Latest news with #BenCurtis
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Colonial Downs' Stable Area Opens June 23
Colonial Downs' Stable Area Opens June 23 originally appeared on Paulick Report. Colonial Downs' stable area in New Kent, Va., will be open for business Monday, June 23, welcoming returning conditioners, as well as newcomers who are sure to impact the standings. Training is scheduled to begin on Wednesday, June 25. The expanded 41-day summer session runs from Wednesday, July 9, through Saturday, Sept. 13. The 2025 season will be conducted a four-day per week schedule Wednesday through Saturday plus the Labor Day holiday on Monday, Sept. 1. Mike Trombetta, the 2024 leading trainer, and Ben Curtis, last year's top jockey, are returning to defend their respective titles where they will face a mix of returning conditioners and jockeys as well as plenty of new faces. 'Last year was my first year there and I love the place,' Curtis said. "The turf track is phenomenal. I really enjoyed my first experience there. It all seemed to go really well. Since then, it's been all-systems go to come back there. Hopefully, I'll do as well as last year.' Advertisement The $5.8 million Colonial Downs 2025 summer stakes program is headlined by the Festival of Racing on Saturday, Aug. 9, which is topped by the Grade 1 Arlington Million, Grade 2, $500,000 Beverly D., and Grade 2, $500,000 Secretariat Stakes. The undercard includes the $150,000 Van Clief Stakes, which has been upgraded to Listed status for 2025; the $150,000 Andy Guest Stakes, the $100,000 Petramalo Mile, and the $100,000 Tyson Gilpin. The lucrative stakes program also features the Grade 3, $500,000 Old Dominion Derby and its sister race, the Listed $250,000 Old Dominion Oaks, which anchor the Saturday, Sept. 6 card. Four other stakes will be raced that day: the $150,000 Da Hoss Stakes, the $150,000 Colonial Cup, the $125,000 Exacta System Rosie's Stakes, and the $125,000 Kitten's Joy Stakes. 'I'm excited to begin my first full season at Colonial Downs,' said new racing secretary Dan Bork. 'With our solid overnight purses and expanded stakes schedule, our barn area is full plus I expect plenty of shippers from throughout the Mid-Atlantic states." Post time on Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday is 12:30 p.m. Friday's twilight card gets underway at 4:00 p.m. There will be a special Noon start time Saturday, Aug. 9, and Saturday, Sept. 6. For tickets and additional racing information, visit our website at . This story was originally reported by Paulick Report on Jun 19, 2025, where it first appeared.
Boston Globe
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump is slashing billions from Harvard. Here's a breakdown of the federal funding that's been lost.
Trump officials have said they're cutting Harvard off from federal money because they allege the university has allowed antisemitism to flourish on campus amid A student protester against the war in Gaza walks past tents and banners in an encampment in Harvard Yard, at Harvard University in Cambridge on April 25, 2024. Ben Curtis/Associated Press Advertisement In a move to exert pressure over Harvard, Trump administration officials on April 11 Harvard The university has Advertisement Harvard President Alan Garber has responded by saying the Trump administration is focusing on antisemitism and discrimination to try to justify an unlawful attack on academic freedom and day-to-day operations at a university that has few peers worldwide. 'These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world,' Garber said in a widely cited Archon Fung, professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, addresses students, faculty, and members of the Harvard University community on Thursday, April 17, 2025, in Cambridge. Charles Krupa/Associated Press Harvard Here's a refresher on how much money the Trump administration has slashed from Harvard, including when the cuts happened. February: NIH 'indirect costs' cap On Feb. 7, just a couple of weeks into Trump's second term, officials at the National Institutes of Health announced they would For decades, NIH grant recipients could get reimbursed for a predetermined percentage of the so-called indirect costs tied to research, like administrative and facility expenses not directly tied to scientific goals. Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services, said the cuts to indirect reimbursement costs would At Harvard, the NIH previously reimbursed Advertisement After the Feb. 7 announcement, NIH indirect cost reimbursements were capped at 15 percent, representing a loss of tens of millions of dollars across Harvard. Here's a breakdown, according to an $33.8 million at Harvard Medical School $13.1 million at Harvard University $12.7 million at Harvard School of Public Health A demonstrator holds a sing in Harvard Square after a rally was held against President Donald Trump's attacks on Harvard University. JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images March: $9 billion under 'review' On March 29, the Trump administration announced it would hospitals, in an effort to 'root out antisemitism,' according to the government's antisemitism task force. The announcement came 10 days after the task force secured Local hospitals that could be affected by Harvard's funding review include April: Billions in NIH cuts By far the biggest blow to Harvard's federal funding came on April 14, when the NIH announced it was The freeze came the same day that 'Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community. Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard's values but also threaten its academic mission,' lawyers told the Trump administration in an In its lawsuit over the funding, Harvard said they began receiving stop work orders in the immediate aftermath of the federal government's April 14 announcement. The university also said what the Trump administration characterized as a funding 'freeze' amounted to a termination of funds. Advertisement 'The effect is the same. Under whatever name, the Government has ceased the flow of funds to Harvard as part of its pressure campaign to force Harvard to submit to the Government's control over its academic programs,' Harvard officials wrote in their The combined $2.26 billion in lost NIH grants and contracts is roughly 80 percent of the more than $2.8 billion of federal money that's been announced axed by the Trump administration at Harvard, including the most recent cuts in May. April 20: Plan to freeze 'additional $1 billion' On April 20, the Garber and other Harvard officials referenced the potential freeze of an additional $1 billion in funding in their 'A threat such as this to a university's academic freedom strikes an equal blow to the research conducted and resulting advancements made on its campus,' the lawsuit said. May 5: Trump halts all new grants On May 5, the Trump administration told Harvard that the university would receive Education Secretary Linda McMahon notified Garber of the consequences in The university 'should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided,' McMahon wrote. Advertisement Mid-May: More federal agencies cut grants On May 13, Harvard updated its lawsuit to include another Harvard said in its filing that the terminated grants had come from May 27: Trump tells feds to cancel Harvard contracts On Tuesday, the US General Services Administration, which oversees federal contracts, told all federal agencies to The letter appears to be an attempt to sever any remaining business relationships between Harvard and the government. The affected contracts include a Department of Defense contract for management training and a Health and Human Services contract for research on energy drinks, the Globe reported. Claire Thornton can be reached at
Time Business News
30-04-2025
- Business
- Time Business News
PPP Loan Fraud: A Growing Crisis Exposes the Need for Stronger Oversight — Insights from Amicus International Consulting
Vancouver, Canada – The U.S. Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), launched in 2020 to save small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, has become one of modern history's most fraud-plagued government initiatives. Amicus International Consulting, the global leader in compliance consulting and financial crime prevention, has released a comprehensive analysis titled 'PPP Loan Fraud Grows More Complex,' examining how fraud infiltrated the program, the legal repercussions, and lessons for the future. The Paycheck Protection Program: Promise and Pitfalls The PPP was designed to provide forgivable loans to businesses struggling with pandemic-induced financial hardship. However: Over $117 billion of the $780 billion in loans went to ineligible recipients. of the in loans went to ineligible recipients. Oversight lapses and rapid deployment allowed widespread abuse. Reliance on private lenders exacerbated vulnerabilities. Key Insight: Good intentions alone are not enough. Programs handling massive public funds must have rigorous, built-in fraud prevention systems. Understanding the Scope of PPP Fraud Rapid Deployment and Minimal Oversight: To move quickly, the government outsourced loan processing to banks and fintech firms, leading to inconsistent vetting and compliance failures. Decentralized Processing: Each lender interpreted rules differently, creating cracks through which fraudulent applications slipped. Key Statistics: Nearly 1 in 5 federal PPP loan fraud cases have ties to fintech platforms. federal PPP loan fraud cases have ties to fintech platforms. Fraudulent schemes ranged from fake businesses to exaggerated employee counts. High-Profile Case: Kabbage Under Scrutiny Kabbage's Rise: Processed $7 billion in PPP loans in 2020. in PPP loans in 2020. Relied heavily on algorithms with minimal human oversight. Current Legal Challenges: Federal prosecutors in Massachusetts and Texas are investigating Kabbage's practices. Investigations center on possible False Claims Act violations and anti-money laundering failures. Unusual Transparency: Ben Curtis of McDermott Will & Emery noted that public disclosure of this civil investigation is highly unusual, signalling the gravity of concerns. American Express Connection: American Express acquired Kabbage in 2020 but left its PPP portfolio behind in a separate holding entity, KServicing, further complicating liability issues. Legal and Financial Repercussions for Kabbage and Others Investigations into Violations: The DOJ Civil Division is coordinating inquiries across multiple states. Lenders' failure to establish effective anti-money laundering (AML) controls is a central focus. Litigation and Class Actions: K Servicing faces class action lawsuits for alleged failures in loan forgiveness processing. Plaintiffs claim the company's practices delayed forgiveness, hurting legitimate small businesses. Key Comment: Jim Richards, a former senior financial risk officer, called Kabbage 'one of the most opportunistic profiteers' of the pandemic. The Challenge of Loan Forgiveness Forgiveness Bottlenecks: While PPP loans were designed to be forgivable, many borrowers face obstacles navigating complicated processes. Lowest Forgiveness Rates: K Servicing has the lowest forgiveness rates among first-year PPP lenders, intensifying borrower frustration and litigation risks. Broader Implications: Systemic Risks in Financial Aid Programs Lessons Learned: Rushed deployment without adequate safeguards invites abuse. Private sector intermediaries need strict compliance oversight. Public funds must have stronger accountability mechanisms. Future Recommendation: Integrate fraud prevention at the design phase of any emergency relief program, with robust verification and post-funding audits. Case Studies: PPP Fraud in Action Case Study 1: The Celebrity Chef Scandal A celebrity chef secured millions in PPP loans despite having vast personal wealth. Misused funds triggered federal fraud charges and a high-profile public scandal. Case Study 2: The Fake Business Empire A fraudster created dozens of shell companies to siphon over $20 million in loans. in loans. Used forged employee records and tax documents, resulting in a lengthy prison sentence. Case Study 3: The Tech Startup Controversy A Silicon Valley startup exaggerated employee counts to secure $10 million in loans. in loans. Funds were diverted to executive bonuses and luxury purchases. Case Studies: Fugitives in PPP Loan Fraud Case Study 1: The Disappearing Restaurateur Secured $5 million in PPP loans for struggling restaurants. in PPP loans for struggling restaurants. Moved funds offshore and vanished before federal audits caught up. Case Study 2: The Elusive Tech Mogul Obtained $10 million via fake employee records. via fake employee records. Fled overseas, hiding in countries without U.S. extradition treaties. Case Study 3: The Runaway Real Estate Developer Acquired $15 million through inflated payroll numbers. through inflated payroll numbers. Liquidated assets and disappeared into South America under an assumed identity. Conclusion: Urgent Need for Financial Oversight Reforms The PPP program, while well-intentioned, highlights a critical truth: financial aid without proper controls invites exploitation. High-profile frauds, ongoing investigations, and lawsuits show that future government programs must prioritize oversight, compliance, and transparency. Key Takeaways for Future Programs: Centralized vetting and risk assessment must be mandatory. Real-time fraud detection systems should be embedded. AML and due diligence standards must be non-negotiable. Why Work with Amicus International Consulting? Amicus International Consulting specializes in: Compliance risk analysis. Identity solutions for privacy protection. Financial regulation advisory. Crisis management for individuals and businesses. Our Mission: To protect clients from legal risks, financial fraud, and compliance failures in an increasingly complex global environment. 📞 Contact InformationPhone: +1 (604) 200-5402Email: info@ Website:
Forbes
27-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Why Non-Tariff Barriers Are The New Frontline In U.S. Trade Policy
(AP Photo/Ben Curtis) Since the Trump Administration unveiled its reciprocal tariff policy on April 2, headlines have focused on the wide range of rates applied to different countries. Now, President Trump and other government officials are beginning to pivot towards other areas of global trade friction to accomplish their goal of reducing trade deficits. U.S. strategy appears to be shifting to the less obvious but often more harmful trade obstacles called non-tariff barriers. These NTB measures, including quotas, licensing requirements, product standards, digital taxes, and ownership restrictions, are significant obstacles to expanding U.S. exports across strategically important sectors such as agriculture, technology, media, and services. While tariffs aim to reduce U.S. imports and raise revenue, challenging non-tariff barriers to trade aims to boost U.S. exports. If other countries remove these hidden restrictions, American companies can gain better access to international markets. Observers expect to accomplish NTB reform by negotiating them away in exchange for lower tariffs. However, breaking down NTBs will be complicated. The fact that the U.S. maintains its own trade barriers further complicates negotiations. Non-tariff barriers are trade restrictions that don't involve a tax. While countries often justify these measures on grounds of consumer safety, environmental protection, or national security, they can also protect domestic industries from foreign competition. For U.S. exporters, non-tariff barriers implemented by critical trading partners such as the European Union, India, and China act as stealth roadblocks that limit market access. These restrictions can be more impactful than traditional tariffs in many sectors. In the past, U.S. policymakers have been critical of the European Union for using regulatory frameworks to achieve protectionist ends. For example, bans on hormone-treated beef and slow GMO approvals severely restrict U.S. meat and crop exports from entering the EU. Similarly, the EU's Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act are thought to limit activity from dominant American technology platforms under the guise of privacy and competition. In addition, the EU's proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which levies carbon fees on imports based on their emissions, reflects Europe's more stringent climate policy and raises costs for U.S. manufacturers with fossil-heavy supply chains. India's NTBs are more direct. India's import licensing requirements, foreign direct investment caps, and state-run trading monopolies control who can do business and under what terms. U.S. retail, insurance, and finance firms face legal ceilings on their market participation. For example, Walmart had to enter India through a joint venture and later shifted focus to wholesale operations instead of pursuing full-fledged retail stores. Another Indian NTB is that regulators increasingly require in-country testing and certification through its Quality Control Order regime, which causes delays and duplication of tests that raise costs and reduce competitiveness for U.S. exporters. In China, the challenges are deeply strategic. Data localization laws prohibit U.S. cloud providers and platforms from freely operating. Also, despite commitments to open up, technology transfer requirements and joint venture mandates still effectively coerce U.S. companies into giving up intellectual property. Furthermore, China restricts the import of many U.S.-grown foods through its slow and complex approval process for biotech crops, often citing health and safety concerns as justification. China uses these measures to protect domestic agriculture and control food supply chains to help achieve its broader strategy of ensuring food security and technological self-reliance. Even when international scientific consensus deems certain GMO products safe, China's regulatory delays limit U.S. agricultural exports, creating a hidden non-tariff barrier that advantages Chinese farmers and biotechnology firms. Complicating negotiations may be the fact that the U.S. maintains its own assortment of non-tariff barriers. The Jones Act, for instance, requires goods shipped between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels. This requirement raises shipping costs and limits foreign participation in domestic maritime commerce. Buy American rules embedded in federal procurement favor domestic manufacturers, sometimes at the expense of cost efficiency. Agriculture is protected via tariff-rate quotas that limit imports of sugar and dairy. Foreign ownership caps exist in critical sectors like telecom, aviation, and defense. All of these policies serve to protect U.S. jobs and national security. However, they also undermine American credibility when calling out similar behavior abroad. Even if foreign governments are willing to reform their domestic NTB policies, the process would likely be very slow and politically difficult. Many NTBs would require a change in domestic laws tied to stated public goals, such as environmental protection, health safety, or cultural preservation. Yes, the NTBs restrict foreign imports, but they also serve a purpose for the domestic population. In many cases, reform would require more than just policy changes. It would involve regulatory overhauls, new certification regimes, or multilateral agreement updates, which could take years to implement. According to Apollo Global Management, the average trade deal takes 18 months to negotiate and 45 months to become effective. Negotiating dozens of new agreements before the July 8 expiration of reciprocal tariff suspensions would be challenging. With respect to NTB reform, there is more at play than simply trying to change the rules to allow for more U.S. exports to other countries. Targeted non-tariff barrier reforms can help the U.S. achieve its geopolitical and national security goals by reshaping trade dependencies and institutionalizing alliances. For example, part of an NTB deal with India could include shifting its oil imports from Russia to the United States. India accounts for roughly 40% of Russian oil exports, the loss of which would cost Russia an estimated $22 billion annually. Interrupting this flow could help Western efforts put additional financial pressure on Russia to help negotiate a settlement with its ongoing war with Ukraine. By reducing non-tariff trade barriers and possibly negotiating down the level of reciprocal tariffs, the U.S. aims to advance its goal of improving exports, reduce its trade deficits, and improve its position from a national security perspective. The stakes are high. Financial markets are banking on some sort of agreement that will avoid the imposition of the tariff rates announced by the Trump administration, currently on suspension until July 8. The success of potential agreements will depend on whether U.S. officials can make progress on the non-tariff trade barriers in the various countries. Failure to reach bilateral deals could mean the high tariff rates remain in place. This could put further pressure on stock and bond markets, and force a major reengineering of supply chains. The end goal of fair and open trade is worth pursuing, and dismantling non-tariff barriers are a critical element in negotiations. It will be hard work, to be sure. The clock is ticking.
