首页 > 

1xbet esports

2025-01-19
BOCA RATON, Fla., Dec. 11, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Saxena White P.A. issues this notice to update and replace a prior press release issued by Saxena White on December 11, 2024. Plaintiff City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System has filed a Notice of Scrivener’s Error with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which attaches a corrected Class Action complaint correcting a typographical error that inadvertently defined the Class Period as beginning on February 8, 2020, whereas the Class Action complaint alleges that the Class Period begins on February 28, 2020. The prior press release issued by Saxena White on December 11, 2024 contained the same typographical error. The Class Action asserts claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. securities between February 28, 2020 and October 30, 2024, inclusive. The full, updated press release follows: Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the “Class Action”) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. (“Acadia Healthcare,” “Acadia,” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ACHC) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, “Defendants”). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Acadia Healthcare securities between February 28, 2020 and October 30, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby (the “Class”). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al ., No. 24-cv-1447 (M.D. Tenn.). The Class Action complaint expands the class period and allegations asserted in a related action against Acadia and certain of its executive officers captioned: Kachrodia v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al. , No. 24-cv-1238 (M.D. Tenn. filed Oct. 16, 2024) (the “ Kachrodia Action”). Specifically, the Class Action expands the class period pled from February 28, 2020 to October 18, 2024 in the Kachrodia Action, to February 28, 2020 to October 30, 2024 in the Class Action. Pursuant to the notice published on October 16, 2024 in connection with the filing of the Kachrodia Action, and as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), investors wishing to serve as lead plaintiff are required to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 16, 2024. Saxena White’s filing of the Class Action does not alter the lead plaintiff deadline. Based in Franklin, Tennessee, Acadia Healthcare purports to be the leading publicly traded pure-play provider of behavioral healthcare services in the United States. Acadia claims that it is committed to providing communities with high-quality, cost-effective behavioral healthcare services, while growing the Company’s business, increasing profitability, and creating long-term value for shareholders. Most of Acadia’s revenue comes from acute inpatient psychiatric facilities. Acadia receives payments from various payors, including states and the federal government under their respective Medicaid programs. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the quality and safety of Acadia’s inpatient services and the Company’s strong financial performance driven by solid volumes and growth in patient days ( i.e. , length of stay) and same facility revenue. Defendants further touted strong revenue trends driven by rate increases across all payors and positive coverage and reimbursement trends from Medicaid, Acadia’s largest source of revenue. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, including that: (1) Acadia admitted patients and held them against their will and beyond the length of time that was medically necessary in order to deceive payors into continuing to pay for such patients’ care; (2) Acadia would not release patients until their insurance ran out; (3) in order to achieve the above, Acadia deployed Company assessors to pressure emergency rooms to send patients to Company facilities, filed frivolous petitions with courts to delay patients’ release, and directed employees to use buzzwords and avoid using other words in patients’ charts to create a false impression of patients’ mental state; (4) Acadia’s admissions, length of stay, and billing practices would subject the Company to government investigations and actions and heightened media scrutiny; (5) in light of such government investigations and actions and media scrutiny, Acadia’s relationships with its referral sources would be negatively impacted; (6) as a result of the above, Acadia experienced slower same-store patient volumes, and in turn, the Company would be forced to lower its full-year 2024 outlook; and (7) as a result of the above, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On September 1, 2024, investors began to learn the truth about Acadia’s inpatient services when The New York Times (the “ Times ”) published an article, entitled “How a Leading Chain of Psychiatric Hospitals Traps Patients,” reporting that some of Acadia’s success “was built on a disturbing practice: Acadia has lured patients into its facilities and held them against their will, even when detaining them was not medically necessary.” On this news, the price of Acadia stock fell more than 4.5%, from a closing price of $81.93 per share on August 30, 2024, the prior trading day, to a closing price of $78.21 per share on September 3, 2024, the following trading day. On September 26, 2024, the Times published another article, entitled “Acadia Hospitals Reach $20 Million Settlement With Justice Dept,” reporting that Acadia had agreed to a nearly $20 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, related to an investigation into the Company’s practices of holding “patients for longer than necessary” at its facilities and admitting “people who didn’t need to be there.” On September 27, 2024, Acadia disclosed that it had received a request for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri “related to its admissions, length of stay and billing practices.” On this news, the price of Acadia stock fell more than 16%, from a closing price of $75.66 per share on September 26, 2024, to a closing price of $63.28 per share on September 27, 2024. On October 3, 2024, Acadia received a letter from Adam B. Schiff, Judy Chu, and Julia Brownley, members of the U.S. House of Representatives from California, seeking answers to questions raised by reports “that inpatient psychiatric facilities owned by Acadia Healthcare have wrongfully detained patients under medically unnecessary circumstances.” On this news, the price of Acadia stock fell more than 3.5%, from a closing price of $58.80 per share on October 2, 2024, to a closing price of $56.71 per share on October 3, 2024. On October 18, 2024, the Times published another article entitled “Veterans Dept. Investigating Acadia Healthcare for Insurance Fraud,” reporting that the Veterans Affairs Department is investigating whether Acadia “is defrauding government health insurance programs by holding patients longer than is medically necessary” and “whether Acadia billed insurance programs for patients who were stable enough to be released and did not need intensive inpatient care.” On this news, the price of Acadia stock fell more than 12%, from a closing price of $59.32 per share on October 17, 2024, to a closing price of $52.03 per share on October 18, 2024. The truth was fully revealed on October 30, 2024 when Acadia issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2024. In the press release, Acadia disclosed that it had lowered its full-year 2024 revenue outlook to a range of $3.15 to $3.165 billion and its full-year 2024 adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) to a range of $725 to $735 million. During the related earnings call held the next day on October 31, 2024, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Heather Dixon disclosed that the lowered full-year 2024 guidance was in part due to slower same-store patient day growth of only 3% in the month of October, “which we believe is a result of the recent headlines and reporting in the media.” On this news, the price of Acadia stock fell $9.39 per share, or more than 18%, from a closing price of $52.08 per share on October 30, 2024, to a closing price of $42.69 per share on October 31, 2024. If you purchased Acadia Healthcare securities during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the “Class” and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee no later than December 16, 2024. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Marco A. Dueñas ( mduenas@saxenawhite.com ), a Senior Attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com . Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION Marco A. Dueñas, Esq. mduenas@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, New York 10606 Tel.: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 www.saxenawhite.comBunker Hill Announces Updates To Election To Issue Shares In Satisfaction Of Debenture Interest Payment Obligations & Financing Cooperation Fee1xbet esports

BANGKOK — Japanese automakers Honda and Nissan will attempt to merge and create the world's third-largest automaker by sales as the industry undergoes dramatic changes in its transition away from fossil fuels. The two companies said they had signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday and that smaller Nissan alliance member Mitsubishi Motors also had agreed to join the talks on integrating their businesses. Honda will initially lead the new management, retaining the principles and brands of each company. Following is a quick look at what a combined Honda and Nissan would mean for the companies, and for the auto industry. Nissan Chief Executive Makoto Uchida, left, and Honda Chief Executive Toshihiro Mibe, center, and Takao Kato CEO of Mitsubishi Motors, right, arrive to attend a joint news conference Monday, Dec. 23, 2024, in Tokyo, Japan. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko) The ascent of Chinese automakers is rattling the industry at a time when manufacturers are struggling to shift from fossil fuel-driven vehicles to electrics. Relatively inexpensive EVs from China's BYD, Great Wall and Nio are eating into the market shares of U.S. and Japanese car companies in China and elsewhere. Japanese automakers have lagged behind big rivals in EVs and are now trying to cut costs and make up for lost time. Nissan, Honda and Mitsubishi announced in August that they will share components for electric vehicles like batteries and jointly research software for autonomous driving to adapt better to dramatic changes in the auto industry centered around electrification. A preliminary agreement between Honda, Japan's second-largest automaker, and Nissan, third largest, was announced in March. A merger could result in a behemoth worth about $55 billion based on the market capitalization of all three automakers. Joining forces would help the smaller Japanese automakers add scale to compete with Japan's market leader Toyota Motor Corp. and with Germany's Volkswagen AG. Toyota itself has technology partnerships with Japan's Mazda Motor Corp. and Subaru Corp. Nissan Chief Executive Makoto Uchida, left, Honda Chief Executive Toshihiro Mibe, center, and Takao Kato, CEO of Mitsubishi Motors, right, pose for photographers during a joint news conference in Tokyo, Japan, Monday, Dec. 23, 2024. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko) Nissan has truck-based body-on-frame large SUVs such as the Armada and Infiniti QX80 that Honda doesn't have, with large towing capacities and good off-road performance, said Sam Fiorani, vice president of AutoForecast Solutions. Nissan also has years of experience building batteries and electric vehicles, and gas-electric hybird powertrains that could help Honda in developing its own EVs and next generation of hybrids, he said. "Nissan does have some product segments where Honda doesn't currently play," that a merger or partnership could help, said Sam Abuelsamid, a Detroit-area automotive industry analsyt. While Nissan's electric Leaf and Ariya haven't sold well in the U.S., they're solid vehicles, Fiorani said. "They haven't been resting on their laurels, and they have been developing this technology," he said. "They have new products coming that could provide a good platform for Honda for its next generation." Nissan said last month that it was slashing 9,000 jobs, or about 6% of its global work force, and reducing global production capacity by 20% after reporting a quarterly loss of 9.3 billion yen ($61 million). Earlier this month it reshuffled its management and its chief executive, Makoto Uchida, took a 50% pay cut to take responsibility for the financial woes, saying Nissan needed to become more efficient and respond better to market tastes, rising costs and other global changes. Fitch Ratings recently downgraded Nissan's credit outlook to "negative," citing worsening profitability, partly due to price cuts in the North American market. But it noted that it has a strong financial structure and solid cash reserves that amounted to 1.44 trillion yen ($9.4 billion). Nissan's share price has fallen to the point where it is considered something of a bargain. A report in the Japanese financial magazine Diamond said talks with Honda gained urgency after the Taiwan maker of iPhones Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., better known as Foxconn, began exploring a possible acquisition of Nissan as part of its push into the EV sector. The company has struggled for years following a scandal that began with the arrest of its former chairman Carlos Ghosn in late 2018 on charges of fraud and misuse of company assets, allegations that he denies. He eventually was released on bail and fled to Lebanon. Honda reported its profits slipped nearly 20% in the first half of the April-March fiscal year from a year earlier, as sales suffered in China. Toyota made 11.5 million vehicles in 2023, while Honda rolled out 4 million and Nissan produced 3.4 million. Mitsubishi Motors made just over 1 million. Even after a merger Toyota would remain the leading Japanese automaker. All the global automakers are facing potential shocks if President-elect Donald Trump follows through on threats to raise or impose tariffs on imports of foreign products, even from allies like Japan and neighboring countries like Canada and Mexico. Nissan is among the major car companies that have adjusted their supply chains to include vehicles assembled in Mexico. Meanwhile, analysts say there is an "affordability shift" taking place across the industry, led by people who feel they cannot afford to pay nearly $50,000 for a new vehicle. In American, a vital market for companies like Nissan, Honda and Toyota, that's forcing automakers to consider lower pricing, which will eat further into industry profits. ____ AP Auto Writer Tom Krisher contributed to this report from Detroit. Airbags, advanced driver assistance features, and high-strength materials mean that the safest cars today are far better at protecting people from injuries than ever before. Although most new cars compare well to their predecessors, some stand above the rest. The safest cars for 2025 offer excellent occupant protection and also do a good job of preventing accidents from happening in the first place. Based on testing data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety , or IIHS, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration , or NHTSA, these are some of the safest cars available today. Ranging from inexpensive compact cars and mainstream midsize sedans to stylish station wagons, posh luxury cars, and sporty coupes and convertibles, Edmunds shares a list that has something for just about everyone. For those who prefer a higher seating position and maybe some added practicality, Edmunds' list of safest SUVs is for you. The stylish Mazda 3 has a lot to offer compact-car shoppers, including great looks, a composed driving experience, and reasonable fuel economy from its base 2.0-liter engine. It's also one of the safest cars in its class, earning a perfect five stars in NHTSA crash testing and sterling crashworthiness and collision avoidance scores from the IIHS. Its standard features are forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, and lane departure prevention. With mature styling, a premium interior, and an efficient hybrid powertrain option, the 2025 Honda Civic is a great option if safety is a concern since it aces almost all of the IIHS' crash tests and earns a five-star safety rating from the federal government. It also comes standard with adaptive cruise control, lane departure prevention, and forward collision warning with automatic emergency braking. The Civic falls short slightly in the IIHS' updated moderate overlap front test, which now accounts for rear passenger safety, but even so, it's one of the safest cars in its class. Reflective of parent company BMW, today's Mini Cooper is well constructed and features premium safety features that belie its small size, including automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning. Although the Mini hasn't been tested by NHTSA, the IIHS gives the Cooper its highest score of Good in the original driver-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, and side-impact tests. That said, the IIHS doesn't place the Cooper on its Top Safety Pick or Top Safety Pick+ lists since it hasn't been evaluated on the updated battery of passenger-side small overlap front, moderate overlap front, or side-impact tests. Expect the new-for-2025 Mini Cooper to earn decent crash ratings in those scenarios, especially since it shares its strong platform with the outgoing model. With its recent redesign, the Toyota Prius transformed from a frumpy little caterpillar to a stylish and efficient butterfly. It also became a very safe hybrid hatchback. Perfect scores in all of its government and IIHS crash tests, as well as a sophisticated system of collision avoidance technology, earn it top marks. It's also one of our favorite cars on the market, period, as evidenced by its status as a 2024 Edmunds Top Rated vehicle. The Honda Accord is among the safest midsize sedans on the market today thanks to excellent crashworthiness scores and a competent standard collision prevention system. It's a Top Safety Pick+, beating out rivals like the Hyundai Sonata, Kia K5, and Subaru Legacy, and the Accord also earns a perfect five-star rating from NHTSA. Honda's hybrid-intensive product planning is on full display here—all but the two lowest Accord trims have a hybrid powertrain—and it's also among the most spacious cars in its class. Like its Honda Accord rival, the Toyota Camry is also an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ with a five-star NHTSA rating. It also has a very impressive suite of driver assistance and safety technology, including lane departure prevention with active centering, full-speed adaptive cruise control, and automatic emergency braking. The Camry edges out the Accord in IIHS testing thanks to a more effective collision avoidance system, but both cars are remarkably well matched otherwise. The fully electric Hyundai Ioniq 6 offers excellent safety and collision prevention, with excellent scores across the entire line of IIHS tests. The Ioniq 6 hasn't been tested for rollover resistance by NHTSA, but it earned a four-star front safety rating and a five-star side-impact rating in government tests. Like most EVs, the Hyundai Ioniq 6 comes standard with forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, and lane departure prevention. It also offers up to 342 miles of all-electric driving in its longest-range trim level. The Acura Integra is a close mechanical cousin to the Honda Civic, so it's no surprise it does well in both the IIHS' and NHTSA's crash tests. The luxury hatchback is a Top Safety Pick+ and earns a perfect five stars in government testing. The AcuraWatch safety suite is standard on the Integra, bringing automatic emergency braking, lane centering, lane departure prevention, and adaptive cruise control. The Mercedes-Benz C-Class is a safe option in the popular small luxury sedan segment thanks to its good scores in IIHS crash testing. Mercedes' best-selling sedan also comes standard with automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning, which helps it earn a Top Safety Pick award. However, it hasn't been tested by the NHTSA. Both the Genesis G80 and the fully electric Genesis Electrified G80 earn a Top Safety Pick+ score from the IIHS thanks to their good scores on the agency's crash tests, as well as a comprehensive suite of active safety features that avoided collisions with simulated pedestrians. The internal-combustion-engine G80 earned a perfect five-star safety rating from NHTSA, and although the Electrified G80 hasn't been tested by the feds just yet, it should likely excel in those tests too. The flagship Genesis G90 sedan competes with the Mercedes-Benz S-Class and BMW 7 Series, and the South Korean automaker clearly hasn't skimped on safety in its fight against the establishment. Although it hasn't been subjected to the NHTSA array of tests, it aced almost all of its IIHS tests, and a long list of standard active safety and driver assistance features sets it apart from the stingy German makes that charge extra for them. With handsome styling and a well-finished interior, the Volvo V60 is a very appealing station wagon for those looking for such a thing. It's also quite safe, with good crashworthiness scores in the IIHS' original moderate overlap front and side-impact scores. Unfortunately, since it hasn't been tested with the updated versions of those tests, it didn't earn this year's Top Safety Pick award, but it was called a Top Safety Pick+ in 2022. NHTSA also gives the V60 a five-star safety rating. Although the Mercedes-Benz E 450 All-Terrain isn't a traditional wagon — it follows the lifted almost-crossover formula shared with the Audi A6 Allroad and Volvo V90 Cross Country — we'll take what we can get in this dwindling category. The All-Terrain hasn't been tested by the IIHS or NHTSA, but a previous-generation E-Class earned a 2023 Top Safety Pick+ award, and Mercedes isn't the kind of company that goes backward when it comes to safety. The E 450 All-Terrain comes standard with automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning, though, at this price, Benz should just make other active safety features standard. With a five-star NHTSA safety rating, standard forward collision warning and emergency braking, and excellent IIHS crashworthiness scores on its original tests, the Audi A6 Allroad does a good job protecting people (both passengers and pedestrians) from crashes. However, since the IIHS hasn't subjected the Allroad to its updated side and moderate front crash criteria, it lost its Top Safety Pick+ status in 2022. Still, it should be a fine option for luxury longroof shoppers. Both the Ford Mustang coupe and convertible perform well in crash testing. The coupe received a five-star safety rating from NHTSA, and both variants scored decently on all the IIHS tests they've undergone. They also come standard with forward collision warning, lane departure prevention, and automatic emergency braking. However, the IIHS needs to test both models on its updated criteria before it will rate them. Although the government hasn't tested it, the Toyota GR86 aced all of its IIHS crashworthiness tests when it was new for the 2022 model year. Unfortunately, since it hasn't been subjected to the IIHS' updated testing since then, it lost its Top Safety Pick+ status. Still, this is a fun-to-drive, sporty coupe that comes standard with a long list of active safety features, and it's reasonably priced to boot. Mechanically identical to the Toyota GR86, the 2025 Subaru BRZ achieves the same safety ratings—who would have thought? It likewise received a Top Safety Pick+ score in 2022 that lapsed when the IIHS updated its criteria for 2023, but like the Toyota, it has a long list of active safety features to go along with its lightweight, rip-roaring sports car attitude. The Audi A5 lost its traditional two-door coupe body style after 2024, but the five-door Sportback body style remains before it's replaced later in 2025. Although it hasn't seen the IIHS' more stringent test regimen, its original crashworthiness scores were good enough to earn it a Top Safety Pick award as recently as 2022. The Sportback is the only variant to be tested by the government, where it earned a five-star safety rating. This story was produced by Edmunds and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. Get the latest local business news delivered FREE to your inbox weekly.Black Friday deals are everywhere right now, and many of the major streaming services will probably announce special promotions to entice new customers soon, too. If you’re thinking about “cutting the cord,” or switching from a traditional cable provider to a streaming service , this might be a good time to try it. “The deals that will be coming out will be attractive to new subscribers and most likely will be basic plans with ads,” Chad Gammon, an Iowa-based certified financial planner, said in an email interview. While some streaming services might also offer deals on plans without ads, Gammon, who owns Custom Fit Financial, said they’ll come at a higher cost. So keep an eye out for the deals, but make sure you look at the terms and conditions, too. Black Friday streaming deal trends Some streaming services will roll out their Black Friday prices in the coming days — and some have already started offering deals. For example, ESPN+ is running a promotion offering 12 months for the price of nine, as long as subscribers choose the annual plan. That deal is good through Dec. 2. Last year’s Black Friday deals can be a good indication of what’s to come. "Past Black Friday deals, like Hulu's $1.99/month offer, really show the range of savings,” Clay Cary, a senior trends analyst at CouponFollow, said in a prepared statement. “More often than not, bundles like Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ tend to give the most value if your household uses multiple platforms," Cary said. We contacted these services about their Black Friday plans. Disney+ said there are no deals to announce quite yet. Hulu and ESPN+ did not respond to requests for information. Are Black Friday streaming deals worth it? While you’re waiting for the deals to drop, consider the different streaming plans, your budget, and whether one service can give you all the programming you want. Streaming services present themselves as cheaper alternatives to cable companies with long contracts, poor service, lots of commercials and expensive monthly contracts. But do they make good on that promise? You’ll need to look at the details You might think you’re scoring a great streaming service deal only to realize it’s for the version with ads. Pay attention to other details, too. A streaming service might offer a seasonal deal, but on a plan that limits the number of devices that can stream at once, and video quality can vary. Crackdowns on password sharing have also hit the streaming world hard and frustrated many consumers — and the alternatives aren’t great. “Paid-sharing options, like Netflix's, haven't been popular because they feel like an extra charge without added value,” Cary said. “For budget-conscious viewers, these changes could push them toward free ad-supported services instead.” You’ll still need to pay for internet If you were hoping to cut ties with your cable provider, you might have to think twice. You’ll still need the internet to use your streaming service. Many households bundle cable and internet costs, so if you cut cable, you will need to get a price for an internet-only plan. If multiple people in your household are streaming at once, you might find your old internet speed isn’t cutting it. A boost in internet speed will cost more, so you’ll need to adjust your budget accordingly. You might need to subscribe to multiple services If you’re a sports fan with kids in the house and a spouse who likes shows from premium channels, you might have to sign up for three different streaming services to get all the content you want. Signing up for multiple streaming services can get pricey and can also be a real headache. Gammon described this as “subscription fatigue,” where people subscribe to multiple services and end up not using them because they can’t find which programs are on which streaming service. To stay within your budget, Cary said consumers should focus “on platforms that align with what you actually watch rather than trying to subscribe to everything.” Expect a price increase later The excitement of scoring a cheap deal won’t last forever. “When promotional deals lapse, prices can spiral upward alarmingly, doubling in some cases,” Cary said. “To avoid such surprises, set a reminder before the discounted rate expires to review your subscription,” he said. Check existing memberships for free subscriptions Before signing up, ask yourself: How do streaming services fit into my budget? In a 50/30/20 budget , streaming services fit squarely into the 30% wants category, alongside travel, entertainment and dining out. If your budget is tight, check your current memberships, because some major retailers offer significant discounts or free subscriptions on streaming services. For example: Walmart+ members get access to the Paramount+ Essentials plan as a benefit. Grocery chain Kroger offers Boost members the option to get Disney+ Basic (with ads), Hulu (with ads) or ESPN+ for free as part of their yearly fee. Verizon offers Verizon Home Internet users free subscriptions to Netflix Standard (with ads) and Max (with ads) for a year, and then $10 per month after that. That’s a savings of $203 in the first year. While most of these offers are for base-level plans with ads, tapping into existing benefits is a low-stakes way to try out one of these platforms. More From NerdWallet Best Black Friday Deals: When to Shop, What to Buy and What to Skip When is Cyber Monday? Everything You Need To Know What Dynamic Pricing Means for Black Friday Shopping Amanda Barroso writes for NerdWallet. Email: abarroso@nerdwallet.com . The article Black Friday Streaming Deals: Read the Fine Print First originally appeared on NerdWallet.

NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers formally asked a judge Monday to throw out his hush money criminal conviction , arguing that continuing the case would present unconstitutional “disruptions to the institution of the Presidency.“ In a filing made public Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers told Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan that anything short of immediate dismissal would undermine the transition of power, as well as the “overwhelming national mandate" granted to Trump by voters last month. They also cited President Joe Biden’s recent pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, who had been convicted of tax and gun charges . “President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently,’" Trump’s legal team wrote. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, they claimed, had engaged in the type of political theater "that President Biden condemned.” Prosecutors will have until Dec. 9 to respond. They have said they will fight any efforts to dismiss the case but have indicated a willingness to delay the sentencing until after Trump’s second term ends in 2029. In their filing Monday, Trump's attorneys dismissed the idea of holding off sentencing until Trump is out of office as a “ridiculous suggestion.” Following Trump’s election victory last month, Merchan halted proceedings and indefinitely postponed his sentencing, previously scheduled for late November, to allow the defense and prosecution to weigh in on the future of the case. He also delayed a decision on Trump’s prior bid to dismiss the case on immunity grounds. Trump has been fighting for months to reverse his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels to suppress her claim that they had sex a decade earlier. He says they did not and denies any wrongdoing. The defense filing was signed by Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who represented Trump during the trial and have since been selected by the president-elect to fill senior roles at the Justice Department. Taking a swipe at Bragg and New York City, as Trump often did throughout the trial, the filing argues that dismissal would also benefit the public by giving him and “the numerous prosecutors assigned to this case a renewed opportunity to put an end to deteriorating conditions in the City and to protect its residents from violent crime.” Clearing Trump, the lawyers added, would also allow him to “to devote all of his energy to protecting the Nation.” Merchan hasn’t yet set a timetable for a decision. He could decide to uphold the verdict and proceed to sentencing, delay the case until Trump leaves office, wait until a federal appeals court rules on Trump’s parallel effort to get the case moved out of state court or choose some other option. An outright dismissal of the New York case would further lift a legal cloud that at one point carried the prospect of derailing Trump’s political future. Last week, special counsel Jack Smith told courts that he was withdrawing both federal cases against Trump — one charging him with hoarding classified documents at his Florida estate, the other with scheming to overturn the 2020 presidential election he lost — citing longstanding Justice Department policy that shields a president from indictment while in office. The hush money case was the only one of Trump’s four criminal indictments to go to trial, resulting in a historic verdict that made him the first former president to be convicted of a crime. Prosecutors had cast the payout as part of a Trump-driven effort to keep voters from hearing salacious stories about him. Trump’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels. Trump later reimbursed him, and Trump’s company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses — concealing what they really were, prosecutors alleged. Trump has said the payments to Cohen were properly categorized as legal expenses for legal work. A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can’t cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct. Trump’s lawyers cited the ruling to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made during his first term. Prosecutors disagreed and said the evidence in question was only “a sliver” of their case. If the verdict stands and the case proceeds to sentencing, Trump’s punishments would range from a fine to probation to up to four years in prison — but it’s unlikely he’d spend any time behind bars for a first-time conviction involving charges in the lowest tier of felonies. Because it is a state case, Trump would not be able to pardon himself once he returns to office. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission. Get local news delivered to your inbox!Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president, has died at 100

Hunting For Magnificent Growth Next Year? Check Out These 7 Stocks.

Previous: 0 is equal to
Next: e-sports background