HICKSVILLE, N.Y. , Dec. 13, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Flagstar Financial, Inc. (NYSE: FLG) (the "Company") today announced the appointment of Brian Callanan , Senior Managing Director and General Counsel at Liberty Strategic Capital ("Liberty"), to its Board of Directors, effective December 16, 2024 . Commenting on the appointment, Joseph M. Otting , Chairman, President, and CEO said, "I'm pleased to have Brian join our Board. His proven track record and expertise in financial services, along with his strategic insights will be instrumental as we continue to execute on our transformation and long-term vision. Brian's perspectives will provide valuable guidance, and his leadership will play a critical role in driving sustainable growth, ensuring we achieve long-term success and maximize the value we deliver to our shareholders, employees, and clients." Callanan is a distinguished lawyer with extensive experience in financial regulation, regulatory compliance, and financial technology. At Liberty, Callanan leads the firm's legal function, serves on its Investment Committee, and focuses on financial sector investments. Prior to joining Liberty, he served as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, overseeing 2,000 lawyers across the department. As Chief General Counsel, he played a key role in major initiatives such as economic rescue programs during COVID-19, the design of new economic sanctions, and the implementation of tax reform. While serving as Deputy General Counsel, Callanan managed major litigation and advised on regulatory reform efforts, among other responsibilities. For his service, he received the Alexander Hamilton Award, the department's highest honor. This appointment aligns with the $1.05 billion equity investment in March 2024 , which stipulated that two Board seats would be granted to lead investor Liberty Strategic Capital. With Callanan's addition, the Company's Board of Directors, which was reconstituted earlier in 2024, expands to nine members, including Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph M. Otting , Milton Berlinski , Alessandro P. DiNello , Alan Frank , Marshall Lux , Lead Independent Director Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin , Allen Puwalski , and Jennifer Whip. About Flagstar Financial, Inc. Flagstar Financial, Inc. is the parent company of Flagstar Bank, N.A., one of the largest regional banks in the country. The Company is headquartered in Hicksville, New York . At September 30, 2024, the Company had $114.4 billion of assets, $73.0 billion of loans, deposits of $83 .0 billion, and total stockholders' equity of $8 .6 billion. Flagstar Bank, N.A. operates over 400 branches, including a significant presence in the Northeast and Midwest and locations in high growth markets in the Southeast and West Coast. In addition, the Bank has approximately 80 private banking teams located in over 10 cities in the metropolitan New York City region and on the West Coast, which serve the needs of high-net worth individuals and their businesses. Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This release may include forward‐looking statements by the Company and our authorized officers pertaining to such matters as our goals, beliefs, intentions, and expectations regarding (a) revenues, earnings, loan production, asset quality, liquidity position, capital levels, risk analysis, divestitures, acquisitions, and other material transactions, among other matters; (b) the future costs and benefits of the actions we may take; (c) our assessments of credit risk and probable losses on loans and associated allowances and reserves; (d) our assessments of interest rate and other market risks; (e) our ability to execute on our strategic plan, including the sufficiency of our internal resources, procedures and systems; (f) our ability to attract, incentivize, and retain key personnel and the roles of key personnel; (g) our ability to achieve our financial and other strategic goals, including those related to our merger with Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., which was completed on December 1, 2022, our acquisition of substantial portions of the former Signature Bank through an FDIC-assisted transaction, and our ability to fully and timely implement the risk management programs institutions greater than $100 billion in assets must maintain; (h) the effect on our capital ratios of the approval of certain proposals approved by our shareholders during our 2024 annual meeting of shareholders; (i) the conversion or exchange of shares of the Company's preferred stock; (j) the payment of dividends on shares of the Company's capital stock, including adjustments to the amount of dividends payable on shares of the Company's preferred stock; (k) the availability of equity and dilution of existing equity holders associated with amendments to the 2020 Omnibus Incentive Plan; (l) the effects of the reverse stock split; and (m) transactions relating to the sale of our mortgage business and mortgage warehouse business. Forward‐looking statements are typically identified by such words as "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "intend," "outlook," "estimate," "forecast," "project," "should," "confident," and other similar words and expressions, and are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties, which change over time. Additionally, forward‐looking statements speak only as of the date they are made; the Company does not assume any duty, and does not undertake, to update our forward‐looking statements. Furthermore, because forward‐looking statements are subject to assumptions and uncertainties, actual results or future events could differ, possibly materially, from those anticipated in our statements, and our future performance could differ materially from our historical results. Our forward‐looking statements are subject to, among others, the following principal risks and uncertainties: general economic conditions and trends, either nationally or locally; conditions in the securities, credit and financial markets; changes in interest rates; changes in deposit flows, and in the demand for deposit, loan, and investment products and other financial services; changes in real estate values; changes in the quality or composition of our loan or investment portfolios, including associated allowances and reserves; changes in future allowance for credit losses, including changes required under relevant accounting and regulatory requirements; the ability to pay future dividends; changes in our capital management and balance sheet strategies and our ability to successfully implement such strategies; recent turnover in our Board of Directors and our executive management team; changes in our strategic plan, including changes in our internal resources, procedures and systems, and our ability to successfully implement such plan; changes in competitive pressures among financial institutions or from non‐financial institutions; changes in legislation, regulations, and policies; the imposition of restrictions on our operations by bank regulators; the outcome of pending or threatened litigation, or of investigations or any other matters before regulatory agencies, whether currently existing or commencing in the future; the success of our blockchain and fintech activities, investments and strategic partnerships; the restructuring of our mortgage business; our ability to recognize anticipated expense reductions and enhanced efficiencies with respect to our recently announced strategic workforce reduction; the impact of failures or disruptions in or breaches of the Company's operational or security systems, data or infrastructure, or those of third parties, including as a result of cyberattacks or campaigns; the impact of natural disasters, extreme weather events, military conflict (including the Russia / Ukraine conflict, the conflict in Israel and surrounding areas, the possible expansion of such conflicts and potential geopolitical consequences), terrorism or other geopolitical events; and a variety of other matters which, by their nature, are subject to significant uncertainties and/or are beyond our control. Our forward-looking statements are also subject to the following principal risks and uncertainties with respect to our merger with Flagstar Bancorp, which was completed on December 1, 2022 , and our acquisition of substantial portions of the former Signature Bank through an FDIC-assisted transaction: the possibility that the anticipated benefits of the transactions will not be realized when expected or at all; the possibility of increased legal and compliance costs, including with respect to any litigation or regulatory actions related to the business practices of acquired companies or the combined business; diversion of management's attention from ongoing business operations and opportunities; the possibility that the Company may be unable to achieve expected synergies and operating efficiencies in or as a result of the transactions within the expected timeframes or at all; and revenues following the transactions may be lower than expected. Additionally, there can be no assurance that the Community Benefits Agreement entered into with NCRC, which was contingent upon the closing of the Company's merger with Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., will achieve the results or outcome originally expected or anticipated by us as a result of changes to our business strategy, performance of the U.S. economy, or changes to the laws and regulations affecting us, our customers, communities we serve, and the U.S. economy (including, but not limited to, tax laws and regulations). More information regarding some of these factors is provided in the Risk Factors section of our Annual Report on Form 10‐K/A for the year ended December 31, 2023, Quarterly Report on Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2024 , June 30, 2024 , and September 30, 2024 , and in other SEC reports we file. Our forward‐looking statements may also be subject to other risks and uncertainties, including those we may discuss in this news release, on our conference call, during investor presentations, or in our SEC filings, which are accessible on our website and at the SEC's website, www.sec.gov . Investor Contact: Salvatore J. DiMartino (516) 683-4286 Media Contact: Nicole Yelland (248) 219-9234 View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/flagstar-financial-inc-appoints-brian-callanan-to-board-of-directors-302331692.html SOURCE Flagstar Financial, Inc.Join our newsletter to get the latest military space news every Tuesday by veteran defense journalist Sandra Erwin. WASHINGTON — Gen. Chance Saltzman, the Space Force’s top officer, announced Dec. 17 that the service will establish a new Futures Command in early 2025, a move aimed at giving the military’s newest branch more analytical firepower to justify its programs and spending. Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Saltzman said the new command will help provide “the data set that we can then use in the budget fights” — a crucial capability as the Space Force faces growing congressional scrutiny over its acquisition speed and strategic focus. CSIS on Tuesday hosted an event marking the Space Force’s fifth anniversary. Saltzman and other officials at the event highlighted growing concerns about China’s rapidly advancing space capabilities, which include everything from satellite-killing weapons to new communications systems that could give Beijing an edge in future conflicts. The Futures Command will expand on work currently done by the Space Warfighting Analysis Center (SWAC), adding new organizations focused on threat analysis and capability planning to determine what forces and systems the Space Force needs to counter emerging challenges. The new command also will have a dedicated wargaming team to test potential technologies through tabletop exercises and learning campaigns, and will do requirements validation to ensure new programs have rigorous analytical backing. Speaking last week at the Spacepower Conference in Orlando, Florida, Kelly Hammett, who leads the Space Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office, suggested the Futures Command could help streamline how the service handles requests from regional military commands, creating “a prioritized set of requirements” rather than trying to juggle competing demands. Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, deputy chief of space operations for strategy, plans and programs, told reporters at the Spacepower Conference that the plan is to name a two-star commander and begin a basing process to select a headquarters location. The SWAC is currently based in Colorado Springs. Although Saltzman first unveiled plans for the Futures Command in February 2024, the decision to push its establishment to early 2025 appears designed to give the incoming administration a voice in shaping the new organization’s structure and priorities. Even as the Space Force moves to strengthen its planning capabilities, it’s facing heat from Capitol Hill over the pace of its technology development. “We can no longer afford to wait eight or more years to develop requirements, and conduct long drawn-out competition processes,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said at the CSIS event. “Nor can we afford these endless cost-plus development contracts.” Rogers, a key oversight figure for military space programs, pushed for the Space Force to develop more acquisition and technology experts rather than focusing primarily on operators. “After all, what are those operators going to operate if acquirers aren’t acquiring?” he noted.
Your ultimate 2024 gift guide for people who love to cook and entertain
GT investigates: How will American special operations team intervene in S.China Sea?Supreme Court may free Catholic Charities from paying state unemployment taxes for their employeesWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court voted Friday to hear a potentially far-reaching claim of religious freedom and decide whether church-sponsored charities, programs and businesses may refuse to pay state unemployment taxes for their employees. All states exempt churches and church programs from the taxes if they "operate primarily for religious purposes." But they usually require affiliated schools, colleges, hospitals and other businesses to pay unemployment taxes if they are open to all and do not offer worship services or religious training. In a case from Wisconsin, the justices will reconsider that approach and decide whether instead to require the states to defer to religious authorities. The appeal that will be heard argues the government may not "second-guess the religious decisions" of church authorities who seek an exemption. The dispute began with Black River Industries, Barron County Developmental Services and two other small nonprofit corporations that are funded by state or federal grants to provide services for people with developmental disabilities. They are now controlled by Catholic Charities that sued to seek an exemption from the unemployment taxes. Their lawyers argued those charitable programs are motivated by "sincerely held religious beliefs and to carry out the religious mission" of the church. Therefore, they said, it violates the Constitution to require Catholic Charities to pay unemployment taxes, noting the church has its own program of unemployment coverage. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed in a 4-3 ruling and upheld the state taxes. It said the four programs were "charitable" and "educational," but not primarily religious. Lawyers for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed and urged the court to overturn the Wisconsin ruling. The case comes before a high court that has repeatedly ruled in favor of religious claims over the last decade. In one line of cases, the justices said churches and religious claimants are entitled to equal state benefits, including grants to pay for playgrounds at a church school or tuition grants for parents to send children to religious schools. In another line of cases, they ruled religious organizations are freed from government regulation of their employees. Four years ago, for example, they ruled that two Catholic school teachers in Los Angeles who were fired could not sue alleging they were victims of discrimination. A year later, the court ruled that as a matter of religious freedom, Catholic Social Services had a right to participate in a city-sponsored foster care program in Philadelphia and receive payments for doing so, even though it refused to work with same-sex couples as required by the city. The court also ruled that private businesses such as the Hobby Lobby stores and church-sponsored entities had a religious liberty right to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees as required by federal law. In the Wisconsin case, a group of religious liberty scholars urged the court to rule the government must "defer" to church authorities in matters involving their organizations. "This case involves severe governmental interference with religious liberty that strikes at the heart of the 1st Amendment's most basic guarantees," they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief . They said "courts must defer to how the religious group defines its message." The Catholic Conference of Illinois was among the church groups that urged the court to hear the case. Its brief noted that its bishops speak for 949 parishes, 46 Catholic hospitals, 21 health care centers, 11 colleges and universities, 424 schools and 527 Catholic cemeteries. The court is likely to schedule arguments in the Wisconsin case in March or April and issue a ruling by the end of June. "Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished," said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. "Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong. We are confident the Supreme Court will reject the Wisconsin Supreme Court's absurd ruling." ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
MIAMI (AP) — The top United Nations human rights watchdog on Tuesday ordered Venezuela to avoid destroying tally sheets and other electoral material as it investigates allegations that President Nicolás Maduro stole this summer's election . The U.N. Human Rights Council announced the opening of the probe in a letter to several Latin American jurists who in October petitioned the U.N. agency to take action in the face of what is said was widespread evidence of electoral fraud that violates the political rights of millions of Venezuelans. Maduro claimed he won the July contest by a large margin and is preparing to start a third, six-year term in January. But electoral authorities have so far refused to publish voting records to back such claims, as they have in the past, amid calls by the U.S., European Union and even leftist allies from Brazil, Colombia and Mexico to do so. Meanwhile, the opposition has published online what appear to be authentic tallies from 80% of polling machines showing that its candidate, Edmundo González , won by a more than 2-to-1 margin. The October petition, made on behalf of a regular Venezuelan citizen, alleges that Maduro officials committed multiple human rights violations by restricting the ability of millions of Venezuelans abroad, publishing false results and blocking any challenges in court. Paulo Abrao, a Brazilian attorney who was among those behind the complaint, said the decision comes as a crucial time, as the Maduro government is seeking to "normalize its nebulous electoral process” in the hopes the rest of the world will move on amid so many other pressing international crises. “We cannot allow that to happen,” said Abrao, the former head of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. “Now there is a formal case being processed in an international body with binding force. Venezuela has the obligation to comply with the decision.” Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-americaWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court voted Friday to hear a potentially far-reaching claim of religious freedom and decide whether church-sponsored charities, programs and businesses may refuse to pay state unemployment taxes for their employees. All states exempt churches and church programs from the taxes if they "operate primarily for religious purposes." But they usually require affiliated schools, colleges, hospitals and other businesses to pay unemployment taxes if they are open to all and do not offer worship services or religious training. In a case from Wisconsin, the justices will reconsider that approach and decide whether instead to require the states to defer to religious authorities. The appeal that will be heard argues the government may not "second-guess the religious decisions" of church authorities who seek an exemption. The dispute began with Black River Industries, Barron County Developmental Services and two other small nonprofit corporations that are funded by state or federal grants to provide services for people with developmental disabilities. They are now controlled by Catholic Charities that sued to seek an exemption from the unemployment taxes. Their lawyers argued those charitable programs are motivated by "sincerely held religious beliefs and to carry out the religious mission" of the church. Therefore, they said, it violates the Constitution to require Catholic Charities to pay unemployment taxes, noting the church has its own program of unemployment coverage. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed in a 4-3 ruling and upheld the state taxes. It said the four programs were "charitable" and "educational," but not primarily religious. Lawyers for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed and urged the court to overturn the Wisconsin ruling. The case comes before a high court that has repeatedly ruled in favor of religious claims over the last decade. In one line of cases, the justices said churches and religious claimants are entitled to equal state benefits, including grants to pay for playgrounds at a church school or tuition grants for parents to send children to religious schools. In another line of cases, they ruled religious organizations are freed from government regulation of their employees. Four years ago, for example, they ruled that two Catholic school teachers in Los Angeles who were fired could not sue alleging they were victims of discrimination. A year later, the court ruled that as a matter of religious freedom, Catholic Social Services had a right to participate in a city-sponsored foster care program in Philadelphia and receive payments for doing so, even though it refused to work with same-sex couples as required by the city. The court also ruled that private businesses such as the Hobby Lobby stores and church-sponsored entities had a religious liberty right to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees as required by federal law. In the Wisconsin case, a group of religious liberty scholars urged the court to rule the government must "defer" to church authorities in matters involving their organizations. "This case involves severe governmental interference with religious liberty that strikes at the heart of the 1st Amendment's most basic guarantees," they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief . They said "courts must defer to how the religious group defines its message." The Catholic Conference of Illinois was among the church groups that urged the court to hear the case. Its brief noted that its bishops speak for 949 parishes, 46 Catholic hospitals, 21 health care centers, 11 colleges and universities, 424 schools and 527 Catholic cemeteries. The court is likely to schedule arguments in the Wisconsin case in March or April and issue a ruling by the end of June. "Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished," said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. "Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong. We are confident the Supreme Court will reject the Wisconsin Supreme Court's absurd ruling." ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Kane hat trick against Augsburg hides Bayern's concerning lack of goals
Edesa Biotech Reports Fiscal Year 2024 ResultsNone
New winter road condition categories unveiled on 511 Wisconsin
BEMIDJI — Bemidji State University is returning to Twins Territory in 2025, and fans can score an exclusive deal. Tickets for the annual BSU Night at Target Field go on sale at midnight on Monday, Dec. 2, with a one-day-only Cyber Monday discount. Alumni and friends can buy tickets to the July 25 game against the Washington Nationals for $50 – over 20% off the normal group rate. Tickets will increase to the full price of $64 starting on Tuesday, Dec. 3. Tickets will be available at www.bsualumni.org/twins, and users will be able to access that page starting Monday. All tickets include all-inclusive food and non-alcoholic drinks in the Legends Landing section. The menu features hot dogs, burgers, chicken tenders, chips, popcorn, soda, water, juice, milk and more (offerings based on availability). Before the game, attendees can also gather with other Beavers for a pregame social at Town Ball Tavern, located in the left field corner area of the Club Concourse, between Section V and Section 229. The Bemidji Alumni Choir will also perform the national anthem before first pitch. Gates open at 5:10 p.m., with first pitch scheduled for 7:10 p.m. All registrants to BSU Night at Target Field will receive their tickets approximately two weeks before the game at the email address they provide at registration. For questions, contact Angela Schmidt at angela.schmidt@bemidjistate.edu or 218-755-2599.Alaska Airlines selected to connect San Diego and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport with nonstop service
Adrian Butler Elected to PRA Group Board of DirectorsWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court voted Friday to hear a potentially far-reaching claim of religious freedom and decide whether church-sponsored charities, programs and businesses may refuse to pay state unemployment taxes for their employees. All states exempt churches and church programs from the taxes if they "operate primarily for religious purposes." But they usually require affiliated schools, colleges, hospitals and other businesses to pay unemployment taxes if they are open to all and do not offer worship services or religious training. In a case from Wisconsin, the justices will reconsider that approach and decide whether instead to require the states to defer to religious authorities. The appeal that will be heard argues the government may not "second-guess the religious decisions" of church authorities who seek an exemption. The dispute began with Black River Industries, Barron County Developmental Services and two other small nonprofit corporations that are funded by state or federal grants to provide services for people with developmental disabilities. They are now controlled by Catholic Charities that sued to seek an exemption from the unemployment taxes. Their lawyers argued those charitable programs are motivated by "sincerely held religious beliefs and to carry out the religious mission" of the church. Therefore, they said, it violates the Constitution to require Catholic Charities to pay unemployment taxes, noting the church has its own program of unemployment coverage. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed in a 4-3 ruling and upheld the state taxes. It said the four programs were "charitable" and "educational," but not primarily religious. Lawyers for Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed and urged the court to overturn the Wisconsin ruling. The case comes before a high court that has repeatedly ruled in favor of religious claims over the last decade. In one line of cases, the justices said churches and religious claimants are entitled to equal state benefits, including grants to pay for playgrounds at a church school or tuition grants for parents to send children to religious schools. In another line of cases, they ruled religious organizations are freed from government regulation of their employees. Four years ago, for example, they ruled that two Catholic school teachers in Los Angeles who were fired could not sue alleging they were victims of discrimination. A year later, the court ruled that as a matter of religious freedom, Catholic Social Services had a right to participate in a city-sponsored foster care program in Philadelphia and receive payments for doing so, even though it refused to work with same-sex couples as required by the city. The court also ruled that private businesses such as the Hobby Lobby stores and church-sponsored entities had a religious liberty right to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees as required by federal law. In the Wisconsin case, a group of religious liberty scholars urged the court to rule the government must "defer" to church authorities in matters involving their organizations. "This case involves severe governmental interference with religious liberty that strikes at the heart of the 1st Amendment's most basic guarantees," they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief . They said "courts must defer to how the religious group defines its message." The Catholic Conference of Illinois was among the church groups that urged the court to hear the case. Its brief noted that its bishops speak for 949 parishes, 46 Catholic hospitals, 21 health care centers, 11 colleges and universities, 424 schools and 527 Catholic cemeteries. The court is likely to schedule arguments in the Wisconsin case in March or April and issue a ruling by the end of June. "Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished," said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. "Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong. We are confident the Supreme Court will reject the Wisconsin Supreme Court's absurd ruling." ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
WASHINGTON (AP) — White House says at least eight US telecom firms, dozens of nations impacted by China hacking campaign.
Blame it on the food and drink?
Latino Groups Blast Deportation of Criminal Migrants