game king slot machine
Original MLS clubs LA Galaxy, NY Red Bulls cap their amazing turnarounds with showdown for MLS CupOregon, Penn State square off for Big Ten title with CFP in their future
WOOD DALE, Ill. , Dec. 19, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- AAR CORP. (NYSE: AIR) ("AAR" or the "Company") announced today that it has reached resolutions with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to resolve previously disclosed potential violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA") relating to certain transactions signed in 2016 and 2017 in Nepal and South Africa. After self-reporting the potential violations to the DOJ and SEC in 2019, and cooperating with both agencies in a multi-year investigation, AAR has entered a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the DOJ, and the SEC has accepted the Company's Offer of Settlement and issued a cease-and-desist order (the "SEC Order"). The resolutions with both the DOJ and SEC make clear that the relevant conduct was principally carried out by a former employee of a Company subsidiary and former third-party agents. The total amount payable by AAR under the NPA and SEC Order is $55,599,653 , inclusive of penalties, forfeiture, and prejudgment interest, which will be reflected as a one-time charge in the Company's consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2025 second quarter ended November 30, 2024 . The Company expects to fund these payments using a combination of cash on hand and borrowings under its revolving credit facility. "We are pleased to resolve these matters with the DOJ and SEC," said John M. Holmes , AAR's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. "We thank the DOJ and SEC for their collaboration and their recognition of the Company's substantial cooperation. AAR remains committed to transparency and accountability and operating in an ethical and compliant manner as we deliver innovative, value-driven solutions to meet the ever-evolving needs of our customers worldwide." Since self-reporting the potential violations to the DOJ and SEC in 2019, the Company has taken extensive steps to enhance its global compliance program. AAR's remedial actions, along with the significant effort it made to cooperate with the investigations, were acknowledged by the DOJ and the SEC as part of the resolutions. About AAR AAR is a global aerospace and defense aftermarket solutions company with operations in over 20 countries. Headquartered in the Chicago area, AAR supports commercial and government customers through four operating segments: Parts Supply, Repair & Engineering, Integrated Solutions, and Expeditionary Services. Additional information can be found at aarcorp.com . Forward-looking statements This press release contains certain statements relating to future results, which are forward-looking statements as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which reflect management's expectations about future conditions, including, but not limited to, funding the payments required pursuant to the resolution of the DOJ and SEC investigations. Forward-looking statements often address our expected future operating and financial performance and financial condition, or sustainability targets, goals, commitments, and other business plans, and often may also be identified because they contain words such as "anticipate," "believe," "continue," "could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "likely," "may," "might," "plan," "potential," "predict," "project," "seek," "should," "target," "will," "would," or similar expressions and the negatives of those terms. These forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs of Company management, as well as assumptions and estimates based on information available to the Company as of the dates such assumptions and estimates are made, and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated, depending on a variety of factors, including: (i) factors that adversely affect the commercial aviation industry; (ii) adverse events and negative publicity in the aviation industry; (iii) a reduction in sales to the U.S. government and its contractors; (iv) cost overruns and losses on fixed-price contracts; (v) nonperformance by subcontractors or suppliers; (vi) a reduction in outsourcing of maintenance activity by airlines; (vii) a shortage of skilled personnel or work stoppages; (viii) competition from other companies; (ix) financial, operational and legal risks arising as a result of operating internationally; (x) inability to integrate acquisitions effectively and execute operational and financial plans related to the acquisitions; (xi) failure to realize the anticipated benefits of acquisitions; (xii) circumstances associated with divestitures; (xiii) inability to recover costs due to fluctuations in market values for aviation products and equipment; (xiv) cyber or other security threats or disruptions; (xv) a need to make significant capital expenditures to keep pace with technological developments in our industry; (xvi) restrictions on use of intellectual property and tooling important to our business; (xvii) inability to fully execute our stock repurchase program and return capital to stockholders; (xviii) limitations on our ability to access the debt and equity capital markets or to draw down funds under loan agreements; (xix) non-compliance with restrictive and financial covenants contained in our debt and loan agreements; (xx) changes in or non-compliance with laws and regulations related to federal contractors, the aviation industry, international operations, safety, and environmental matters, and the costs of complying with such laws and regulations; and (xxi) exposure to product liability and property claims that may be in excess of our liability insurance coverage. Should one or more of those risks or uncertainties materialize adversely, or should underlying assumptions or estimates prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described. Those events and uncertainties are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many are beyond our control. For a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties, refer to our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Part I, "Item 1A, Risk Factors" and our other filings from time to time with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These events and uncertainties are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many are beyond the Company's control. The risks described in these reports are not the only risks we face, as additional risks and uncertainties are not currently known or foreseeable or impossible to predict accurately or risks that are beyond the Company's control or deemed immaterial may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations in future periods. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements or to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events, except as required by law. Contact: Media Team +1-630-227-5100 Editor@aarcorp.com View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aar-resolves-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-investigations-with-the-doj-and-sec-302336664.html SOURCE AAR CORP.
By LARRY NEUMEISTER NEW YORK (AP) — The founder and former CEO of the failed cryptocurrency lending platform Celsius Network could face decades in prison after pleading guilty Tuesday to federal fraud charges, admitting that he misled customers about the business. Alexander Mashinsky , 58, of Manhattan, entered the plea in New York federal court to commodities and securities fraud. He admitted illegally manipulating the price of Celsius’s proprietary crypto token while secretly selling his own tokens at inflated prices to pocket about $48 million before Celsius collapsed into bankruptcy in 2022. In court, he admitted that in 2021 he publicly suggested there was regulatory consent for the company’s moves because he knew that customers “would find false comfort” with that. And he said that in 2019, he was selling the crypto tokens even though he told the public that he was not. He said he knew customers would draw false comfort from that too. “I accept full responsibility for my actions,” Mashinsky said of crimes that stretched from 2018 to 2022 as the company pitched itself to customers as a modern-day bank where they could safely deposit crypto assets and earn interest. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a release that Mashinsky “orchestrated one of the biggest frauds in the crypto industry” as his company’s assets purportedly grew to about $25 billion at its peak, making it one of the largest crypto platforms in the world. He said Mashinsky used catchy slogans like “Unbank Yourself” to entice prospective customers with a pledge that their money would be as safe in crypto accounts as money would be in a bank. Meanwhile, prosecutors said, Mashinsky and co-conspirators used customer deposits to fund market purchases of the Celsius token to prop up its value. Machinsky made tens of millions of dollars selling his own CEL tokens at artificially high prices, leaving his customers “holding the bag when the company went bankrupt,” Williams said. An indictment alleged that Mashinsky promoted Celsius through media interviews, his social media accounts and Celsius’ website, along with a weekly “Ask Mashinsky Anything” session broadcast that was posted to Celsius’ website and a YouTube channel. Celsius employees from multiple departments who noticed false and misleading statements in the sessions warned Mashinsky, but they were ignored, the indictment said. A plea agreement Mashinsky made with prosecutors calls for him to be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison and to forfeit over $48 million, which is the amount of money he allegedly made by selling his company’s token. Sentencing was scheduled for April 8.
Housing unaffordability still rising despite billions in government measures: PBO
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol on Wednesday said he would lift martial law just hours after he imposed it, in a brief and confusing episode in which he blasted the opposition as "anti-state forces" threatening the country's democracy. The unexpected move from Yoon -- the first time martial law had been declared in South Korea in more than four decades -- alarmed the United States and the country's other allies. What do we know about the imposition, its lifting and what might come next? In a dramatic, late-night emergency television address to the nation, Yoon announced that he was imposing martial law, as he accused the opposition of paralysing the government with "anti-state activities". A six-point decree from the new martial law commander, army chief General Park An-su swiftly followed, banning political activities and parties, "false propaganda", strikes and "gatherings that incite social unrest". The order also brought all media outlets under the authority of martial law and directed all medical staff, including striking doctors, to return to work within 48 hours. Security forces sealed the National Assembly, helicopters landed on the roof and troops entered the building for a short time, seemingly in a bid to prevent lawmakers from getting inside. But 190 lawmakers managed to enter and voted unanimously to reject Yoon's declaration and call for martial law to be lifted. Outside, hundreds of protesters gathered, many raising chants calling for Yoon to be arrested. Following the lawmakers' vote, Yoon backed down. His cabinet additionally approved the motion to lift the order, Yonhap news agency reported. "Just a moment ago, there was a demand from the National Assembly to lift the state of emergency, and we have withdrawn the military that was deployed for martial law operations," Yoon said in a televised address around 4:30 am (1930 GMT Tuesday). Under South Korea's constitution, the parliamentary vote to lift martial law has to be respected. Yoon said he was acting to safeguard his country's liberal democracy from "anti-state elements" and "threats posed by North Korea" -- but gave little detail. While unexpected, the announcement came in the context of a festering budget row between Yoon and the opposition Democratic Party. The opposition has slashed around 4.1 trillion won ($2.8 billion) from Yoon's proposed 677 trillion won budget for next year, prompting the president to complain that "all key budgets essential to the nation's core functions" were being cut. "What is clear is that Yoon has been a deeply unpopular, ineffectual leader and he is having a hard time getting any kind of public support for anything he's trying to do," said Alan Yu, a former US diplomat in Asia now at the Center for American Progress. "The use of martial law feels almost like a desperation move to try to break out, both in a political and policy sense, but it is really poorly played on both fronts." Domestically, pressure has only grown further on Yoon after his late-night bombshell. South Korea's main opposition party has demanded that Yoon step down, accusing him of "insurrection". The country's main labour union group has also called an "indefinite general strike" until he resigns over the "irrational and anti-democratic measure". Yoon's own People Power Party described his attempt at imposing martial law as "tragic" and demanded that those involved be held accountable. South Korea is a key Western ally in Asia, seen as an important democratic bulwark in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes, and the drama is being watched with concern. Washington said it was "relieved President Yoon has reversed course" on his martial law order. Earlier, Britain and Germany both said they were closely following developments. China, a key ally of nuclear-armed North Korea, urged its citizens to exercise caution, while Russia -- itself increasingly close to Pyongyang -- called the situation "alarming". burs-pdw-bfm-hmn/cwl
Apple, the company that redefined how we consume music with the iPod and revolutionized mobile communication with the iPhone, has reportedly abandoned a bold initiative: a subscription service for its flagship device. Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, known for his reliable insights into Apple’s inner workings, recently reported that the project, which aimed to transform iPhones from a one-time purchase into a recurring subscription, has been scrapped. This news, while surprising to some, follows months of speculation and rumors surrounding the program’s feasibility and potential impact on the market. A New Era of Ownership? The idea behind the iPhone subscription service was simple yet revolutionary . Instead of purchasing an iPhone outright, customers would pay a monthly fee to access the latest model, with the option to upgrade to a new device periodically. This model, similar to leasing a car, would have provided users with a more flexible and affordable way to own an iPhone, while also generating a steady stream of recurring revenue for Apple. Imagine this: you no longer have to worry about shelling out a hefty sum every time a new iPhone hits the market. Instead, you pay a fixed monthly fee and enjoy the latest technology without the upfront cost. This proposition was particularly appealing to those who crave the newest gadgets but are hesitant to commit to a large purchase or are locked into lengthy carrier contracts. The Allure of Recurring Revenue For Apple, the subscription model offered a tantalizing prospect: a predictable and consistent revenue stream. In recent years, the company has been steadily expanding its services business, which includes offerings like Apple Music, iCloud, and Apple TV+. The iPhone subscription service would have been a significant addition to this portfolio, potentially boosting the company’s bottom line and reducing its reliance on hardware sales. The appeal of recurring revenue models is undeniable. Just look at the success of companies like Netflix and Spotify , which have built empires on subscription-based services. Apple, with its massive user base and brand loyalty, was well-positioned to replicate this success in the hardware space. Challenges and Roadblocks However, despite the potential benefits, the iPhone subscription service faced several hurdles. One major challenge was the complexity of pricing. Determining a monthly fee that was both attractive to consumers and profitable for Apple proved to be a delicate balancing act. Factors like device model, storage capacity, upgrade frequency, and included services all needed to be considered. Another obstacle was the potential impact on Apple’s existing sales channels. The subscription model could have cannibalized sales of iPhones through traditional channels, such as carrier partnerships and direct purchases. Striking the right balance between the new subscription service and existing sales models would have been crucial. Furthermore, there were concerns about consumer perception. Would customers embrace the idea of essentially “renting” an iPhone rather than owning it outright? There was a risk that the subscription model could be perceived as less appealing, especially for those who prefer to own their devices or are wary of recurring costs. A Shift in Strategy? While the exact reasons behind Apple’s reported cancellation remain unclear, it’s possible that the company decided to shift its focus to other areas. Apple is known for its meticulous planning and its willingness to abandon projects that don’t align with its long-term vision. Perhaps the company concluded that the challenges associated with the iPhone subscription service outweighed the potential benefits. Or maybe Apple is exploring alternative strategies to achieve similar goals, such as offering more flexible financing options or expanding its trade-in programs. The Future of Smartphone Ownership Despite the apparent setback, the concept of subscribing to hardware rather than owning it outright is likely to persist. Other companies, such as Google with its Pixel Pass program, are already experimenting with similar models. The line between hardware and software is becoming increasingly blurred, and subscription services offer a way to bundle these offerings into a more seamless and accessible package. It remains to be seen whether Apple will revisit the idea of an iPhone subscription service in the future. Perhaps the company will refine its approach, addressing the challenges that led to the reported cancellation. Or maybe Apple will pursue entirely new avenues to innovate in the ever-evolving smartphone market. My Take Personally, I was intrigued by the idea of an iPhone subscription service. As someone who enjoys having the latest technology, the prospect of upgrading my iPhone more frequently without the hefty upfront cost was appealing. However, I also understand the potential drawbacks, such as the recurring costs and the lack of ownership. I believe that subscription models have the potential to transform how we consume technology, but they need to be carefully designed and implemented. Companies need to strike the right balance between affordability, flexibility, and consumer perception. What’s Next? While the iPhone subscription service may be dead for now, Apple is unlikely to stand still. The company is known for its relentless pursuit of innovation, and I’m eager to see what it has in store for the future of smartphone ownership. Whether it’s through new financing options, enhanced trade-in programs, or perhaps even a revamped subscription model, Apple is sure to continue pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. In the meantime, the tech world will be watching closely, eager to see what Apple’s next move will be.Preferred Bank Announces Additional Q4 Expense