I saw everything. I read every interview. I made this movie. But I don’t think I would be capable of telling you who she was us. So if there’s an element in common, it’s that. They carry an enormous amount of mystery. Even if you think that you know them, you don’t.” Whether “Maria” means more acting in the future for Jolie, she's not sure. “There's not a clear map,” she says. Besides, Jolie isn't quite ready to shake Callas. “When you play a real person, you feel at some point that they become your friend,” says Jolie. “Right now, it’s still a little personal. It’s funny, I’ll be at a premiere or I’ll walk into a room and someone will start blaring her music for fun, but I have this crazy internal sense memory of dropping to my knees and crying.”20.5% Potential Return With SchlumbergerNASA spacecraft 'safe' after closest-ever approach to sun
President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to pause the potential TikTok ban from going into effect until his administration can pursue a “political resolution” to the issue. The request came as TikTok and the Biden administration filed opposing briefs to the court, in which the company argued the court should strike down a law that could ban the platform by Jan. 19 while the government emphasized its position that the statute is needed to eliminate a national security risk. Related Articles “President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case,” said Trump’s amicus brief, which supported neither party in the case. The filings come ahead of oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 10 on whether the law, which requires TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company or face a ban, unlawfully restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment. Earlier this month, a panel of three federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the statute , leading TikTok to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The brief from Trump said he opposes banning TikTok at this junction and “seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.” Related Articles
32 Great Black And White Comedies You Should Watch At Least OnceThe standard Lorem Ipsum passage, used since the 1500s "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC "Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" To keep reading, please log in to your account, create a free account, or simply fill out the form below.
SAP SE ( NYSE: SAP ) UBS Global Technology and AI Conference December 3, 2024 10:55 AM ET Company Participants Dominik Asam - CFO Conference Call Participants Michael Briest - UBS Michael Briest Okay. Thank you, everyone, for turning up this morning. Welcome to the UBS Technology Conference. I'm Michael Briest, I lead up our European software effort and delighted to have with me Dominik Asam, who is CFO of SAP, as I'm sure you know. Question-and-Answer Session Q - Michael Briest So, we've got about half an hour. If you have any questions, there's a QR code on the desk, and you can submit some questions to me, which I can put to Dominik. But obviously, I've got some to start with. And I'm sure you're getting tired of this. Every conference starts with a macro question. But you're doing a fantastic job in moving your customers to upgrade ERP. A lot of the industries you serve are financially challenged. There's political uncertainty in much of Europe, including in your domestic market. Why do you think customers are willing to sign on the dotted line for those sort of multiyear commitments of migrations? What is the value they see? And is there any more hesitancy today than there was, say, three or six months ago? Dominik Asam So, I'd say the major benefit we have is right now just the upgrade cycle that a lot of customers need to move to the next generation of SAP systems. And I think the evangelization on the benefits of the cloud is making good progress. And they also see that with AI being in the cloud has certain advantages they can lever. Yes, of course, there's macroeconomic pressure, and we do see that also in some segments, think about Fieldglass, Temporary Workers, Concur, Travel Expenses, and then also on the Ariba network on
Intel's $8.5B CHIPS Act award faces cut, report saysBy JOSH BOAK WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency. But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy, even if their aftershocks were clear in specific industries. The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. This time, though, his tariff threats might be different . The president-elect is talking about going much bigger — on a potential scale that creates more uncertainty about whether he’ll do what he says and what the consequences could be. “There’s going to be a lot more tariffs, I mean, he’s pretty clear,” said Michael Stumo, the CEO of Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that has supported import taxes to help domestic manufacturing. The president-elect posted on social media Monday that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada until those countries satisfactorily stop illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. Those tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump’s team negotiated during his initial term. Chinese imports would face additional tariffs of 10% until Beijing cracks down on the production of materials used in making fentanyl, Trump posted. Business groups were quick to warn about rapidly escalating inflation , while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would counter the move with tariffs on U.S. products. House Democrats put together legislation to strip a president’s ability to unilaterally apply tariffs this drastic, warning that they would likely lead to higher prices for autos, shoes, housing and groceries. Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.” “The economy department is preparing it,” Sheinbaum said. “If there are tariffs, Mexico would increase tariffs, it is a technical task about what would also benefit Mexico,” she said, suggesting her country would impose targeted import duties on U.S. goods in sensitive areas. House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a president to impose tariffs due to claims of a national emergency, a largely symbolic action given Republicans’ coming control of both the House and Senate. “This legislation would enable Congress to limit this sweeping emergency authority and put in place the necessary Congressional oversight before any president – Democrat or Republican – could indiscriminately raise costs on the American people through tariffs,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash. But for Trump, tariffs are now a tested tool that seems less politically controversial even if the mandate he received in November’s election largely involved restraining inflation. The tariffs he imposed on China in his first term were continued by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who even expanded tariffs and restrictions on the world’s second largest economy. Biden administration officials looked at removing Trump’s tariffs in order to bring down inflationary pressures, only to find they were unlikely to help significantly. Tariffs were “so new and unique that it freaked everybody out in 2017,” said Stumo, but they were ultimately somewhat modest. Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines at the start of 2018, moves that might have pushed up prices in those sectors even though they also overlapped with plans to open washing machine plants in Tennessee and South Carolina. His administration also levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against allies. He then increased tariffs on China, leading to a trade conflict and a limited 2020 agreement that failed to produce the promised Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. Still, the dispute changed relations with China as more U.S. companies looked for alternative suppliers in other countries. Economic research also found the United States may have sacrificed some of its “soft power” as the Chinese population began to watch fewer American movies. The Federal Reserve kept inflation roughly on target, but factory construction spending never jumped in a way that suggested a lasting gain in manufacturing jobs. Separate economic research found the tariff war with China did nothing economically for the communities hurt by offshoring, but it did help Trump and Republicans in those communities politically. When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records. While that sum might seem meaningful, it was relatively small compared to the overall economy. America’s gross domestic product is now $29.3 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The total tariffs collected in the United States would equal less than 0.3% of GDP. The new tariffs being floated by Trump now are dramatically larger and there could be far more significant impacts. If Mexico, Canada, and China faced the additional tariffs proposed by Trump on all goods imported to the United States, that could be roughly equal to $266 billion in tax collections, a number that does not assume any disruptions in trade or retaliatory moves by other countries. The cost of those taxes would likely be borne by U.S. families, importers and domestic and foreign companies in the form of higher prices or lower profits. Former Biden administration officials said they worried that companies could piggyback on Trump’s tariffs — if they’re imposed — as a rationale to raise their prices, just as many companies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 boosted food and energy costs and gave several major companies the space to raise prices, according to their own earnings calls with investors. But what Trump didn’t really spell out is what might cause him to back down on tariffs and declare a victory. What he is creating instead with his tariff threats is a sense of uncertainty as companies and countries await the details to figure out what all of this could mean. “We know the key economic policy priorities of the incoming Trump administration, but we don’t know how or when they will be addressed,” said Greg Daco, chief U.S. economist at EY-Parthenon. AP writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this report from Mexico City.Clear Blue Technologies Announces Shares for Debt Settlement, Private Placement, and Proposed Share Consolidation