brooklyn 99 bet
PHOTO PROOF: Then-VP Joe Biden Met Hunter Biden's Chinese Partners in 2013Christmas reflections: the urgency of electing genuine leaders
Yerevan Forum Focuses On Bolstering Genocide Prevention MechanismsFACT FOCUS: Vermont ruling does not say schools can vaccinate children without parental consentWitness sees accused with gun at bush bash shooting scene
Iowa attorney general warns of sweepstakes scams after helping couple save $16,000
Lopsided loss sinks the reeling Saints further into evaluation modeNEW YORK (AP) — Matías Tarnopolsky will become president and CEO of the New York Philharmonic on Jan. 1 after six years heading the Philadelphia Orchestra, a hiring boosted by his long friendship with incoming music director Gustavo Dudamel . Tarnopolsky's appointment was announced Monday. The 54-year-old, who has American, British and Argentine citizenship, fills a void created when Gary Ginstling quit in July just one season into the job. “He’s done a really wonderful job with Philadelphia, and one of the most important issues was that he has a very close relationship with Gustavo Dudamel,” philharmonic co-chairman Peter W. May said. “That was really the most important factor for us.” Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tarnopolsky played clarinet and received bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music and musicology from King's College, London. A performance of Mahler’s Fifth Symphony by Leonard Bernstein and the Vienna Philharmonic at the 1987 BBC Proms had an especially memorable impact. He was the New York Philharmonic's vice president of artistic planning from December 2005 until August 2009, then spent nine years as executive director of Cal Performances at Berkeley until moving to Philadelphia in 2018. Cal hosted Dudamel and the Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra in several residencies. He called his return to the New York Philharmonic along with Dudamel a “full circle moment,” recalling hitting it off with the conductor during a work visit to Caracas. “I watched him work with the kids of the Simón Bolivar and was just blown away, and so we invited him to conduct the New York Philharmonic. So this is a story almost two decades in the making,” Tarnopolsky said in an interview. Ginstling joined the New York Philharmonic as executive director from Washington's National Symphony Orchestra. “Frankly, it just wasn’t a good fit from both Gary's perspective and our perspective," May told The Associated Press. "Matías clearly had significantly more experience than Gary has had in terms of leading one of the top orchestras in the country and we're quite confident that this is the right guy for the job.” Philharmonic co-chairman Oscar L. Tang said Tarnopolsky is aligned with the vision held by Dudamel and the board. “Gustavo says that he feels classical music is a human right and he wants to view classical music as a force for social development, social good,” Tang said. “These are some of the aspirations that Peter and I have for the New York Phil in terms of extending its role in the cultural and civic life of New York City and really the country and the world.” The New York Philharmonic returned to a renovated Geffen Hall in October 2022, announced Dudamel’s hiring four months later . Borda said guest conductors have been engaged and a tour has been arranged for Dudamel's first season, with his approval, but much of the 2026-27 programming remains open. “Here’s a chance that comes along maybe once in a lifetime to author a completely new chapter for a great musical institution,” Tarnopolsky said. “The commitment here is to rededicate ourselves to ensuring the philharmonic’s place in the civic, cultural, musical, educational life of contemporary New York.” Ryan Fleur, the Philadelphia Orchestra's executive director, will become its interim president on Jan. 1, a role he held for eight months in 2018 between Allison Vulgamore's departure and Tarnopolsky's arrival. ___ This story corrects that Matías Tarnopolsky headed Philadelphia Orchestra six years. Ronald Blum, The Associated Press
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has reshaped the financial world, enabling permissionless, transparent, and borderless financial systems. Two projects, Core DAO and Lightchain AI, are emerging as pivotal players in this evolving space. While Core DAO emphasizes decentralized governance and autonomy, Lightchain AI stands out for integrating blockchain with artificial intelligence through groundbreaking technologies like Proof of Intelligence (PoI) and the Artificial Intelligence Virtual Machine (AIVM). With Lightchain AI tokens currently priced at just $0.003 during its presale, the project has generated immense interest for its potential to redefine DeFi. Core DAO Decentralized Governance and Its Role in DeFi Core DAO is built on a decentralized ethos, prioritizing governance autonomy in its blockchain operations. Its foundation lies in fostering a democratic ecosystem where stakeholders collectively make decisions about the network's evolution. Core DAO's native governance token empowers users to propose, vote on, and implement changes within its ecosystem, ensuring a high degree of transparency and inclusivity. One of Core DAO's key strengths is its ability to decentralize power effectively. By enabling token holders to steer the direction of the network, it creates a community-driven ecosystem that aligns with the foundational principles of DeFi. Additionally, Core DAO's governance framework is designed to adapt to emerging challenges in the decentralized space, ensuring the project's resilience and longevity. However, while Core DAO excels in governance, its impact on broader DeFi adoption is limited. The project lacks the advanced technological features and real-world applications needed to address critical challenges in scalability, efficiency, and security, areas where Lightchain AI takes the lead. Lightchain AI Revolutionizing DeFi with Artificial Intelligence and PoI Lightchain AI is a transformative project that merges blockchain and artificial... Isabella
CAGAYAN DE ORO, Philippines – Journalist and 1987 Palanca awardee for literature Lina Sagaral-Reyes passed away at the age of 63 on Saturday, December 14, leaving behind a legacy marked by fearless reporting, a commitment to truth, and a dedication to the marginalized. She died at the state-run Northern Mindanao Medical Center in Cagayan de Oro, where she was rushed two days earlier due to breathing difficulties. She was undernourished, her blood pressure was low, and her sugar levels surged. Once a correspondent for the Philippine Daily Inquirer , she was a fixture in Mindanao journalism — respected not only for her hard-hitting investigations but also for her understanding of the intersections between gender, the environment, and mental health. Reyes, a distinguished journalist, poet, and passionate advocate for social justice, was one of the senior staff members of the now-defunct Sunstar Cagayan de Oro in the late 1990s. She had also contributed features and investigative reports for the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Her investigations were widely recognized. In 1998, she exposed the environmental damage caused by sand dredging in Cagayan de Oro, a story that led to her receiving the prestigious Jaime V. Ongpin Award for Investigative Journalism. In 2000, her investigative work into the environmental hazards posed by an algal bloom in Macajalar Bay earned her the National Science and Technology Journalism grand prize. Four years ago, she took on the corporate world with an investigative piece exposing questionable environmental claims made by large pineapple farms, further cementing her reputation as a fearless reporter unafraid to challenge powerful interests. Beyond the awards and accolades, however, it was Reyes’ commitment to those whose voices were often ignored that defined her work. She was an advocate for women’s rights, consistently raising awareness of the issues affecting women and marginalized communities, and she pushed for greater access to mental health services across the country. She spent the remaining years of her life serving as a director of the Cagayan de Oro Press Club’s Journalism Institute, where she helped shape the careers of young journalists, tirelessly pushing for better standards and more collaborative efforts across the media community. Reyes was among those responsible for amending the 2001 Code of Ethics of the Cagayan de Oro Press Club in November in view of the changing media landscape and the rise of social media and artificial intelligence. Her contributions were not confined to journalism and the newsroom. A poet whose work explored the complexities of the human experience, Reyes was awarded first place in the Palanca Awards for Literature in 1987 for her poem Tree without Leaves . The poem, with its raw meditation on loss and resilience, spoke to the inner strength that marked her own life. The following is the poem that earned her a Palanca: Tree Without Leaves How your leaving unleafed me. Wide wide lakes of leaves, The crackle of breaking Underfoot. Memory became a bare crown Of boughs as taut as the dark-eyed Nipples of women Facing the honest mirror of fears. “You have strength I can’t name,” Once you told me. Now you must Know: as winds churn The leaf-lakes below, I stand Rooting with the power You knew and named Nameless. On the rough nodes of my evening Fireflies nestle, Blooming. – Rappler.comPresident Murmu appoints new governors for Manipur, Mizoram, Kerala, Bihar, and Odisha
Now the question is whether Gaetz was uniquely unpalatable or if Trump's other picks could exceed Republicans' capacity to overlook red flags. Subscribe to continue reading this article. Already subscribed? To login in, click here.DOVER, Del. (AP) — A Delaware judge has reaffirmed her ruling that Tesla must revoke Elon Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick on Monday denied a request by attorneys for Musk and Tesla’s corporate directors to vacate her ruling earlier this year requiring the company to rescind the unprecedented pay package. McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys , who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of $345 million. The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package. McCormick concluded in January that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. The compensation package initially carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla’s stock price. Following the court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time, again by an overwhelming margin. Defense attorneys then argued that the second vote makes clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick pointed out, were adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. They asked the judge to vacate her order directing Tesla to rescind the pay package. McCormick, who seemed skeptical of the defense arguments during an August hearing, said in Monday’s ruling that those arguments were fatally flawed. “The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick wrote in a 103-page opinion. The judge noted, among other things, that a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction. “Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement,” she added. Meanwhile, McCormick found that the $5.6 billion fee request by the shareholder’s attorneys, which at one time approached $7 billion based on Tesla’s trading price, went too far. “In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask,” McCormick wrote. Attorneys for the Tesla shareholder argue that their work resulted in the “massive” benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk. While finding that the methodology used to calculate the fee request was sound, the judge noted that the Delaware’s Supreme Court has noted that fee award guidelines “must yield to the greater policy concern of preventing windfalls to counsel.” “The fee award here must yield in this way, because $5.6 billion is a windfall no matter the methodology used to justify it,” McCormick wrote. A fee award of $345 million, she said, was “an appropriate sum to reward a total victory.” The fee award amounts to almost exactly half the current record $688 million in legal fees awarded in 2008 in litigation stemming from the collapse of Enron.
NEW YORK , Dec. 23, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of common stock of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE: CMG) between February 8, 2024 and October 29, 2024 , both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and those who purchased Chipotle call options or sold put options during the Class Period, of the important January 10, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. So what: If you purchased Chipotle securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. What to do next: To join the Chipotle class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30587 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 10, 2025 . A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Details of the case: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chipotle's portion sizes were inconsistent and left many customers dissatisfied with the Company's offerings; (2) in order to address the issue and retain customer loyalty, Chipotle would have to ensure more generous portion sizes, which would increase cost of sales; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Chipotle class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30587 https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28116 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm . Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40 th Floor New York , NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cmg-deadline-cmg-investors-with-losses-in-excess-of-100k-have-opportunity-to-lead-chipotle-mexican-grill-inc-securities-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-the-rosen-law-firm-302338075.html SOURCE THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P. A.PANAMA CITY (AP) — Teddy Roosevelt once declared the Panama Canal “one of the feats to which the people of this republic will look back with the highest pride.” More than a century later, Donald Trump is threatening to take back the waterway for the same republic. The president-elect is decrying increased fees Panama has imposed to use the waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. He says if things don't change after he takes office next month, "We will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America, in full, quickly and without question.” Trump has long threatened allies with punitive action in hopes of winning concessions. But experts in both countries are clear: Unless he goes to war with Panama, Trump can't reassert control over a canal the U.S. agreed to cede in the 1970s. Here's a look at how we got here: What is the canal? It is a man-made waterway that uses a series of locks and reservoirs over 51 miles (82 kilometers) to cut through the middle of Panama and connect the Atlantic and Pacific. It spares ships having to go an additional roughly 7,000 miles (more than 11,000 kilometers) to sail around Cape Horn at South America's southern tip. The U.S. International Trade Administration says the canal saves American business interests “considerable time and fuel costs” and enables faster delivery of goods, which is “particularly significant for time sensitive cargoes, perishable goods, and industries with just-in-time supply chains.” Who built it? An effort to establish a canal through Panama led by Ferdinand de Lesseps, who built Egypt's Suez Canal, began in 1880 but progressed little over nine years before going bankrupt. Malaria, yellow fever and other tropical diseases devastated a workforce already struggling with especially dangerous terrain and harsh working conditions in the jungle, eventually costing more than 20,000 lives, by some estimates. READ: Panama was then a province of Colombia, which refused to ratify a subsequent 1901 treaty licensing U.S. interests to build the canal. Roosevelt responded by dispatching U.S. warships to Panama's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The U.S. also prewrote a constitution that would be ready after Panamanian independence, giving American forces “the right to intervene in any part of Panama, to re-establish public peace and constitutional order.” In part because Colombian troops were unable to traverse harsh jungles, Panama declared an effectively bloodless independence within hours in November 1903. It soon signed a treaty allowing a U.S.-led team to begin construction . Some 5,600 workers died later during the U.S.-led construction project, according to one study. Why doesn't the US control the canal anymore? The waterway opened in 1914, but almost immediately some Panamanians began questioning the validity of U.S. control, leading to what became known in the country as the “generational struggle” to take it over. The U.S. abrogated its right to intervene in Panama in the 1930s. By the 1970s, with its administrative costs sharply increasing, Washington spent years negotiating with Panama to cede control of the waterway. The Carter administration worked with the government of Omar Torrijos. The two sides eventually decided that their best chance for ratification was to submit two treaties to the U.S. Senate, the “Permanent Neutrality Treaty" and the “Panama Canal Treaty." The first, which continues in perpetuity, gives the U.S. the right to act to ensure the canal remains open and secure. The second stated that the U.S. would turn over the canal to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999, and was terminated then. Both were signed in 1977 and ratified the following year. The agreements held even after 1989, when President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama to remove Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. In the late 1970s, as the handover treaties were being discussed and ratified, polls found that about half of Americans opposed the decision to cede canal control to Panama. However, by the time ownership actually changed in 1999, public opinion had shifted, with about half of Americans in favor. What's happened since then? Administration of the canal has been more efficient under Panama than during the U.S. era, with traffic increasing 17% between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 . Panama's voters approved a 2006 referendum authorizing a major expansion of the canal to accommodate larger modern cargo ships. The expansion took until 2016 and cost more than $5.2 billion. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino said in a video Sunday that “every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to.” He added that, while his country's people are divided on some key issues, “when it comes to our canal, and our sovereignty, we will all unite under our Panamanian flag.” Shipping prices have increased because of droughts last year affecting the canal locks, forcing Panama to drastically cut shipping traffic through the canal and raise rates to use it. Though the rains have mostly returned, Panama says future fee increases might be necessary as it undertakes improvements to accommodate modern shipping needs. Mulino said fees to use the canal are “not set on a whim.” Jorge Luis Quijano, who served as the waterway’s administrator from 2014 to 2019, said all canal users are subject to the same fees, though they vary by ship size and other factors. “I can accept that the canal’s customers may complain about any price increase,” Quijano said. “But that does not give them reason to consider taking it back.” Why has Trump raised this? The president-elect says the U.S. is getting “ripped off" and “I’m not going to stand for it.” “It was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions — you’ve got to treat us fairly. And they haven’t treated us fairly,” Trump said of the 1977 treaty that he said “foolishly” gave the canal away. The neutrality treaty does give the U.S. the right to act if the canal's operation is threatened due to military conflict — but not to reassert control. “There's no clause of any kind in the neutrality agreement that allows for the taking back of the canal,” Quijano said. “Legally, there's no way, under normal circumstances, to recover territory that was used previously." Trump, meanwhile, hasn't said how he might make good on his threat. “There’s very little wiggle room, absent a second U.S. invasion of Panama, to retake control of the Panama Canal in practical terms," said Benjamin Gedan, director of the Latin America Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. Gedan said Trump’s stance is especially baffling given that Mulino is a pro-business conservative who has “made lots of other overtures to show that he would prefer a special relationship with the United States.” He also noted that Panama in recent years has moved closer to China, meaning the U.S. has strategic reasons to keep its relationship with the Central American nation friendly. Panama is also a U.S. partner on stopping illegal immigration from South America — perhaps Trump’s biggest policy priority. “If you’re going to pick a fight with Panama on an issue,” Gedan said, “you could not find a worse one than the canal.” ___ Weissert reported from West Palm Beach, Florida, and Fields from Washington. Amelia Thomson-Deveaux contributed to this report from Washington. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.