Latest news with #478
The Hindu
18-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
Thalassa on top in Gamble For Love Trophy
The bottom-weighted filly Thalassa, ridden by apprentice Aditya Waydande, edged out Christophany in a thrilling finish to win the Gamble For Love Trophy, the feature event of the opening day's races of the Pune Racing Season here on Friday (July 18). The winner is owned by Mr. Cowas D. Bajan, Ajay Jalan rep. Ultimo Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Thanniru Srinivas, Ranjit Pai, Narendra Kumar Ambwani and Chanakaya Sanjeevkumar Gaur. Faisal Abbas trains the winner. 1. SEASON OPENER PLATE (Div. II) (1,000m): LORD ERIC (P. Trevor) 1, Lightning Mcqueen (Yash) 2, Menjou's Moustache (Ramswarup) 3 and Moment Of Madness (Siddharth) 4. Not run: Otello. 1-3/4, 1-1/4 and Short Head. 58.82s. ₹18 (w), 10, 16 and 29 (p). SHP: 41, FP: 83, Q: 54, Tanala: 478 and 380. Favourite: Lord Eric. Owners: Mr. Cyrus S. Poonawalla, Mr. Adar C. Poonawalla & Mrs. Natasha A. Poonawalla rep. Villoo Poonawalla Racing & Breeding Pvt. Ltd., M/s. D.R. Thacker rep. DT Racing & Breeders LLP, Karius Dadachanji, S.R. Sanas. Saleem Fazelbhoy & Mukul Sonawala. Trainer: Dallas Todywalla. 2. ELEGANCE PLATE (Div. II) (1,200m): BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY (Aditya Waydande) 1, Purple Martini (Nirmal) 2, Talking Point (Prasad) 3 and Leo The Lion (A. Prakash) 4. 1-1/4, 4 and 1-1/4. 1m, 10.44s. ₹25 (w), 10, 23 and 37 (p). SHP: 52, FP: 207, Q: 103, Tanala: 1,091 and 611. Favourite: Bohemian Rhapsody. Owners: M/s. Zaheer Lalkaka, Vikram Bachhawat rep. Bachhawat Farms Pvt. Ltd, Homi D. Bhagwagar, Arzaan H. Bhagwagar & Hosidar Daji. Trainer: Hosidar Daji. 3. VIBRANT PLATE (Div. II) (1,400m): FABLE (A. Sandesh) 1, Beyond Stars (Antony Raj) 2, Moonlight Kiss (C. Umesh) 3 and Golden Heart (S.J. Sunil) 4. Not run: AR First Star. 3-3/4, Head and 3/4. 1m, 26.30s. ₹16 (w), 12, 13 and 25 (p). SHP: 41, FP: 77, Q: 70, Tanala: 221 and 97. Favourite: Fable. Owners: Mr. Tegbir Singh Brar rep. Sarainaga Racing Pvt. Ltd. Trainer: Adhirajsingh Jodha. 4. SEASON OPENER PLATE (Div. I) (1,000m): BEE MAGICAL (Neeraj Rawal) 1, Zephyr (Yash) 2, Mojo (Merchant) 3 and Diligence (Trevor) 4. 2, Short Head and Short Neck. 58.73s. ₹22 (w), 20, 10 and 60 (p). SHP: 41, FP: 62, Q: 47, Tanala: 813 and 326. Favourite: Bee Magical. Owners: Equus Racing & Mr. Mukul Sonawala. Trainer: Imtiaz A. Sait. 5. ELEGANCE PLATE (Div. I) (1,200m): SHE'S A TEASER (Bhawani Singh) 1, Zip Along (C. Umesh) 2, Continental Drift (Santosh) 3 and Ma Cherie (Prasad) 4. 4-1/2, 3/4 and 2. 1m, 11.32s. ₹49 (w), 17, 12 and 20 (p). SHP: 34, FP: 130, Q: 63, Tanala: 573 and 476. Favourite: Zip Along. Owner: Mr. Ketan S. Wakkar. Trainer: S. Waheed. 6. D.K. ASHISH SALVER (1,200m): DARCY (A. Sandesh) 1, Merlet (Antony Raj) 2, Between Lands (Yash) 3 and Conjurer (V. Bunde) 4. 2, 2-1/4 and 2. 1m, 9.49s. ₹29 (w), 13, 10 and 16 (p). SHP: 43, FP: 96, Q: 38, Tanala: 383 and 263. Favourite: Merlet. Owners: M/s. Chanakya Sanjeevkumar Gaur & Narendra Kumar Ambwani. Trainer: Faisal A. Abbas. 7. GAMBLE FOR LOVE TROPHY (1,400m): THALASSA (Aditya Waydande) 1, Christophany (Neeraj) 2, Market King (Antony Raj) 3 and It's My Time (Sandesh) 4. Long Neck, 2 and 3/4. 1m, 24.55s. ₹96 (w), 28, 12 and 41 (p). SHP: 20, FP: 889, Q: 215, Tanala: 3,130 and 3,577. Favourite: Snowfall. Owners: M/s. Cowas D. Bajan, Ajay Jalan rep. Ultimo Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd., Thanniru Srinivas, Ranjit Pai, Narendra Kumar Ambwani & Chanakya Sanjeevkumar Gaur. Trainer: Faisal A. Abbas. 8. VIBRANT PLATE (Div. I) (1,400m): WIND DANCER (Navnath Bhosale) 1, Challenge Accepted (Antony Raj) 2, Pure (Parmar) 3 and Endurance (V. Bunde) 4. 3-1/4, Long Neck and 4-1/2. 1m, 25.95s. ₹89 (w), 16, 10 and 13 (p). SHP: 61, FP; 349, Q: 45, Tanala: 752 and 526. Favourite: Challenge Accepted. Owners: M/s. D.R. Thacker rep. DT Racing & Breeders LLP, Mukul Sonawala, Nozer Panthaky, P.J. Vazifdar & M. Rishad. Trainer: Dallas Todywalla. 9. COLUMBIA PLATE (1,200m): Declared null and void. Note: First favourite Fourth Wing had won the race by a short neck from Midnight Express, but an enquiry was held at the behest of the stipendiary stewards. The starter reported that multiple horses were restless at the gates, with Scaramouche (Aditya up) rearing and jumping out riderless, while Timeless Vision (Ramswarup) stumbled badly. A false start was signalled, but in the ensuing confusion, the jockeys continued the race. After interviewing riders and reviewing the incident, the stewards declared the race null and void. Jackpot: (i) 70%: ₹9,512 (14 tkts.) & 30%: 460 (124 (tkts.); (ii) 100% : 1,12,020 (5 tkts.). Treble: (i) 357 (41 tkts.), (ii) 3,363 ( 5 tkts.), (iii) 922 (25 tkts.). Super Jackpot: 100%: 37, 049 (c/f).
TimesLIVE
01-07-2025
- Entertainment
- TimesLIVE
‘F1: The Movie' races to $140m in opening weekend
F1: The Movie raced to the top spot at the box office in its opening weekend, earning more than $140m (R2,478,397,222) globally. That includes $55.6m (R984,000,000) in the US, with $25m (R619,552,500) of that coming on the movie's opening day on Friday, according to The Numbers. The movie, which stars Brad Pitt and was executive-produced by seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton, was filmed at F1 racetracks through the 2024 season. Pitt plays an F1 driver who comes out of retirement to help a struggling team while mentoring an up-and-coming young driver. According to Forbes, F1: The Movie outpaced Napoleon ($78.8m or R1,394,878,200 in 2023) for the biggest opening weekend for an Apple Studios film. However, with the cost of making F1: The Movie reportedly topping $350m (R6,195,455,000), it will need a continued run of success at the box office to make money.
Winnipeg Free Press
21-06-2025
- Sport
- Winnipeg Free Press
Cardinals face the Reds leading series 1-0
Cincinnati Reds (39-37, fourth in the NL Central) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (41-35, third in the NL Central) St. Louis; Saturday, 2:15 p.m. EDT PITCHING PROBABLES: Reds: Brent Suter (1-0, 2.91 ERA, 1.12 WHIP, 21 strikeouts); Cardinals: Sonny Gray (7-2, 3.84 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 85 strikeouts) BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Cardinals -195, Reds +162; over/under is 9 runs BOTTOM LINE: The St. Louis Cardinals take a 1-0 lead into the latest game of the series against the Cincinnati Reds. St. Louis has a 41-35 record overall and a 23-14 record in home games. Cardinals pitchers have a collective 3.94 ERA, which ranks 10th in the NL. Cincinnati has gone 19-20 on the road and 39-37 overall. The Reds have the ninth-ranked team ERA in the NL at 3.91. The matchup Saturday is the sixth time these teams square off this season. The Cardinals hold a 3-2 advantage in the season series. TOP PERFORMERS: Willson Contreras leads the Cardinals with 10 home runs while slugging .423. Alec Burleson is 16 for 42 with three doubles, two home runs and seven RBIs over the past 10 games. Elly De La Cruz leads the Reds with 16 home runs while slugging .478. TJ Friedl is 11 for 40 with three home runs and six RBIs over the past 10 games. LAST 10 GAMES: Cardinals: 5-5, .254 batting average, 4.40 ERA, outscored opponents by nine runs Reds: 6-4, .266 batting average, 5.25 ERA, outscored by six runs INJURIES: Cardinals: Ivan Herrera: 10-Day IL (hamstring), Zack Thompson: 60-Day IL (lat) Reds: Wade Miley: 15-Day IL (flexor), Graham Ashcraft: 15-Day IL (groin), Rhett Lowder: 60-Day IL (forearm), Hunter Greene: 15-Day IL (groin), Austin Hays: 10-Day IL (foot), Carson Spiers: 60-Day IL (shoulder), Tyler Callihan: 60-Day IL (forearm), Noelvi Marte: 10-Day IL (side), Jeimer Candelario: 10-Day IL (back), Brandon Williamson: 60-Day IL (elbow), Julian Aguiar: 60-Day IL (elbow) ___ The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.
Business Journals
16-06-2025
- Business
- Business Journals
Hidden fees, hidden danger: Why you shouldn't add a 'tariff fee' to offset new costs
As companies start to feel the effect of the Trump administration's tariffs, many are looking for ways to offset increased costs. Some are reconsidering their supply chains, looking for new manufacturing partners in lower-tariff countries. Others are increasing prices for American consumers. To avoid the unappetizing prospect of raising prices, other companies are imposing a tariff fee or import charge at checkout. But this type of surcharge — one that is not included in the initially displayed price — creates significant legal risk by and potentially violating California law, as well as recently-enacted laws prohibiting so-called drip pricing in several other states. What is drip pricing and why is it getting banned? Drip pricing is a sales tactic where businesses advertise a low upfront cost for a product, then slowly reveal additional fees through the purchasing process. The result is that the price a customer pays is often significantly higher than the price originally advertised. Drip pricing bans (also called junk fee bans and price transparency laws) are laws that require businesses to advertise the full total cost of their products up front and prohibit the addition of further mandatory charges on top of those advertised prices, with exemptions for shipping fees and taxes. This means no environmental surcharges, resort fees, processing fees or even handling fees. It also almost certainly means tariff fees are also prohibited. State legislatures have recently passed a flurry of drip pricing bans in response to consumers' frustrations with hidden fees added to ticket prices for live events and hotel prices. A New York state law and an FTC Rule — effective May 12, 2025 — are limited to banning hidden fees in the ticket and short-term lodging contexts. Other state laws, including California's, take these bans a step further. Summary of state drip pricing bans California was the first state to outlaw junk fees. Effective July 1, 2024, Senate Bill 478 amended the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) to make it illegal for businesses to advertise or display a price for a product or service that doesn't include all mandatory fees and charges. The CLRA gives consumers the right to sue for damages suffered as a result of the fee. Since the day the law took effect, plaintiffs have filed many such lawsuits — even alleging that because of legislative history providing that California law has always outlawed deceptive junk fees, that the amendment to the CLRA is effectively retroactive. Minnesota followed with a similar law, SF 3537, that took effect on Jan. 1, 2025. It amended the state's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act to classify the failure to include mandatory fees in advertised prices as an unfair business practice. However, unlike California's law, Minnesota's statute doesn't allow individuals to sue for damages. Instead, it permits only injunctive relief and legal fees for private parties. The Minnesota attorney general, however, can impose civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Massachusetts became the third state to address hidden mandatory fees, passing its own law on March 3, 2025. The law takes effect on Sept. 2, 2025. To bring a claim under this law, a consumer must first send a 30-day demand letter and show that the hidden fees caused them a financial loss. On May 2, 2025, Virigina's governor signed a similar law adding drip pricing to a list of prohibited practices under Virginia's Consumer Protection Act. The ban will go into effect July 1, 2025. Virginians who suffer a loss from drip pricing will be able to seek actual damages or $500, whichever is greater. Virginia's law is very likely not the last of its kind: Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Rhode Island, and Maine all have similar legislation under consideration. So what's a retailer to do to address tariff costs? Given the rapid proliferation of drip fee laws, and the fact that most businesses with an online presence have customers nationwide, including in states with drip pricing bans either in effect or soon to be effective, the safest approach to tariff fees is to avoid them. Alternative options for addressing the budget impacts of tariffs include: Raise prices (with an explanation): Drip pricing bans prohibit changes in the total price shown to the customer. You can increase the overall price from the outset and still show a breakdown of what's included in the cost (e.g., item price + tariff fee), as long as the final price is the most prominent, so that it's clear what the consumer will be paying. Drip pricing bans prohibit changes in the total price shown to the customer. You can increase the overall price from the outset and still show a breakdown of what's included in the cost (e.g., item price + tariff fee), as long as the final price is the most prominent, so that it's clear what the consumer will be paying. Offer optional fees: California, Minnesota and Massachusetts only ban mandatory fees. Optional charges — like 'pay what you want' or optional 'tariff offset' add-ons — are allowed. In Minnesota, be cautious, as its definition of mandatory includes fees a typical consumer might assume are included in the listed price. Make sure you explain very clearly that the fee is optional and consult your legal counsel if you are uncertain about the wording you're using. California, Minnesota and Massachusetts only ban mandatory fees. Optional charges — like 'pay what you want' or optional 'tariff offset' add-ons — are allowed. In Minnesota, be cautious, as its definition of mandatory includes fees a typical consumer might assume are included in the listed price. Make sure you explain very clearly that the fee is optional and consult your legal counsel if you are uncertain about the wording you're using. Shipping fees: All states with drip pricing bans allow reasonable shipping charges. Businesses currently offering free or subsidized shipping could consider charging for shipping and explain that the change in policy is due to increased tariff-related costs. Retailers should exercise caution before charging tariff fees in states that have not enacted drip pricing laws — as businesses in any state may face legal action under general deceptive practices statutes if they fail to disclose mandatory fees clearly. For instance, California saw many such lawsuits in the past decade based on the premise that advertising one price and ultimately charging a higher one constitutes a deceptive bait-and-switch tactic. Before implementing tariff fees for customers outside of California, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Virgina, they should: Confirm customer location: Determine where their customer is located to ensure that they are not inadvertently running afoul of drip pricing bans in certain states. Determine where their customer is located to ensure that they are not inadvertently running afoul of drip pricing bans in certain states. Disclose tariff fees: Clearly disclose the total cost of the product including the tariff fee or import charge as early in the shopping experience as possible, ideally before the customer reaches checkout. The disclosure must be clear and conspicuous. This can also help avoid customers abandoning their carts from the sticker shock of an increased price. Clearly disclose the total cost of the product including the tariff fee or import charge as early in the shopping experience as possible, ideally before the customer reaches checkout. The disclosure must be clear and conspicuous. This can also help avoid customers abandoning their carts from the sticker shock of an increased price. Monitor pending legislation: State laws are changing rapidly and what's legal in a state today may not be soon. Retailers need to be prepared to adjust tariff fees for each state as new laws are enacted or amended. Conclusion Few areas of law and policy are evolving as quickly as the tariffs, but regulations around fees are not far behind. Retailers should keep a close eye on these developments and consult knowledgeable legal advisors to craft creative strategies that fit their business needs in this challenging environment, while preventing unnecessary legal risk. Learn more. Benesch, an Am Law 200 law firm with more than 450 attorneys and offices in Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, New York, San Francisco and Wilmington, continues to be recognized by the legal industry. Among the firm's recent accolades, 40 Benesch attorneys and 19 practice areas were ranked in the 2025 edition of Chambers USA, and the firm was named a 2024 Recommended Firm by Benchmark Litigation. Benesch also continues to receive numerous Best Law Firm® awards, including national first-tier rankings in healthcare law, transportation law, construction litigation and commercial litigation, and being named Transportation Law Firm of the Year seven times. Additionally, Benesch's revenue growth in 2023 ranked fifth among the second hundred on the Am Law 200 list. The firm was recognized by Chicago Lawyer as the fastest-growing law firm in the city and has quickly risen to the second-largest law firm in Cleveland.
The Star
22-05-2025
- The Star
Student allowed to retake exam after saving friend's life
Compiled by SHYAFIQ DZULKIFLI, C. ARUNO and R. ARAVINTHAN A STUDENT in China's Shandong province who missed his Gaokao exam after trying to save his friend's life, was allowed to retake the paper, China Press reported. On May 10, Jiang Zhaopeng from Shandong Urban Services Vocational College was making his way to the exam venue when his classmate on the same e-hailing ride suffered a seizure and stopped breathing. Jiang immediately administered CPR as the e-hailing driver rushed them to the nearest hospital. Despite the Gaokao being an important exam which could determine a student's entire academic and career future, Jiang said he did not regret his actions. Many netizens pleaded with the Education Ministry for Jiang to have a second chance at taking the exam. Their pleas were heard as the Shandong Provincial Education Admissions Examination Institute allowed Jiang to retake the exam last Sunday. > A university student in Kuching who tried to recover the money he was scammed through a 'lawyer' only ended up being scammed again. The daily also reported that the 22-year-old first placed RM4,478 in an online investment platform which offered lucrative returns in just 24 hours. He realised he had been scammed after finding out that the platform charged exorbitant fees to withdraw his investment. With the help of a friend, the student contacted a lawyer from Hong Kong who claimed he was able to recover the money. The student followed the lawyer's instructions and transferred a total of RM23,700 to a local bank account before realising he had been scammed. The above articles are compiled from the vernacular newspapers (Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese and Tamil dailies). As such, stories are grouped according to the respective language/medium. Where a paragraph begins with a >, it denotes a separate news item.
