jili 68

Save articles for later Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton recently admitted he was holding something back. Dutton was in Sydney earlier this month, standing alongside Liberal northern beaches candidates who hope to win back the teal-held seats of Warringah and Mackellar, and he was asked if his party’s nuclear policy costings were being held back to avoid scrutiny over Christmas. “Nope,” came the blunt answer, he was just letting the government kick another own goal. “There’ll be plenty of time to scrutinise. We’re not releasing it on the day of the election,” Dutton said. “Part of the reason that there’s been a delay is we’ve gone to announce it a few times, to be honest, and the government’s latest disaster has happened on that day where we’ve decided that we’ll let people concentrate on how bad the Albanese government is.” Dutton knows when to hold back and when to let rip for a ready headline, but his aversion to detail could prove a liability next year when he has to persuade the voters he’s prime ministerial material. In 2024, if the polls are any guide, Dutton is in with a real chance to win the next election, forging forward as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese loses ground. This month’s Resolve Political Monitor showed the Coalition’s primary vote fell by one percentage point to 38, Labor’s fell by three percentage points to 27 per cent and 35 per cent of voters nominated another party. This would almost certainly deliver a hung parliament on election day, with either side potentially able to cobble together minority government. Dutton needs to win 21 seats to claim 76 seats and govern in majority – a huge mountain to climb – but a 70-seat minority Coalition government is possible, supported by a clutch of independent MPs – including but not limited to Dai Le, Helen Haines, Rebekha Sharkie, Andrew Gee, Bob Katter and Allegra Spender. Dutton has been mostly gaffe-free (it’s hard to imagine him repeating his 2015 “joke” about Pacific Islanders being hit by climate change) and on message. He speaks in short, declarative sentences and quickly stamps out spot fires, such as when he quashed the abortion debate last month just as high-profile conservative Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said late-term terminations should be on the agenda. “I support a woman’s right to choose,” he said in a rare phone call to ABC’s Radio National. “I’ve been in very difficult circumstances where, as a detective working in the sex offenders squad, I’ve dealt with women in domestic relationships who have been raped; it’s a very, very difficult situation. Ultimately, that’s a choice and a decision for that individual to make, and that’s the position I support.” Peter Dutton dropped his opposition to stage 3 tax cuts when the changes proved too popular to fight. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen Jenny Ware, a NSW moderate Liberal MP and the only current Liberal MP who chose to speak on the record for this piece, is not a natural ally of Dutton but she praises him for the job he has done, “particularly in the last nine months as Labor has gone odd on tangents”. “Peter has called out antisemitism in Australia, at universities et cetera. He is now representing the quiet majority of Australians on this and other issues,” she says. “A year ago, even if people weren’t happy with Albanese, they were saying Dutton isn’t ready. But the dial has shifted to Peter being electable and I think that all of the attacks Labor has launched on him haven’t worked.” History proved Dutton right when he chose to oppose the Voice to Parliament in 2023, but he demonstrated political judgment again at the start of January 2024, when he quickly dropped his broken promises attack on the changes to stage 3 tax cuts after it became clear that most voters didn’t care about discarded election pledges if they got more money in their pockets. The opposition leader has savaged Labor on its handling of immigration policy following the High Court’s NZYQ decision and prosecuted the case for reduced migration, linking the issue to housing shortages successfully, too. On the number one issue concerning most voters, the cost of living, he has mauled Labor while offering scant detail about how he would fix it. He picks his moments on when to lob culture war hand grenades, too, cannily tossing them at big corporates, such as accusing Woolworths of peddling a “woke agenda” on Australia Day, or starting an argument about which flags should be displayed behind a prime minister, pulling focus for 24 hours and then walking away. But for a former cop with a strongman persona, Dutton doesn’t like scrutiny and he doesn’t always front up. While he gives friendly interviews with commercial radio hosts, appearances on the ABC and long-form newspaper interviews are strictly rationed. When he does front up at a press conference it’s more often than not in a far-flung outer suburban seat or in a regional town, far from metropolitan newsrooms. Tracked down at these remote locations, he has proved brittle, taking a belligerent approach to questions asked by young reporters, especially if they happen to work for the ABC. The long-awaited launch of his nuclear power policy costings last week was a case in point: it was released at a small press conference in Brisbane with subject-matter-expert reporters thousands of kilometres away in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. The contrast with Bowen and Albanese fronting up in Canberra in 2021 with their climate change policy costings was stark. As the election approaches, there are more questions to be answered on the detail of what exactly a Coalition government would do on tax, industrial relations, health and education. The seven Coalition MPs who spoke to this masthead on background to inform this piece are dreaming of, at worst, a minority Labor government and some are even canvassing a return to government after one term. Dutton has enjoyed an unusual period of stability for a first-term opposition leader, assisted by the loss of Josh Frydenberg and many other Liberal moderates in May 2022 and the high number of conservative MPs and Queenslanders in the party room (usually but not always the same thing). But as one of those seven anonymous Liberal MPs points out, Dutton “read the riot act on abortion to the party room, for example, and that was important. And he has read the room on [Australia’s commitment to] net zero. He is holding the line, despite what the Nationals might want. “He has done an amazing job holding the government to account but he has to present enough of an alternative. His shadow front bench ... Is everyone ready? I don’t think so.” As the MP put it: “Policy is where Peter goes from an A+ to a B” and the loss of senior moderates Simon Birmingham and Paul Fletcher – both experienced policy wonks – makes it harder. A veteran MP who asked not to be named, says Dutton has performed better than his mentor Tony Abbott and in a more difficult environment, as Albanese’s team is not divided like the Labor government of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. “Abbott’s approach was just ‘kill, kill, kill’ belligerence, and he had a fractured government to work with. He [Dutton] is not small or big target, he’s smart target, he picks his issues. The discipline with which he has shaped discussion of policies he wants to talk about and the sequence in which he has launched them shows very shrewd judgment,” the veteran says. Nuclear policy has been Dutton’s biggest policy gamble to date and, while the announcement strategy managed to minimise scrutiny on the numbers, both Dutton and treasury spokesman Angus Taylor have over-reached in recent days, perhaps deliberately, by claiming the nuclear plan will lower power bills by 44 per cent, despite the costings explicitly stating they had not modelled electricity price impacts. Labor believes this rhetorical overreach creates an opening for attack; the Coalition believes voters’ eyes will glaze over the fight on detail and bets a “he said, she said” fight will be a scoreless draw, which suits Dutton fine. Although polling shows Albanese is not rated by voters, nor is he hated, Dutton’s charge to the Lodge could come unstuck if he attempts to skate through on a “trust us, we will fix it” vibe because voters, at this stage, aren’t desperate to defenestrate the government. Professor of politics at ANU Ian McAllister, co-director of the university’s long-running Australian Election Study, says Dutton has been effective in 2024 and has room to be more expansive on policy in 2025. “He has established himself, he has no obvious challengers, he is in a good position to make quite dramatic policy changes if he wins the election. For example, on nuclear energy he has a degree of flexibility. To do it he will need some sort of bipartisanship, so for example Dutton could propose an independent inquiry, some sort of assembly or even a referendum on it if he wins the election,” McAllister says. Dutton has proven in 2024 that he is a worthy opposition leader. But he hasn’t yet shown how he would operate as a prime minister. He has just a few months to close the deal with voters. Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter .CALGARY, Alberta, Nov. 21, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Birchcliff Energy Ltd. (" Birchcliff ” or the " Corporation ”) (TSX: BIR) is pleased to announce that the Toronto Stock Exchange (the " TSX ”) has accepted the Corporation's notice of intention to make a normal course issuer bid (the " NCIB ”). The NCIB allows Birchcliff to purchase up to 13,489,975 common shares, which represents 5% of its 269,799,514 common shares outstanding as at November 14, 2024. The NCIB will commence on November 27, 2024 and will terminate no later than November 26, 2025. Under the NCIB, common shares may be purchased in open market transactions on the TSX and/or alternative Canadian trading systems at the prevailing market price at the time of such transaction. Subject to exceptions for block purchases, the total number of common shares that Birchcliff is permitted to purchase on the TSX during a trading day is subject to a daily purchase limit of 276,992 common shares, which represents 25% of the average daily trading volume on the TSX of 1,107,970 common shares for the six-month period ended October 31, 2024. All common shares purchased under the NCIB will be cancelled. Birchcliff believes that at times, the market price of its common shares may not reflect the underlying value of the Corporation's business and that purchasing its common shares for cancellation may represent an attractive opportunity to allocate capital resources to reduce the number of common shares outstanding, thereby increasing the value of the remaining common shares and shareholders' ownership in the underlying business. In addition, Birchcliff may use the NCIB to offset the number of common shares it issues throughout the year pursuant to the exercise of options granted under its stock option plan to minimize or eliminate associated dilution to shareholders. The actual number of common shares purchased pursuant to the NCIB and the timing of such purchases will be determined by Birchcliff. Decisions to purchase common shares under the NCIB will be based on market conditions, the trading price of the common shares and alternative uses of capital resources available to the Corporation. There cannot be any assurance as to how many common shares, if any, will ultimately be acquired by Birchcliff. Under Birchcliff's existing normal course issuer bid, it obtained the approval of the TSX to purchase up to 13,328,267 common shares over the period from November 27, 2023 to November 26, 2024. The Corporation has not purchased any common shares under this normal course issuer bid. Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements contained in this press release constitute forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively referred to as " forward-looking statements ”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements and information other than historical fact may be forward-looking statements. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Although Birchcliff believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct and Birchcliff makes no representation that actual results achieved will be the same in whole or in part as those set out in the forward-looking statements. In particular, this press release contains forward-looking statements relating to the NCIB, including potential purchases under the NCIB and the effects and benefits of the NCIB. With respect to the forward-looking statements contained in this press release, assumptions have been made regarding, among other things: the anticipated benefits of the NCIB; prevailing and future commodity prices and differentials, exchange rates, interest rates, inflation rates, royalty rates and tax rates; the state of the economy, financial markets and the exploration, development and production business; the political environment; the regulatory framework; future cash flow, debt and dividend levels; future operating, transportation, marketing, G&A and other expenses; Birchcliff's ability to access capital and obtain financing on acceptable terms; the timing and amount of capital expenditures and the sources of funding for capital expenditures and other activities; the sufficiency of budgeted capital expenditures to carry out planned operations; the successful and timely implementation of capital projects; results of operations; Birchcliff's ability to continue to develop its assets and obtain the anticipated benefits therefrom; the performance of existing and future wells; and the ability to obtain any necessary regulatory approvals in a timely manner. Birchcliff's actual results, performance or achievements could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of both known and unknown risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to: the failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the NCIB; a failure to execute purchases under the NCIB; the risks posed by global conflict and their impacts on supply and demand and commodity prices; actions taken by OPEC and other major producers of crude oil and the impact such actions may have on supply and demand and commodity prices; general economic, market and business conditions which will, among other things, impact the demand for and market prices of Birchcliff's products and Birchcliff's access to capital; volatility of crude oil and natural gas prices; risks associated with increasing costs, whether due to high inflation rates, supply chain disruptions or other factors; stock market volatility; an inability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources on terms acceptable to the Corporation; risks associated with Birchcliff's credit facilities; operational risks and liabilities inherent in oil and natural gas operations; uncertainty that development activities in connection with Birchcliff's assets will be economic; geological, technical, drilling, construction and processing problems; the accuracy of cost estimates and variances in Birchcliff's actual costs and economic returns from those anticipated; and changes to the regulatory framework in the locations where the Corporation operates. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing lists of factors are not exhaustive. Additional information on these and other risk factors that could affect Birchcliff's results of operations, financial performance or financial results are included in Birchcliff's most recent annual information form under the heading "Risk Factors” and in other reports filed with Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Management has included the above summary of assumptions and risks related to forward-looking statements provided in this press release in order to provide readers with a more complete perspective on Birchcliff's future operations and management's current expectations relating to Birchcliff's future performance. Readers are cautioned that this information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are expressly qualified by the foregoing cautionary statements. The forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this press release. Unless required by applicable laws, Birchcliff does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. ABOUT BIRCHCLIFF: Birchcliff is a dividend-paying, intermediate oil and natural gas company based in Calgary, Alberta with operations focused on the Montney/Doig Resource Play in Alberta. Birchcliff's common shares are listed for trading on the TSX under the symbol "BIR”. Suite 1000, 600 - 3 rd Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0G5 Telephone: (403) 261-6401 Email: [email protected] www.birchcliffenergy.com Bruno Geremia - Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNonejili 68 。

NonePep Guardiola denies rumours of a rift with Kevin De BruyneDarius Tahir | (TNS) KFF Health News President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to run the sprawling government agency that administers Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act marketplace — celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz — recently held broad investments in health care, tech, and food companies that would pose significant conflicts of interest. Oz’s holdings, some shared with family, included a stake in UnitedHealth Group worth as much as $600,000, as well as shares of pharmaceutical firms and tech companies with business in the health care sector, such as Amazon. Collectively, Oz’s investments total tens of millions of dollars, according to financial disclosures he filed during his failed 2022 run for a Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat. Trump said Tuesday he would nominate Oz as administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The agency’s scope is huge: CMS oversees coverage for more than 160 million Americans, nearly half the population. Medicare alone accounts for approximately $1 trillion in annual spending, with over 67 million enrollees. UnitedHealth Group is one of the largest health care companies in the nation and arguably the most important business partner of CMS, through which it is the leading provider of commercial health plans available to Medicare beneficiaries. UnitedHealth also offers managed-care plans under Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for low-income people, and sells plans on government-run marketplaces set up via the Affordable Care Act. Oz also had smaller stakes in CVS Health, which now includes the insurer Aetna, and in the insurer Cigna. It’s not clear if Oz, a heart surgeon by training, still holds investments in health care companies, or if he would divest his shares or otherwise seek to mitigate conflicts of interest should he be confirmed by the Senate. Reached by phone on Wednesday, he said he was in a Zoom meeting and declined to comment. An assistant did not reply to an email message with detailed questions. “It’s obvious that over the years he’s cultivated an interest in the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry,” said Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group. “That raises a question of whether he can be trusted to act on behalf of the American people.” (The publisher of KFF Health News, David Rousseau, is on the CSPI board .) Oz used his TikTok page on multiple occasions in November to praise Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including their efforts to take on the “illness-industrial complex,” and he slammed “so-called experts like the big medical societies” for dishing out what he called bad nutritional advice. Oz’s positions on health policy have been chameleonic; in 2010, he cut an ad urging Californians to sign up for insurance under President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, telling viewers they had a “historic opportunity.” Oz’s 2022 financial disclosures show that the television star invested a substantial part of his wealth in health care and food firms. Were he confirmed to run CMS, his job would involve interacting with giants of the industry that have contributed to his wealth. Given the breadth of his investments, it would be difficult for Oz to recuse himself from matters affecting his assets, if he still holds them. “He could spend his time in a rocking chair” if that happened, Lurie said. In the past, nominees for government positions with similar potential conflicts of interest have chosen to sell the assets or otherwise divest themselves. For instance, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Attorney General Merrick Garland agreed to divest their holdings in relevant, publicly traded companies when they joined the Biden administration. Trump, however, declined in his first term to relinquish control of his own companies and other assets while in office, and he isn’t expected to do so in his second term. He has not publicly indicated concern about his subordinates’ financial holdings. CMS’ main job is to administer Medicare. About half of new enrollees now choose Medicare Advantage, in which commercial insurers provide their health coverage, instead of the traditional, government-run program, according to an analysis from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. Proponents of Medicare Advantage say the private plans offer more compelling services than the government and better manage the costs of care. Critics note that Medicare Advantage plans have a long history of costing taxpayers more than the traditional program. UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna are all substantial players in the Medicare Advantage market. It’s not always a good relationship with the government. The Department of Justice filed a 2017 complaint against UnitedHealth alleging the company used false information to inflate charges to the government. The case is ongoing. Oz is an enthusiastic proponent of Medicare Advantage. In 2020, he proposed offering Medicare Advantage to all; during his Senate run, he offered a more general pledge to expand those plans. After Trump announced Oz’s nomination for CMS, Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, said he was “uncertain about Dr. Oz’s familiarity with health care financing and economics.” Singer said Oz’s Medicare Advantage proposal could require large new taxes — perhaps a 20% payroll tax — to implement. Oz has gotten a mixed reception from elsewhere in Washington. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, the Democrat who defeated Oz in 2022, signaled he’d potentially support his appointment to CMS. “If Dr. Oz is about protecting and preserving Medicare and Medicaid, I’m voting for the dude,” he said on the social platform X. Oz’s investments in companies doing business with the federal government don’t end with big insurers. He and his family also hold hospital stocks, according to his 2022 disclosure, as well as a stake in Amazon worth as much as nearly $2.4 million. (Candidates for federal office are required to disclose a broad range of values for their holdings, not a specific figure.) Amazon operates an internet pharmacy, and the company announced in June that its subscription service is available to Medicare enrollees. It also owns a primary care service , One Medical, that accepts Medicare and “select” Medicare Advantage plans. Oz was also directly invested in several large pharmaceutical companies and, through investments in venture capital funds, indirectly invested in other biotech and vaccine firms. Big Pharma has been a frequent target of criticism and sometimes conspiracy theories from Trump and his allies. Kennedy, whom Trump has said he’ll nominate to be Health and Human Services secretary, is a longtime anti-vaccine activist. During the Biden administration, Congress gave Medicare authority to negotiate with drug companies over their prices. CMS initially selected 10 drugs. Those drugs collectively accounted for $50.5 billion in spending between June 1, 2022, and May 31, 2023, under Medicare’s Part D prescription drug benefit. At least four of those 10 medications are manufactured by companies in which Oz held stock, worth as much as about $50,000. Related Articles National Politics | The rising price of paying the national debt is a risk for Trump’s promises on growth and inflation National Politics | After Trump’s Project 2025 denials, he is tapping its authors and influencers for key roles National Politics | Republicans push back against Democrats’ claims that Trump intelligence pick Gabbard is compromised National Politics | Trump 2.0 has a Cabinet and executive branch of different ideas and eclectic personalities National Politics | Senators took down one Trump Cabinet pick. But the fight over their authority is just beginning Oz may gain or lose financially from other Trump administration proposals. For example, as of 2022, Oz held investments worth as much as $6 million in fertility treatment providers. To counter fears that politicians who oppose abortion would ban in vitro fertilization, Trump floated during his campaign making in vitro fertilization treatment free. It’s unclear whether the government would pay for the services. In his TikTok videos from earlier in November, Oz echoed attacks on the food industry by Kennedy and other figures in his “Make America Healthy Again” movement. They blame processed foods and underregulation of the industry for the poor health of many Americans, concerns shared by many Democrats and more mainstream experts. But in 2022, Oz owned stakes worth as much as $80,000 in Domino’s Pizza, Pepsi, and US Foods, as well as more substantial investments in other parts of the food chain, including cattle; Oz reported investments worth as much as $5.5 million in a farm and livestock, as well as a stake in a dairy-free milk startup. He was also indirectly invested in the restaurant chain Epic Burger. One of his largest investments was in the Pennsylvania-based convenience store chain Wawa, which sells fast food and all manner of ultra-processed snacks. Oz and his wife reported a stake in the company, beloved by many Pennsylvanians, worth as much as $30 million. ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Five Weeknight Dishes: Maple-miso salmon and more

Special counsel Jack Smith is dropping the federal election subversion and the mishandling of classified documents cases against President-elect Donald Trump , seeking the cases’ dismissal in court filings Monday. Trump has said he would fire Smith once he retook the office, shattering previous norms around special counsel investigations. “The (Justice) Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote of the election subversion case in a six-page filing with US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.” Smith’s criminal pursuit of Trump over the last two years for trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election and his mishandling of classified documents represented a unique chapter in American history: Never before has a former occupant of the White House faced federal criminal charges. Though the election subversion case culminated this summer in a landmark Supreme Court ruling that said Trump enjoyed some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, Trump’s strategy of delay in the case ensured that a trial never got underway before the November election. In the election case Trump faced in Washington, DC, Smith charged the former president over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, a plot that culminated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. “The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” Smith said in the filing. Chutkan had been deciding how much of Trump’s conduct at the center of the case was shielded by immunity after prosecutors last month laid out their arguments for why the Supreme Court’s ruling should have no impact on the case. After Trump won reelection this month, prosecutors asked Chutkan to pause a series of postelection deadlines in the case as they weighed their next steps. In the documents case brought in Florida, Trump was indicted for allegedly taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases. Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement called the move “a major victory for the rule of law.” “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country,” Cheung added. Trump employees still face appeal Smith, in a filing with a federal appeals court, said that prosecutors were keeping their case on mishandling classified documents alive against two of Trump’s employees. The case is before the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing Judge Aileen Cannon’s order dismissing all charges. The co-defendants are Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, who work for Trump and are accused of helping the former president obstruct a federal investigation into sensitive government documents taken from his first administration. Both have pleaded not guilty. Dismissing without prejudice Smith said he was seeking to drop the charges against the president-elect “without prejudice,” which would keep the door open for charges to be brought again in the future, calling the presidential immunity Trump will have as “temporary.” Smith said he consulted with Justice Department lawyers on the question and that they also weighed the possibility of pausing the case until Trump no longer had the immunity of the presidency protecting him. Ultimately, however, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the bar on prosecuting sitting presidents is “categorial,” including for indictments handed up before a defendant enters office. “Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. And although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice,” Smith wrote. State cases will continue against Trump As president, Trump will not have the power to interfere with the prosecutions brought against him by state authorities in Georgia and New York. However, the courts in those cases will still have to work out immunity questions and issues raised by his return to the White House. Last week, the judge overseeing Trump’s criminal hush money case in New York postponed his sentencing indefinitely. A jury in the state convicted Trump earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 campaign to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged a prior affair with the president-elect. (Trump denies the affair.) And Trump is still working to stave off prosecution in Georgia, where he is a defendant in a sprawling case that accuses him and several allies of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in the Peach State. This story has been updated with additional information.US News Live Today November 26, 2024: Who is Damian Williams? Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor who brought charges against Diddy resigns as Trump returns

None

C$ unless otherwise stated TSX/NYSE/PSE: MFC SEHK: 945 The prospectus supplement, the corresponding base shelf prospectus and any amendment thereto in connection with this offering will be accessible through SEDAR+ within two business days. TORONTO , Dec. 3, 2024 /PRNewswire/ - Manulife Financial Corporation (" MFC ") announced today that it intends to issue $1 billion principal amount of 4.064% fixed/floating subordinated debentures due December 6 , 2034 (the " Debentures "). MFC intends to file a prospectus supplement to its existing base shelf prospectus in respect of this issue. The Debentures will bear interest at a fixed rate of 4.064% until December 6, 2029 and thereafter at a rate of 1.25% over Daily Compounded CORRA. The Debentures mature on December 6, 2034 . Subject to prior regulatory approval, MFC may redeem the Debentures, in whole or in part, on or after December 6, 2029 at a redemption price equal to par, together with accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the date fixed for redemption. The Debentures will constitute subordinated indebtedness, ranking equally and rateably with all other subordinated indebtedness of MFC from time to time issued and outstanding (other than subordinated indebtedness which has been further subordinated in accordance with its terms). The offering is being done on a best efforts agency basis by a syndicate co-led by RBC Capital Markets, CIBC Capital Markets and Scotiabank. The offering is expected to close on December 6, 2024 . MFC intends to use the net proceeds from the offering of the Debentures for general corporate purposes, including investment in subsidiaries and potential future redemptions of existing securities. The Debentures have not been and will not be registered in the United States under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the " Securities Act "), or the securities laws of any state of the United States and may not be offered, sold or delivered, directly or indirectly, in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, a "U.S. person" (as defined in Regulation S under the Securities Act) absent registration or an applicable exemption from such registration requirements. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy securities in the United States and any public offering of the securities in the United States must be made by means of a prospectus. Access to the prospectus supplement, the corresponding base shelf prospectus and any amendment thereto in connection with the offering of the Debentures is provided in accordance with securities legislation relating to procedures for providing access to a prospectus supplement, a base shelf prospectus and any amendment thereto. The prospectus supplement, the corresponding base shelf prospectus and any amendment thereto in connection with the offering will be accessible within two business days at www.sedarplus.ca . An electronic or paper copy of the prospectus supplement, the corresponding base shelf prospectus and any amendment to the documents may be obtained, without charge, from RBC Capital Markets by email at torontosyndicate@rbccm.com or phone at 416-842-6311, CIBC Capital Markets by email at mailbox.cibcdebtsyndication@cibc.com or phone at 416-594-8515 or Scotiabank by email at syndicate.toronto@scotiabank.com or phone at 416-863-7438. About Manulife Manulife Financial Corporation is a leading international financial services provider, helping people make their decisions easier and lives better. With our global headquarters in Toronto, Canada , we provide financial advice and insurance, operating as Manulife across Canada , Asia , and Europe , and primarily as John Hancock in the United States . Through Manulife Investment Management, the global brand for our Global Wealth and Asset Management segment, we serve individuals, institutions, and retirement plan members worldwide. At the end of 2023, we had more than 38,000 employees, over 98,000 agents, and thousands of distribution partners, serving over 35 million customers. We trade as 'MFC' on the Toronto , New York , and the Philippine stock exchanges, and under '945' in Hong Kong . Not all offerings are available in all jurisdictions. For additional information, please visit manulife.com . View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/manulife-announces-subordinated-debenture-issue-302321737.html SOURCE Manulife Financial CorporationNone

Recent homicide ruling pushes date-rape drugs into Island spotlight

Auxein Received remarkable response at WIROC 2024 for Its Innovative Orthopaedic Solutions

After the 2023 Allianz Risk Barometer report identified cybercrime as one of Namibia's biggest security risks, John Katanga, a master's student in digital forensic scienc ... If you are an active subscriber and the article is not showing, please log out and back in. Free access to articles from 12:00.Percentages: FG 42.029, FT .571. 3-Point Goals: 2-17, .118 (Olsen 1-4, Gyamfi 1-1, Stuelke 0-1, Affolter 0-2, Feuerbach 0-3, Mallegni 0-3, McCabe 0-3) Blocked Shots: 7 (Heiden 3, Stuelke 1, Affolter 1, Mallegni 1, Stremlow 1) Turnovers: 14 (O'Grady 2, Affolter 2, Feuerbach 2, Stremlow 2, Stuelke 1, Olsen 1, Ediger 1, Heiden 1, Guyton 1, Mallegni 1) Steals: 7 (Affolter 2, Olsen 1, Ediger 1, Gyamfi 1, Mallegni 1, Stremlow 1) Technical Fouls: None Percentages: FG 27.419, FT .667. 3-Point Goals: 7-30, .233 (J.Villa 3-9, Wallack 3-8, E.Villa 1-3, Tuhina 0-3, Mendes 0-2, Abraham 0-3, Gardner 0-2) Blocked Shots: 5 (Covill 2, Wallack 1, Mendes 1, Gardner 1) Turnovers: 20 (E.Villa 3, Wallack 3, Alsina 3, Abraham 2, Dart 2, Covill 1, Tuhina 1, J.Villa 1, Mendes 1, Kpetikou 1, Chiu 1, Gardner 1) Steals: 9 (Tuhina 2, Gardner 2, E.Villa 1, J.Villa 1, Abraham 1, Alsina 1, Chiu 1) Technical Fouls: None A_14,998 Officials_Cameron Inouye, Missy Brooks, Lauren NiemieraWASHINGTON (AP) — The chair of the Democratic National Committee informed party leaders on Monday that the DNC will choose his successor in February, an election that will speak volumes about how the party wants to present itself during four more years of Donald Trump in the White House. Jaime Harrison, in a letter to members of the party’s powerful Rules & Bylaws Committee, outlined the process of how the party will elect its new chair. Harrison said in the letter that the committee will host four candidate forums — some in person and some virtually — in January, with the final election on Feb. 1 during the party’s winter meeting in National Harbor, Maryland. The race to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, while an insular party affair, will come days after Trump is inaugurated for a second term. Democrats' selection of a leader after Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 loss will be a key starting point as the party starts to move forward, including addressing any structural problems and determining how to oppose Trump. Members of the Rules & Bylaws Committee will meet on Dec. 12 to establish the rules for these elections, which beyond the chair position will include top party roles like vice chairs, treasurer, secretary and national finance chair. The committee will also use that meeting to decide the requirements for gaining access to the ballot for those top party roles. In 2021, candidates were required to submit a nominating statement that included signatures from 40 DNC members and that will likely be the same standard for the 2025 campaigns. “The DNC is committed to running a transparent, equitable, and impartial election for the next generation of leadership to guide the party forward,” Harrison said in a statement. “Electing the Chair and DNC officers is one of the most important responsibilities of the DNC Membership, and our staff will run an inclusive and transparent process that gives members the opportunity to get to know the candidates as they prepare to cast their votes.” Two Democrats have announced campaigns for chair: Ken Martin, chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a vice chair of the national party, and Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor and current commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Other top Democrats are either considering a run to succeed Harrison or are being pushed by party insiders, including former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke; Michael Blake, a former vice chair of the party; Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin; Rahm Emanuel, the U.S. ambassador to Japan and a former Chicago mayor; Sen. Mallory McMorrow, majority whip of the Michigan Senate, and Chuck Rocha, a longtime Democratic strategist. The next chair of the committee will be tasked with rebuilding a party demoralized by a second Trump victory. They will also oversee the party’s 2028 nominating process, a complex and contentious exercise that will make the chair central to the next presidential election. Harrison, of South Carolina, made clear in his letter to the rules committee that the four forums hosted by the party would be live streamed and the party would give grassroots Democrats across the country the ability to engage with the process through those events. He also said he intends to remain neutral during the chair election. This story has been corrected to show that McMorrow is a senator, not a representative.

Nexgel director acquires $4,999 in common stockNEW YORK, Nov. 25, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of common stock of Paragon 28, Inc. (NYSE: FNA) between May 5, 2023 and September 20, 2024, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), and those who purchased Paragon 28 call options or sold put options during the Class Period, of the November 29, 2024 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Paragon 28 securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Paragon 28 class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27557 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 29, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Paragon 28 understated its Adjusted EBITDA losses, required provisions for excess and obsolete inventory, cost of goods sold, operating loss; (2) Paragon 28 overstated its net inventories and gross profit; (3) Paragon 28 lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (4) Paragon 28 would be required to restate its financial statements to conform with generally accepted accounting principles, and; (5) as a result, defendants’ statements about Paragon 28’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Paragon 28 class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27557 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm . Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com‘World of Warcraft’ still going strong as it celebrates 20 yearsLagos Liga adopts VAR, clubs battle for N50m

Low-valuation stocks attractive, market turmoil looms for Korea: Goldman SachsIowa 72, Washington St. 43

Independence Bowl: Louisiana Tech vs. Army odds, picks and predictionsRobbins LLP Urges XRX Stockholders with Large Losses to Contact the Firm for information About ...11-year-old Boston boy's weekly newspaper brings neighborhood together

NPP’s Kwame Appiah Kubi Calls for Constitutional Amendments After 2024 Election Loss

Azincourt Energy (CVE:AAZ) Shares Up 50% – Still a Buy?Team Matt Dunstone splits from third B.J. NeufeldBY 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.”