lucky 777 jili
Shares of Mondelez International, Inc. ( NASDAQ:MDLZ – Get Free Report ) have received an average rating of “Buy” from the sixteen analysts that are covering the company, MarketBeat Ratings reports. Sixteen investment analysts have rated the stock with a buy rating. The average twelve-month price objective among brokers that have covered the stock in the last year is $80.31. A number of equities research analysts recently weighed in on MDLZ shares. DA Davidson dropped their price objective on Mondelez International from $80.00 to $75.00 and set a “buy” rating on the stock in a research report on Wednesday, July 31st. Stifel Nicolaus raised their price target on shares of Mondelez International from $75.00 to $82.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a report on Friday, October 25th. Bank of America boosted their price objective on shares of Mondelez International from $80.00 to $84.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research note on Tuesday, October 15th. The Goldman Sachs Group initiated coverage on shares of Mondelez International in a research report on Monday, August 12th. They set a “buy” rating and a $80.00 target price for the company. Finally, Citigroup cut their price target on shares of Mondelez International from $80.00 to $78.00 and set a “buy” rating on the stock in a report on Wednesday, October 30th. Read Our Latest Analysis on Mondelez International Mondelez International Price Performance Mondelez International ( NASDAQ:MDLZ – Get Free Report ) last posted its earnings results on Tuesday, October 29th. The company reported $0.99 earnings per share for the quarter, topping analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.85 by $0.14. Mondelez International had a return on equity of 17.53% and a net margin of 10.58%. The company had revenue of $9.20 billion during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $9.11 billion. During the same quarter in the prior year, the business earned $0.82 earnings per share. Mondelez International’s revenue was up 1.9% on a year-over-year basis. Equities analysts predict that Mondelez International will post 3.48 earnings per share for the current fiscal year. Institutional Investors Weigh In On Mondelez International A number of large investors have recently bought and sold shares of the company. Truvestments Capital LLC acquired a new stake in Mondelez International during the 3rd quarter valued at approximately $25,000. E Fund Management Hong Kong Co. Ltd. purchased a new stake in Mondelez International in the second quarter valued at $26,000. Lynx Investment Advisory acquired a new stake in Mondelez International during the 2nd quarter worth about $27,000. Prospera Private Wealth LLC acquired a new stake in Mondelez International during the 3rd quarter worth about $27,000. Finally, Richardson Financial Services Inc. raised its stake in shares of Mondelez International by 100.0% during the 3rd quarter. Richardson Financial Services Inc. now owns 400 shares of the company’s stock valued at $28,000 after buying an additional 200 shares during the last quarter. Hedge funds and other institutional investors own 78.32% of the company’s stock. Mondelez International Company Profile ( Get Free Report Mondelez International, Inc, through its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, and sells snack food and beverage products in the Latin America, North America, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. It provides biscuits and baked snacks, including cookies, crackers, salted snacks, snack bars, and cakes and pastries; chocolates; and gums and candies, as well as various cheese and grocery, and powdered beverage products. Featured Stories Receive News & Ratings for Mondelez International Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Mondelez International and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
Stock market today: Wall Street rises with Nvidia as bitcoin bursts above $99,000Pep Guardiola denies rumours of a rift with Kevin De Bruyne
Canada didn’t live up to its values on immigration in recent years, Carney says
Timberwolves’ offense may be worse than you think"Today's vote of support by our shareholders confirms our shared belief that with Rio Tinto, we will be a stronger global leader in lithium chemicals production. Together, we enhance our capabilities to successfully develop and operate our assets while supporting the clean energy transition. We are confident that this transaction will provide future benefit to our customers, employees and the communities in which we operate, and I am excited by the path ahead," said Paul Graves , president and chief executive officer of Arcadium Lithium. The final voting results of Arcadium Lithium's special meetings will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in a Form 8-K and will also be available at https://ir.arcadiumlithium.com . Regulatory Update As of this release, merger control clearance has been satisfied or waived in Australia , Canada , China , the United Kingdom and the United States (Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976). Additionally, investment screening approval has been satisfied in the United Kingdom . The proposed transaction is still expected to close in mid-2025, subject to the receipt of remaining regulatory approvals and other closing conditions. Arcadium Lithium Contacts Investors: Daniel Rosen +1 215 299 6208 [email protected] Phoebe Lee +61 413 557 780 [email protected] Media: Karen Vizental +54 9 114 414 4702 [email protected] About Arcadium Lithium Arcadium Lithium is a leading global lithium chemicals producer committed to safely and responsibly harnessing the power of lithium to improve people's lives and accelerate the transition to a clean energy future. We collaborate with our customers to drive innovation and power a more sustainable world in which lithium enables exciting possibilities for renewable energy, electric transportation and modern life. Arcadium Lithium is vertically integrated, with industry-leading capabilities across lithium extraction processes, including hard-rock mining, conventional brine extraction and direct lithium extraction (DLE), and in lithium chemicals manufacturing for high performance applications. We have operations around the world, with facilities and projects in Argentina , Australia , Canada , China , Japan , the United Kingdom and the United States . For more information, please visit us at www.ArcadiumLithium.com . Important Information and Legal Disclaimer: Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Certain statements in this news release are forward-looking statements. In some cases, we have identified forward-looking statements by such words or phrases as "will likely result," "is confident that," "expect," "expects," "should," "could," "may," "will continue to," "believe," "believes," "anticipates," "predicts," "forecasts," "estimates," "projects," "potential," "intends" or similar expressions identifying "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including the negative of those words and phrases. Such forward-looking statements are based on our current views and assumptions regarding future events, future business conditions and the outlook for Arcadium Lithium based on currently available information. There are important factors that could cause Arcadium Lithium's actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from the results, level of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including the completion of the transaction on anticipated terms and timing, including obtaining required regulatory approvals, and the satisfaction of other conditions to the completion of the transaction; potential litigation relating to the transaction that could be instituted by or against Arcadium Lithium or its affiliates, directors or officers, including the effects of any outcomes related thereto; the risk that disruptions from the transaction will harm Arcadium Lithium's business, including current plans and operations; the ability of Arcadium Lithium to retain and hire key personnel; potential adverse reactions or changes to business or governmental relationships resulting from the announcement or completion of the transaction; certain restrictions during the pendency of the transaction that may impact Arcadium Lithium's ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic transactions; significant transaction costs associated with the transaction; the possibility that the transaction may be more expensive to complete than anticipated, including as a result of unexpected factors or events; the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstance that could give rise to the termination of the transaction, including in circumstances requiring Arcadium Lithium to pay a termination fee or other expenses; competitive responses to the transaction; the supply and demand in the market for our products as well as pricing for lithium and high-performance lithium compounds; our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the integration of the businesses of Livent and Allkem or of any future acquisitions; our ability to acquire or develop additional reserves that are economically viable; the existence, availability and profitability of mineral resources and mineral and ore reserves; the success of our production expansion efforts, research and development efforts and the development of our facilities; our ability to retain existing customers; the competition that we face in our business; the development and adoption of new battery technologies; additional funding or capital that may be required for our operations and expansion plans; political, financial and operational risks that our lithium extraction and production operations, particularly in Argentina , expose us to; physical and other risks that our operations and suppliers are subject to; our ability to satisfy customer qualification processes or customer or government quality standards; global economic conditions, including inflation, fluctuations in the price of energy and certain raw materials; the ability of our joint ventures, affiliated entities and contract manufacturers to operate according to their business plans and to fulfill their obligations; severe weather events and the effects of climate change; extensive and dynamic environmental and other laws and regulations; our ability to obtain and comply with required licenses, permits and other approvals; and other factors described under the caption entitled "Risk Factors" in Arcadium Lithium's 2023 Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 29, 2024 , as well as Arcadium Lithium's other SEC filings and public communications. Although Arcadium Lithium believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, Arcadium Lithium cannot guarantee future results, level of activity, performance or achievements. Moreover, neither Arcadium Lithium nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of any of these forward-looking statements. Arcadium Lithium is under no duty to update any of these forward-looking statements after the date of this news release to conform its prior statements to actual results or revised expectations . Logo - https://mma.prnasia.com/media2/2310012/Arcadium_Lithium_Horizontal_Logo.jpg?p=medium600
( ) shares are in the green today. Again. Shares in the (ASX: XJO) company closed yesterday at $256.73. In early morning trade on Wednesday, they are changing hands for $259.01 apiece, up 0.9%. For some context, the ASX 200 is down 0.3% at this same time. As you can see on the chart above, Pro Medicus shares have been shooting the lights out of late, up 192% over the past year. And if that's not enough, the stock also trades on a slender 0.2% fully franked trailing yield. Which brings us to the sale of two million shares by the company's co-founders. This morning, the health imaging company media speculations that its co-founders, Sam Hupert and Anthony Hall, both sold one million Pro Medicus shares at yesterday's closing price of $256.73 a share. In other words, they've each just pocketed a cool $256.7 million. Hall and Hupert launched the company in 1983. Pro Medicus listed on the ASX 17 years later, in October 2000. While the stock has broadly trended higher since then, it didn't lift off right away. In August 2001, you could have bought shares for just 90 cents each. If only! The board noted that the co-founders' share sale "was in response to strong approaches from a number of high-quality funds", and that the shares were not sold at a discount to market prices. The board also highlighted that the two million shares represented less than 4% of both Hall's and Hupert's stockholdings in the company. The co-founders remain the two largest shareholders, owning more than 24 million shares each. There are a total of 104.5 million Pro Medicus shares outstanding. According to the board, Hupert and Hall "are actively engaged in the company as executives and board members and are committed to its future. They remain the two key stake holders in the company with their combined holding post this recent sale of 46%." Both co-founders said they have no plans to sell any additional Pro Medicus shares in the foreseeable future. Commenting on the sale, Pro Medicus chairman Peter Kempen said: This sale of shares by the founders is part of a progressive sell down, which provides prospective shareholders with the opportunity to invest in the company and ultimately will increase the free float. Every investor needs to decide what's right or their own personal situation. Broadly speaking, Pro Medicus shares have been storming higher on the back of strong, ongoing growth. At its profit soared 36.5% to $82.8 million. Hupert also sounded a positive note on the company's outlook at the time, saying, "We have a bit over 7% of the total addressable market (TAM) in the US and growing, so there is still a huge amount of runway ahead of us." Indeed, Bell Potter Pro Medicus shares can still move higher from here (courtesy of ). The broker just upped its price target for Pro Medicus shares by 100% to $260.00.
BY MELISSA GOLDIN Social media users are misrepresenting a Vermont Supreme Court ruling , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont’s high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents’ wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella’s suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella’s son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school’s assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct” that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn’t say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court’s mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.”NoneNone