WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — Attorneys for Fox Corp. asked a Delaware judge Friday to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit seeking to hold current and former company officials personally liable for the financial fallout stemming from Fox News reports regarding alleged vote rigging in the 2020 election. Five New York City public employee pension funds, along with Oregon’s public employee retirement fund, allege that former chairman Rupert Murdoch and other Fox Corp. leaders deliberately turned a blind eye to liability risks posed by reporting false claims of vote rigging by election technology companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic USA. Smartmatic is suing Fox News for defamation in New York, alleging damages of $2.7 billion. It recently settled a lawsuit in the District of Columbia against One America News Network, another conservative outlet, over reports of vote fraud. Dominion also filed several defamation lawsuits against those who spread conspiracy theories blaming its election equipment for Donald Trump’s loss in 2020. Last year, Fox News settled a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion in Delaware for $787 million. The shareholder plaintiffs also allege that Fox corporate leaders ignored “red flags” about liability arising from a 2017 report suggesting that Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer, may have been killed because he had leaked Democratic party emails to Wikileaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. Rich, 27, was shot in 2016 in Washington, D.C., in what authorities have said was an attempted robbery. Fox News retracted the Seth Rich story a week after its initial broadcast, but Rich’s parents sued the network for falsely portraying their son as a criminal and traitor. Fox News settled the lawsuit in 2020 for “millions of dollars,” shortly before program hosts Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity were to be deposed, according to the shareholder lawsuit. Joel Friedlander, an attorney for the institutional shareholders, argued that Fox officials waited until the company’s reporting about Rich became a national scandal before addressing the issue. Similarly, according to the shareholders, corporate officials, including Rupert Murdoch and his son, CEO Lachlan Murdoch, allowed Fox News to continue broadcasting false narratives about the 2020 election, despite internal communications suggesting that they knew there was no evidence to support the conspiracy theories. “The Murdochs could have minimized future monetary exposure, but they chose not to,” Friedlander said. Instead, he argued, they engaged in “bad-faith decision making” with other defendants in a profit-driven effort to retain viewers and remain in Trump’s good graces. “Decisions were made at the highest level to promote pro-Trump conspiracy theories without editorial control,” Friedlander said. Defense attorneys argue that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit without first demanding that the Fox Corp. board take action, as required under Delaware law. They say the plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that a pre-suit demand on the Fox board would have been futile because at least half of the directors face a substantial likelihood of liability or are not independent of someone who does. Beyond the “demand futility” issue, defense attorneys also argue that allegations that Fox officials breached their fiduciary duties fail to meet the pleading standards under Delaware and therefore should be dismissed. Defense attorney William Savitt argued, for example, that neither the Rich settlement, which he described as “immaterial,” nor the allegedly defamatory statements about Dominion and Smartmatic constitute red flags putting directors on notice about the risk of defamation liability. Nor do they demonstrate that directors acted in bad faith or that Fox “utterly failed” to implement and monitor a system to report and mitigate legal risks, including defamation liability risk, according to the defendants. Savitt noted that the Rich article was promptly retracted, and that the settlement included no admission of liability. The Dominion and Smartmatic statements, meanwhile, gave rise themselves to the currently liability issues and therefore can not serve as red flags about future liability risks, according to the defendants. “A ‘red flag’ must be what the term commonly implies — warning of a risk of a liability-causing event that allows the directors to take action to avert the event, not notice that a liability-causing event has already occurred,” defense attorneys wrote in their motion to dismiss. Defense attorneys also say there are no factual allegations to support claims that Fox officials condoned illegal conduct in pursuit of corporate profits, or that they deliberately ignored their oversight responsibilities. They note that a “bad outcome” is not sufficient to demonstrate “bad faith.” Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster is expected to rule within 90 days. Randall Chase, The Associated PressPresident-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense has ignited considerable debate as liberal critics scrutinize his qualifications and use “unnamed sources” to disparage his alleged past conduct . But Hegseth’s nomination is an opportunity this country cannot afford to miss. I’ve had the privilege of working with Pete at Fox News for seven years, and he’s the right person to bring sanity back to our military. Our armed forces have been derailed in recent years, taken hostage by a relentless march of wokeness — with policy decisions based on social agendas rather than military effectiveness. But our military is not some social experiment. Pete knows this firsthand as a soldier who served on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. He understands what it takes to lead, and knows how dangerous it is when leadership loses sight of the mission. When he recently met with Sen. Joni Ernst (the likely key vote in his confirmation), he didn’t just ask for her support — he laid out a vision for what the military should be. After their meeting, Ernst, herself a combat veteran, hinted at her approval . This is good news for the country. Pete doesn’t just win people over with charisma (though he has plenty of it); he wins them over with substance. He is committed to restoring our military’s focus, and he’s not afraid to challenge the sacred cows of political correctness to do so. We need that desperately. As one might expect, critics have dredged up his past and taken some of his comments out of context. Pete has mounted a vigorous defense: In an exclusive interview with my dear friend, Fox News host Sean Hannity, Pete rightly called out the Democratic Party and the media for the show trial they are attempting. Make no mistake about it: The media, which has become largely an extension of the Democratic Party, will lie, attack, and misconstrue the words of all of Trump’s nominees, not just Pete. That’s, unfortunately, how polarizing our politics has become. But I know Pete. His integrity is unmatched, and his commitment to our country is unwavering. He’s not in this for a line on his resumé. He’s in this because he believes deeply in the mission of the US military and its critical role in defending freedom worldwide. That’s why he’s earned the support of veterans and active-duty soldiers alike — and of his coworkers, too. I’m not the only one at Fox. Far from it. Fox News host Will Cain, another veteran, recently summed it up perfectly on his show: “Pete Hegseth is exactly what the Pentagon needs: A leader who prioritizes strength over optics and results over rhetoric.” Jesse Watters didn’t mince words on “Fox News Primetime”: “Hegseth has the courage to call out what’s wrong and the experience to make it right.” Kayleigh McEnany, former White House press secretary and Fox News host, added on “Outnumbered,” “He stands firm in his values, and he’s not afraid to challenge bureaucracy when it fails our service members.” Brian Kilmeade spoke up on “Fox & Friends.” “Pete understands the mission of the military better than anyone. He’s been there, he’s led, and he knows how to bring us back to what matters: strength and readiness.” And Laura Ingraham emphasized the importance of Trump’s pick. “Pete Hegseth isn’t just a choice for Secretary of Defense — he’s the only choice if we want to restore America’s standing on the world stage,” she declared. All of this support against those notorious — and all-too-common these days in liberal-controlled establishment media — “unnamed sources.” The stakes are too high to let this nomination get bogged down in petty politics or ideological grandstanding. Pete isn’t about maintaining the broken system; he’s about fixing it. He’s about taking on the wokeness that has infected the military, refocusing on readiness, and ensuring that the armed forces are prepared for the real threats we face — not imaginary ones dreamed up in think tanks. At a time when global threats are multiplying, from an aggressive China to a belligerent Russia, we need someone like Pete at the helm. The US Senate should confirm Pete Hegseth without hesitation. This isn’t just about filling a role; it’s about restoring the integrity and strength of our military. Anything less would be an affront to the men and women who serve — and to the nation they protect. Gianno Caldwell is founder of the Caldwell Institute for Public Safety and a Fox News political analyst.X: @GiannoCaldwell
Coppin State wins 68-60 over Navy“Wike Will Revoke Illegally Acquired Lands Whether You’re His Friend, Family” – AidePRO and LLA trade blows as tension over failed anti-graft bill rises
CAN a Common Utility Tunnel (CUT) system, similar to the one in Putrajaya, prevent incidents like the recent tragedy where an Indian national was swallowed by a sinkhole in Jalan Masjid India? Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Seri Maimunah Mohd Sharif believes such a system could improve underground utility maintenance and prevent similar accidents in the future, but its feasibility hinges on careful planning and cost considerations. “From an engineering standpoint, it’s possible, but the challenge lies in retrofitting such a system into a dense, built-up urban area,” she told StarMetro when asked about the feasibility of building an underground tunnel for utilities and cables beneath Kuala Lumpur. “The CUT system, like the one in Putrajaya, is feasible for improving underground utility maintenance. “I have seen this in Japan, where there are miles and miles of utility and fibre-optic cables running underneath cities like Tokyo, but these were constructed decades ago. “In Kuala Lumpur, this could be considered for newer developments where there is still space to plan something like it,” she said. Previously, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Dr Zaliha Mustafa had told Parliament that Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) was urged to consider building a common utility system similar to Putrajaya’s to improve efficiency of the city’s underground utility system. She added that the system could also be integrated with the city’s control centre using telemetry technology for safety and monitoring. Maimunah, a trained urban planner, said Putrajaya was a greenfield area, making it suitable for underground tunnelling projects, as it offered flexibility and reduced risk of disrupting existing infrastructure. Putrajaya’s Common Utility Trench houses a mass of TNB, multimedia, telecommunication and fibre-optic cables, as well as Air Selangor, Gas Malaysia and chilled water pipes. “But Kuala Lumpur, being predominantly a brownfield area, is less suitable, though not impossible from an engineering perspective,” she said. (Brownfield sites are typically located in urban areas because they have previously been built upon, while greenfield sites have never been built on and can be found in the countryside or rural areas.) Putrajaya’s underground utility system was constructed between 1999 and 2006 at a cost of RM250mil. Located 3m beneath the core island, it spans 10.8km across Precincts 2, 3 and 4 and serves as the nerve centre for utility companies and service providers, exclusively supporting ministries and government buildings. It comprises a network of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) cables, Air Selangor and Gas Malaysia pipes, and multimedia and telecommunication fibre-optic cables, all neatly arranged. On the status of the utility mapping task force study following the Jalan Masjid India incident, Maimunah said the report would be ready by the end of the year. “But if utility companies had been unwilling to share their data before, the Jalan Masjid India incident has opened everyone’s eyes, and now all parties are willing to help and share information. “We have RM10mil allocated under Budget 2025 to conduct the utility mapping study, which will cover the Jalan Masjid India area and the CBD (central business district),” she said. In the Aug 23 incident, an Indian tourist, Vijayalakshmi Gali, fell into a 8m sinkhole. Her body has not been recovered. — By BAVANI M
NYC's mayor warms to Trump and doesn't rule out becoming a RepublicanAILE Deadline: AILE Investors Have Opportunity to Lead iLearningEngines, Inc. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Picket line blocks bus from Woolworths’ warehouse despite Fair Work rulingFACT FOCUS: Inspector general’s Jan. 6 report misrepresented as proof of FBI setup
A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company's challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court's opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case. “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting ans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” Though the case is squarely in the court system, it's also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action . The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. “Today’s decision is an important step in blocking the Chinese government from weaponizing TikTok to collect sensitive information about millions of Americans, to covertly manipulate the content delivered to American audiences, and to undermine our national security,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Friday. The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits , that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect. The European Union on Friday expressed similar concerns as it investigates intelligence that suggests Russia possibly abused the platform to influence the elections in Romania. TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government. Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republicans and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September. In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three denied TikTok’s petition. In the court's ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok's main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder, or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to "suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok. “Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing,” Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China. Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion. TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators — for which the company is covering legal costs — as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organizations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok. “This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organization. “We hope that the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word.” Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers who had pushed for the legislation celebrated the court's ruling. "I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership,” said Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China. Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-authored the law, said “it's time for ByteDance to accept” the law. To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data. The company has also argued the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient. Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm — the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan — would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content. Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital.
California announces billion dollar electric vehicle charger initiativeCerity Partners LLC Purchases 13,448 Shares of AppFolio, Inc. (NASDAQ:APPF)