online games
Budget set at 4.99%, eliminating dust suppression and selling off Clearville ParkBernie Sanders Stuns by Declaring 'Elon Musk Is Right'
Raila Odinga of Kenya, Mahamoud Ali Youssouf of Djibouti and Richard Randriamandrato of Madagascar are seeking to be elected as chairperson for the 55-member state African Union. They participated in a two-hour debate Friday in Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa in which they all advocated for two permanent seats for African countries in the U.N. Security Council to effectively represent the continent with the youngest population. Odinga said that two permanent seats with veto power were “a must for Africa” and that this was “only fair” since the continent has more than 50 countries. Randriamandrato urged member states to cease the opportunity and “speak with one voice on the choice of who will represent Africa in the UNSC.” The three are seeking to convince most African countries before the February election to succeed African Union Chairperson Moussa Faki, who has served for two terms. The African Union has faced several challenges that include conflict in member countries and political coups that have seen five member states expelled from the union, making regional security a major theme in Friday’s debate. Youssouf said that regional security could be enhanced if the resources for a regional standby force were increased to reduce the overreliance on foreign partnerships for resources. “When there is no unity of purpose among neighboring countries peace will be compromised,” Youseff said. Randriamandrato encouraged countries to take charge of their internal security while cautioning that foreign military bases should be “a thing of the past” because they “could be a source of conflict.” Despite the continent’s young population of 1.3 billion that is set to double by 2050, regional trade has faced challenges that were addressed in the Friday debate. Odinga said that Africa had a “huge domestic market” that it could leverage on for economic transformation by opening up opportunities for trade between African countries. Youssouf proposed a payment compensation system that would ensure countries don't lose out while trading in different currencies adding, “are we going to have a single currency, why not?” Randriamandrato said that regional economic blocs like the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa had a huge role to play in easing inter-Africa trade. The African Union has several proposed reforms on its structure and leadership aimed at achieving its purpose, and all candidates promised to implement the reforms if elected. Youssouf said that key reforms in the union were facing a funding bottleneck and that “it has to change,” adding that he wouldn't impose it on member states but would “advocate for it.”Papastergiou at EU Telecommunications Council: National strategy on youth screen addiction to be presented soon
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The Tennessee Titans keep proving that for every step forward, they always find ways to take two back. The Titans (3-9) clinched a third straight losing record to mark first-year coach Brian Callahan's debut season in an ugly 42-19 loss to Washington. Yet another slow start, more turnovers, sacks, penalties ruined their chance at stringing together consecutive wins for the first time in more than two years. Callahan said Monday they're trying to build consistency. “In the NFL, a lot of it is about not losing the game first, and we do right now with the amount of penalties and turnovers we’ve had,” Callahan said. "We put ourselves in position to lose games and not win them. And so, yes, there is a there is an element of learning how to win.” Tennessee had 11 of 12 penalties before halftime, trailing 28-7. The Titans also were the previous NFL team to be flagged for at least 11 penalties and trail by 20 or more points at halftime in Week 17 of 2005 against the Jaguars. Only Baltimore has been penalized more than Tennessee this season. Two-time Pro Bowl defensive lineman Jeffery Simmons said after the loss that the Titans need to learn how to deal with winning better coming off a 32-27 win at Houston. Simmons said they were "hungover from our own success." Callahan said Monday he didn't see any hangover issues. “You have a performance like that and you're sort of grasping for an explanation on why and there really wasn't one other than we made too many errors early in the game and put ourselves in a hole,” Callahan said. What’s working Quarterback Will Levis' development over the four games since his return from a sprained, right throwing shoulder at least gives the Titans promise for the future. The second-year quarterback made some nice throws and limited yards lost on two sacks Sunday. He threw two TD passes for 212 yards. Since his return, he is completing 61.7% of his passes for 960 yards with seven touchdown passes and only two interceptions with a 101.3 passer rating in that span. What needs help Now the defense is struggling after going into Washington second in the NFL in yards allowed, ninth against the run and first defending the pass. They gave up a season-high 267 yards rushing after giving up just 40 a week ago. The Titans also gave up 28 points within the first 20 minutes, becoming only the third team to do that in the past five seasons . The Titans also did that in Week 8 earlier this season after being routed by the Lions in Detroit. Washington did it against Dallas in Week 16 of 2021. Stock up WR Nick Westbrook-Ikhine. Originally undrafted out of Indiana, Westbrook-Ikhine is tied for fourth in the NFL with eight TD catches entering Monday. That's despite starting only five games this season and not having a pass thrown to him the first month of the season. He has earned a multi-year deal with his performance. He had three receptions for 61 yards against Washington and was targeted a season-high eight times. Stock down Rookie Jha'Quan Jackson. A sixth-round pick out of Tulane and nephew of Pro Football Hall of Fame defensive back Ed Reed has fumbled five times as the punt returner recovering only two of those. That got him benched against Washington. His fumbles have come in the past six games, including one in each of the past two. His fumble against Washington led to an early touchdown. Injuries LT JC Latham hurt a quadriceps muscle but finished the game. Callahan said they will see how CB Roger McCreary (shoulder) and LB Kenneth Murray Jr. (strained hamstring) recover during the week. Key number 36 — The number of games since the Titans have had consecutive victories. Next steps The Titans at least are home with their best focus trying to improve their standing inside the AFC South with four divisional games down the stretch. They have two games remaining against Jacksonville (2-10) starting Sunday with Trevor Lawrence likely out. But their biggest question now is how high does this franchise draft in April. AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/nflUnlock Your Dream Job: Most Popular Data Science Employers in the US
Rams don't dominate, but they're rolling toward the playoffs with superb complementary footballWILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — Attorneys for Fox Corp. asked a Delaware judge Friday to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit seeking to hold current and former company officials personally liable for the financial fallout stemming from Fox News reports regarding alleged vote rigging in the 2020 election. Five New York City public employee pension funds, along with Oregon’s public employee retirement fund, allege that former chairman Rupert Murdoch and other Fox Corp. leaders deliberately turned a blind eye to liability risks posed by reporting false claims of vote rigging by election technology companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic USA. Smartmatic is for defamation in New York, alleging damages of $2.7 billion. It recently in the District of Columbia against One America News Network, another conservative outlet, over reports of vote fraud. Dominion also filed several defamation lawsuits against blaming its election equipment for Donald Trump’s loss in 2020. Last year, a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion in Delaware for $787 million. The shareholder plaintiffs also allege that Fox corporate leaders ignored “red flags” about liability arising from a 2017 report suggesting that Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer, may have been killed because he had leaked Democratic party emails to Wikileaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. Rich, 27, was shot in 2016 in Washington, D.C., in what authorities have said was an attempted robbery. Fox News retracted the Seth Rich story a week after its initial broadcast, but Rich’s parents sued the network for falsely portraying their son as a criminal and traitor. Fox News in 2020 for “millions of dollars,” shortly before program hosts Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity were to be deposed, according to the shareholder lawsuit. Joel Friedlander, an attorney for the institutional shareholders, argued that Fox officials waited until the company’s reporting about Rich became a national scandal before addressing the issue. Similarly, according to the shareholders, corporate officials, including Rupert Murdoch and his son, CEO Lachlan Murdoch, allowed Fox News to continue broadcasting false narratives about the 2020 election, despite internal communications suggesting that they knew there was no evidence to support the conspiracy theories. “The Murdochs could have minimized future monetary exposure, but they chose not to,” Friedlander said. Instead, he argued, they engaged in “bad-faith decision making” with other defendants in a profit-driven effort to retain viewers and remain in Trump’s good graces. “Decisions were made at the highest level to promote pro-Trump conspiracy theories without editorial control,” Friedlander said. Defense attorneys argue that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit without first demanding that the Fox Corp. board take action, as required under Delaware law. They say the plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that a pre-suit demand on the Fox board would have been futile because at least half of the directors face a substantial likelihood of liability or are not independent of someone who does. Beyond the “demand futility” issue, defense attorneys also argue that allegations that Fox officials breached their fiduciary duties fail to meet the pleading standards under Delaware and therefore should be dismissed. Defense attorney William Savitt argued, for example, that neither the Rich settlement, which he described as “immaterial,” nor the allegedly defamatory statements about Dominion and Smartmatic constitute red flags putting directors on notice about the risk of defamation liability. Nor do they demonstrate that directors acted in bad faith or that Fox “utterly failed” to implement and monitor a system to report and mitigate legal risks, including defamation liability risk, according to the defendants. Savitt noted that the Rich article was promptly retracted, and that the settlement included no admission of liability. The Dominion and Smartmatic statements, meanwhile, gave rise themselves to the currently liability issues and therefore can not serve as red flags about future liability risks, according to the defendants. “A ‘red flag’ must be what the term commonly implies — warning of a risk of a liability-causing event that allows the directors to take action to avert the event, not notice that a liability-causing event has already occurred,” defense attorneys wrote in their motion to dismiss. Defense attorneys also say there are no factual allegations to support claims that Fox officials condoned illegal conduct in pursuit of corporate profits, or that they deliberately ignored their oversight responsibilities. They note that a “bad outcome” is not sufficient to demonstrate “bad faith.” Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster is expected to rule within 90 days.
For the third time in eight years, both the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) prosecutorial and adjudicative arms face a pending partisan overhaul after President-elect Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. While we anticipate that President-elect Trump will immediately terminate the current General Counsel (and Deputy General Counsel)—just as President Biden did on his first day in office (previously covered here and here )—exactly when the majority of the Board will flip from Democrat to Republican is far less certain. We discuss below the range of potential outcomes and the impact on employers within the NLRB’s jurisdiction. Expected Changes To The NLRB’s Prosecutorial Agenda 1. President-Elect Trump Likely Will Fire GC Abruzzo Shortly After Inauguration. Shortly after his January 20, 2025 inauguration, we expect President-elect Trump to fire current NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (“GC Abruzzo”), replace GC Abruzzo with an Acting General Counsel (presumably with a pro-employer track record within the agency), and then nominate a pro-employer successor NLRB General Counsel (“Successor NLRB GC”), who is unlikely to face substantial opposition to confirmation from a 53-47 Republican-controlled Senate. Once confirmed, the Successor NLRB GC will play a significant role in directing the Regions in their investigation of unfair labor practice charges, deciding the cases on which to issue complaints, and seeking Section 10(j) injunctive relief. 2. The Acting NLRB GC Likely Will Rescind GC Abruzzo’s Pro-Employee Guidance Memoranda Before A Successor NLRB GC Is Confirmed. Well before a Successor NLRB GC is confirmed, however, whomever President-elect Trump designates as Acting NLRB GC will have the opportunity, as predecessors have done , to rescind some or all of GC Abruzzo’s memoranda that established pro-employee enforcement priorities. It is important to note, however, that President-elect Trump garnered some support from certain labor-union leaders during his campaign and made significant inroads with unionized employees at the ballot box—despite organized labor historically comprising a stronghold for the Democratic Party. So whether the Trump administration will seek to fully reverse GC Abruzzo’s agenda remains an open question, particularly in light of President-elect Trump recently announcing Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) as his Secretary of Labor nominee. While Rep. Chavez-DeRemer would lead the Department of Labor—not the NLRB—as Secretary of Labor, many consider her nomination to be surprising because of her unusually pro-union record (at least for a Republican). Indeed, among other things, Chavez-DeRemer—whose father was a member of the Teamsters, a union which reportedly supported her nomination—was one of only three Republicans in the House of Representatives to co-sponsor the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2023 (“PRO Act”), a strongly pro-union bill that Democrats have repeatedly sought (and failed) that would drastically overhaul the NLRA in various respects, such as by prohibiting employers from permanently replacing strikers. (We covered previous efforts to pass the PRO Act here , here, here , here , and here .) In any event, the following pro-employee initiatives advanced by GC Abruzzo during her tenure are vulnerable for rescission by the Acting (or Successor) NLRB GC: Expanded Remedies in Unfair Labor Practices: Memoranda GC-21-06 and 24-04, previously covered here and here , which advised all NLRB Regional Offices to urge the Board to exercise its broad discretion in fashioning more fulsome relief for workers impacted by unfair labor practices, including make-whole remedies to cover the cost of economic losses (such as such as healthcare expenses incurred as a result of an unlawful termination of health insurance). “Employee” Status: Over the years, whether certain groups are considered “employees” under the NLRA has served as a partisan football as well—most recently vis-à-vis college athletes. Richard Griffin—the NLRB GC during President Obama’s second term—issued a memorandum at the end of his term in January 2017 declaring Division I Football Bowl Subdivision scholarship football players (among other university faculty and students) to be statutory “employees,” which was then rescinded by his successor, Peter Robb. Then, Robb’s successor, GC Abruzzo, issued Memorandum GC 21-08 in 2021, previously covered here , taking the legal position that college athletes are employees under the NLRA. (As discussed here , here , and here , the employment status of college athletes remains an open question under two ongoing cases before the NLRB involving the University of Southern California and Dartmouth, respectively.) Similarly, the NLRB’s position as to the employment status of graduate students has vacillated, depending on the Board’s political composition; most recently, in 2016, the NLRB held that that certain graduate students performing teaching or research services under university control in exchange for compensation were employees. See Columbia Univ. , 364 NLRB 1080 (2016) (overruling Brown Univ. , 342 NLRB 483 (2004), where the Board held that graduate-student teaching and research assistants were not employees). Whether the Successor NLRB GC under the second Trump administration will seek to change the status quo vis-à-vis the employee status of college athletes, graduate students, and/or other groups falling along the margins ( e.g. , unpaid interns, volunteers, etc.) remains an open question, particularly given that President-elect Trump has not publicly staked out a position on this issue. Employee Monitoring: Memorandum GC 23-02, previously covered here , in which GC Abruzzo advocated for zealous enforcement and Board adoption of a “new framework” to protect employees from intrusive or abusive forms of electronic monitoring and automated management that interfere with protected Section 7 activity. Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Clauses: Memoranda GC 23-05, previously covered here , which advised Regional Directors to advance enforcement of McLaren Macomb , 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) (previously covered here ), where the Board found that broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements violate Section 8(a)(1). Non-Compete Agreements and “Stay-or Play” Provisions: Memoranda GC 23-08 and GC 25-01, previously covered here and here , which contend that non-compete agreements, “stay-or-pay” provisions and employee non-solicit agreements are unlawful under the NLRA. Section 10(j) Injunctive Relief: Memorandum GC 24-05, previously covered here, which implored all Regional Offices to continue “aggressively seek[ing] Section 10(j) injunctions,” despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (previously covered here ) that upheld a more heightened burden for the Board to obtain injunctive relief in federal district court. 3. The Successor NLRB GC Likely Will Preview The Precedent-Altering Cases That Will Reach The Board. We expect the successor NLRB GC, once confirmed, to issue memoranda detailing legal issues on which Regional Directors are required to submit to the NLRB’s Division of Advice for consultation, which preview enforcement and policy priorities by identifying the Board precedent the new GC wishes to challenge. (We expect such memoranda to be swiftly issued, as both Robb and Abruzzo did so within a month of taking office, as previously covered here and here .) We anticipate that many of the legal issues for which the successor GC may mandate submission to the Division of Advice may involve some of the groundbreaking pro-employee precedent established under the current Board, including: Voluntary Recognition and Election Conduct: Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC , 372 NLRB No. 130 (Aug. 25, 2023) , previously covered here , where the Board held that an employer violates the Act when it refuses to recognize, upon request, a union that has been designated as Section 9(a) representative by the majority of employees in an appropriate unit unless the employer promptly files an RM petition with the Board to test the union’s majority status or the appropriateness of the unit, assuming that the union has not already filed a RC petition. And after a petition is filed, if an employer subsequently “commits an unfair labor practice that requires setting aside the election, the petition will be dismissed, and the employer will be subject to a remedial bargaining order.” The Cemex decision is currently being appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral argument on October 21, 2024 (discussed here ). Make-Whole Remedies: Thryv, Inc. , 372 NLRB No. 22 (Dec. 15, 2022) , previously covered here , where the Board expanded its standard make-whole remedy for employees to include compensation for “all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harm.” Broad Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Clauses in Severance Agreements: McLaren Macomb , 372 NLRB No. 58 (Feb. 21, 2023) , previously addressed here , where the Board overruled prior precedent, finding that broad confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements violate Section 8(a)(1). Lawfulness of Handbook Policies and Workplace Rules: Stericycle, Inc. , 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) , previously covered on our podcast here , where the Board overruled existing precedent and adopted a stricter test regarding the lawfulness of facially neutral handbook policies and workplace rules. Protected Activity: Lion Elastomers , 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) (May 1, 2023) , previously covered here , where the Board overturned recent precedent issued under the Trump administration, making it riskier and more complicated for employers to discipline employees for abusive workplace conduct alleged to have arisen within the context of protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA. Unilateral Changes: Wendt Corp. , 372 NLRB 135 (Aug. 26, 2023) and Tecnocap LLC , 372 NLRB 136 (Aug. 26, 2023) , previously discussed here , where the Board overturned Raytheon Network Centric Systems , 365 NLRB No. 161 (2017) (previously discussed here), holding that an employer can only implement unilateral changes during a hiatus period between contracts or prior to the execution of a first contract when the action is both (i) consistent with longstanding past practice, and (ii) non-discretionary. (Under Raytheon , discretionary changes were permitted.) Protected Activity on behalf of Non-Employees: American Federation for Children, Inc. , 372 NLRB No. 137 (Aug. 26, 2023) , previously covered here , where the Board held that concerted activity by statutory employees on behalf of nonemployees can even be protected by the Act if it can benefit the statutory employees—overturning decades of precedent to the contrary. Employer Statements during Campaign: Siren Retail Corp d/b/a Starbucks , 373 NLRB No. 135 (Nov. 8, 2024) , previously covered here , where the Board overruled nearly 40 years of NLRB precedent by holding that employers may violate the NLRA by making statements to workers regarding the impact that unionization would have on the relationship between employees and management. Captive-Audience Meetings: Amazon.com Services LLC , 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 13, 2024) , previously covered here , where the Board overturned overruled 75 years of precedent under the seminal Babcock & Wilcox Co. , 77 NLRB 577 (1948) by holding that, going forward, employers violate the NLRA by holding captive-audience meetings, i.e. , employer-mandated meetings “at which the employer expresses its views on unionization.” The list above is by no means exhaustive, and the Successor NLRB GC may identify other areas of the law that could be bent more towards management that are ripe for expansion or reversal of existing pro-employee precedent. We also note that the battle over the joint-employer rule over the last several years (most recently covered here ) seems all but over for now after the Biden administration withdrew its appeal of the district court ruling this summer enjoining enforcement of its more relaxed proposed joint-employer rule. 4. Impact Of Acting/Successor NLRB GC On Existing Litigations. The Acting/Successor NLRB GC will also have influence over existing litigations. More specifically, where the NLRB (or a Region) is the party seeking relief or review, the Acting/Successor NLRB GC will generally have the authority to withdraw the complaint/appeal (or direct the Regional Director to do so), which would preserve the status quo. A more complicated—and unusual—scenario would ensue, however, if the Acting/Successor NLRB GC sought to change its position in a case where the opposing party ( e.g. , a petitioning employer or union) was seeking exception to an ALJ decision before the Board or appellate review of Board decision that was decided in the NLRB GC’s favor. This may arise more frequently at the circuit-court level, including in the cases appealing the NLRB’s recent pro-employee decisions and the existing SpaceX and Amazon cases before the Fifth Circuit challenging the constitutionality of the Board (we previously covered SpaceX here and here ). While we are unaware of any precedent considering such a fact pattern, we note that the interested party whose rights the NLRB GC had been representing may be able to step in as intervenor to defend its position. Changes To The Makeup of the 5-Member NLRB In addition to the changes to the Board’s prosecutorial arm, we also expect the Board’s five-member quasi-judicial body—which currently comprises only four members, three Democrats and one Republican—to transition to a Republican majority during President Trump’s term. The majority-status of the NLRB plays a key role in fashioning federal labor law, as the NLRB decides cases, overturns precedent, and issues rules (such as the “quickie” election rules that were implemented on December 26, 2023 and discussed here ). The timing of when the NLRB majority will flip to a Republican majority is far from certain. 1. Will The Lame-Duck Senate Confirm The Pending Nominees? In June 2024, President Biden nominated NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran (Democrat) for a third term and Joshua Ditelberg (Republican) to fill the vacant fifth seat. Both nominations cleared Committee and would be subject to a floor vote before the lame duck session of the Senate. On November 23, 2024, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on social media that “[c]onfirming the NLRB nominees is one of our highest priorities, and we’re going to do everything we can do to get it done by the end of the year.” If they are confirmed, as expected, then the NLRB likely would retain its Democratic majority until the term of current NLRB member David Prouty expires on August 27, 2026, after which President-elect Trump likely would appoint a Republican replacement to be confirmed by the Senate—more than a year and a half into his four-year term. During this time, we would expect the NLRB GC to refrain from bringing potentially precedent-altering decisions to the NLRB’s docket—in both directions. 2. If The Democrats Retain A NLRB Majority Until August 2026, Will President-Elect Trump Exercise His Removal Authority For NLRB Members? In the event Ms. McFerran and Mr. Dietelberg are confirmed—depriving President-elect Trump of a Republican-majority Board until August 2026—there is speculation that, after he assumes office, President Trump will attempt to discharge the Democratic members of the Board, which would set up a fascinating constitutional fight. Section 3(a) of the NLRA states that “[a]ny member of the Board may be removed by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause,” which is why presidents have traditionally permitted NLRB members to complete their terms as a matter of course. President-elect Trump could attempt to strain the definition of “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” or he could argue this requirement is unconstitutional under Article II, which requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” meaning the president cannot be prohibited from hiring and firing certain administrative officials, such as Board members, at will. Indeed, as alluded to above, similar arguments have been lodged (and recently argued before the Fifth Circuit)—both by Elon Musk’s SpaceX and by Amazon—as to the alleged unconstitutional nature of NLRB Administrative Law Judges, as previously covered here , here , and here . 3. If The Lame-Duck Senate Does Not Confirm Chair McFerran, Then The Republican Majority Likely Will Flip In 2025. If the current Senate does not confirm Chair McFerran’s third term (which would also mean that they would not confirm Mr. Ditelberg’s nomination, who was proposed simultaneously with McFerrran) by January 3, 2025, then the NLRB could have a Republican majority shortly after President-elect Trump’s inauguration, depending on how quickly he nominates (and the Senate confirms) two replacement Republican nominees to create a Republican majority until Member Marvin Kaplan’s term expires on August 27, 2025. Regardless of the Senate’s actions, as evident by the recent decisions overturning precedent involving employer statements during organizing campaigns and captive-audience meetings, we expect the current NLRB will continue to issue decisions in an expeditious manner before the end of 2024 that continue to overturn existing precedent in favor of unions and employees. Ross Evans also contributed to this article.Decision follows observations of liver transaminitis without clinically significant symptoms in some subjects on azelaprag Company will evaluate data from patients enrolled to date and share updated plans for azelaprag in Q1 2025 In parallel to evaluating azelaprag, Company will continue to advance earlier platform-derived programs, including IND submission for CNS penetrant NLRP3 inhibitor anticipated in the second half of 2025 RICHMOND, Calif., Dec. 06, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BioAge Labs (Nasdaq: BIOA) ("BioAge”, "the Company”), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing therapeutic product candidates for metabolic diseases by targeting the biology of human aging, today announced that the Company has made the decision to discontinue the ongoing STRIDES Phase 2 study of its investigational drug candidate azelaprag as monotherapy and in combination with tirzepatide after liver transaminitis without clinically significant symptoms was observed in some subjects receiving azelaprag. No transaminase elevations were observed in the tirzepatide only treatment group. "Patient safety is our top priority in the conduct of our clinical studies,” said Kristen Fortney, PhD, CEO and co-founder of BioAge. "We made the difficult decision to discontinue the STRIDES Phase 2 study of azelaprag because it became clear that the emerging safety profile of the current doses tested is not consistent with our goal of a best-in-class oral obesity therapy. While this outcome is a significant disappointment, we remain encouraged by azelaprag's promising preclinical and Ph1b efficacy profile. We remain committed to our focus on developing therapies for metabolic aging. In parallel to assessing the next steps for the azelaprag program, we will continue to advance our NLRP3 inhibitor program as well as additional research programs with novel mechanisms emerging from our platform.” STRIDES is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 clinical trial of azelaprag as monotherapy and in combination with tirzepatide that planned to enroll approximately 220 individuals with obesity aged 55 years and older ( link ). The trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy as measured by body weight reduction and other outcomes, safety, and tolerability of two oral doses of azelaprag (300 mg, once or twice daily) in combination with tirzepatide (5 mg subcutaneous injection once weekly). An azelaprag monotherapy arm was included to provide additional safety information. Of 204 subjects enrolled in STRIDES as of today, 11 subjects in the azelaprag treatment groups were observed to have transaminase elevations with no clinically significant symptoms. Dosing of all subjects will be discontinued, and no additional subjects will be enrolled. Clinical follow-up of enrolled subjects will continue off drug. The Company intends to further analyze available STRIDES clinical data from all enrolled subjects. The Company has notified all study investigators and regulatory authorities including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Company's decision to discontinue enrollment. The Company intends to share updated plans for azelaprag in Q1 2025. BioAge continues to advance its pipeline of therapeutic candidates targeting the biology of aging to treat metabolic diseases. The Company's novel class of brain-penetrant NLRP3 inhibitors, which have demonstrated high potency and a novel binding site, are progressing toward IND submission, anticipated in the second half of 2025. The NLRP3 inhibitor program targets neuroinflammation, which is linked to both metabolic and neurodegenerative diseases. In addition, BioAge is advancing multiple targets derived from its proprietary discovery platform, which analyzes molecular data spanning over 50 years of human aging trajectories. About BioAge Labs, Inc. BioAge is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing therapeutic product candidates for metabolic diseases, such as obesity, by targeting the biology of human aging. BioAge's lead product candidate, azelaprag, is an orally available small molecule agonist of APJ that was observed to promote metabolism and prevent muscle atrophy on bed rest in a Phase 1b clinical trial. BioAge is also developing orally available small molecule brain penetrant NLRP3 inhibitors for the treatment of diseases driven by neuroinflammation. BioAge's preclinical programs, based on novel insights from the company's discovery platform built on human longevity data, address key pathways in metabolic aging. Forward-looking statements This press release contains "forward-looking statements” within the meaning of, and made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding our plans to develop and commercialize our product candidates, our business strategy, results of our ongoing or planned clinical trials, the timing of any future updates to our programs and the clinical utility of our product candidates. These forward-looking statements may be accompanied by such words as "aim,” "anticipate,” "believe,” "could,” "estimate,” "expect,” "forecast,” "goal,” "intend,” "may,” "might,” "plan,” "potential,” "possible,” "will,” "would,” and other words and terms of similar meaning. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such statements, including: our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize our product candidates; the timing and results of preclinical studies and clinical trials; the risk that positive results in a preclinical study or clinical trial may not be replicated in subsequent trials or success in early stage clinical trials may not be predictive of results in later stage clinical trials; risks associated with clinical trials, including our ability to adequately manage clinical activities, unexpected concerns that may arise from additional data or analysis obtained during clinical trials, regulatory authorities may require additional information or further studies, or may fail to approve or may delay approval of our drug candidates; the occurrence of adverse safety events; failure to protect and enforce our intellectual property, and other proprietary rights; failure to successfully execute or realize the anticipated benefits of our strategic and growth initiatives; risks relating to technology failures or breaches; our dependence on collaborators and other third parties for the development of product candidates and other aspects of our business, which are outside of our full control; risks associated with current and potential delays, work stoppages, or supply chain disruptions; risks associated with current and potential future healthcare reforms; risks relating to attracting and retaining key personnel; failure to comply with legal and regulatory requirements; risks relating to access to capital and credit markets; and the other risks and uncertainties that are detailed under the heading "Risk Factors” included in BioAge's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on November 7, 2024, and other filings with the SEC filed from time to time. BioAge undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise. Contacts PR: Chris Patil, [email protected] IR: Elena Liapounova, [email protected] Partnering: [email protected] Web: https://bioagelabs.com
Getting smart about car insurance can provide cost savings and peace of mindSaints say Taysom Hill ‘likely’ has a season-ending knee injury
Introducing the Quantum Chip That Could Change AI, Pharma... EverythingBipartisan Bill Introduced to Protect Consumers' Privacy and Vehicle Data
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Three African politicians seeking to head the African Union detailed their plans on Friday for regional security amid conflicts and political coups while strongly advocating for inter-Africa trade among other issues. Raila Odinga of Kenya, Mahamoud Ali Youssouf of Djibouti and Richard Randriamandrato of Madagascar are seeking to be elected as chairperson for the 55-member state African Union. They participated in a two-hour debate Friday in Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa in which they all advocated for two permanent seats for African countries in the U.N. Security Council to effectively represent the continent with the youngest population. Odinga said that two permanent seats with veto power were “a must for Africa” and that this was “only fair” since the continent has more than 50 countries. Randriamandrato urged member states to cease the opportunity and “speak with one voice on the choice of who will represent Africa in the UNSC.” The three are seeking to convince most African countries before the February election to succeed African Union Chairperson Moussa Faki, who has served for two terms. The African Union has faced several challenges that include conflict in member countries and political coups that have seen five member states expelled from the union, making regional security a major theme in Friday’s debate. Youssouf said that regional security could be enhanced if the resources for a regional standby force were increased to reduce the overreliance on foreign partnerships for resources. “When there is no unity of purpose among neighboring countries peace will be compromised,” Youseff said. Randriamandrato encouraged countries to take charge of their internal security while cautioning that foreign military bases should be “a thing of the past” because they “could be a source of conflict.” Despite the continent’s young population of 1.3 billion that is set to double by 2050, regional trade has faced challenges that were addressed in the Friday debate. Odinga said that Africa had a “huge domestic market” that it could leverage on for economic transformation by opening up opportunities for trade between African countries. Youssouf proposed a payment compensation system that would ensure countries don't lose out while trading in different currencies adding, “are we going to have a single currency, why not?” Randriamandrato said that regional economic blocs like the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa had a huge role to play in easing inter-Africa trade. The African Union has several proposed reforms on its structure and leadership aimed at achieving its purpose, and all candidates promised to implement the reforms if elected. Youssouf said that key reforms in the union were facing a funding bottleneck and that “it has to change,” adding that he wouldn't impose it on member states but would “advocate for it.”
NEW YORK — The man accused of fatally shooting the CEO of UnitedHealthcare pleaded not guilty on Monday to state murder and terror charges while his attorney complained that comments coming from New York’s mayor would make it tough to receive a fair trial. Luigi Mangione, 26, was shackled and seated in a Manhattan court when he leaned over to a microphone to enter his plea. The Manhattan district attorney charged him last week with multiple counts of murder, including murder as an act of terrorism . Mangione’s initial appearance in New York’s state trial court was preempted by federal prosecutors bringing their own charges over the shooting. The federal charges could carry the possibility of the death penalty, while the maximum sentence for the state charges is life in prison without parole. Prosecutors have said the two cases will proceed on parallel tracks , with the state charges expected to go to trial first. One of Mangione’s attorneys told a judge that the “warring jurisdictions” had turned Mangione into a “human ping-pong ball” and that New York City Mayor Eric Adams and other government officials had made him a political pawn, robbing him of his rights as a defendant and tainting the jury pool. “I am very concerned about my client’s right to a fair trial,” lawyer Karen Friedman Agnifilo said. Adams and Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch stood among a throng of heavily armed officers last Thursday when Mangione was flown to a Manhattan heliport and escorted up a pier after being extradited from Pennsylvania. Friedman Agnifilo said police turned Mangione’s return to New York into a choreographed spectacle. She called out Adams’ comment to a local TV station that he wanted to be there to look “him in the eye and say, ‘you carried out this terroristic act in my city.’” “He was on display for everyone to see in the biggest stage perp walk I’ve ever seen in my career. It was absolutely unnecessary,” she said. She also accused federal and state prosecutors of advancing conflicting legal theories, calling their approach confusing and highly unusual. In a statement, Adams spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus wrote: “Critics can say all they want, but showing up to support our law enforcement and sending the message to New Yorkers that violence and vitriol have no place in our city is who Mayor Eric Adams is to his core.” “The cold-blooded assassination of Brian Thompson — a father of two — and the terror it infused on the streets of New York City for days has since been sickeningly glorified, shining a spotlight on the darkest corners of the internet,” Mamelak Altus said. State trial court Judge Gregory Carro said he has little control over what happens outside the courtroom, but can guarantee Mangione will receive a fair trial. Authorities say Mangione gunned down Thompson as he was walking to an investor conference in midtown Manhattan on the morning of Dec 4. Mangione was arrested in a Pennsylvania McDonald’s after a five-day search, carrying a gun that matched the one used in the shooting and a fake ID, police said. He also was carrying a notebook expressing hostility toward the health insurance industry and especially wealthy executives, according to federal prosecutors. At a news conference last week, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said the application of the terrorism law reflected the severity of a “frightening, well-planned, targeted murder that was intended to cause shock and attention and intimidation.” “In its most basic terms, this was a killing that was intended to evoke terror,” he added. Mangione is being held in a Brooklyn federal jail alongside several other high-profile defendants, including Sean “Diddy” Combs and Sam Bankman-Fried. During his court appearance Monday, he smiled at times when talking with his attorneys and stretched his right hand after an officer removed his cuffs. Outside the courthouse, a few dozen supporters chanted, “Free Luigi,” over the blare of a trumpet. Natalie Monarrez, a 55-year-old Staten Island resident, said she joined the demonstration because she lost both her mother and her life savings as a result of denied insurance claims. “As extreme as it was, it jolted the conversation that we need to deal with this issue,” she said of the shooting. “Enough is enough, people are fed up.” An Ivy-league graduate from a prominent Maryland family, Mangione appeared to have cut himself off from family and friends in recent months. He posted frequently in online forums about his struggles with back pain. He was never a UnitedHealthcare client , according to the insurer. Thompson, a married father of two high-schoolers, had worked at the giant UnitedHealth Group for 20 years and became CEO of its insurance arm in 2021. The killing has prompted some to voice their resentment at U.S. health insurers, with Mangione serving as a stand-in for frustrations over coverage denials and hefty medical bills. It also has sent shockwaves through the corporate world , rattling executives who say they have received a spike in threats.Nothing's guaranteed, but Bucs need to win out to give themselves best shot to make the playoffs
Qatar tribune dpa Tokyo Japanese carmakers Honda and Nissan are discussing a merger with Mitsubishi Motors in a bid to counter fierce global competition in the field of electric vehicles, the companies said in a statement released after an emergency press conference on Monday. Honda and Nissan, Japan’s second and third largest car manufacturers, plan to complete negotiations by June 2025 for a holding company from August 2026, the statement said. Mitsubishi Motors, which is partly owned by Nissan, is to decide by the end of January whether to participate in a merger, it said. Nissan and Honda had already announced in March that they would work together in the future on the development of electric vehicles and software technologies in order to reduce their costs and improve competitiveness. Mitsubishi joined these talks in August. “Honda and Nissan have begun considering a business integration, and will study the creation of significant synergies between the two companies in a wide range of fields,” Honda chief executive Makoto Uchida said. “It is significant that Nissan’s partner, Mitsubishi Motors, is also involved in these discussions.” If the three-way merger goes ahead, the group would become the third-largest carmaker in the world, with combined annual sales of more than 8 million vehicles, rivalling Japanese company Toyota and Germany’s Volkswagen (VW). The companies said they want to pool their resources to be able to better compete against US carmaker Tesla and Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers. Japanese carmakers have fallen behind globally in this field. Nissan is struggling in particular in the Chinese market, where its sales have dropped significantly. The company announced in November that it was cutting around 9,000 jobs worldwide and planned to reduce global production capacities by 20% and reorganize management due to the economic pressure it is facing. Nissan, which employs around 134,000 people, has also lowered its forecast for the second time this year, revising its targeted operating profit for the current fiscal year from 500 billion yen ($3.2 billion) to 150 billion yen. Facing similar competition, a number of other car manufacturers and suppliers, including VW, Bosch and Schaeffler, have also announced large-scale job cuts in recent months. Copy 24/12/2024 10Nothing's guaranteed, but Bucs need to win out to give themselves best shot to make the playoffsCharlamagne tha God's no nonsense message for Democrats after Hunter Biden pardonTwo of Japan’s largest automakers – Nissan and Honda – announced on Monday that they plan to work toward a merger, which would make the combined entity the third-largest vehicle manufacturer in the world. The announcement comes at a time when the global automotive industry is undergoing a major shift from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles. Experts say this proposed merger could change the landscape for consumers everywhere, including here in Canada. The two companies said they had signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday and that smaller Nissan alliance member Mitsubishi Motors Corp. also had agreed to join the talks on integrating their businesses. Dimitry Anastakis, a professor at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said, “It shows you that there is a lot of consolidation that’s happening in the auto sector.” Anastakis likened this to the creation of Stellantis in 2021, formed after the merger of Peugeot and Chrysler. While Honda has had a diverse range of offerings, they have been lagging behind in the race to dominate the EV market. “They do motorcycles, they do lawnmowers, they do ATVs, they do robots. They do all kinds of stuff, like a lot of Japanese companies. But they didn’t move that quickly into the EV sector,” Anastakis said. Automakers in Japan have lagged behind their big rivals in electric vehicles and are trying to cut costs and make up for lost time as newcomers like China’s BYD and EV market leader Tesla grow. Anastakis said, “The Chinese are further along in the segment. They’re able to offer less expensive cars.” One exception among Japanese EV manufacturers is Nissan, which had some success in the sector with the Nissan Leaf. “When they launched the Leaf, it became the most successful EV pretty much up until 2018, which is not that long ago, you know, it was only recently surpassed by Tesla,” he said. If Honda gets Nissan’s EV capacity, what does Nissan get in return? Anastakis said, “They get financial stability, which is what they need because since COVID, Nissan has really fallen a little bit behind.” Honda’s president, Toshihiro Mibe, said Honda and Nissan will attempt to unify their operations under a joint holding company. The Associated Press reported that Honda will lead the new management, retaining the principles and brands of each company. They aim to have a formal merger agreement by June and to complete the deal and list the holding company on the Tokyo Stock Exchange by August 2026, he said. No dollar value was given and the formal talks are just starting, Mibe said. There are “points that need to be studied and discussed,” he said in the Associated Press report. “Frankly speaking, the possibility of this not being implemented is not zero.” A merger could result in a behemoth worth more than $50 billion based on the market capitalization of all three automakers. Together, Honda, Nissan and Mitsubishi would gain scale to compete with Toyota Motor Corp. and with Germany’s Volkswagen AG. Toyota has technology partnerships with Japan’s Mazda Motor Corp. and Subaru Corp. Despite its toehold in the EV market, Nissan’s presence in North America has been limited. Erik Johnson, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said, “Almost all of that presence is focused in the United States and Mexico. They produce about a million vehicles (a year) between those countries. But they’re certainly not a player in the Canadian production space.” According to Driving.ca, the Nissan Leaf sold 1,469 units in Canada in 2022. Meanwhile, Tesla maintained its lead on the market with 24,400 units sold in 2022 and 36,900 in 2023. But Canadian demand for EVs is rising fast. According to analysis by S&P Global , Canada saw a 57 per cent rise in Battery Electric Vehicle registrations and 75 per cent rise in registrations of plug-in hybrids. This growth of the segment in Canada is significantly faster than in the United States. While Canadians are getting more interested in EVs, they remain too costly for many. The two best selling EVs in Canada – the Tesla Model 3 and Tesla Model Y – cost around $55,000 and $63,000 respectively. The Nissan Leaf can cost over $41,000 in Canada. Anastakis said, “EVs are expensive because this is a new technology. You have to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars just before you sell the first vehicle.” But as more and more companies pool resources and combine expertise, EVs could get cheaper to build over the next few years. “Japanese automakers have really found their footing in making mass market reliable, relatively more affordable vehicles,” Johnson said. With Canada having imposed tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles, Canadian consumers could see more choices in cheap, mass-produced Japanese EVs as an alternative to their Chinese counterparts in the coming years if the merger goes ahead. Johnson said this merger could also spur Honda and Nissan’s biggest competitor – Toyota – into action. “(This may even) spur a little bit of competition from Toyota by bringing new kinds of battery electric vehicles to market faster. In the North American auto space, that could meaningfully change the competition landscape and lead to more affordable vehicles,” he said. Honda’s internal combustion engine sales in Canada remain robust. The company sold 112,535 cars in Canada in 2023, according to Driving.ca. Though its market share is still not back to pre-pandemic levels, the company saw an increase in sales of 22 per cent. Now, Honda wants to put its resources towards getting a bigger share of the EV pie. In April, Honda announced a $15 billion investment in an EV plant in Ontario , which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described as “historic.” With the two auto giants combining strengths, Johnson said Canadians should watch out for whether Nissan plans to increase its manufacturing bases in North America. “Is there going to be some potential here for some of Nissan’s production to be relocated either to the United States or Canada? So either increasing Nissan’s presence in the U.S. or maybe even adding a little bit more production capacity in Canada,” he said. On the other hand, he said observers shouldn’t discount the possibility that some production facilities might be restructured or consolidated as a result of the merger. According to Anastakis, however, Canada’s advantage as an EV manufacturing hub may come from an unlikely silver lining — the decline of the loonie. “The lower our dollar gets, the cheaper it is to make cars in Canada and the easier it is to sell cheap cars made in Canada outside of the country, which is one of the few silver linings of the declining dollar,” he said. –with files from Associated Press