The US Department of Education stopped accepting applications for student loan forgiveness after a federal court ruled Thursday that President Joe Bidens plan is unlawful.

A website where individuals can apply to receive as much as $20,000 in relief displayed a notice Friday that the program is blocked because of the legal challenges. 

As a result, at this time, we are not accepting applications, the message reads. We are seeking to overturn those orders. 

Ahead of Tuesdays midterm elections, Biden and other administration officials touted the program and promised to cancel loans for up to 40 million borrowers.

The Justice Department is expected to pursue an appeal of the Texas federal court ruling, according to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who reassured borrowers of the administrations confidence in fighting the decision.

For the 26 million borrowers who have already given the Department of Education the necessary information to be considered for debt relief 16 million of whom have already been approved for relief the Department will hold onto their information so it can quickly process their relief once we prevail in court, Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

The federal courts order was issued in response to lawsuit brought by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, on behalf of two Texans who claim that their education debt was unfairly excluded from the program. 

Bidens plan, which applies to federally administered loans, calls for $10,000 in relief per borrower, subject to income caps of $125,000 per individual and $250,000 per household.

The measure has drawn a bevy of legal challenges; most cases of which were dismissed due to lack of standing. An injunction from a separate lawsuit in the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, initiated by six Republican-led states, barred the Education Department from dispersing any relief, but allowed the agency to continue to accept applications during that time.

With assistance from Madlin Mekelburg and Jennifer Jacobs.

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

Some 250 copy editors, marketing assistants and other employees at HarperCollins Publishers went on strike Thursday, with the two sides differing over wages and benefits, diversity policy and union protection. It was a rare work stoppage in book publishing, where HarperCollins is the only company among the industrys so-called Big Five to have a labor union.

We feel really good about were doing and the spirit were doing it with, said Carly Katz, an audio coordinator at HarperCollins and one of more than 100 striking staff members who picketed outside of the publishers offices in downtown Manhattan.

We feel like this is the kind of action we need to take to make things happen, said Parrish Turner, an editorial assistant in the childrens division of HarperCollins.

The HarperCollins union, Local 2110 of the United Auto Workers, struck for one day last summer and this time plans to stay out indefinitely until an agreement is reached. Employees had been working without a contract since April.

HarperCollins has agreed to a number of proposals that the United Auto Workers Union is seeking to include in a new contract, a HarperCollins spokesperson said in a statement. We are disappointed an agreement has not been reached and will continue to negotiate in good faith.

No new negotiations are currently scheduled.

The strikers represent a small percentage of HarperCollins worldwide personnel, which totals around 4,000. The publisher is owned by Rupert Murdochs News Corp. and earlier this fall laid off a small number of employees, citing cost management and uncertainly about the publishing market. This week, News Corp. reported an 11 percent drop in sales for HarperCollins during the fiscal first quarter, citing the strong U.S. dollar and warehousing issues at Amazon.com as factors.

In recent years, entry- and mid-level employees throughout publishing have been increasingly vocal on social media about their unhappiness with wages, workloads and diversity. Book publishing has long been a predominantly white, low-paying industry, and starting salaries remain below $50,000 at many companies, making it increasingly difficult for staffers to afford to live in New York City.

Numerous authors and agents have expressed support for the union. Tara Gonzalez of the Erin Murphy Literary Agency tweeted that she would send no submissions to HarperCollins until an agreement was reached. During the walkout in July, Neil Gaiman noted that he was published by HarperCollins in the U.S. and tweeted I hope that the terrific people working there, who get my books made and onto the shelves, succeed in their demands.

In a company memo sent last week and since widely circulated, Zandra Magariño, the publishers senior vice president for personnel, wrote that While our goal remains to reach agreement on a fair contract with the United Auto Workers Union that is beneficial to both parties, HarperCollins has implemented plans to ensure that operations continue uninterrupted during a potential strike.

Union representation at HarperCollins long precedes the ownership of Murdoch, who purchased what was then Collins and Harper & Row in the 1980s. In 1974, employees at Harper & Row went on strike for 2 1-2 weeks before agreeing to a new contract.

While few publishers have unions, organizing efforts have grown sharply at independent bookstores around the country, with employees citing the pandemic as making them more sensitive to working conditions. Moes Books in Berkeley, California and McNally Jackson stores in New York City are among the sellers whose staffers have formed or joined unions.

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

Colorado voters have passed a ballot initiative to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms for people 21 and older and to create state-regulated healing centers where patients can experience the drug under supervision.

Colorado becomes the second state, after Oregon, to vote to establish a regulated system for substances like psilocybin and psilocin, the hallucinogens found in some mushrooms. The initiative, which would take effect in 2024, also will allow an advisory board to add other plant-based psychedelic drugs to the program in 2026.

Supporters argued that the states current approach to mental health has failed and that naturally occurring psychedelics, which have been used for hundreds of years, can treat depression, PTSD, anxiety, addiction and other conditions. They also said jailing people for the non-violent offense of using naturally occurring substances costs taxpayers money.

Critics warned that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved the substances as medicine. They also argued that allowing healing centers to operate, and allowing private personal use of the drugs, would jeopardize public safety and send the wrong message to kids and adults alike that the substances are healthy.

The move comes a decade after Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana, after initially allowing its use for medical reasons, which led to a multibillion-dollar industry with hundreds of dispensaries popping up across the state.

Critics of the latest ballot initiative say the same deep-pocketed players who were involved in legalizing recreational marijuana are using a similar playbook to create a commercial market, and eventually recreational dispensaries, for dangerous substances.

Voters in this weeks midterm elections approved recreational marijuana in Maryland and Missouri but rejected it in two other states, signaling support gradually growing for legalization even in conservative parts of the country.

The results mean that 21 states have approved marijuanas recreational use.

Under the measure, the psychedelics that would be decriminalized are listed as schedule 1 controlled substances under state and federal law and are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use with a high potential for abuse.

Even so, the FDA has designated psilocybin a breakthrough therapy to treat major depressive disorder. The designation can expedite research, development and review of a drug if it might offer substantial improvements over existing treatments.

Colorados ballot initiative would allow those 21 and older to grow, possess and share the psychedelic substances but not sell them for personal use. It also would allow people who have been convicted of offenses involving the substances to have their criminal records sealed.

In 2020, Oregon became the first state in the nation to legalize the therapeutic, supervised use of psilocybin after 56% of voters approved Ballot Measure 109. But unlike the Colorado measure, Oregon allows counties to opt out of the program if their constituents vote to do so.

Oregons initiative is expected to take effect at the beginning of next year.

Washington, D.C., and Denver have partially decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms by requiring law enforcement officers to treat them as their lowest priority.

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

A lawsuit filed Thursday by the state of California accuses 3M, Dupont and 16 smaller companies of covering up the harm caused to the environment and the public from chemicals manufactured by the firms that have over decades found their way into waterways and human bloodstreams.

Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit against the manufacturers of compounds that have been used in consumer goods and industry since the 1940s. The chemicals are found in firefighting foams, nonstick frying pans, cleaning sprays, water-repellent sports gear, stain-resistant rugs, cosmetics and countless other products.

Bonta said these so-called forever chemicals are so strong that they do not degrade or do so only slowly in the environment and remain in a persons bloodstream indefinitely.

The companies knew for decades that the chemicals are toxic and harmful to human health and the environment, yet they continued to produce them for mass use and concealed their harms from the public, Bonta said.

He said the court action comes following a multiyear investigation that found the companies marketed products containing PFAS, short for polyfluoroalkyl substances, despite knowing they cause cancer, developmental defects, reduced bone density and other health problems.

Minnesota-based 3M said in a statement after the court filing that it acted responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS and will defend its record of environmental stewardship.

Dupont, based in Delaware, said the company as it now exists should not have been named in the lawsuit.

In 2019, DuPont de Nemours was established as a new multi-industrial specialty products company. DuPont de Nemours has never manufactured PFOA, PFOS or firefighting foam. While we dont comment on pending litigation, we believe these complaints are without merit, and the latest example of DuPont de Nemours being improperly named in litigation, the statement said.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County, is the first statewide legal action over PFAS contamination.

It alleges violations of state consumer protection and environmental statutes and invokes a federal law that establishes a path to recoup the costs of cleaning up hazardous substances in soil and water.

Bonta estimated penalties and cleanup costs sought by the lawsuit would reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

U.S. manufacturers have voluntarily phased out compounds such as PFAS, but there are a limited number of ongoing uses and the chemicals remain in the environment because they do not degrade over time.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency in June invited states and territories to apply for $1 billion under the new bipartisan infrastructure law to address PFAS and other contaminants in drinking water. Money can be used for technical assistance, water quality testing, contractor training and installation of centralized treatment, officials said.

The EPA warned then that the chemicals are more dangerous than previously thought and pose health risks even at levels so low they cannot currently be detected.

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

Hours after he resigned as CEO of crypto exchange FTX and entered the business into bankruptcy proceedings, Sam Bankman-Fried offered another apology to investors and customers while saying he remains optimistic about the companys future. But he also said he was as shocked as anyone at how quickly things fell apart.

In a statement on Twitter, Bankman-Fried, who goes by SBF, said Im really sorry, again, that we ended up here. Hopefully things can find a way to recover.

The statement comes one day after a blunter apology posted Thursday, where he wrote Im sorry. Thats the biggest thing. I fucked up, and should have done better.

The comments from Bankman-Fried seemingly wont be the last. In his statement, he vowed to offer full clarity on what led the company, valued at its peak at around $32 billion, into bankruptcy in such a rapid fashion.

Im going to work on giving clarity on where things are in terms of user recovery ASAP, he said. Im piecing together all of the details, but I was shocked to see things unravel the way they did earlier this week. I will, soon, write up a more complete post on the play by play, but I want to make sure that I get it right when I do.

Its unclear whether he will address the events that saw archrival exchange Binance offer to rescue it before quickly backing out, saying In the beginning, our hope was to be able to support FTXs customers to provide liquidity, but the issues are beyond our control or ability to help. 

Bankman-Fried saw his own fortunes vanish as FTX collapsed. He was personally valued at $16 billion just last week.

Here is Bankman-Frieds full statement:

Hi all: Today, I filed FTX, FTX US, and Alameda for voluntary Chapter 11 proceedings in the US. Im really sorry, again, that we ended up here. Hopefully things can find a way to recover. Hopefully this can bring some amount of transparency, trust, and governance to them. Ultimately hopefully it can be better for customers.

This doesnt necessarily have to mean the end for the companies or their ability to provide value and funds to their customers chiefly, and can be consistent with other routes. Ultimately Im optimistic that Mr. Ray and others can help provide whatever is best.

Im going to work on giving clarity on where things are in terms of user recovery ASAP. Im piecing together all of the details, but I was shocked to see things unravel the way they did earlier this week. I will, soon, write up a more complete post on the play by play, but I want to make sure that I get it right when I do.

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

Elon Musk has been making major changes at Twitter in the past few weeks following his $44 billion takeover of the company. But he hasnt done much in the way of addressing employees directly. That changed Thursday when he gathered employees for a Q&A session.

Musk told Twitter staff he wants them to work with a maniacal sense of urgency because we are headed into, I think, quite a serious recession, according to The Verge, which acquired a recording of Musks comments.

The worlds richest man recalled the stress he felt in previous economic downturns as the cofounder of X.com, which later became PayPal, and the CEO of Tesla.

Ive been through the recession of 2000 and 2001 and 20089, and Im somewhat paranoid about dying in recessions. I have recession PTSD from keeping X and PayPal alive through the 2000 recession, keeping Tesla alive in the 2009 recession. Its worth remembering that in 2009, General Motors and Chrysler both went bankrupt. Tesla did not, despite being a startup electric vehicle company. It was excruciatingly difficult to keep us alive in 2009. And the reason we were able to keep alive is partly by just being paranoid.

After taking over Twitter, Musk fired around 50% of the company within a chaotic 24-hour period. And this week, several top managers at the company have resigned, including chief compliance officer Marianne Fobarty, chief information security officer Lea Kissner, and chief privacy officer Damien Kieran.  

The upheaval under Musk at Twitter has made other tech leaders, like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, look more empathetic by comparison.

This week, Facebook owner Meta announced that around 11,000 employees, roughly 13% of staff, are being let go. Payments firm Stripe, hard-drive maker Seagate, and online lender Upstart, among others, also recently announced staff reductions and belt-tightening.

But while Musk urged his remaining Twitter employees to work tirelessly, he also mentioned the possibility of the entire company going under. 

We just definitely need to bring in more cash than we spend. If we dont do that and theres a massive negative cash flow, then bankruptcy is not out of the question. That is a priority. We cant scale to 1 billion users and take massive losses along the way. Thats not feasible. I dont think we will.

Musk also pointed to the need to boost subscriptions and the problem of Twitter relying too much on advertising in a recession:

In a recession, advertising is disproportionately affected. And then advertising where the advertiser cannot clearly trace how much they spent on an ad to what demand it generated, which is known as brand advertising, will be even more affected. This puts Twitter as we look ahead into a very dire situation from a revenue standpoint.

He noted that he sold a bunch of Tesla stock that is going to be worth an immense amount in the future in order to keep Twitter alive.

Theres going to be probably a year or two of serious recession that, again, will disproportionately affect us, he added. And were going to get through that and not be dead. 

Those words will offer little comfort, of course, to the thousands of Twitter employees he let go.

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

Red Bull gives you wingsand in the case of its new 30-year-old co-owner, it also grants the title of Europes wealthiest millennial.

Austrian citizen Mark Mateschitz recently inherited a 49% stake in the company from his father Dietrich, who created the multibillion-dollar Red Bull empire in the 1980s and passed away at the age of 78 three weeks ago.

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, his inheritance of the worlds biggest energy drinks firm and two Formula One racing teams brings Mateschitzs fortune up to $15.7 billion.

That makes him the richest millennial in Europe, and the fourth wealthiest millennial in the world, behind Zhang Yiming, the founder of TikTok parent company ByteDance, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, and Walmart heir Lukas Walton.

According to Bloombergs figures, Mateschitz was the 93rd wealthiest person in the world as of Nov. 11.

Who is Mark Mateschitz?

Mateschitz grew up in Austria, attending Salzburgs University of Applied Sciences before launching his own drinks business in 2018 that produces beer and lemonade from water that comes from one of Austrias oldest springs.

Mateschitzwho was a shareholder in Red Bull before his father diedis an only child and inherited his fathers entire stake in Red Bull. The remainder of the company is held by the family of its late co-founder, Thai entrepreneur Chaleo Yoovidhya.

What role will he play at Red Bull?

Last week, Mateschitz told Red Bull employees that a Board of Directors would oversee the running of the business following his fathers death. He added that he had resigned from his role as Red Bulls head of organics, a decision he said did not come easy because the project was very close to my heart.

But I do not believe one should be both an employee and a shareholder of the same company, he added in an internal memo. I will concentrate on my role as a shareholder, and I will interpret this and express myself in a way that makes sense to me.

Since being established almost four decades ago, Red Bull has gone on to become a behemoth of the drinks sector and a globally recognized brand with a presence in the gaming, sports and entertainment industries.

The company said it had annual revenues of 7.8 billion euros ($8 billion) in 2021 after selling almost 10 billion cans of its flagship beverage.

With his accumulating wealth, Dietrich Mateschitz bought multiple luxury assets, according to Bloomberg, including a Fijian island and castles in his home country of Austria.

Sign up for the Fortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

More Articles ...

  1. How much money you need saved to retire
  2. Job seekers care about workplace well-being just as much as salary
  3. Wall Street holds onto huge gains after Dow surges over 1,200 points on Thursday
  4. Fox News is quiet as Murdoch print outlets turn on Trump after dismal midterm results: 'The Republican Party's Biggest Loser'
Page 1062 of 1160

Newspapers

Spinning loader

Breaking News, data & opinions in business, sports, entertainment, travel, lifestyle, plus much more. IdigNews.com is the leading news source for the internet  users...

           

Business

Entertainment

POST GALLERY