SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The price of iLearningEngines (NASDAQ: AILE) shares crashed over 30% lower on November 18, 2024 after announcing that (i) the company had placed CFO S. Farhan Naqvi on administrative leave effective immediately, (ii) its outside auditor had withdrawn its prior opinions, (iii) investors should no longer rely on previously-filed financial statements, and (iv) the SEC had subpoenaed the company seeking various documents and information. The company’s recent announcement follows a scathing report from a renowned activist short seller that cast doubt on the financial health and business model of iLearningEngines and gave rise to an investor class action. Hagens Berman urges iLearningEngines investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now . Class Period: Apr. 22, 2024 – Aug. 28, 2024 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 6, 2024 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/aile Contact the Firm Now: AILE@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Securities Class Action Against iLearningEngines: The pending litigation focuses on the propriety of iLearningEngines’ disclosures about, among other matters, the source and veracity of its revenues and expenses and its relationship with an entity the company has called its “Technology Partner.” The complaint alleges that iLearningEngines made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the “Technology Partner” was in fact a related party; (2) the company used the “Technology Partner” to report largely fake revenues and expenses; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the company significantly overstated its revenue. Investors began to learn the truth on August 29, 2024, when Hindenburg Research published a report accusing the AI-powered learning automation company of fabricating revenue and engaging in questionable accounting practices. Among other things, Hindenburg alleged that a significant portion of the company’s revenues and expenses are routed through an undisclosed related party (Experion Technologies), the company lied to the SEC abut its relationship with Experion, and the company artificially inflated its revenues. In response, the price of iLearningEngines shares plummeted by over 50% that day. After Hindenburg’s report and the lawsuit was filed, another shoe dropped on November 18, 2024, when iLearningEngines filed its current report on Form 8-K. The company announced that it placed its CFO on administrative leave and that the SEC issued a subpoena to the company seeking certain documents and information. The company also announced that its outside auditor (Marcum) withdrew its prior audit opinions and that all or virtually all of its financial statements filed in connection with its SPAC merger, which closed on April 16, 2024, should not be relied on. In response, the price of iLearningEngines crashed over 30% that day. Prominent shareholder rights firm Hagens Berman has launched an investigation into the matter. “Investors who relied on iLearningEngines’ alleged misleading statements and omissions may have suffered significant financial losses,” said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you invested in iLearningEngines and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm’s investigation, submit your losses now » If you’d like more information and answers to frequently asked questions about the iLearningEngines case and our investigation, read more » Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding iLearningEngines should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email AILE@hbsslaw.com . About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs’ rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman’s team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com . Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw . Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895Jones’ first appearance at Twickenham against the side he coached from 2015 to 2022 ended in a nine-try rout and the Australian’s afternoon was soured further by a verbal altercation with a supporter. When asked how he felt being back at the home of English rugby, he said: “It wasn’t bad until some clown abused me going down the stairs at half-time. “He said something, but I’m not going to repeat it here because I’ll get into trouble. Do you want me to get into trouble again? If there’s only one clown in 81,634 that’s not bad.” The Rugby Football Union reacted to the abuse of Jones by stating: “No coaches, players or match officials should be abused for doing their job.” Jones has come under intense scrutiny for his coaching methods as England boss after Care said in his autobiography ‘Everything Happens for a Reason’ that “everyone was bloody terrified of him”. Care added that Jones oversaw a “toxic” environment and acted like a “tyrant” and “despot”. Responding to the allegations for the first time, Jones said: “I’ll tell you mate, I’ve got a new book deal. I just signed it today. It’s going to be called ‘Caring about Care’ and you’ll get all the details in there. “I’ve got pre-order forms up here, you can come up and get a pre-order form. Get them hot. “I’m trying to do a deal with the Daily Mail, but we haven’t come to an agreement yet. If you want to read about it, there you go. It’ll be a good one. “I’m very serious. I’m very serious, mate. If you want to read about it, read it in my book. That’s how you get a headline, so I’ll put a whole chapter in there ‘Caring about Care’, just for you.” England finished their autumn on an upbeat note by sweeping aside Japan, ending their five-Test losing streak. But it has been a frustrating campaign after New Zealand, Australia and South Africa edged victories at Twickenham to place Borthwick under pressure. “The overriding feeling this autumn is one of frustration to have come so close to getting results but not actually being able to convert them,” Borthwick said. “But there is real positivity around how the team played. I want the team to be brave with the ball, I want them to play fast, and we’ve seen growth in that area over the last four weeks. “I’m really pleased with the way the players approached the game against Japan and the way they kept being disciplined to try and play the way they wanted to play for 80 minutes. You can see the identity they’re trying to build as a team. “In the last four weeks we’ve scored some really outstanding tries with the skill level that is in this group.”
Ukraine In Contact With All Democratic Political Forces To Increase Support - Ambassador To GermanyRemote village of Rarik in Himachal's Lahaul and Spiti gets 4G connectivity
None
TEHRAN-The Iranian feature film “The Last Act” directed by Shahab Hosseini will be screened at the 78th International Film Festival of Salerno, which will be held from November 25 to 30 in Salerno, Italy. It will be the 14th international presence of the film that have gained several nominations and awards in the past two years, IRNA reported. A 2022 production of the Seven Skies Entertainment company, the film won the Best Film awards at the Toronto International Nollywood Film Festival, the Gladiator Film Festival, and Web3 International Film Festival. An adaptation of the play “Dernier Acte” by French novelist Gilbert Cesbron, the film story is based on true political events that often happen in many territories, but it was written anonymously without geographical specifications. Cesbron’s work is characterized by a great sensitivity to human suffering and an unwavering optimism about the possibility of change and progress. It tells the story of a government criticizer who is prosecuted and arrested while he was visiting his family. The conversation between the writer and one of the authorities leads to an unexpected ending. Gia Mora, James Wagner, Armin Amiri, Mohammad Motalegh, Shelby Seiler, Esmaeel G. Adivi, Shailene Farabi, and Danill Vederikov are in the cast. Shahab Hosseini, 50, is an actor, producer, director, and screenwriter. He is known for his collaborations with Iranian Academy Award-winning director Asghar Farhadi in “About Elly” (2009), “A Separation” (2011), and “The Salesman” (2016). His accolades include a Cannes Film Festival Award for Best Actor, a Silver Bear for Best Actor, and a Crystal Simorgh for Best Actor. He has played in over 60 films and 15 TV series in more than 20 years. He has also directed four feature films, a play and a TV show. “The Last Act” is his second directing experience in the U.S. following “The Writer Is Dead”. The International Film Festival of Salerno was founded in 1946. Since birth, it has been characterized as a competitive event for Italian and international productions, offering a continuous comparison on the developments of world cinematography. The festival assigns to cinema an important social function and its finality is to constantly adapt its line with an eye to the evolution of technologies and new audiovisual media. It absolves its original task of divulgation and cinematographic literacy, in line with its tradition. SS/SAB
MacBook Pro M4 Prices Are Getting a Major Cut, Apple’s Going All In For Black FridayChief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has formed a three-judge special bench to address a series of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, a law enacted to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The bench, headed by CJI Khanna and including justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, will hear the consolidated cases at 3.30 pm on December 12. The formation of this bench comes at a critical time, with Hindu groups initiating legal suits across the country to survey mosques and determine whether temple structures lie beneath them. Despite the significance of the issue, the matter has seen little progress in the Supreme Court over the last two years, even as such disputes have escalated in district courts and high courts, leading to a proliferation of conflicting and politically sensitive orders. The 1991 Act was enacted by the then Congress-led government to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947. It prohibits the filing of fresh suits or legal proceedings to alter the religious status of such sites and makes it punishable to attempt to change its character. However, the Act exempted the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, where legal proceedings were already on. READ | CJI Sanjiv Khanna recuses himself from ECI chief appointment case Since its enactment, the Act remained largely unchallenged for several years, facing no substantial opposition until a deluge of petitions emerged following the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment, which ruled in favour of the Hindu side and reignited demands to reclaim other religious sites, sparking arguments over the legislation’s constitutionality. Five such petitions contesting the validity of the Act will be taken up by the special bench on December 12. In March 2021, the court had admitted the challenge to the law and sought the Centre’s stand but despite the growing number of petitions, the Union government has yet to clarify its position on the Act. In July 2023, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the Centre was prepared to file its response, and the court granted an extension until October 31, 2023. However, no affidavit has been submitted, leaving the government’s stance uncertain. If the Centre opts to defend the law as it is, it will have to justify the rationale behind the cut-off date and stop the reclamation of religious places allegedly destroyed by Muslim invaders, among others, raised by the petitioners. During a hearing in July 2023, the court declined to impose a blanket stay on lower courts from hearing-related cases, noting that there was no judicial order halting the operation of the Act. The court’s indisposition to issue an order came amid concerns expressed by Muslim litigants, who argued that the absence of clarity from the apex court had led to a mushrooming of cases in district courts and high courts. The origins of the current legal battle trace back to June 2020, when the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh, a Lucknow-based organisation, filed a petition challenging the Act. Represented by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, the group sought to declare Section 4 of the Act unconstitutional, arguing that it barred Hindus from reclaiming their religious properties, including the disputed sites in Kashi and Mathura. The petition described the Act as an impediment to rectifying historical injustices and claimed it violated fundamental rights under the Constitution. Subsequently, several other petitions followed, including one from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy, who argued that the Act infringed upon his right to pray at temples forcibly converted during foreign invasions. Another prominent petition was filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay in October 2020, who contended that the legislation discriminates against Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs by curbing their right to restore religious sites destroyed before 1947. Upadhyay also argued that the Act violated the fundamental rights of these communities to manage and preserve their places of worship. Upadhya’s plea is currently the lead petition in the matter. In addition to these challenges, Kumari Krishna Priya, a member of the Kashi royal family, filed an application arguing that the Act was discriminatory for exempting the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute while not extending similar exemptions to other significant sites such as the Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura. The growing list of legal challenges prompted interventions from Muslim groups, including the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, which has opposed the petition, arguing that striking down the law would undermine the secular character of the Constitution and rekindle fears within the Muslim community about the safety of their places of worship. It referenced the Ayodhya dispute as a cautionary tale, warning that even issuing notices on such petitions could destabilise communal harmony. The 2019 Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case, which granted the disputed site to Hindus for the construction of a temple, explicitly upheld the Places of Worship Act as a critical legislative safeguard for India’s secular framework. The judgment emphasised that “historical wrongs cannot be remedied by taking the law into one’s own hands” and underscored the principle of non-retrogression, which prohibits revisiting settled issues. The court also noted that the Act served as a constitutional commitment to preserve the religious character of all places of worship and promote equality among religious communities. However, remarks by former CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud during the hearing of the Gyanvapi mosque dispute in May 2022 and October 2023, suggesting that the religious character of sites might need to be determined for the Act’s application, sparked controversy. Although these remarks were not part of a formal judicial ruling, Muslim organisations claim that they led to ambiguity that has allowed conflicting interpretations by subordinate courts. READ | SC sets aside NGT order imposing ₹ 3 crore fine on mining firm The December 12 hearing is expected to draw widespread attention, as the Supreme Court delves into the legal and constitutional complexities surrounding the Places of Worship Act. With the surge in disputes over historical religious sites raising questions about communal harmony and the secular framework of the Constitution, all eyes will be on the bench to provide much-needed clarity on the scope and validity of the 1991 law. The court’s deliberations are anticipated to have far-reaching implications for how the country navigates purported historical grievances while upholding the constitutional promise of equality and secularism.