Supreme venture

Policy regardless of which administration wins. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June of 2022, Maven found itself in the spotlight as it worked to help employers navigate the emerging gaps in care. Ryder called the ruling a “devastating step back for healthcare in the United States” in a blog post at the time, adding that its clients could use Maven to reimburse patients’ travel across state lines.The company saw a 67% month-over-month increase in interest in travel benefits and health-care for pregnant people following the ruling. That same year, venture investments in women’s health companies ticked up 5%, according to a February report from Deloitte. Maven closed a $90 million funding round that November. Venture funding for the overall health tech market fell 27% during the same period, the report said. The amount of data available about women’s health is also improving, in part thanks to companies like Maven. In a post-Roe world, however, Ryder notes the information is often bleak, especially as experts are “starting to see a fuller picture of preventable death because of restricted access to care.” “I think between more funding and research, more data points from states, from platforms like ourselves, you can start to point and paint a complete picture of everything going on that helps change policy for the better,” Ryder said. “The question is, to be honest, when? And how many more people need to needlessly suffer in the meantime?”Content Source: www.cnbc.com

The shareholders to approve the arrangement.The circular, form of proxy, voting instruction form and letter of transmittal, as applicable, for the meeting contain comprehensive information with respect to how registered and beneficial shareholders may vote on the matters to be considered at the meeting. As noted above, the circular and other meeting materials are also available under the company's profile on SEDAR+. Only shareholders of record as of the close of business on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2024, and their duly appointed proxyholders are eligible to vote at the meeting.The deadline for completed proxies to be received by the company's transfer agent is Monday, Nov. 25, 2024, at 10 a.m. Vancouver time.Receipt of interim court orderThe company also announces that on Monday, Oct. 21, 2024, it obtained the interim order providing for the calling and holding of the meeting and other procedural matter from Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the arrangement.Completion of the arrangement remains subject to, among other things: (i) approval of the arrangement resolution at the meeting; (ii) receipt of the final approval of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; and (iii) other customary closing conditions set forth in the arrangement agreement.About American Creek Resources Ltd. and the Treaty Creek projectAmerican Creek is a proud partner in the Treaty Creek project, a joint venture with Tudor Gold Corp., located in British Columbia's prolific Golden Triangle.American Creek holds a fully carried 20-per-cent interest in the Treaty Creek project until a production notice is given, meaning that no exploration or development costs are incurred by American Creek until such time as a production notice has been issued. American Creek shareholders have a unique opportunity to avoid the dilutive effects of exploration while maintaining their full 20-per-cent exposure to one of the world's most exciting megadeposits.The company also holds the Austruck-Bonanza

Armendariz sets forth the minimum standards of fairness that any employment pre-dispute arbitration agreement must meet to be enforceable Christina M. Coleman 2020 NovemberCalifornia has a reputation for being a very protective state when it comes to employee rights. While California’s current effort to end forced arbitration as a condition of employment, or retaliation for refusal, remains stayed, forced employment arbitration in California is still alive and well.In the meantime, employees still enjoy the protections provided by Armendariz and its progeny, designed to ensure that forced arbitrations are fair to the employee. While most plaintiff employment practitioners argue and believe that Armendariz helps, but still falls short of the protections needed to ensure fair arbitrations to employees, understanding Armendariz and enforcement of the rights it provides is what practitioners can do now.The game changer: ArmendarizPrior to 2000, employees were subject to mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements, imposed by their employers, that significantly disadvantaged employees in the arbitration process, and even deterred employees from being able to pursue their claims.Once arbitration had been compelled, there were minimal procedural requirements safeguarding fairness in the process. For example, the arbitration agreement could require the employee pay half the cost of the expensive arbitration proceedings. (24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199.) The arbitration agreement could shorten the statute of limitations on the employee’s claims. (See, e.g., Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical Internat., Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1548 [“As for shortening the limitations period, the courts will enforce the parties’ agreement provided it is reasonable.”].)In 2000, the California Supreme Court issued the landmark decision of Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 (“Armendariz”), which set forth the minimum standards of fairness that any employment pre-dispute arbitration agreement must meet to be enforceable. In Armendariz, the Supreme Court held that, under general contract principles, an arbitration agreement would not be enforced if it was unconscionable. (Id., 24 Cal.4th at 114.) An “unconscionable” contract is one that “affront[s] the sense of justice, decency, or reasonableness.” (Black’s Law Dict. (8th ed.2004) p. 1561.)Most importantly, the Supreme Court found that where such agreement purported to include statutory claims, such as the FEHA, the agreement would have to satisfy five additional minimum requirements including: (1) ensuring that the employee does not bear any costs above that which he or she would have to pay in court; (2) providing for adequate discovery; (3) providing for all types of relief that would otherwise be available in a non-arbitration forum; (4) requiring a written arbitration award and adequate judicial review; and (5) providing for a neutral arbitrator. (Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th. at 103-113.) The Supreme Court subsequently confirmed the minimum requirements set

Grindr, the dating app that caters to gay men, cannot be held responsible for the rape of a 15-year-old boy whom the company matched with sexual predators, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week; it is the latest teens-versus-tech battle in a fight over internet immunity that experts say could soon come before the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court’s ruling upheld a 2023 decision by U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II of the Central District of California, who dismissed the suit, saying Grindr was shielded by broad immunity protections passed almost a decade before the plaintiff was born. In a series of events Wright called “alarming and tragic,” a closeted Nova Scotia teen downloaded the LGBTQ+ hookup app in an attempt to meet other gay kids in his rural Canadian town. Instead, over the course of four days, he was assaulted by four adult men, including a man who picked him up after the teen sent him pictures from his high school cafeteria. Three of those men have since been convicted of sex crimes. The fourth remains at large. In a civil suit first filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles and later moved to federal court, the boy’s attorneys argued in Doe vs. Grindr that, despite its adults-only terms of service, Grindr knew kids used its app and even marketed to them on TikTok and Instagram. About half of gay teens use Grindr while still underage, according to a 2018 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health. The suit also called the West Hollywood tech firm “a trafficking venture.” Wright and the 9th Circuit panel both disagreed, saying Grindr was shielded from responsibility for the rapes under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. “This would have been a moment for the 9th Circuit to recognize that a product that recommends children to adults is defective,” said the boy’s attorney Carrie Goldberg. “We have faith the Supreme Court, which has expressed disgust about the overreach of Section 230, will correct course on this disappointing result.” Section 230 gives broad immunity to

The trial court s judgment because there were no disputed issues of material fact and, therefore, the appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The appellees assert 8 The trial court s judgment also awarded conditional attorney s fees to Smith, Sandion G.P., and Gruber, and to Hardeman and the Partnership in the event of successful appeals to the court of appeals or the Texas Supreme Court. 9 that they had no duty to disclose the restrictions against building a boat dock on land owned by a third party and that, when Sierra agreed to purchase the Property as is, Sierra agreed to conduct its own investigation, relied on that investigation, and thereby accepted the risk that it may have been wrong. The appellees further maintain that the trial court properly awarded their respective attorney s fees and that Sierra has waived its challenge to the trial court s evidentiary rulings. Standard of review We review the trial court s grant of summary judgment de novo. Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 156 (Tex. 2004); Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex. 1994). When reviewing a summary judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and we indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant s favor. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). A defendant who moves for summary judgment under Rule 166a(c), as here, is entitled to