- Kelly Clarkson’s Ex-Husband Ordered To Repay Her $2.6M Over ‘Unlawfully Procured’ Business Deals Billboard
- Kelly Clarkson’s Ex Brandon Blackstock Has To Give Back Millions of Dollars for This Shady Reason Yahoo Entertainment
- Kelly Clarkson’s Ex Brandon Blackstock Must Pay Her over $2.6 Million for ‘Unlawfully Procured’ Business Deals PEOPLE
- Kelly Clarkson’s Ex-Husband Ordered to Return ‘Millions’ to Singer Parade Magazine
- Kelly Clarkson’s Ex Brandon Blackstock Overcharged Her as Her Manager Us Weekly
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Tag Archives: repay
Artist ordered to repay museum $76K after submitting blank canvases titled ‘Take the Money and Run’ – CNN
- Artist ordered to repay museum $76K after submitting blank canvases titled ‘Take the Money and Run’ CNN
- Artist Who Sold Blank Canvases as “Art” Ordered to Return Money | Beyond Bizarre Firstpost
- Danish artist ordered to repay museum after submitting blank canvases: ‘Take the money and run’ Fox News
- Artist ordered to pay museum back $77,000 after submitting 2 blank canvases under the title ‘Take the Money and Run’ Fortune
- Record Set for Work by an Indian Artist at Auction, Architect Raymond Moriyama Dies at 93, and More: Morning Links for September 19, 2023 ARTnews
- View Full Coverage on Google News
FTX recovers $5 billion in cash and crypto to repay customers
Collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX says it has recovered more than $5 billion worth of cash and crypto assets it may be able to sell to help repay customers and investors, an attorney for the company told a Delaware bankruptcy court on Wednesday.
Company advisers have identified a significant amount of crypto that it will be more difficult to sell without depressing the market price of those digital tokens, FTX attorney Andrew Dietderich said. The company is also trying to sell off other “nonstrategic investments” made by FTX that have a book value of $4.6 billion, he said.
It is not yet clear how much of a shortfall FTX’s creditors will face as company advisers continue working to salvage what they can from the crypto giant’s shocking implosion in November. But the company, once one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has identified more than 9 million customer accounts, Dietderich said, suggesting there will be an incredibly long line of people looking to be made whole.
Federal regulators have estimated that FTX customer losses exceed $8 billion. John J. Ray III, the corporate wind-down expert now leading the company, told lawmakers last month the company will not be able to recover all of its losses and expects the process to take “months, not weeks.”
FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried pleaded not guilty to eight criminal charges of fraud and money laundering in federal court in Manhattan last week. Federal prosecutors and regulators have accused him of orchestrating a years-long scheme to defraud the company’s customers by diverting their deposits to his affiliated investment firm, Alameda Research, and then using the funds as a personal piggy-bank.
“We know what Alameda did with the money,” Dietderich told the bankruptcy court on Wednesday. “It bought planes, houses, threw parties, made political donations. It made personal loans to its founders. It sponsored the FTX Arena in Miami, a Formula 1 team, the League of Legends, Coachella and many other businesses, events and personalities.”
Bankman-Fried and his inner circle also made risky cryptocurrency bets, “often unsuccessfully,” Dietderich said, and invested in a range of businesses. “We know all this has left a shortfall in the value to repay customers and creditors,” he said. “The amount of the shortfall is not yet clear. It will depend on the size of the claims pool and our recovery efforts.”
Honda blasted for ordering hundreds of workers at Ohio factory to REPAY part of their bonuses
Automotive giant Honda has come under fire after it asked workers at one of its US factories to repay hundred of dollars in bonuses they received earlier this month, saying it overpaid many of the checks in error and now needs that extra money back.
The brazen reneging from the car manufacturer came on Tuesday, when staff at the Marysville Honda Motors Co. factory in Ohio – which employs thousands of workers – were sent a memo demanding they give back money from overpaid bonuses.
The amount of each overpayment is currently unclear, as it varies from person to person based on salary – but the bonuses in many cases amount to hundreds of dollars, and were dished out to thousands of workers at the Ohio plant.
After announcing the bonuses had been erroneously overpaid in the bulletin Tuesday, brass at the Japanese automaker wrote that workers would have just nine days to decide on how they will pay back the additional sums.
Staffers will have the option to deduct the money from future paychecks or bonuses, or pay the outstanding amount up front by cash or check.
Those who abstain from those options, the company said Tuesday, will have the excess deducted from their future bonuses by default.
Workers will have until September 22 to decide how to pay back the money – a hardship for many who are used to getting bonus payments and had not expected to give a portion back.
Some staffers at the plant – one of a dozen factories in the country that collectively produce over 5 million cars annually – have since questioned if the company is justified in collecting the overpayments, with one attorney saying Honda is justified in requesting the forced refunds.
Automotive giant Honda has come under fire after it asked workers at one of its US factories to repay hundred of dollars in bonuses they received earlier this month, saying it overpaid many of the checks in error and now needs that extra money back
The reneging from the car manufacturer came on Tuesday, when staff at the Marysville Honda Motors Co. factory in Central Ohio (pictured) were sent a memo demanding they give back money from overpaid bonuses. The plant currently employs thousands of workers
In a statement to DailyMail.com Sunday, brass at the popular auto retailer confirmed that they had dished out overpayments to several staffers last week, but would not specify how much those payments amounted to and how many were issued.
They added that managers are currently working to address the situation ‘to minimize any potential impact to our associates.’
‘Earlier this month Honda provided bonus payments to its associates, some of whom received overpayments,’ a Honda spokesperson conceded after being asked about the excess bonuses.
‘Issues related to compensation are a sensitive matter,’ the rep wrote in an email, adding that ‘we are working quickly on this item to minimize any potential impact to our associates.’
The spokesman added that since the matter was ‘a personnel issue,’ the company would not provide any further information related to this matter.’
The wife of one employee who received an excess bonus to the tune of several hundred of dollars told NBC4 that he owed Honda nearly 8 percent of his previously awarded bonus.
The woman spoke on condition of anonymity, out of fear he husband would be reprimanded for speaking out.
‘Not a lot of people can handle this kind of a hit,’ the wife of a Honda employee told the station, providing a copy of the memo her husband had received from his employer earlier in the week.
She added when her husband initially came home with the bonus check earlier in the month, she asked him if the amount seemed correct – to which she told her it did, citing that he had received more substantial bonueses from the company in the past.
‘I asked him that. I said, you know, ‘Was this… the highest check you’d ever gotten for a bonus check? [Did you think] that it seemed weird?’ And he said no, it wasn’t the highest he’d ever gotten.’
The memo, however, asserted that her husband owed back just shy of ten percent of his total bonus payment, which amounted to hundreds of dollars.
‘That’s, you know, a car payment. That’s half of our mortgage,’ the worker’s wife told NBC4 in an interview Friday where she explained the difficulty of paying back the sum, which the family, like so many others, had already accounted for.
‘That’s two, three weeks worth of groceries. That’s a lot of money for us.’
After announcing the bonuses had been erroneously overpaid in the bulletin Tuesday, brass at the Japanese automaker wrote that workers would have just nine days to decide on how they will pay back the additional sums
According to one attorney, Honda is legally within its right to request the overpaid wages back, adding that there is no recourse for the hundreds of affected workers and their wages.
‘Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which applies to all employers in the United States, it’s quite clear that overpayments of bonuses or wages can be recouped by the employer,’ Sarah Cole, a law professor at the Ohio State University, told NBC4.
Cole’s advised employees affected by the oversight to go through with the required repayments, and choose the option that best suits them.
‘Honda could pursue this in court,’ the attorney, who specialized in employment and labor law, said.
‘But of course, that would be very expensive for them to do and obviously not look very positive from a publicity standpoint.’
She added: ‘So I’m sure they’re hoping to have voluntary agreement with the employees that the employee just willingly repays the overpayment.’
According to Cole, the mistake of overpaying employees has no penalty, protecting brass at the car manufacturer despite it presenting a challenging situation to its workers, whom are non-unionized.
The company currently employs nearly 30,000 associates in the US alone.
Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz, striking down cap on use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans
The court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“The question is whether this restriction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and their campaigns to engage in political speech,” Roberts wrote. He said there is “no doubt” that the law does burden First Amendment electoral speech. “Any such law must be at least justified by a permissible interest,” he added, and the government had not been able to identify a single case of so-called “quid pro quo” corruption.
Roberts concluded that the “provision burdens core political speech without proper justification.”
In her dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the majority for ruling against a law that she said was meant to combat “a special danger of corruption” aimed at “political contributions that will line a candidate’s own pockets.”
“In striking down the law today,” she wrote, “the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop. . . . In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today’s decision can only bring this country’s political system into further disrepute.”
Indeed, she explained, “Repaying a candidate’s loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities. All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor — by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption — the danger of ‘I’ll make you richer and you’ll make me richer’ arrangements between donors and officeholders.”
The ruling is a further erosion of a 20-year-old law that governs how elections are funded.
The Supreme Court already has chipped away at the law, granting corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence candidate elections in its 2010 Citizens United decision.
In 2008, the justices also struck down the so-called millionaire’s amendment that aimed to level the playing field when wealthy candidates financed their own campaigns. That provision had relaxed contribution limits for opponents of self-funded candidates in an attempt to close the funding gap.
In the case at hand, campaign finance regulators at the Federal Election Commission argued that the cap — a part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — is necessary to protect against corruption, but a three-judge appellate court ruled in favor of Cruz last year, holding that the loan-repayment restriction violates his First Amendment right to free speech.
At oral arguments at the Supreme Court, the conservative justices seemed skeptical of the government’s claims that the law serves a purpose of fighting corruption.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that Cruz had emphasized that the after-election repayment scheme would simply replenish his coffers from money he had loaned. “This doesn’t enrich him personally, because he’s no better off than he was before,” she said, adding, “It’s paying a loan, not lining his pockets.”
And Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that a candidate may feel reluctant to loan money before the campaign out of fear he would not be able to recoup it. “That seems to be,” he said, “a chill on your ability to loan your campaign money.”
Kavanaugh echoed a lower court opinion that went in favor of Cruz.
“A candidate’s loan to his campaign is an expenditure that may be used for expressive acts,” the court said in an opinion written by DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neomi Rao. She and DC District Court Judges Amit Mehta and Timothy Kelly ruled unanimously.
“Such expressive acts are burdened when a candidate is inhibited from making a personal loan, or incurring one, out of concern that she will be left holding the bag on any unpaid campaign debt,” the ruling added.
Federal law allows candidate to make loans to their campaign committees without limit. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, however, imposes a $250,000 limit on a campaign committee’s ability to repay those loans with money contributed by donors after the election.
A day before he was reelected in 2018, Cruz loaned his campaign committee $260,000, $10,000 over the limit — laying the foundation for his legal challenge to the cap. While he could have been repaid in full by campaign funds if the repayment occurred 20 days after the election. But Cruz let the 20-day deadline lapse so that he could establish grounds to bring the legal challenge.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.