Business News

Judge rules against Corporate Transparency Act disclosure provision

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

A federal court has dealt a blow to the government's efforts to combat money laundering, ruling that the Treasury Department cannot require some small businesses to disclose personal information about their owners.

Under a section of a 2020 law that took effect Jan. 1, small businesses must disclose details about their so-called beneficial owners, people who hold financial interests in a company or have significant power over its business decisions. The law, the Corporate Transparency Act, passed with bipartisan support in Congress and was intended to help the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Unit identify money launderers hiding behind shell companies.

But in a ruling issued late Friday, Judge Liles C. Burke of the U.S. District Court in Huntsville, Alabama, sided with the law's critics. They argue that requiring business owners to provide personal information — names, addresses and copies of their identification documents — is an overreach by Congress, however well-intentioned.

“Congress sometimes enacts prudent laws that violate the Constitution,” Judge Burke wrote in a 53-page brief. “This case involving the constitutionality of the Corporate Transparency Act exemplifies that principle.”

Judge Burke's decision prevented the department from enforcing ownership reporting requirements against the plaintiff in the Alabama case, the National Small Business Association, a nonprofit trade group that represents more than 65,000 member businesses.

Lawyers who have been prosecuting the case in Alabama said over the weekend that they expected the government to quickly seek a stay of the injunction, either through Judge Burke or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, or both. The Justice Department will almost certainly appeal the Alabama case to the district court, lawyers said.

Morgan Finkelstein, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, said her agency “complied with the court's preliminary injunction.” She referred further questions to the Justice Department, which declined to comment.

While lawyers and transparency experts pored over Judge Burke's opinion, the immediate impact of the ruling on small businesses in the United States, which the government estimates at 33 million, was not entirely clear.

Companies were given one year to comply with the reporting requirements as these related to 2023, meaning the data is not due until the end of 2024. And Judge Burke's decision, narrowly defined, does not apply to small businesses that are not members of the trade organization that filed the lawsuit in Alabama, meaning most businesses affected by the mandate must continue to comply.

“This has only made things more complicated for many of my clients,” said Angela I. Gamalski, who advises large and small companies on compliance and regulatory issues at the law firm Honigman LLP in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ms. Gamalski said some of her clients wanted to wait until the summer to deal with the reporting requirements and what they mean, since the filing deadline doesn't end until December and enforcement of the law appears to be in flux.

Advocates of greater transparency criticized the ruling.

“This is a dissenting decision by a single district judge in Alabama based on an extraordinarily narrow view of Congress’s constitutional powers that is unsupported by precedent,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat who was one of the law’s sponsors is. “I call on the government to quickly appeal to correct the flawed decision and ensure that the law’s transparency requirements can be fully and consistently implemented.”

Judge rules against Corporate Transparency Act disclosure provision Read More »

Monthly subscriptions… to print

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

The American company Hewlett-Packard, which produces, among other things, printers, has great ambitions to market a monthly subscription for printing.

In an interview with the American broadcaster “CNBC”, the CEO of HP admitted that in the long term he would like to see consumers no longer own a printer.

An existing monthly subscription offered customers the opportunity to rent a print package with the home printer.

This amount, which could go up to $32.49 per month for printing 700 pages per month, allowed them to have original HP ink or toner thanks to the “HP Instant” software. Ink”.

AFP

“Every time the customer buys a printer, it is an investment for us,” said Enrique Lores, reiterating that leasing represents a long-term goal for his company.

“If the customer doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use our products, it’s a bad investment.”

According to the businessman, the new monthly subscription service would provide a way for the user to print “according to their needs” by paying a fixed amount per month.

The CEO assures that he wants to increase the speed of delivery of products related to packaging in order to convince the population to change their consumption habits.

Monthly subscriptions… to print Read More »

Apple buys Rivian? Nissan with Fisker? The worries of Tesla's competitors are triggering speculation

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

Fisker CEO Henrik Fisker. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Tesla competitors Rivian, Lucid and Fisker were on the rise a few years ago. With growing investor interest, electric vehicle manufacturers had large market capitalizations and spoke of a bright future.

Today things look far less promising. The electric vehicle sector is facing a slowdown in growth and even market leader Tesla has warned of difficult months ahead. For its less established competitors, “challenging” isn’t quite enough.

Last month, Rivian announced a disappointing quarter and outlook and said it would reduce its workforce by about 10%. Its market capitalization has fallen to $11 billion from a high of $153 billion in 2021.

Gene Munster, managing partner of Deepwater Asset Management, this week addressed the idea of Apple – which recently canceled its own EV project – buying Rivian, citing its low valuation. Apple “needs to move into a new market,” he told CNBC. “They need to do something big, and Rivian might be the answer.”

This would of course be an unusual step for Apple. Headphone maker Beats Electronics' most expensive acquisition to date was worth $3 billion in 2014. Amazon, which buys delivery trucks from Rivian, is the electric vehicle maker's largest shareholder, with about 16% of the hardest-hit shares.

Last month, Musk said of Rivian: “They have to cut costs massively, and the leadership team has to stay in the factory or they die.” He suggested the company had about six quarters left before going bankrupt.

A “general slump in electric vehicles”

Meanwhile, Lucid's market cap has fallen from a high of $91.4 billion in 2001 to $7.6 billion today. Last month it said it would only build about 9,000 electric vehicles this year – well below the 90,000 it forecast for 2024 three years ago. Its troubles led to speculation last year that Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, which owns about 60% of the electric vehicle maker, would take over the rest. That didn't happen.

Fisker's market capitalization is $258 million, down from $4.1 billion in 2021. Last month, the company received a non-compliance notice from the New York Stock Exchange as its stock averaged 30 consecutive trading days closed below $1. And the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating claims of “unintentional vehicle movement” in Fisker's Ocean SUV, which recently received a highly publicized poor review from influential YouTuber Marques Brownlee (aka MKBHD).

Portal reported this week, citing unnamed sources, that Fisker is in advanced talks with Nissan about a partnership – and a financial lifeline. Under the agreement, the Japanese automaker would invest $400 million in Fisker's truck platform and build its planned Alaska pickup starting in 2026.

“I believe we have a future – otherwise I wouldn’t be here,” said Fisker CEO Henrik Fisker told Yahoo Finance this week declined to directly address the Nissan matter. “And I think we'll be able to get out of this, I would say, general electric vehicle slump that's out there.”

Apple buys Rivian? Nissan with Fisker? The worries of Tesla's competitors are triggering speculation Read More »

Three passengers on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 whose door plug blew through are suing the airline and Boeing for $1 billion

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

Three passengers on the Alaska Airlines plane that was forced to make an emergency landing after a door plug ripped off mid-flight are suing the airline and Boeing for $1 billion, claiming the incident was caused by negligence.

On February 20, a complaint was filed in Multnomah County, Oregon, on behalf of Kyle Rinker, Amanda Strickland and Kevin Kwok, all of whom were aboard Alaska Flight 1282, minutes into a scheduled trip from Portland An unused exit door from the plane detached to Ontario, California in early January. Multnomah County includes Portland.

The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages from Boeing, the corporate giant that manufactured the 737 Max 9 jet flown by Alaska Airlines, to be determined in court.

Click here to view related media.

Click to expand

“As a direct result of the horrific, fatal failure of the Boeing aircraft, Mr. Kwok, Mr. Rinker and Ms. Strickland suffered severe mental, emotional and psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress, and physical injuries. The lawsuit states that the sudden change in cabin pressure “caused some passengers to experience bleeding ears.”

Jonathan W. Johnson, LLC, an Atlanta-based aviation law firm that filed the complaint on behalf of Kwok, Rinker and Strickland, said in a news release that it hopes to “hold Boeing accountable for its negligence, the extreme panic and “The explosion on Flight 1282 was called a “preventable incident” that threatened not only the lives of the passengers and crew aboard that particular aircraft, but also the lives of other Boeing-manufactured aircraft, which were later found to have similar defects.

The lawsuit claims the incident on Flight 1282 is “just one horrific chapter in the evolving story of Boeing and Alaska Airlines putting profits over safety.”

Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 took off from Portland International Airport just before 5 p.m. PT on Jan. 5, according to flight tracking website FlightAware, and returned safely to the same origin about 40 minutes later as part of an emergency landing. The plane was about six minutes into its scheduled flight to California and was flying at an altitude of 16,000 feet when one of the exit doors came off. A social media video obtained by CBS News at the time showed a gaping hole in the side of the plane, which was carrying 174 passengers and six crew members at the time.

Although the plane landed safely in Portland, several passengers suffered minor injuries and lost phones and other personal items that were sucked out of the hole in the plane. One passenger, a teenager who had originally been sitting with his mother in the row next to the affected door panel, had his shirt ripped off by the strong wind, another passenger, Kelly Bartlett, told Kris an Cleave, senior transportation and country correspondent from CBS News after it happened.

Preliminary results of an investigation into the incident by the National Transportation and Safety Board found that the plane was missing four key bolts that were supposed to hold the door stopper in place. The agency said in a report released in early February that “four screws preventing upward movement of the MED plug were missing before the MED plug moved up from the bump stops.”

Following the incident, Alaska Airlines and United Airlines canceled flights using Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft as inspections began. Both airlines said they found loose hardware on landed aircraft of this model. The Federal Aviation Administration ultimately ordered a temporary worldwide grounding of all Boeing 737 Max 9 jets for “immediate inspection” and is conducting an ongoing investigation into the aircraft to determine what went wrong on Flight 1282 and whether Boeing “failed to do so “To ensure” that its aircraft “were in a condition for safe operation in accordance with FAA regulations.”

“This incident should never have happened and it cannot happen again,” the agency said in a statement in January. “The FAA continues to support the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into the January 5 door jam incident.”

Boeing is facing another class-action lawsuit filed by passengers on the Alaska Airlines flight that claims the Jan. 5 incident “physically injured some passengers and emotionally traumatized most, if not all, on board.” ” have. Alaska Airlines was not named as a defendant in that lawsuit.

CBS News has reached out to both Boeing and Alaska Airlines for comment on the recent $1 billion lawsuit. The airline said it could “not comment on the pending settlement or the ongoing NTSB investigation,” while Boeing said, “We have nothing to add.”

More from CBS News

Emily Mae Czachor

Emily Mae Czachor is a reporter and news editor at CBSNews.com. She covers breaking news, often focusing on crime and extreme weather events. Emily Mae has previously written for outlets including the Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed and Newsweek.

Three passengers on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 whose door plug blew through are suing the airline and Boeing for $1 billion Read More »

More than 40% of couples commit “financial infidelity”: here’s what you need to know

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

You think you know your partner like the back of your hand. They know his hopes and dreams, his favorite foods and movies. After so many years together, you can practically read each other's minds… Except when it comes to money.

Financial infidelity is common among couples and is damaging to relationships. More than four in 10 American adults in couples admit to keeping a financial secret from their partner, according to a new Bankrate survey.

Of these couples, 28% say hiding financial information from their partner is just as serious as physical infidelity, and 7% say it is even worse.

So what is financial infidelity and how can you avoid it with your partner?

What is financial infidelity?

Financial infidelity occurs when a couple lies to each other about money. This type of infidelity can come in different forms.

This could be a partner who makes secret purchases, accumulates debts, or engages in financial deception.

A partner may also open secret credit cards, maintain side accounts, lie about purchases, refuse to discuss their finances, or engage in other questionable financial behavior without the other's knowledge.

Even if a couple hasn't pooled their finances, lying about how much they owe or hiding certain major expenses can be a form of financial infidelity.

The most common forms

According to the same Bankrate survey, the most common forms of financial infidelity include spending more than your partner would accept (30%) and accumulating debt without your partner's knowledge (23%).

Here are the other biggest financial infidelities:

-A secret savings account (19%)

-A secret credit card (18%)

-A secret checking account (17%)

Although financial infidelity occurs in different age groups, younger couples are more likely to keep money secrets.

The same survey found that 67% of Generation Z and 57% of Millennials say they have kept at least one financial secret from their partner.

In comparison, only 34% of Generation X and 33% of Baby Boomers report financial infidelity.

The study also shows that the lower the household income, the more likely financial infidelity is.

Nearly half of people whose household income is less than $50,000 reported financial infidelity, compared to 34% of those whose household income is $100,000 or more.

Why do people cheat financially?

Financial infidelity can have several reasons.

“People may hide financial information out of fear of judgment or conflict, embarrassment about their spending habits or debt, or a desire for control or independence in the relationship,” says Taylor Kovar, certified financial planner.

More than a third (37%) of people who have hidden financial information from their partner admit they want to maintain their privacy and control their finances.

One in three cite a lack of communication (the topic of money was simply never discussed).

Additionally, 28% of respondents said they were embarrassed by the way they handled their money, which is why they kept it a secret.

People who secretly go into debt or lie about money often feel ashamed, guilty, and anxious.

Money secrets harm the couple

For many, financial infidelity is just as serious as physical infidelity. Lies and deception can undermine the trust and transparency on which a relationship is built.

Since money influences almost every aspect of our lives, money fraud can impact a couple's plans.

“Financial infidelity can seriously damage the trust that is the cornerstone of every relationship,” Taylor Kovar, a certified financial planner, tells the New York Post.

“It can lead to feelings of betrayal, hurt and a breakdown in communication. The financial impact can also be significant, potentially impacting the couple's credit score, savings and overall financial stability.

Another survey found that 38% of couples cited financial problems as the cause of their divorce.

How to deal with money secrets

The best way to deal with financial infidelity is to talk about it openly.

“It is possible to repair the relationship, but it will take a lot of work,” Regina McCann Hess, a certified divorce financial analyst, told the New York Post.

“Both sides must agree on ground rules for the future and commit to taking the necessary steps toward healing. One or both parties may need to meet with a therapist to get to the bottom of the issue,” she advises.

Here are more tips for dealing with financial infidelity:

– Speak as quickly as possible

– Present facts, not accusations

-Disclose everything: amounts, accounts, debts

– Express what you think about this infidelity

– Demand financial transparency for the future

-Seek out neutral financial advice together

-Strengthen financial transparency within a couple

Whether you are a new couple or have been together for many years, there are ways to create or restore financial transparency.

“A good way to incorporate financial transparency into a relationship is to hold monthly or quarterly meetings to review the family's finances,” says Hess.

“It’s a financial report. To make training less stressful, I suggest having breakfast on a Saturday morning, then coming home and having a conversation at the kitchen table,” she suggests.

Review your bank statements, investments, retirement accounts, etc. According to Ms. Hess, doing it together makes both partners feel included and participate in the conversations. This is also a good time to talk about financial goals.

More than 40% of couples commit “financial infidelity”: here’s what you need to know Read More »

You can't live in it

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

metro

exclusive

By Jennifer Gould

Published March 3, 2024, 2:38 p.m. ET

Oops, he did it again.

Harry Macklowe, one of New York's boldest developers, has put his Hamptons home overlooking the exclusive Georgica Pond – with neighbors including Steven Spielberg – up for sale for $38 million.

There's just one catch. It is uninhabitable.

Property developer Harry Macklowe has put his uninhabitable home up for sale for $38 million. Doug Kuntz

This is because the villa does not have a certificate of occupancy and the new owners are not legally allowed to move in.

According to East Hampton Village officials, Macklowe illegally cleared land on the property and built additions without permits, endangering the wetlands and racking up fines for more than 21 violations that have not been paid in five years.

The unofficial renovations to his Hamptons home are reminiscent of his 1985 move to hire a Mafia-run company to blow up four buildings on West 44th Street in the middle of the night without city permission, hours before the city was due to do so Enforcing a ban began with the destruction of single-room buildings.

The destruction put people's lives at risk, officials said at the time. Macklowe paid a $2 million fine but avoided prosecution because “criminal intent” could not be proven, the Manhattan district attorney said at the time.

“This is crazy. He ripped out decks and did whatever he wanted. He cleared land illegally and built without permits – just like he did on West 44th Street,” an inside source said.

The construction of the Hamptons House reminds many of Macklowe's illegal demolition of buildings on W 44th Street in New York. Doug Kuntz

“Plus, the house is in debt to the max,” the source added. “There is no justification for asking for $38 million. The house is fraught with legal complications and isn't even on the pond. “

The insider estimated: “It's worth no more than $12 to $15 million.”

The East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals refused to retroactively approve Macklowe's illegal actions, so Macklowe sued them. The case is not yet closed.

For now, East Hampton Village building inspector Thomas Preiato confirmed to the Post that Macklowe “can sell the house, but no one can live in it.”

The house can be sold, but since there is no certificate of occupancy, no one can move in. Doug Kuntz

“He already had a certificate of occupancy for the house in 2017. However, this is no longer valid due to the many fines he has not paid,” said Preiato.

The inspector added: “He has put the wetlands at risk. There is a reason we have a wetlands code. It’s worrying.”

In 2019, The Post reported that officials said Macklowe had built on the property illegally and failed to pay subsequent fines.

Macklowe declined to comment when reached by The Post at this time. He also declined to comment on the sale of the home.

His former spokesman said he no longer has a full-time job: “He hires them on a project basis.”

Top broker Paul Brennan of Douglas Elliman, who shares the Macklowe listing with Martha Gundersen of Elliman, declined to comment.

The four-bedroom home features a pool and sits on 2.7 acres at 64 West End Ave. in East Hampton. It is surrounded by protected land, the listing says.

Macklowe paid $10.35 million for the home in 2017 and then began clearing land and building too close to wetlands — all without permission, village officials say.

The land was cleared and the house was built without permission. Steven Hirsch

At the time, he was living there with Patricia Landeau, his now wife, while he was in the middle of a terrible divorce from Linda Macklowe, who still lives across the pond – so close that the exes are from each other's homes can see.

While being close to an ex might make some people uncomfortable, Macklowe is not one of those people. He also taped a 42-foot photo of himself with Landeau to the supertall building 432 Park Avenue, which he helped develop — but for which he never agreed on a unit.

(He recently avoided foreclosure on his units there, at least temporarily, by allowing a company he controlled to file for bankruptcy.)

The Post reported back in 2019 that Macklowe admitted to the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals that he didn't have the permits he needed to build and clear the wetlands, but did it anyway.

Richard Whalen, Macklowe's solicitor at the time, told the planning authority: 'The majority of the improvements we are submitting to you for approval have already been carried out. They were built without the benefit of any planning permission or variances or wetland permit from this authority.”

The house violates zoning regulations because it was built too close to wetlands. Doug Kuntz

According to a report in the East Hampton Star, the work was carried out within 150 feet of wetlands in violation of regulations.

“More than 21 charges have been filed several times since 2019, and a stop-work order was issued starting February 11, 2019, but by that time it had already been resolved. They got what they wanted,” Preiato said.

“It's difficult. It's been going on for a while. Someone feels like they have some kind of entitlement, like they're not subject to the regulations, but when you affect water bodies, it's more serious than a terrace that's too close is on the border.”

Macklowe also had a dispute with former neighbor Martha Stewart over planting on her property in the 1990s.

— Additional reporting by Doug Kuntz

https://nypost.com/2024/03/03/us-news/hamptons-mansion-selling-for-38-million-has-one-big-catch-you-cant-live-in-it/?utm_source =url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Copy the URL to share

You can't live in it Read More »

BlackRock and Fidelity Benefit from Bitcoin ETF Mania FOMO

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

(Bloomberg) — Bitcoin's rapid rally drove record inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs — solidifying investor favorites in this new asset class.

Saudi Arabia, Russia and several OPEC+ producers are extending voluntary cuts in crude oil supplies until the end of June

Business News / By Ashley Cornell, email: [email protected]

Saudi Arabia will extend its voluntary cut in crude oil production by one million barrels per day until the end of the second quarter, the state-run Saudi Press Agency said on Sunday, citing an official source at the country's energy ministry.

Riyadh's crude oil production will be about 9 million barrels per day by the end of June, the announcement said.

Russia will reduce its production and export shipments by a total of 471,000 barrels per day by the end of June, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said, according to a Google-translated report from Russian state agency Tass. Moscow had agreed to reduce its deliveries by just over 500,000 barrels per day in the first quarter.

OPEC's main producers Iraq and the United Arab Emirates will also extend their voluntary production cuts of 220,000 barrels per day and 163,000 barrels per day, respectively, until the end of the second quarter, according to Google-translated updates from their state news agencies INA and WAM.

Back in November, the OPEC+ countries had already adopted a formal policy of collectively reducing their production by 2 million barrels per day by the end of 2024. Separate from the group's official strategy, several OPEC+ producers, including heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Russia, announced they would voluntarily reduce their supplies by a total of 2.2 million barrels per day by the end of the first quarter of this year .

The latest production cut announcement comes against the backdrop of weakening oil prices, which have largely fallen in a narrow range of $75 to $85 per barrel since the start of the year, despite OPEC+ supply cuts, continued Houthi naval attacks on the key Red Sea route, etc continued risk of spillover from Israel's war against the Iranian-backed Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the near term, some of this price support will be offset by lower demand due to upcoming seasonal refinery maintenance in the world's largest crude oil importer, China, which typically worsens in the second quarter.

Unlike formal policy changes, voluntary cuts do not require the group's unanimous approval during an official meeting and bypass the need to distribute production cuts or increases among OPEC+ members. As a rule, extracurricular production adjustments are not contested by OPEC+ countries as long as they are consistent with the spirit of existing policies – currently the additional cuts are based on existing OPEC+ cuts.

The group's next political negotiations will take place in June. At this point, independent third-party data providers will have completed their assessments of group members' production capacity baselines – the levels to which each country's quota is assigned. A higher output value is highly desirable and results in a higher production frontier, allowing producers to benefit from higher revenues in a high price environment.

In a shock move, Saudi-controlled OPEC chief Aramco announced in late January that it would suspend its long-standing plans to increase its crude oil production capacity from 12 million barrels per day to 13 million barrels per day by 2027, the Saudi energy minister told Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman later justified the decision with the green transition.

Saudi Arabia, Russia and several OPEC+ producers are extending voluntary cuts in crude oil supplies until the end of June Read More »