Latest news with #Shahani
Business Wire
28-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Surf Air Mobility Announces $1 Million Purchase of Company Stock by Co-Founder
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Surf Air Mobility Inc. (NYSE: SRFM) ('the Company', 'Surf Air Mobility'), a leading regional air mobility platform, announced that Co-Founder and Member of the Board, Sudhin Shahani, purchased 408,163 shares of the Company's common stock at the market price, for a purchase price of approximately $1 million, directly from the Company in a private transaction. Mr. Shahani said: "Our Transformation Plan is already having an early impact. We've improved operations and strengthened the core business. I'm confident in our experienced leadership team's continued execution capabilities." The Company remains focused on the Optimization Phase of the Transformation Plan with key initiatives to optimize airline operations, recalibrate the On Demand business, and drive efficiencies from SurfOS. About Surf Air Mobility Surf Air Mobility is a Los Angeles-based regional air mobility platform and one of the largest commuter airlines in the U.S. by scheduled departures. It is also the largest U.S. passenger operator of Cessna Caravans. In addition to its airline operations and On Demand charter services, Surf Air Mobility is developing an AI-powered software platform for the Regional Air Mobility industry. The company is also working to commercialize electrified aircraft and developing proprietary powertrain technology for the Cessna Caravan. Surf Air Mobility plans to offer its software and electrification solutions to the Regional Air Mobility industry to improve safety, efficiency, and profitability. Forward-Looking Statements This Press Release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding Surf Air's profitability and future financial results and its ability to achieve its business objectives. Readers of this release should be aware of the speculative nature of forward-looking statements. These statements are based on the beliefs of the Company's management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to the Company and reflect the Company's current views concerning future events. As such, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among many others: Surf Air's ability to anticipate the future needs of the air mobility market; Surf Air's future ability to pay contractual obligations and liquidity will depend on operating performance, cash flow and ability to secure adequate financing; the dependence on third-party partners and suppliers for the components and collaboration in Surf Air's development of its advanced air mobility software platform, and any interruptions, disagreements or delays with those partners and suppliers; the inability to execute business objectives and growth strategies successfully or sustain Surf Air's growth; the inability of Surf Air's customers to pay for Surf Air's services; the inability of Surf Air to obtain additional financing or access the capital markets to fund its ongoing operations on acceptable terms and conditions; the outcome of any legal proceedings that might be instituted against Surf Air, the risks associated with Surf Air's obligations to comply with applicable laws, government regulations and rules and standards of the New York Stock Exchange; and general economic conditions. These and other risks are discussed in detail in the periodic reports that the Company files with the SEC, and investors are urged to review those periodic reports and the Company's other filings with the SEC, which are accessible on the SEC's website at before making an investment decision. The Company assumes no obligation to update its forward-looking statements except as required by law.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Yahoo
Ohio Supreme Court to decide same-sex parental rights case
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case deciding how parentage laws apply to same-sex couples who raised children but separated before same-sex marriage became legal. The Ohio couple in the case, Priya Shahani and Carmen Edmonds, were together from 2003 to 2015 and had three children together through artificial insemination. Though Shahani was the biological mother, the two gave each child the last name of 'Edmonds-Shahani' and completed legal documents recognizing the other as an equal co-parent. Shahani and Edmonds never legally married, as their relationship deteriorated in 2015 before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage bans, like prohibitions still on the books in Ohio, are unconstitutional. In the breakup, the couple entered into a formal agreement that divided their property and set a parenting schedule for their children. Judge dismisses parent lawsuit against Hilliard schools over LGBTQ+ policies However, Shahani later removed 'Edmonds' from the children's last name and filed legal motions to terminate their agreement. Edmonds then filed a petition in 2017 'to establish her parental rights,' but the Hamilton County Juvenile Court held that a same-sex partner does not fall within the definition of a 'parent' under Ohio law. This is because Edmonds was neither biologically related to the children nor married to their birthmother. A trial court ruled against terminating the agreement and ordered that Edmonds could have 'companionship time' with the children but did not grant her a 'parentage' request. Both Shahani and Edmonds appealed to the First District Appellate Court, which decided that the trial court needed to hold a hearing to determine if the couple 'would have been married' if Ohio had already allowed same-sex marriage. Appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court, Shahani said a state court 'does not have the authority to disregard Ohio's statute banning common-law marriage and order a person into an unlicensed and manufactured marriage.' Paul Kerridge, Shahani's lawyer, said before the state's Supreme Court on Tuesday that Shahani doesn't believe in the institution of marriage and never planned to marry Edmonds. The lawyer noted the couple didn't attempt to get a marriage license and that Shahani also isn't planning to marry her current partner. 'What we're kind of getting is one person saying, 'Well, I want a marriage to be retroactively created,' and another person saying, 'Well, I don't want a marriage to be retroactively created because I never wanted to enter into one in the first place,'' Kerridge said. Ohio University attempts to include student, faculty input in anti-DEI requirements However, Jonathan Hilton, Edmonds' lawyer, said there is proof the couple planned to marry. Hilton claimed that Edmonds is only allowed to see the children about 30% of the time, struggles to obtain their school and medical records, and that she didn't receive notice when Shahani removed 'Edmonds' from the children's last name. 'You have children who have hyphenated names, their very identity being changed, and my client has no more rights in that situation than a babysitter,' Hilton said, also noting that Edmonds would have further restricted rights if Shahani's partner wanted to adopt the children. Justices discussed back and forth whether Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case legalizing same-sex marriage, applied to a couple that was never married. Justice Patrick DeWine argued to Hilton that it seemed like he was 'advocating for a really impossible standard.' 'You have one parent who says, 'I wouldn't have got married.' You've got one parent who says, 'I would've gotten married.' How can a court really sort that out?' DeWine said. 'Because no one actually knows what someone would have done, and if they would have been married, the rights would have been different.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Yahoo
Ohio Supreme Court hears arguments in same-sex parental rights case
The Gavel outside the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, September 20, 2023, at 65 S. Front Street, Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.) The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that centers around whether a same-sex couple shares parenting rights to children born through artificial insemination while they were in a relationship in the same way a heterosexual couple would. The court is taking up a challenge to a First District Appeals Court decision in which the appellate court ordered a legal 'would-have-been-married' test to decide whether things would have been different if the couple's potential marriage had been recognized in Ohio. Priya Shahani and Carmen Edmonds were in an 11-year relationship, and three kids carried the hyphenated last names of the two when they were together. Attorneys say marriage was discussed, Edmonds' lawyer said she proposed and Shahani said yes. But a trip to Boston that could have ended in marriage did not, and their home state didn't recognize same-sex marriage. Ohio also doesn't recognize common-law marriages that occurred after 1991. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 2015 Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and it required all states to them regardless of where they were performed. But it came after the couple went to Boston, and Shahani and Edmonds were never legally married. When their relationship ended, however, they entered into a shared custody agreement for the three children, an agreement that is in dispute by the couple. The hyphenated names for the children were removed by Shahani after the agreement was already in place. Attorneys want the Ohio Supreme Court to decide whether to apply parental rights to Edmonds in a way that presumes the couple would have been married had it been legal. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Paul Kerridge, attorney for Shahani, called the 'would-have-been-married' standard proposed by the appellate court 'unworkably speculative,' with the potential to cause a ripple effect in the legal world 'because every part, every factor in that standard, would also apply to relationships that didn't include marriage.' 'Really what the First District did here is create common-law marriage without saying that there was a creation of common-law marriage, and creating an exception to a statute without ever saying that's what they were doing,' Kerridge told the court on Tuesday. Obergefell recognizes marriages and allows that same-sex couples should have access to the full 'constellation' of rights under marriage, including parental rights. But does not extend that right to unmarried couples, Kerridge argued. 'Marriages have licenses and they have signatures, and it's a known entity of what kind of relationship and the change in your personal rights and obligations, that's a known entity that you're entering into,' he said. While the case is based on a custody battle, Edmonds' attorney, Jonathan L. Hilton, called custody 'a poor-man's version of parentage.' He said Edmonds struggles to obtain medical records or school records for the children she once shared with Shahani, and didn't receive notice or have legal standing when her last name was removed from the children's surnames. 'So you have children who have hyphenated names — their very identity — being changed, and my client has no more rights in that situation than a babysitter,' Hilton said. The shared custody agreement allows Edmonds to see the kids about 30% of the time, Hilton said. But if a partner of Shahani wanted to enter into the adoption process for the children, Edmonds would have limited rights. Justices went back and forth with the attorneys about whether Obergefell applied to two people who never were legally married, and whether the shared custody agreement was equivalent to a marriage document in terms of giving parental rights. 'It seems like you're advocating for a really impossible standard,' Justice Patrick DeWine said to Hilton. 'You have one parent who says 'I wouldn't have got married,' you've got one parent who says 'I would've gotten married.' How can a court really sort that out? Because no one actually knows what someone would have done, and if they would have been married, the rights would have been different.' Justice Jennifer Brunner pointed to the history of the Obergefell case, in which Ohioan Jim Obergefell's husband was terminally ill, and the two got married on a Maryland tarmac before flying back to Ohio, even though it was not recognized in their state. 'There was that issue of consent there, that both parties wanted it regardless,' Brunner said. 'And what proof do we have of that consent to marry when they didn't get married?' Hilton argues the children's hyphenated names, the shared custody agreement, and the engagement prove a plan was in place for Edmonds and Shahani. 'We have (Shahani's) consent here to shared parentage, and the only way that they could've gotten shared parentage would be to have this kind of union,' Hilton said. Justice Patrick Fischer pushed back, saying the supreme court was not facing a question on the custody agreement, but rather on whether parental rights should extend despite the lack of a marriage license. 'If the shared custody agreement continues, as a matter of fact, I know as a matter of law there may be a difference, but as a matter of fact, day-to-day, for the best interests of the children, anything we decide here doesn't change a thing,' Fischer said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
FLASHBACK: Top Democrats tout deportations, tough immigration policies
Top Democrats have touted deporting illegal immigrants and taken strong stances against immigrants entering the U.S. illegally for years, proposing harsh penalties and more, while President Donald Trump's current deportation efforts are now being panned by Democrats and members of the press. Former President Bill Clinton addressed illegal immigration during his State of the Union address in 1995, using the term "illegal alien." "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country," Clinton said during the address. "The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use imposes burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens." Trump's Ice Racks Up Hundreds Of Arrests, Including Illegal Immigrants Arrested For Horror Crimes He promised to speed up the deportation of illegal immigrants who were arrested for crimes and "to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace." "We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it," Clinton said. Read On The Fox News App The immigration policies signed into law by Clinton in 1996 were panned by journalist Aarti Shahani, in a piece for the Atlantic in 2019. Shahani pointed to multiple bills signed by Clinton, including the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA). The IIRAIRA allowed for immigrants who also commit misdemeanors to be deported and in general, according to Shahani, "injected" the toughest parts of the U.S. criminal justice system into the immigration system. Under former President Barack Obama, who has been referred to as the "deporter in chief" by immigration groups, over 2.5 million immigrants were removed from the country between 2009 and 2015, according to ABC News. Obama announced executive orders in November 2014 that were aimed at limiting illegal immigration and deporting criminal immigrants, echoing parts of Clinton's remarks from 1995. 7.2 Million Illegals Entered The U.s. In The Biden Admin, An Amount Greater Than The Population Of 36 States "Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we're also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable -– especially those who may be dangerous. That's why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day," he said. The former president set certain parameters for illegal immigrants, through executive order, that would not be a focus of his administration's deportation efforts, and encouraged those who met the criteria to "get right with the law." "What I'm describing is accountability –- a common-sense, middle-ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you're a criminal, you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up," Obama said at the time. Salvadoran Illegal Immigrant Arrested In Connection To Maryland Murder Of 2-Year-old Boy Obama did say that mass deportations were not feasible during the speech, adding, "Tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn't realistic." Hillary Clinton, who was a senator for New York at the time, spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2006 about immigration, and notably argued for "tougher employer sanctions," physical barriers and increased security. She also said the U.S. needed to "incentivize Mexico to do more," and allow their citizens to have a future in their own country. Clinton, while running for president in 2007, came out in favor of strengthening border security and stopping illegal border crossings. "You've got to give them some sanctions, penalties, fines, but bring them out so we can know who's here," she said. "I want to know who's in this country, I want to keep track of them. So bring them out of the shadows, if they evert committed a crime, either in the country they've came from or in this country, deport them immediately no questions asked." She went on to say immigrants who had been lawful needed to pay back taxes and learn English before adding that as long as they were law-abiding, in 10 or 15 years, they could be granted legal status. Bill Clinton Calls For Migrants To Begin Working, Paying Taxes And Paying Their Way' In New York City Clinton backed "tough conditions" for immigrants who come to the U.S. illegally during a 2008 appearance. "If they've been working and are law-abiding, we should say, 'Here are the conditions for you staying. You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes and you have to try to learn English. And you have to wait in line,'" she said. Clinton attempted to differentiate herself from Obama's immigration efforts during a March 2016 Democratic presidential debate. "But if you are asking about everyone who is already here, undocumented immigrants, the 11-12 million who are living here, my priorities are to deport violent criminals, terrorists, and anyone who threatens our safety. So I do not have the same policy as the current administration does. I think it's important that we move to our comprehensive immigration reform, but at the same time, stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs, and that's my priority," she said. Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture Former President Joe Biden, whose administration oversaw a record number of border crossings, also expressed support for jailing employers who hire illegal immigrants, as reported by CNN's K-File in 2019. "We've got to get tougher with employers. In fact, the person we should send to jail is not the illegals, we send to jail the employers," Biden said during a 2007 campaign event. "If you knowingly hire an illegal alien, then you should be held accountable. Because let me tell you, the next person I hear tell me that my labor guys aren't willing to work hard, that's why you have illegals putting up sheetrock, then I want to tell you, you don't know my guys." Biden's administration discouraged use of the term "illegal alien" once he took office in 2021. The then-Delaware senator was also asked about sanctuary city laws during a Democratic presidential debate in 2007. Biden was asked, "Yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?" He replied, "No."Original article source: FLASHBACK: Top Democrats tout deportations, tough immigration policies
Fox News
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
FLASHBACK: Top Democrats tout deportations, tough immigration policies
Top Democrats have touted deporting illegal immigrants and taken strong stances against immigrants entering the U.S. illegally for years, proposing harsh penalties and more, while President Donald Trump's current deportation efforts are now being panned by Democrats and members of the press. Former President Bill Clinton addressed illegal immigration during his State of the Union address in 1995, using the term "illegal alien." "All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country," Clinton said during the address. "The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use imposes burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens." He promised to speed up the deportation of illegal immigrants who were arrested for crimes and "to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace." "We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it," Clinton said. The immigration policies signed into law by Clinton in 1996 were panned by journalist Aarti Shahani, in a piece for the Atlantic in 2019. Shahani pointed to multiple bills signed by Clinton, including the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA). The IIRAIRA allowed for immigrants who also commit misdemeanors to be deported and in general, according to Shahani, "injected" the toughest parts of the U.S. criminal justice system into the immigration system. Under former President Barack Obama, who has been referred to as the "deporter in chief" by immigration groups, over 2.5 million immigrants were removed from the country between 2009 and 2015, according to ABC News. Obama announced executive orders in November 2014 that were aimed at limiting illegal immigration and deporting criminal immigrants, echoing parts of Clinton's remarks from 1995. "Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we're also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable -– especially those who may be dangerous. That's why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day," he said. The former president set certain parameters for illegal immigrants, through executive order, that would not be a focus of his administration's deportation efforts, and encouraged those who met the criteria to "get right with the law." "What I'm describing is accountability –- a common-sense, middle-ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you're a criminal, you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up," Obama said at the time. Obama did say that mass deportations were not feasible during the speech, adding, "Tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn't realistic." Hillary Clinton, who was a senator for New York at the time, spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2006 about immigration, and notably argued for "tougher employer sanctions," physical barriers and increased security. She also said the U.S. needed to "incentivize Mexico to do more," and allow their citizens to have a future in their own country. Clinton, while running for president in 2007, came out in favor of strengthening border security and stopping illegal border crossings. "You've got to give them some sanctions, penalties, fines, but bring them out so we can know who's here," she said. "I want to know who's in this country, I want to keep track of them. So bring them out of the shadows, if they evert committed a crime, either in the country they've came from or in this country, deport them immediately no questions asked." She went on to say immigrants who had been lawful needed to pay back taxes and learn English before adding that as long as they were law-abiding, in 10 or 15 years, they could be granted legal status. Clinton backed "tough conditions" for immigrants who come to the U.S. illegally during a 2008 appearance. "If they've been working and are law-abiding, we should say, 'Here are the conditions for you staying. You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes and you have to try to learn English. And you have to wait in line,'" she said. Clinton attempted to differentiate herself from Obama's immigration efforts during a March 2016 Democratic presidential debate. "But if you are asking about everyone who is already here, undocumented immigrants, the 11-12 million who are living here, my priorities are to deport violent criminals, terrorists, and anyone who threatens our safety. So I do not have the same policy as the current administration does. I think it's important that we move to our comprehensive immigration reform, but at the same time, stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs, and that's my priority," she said. Former President Joe Biden, whose administration oversaw a record number of border crossings, also expressed support for jailing employers who hire illegal immigrants, as reported by CNN's K-File in 2019. "We've got to get tougher with employers. In fact, the person we should send to jail is not the illegals, we send to jail the employers," Biden said during a 2007 campaign event. "If you knowingly hire an illegal alien, then you should be held accountable. Because let me tell you, the next person I hear tell me that my labor guys aren't willing to work hard, that's why you have illegals putting up sheetrock, then I want to tell you, you don't know my guys." Biden's administration discouraged use of the term "illegal alien" once he took office in 2021. The then-Delaware senator was also asked about sanctuary city laws during a Democratic presidential debate in 2007. Biden was asked, "Yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?" He replied, "No."
