Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

President and Chief Technology and Products Officer Scott DeBoer to discuss innovations across DRAM, HBM and NAND that extend Micron’s technology leadership  | Source: Micron Technology, Inc.

BOISE, Idaho, Oct. 19, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Micron Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: MU) announced today that it will host a technology webinar on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2026, at 8 a.m. Mountain Time. Scott DeBoer, Micron president and chief technology and products officer, will lead the discussion.

The path to accelerating Super Intelligence demands a fundamental leap in memory and storage capabilities. The next generation of AI infrastructure will require significantly higher bandwidth, capacity and efficiency in how data is moved, stored and accessed. The webinar will detail how Micron's technology foundation, multigenerational roadmap, close customer co-design and long-term research position the company to extend its technology leadership over the next decade and beyond.

DeBoer’s presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer session.

The webinar will be webcast live at http://investors.micron.com/. Webcast replay of the presentation can be accessed from Micron’s Investor Relations website for approximately one year after the event.

About Micron Technology, Inc.
Micron Technology, Inc. is a global leader in semiconductor memory and storage, powering AI and compute-intensive applications from cloud to edge. With a relentless focus on our customers, technology and product leadership, and manufacturing and operational excellence, Micron’s comprehensive portfolio of high-performance DRAM, NAND and NOR solutions deliver the speed, efficiency, and scale today’s workloads demand, accelerating intelligence to enrich life for all. To learn more about Micron Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: MU), visit micron.com.

© 2026 Micron Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. Information, products, and/or specifications are subject to change without notice. Micron, the Micron logo, and all other Micron trademarks are the property of Micron Technology, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Micron Investor Relations Contact:
Satya Kumar
+1 (408) 450-6199
[email protected]

Micron Product and Technology Communications Contact:
Mengxi Liu Evensen
+1 (408) 444-2276
[email protected]

Danaher Corporation (NYSE:DHR) will release earnings for its third quarter before the opening bell on Wednesday, Oct. 21.

Analysts expect the company to report quarterly earnings of $1.92 per share, up from $1.89 per share in the year-ago period. The consensus estimate for DHR’s quarterly revenue is $6.56 billion. It reported $6.05 billion last year, according to Benzinga Pro.

On Oct. 14, Danaher announced an AI collaboration with NVIDIA Corp (NASDAQ:NVDA) focused on autonomous science.

Danaher shares fell 1.1% to close at $229.04 on Friday.

Benzinga readers can access the latest analyst ratings on the Analyst Stock Ratings page. Readers can sort by stock ticker, company name, analyst firm, rating change or other variables.

Let’s have a look at how Benzinga’s most-accurate analysts have rated the company in the recent period.

TD Cowen analyst Dan Brennan maintained a Buy rating and raised the price target from $236 to $255 on Oct. 13, 2026. This analyst has an accuracy rate of 73%. Barclays analyst Luke Sergott maintained an Overweight rating and boosted the price target from $230 to $255 on Oct. 7, 2026. This analyst has an accuracy rate of 69%. RBC Capital analyst Dan Leonard maintained an Outperform rating and raised the price target from $215 to $250 on Oct. 5, 2026. This analyst has an accuracy rate of 70%. Guggenheim analyst Subbu Nambi maintained the stock with a Buy rating and increased the price target from $200 to $250 on Oct. 1, 2026. This analyst has an accuracy rate of 78%. Wells Fargo analyst Brandon Couillard maintained an Equal-Weight rating and cut the price target from $212 to $195 on July 22, 2026. This analyst has an accuracy rate of 74%. Considering buying DHR stock? Here’s what analysts think:

Photo via Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

The largest Bitcoin miner just moved 1,000 BTC onto exchanges while its holdings have quietly shrunk by thousands of coins, and now Michael Saylor is hinting at a buy. Whether that signals a sale, a loan, or something else changes…

This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

MARA Holdings (NASDAQ:MARA | MARA Price Prediction), the largest publicly traded Bitcoin miner, transferred 1,000 Bitcoin (CRYPTO:BTC), valued at around $82.8 million, to the Binance and Gate exchanges over five days, according to the on-chain tracker Lookonchain. MARA hasn’t explained these transfers. So, is MARA selling Bitcoin?

In contrast, Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy Inc. (NASDAQ:MSTR), signaled more Bitcoin purchases. He tweeted, “We found room for more orange,” his usual hint at another purchase. Strategy Inc. holds 848,250 BTC and last reported buying 250 BTC, though it has not made a new announcement yet.

Bitcoin trades at approximately $82,720. MARA shares were at $7.70 premarket, up 2.3% from the previous close of $7.53, even though they remain down 20.2% for the week and 30.3% for the month.

Meanwhile, Strategy Inc. was trading at around $140 premarket, down 9.6% for the week, as investors worry that a stock index could drop the company.

MARA’s Mining Revenue Falls as Its Costs Climb

MARA primarily earns revenue through Bitcoin mining, where specialized computers compete to add new blocks to the network and earn newly mined coins. Its revenue decreased to $174.9 million in the second quarter, down from $238.5 million the previous year. A 28% drop in Bitcoin’s average price cut revenue by $65.9 million.

MARA’s hashrate, the total computing power its machines contribute to the network, rose to 70.3 exahashes per second. However, the cost of energy needed to mine each Bitcoin has increased to $38,690 from $33,735 a year ago. Management attributed this rise to increased mining difficulty, which occurs when more machines come online.

About $343 million of MARA’s $611.3 million net loss came from a mark-to-market loss, which is a paper loss from valuing its Bitcoin at lower prices without selling any coins. Management noted that every $10,000 change in Bitcoin’s price affects that line by approximately $350 million. MARA ended the quarter with $421.3 million in cash.

MARA Is Spending Heavily on Power and AI

MARA is also moving into energy and is acquiring Long Ridge Energy, a gas-fired power plant, in a $1.5 billion deal, including debt. MARA plans to assume about $900 million of Long Ridge’s debt, and the deal is pending approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

MARA has also secured rights to a 2 GW-powered site in Matagorda County, Texas, with plans to convert most of its capacity for AI and high-performance computing through a joint venture with Starwood. Its Exaion unit already operates an AI cloud in Europe, ensuring customer data complies with European regulations. We also cover seven suppliers benefiting from similar shifts in a free AI infrastructure report.

To finance these ventures, MARA borrowed $600 million using Bitcoin-backed credit facilities with Coinbase (NASDAQ:COIN) and Two Prime at an average interest rate of 7.6%. Lenders can claim the pledged Bitcoin if MARA fails to repay, and the new loans left 54% of MARA’s Bitcoin pledged as collateral.

Management has indicated that MARA will continue to sell Bitcoin selectively to fund operations. Its filings support this, showing MARA held 35,577 BTC at the end of June, down from 49,951 BTC a year earlier, with no updated figures released since its August 6 earnings call.

Saylor’s Buy Hint Cannot Offset MARA’s Exchange Deposits

Companies that send coins to an exchange are often preparing to sell, as exchanges facilitate trades between buyers and sellers. However, companies also move coins for other reasons, like lending them out, using them as collateral, or hedging against price fluctuations. MARA does engage in lending; in the second quarter, it had 4,742 BTC out on loan, generating about $4.3 million in interest.

While the deposits may imply a sale, they don’t prove one. MARA reported Coinbase and Two Prime as lenders for the new credit lines, yet the coins were sent to Binance and Gate. MARA has not disclosed any specific buyers, sale prices, or proceeds, and it hasn’t confirmed the wallet labels Lookonchain assigned.

Saylor’s tweet also warrants close examination. As the head of the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, he promotes the asset central to his company’s balance sheet, but his post mentions no specific amounts, dates, or funding sources. Strategy Inc. has also sold Bitcoin this year, with $218.4 million sold to date under its Bitcoin monetization program as of its second-quarter report.

During the same period as Strategy Inc.’s last 250 BTC purchase, the company also spent $192.4 million buying back preferred shares instead of buying more Bitcoin. MARA’s deposit of 1,000 BTC is four times that 250 BTC buy.

Is MARA Selling Bitcoin? What Does It Mean for Prices? Signs suggest MARA may be selling, or preparing to sell, some of its Bitcoin. The coins went to trading platforms, and MARA has said it sells Bitcoin selectively. It also has a power plant deal, AI expansion plans, and rising mining costs to fund. Selling Bitcoin can generate cash without diluting shareholders, but it may weigh slightly on Bitcoin prices since the proceeds go into infrastructure.

MARA’s next update should settle it. If the report shows fewer than 35,577 BTC and mentions any sales, the coins were sold; steady holdings, with more coins lent or pledged, would suggest a collateral move. An 8-K filing showing Strategy Inc. buying more than 1,000 BTC would mean one buyer absorbed the miner’s coins. MARA’s shares could still rise on FERC approval or new leases, even if Bitcoin prices stall.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.

Prefer us on Google

Summary:

The EUR/USD pair is held in a tight range ahead of the upcoming statement by Christine Lagarde ahead of the ECB decision.
EUR/USD is stuck in a tight range today, with investors focusing on last week’s macro events,  the ongoing performance of the energy markets, and the ongoing protests in France. It is also wavering ahead of a relatively muted week in the economic calendar. It was trading at 1.2225, a few points above this week’s low of 1.1110.

France Protests and Christine Lagarde Statement
EUR/USD pair is attempting to rebound, even as fears of a debt crisis in Europe continue. These fears escalated during the weekend when protests in France turned deadly. The core issue among the protesters is the slashing of the education budget. 

The government slashed spending because of the ongoing surge in public debt that has pushed the ten-year yield to 4.88%. This is a high level since the figure bottomed out at 3.216% in March this year. Bond yields in other European countries like Germany and Italy have continued rising. 

The EUR/USD pair is also wavering as crude oil prices retreat. Brent, the global benchmark, dropped to $108 from last week’s high of $110. Still, there is a risk that the ongoing oil price retreat is temporary, as fundamentals favor more gains. Iran has continued shooting tankers attempting to cross the strait, while oil inventories have continued falling. 

There will be no major macro numbers from the United States this week. The only macro catalyst to watch this week will be a statement from Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank (ECB). Her statement will come ahead of next week’s interest rate decision, in which officials are expected to leave interest rates unchanged.

The key macro data to watch this week will be the German PPI and European consumer confidence report.

EUR/USD Technical Analysis

EUR/USD chart | Source: TradingView

The four-hour chart shows that the EUR/USD pair has rebounded in the past few days. It has risen from 1.1112 on October 14 to the current 1.1223. A closer look at has formed an inverted head-and-shoulders pattern, a popular bullish reversal sign. 

The pair has jumped above the 50-period Exponential Moving Average (EMA) and the Strong, Pivot, Reverse level of the Murrey Math Lines tool. Therefore, the pair will likely have a bullish breakout, potentially to the psychological level of 1.3000. A move above that level will point to more gains towards the Ultimate Resistance level of 1.1352. 

Applied Materials just suffered one of its steepest drops in years, yet analysts keep raising their earnings estimates and some price targets sit nearly double the current share price. Here is what the disconnect reveals about where semiconductor equipment spending…

Applied Materials (NASDAQ:AMAT | AMAT Price Prediction) is now priced at $409.29. The average analyst price target stands at $627.83, meaning 53.4% upside.

Applied makes the deposition, etch and inspection tools used to build virtually every new chip. AI infrastructure demand drove fiscal third-quarter revenue to $9.12 billion, up 24.8% year over year. Management guided the current quarter to about $10.25 billion.

The most bullish firms, including H.C. Wainwright and Susquehanna, have $900 targets. Those sit about 119.9% above the current price. Consensus upside stands above 40%.

Investor Day Silence Turned a Pullback Into a 37% Rout
The biggest hit came at Applied’s investor day, when the company declined to provide an industry spending forecast. Shares fell as much as 9% intraday, and the stock lost 19.28% over the past week. Since the start of July, Applied has dropped 37.05%. That leaves it 44.6% below its 52-week high of $738.88.

The first signs showed after the August earnings report. Shares fell about 4% even though guidance beat consensus. Morgan Stanley summed it up: “AMAT’s earnings were good, but not great.” Peers fell about 4% on investor day, so sector weakness made a company-specific hit worse.

33 of 40 Analysts Rate It a Buy as Estimates Climb
Of the 40 analysts who cover Applied, 4 rate it Strong Buy, 29 rate it Buy and 7 rate it Hold. None rate it Sell. Estimates rose while the stock fell. The fiscal 2027 EPS consensus is $18.4672, up from $16.7456 90 days ago. Over the past 30 days, analysts made three upward revisions and no cuts. The stock trades at about 22 times that figure.

Management guided fourth-quarter EPS to about $4.02. DRAM revenue, including HBM packaging, grew 52% year over year. Packaging revenue should grow more than 70% in calendar 2026. Leading-edge logic, DRAM and advanced packaging should account for about 80% of equipment growth.

The $900 camp argues that Applied is well placed in tools for Gate-All-Around transistors, backside power and HBM packaging. CEO Gary Dickerson set the timeline on the earnings call: “Based on the unprecedented visibility we’re receiving from our customers, we expect another strong record year in 2027.”

Lam, KLA and Teradyne Sold Off Too, but Applied Fell Hardest
The whole group fell over the past week, but Applied fell the most.

Lam Research (NASDAQ:LRCX) lost 14.74% to $263.94. Its average target is $375.81, meaning 42.4% upside. Twenty-nine of 35 analysts rate it Buy or Strong Buy.

KLA (NASDAQ:KLAC) dropped 12.82% to $165.74. Its target of $232.77 meaning 40.4% upside. Analysts are more cautious here, with 10 of 29 at Hold.

Teradyne (NASDAQ:TER) slid 15.33% to $325. Its target of $446.47 meaning 37.4% upside, and 12 of 17 analysts are bullish.

Applied has the largest consensus upside in the group. All of these targets are estimates, and they could fall if spending expectations drop.

A 59.83% Gain This Year Survives the Drawdown
Applied trades at $409.29. The average target from 40 analysts is $627.83, meaning 53.4% upside. Targets often lag sharp price moves, so treat that number as one input among several.

Even after the drop, the stock is up 59.83% year to date. The S&P 500 is up 11.93%. Over one year, Applied shares are up 80.75%.

Applied Materials Looks Like an Overcorrection Worth Researching
Applied Materials’ upside case strengthens if DRAM and leading-edge logic deliver the second-half surge management promised and fiscal 2027 earnings land near the $18.4672 consensus. At a forward P/E of about 23, that growth looks undervalued.

The upside story weakens if the investor day silence means equipment spending is peaking. Management claims multi-year visibility yet held back an industry forecast. China fell to 28% of revenue from 35%, and the Other segment’s loss widened to $118 million. A slowdown in AI capex would pull targets down toward the share price.

The data leans positive. Estimates are rising while the share price falls. Applied’s upside is also the largest of any peer. The next earnings report and its 2027 outlook will test that view. (We reverse-engineered what the biggest semiconductor winners looked like early on in a free guide you can download here.)

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.

Late-breaking oral presentation will feature first data from the global ROSETTA Lung-107 Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating pumitamig, a PD-L1×VEGF-A bispecific immunomodulator, plus docetaxel in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer following prior immunotherapy plus chemotherapy Global Phase 2 data for pumitamig plus elfetabart drozuntecan, a B7-H3-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, expand the body of evidence for this novel-novel combination in multiple advanced solid tumors Updates from across the pumitamig clinical development program underscore its pan-tumor potential, including in lung and breast cancer patients with brain metastases and patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms MAINZ, Germany, October 19, 2026 – BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX, “BioNTech” or “the Company”) will present new clinical data from its late-stage oncology pipeline with 16 abstracts spanning the Company’s tumor focus areas, including lung and breast cancer, at the European Society for Medical Oncology (“ESMO”) 2026 Congress held in Madrid, Spain, from October 23–27, 2026.

Key oral presentations will focus on clinical data for pumitamig (BNT327/BMS986545), a PD-L1×VEGF-A bispecific immunomodulator being jointly developed with Bristol Myers Squibb (“BMS”), plus docetaxel in second-line metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (“NSCLC”) as well as pumitamig in combination with elfetabart drozuntecan (elfe-D or BNT324/DB-1311), a B7-H3-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (“ADC”) being jointly developed with Duality Biologics (Suzhou) Co. Ltd. (“DualityBio”), across several advanced solid tumors – complementing the data in lung cancer presented earlier this year. This new clinical data advances BioNTech’s differentiated novel-novel combination approach. Additional presentations for pumitamig and ADCs reflect BioNTech’s tumor-focused strategy aimed at addressing significant unmet medical needs across various stages of disease.

“Sixteen abstracts spanning ten tumor types – this is our significant data presence at this year’s ESMO. It demonstrates momentum for our late-stage oncology pipeline across strategic key assets and tumor areas such as lung and breast cancer,” said Prof. Özlem Türeci, M.D., Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer at BioNTech. “For our PD-L1xVEGF immunomodulator pumitamig, we will be sharing new data that highlights its pan-tumor potential, including in challenging treatment settings where patients still show limited benefit from current standard of care therapies. Our goal is to establish pumitamig as a potential backbone for future combination regimens across multiple tumor types, including novel-novel treatment combinations. At this year's conference, we will showcase the potential of this approach in two presentations featuring ADC combinations, aimed to further enhance outcomes for patients.”

Highlights from BioNTech’s presentations at ESMO 2026:

Pumitamig – an investigational PD-L1×VEGF-A bispecific immunomodulator:

NSCLC: First data from the global ROSETTA Lung-107 Phase 2 clinical trial (NCT06841055) evaluating pumitamig plus docetaxel in patients with metastatic NSCLC whose disease progressed after immunotherapy plus chemotherapy will be presented in a late-breaking oral presentation. This clinical trial extends evidence for pumitamig’s non-small cell lung cancer development program into the second-line setting where there remains high unmet medical need, representing the third global Phase 2 dataset in lung cancer.SCLC and TNBC with brain metastases: Results from a subgroup analysis of two Phase 2 clinical trials (NCT06449209; NCT06449222) evaluating pumitamig plus chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer (“SCLC”) or triple-negative breast cancer (“TNBC”) showed systemic efficacy generally consistent in patients with and without brain metastases. These early data suggest intracranial efficacy and add to the clinical evidence for pumitamig plus chemotherapy in tumor types where brain metastases often occur and remain challenging to treat as many systemic therapies have limited ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.2L neuroendocrine neoplasms: First results from a Phase 2 clinical trial conducted in China (NCT05879055) evaluating pumitamig plus FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) chemotherapy in patients with unresectable neuroendocrine neoplasms after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy showed encouraging preliminary antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile. These data broaden the clinical evidence for pumitamig across diverse tumor types. Novel-novel combination of pumitamig and elfetabart drozuntecan, an investigational B7-H3-targeted ADC:

Advanced solid tumors: First results from the global Phase 2 clinical trial (NCT06953089) evaluating pumitamig in combination with elfetabart drozuntecan in patients with advanced solid tumors showed encouraging preliminary antitumor activity across multiple tumor types and a manageable safety profile, with minimal overlapping toxicities observed. These data support the potential of pumitamig as a backbone in novel treatment combinations, furthering BioNTech’s combination strategy across multiple tumor types with high unmet medical need. BioNTech is advancing a diversified oncology pipeline spanning next-generation immunomodulators, ADCs, and mRNA cancer immunotherapies, both as monotherapies and novel-novel combination approaches. With 13 ongoing Phase 3 trials as well as multiple novel-novel combination trials, BioNTech is focused on developing innovative approaches to address the challenges of cancer treatment among the Company’s tumor focus areas from early- to late-stage conditions.

All abstracts are available through the ESMO website. Further information on BioNTech’s oncology pipeline can be accessed here.

Full presentation details:

CandidateAbstract TitleAbstract Number/Presentation DetailsPumitamig A global phase 2, open-label trial of pumitamig (PD-L1 × VEGF-A bsAb) + docetaxel post-chemoimmunotherapy in mNSCLC: First data from ROSETTA Lung-107Abstract #LBA76
Rapid Oral Presentation
NSCLC, Metastatic
Oct 25, 2026: 8:30 - 10:00am CETEfficacy of pumitamig (PD-L1 × VEGF-A bsAb) plus chemotherapy in patients with SCLC or TNBC with brain metastases: A subgroup analysis of two phase 2 trialsAbstract #1951RO
Rapid Oral Presentation
Investigational Immunotherapy
Oct 24, 2026: 8:30 - 10:00am CESTFirst results from a phase 2 trial of second-line pumitamig (PD-L1 × VEGF-A bsAb) plus chemotherapy in unresectable neuroendocrine neoplasmsAbstract #2393O
Proffered Paper Presentation
NETs and Endocrine Tumours
Oct 26, 2026: 10:15 - 11:45am CETROSETTA RCC-208: A phase 1/2, open-label, randomized study of pumitamig alone or in combination with ipilimumab or cabozantinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC)Abstract #3639TiP
Poster Presentation
Renal Cancer
Oct 23, 2026: 3:15 - 4:00pm CESTROSETTA Gastric-204: A randomized, phase 2/3 study of first-line (1L) pumitamig + chemotherapy versus nivolumab (NIVO) + chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer (GC), gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJC), or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)Abstract #3081eTiP
ePoster Presentation
Oesophagogastric Cancer
Oct 23 - 27, 2026A phase 1/2 trial of first-line pumitamig monotherapy or pumitamig plus ipilimumab in advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ROSETTA HCC-206)Abstract #1762eTiP
ePoster Presentation
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Oct 23 - 27, 2026Pumitamig + elfetabart drozuntecanElfetabart drozuntecan (Elfe-D; DB-1311/BNT324 [B7H3 ADC]) + pumitamig (PD-L1 x VEGF-A bsAb) in patients with advanced solid tumors: First results from a global phase 2 trialAbstract #999O
Proffered Paper Presentation
Developmental Therapeutics
Oct 24, 2026: 2:45 - 4:15pm CESTPumitamig + trastuzumab pamirtecanPumitamig + trastuzumab pamirtecan (T-Pam) in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-low advanced/metastatic breast cancer (a/mBC): Phase 1 results of a phase 1/2, open-label trial (BNT323-03)Abstract #1777P
Poster Presentation
HER2+ Breast Cancer
Oct 24, 2026: 12:00 - 12:45pm CESTElfetabart drozuntecanElfetabart drozuntecan (Elfe-D; DB-1311/BNT324 [B7H3 ADC]) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC): Efficacy and safety data from a Phase 2 dose optimization cohortAbstract #1255P
Poster Presentation
Gynaecological Cancers
Oct 26, 2026: 12:00 - 12:45pm CETBNT324-03: A phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing elfetabart drozuntecan, a B7H3 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), with docetaxel as treatment of patients (pts) with taxane-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)Abstract #2300TiP
Poster Presentation
Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Oct 23, 2026: 3:15 - 4:00pm CESTGotistobartGotistobart plus pembrolizumab demonstrates durable antitumor activity in advanced melanoma refractory or resistant to both prior anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-(L)1 therapiesAbstract #2106P
Poster Presentation
Melanoma
Oct 24, 2026: 12:00 - 12:45 pm CESTBNT317BNT317: An anti–PD-1 × CD39 bispecific antibody demonstrating preclinical antitumor activityAbstract #420P
Poster Presentation
Basic Science
Oct 23, 2026: 3:15 - 4pm CESTBeruzatatug pelitecan (YL202/BNT326)Clinical outcomes of YL202/BNT326 (HER3 ADC) in advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2-null/low breast cancer (BC) in chemotherapy (chemo)-naïve and exposed patients (pts)Abstract #1881P
Poster Presentation
HR+ Breast Cancer
Oct 24, 2026: 12:00 - 12:45pm CESTBNT329A first-in-human phase 1/2 dose-escalation and expansion trial of BNT329 (an anti-carbohydrate antigen 19-9 antibody-drug conjugate [CA19-9 ADC]) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors that express CA19-9Abstract #1076TiP
Poster Presentation
Developmental Therapeutics
Oct 23, 2026: 3:15 - 4:00 pm CESTHealth Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR)Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) from chemotherapy initiation in patients with HR+/HER2– metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in the USAbstract #1880P
Poster Presentation
HR+ Breast Cancer
Oct 24, 2026: 12:00 - 12:45pm CESTReal-world outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab-based chemoimmunotherapy in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the USAAbstract #2705P
Poster Presentation
NSCLC, Metastatic
Oct 26, 2026: 12:00 - 12:45pm CET About BioNTech
BioNTech is a global next generation biopharmaceutical company pioneering novel investigative therapies for cancer and other serious diseases. In oncology, BioNTech is committed to transforming how cancer is treated. Its ambition is to develop innovative medicines with pan-tumor or synergistic potential to address cancer from multiple angles and across the full continuum of the disease from early- to late-stage. Its growing late-stage oncology pipeline comprises complementary treatment approaches spanning immunomodulators, antibody drug conjugates, and mRNA cancer immunotherapies. BioNTech has partnered with multiple global and specialized pharmaceutical collaborators leveraging complementary expertise and resources to accelerate innovation and drive progress, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Duality Biologics, Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, Genmab, MediLink, OncoC4, and Pfizer.

For more information, please visit www.BioNTech.com.

BioNTech Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended, including, but not limited to, statements concerning: the initiation, timing, progress and results of BioNTech’s research and development programs in oncology, including the targeted timing and number of additional potentially registrational trials; BioNTech’s and its collaborators’ current and future preclinical and clinical trials in oncology, including the investigational bispecific immunomodulator pumitamig (BNT327/BMS986545), the investigational anti-CTLA-4 antibody gotistobart (BNT316/ONC-392), the investigational B7H3-targeting ADC elfetabart drozuntecan (BNT324/DB-1311) alone and in combination with pumitamig, the investigational HER2-targeting ADC trastuzumab pamirtecan (BNT323/DB-1303) in combination with pumitamig, the investigational anti-PD-1×CD39 antibody BNT317, the investigational HER3-targeting ADC Beruzatatug pelitecan (Beru-Pel/YL202/BNT326), and the investigational CA19-9-targeting ADC BNT329; the nature and characterization of and timing for release of clinical data across BioNTech’s platforms, which is subject to peer review, regulatory review and market interpretation; the planned next steps in BioNTech’s pipeline programs, including, but not limited to, statements regarding timing or plans for initiation or enrollment of clinical trials, or submission for and receipt of product approvals and potential commercialization with respect to BioNTech’s product candidates; and the potential safety and efficacy of BioNTech’s product candidates. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “may,” “should,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “aims,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words.

The forward-looking statements in this press release are based on BioNTech’s current expectations and beliefs of future events and are neither promises nor guarantees. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond BioNTech’s control, and which could cause actual results to differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: the uncertainties inherent in research and development, including the ability to meet anticipated clinical endpoints, commencement and/or completion dates for clinical trials, projected data release timelines, regulatory submission dates, regulatory approval dates and/or launch dates, as well as risks associated with preclinical and clinical data, including the data discussed in this release, and including the possibility of unfavorable new preclinical, clinical or safety data and further analyses of existing preclinical, clinical or safety data; the nature of the clinical data, which is subject to ongoing peer review, regulatory review and market interpretation; the ability to produce comparable clinical results in future clinical trials; the timing of and BioNTech’s ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval for its product candidates; discussions with regulatory agencies regarding timing and requirements for additional clinical trials; the impact of tariffs and escalations in trade policy; BioNTech’s ability to identify research opportunities and discover and develop investigational medicines; the ability and willingness of BioNTech’s third-party collaborators to continue research and development activities relating to BioNTech’s development candidates and investigational medicines; unforeseen safety issues and potential claims that are alleged to arise from the use of products and product candidates developed or manufactured by BioNTech; BioNTech’s and its collaborators’ ability to commercialize and market its product candidates, if approved; BioNTech’s ability to manage its development and related expenses; regulatory and political developments; BioNTech’s ability to effectively scale its production capabilities and manufacture its products and product candidates; risks relating to the global financial system and markets; and other factors not known to BioNTech at this time.

You should review the risks and uncertainties described under the heading “Risk Factors” in BioNTech’s Report on Form 6-K for the period ended June 30, 2026 and in subsequent filings made by BioNTech with the SEC, which are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date hereof. Except as required by law, BioNTech disclaims any intention or responsibility for updating or revising any forward-looking statements contained in this press release in the event of new information, future developments or otherwise.

CONTACTS

Media Relations
Jasmina Alatovic
[email protected]

Investor Relations
Douglas Maffei, Ph.D.
[email protected]

The Japanese Yen (JPY) is down against its major currency peers at the start of the week. In the European trade, the US Dollar (USD) is up 0.17% at around 158.25 against the Asia-Pacific currency.

Japanese Yen Price Today
The table below shows the percentage change of Japanese Yen (JPY) against listed major currencies today. Japanese Yen was the weakest against the Australian Dollar.

USDEURGBPJPYCADAUDNZDCHFUSD0.16%-0.05%0.11%-0.42%-0.58%-0.27%0.12%EUR-0.16%-0.21%-0.02%-0.55%-0.74%-0.43%-0.02%GBP0.05%0.21%0.17%-0.36%-0.54%-0.24%0.18%JPY-0.11%0.02%-0.17%-0.51%-0.77%-0.36%0.05%CAD0.42%0.55%0.36%0.51%-0.14%0.16%0.56%AUD0.58%0.74%0.54%0.77%0.14%0.31%0.72%NZD0.27%0.43%0.24%0.36%-0.16%-0.31%0.41%CHF-0.12%0.02%-0.18%-0.05%-0.56%-0.72%-0.41%
The heat map shows percentage changes of major currencies against each other. The base currency is picked from the left column, while the quote currency is picked from the top row. For example, if you pick the Japanese Yen from the left column and move along the horizontal line to the US Dollar, the percentage change displayed in the box will represent JPY (base)/USD (quote).

The Japanese currency is under pressure even as Bank of Japan (BoJ) Governor Kazuo Ueda signals that the underlying inflation is close to the 2% target. However, Ueda stated that “anchoring core inflation near 2% growth more crucial.”

Ueda leans cautiously hawkish as inflation loop firms and JGB guidance stays vagueUeda scores 7/10 on FXS Speechtracker versus a 7.4/10 historic average, but the emphasis on “underlying inflation near 2%” and a positive wages–prices loop marks a mildly hawkish tilt for the YEN. The focus on demand-led inflation from robust global AI-related capex, tight domestic labor markets, and the warning that long-term rates could rise if the policy rate is not adjusted properly all support a gradual normalization bias that can underpin YEN yields.

At the same time, Ueda stresses that financial conditions remain accommodative, confirms no shift in the fundamental bond taper approach, and refuses to preannounce emergency JGB measures, which tempers the hawkish tone. For FX, the combination of firmer inflation dynamics and data-dependent rate guidance is modestly supportive for the YEN, but the lack of explicit tightening timelines and the pledge to stabilize the JGB market limit immediate upside and keep carry trades only cautiously challenged.

This week, investors will focus on National Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for September, which will be released on Friday.

Meanwhile, the US Dollar trades slightly higher as French fiscal concerns resurface. As of writing, 10-year French bond yields are up 0.56% to near 4.88% amid civil unrest in France. The US Dollar Index (DXY), which tracks the Greenback’s value against six major currencies, trades 0.12% higher to near 101.90.

USD/JPY Technical Analysis

In the daily chart, USD/JPY trades at 158.20, holding the short-term Moving Average Exponential (20, close) at 157.87. The pair is inside the Symmetrical Triangle formation, reflecting broader indecisiveness among investors.

The Relative Strength Index (14) at 53.92 sits in neutral-positive territory, hinting that upside momentum is steady rather than stretched, leaving room for the pair to consolidate gains while staying supported by the underlying trend.

On the downside, initial support is reinforced by the 20-period exponential moving average near 157.87. A major action in the pair will likely only after a decisive break of the volatility contraction pattern on either side. The pair could slide to 156.00 if the formation breaks on the downside. Looking up, the pair would aim to revisit the 160.00 hurdle if it manages to break the immediate hurdle near 159.00.

(The technical analysis of this story was written with the help of an AI tool. Know more.)

Economic Indicator

National CPI ex Fresh Food (YoY)
Japan’s National Consumer Price Index (CPI), released by the Statistics Bureau of Japan on a monthly basis, measures the price fluctuation of goods and services purchased by households nationwide excluding fresh food, whose prices often fluctuate depending on the weather. The YoY reading compares prices in the reference month to the same month a year earlier. Generally, a high reading is seen as bullish for the Japanese Yen (JPY), while a low reading is seen as bearish.

Read more.

Automobilový koncern Volkswagen plánuje do roku 2030 zmrazit mzdy svých více než 660 000 zaměstnanců. V tiskové zprávě to dnes uvedl německý odborový svaz IG Metall. Volkswagen odmítl komentovat informaci, kterou dříve přinesl i deník Süddeutsche Zeitung. Součástí koncernu Volkswagen je česká Škoda Auto, která má zhruba 36 500 zaměstnanců včetně agenturních. Automobilka na dotazy ohledně možného dopadu plánu na své zaměstnance uvedla, že spekulace nebude komentovat.

"Evropská a světová koncernová závodní rada (E/WKDR) informovala dnes na intranetu zaměstnance o úmyslu vedení koncernu," uvedl v prohlášení IG Metall, který je největším odborovým svazem v Německu. Podle něj plánuje vedení Volkswagenu svým více než 660 000 zaměstnanců na světě zmrazit platy na úrovni letošního roku, a to až do roku 2030. IG Metall uvedl, že pokyn nezvyšovat mzdy koncern už vydal, a to s účinností od začátku října.

Nové opatření podle IG Metall nepočítá se zvyšováním mezd ani o inflaci. "Kvůli inflaci, která zpravidla zvyšuje rok od roku životní náklady, by to mělo za následek snížení reálných mezd zaměstnanců," uvedli odboráři. Podle nich lze počítat se značným odporem zaměstnanců, protože by to v konečném důsledku znamenalo snížení mezd o deset a více procent v příštích čtyřech letech.

"K takovým spekulacím se nevyjadřujeme," řekl agentuře DPA mluvčí Volkswagenu. Po celém světě koncern zaměstnává přes 660 000 lidí, z toho 275 000 v Německu. Škoda Auto, která je jeho součástí, patří mezi největší zaměstnavatele v České republice, kde provozuje tři výrobní závody.

Škoda Auto na dotazy ČTK, zda se případný plán zmrazení mezd vztahuje také na její zaměstnance a zda by mohl ovlivnit kolektivní vyjednávání, neodpověděla konkrétně. "Omlouváme se, ale spekulace nebudeme komentovat," sdělil mluvčí mladoboleslavské automobilky za výrobu a personalistiku Martin Vejdělek.

Odbory KOVO ve Škodě Auto minulý týden uspořádaly v Mladé Boleslavi velké zaměstnanecké shromáždění, na kterém měli vystoupit zástupci odborů i vedení automobilky. Podle odborového čtrnáctideníku Škodovácký odborář chtěly odbory se zaměstnanci hovořit také o rizicích, o kterých podle nich není možné veřejně informovat. Podle firemního časopisu Škoda Mobil jsou další podniková shromáždění naplánována na dnešek v Kvasinách na Rychnovsku a na čtvrtek ve Vrchlabí na Trutnovsku.

Volkswagen se v poslední době potýká s řadou problémů, včetně vysokých nákladů, nadbytečných kapacit, rostoucí čínské konkurence nebo amerických cel. Koncern proto plánuje rozsáhlou restrukturalizaci svých aktivit. Možností je i uzavření čtyř závodů v Německu. Škodě se na rozdíl od mateřského koncernu daří. Celosvětový odbyt automobilky Škoda Auto se v letošních prvních třech čtvrtletích meziročně zvýšil o 6,1 procenta na 812.400 vozů. Odbyt celého koncernu za tři čtvrtletí naopak klesl o devět procent zhruba na šest milionů vozů.

Dozorčí rada Volkswagenu minulý měsíc schválila největší restrukturalizační plán v historii podniku. Volkswagen mimo jiné plánuje zrušit do konce desetiletí po celém světě až 100.000 pracovních míst či omezit počet modelů. Škoda Auto opakovaně uvedla, že nový transformační plán koncernu nemá na její aktivity žádný přímý dopad.

Už na konci září Volkswagen uvedl, že přezkoumá budoucí mzdovou dohodu s odborovým svazem IG Metall a k 31. prosinci letošního roku vypoví několik stávajících kolektivních smluv, aby získal větší prostor pro plánované snižování počtu zaměstnanců. Odbory oznámený krok označily za velké zklamání a pohrozily vyhrocením sporu včetně stávek. Začaly by od 1. ledna, kdy vyprší současné příměří.

, /PRNewswire/ -- Following the decision of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan to sell its majority stake in Trivium Packaging B.V. ("Trivium") to Silgan Holdings Inc. (NYSE: SLGN) ("Silgan") and funds affiliated with American Industrial Partners ("AIP"), Ardagh Group, as minority joint venture partner, has entered into the agreement to sell its entire ~42% stake in Trivium. The transaction values Trivium at approximately $3.4 billion.

Trivium is a supplier of metal packaging in the form of cans and aerosol containers, serving a broad range of end-use categories, including food, seafood, pet food and nutrition, as well as beauty and personal care. Trivium recorded revenues of $3 billion in 2025. For more information, visit www.TriviumPackaging.com.

The proposed sale is expected to close in mid-2027 and is subject to required regulatory approvals, completion of applicable works council consultation processes, and satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. The transaction is expected to result in estimated net cash proceeds to Ardagh Group of approximately $90 million, which are expected to be used towards reinvestment in the business or deleveraging.

Mark Porto, Executive Chairman of Ardagh Group, said:
"The sale agreement of Ardagh Group's minority investment stake in Trivium represents a favourable outcome for all stakeholders. Trivium's combination with Silgan creates a highly complementary business. For Ardagh Group, the disposal of a non-core investment helps to simplify our overall business and organisational structure, with the net cash proceeds expected to be used towards reinvestment in the business or towards debt reduction."

Evercore is serving as lead financial advisor to Trivium and its shareholders. J.P. Morgan and BMO Capital Markets are also serving as financial advisors in connection with the transaction.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP are serving as legal counsel to Trivium and its shareholders.

About Ardagh Group
Ardagh Holdings S.A. is the ultimate parent company of Ardagh Group, which is a global supplier of inherently recyclable metal beverage and glass container packaging for brand owners around the world. Ardagh Group operates 58 metal and glass production facilities in 16 countries, employing approximately 19,000 people with sales of approximately $9.6 billion.

Disclaimer

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains "forward-looking" statements. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to proposals, predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical facts and may be "forward looking" statements. Forward-looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated, many of which may be beyond our control, including, but not limited to, statements regarding any potential transaction. Forward looking statements may be identified through the use of words such as "expects," "will," "anticipates," "estimates," "believes," or by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," "should" or "might" occur. We caution you that the forward-looking information presented in this press release is not a guarantee of future events, and that actual events may differ materially from those made in or suggested by the forward-looking information contained in this press release.  Under no circumstances should the inclusion of such forward-looking statements in this press release be regarded as a representation or warranty by us or any other person with respect to the achievement of results set out in such statements or that the underlying assumptions used will in fact be the case. Therefore, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking information presented herein is made only as of the date of this press release, and we do not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information to reflect changes in assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events, or otherwise.

SOURCE Ardagh Group S.A.

, /PRNewswire/ -- Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (TSX: CURA) (OTCQX: CURLF) ("Curaleaf" or the "Company"), a leading international provider of consumer and medical cannabis products, today responded to Aurora Cannabis Inc.'s ("Aurora") Notice of Change to its directors' circular, dated October 14, 2026, in which Aurora's Board again recommended that shareholders reject Curaleaf's enhanced proposal.

"Aurora's Board has a fiduciary duty to shareholders, which requires it not to take illogical steps to keep the highest bidder out of the room. The Board has locked out Curaleaf while granting diligence access to unnamed parties and cites selective sources to support its agenda. None of that reflects a board acting in the company's or shareholders' best interests. Shareholders deserve the facts, and the facts favor engagement, not obstruction," said Boris Jordan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Curaleaf.

The real facts behind Aurora's key claims:

MYTH: "Aurora's process is designed to deliver the best outcome for shareholders."

FACT: Aurora is giving others the keys while locking Curaleaf out of the building.

Curaleaf – the only bidder with a binding offer for Aurora and real money on the table – continues to be denied diligence access despite repeated outreach and requests. Meanwhile, Aurora's Notice of Change discloses that it "has entered into confidentiality and standstill agreements with a number of parties who have been examining confidential financial, operating and other relevant information relating to Aurora."
These are not the actions of a company that is serious about maximizing value for shareholders. Independent analysts agree. As Seaport Research Partners wrote on October 15: "We also question why ACB is willing to provide other potential buyers access to due diligence while refusing to engage with CURLF, particularly if its goal is to maximize shareholder value."

MYTH: "The revised Hostile Bid remains inadequate and significantly undervalues Aurora."

FACT: Curaleaf's enhanced offer represents an 86% premium to Aurora's unaffected 30-day volume-weighted average share price – and an even higher premium when you factor in Aurora's cash and equivalents, as Aurora continues to point out.

Cash is ascribed value on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Investors don't pay a premium on cash – it doesn't make economic sense, which is why the ex-cash premium is relevant. The enhanced offer represents an astonishing 217% premium on an ex-cash basis.

FACT: Aurora sold shares under its ATM program, without any price limit and sold for prices as low as $2.60 per share in July 2026.

How can Aurora argue the enhanced offer is too low, while they accelerated their ATM issuances and dilution at prices as low as $2.60?
Aurora value is appropriate for the Board to sell at $2.60, but not at $5.00, a 92% premium to that level?
The Aurora rhetoric does not match the facts. ATB Capital Markets wrote on October 6: "We believe the revised bid is favorable for Aurora shareholders and offers more than the fair value of Aurora as a standalone."

MYTH: "…Curaleaf shares [are] at an inflated valuation."

FACT: The implied Aurora transaction multiple of 14.3x 2026 Adjusted EBITDA is higher than Curaleaf's multiple of 13.7x (IFRS).

Aurora argues the enhanced offer is undervalued and Curaleaf's shares are overvalued, yet the implied multiple for Aurora is higher than Curaleaf's multiple.
Also, Aurora's own financial advisor disagrees with Aurora – they conclude in their opinion that the trading price of Curaleaf shares can be reasonably regarded as a proxy for their underlying value.
Too high for Curaleaf, but not high enough for Aurora – again, the Aurora rhetoric does not match the facts.

MYTH: "Curaleaf continues to propose to use Aurora Shareholders' own cash to acquire control of Aurora without paying fairly."

FACT: That's not how acquisitions work.

Once a transaction closes, cash on the target balance sheet belongs to the combined company. The only relevant question is whether shareholders are receiving fair value for their shares today, which includes the corresponding cash on the balance sheet.
The ex-cash premium of 217% premium is completely contrary to Aurora's assertions of "not paying fairly" – the premium represents one of the highest premiums in Canada in the last ten years.
By Aurora's own logic, any acquirer of a company holding cash on its balance sheet would be "funding" the deal with the target's own money – a standard that would apply to virtually every cash transaction ever done.

MYTH: "The Hostile Bid remains opportunistic."

FACT: Continued, erroneous focus on historical results.

Aurora continues to focus on what its business was, ignoring its two most recent quarterly results, where Adjusted EBITDA declined 63% from the previous two quarters.
Aurora attributes the decline to the "industry-wide headwind" of Canadian medical reimbursement rates, not "any lasting deterioration in Aurora's business." But that reimbursement change only affected its most recent quarter – it doesn't explain the decline across both of the last two quarters. That's exactly what it is – a permanent reduction and deterioration in the revenue and profitability of the business going forward.

FACT: Opportunism cuts both ways.

Aurora's Special Committee is actively soliciting third-party bidders under the exact same market conditions it says make Curaleaf's offer opportunistic. Shareholders should ask why interest from other parties is framed as value-creating while Curaleaf's is dismissed as opportunistic.

MYTH: "The Hostile Bid remains subject to inappropriate conditionality."

FACT: Curaleaf's bid is subject to market standard conditions.  Further, if conditions are the concern, Aurora knows how to fix it: engagement.

Conditions are a function of negotiation, and Aurora has not engaged with Curaleaf on deal terms at any point in this process.

MYTH: "Curaleaf has not adequately supported its estimated synergies."

FACT: Aurora wants it both ways – deny access to diligence information, but then demand more disclosure.

Aurora argues that Curaleaf's "lack of access to Aurora's confidential information is a risk it assumed when it chose to launch its Hostile Bid" and that this "does not relieve it of its disclosure obligations in respect of a figure it has made central to the Hostile Bid."
Yet Aurora has already granted diligence access to other parties. If disclosure is truly "material" to shareholders, Aurora should extend Curaleaf the same access to substantiate, refine, or even increase its synergy estimate.
Insisting on full disclosure while keeping the only public bidder with a binding offer out of the data room isn't a credibility argument. It is a process choice Aurora's Board is making unilaterally, contrary to its stated objectives of maximizing shareholder value.

MYTH: "The Updated Fort Capital Opinion confirms the offer is inadequate."

FACT: Shareholders should know how Aurora's financial advisor is paid.

By its own disclosure, Fort Capital will receive advisory fees "which may be contingent on the Company arriving at an alternative transaction, or circumstances where no transaction is completed at all."
Shareholders should weigh that disclosure carefully when assessing the opinion's independence, especially in light of Fort Capital not providing or disclosing any supporting analysis to Aurora shareholders of its stated conclusion.
In most deals, a special committee gets a second fairness opinion from a truly independent advisor – why has Aurora not done that?

Curaleaf remains ready to engage immediately in a constructive diligence process. For more information on Curaleaf's enhanced proposal, visit grow.curaleaf.com.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

This document does not constitute an offer to buy or the solicitation of an offer to sell any securities. The offer (the "Offer") by Curaleaf to purchase all outstanding common shares ("Common Shares") of Aurora is made solely by the Offer to Purchase and Circular dated August 18, 2026, as amended by the Notice of Variation, Change and Extension dated October 6, 2026 and as may be further amended or supplemented (as so amended, the "Offer to Purchase").

SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE OFFER TO PURCHASE AND CIRCULAR, THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM F-80, THE TENDER OFFER STATEMENT ON SCHEDULE 14D-1F, AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Free copies are available at www.sec.gov or by contacting the Information Agent, Carson Proxy Advisors, at 1-800-530-5189 (toll-free), 416-751-2066 (local/text), or [email protected].

NOTICE TO U.S. SHAREHOLDERS

The enforcement by investors of civil liabilities under the federal securities laws may be affected adversely by the fact that the subject company is located in a foreign country, and that some or all of its officers and directors are residents of a foreign country.

Investors should be aware that the bidder or its affiliates, directly or indirectly, may bid for or make purchases of the issuer's securities subject to the offer or of the issuer's related securities, or of the bidder's securities to be distributed or of the bidder's related securities, during the period of the tender offer, as permitted by applicable Canadian laws or provincial laws or regulations.

Curaleaf has filed with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form F-80 under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule 14D-1F under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Offer is being conducted in accordance with Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Regulation 14E.

THE OFFER AND THE OFFEROR SHARES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE SEC OR ANY U.S. STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION, NOR HAS ANY SUCH AUTHORITY PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THIS DOCUMENT. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

The Offeror Shares have not been registered or otherwise qualified for offer and sale in certain U.S. states where shareholders may reside. No offer is made in those states except to qualifying Exempt Institutional Investors as described in the Offer to Purchase and Circular.

AURORA INFORMATION

Information concerning Aurora herein is based solely on Aurora's publicly available filings and other public sources. Aurora has not reviewed this document. Neither Curaleaf nor its officers or directors assumes responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The disposition of Common Shares and the acquisition of Offeror Shares may have U.S. and Canadian tax consequences; shareholders should consult their own tax advisors. Curaleaf's disclosure documents are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.

About Curaleaf Holdings

Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (TSX: CURA) (OTCQX: CURLF) ("Curaleaf") is a leading international provider of consumer products in cannabis with a mission to enhance lives by cultivating, sharing and celebrating the power of the plant. As a high-growth cannabis company known for quality, expertise and reliability, the Company and its brands, including Curaleaf, Select, Grassroots, Find, Dark Heart, and Anthem provide industry-leading service, product selection and accessibility across the medical and adult use markets. Curaleaf International is powered by a strong presence in all stages of the supply chain. Its unique distribution network throughout Europe, Canada and Australasia brings together pioneering science and research with cutting-edge cultivation, extraction and production. Curaleaf is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol CURA and trades on the OTCQX market under the symbol CURLF. For more information, please visit https://ir.curaleaf.com. 

Contacts

Media Contact
Kekst CNC
[email protected] 

Investor Contact
Curaleaf Holdings, Inc.
[email protected] 

Shareholder Contact
Carson Proxy Advisors
North American Toll Free Phone: 1-800-530-5189
Local (Collect outside North America): 416-751-2066
Email: [email protected] 

SOURCE Curaleaf Holdings, Inc.

NEW YORK, Oct. 19, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against The Chemours Company (NYSE:CC) and certain of the company’s senior executives for securities fraud after a significant stock drop resulting from potential violations of the federal securities laws.

If you invested in Chemours, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/chemours-class-action-lawsuit.

Key Details of the Chemours ($CC) Class Action:

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2026Alleged Misconduct: Securities fraud alleging Chemours misrepresented the strength of demand for its Opteon productsStock Drop: August 5, 2026 – 18.63% Stock DropCourt: U.S. District Court for the District of DelawareAction: Contact BFA Law to discuss your rights Investors have until December 7, 2026 to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Chemours securities. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. It is captioned Darcy v. The Chemours Company, No. 26-cv-1299.

Why is Chemours Being Sued for Securities Fraud?

Chemours offers a range of industrial and specialty chemical products, including Opteon, a set of refrigeration chemicals with a reduced ozone-depletion footprint. In late 2020, Congress enacted the U.S. AIM Act, which directed the EPA to oversee the transition to alternative refrigerants that present a lesser impact to the ozone layer.

According to the complaint, Chemours stated that continued adoption of the AIM Act drove sustained growth for its Opteon products. Chemours stated that the “sustained double-digit” Opteon expansion would be “driven by the continued regulatory adoption” of the AIM Act. What’s more, Chemours provided 2026 net sales guidance of 3% to 5% growth and 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance of $800M – $900M, driven by “higher . . . demand” in its Opteon segment.

As alleged, Chemours failed to disclose that customers were already oversupplied with Opteon products because of the AIM Act transition, leading to an “oversupplied channel heading into 2026.”

Why did Chemours’s Stock Drop?

On August 4, 2026, Chemours announced Q2 2026 financial results, revealing an approximately 1% year-over-year decrease in net sales and cutting 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance by about 11% (to $775M – $825M from $800M – $900M). Chemours also revealed that customers had “built additional inventory” of Opteon products the prior year, that aftermarket channels had been filled, and that Chemours was selling into an “oversupplied channel heading into 2026.”

On this news, Chemours’s stock dropped $3.34 per share, or 18.63%, from a closing price of $17.93 per share on August 4, 2026, to $14.59 per share on August 5, 2026.

Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/chemours-class-action-lawsuit.

What Can You Do?

If you invested in Chemours, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis; there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses.

Submit your information by visiting:

https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/chemours-class-action-lawsuit

Or contact:
Adam McCall
[email protected]
212.789.3619

Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?

BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named “Elite Trial Lawyers” by the National Law Journal, “Litigation Stars” by Benchmark Litigation, among the top “500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” by Lawdragon, “Titans of the Plaintiffs’ Bar” by Law360, and “SuperLawyers” by Thomson Reuters.

Most recently, The Legal 500 awarded BFA the most client satisfaction accolades of any plaintiff’s securities litigation law firm, with clients noting: “[t]here is no better service provider in the practice area,” “[t]he interest of the client is always front and center,” and “[t]here isn’t a better firm in this space.” One testimonial described the firm as “nimble and entrepreneurial,” with a “relentless focus on adding value for clients.”

BFA’s notable successes include a recovery of over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.’s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd.

For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com.

https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/chemours-class-action-lawsuit

Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Robertson Stephens Wealth Management LLC increased its holdings in Analog Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:ADI – Free Report) by 71.0% during the third quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The firm owned 4,613 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock after purchasing an additional 1,916 shares during the quarter. Robertson Stephens Wealth Management LLC’s holdings in Analog Devices were worth $1,830,000 as of its most recent filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Other hedge funds have also added to or reduced their stakes in the company. BlackRock Inc. purchased a new position in shares of Analog Devices in the second quarter worth about $18,610,868,000. Bank of America Corp DE bought a new stake in shares of Analog Devices in the 2nd quarter valued at about $3,573,081,000. Legal & General Group Plc bought a new stake in shares of Analog Devices in the 2nd quarter valued at about $1,525,167,000. Bank of New York Mellon Corp bought a new stake in shares of Analog Devices in the 2nd quarter valued at about $1,326,066,000. Finally, Primecap Management Co. CA purchased a new stake in Analog Devices during the 2nd quarter valued at about $1,242,479,000. 86.81% of the stock is owned by institutional investors.

Analyst Ratings Changes Several equities analysts recently issued reports on the company. Piper Sandler set a $460.00 price target on Analog Devices in a research report on Tuesday, September 8th. Arete Research lifted their price target on Analog Devices from $487.00 to $490.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research note on Thursday, August 20th. Needham & Company LLC boosted their price objective on Analog Devices from $440.00 to $450.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research report on Thursday, August 20th. Morgan Stanley boosted their price objective on Analog Devices from $428.00 to $458.00 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a research report on Thursday, August 20th. Finally, Sanford C. Bernstein raised Analog Devices from a “market perform” rating to an “outperform” rating and increased their price objective for the company from $430.00 to $465.00 in a research note on Wednesday, August 19th. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a Strong Buy rating, twenty-nine have issued a Buy rating and three have issued a Hold rating to the stock. According to data from MarketBeat.com, the company presently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $460.09.

Get Our Latest Stock Analysis on Analog Devices Analog Devices Price Performance Shares of NASDAQ:ADI opened at $395.44 on Monday. The stock’s 50-day moving average is $382.76 and its 200 day moving average is $387.11. The company has a market cap of $191.62 billion, a PE ratio of 46.91, a P/E/G ratio of 1.22 and a beta of 1.22. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.20, a current ratio of 1.25 and a quick ratio of 0.91. Analog Devices, Inc. has a 1 year low of $223.47 and a 1 year high of $445.91.

Analog Devices (NASDAQ:ADI – Get Free Report) last released its quarterly earnings data on Wednesday, August 19th. The semiconductor company reported $3.45 earnings per share for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $3.34 by $0.11. Analog Devices had a return on equity of 16.39% and a net margin of 29.79%. The business had revenue of $4.02 billion during the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $3.92 billion. During the same quarter last year, the business posted $2.05 EPS. The business’s revenue was up 39.2% on a year-over-year basis. Analog Devices has set its Q4 2026 guidance at 3.710-4.010 EPS. Sell-side analysts anticipate that Analog Devices, Inc. will post 12.99 EPS for the current year.

Analog Devices Announces Dividend The firm also recently announced a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Tuesday, September 15th. Investors of record on Tuesday, September 1st were issued a dividend of $1.10 per share. This represents a $4.40 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 1.1%. The ex-dividend date was Tuesday, September 1st. Analog Devices’s dividend payout ratio is currently 52.19%.

Insider Activity at Analog Devices In related news, CFO Richard C. Puccio, Jr. sold 2,683 shares of Analog Devices stock in a transaction on Wednesday, August 26th. The shares were sold at an average price of $374.56, for a total value of $1,004,944.48. Following the sale, the chief financial officer owned 54,177 shares in the company, valued at $20,292,537.12. The trade was a 4.72% decrease in their ownership of the stock. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available at this link. The transaction was executed under a pre-arranged Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. Also, insider Vivek Jain sold 3,305 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction on Thursday, October 8th. The shares were sold at an average price of $406.58, for a total transaction of $1,343,746.90. Following the transaction, the insider directly owned 40,428 shares in the company, valued at approximately $16,437,216.24. The trade was a 7.56% decrease in their ownership of the stock. The SEC filing for this sale provides additional information. Insiders sold a total of 50,936 shares of company stock worth $19,430,764 over the last quarter. 0.36% of the stock is owned by corporate insiders.

About Analog Devices (Free Report)

Analog Devices, Inc (NASDAQ: ADI) is a global semiconductor company that designs and manufactures analog, mixed-signal and digital signal-processing technologies. Its products convert, condition and process real-world signals such as temperature, pressure, sound, motion, light and electrical power, helping electronic systems interpret and respond to physical environments.

The company offers a broad portfolio of integrated circuits, power-management products, amplifiers, data converters, sensors, radio-frequency and microwave components, connectivity solutions and embedded processors.

Read More Five stocks we like better than Analog Devices These 3 Green Stocks Have a Growth Story That Goes Far Beyond Washington Meta Claims Frontier-Class AI Status With New Muse Wonder Models Berkshire Just Backed This Little-Known Stock—Should You Chase It? Broadcom’s CEO Sees Years of AI Demand But Warns of a Bigger Threat to the Boom Want to see what other hedge funds are holding ADI? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Analog Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:ADI – Free Report).

Receive News & Ratings for Analog Devices Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Analog Devices and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

Onyx Bridge Wealth Group LLC purchased a new position in shares of Monster Beverage Corporation (NASDAQ:MNST – Free Report) in the 3rd quarter, according to its most recent 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The firm purchased 17,105 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $712,000.

Other institutional investors have also modified their holdings of the company. BlackRock Inc. purchased a new stake in shares of Monster Beverage in the 2nd quarter valued at $5,770,004,000. Ninety One UK Ltd lifted its stake in Monster Beverage by 89.1% during the 3rd quarter. Ninety One UK Ltd now owns 13,105,329 shares of the company’s stock worth $545,444,000 after acquiring an additional 6,175,047 shares in the last quarter. Bank of America Corp DE lifted its stake in Monster Beverage by 0.8% during the 1st quarter. Bank of America Corp DE now owns 12,532,462 shares of the company’s stock worth $908,102,000 after acquiring an additional 99,168 shares in the last quarter. Arrowstreet Capital Limited Partnership boosted its holdings in Monster Beverage by 23.7% during the 1st quarter. Arrowstreet Capital Limited Partnership now owns 7,637,514 shares of the company’s stock valued at $553,414,000 after acquiring an additional 1,461,167 shares during the period. Finally, Wellington Management Group LLP boosted its holdings in Monster Beverage by 27.8% during the 2nd quarter. Wellington Management Group LLP now owns 7,465,974 shares of the company’s stock valued at $717,629,000 after acquiring an additional 1,624,416 shares during the period. 72.36% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.

Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades Several equities analysts have weighed in on the company. Weiss Ratings raised Monster Beverage from a “buy (b-)” rating to a “buy (b)” rating in a research report on Tuesday, September 8th. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft reissued a “hold” rating and set a $100.00 price target (up from $98.00) on shares of Monster Beverage in a research report on Monday, August 10th. BMO Capital Markets reissued a “market perform” rating and set a $47.50 price target (up from $36.50) on shares of Monster Beverage in a research report on Monday, July 20th. Morgan Stanley raised their price objective on shares of Monster Beverage from $103.00 to $110.00 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a research note on Friday, August 7th. Finally, Piper Sandler lifted their price objective on shares of Monster Beverage from $47.00 to $50.50 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a report on Friday, August 7th. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a Strong Buy rating, fifteen have given a Buy rating and eight have assigned a Hold rating to the company. According to MarketBeat.com, the company currently has an average rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus price target of $74.07.

Get Our Latest Report on Monster Beverage Monster Beverage Price Performance NASDAQ MNST opened at $45.73 on Monday. Monster Beverage Corporation has a 52 week low of $32.94 and a 52 week high of $50.17. The stock has a market capitalization of $89.59 billion, a PE ratio of 42.34, a price-to-earnings-growth ratio of 2.84 and a beta of 0.49. The firm has a 50 day moving average of $44.70 and a two-hundred day moving average of $44.16.

Monster Beverage (NASDAQ:MNST – Get Free Report) last announced its quarterly earnings data on Thursday, August 6th. The company reported $0.60 earnings per share for the quarter, beating analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.58 by $0.02. Monster Beverage had a net margin of 23.08% and a return on equity of 26.02%. The business had revenue of $2.50 billion for the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $2.43 billion. During the same period last year, the business earned $0.26 EPS. The company’s revenue was up 20.2% on a year-over-year basis. On average, equities research analysts expect that Monster Beverage Corporation will post 1.16 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.

Monster Beverage Profile (Free Report)

Monster Beverage Corporation is a global beverage company focused primarily on the development, marketing, sale and distribution of energy drinks. Its portfolio includes the flagship Monster Energy brand, along with products marketed under brands such as NOS, Full Throttle, Reign, Burn and Mother. The company offers a range of energy drinks in different flavors and formulations, including products positioned for performance, fitness and everyday consumption.

The company traces its origins to Hansen Natural Corporation, which was founded in 1935 and changed its name to Monster Beverage Corporation in 2012 as the Monster Energy brand became increasingly central to its business.

Read More Five stocks we like better than Monster Beverage These 3 Green Stocks Have a Growth Story That Goes Far Beyond Washington Meta Claims Frontier-Class AI Status With New Muse Wonder Models Berkshire Just Backed This Little-Known Stock—Should You Chase It? Broadcom’s CEO Sees Years of AI Demand But Warns of a Bigger Threat to the Boom

Receive News & Ratings for Monster Beverage Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Monster Beverage and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

Cyndeo Wealth Partners LLC lowered its position in Diamondback Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:FANG – Free Report) by 81.5% during the third quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The firm owned 1,742 shares of the oil and natural gas company’s stock after selling 7,696 shares during the period. Cyndeo Wealth Partners LLC’s holdings in Diamondback Energy were worth $320,000 as of its most recent SEC filing.

Other institutional investors and hedge funds have also modified their holdings of the company. V Square Quantitative Management LLC grew its holdings in Diamondback Energy by 11.2% in the third quarter. V Square Quantitative Management LLC now owns 2,651 shares of the oil and natural gas company’s stock valued at $487,000 after purchasing an additional 267 shares during the period. Comprehensive Financial Consultants Institutional Inc. grew its stake in shares of Diamondback Energy by 1.2% during the 3rd quarter. Comprehensive Financial Consultants Institutional Inc. now owns 16,288 shares of the oil and natural gas company’s stock valued at $2,994,000 after buying an additional 196 shares during the period. Assenagon Asset Management S.A. grew its stake in shares of Diamondback Energy by 126.3% during the 3rd quarter. Assenagon Asset Management S.A. now owns 626,847 shares of the oil and natural gas company’s stock valued at $115,221,000 after buying an additional 349,801 shares during the period. Summit Financial Wealth Advisors LLC grew its stake in shares of Diamondback Energy by 8.1% during the 3rd quarter. Summit Financial Wealth Advisors LLC now owns 2,167 shares of the oil and natural gas company’s stock valued at $398,000 after buying an additional 163 shares during the period. Finally, State of Alaska Department of Revenue increased its holdings in shares of Diamondback Energy by 1.8% during the 3rd quarter. State of Alaska Department of Revenue now owns 19,367 shares of the oil and natural gas company’s stock worth $3,559,000 after buying an additional 348 shares during the last quarter. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 90.01% of the company’s stock.

Wall Street Analysts Forecast Growth A number of analysts have recently issued reports on FANG shares. Barclays decreased their target price on Diamondback Energy from $232.00 to $221.00 and set an “overweight” rating for the company in a report on Monday, August 17th. Scotiabank initiated coverage on shares of Diamondback Energy in a research report on Wednesday. They set a “sector outperform” rating and a $250.00 price target on the stock. JPMorgan Chase & Co. boosted their price objective on shares of Diamondback Energy from $211.00 to $233.00 in a research note on Wednesday, August 5th. Stifel Nicolaus initiated coverage on shares of Diamondback Energy in a research note on Thursday, September 10th. They issued a “buy” rating and a $259.00 target price on the stock. Finally, Susquehanna increased their price target on Diamondback Energy from $255.00 to $265.00 in a report on Wednesday, August 5th. Two equities research analysts have rated the stock with a Strong Buy rating, twenty-four have assigned a Buy rating and five have issued a Hold rating to the company’s stock. Based on data from MarketBeat, the company currently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $226.71.

Read Our Latest Stock Analysis on FANG Diamondback Energy Stock Performance FANG opened at $203.95 on Monday. The firm’s 50 day moving average is $197.24 and its 200-day moving average is $194.19. Diamondback Energy, Inc. has a 52-week low of $137.03 and a 52-week high of $216.90. The company has a quick ratio of 0.45, a current ratio of 0.47 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.25. The firm has a market capitalization of $57.11 billion, a P/E ratio of 39.76 and a beta of 0.55.

Diamondback Energy (NASDAQ:FANG – Get Free Report) last announced its earnings results on Monday, August 3rd. The oil and natural gas company reported $6.48 earnings per share for the quarter, beating the consensus estimate of $6.08 by $0.40. Diamondback Energy had a net margin of 8.58% and a return on equity of 10.10%. The business had revenue of $5.56 billion during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $4.89 billion. During the same period in the prior year, the firm earned $2.38 earnings per share. The business’s quarterly revenue was up 51.2% compared to the same quarter last year. Analysts expect that Diamondback Energy, Inc. will post 21.07 EPS for the current fiscal year.

Diamondback Energy Announces Dividend The firm also recently announced a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Thursday, August 20th. Stockholders of record on Thursday, August 13th were paid a dividend of $1.10 per share. The ex-dividend date was Thursday, August 13th. This represents a $4.40 annualized dividend and a dividend yield of 2.2%. Diamondback Energy’s dividend payout ratio (DPR) is currently 85.77%.

Insider Activity In related news, Director Charles Meloy sold 33,333 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Monday, October 5th. The stock was sold at an average price of $183.74, for a total value of $6,124,605.42. Following the completion of the transaction, the director owned 759,864 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $139,617,411.36. This represents a 4.20% decrease in their ownership of the stock. The sale was disclosed in a document filed with the SEC, which is accessible through this link. The transaction was executed under a pre-arranged Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. Also, Director Travis D. Stice sold 75,000 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Friday, September 11th. The shares were sold at an average price of $204.31, for a total value of $15,323,250.00. Following the sale, the director owned 49,727 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $10,159,723.37. This trade represents a 60.13% decrease in their position. The SEC filing for this sale provides additional information. Insiders have sold 141,666 shares of company stock valued at $28,061,456 over the last 90 days. Insiders own 0.64% of the company’s stock.

Diamondback Energy Company Profile (Free Report)

Diamondback Energy, Inc is an independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition, development, exploration and exploitation of unconventional, onshore oil and natural gas reserves. The company’s operations are concentrated in the Permian Basin of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, particularly the Midland and Delaware Basins.

Diamondback produces crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids from horizontal wells and related infrastructure. Its activities include drilling and completing wells, operating gathering and processing assets, and managing midstream services that support production.

Read More Five stocks we like better than Diamondback Energy These 3 Green Stocks Have a Growth Story That Goes Far Beyond Washington Meta Claims Frontier-Class AI Status With New Muse Wonder Models Berkshire Just Backed This Little-Known Stock—Should You Chase It? Broadcom’s CEO Sees Years of AI Demand But Warns of a Bigger Threat to the Boom Want to see what other hedge funds are holding FANG? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Diamondback Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:FANG – Free Report).

Receive News & Ratings for Diamondback Energy Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Diamondback Energy and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

TLDR

Mt. Gox has moved its creditor repayment deadline from Oct. 31, 2026, to Oct. 31, 2027, after receiving court approval.
Trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi said many creditors remain unpaid due to incomplete procedures or problems during processing.
Base, Early Lump-Sum and Intermediate Repayments are largely complete for creditors who met all requirements.
The notice did not share how many creditors are unpaid or how much Bitcoin is left to distribute.
Mt. Gox held more than 34,500 BTC in June 2026, after moving 10,422 BTC worth about $739 million.

Mt. Gox has moved its creditor repayment deadline back by one year. The new deadline is Oct. 31, 2027, after a court approved the change.

The deadline had been set for Oct. 31, 2026. The extension gives creditors more time to finish the steps needed to receive their funds.

The change was announced in an Oct. 16 notice from rehabilitation trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi. He said many creditors still have not been paid.

Why Mt. Gox Extended the Bitcoin Repayment Deadline
Kobayashi said some creditors have not completed the required procedures. Others finished the steps but ran into problems while their payments were being processed.

According to the trustee, Base Repayment, Early Lump-Sum Repayment and Intermediate Repayment are largely complete. This applies to creditors who submitted the right information and had no issues.

The court-approved extension gives the trustee 12 more months to keep making payments. Distributions will continue where repayment remains reasonably practicable.

The notice did not add a new repayment category. It also did not change the amounts creditors are entitled to receive.

The announcement did not give an updated count of unpaid creditors. It also did not say how much Bitcoin or other assets are left, or give a timetable for individual payments.

A Long History of Delays
The original repayment target was October 2023. Since then, the deadline has been pushed back several times.

In October 2024, the trustee moved the deadline to October 2025. In October 2025, it was moved again to Oct. 31, 2026. At that time, about 19,500 creditors had received payments.

Mt. Gox was a Tokyo-based exchange that once handled about 70% of global Bitcoin trading. It filed for bankruptcy in 2014 after losing about 850,000 BTC.

The exchange later entered civil rehabilitation. Repayments in Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash began in July 2024 through exchanges including Kraken and Bitstamp. Custodian BitGo also received Bitcoin as part of the process.

Kraken confirmed it received creditor funds on July 16, 2024. It then began crediting eligible users, some of whom had waited more than a decade.

Mt. Gox still held large Bitcoin reserves this year. On June 2, it moved 10,422 BTC worth about $739 million, according to blockchain data cited by Arkham Intelligence.

At the time of that June report, Mt. Gox held more than 34,500 BTC. Those figures are historical and do not show the current balance.

The Oct. 16 notice did not disclose a new wallet balance or confirm further transfers. It also did not name any exchange set to receive another distribution.

Creditors can also use a separate inquiry form without logging in. However, the trustee said identity verification may be harder in those cases.

Creditors can send questions through the online rehabilitation claims system. The trustee warned that responses may be delayed because of the high volume of inquiries.

The bounce follows a week of hot U.S. inflation data and $228.6 million in spot bitcoin ETF outflows.

Bitcoin returns above $82K

Posted October 19, 2026 at 6:45 am ET.

A pullback in oil and a firmer start for U.S. stock futures are giving bitcoin room to climb past $82,000 on Monday.

BTC changed hands near $83,007 as of 09:38 UTC, up about 1.1% over 24 hours, according to CoinGecko data. Over that 24-hour window it traded between $80,672 and $83,035, while ether rose about 0.8% and Solana about 1.7%, CoinGecko data showed.

Get Unchained’s crypto news in your inbox with the free Unchained Daily newsletter.

Levels Analysts Flagged Monday’s price leaves bitcoin above the average price U.S. spot ETFs paid for their coins, which onchain analytics firm Glassnode put at about $81,500 in its Oct. 14 weekly report. Glassnode’s Frederik Theissen wrote in that report that “a return to steady ETF inflows would be the clearest sign that demand is back.”

Nexo analyst Iliya Kalchev set out a similar test in the firm’s Oct. 16 market note, written before Monday’s bounce: “For Bitcoin, a move back above $84,000 and a second day of ETF inflows are the signs buyers are returning, with the $80,000 area, defended three times in a week, the level to hold.”

ETF Flows and Oil Fund flows haven’t turned yet. U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs shed $681 million in the week ended Oct. 9 and another $228.6 million in the week ended Oct. 16, according to SoSoValue.

Front-month Brent futures were at $108.47 a barrel as of 09:29 UTC, down 1.3% from Friday’s $109.86 close, according to Yahoo Finance data. Friday’s close was the highest since May 19. Nasdaq 100 futures rose 1.1% and S&P 500 futures gained 0.5% as of 09:29 UTC, according to Yahoo Finance data.

A Rough Week Behind It Bitcoin ended last week about 2% lower, CoinGecko data show, after hotter-than-expected September inflation data on Oct. 14 pushed it toward $80,500 the next day.

James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares, wrote in an Oct. 16 market update that the slide was “a reminder of how sensitive Bitcoin remains to monetary policy over short horizons.”

Related Listen: Bitcoin Reclaims Its Bear-Market Ceiling. Is the Rally Real?

AI-assisted content: This article was produced with the assistance of AI tools and was reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by a member of the Unchained editorial team before publication.

On-chain data from CryptoQuant shows XRP exchange reserves have climbed to approximately 11.81 billion XRP, a level that sits at the 99th percentile of the trailing 365 days.

For XRP investors, that combination raises a near-term question. Rising supply on exchanges increases available sell-side liquidity.

Yet the concurrent leverage reset could actually set up cleaner conditions if spot demand returns.

Supply Piles Up as Leverage Unwinds
The XRP exchange reserves surge did not arrive in isolation. Binance open interest closed at, down roughly 15.8% from earlier in the month.

Long liquidations spiked during the same stretch, clearing out leveraged longs before the reserves number peaked.

The move was flagged by analyst CryptoOnchain in an Oct 18 X post, who noted that supply is stacking on exchanges even as derivatives positioning has quietly reset.

ripple:native Exchange Reserves Reach the 99th Percentile of the Past Year as Binance Leverage Unwinds

Exchange reserves for ripple:native stood at 11.81B on October 17, the 99th percentile of the past 365 days.

Binance ripple:native open interest closed at $453.0M on October… pic.twitter.com/JFwczpVcON

— CryptoOnchain (@CryptoOnchain) October 18, 2026

CryptoOnchain’s read is direct: “Leverage has reset faster than exchange supply has.” In plain terms, derivatives traders have been shaken out. But the coins they, and others, moved to exchanges are still sitting there.

That dynamic echoes what 30-day XRP whale inflows to Binance showed just weeks ago, when large-wallet deposits hit a six-month high of 1.6 billion XRP. Supply has been building across multiple timeframes.

The contrast is worth noting. When Binance XRP reserves were falling in June, analysts called it a bullish signal as selling pressure eased.

Now the move has reversed, and XRP exchange reserves are at the opposite extreme.

XRP itself has traded in the $1.28–$1.35 range. Price softened after the September PPI came in at 6.3%, well above forecasts, adding macro headwinds on top of on-chain supply pressure.

Institutional Demand as the Potential Offset
Rising exchange reserves do not automatically confirm a sell-off. Direction over the next 5–10 sessions matters far more than the static level.

And there are structural demand factors that were not present in prior reserve peaks.

Evernorth, the Nasdaq-listed XRP treasury company with 473M XRP under management, began deploying institutional strategies in Q4 2026 alongside partners Ripple, Kraken, Coinbase, and BitGo.

That treasury is designed to absorb, not add to, exchange supply.

On the XRPL side, Ripple’s approval of the Sponsored Fees and Reserves amendment signals continued ecosystem development.

Meanwhile, Doppler’s XRP Vault crossing $125M in TVL shows on-chain yield demand is drawing coins away from exchanges and into productive use, a direct counter-force to reserve accumulation.

Spot XRP ETFs have recorded cumulative net inflows of approximately $1.8 billion, offering another demand-side anchor. But daily flow momentum has moderated recently.

The picture is not binary. Elevated XRP exchange reserves at extreme percentile levels raise the probability of volatility if coins begin moving into order books.

Watch for net flow direction on CryptoQuant’s all-exchanges metric over the next week.

A sustained draw-down from current levels, combined with stable ETF inflows and continued on-chain activity, would meaningfully shift the near-term risk picture.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has backed EIP-8288 as a proposed way to support complex cryptography without repeatedly adding new verification functions to Ethereum, arguing that most heavy cryptographic work should happen outside the network’s main execution process.

Summary

Vitalik Buterin wants Ethereum to verify complex cryptography through aggregated proofs instead of repeated protocol upgrades.
EIP-8288 proposes combining cryptographic signatures and STARK proofs before Ethereum validators verify their collective validity efficiently.
The proposal could support quantum-resistant wallet signatures without requiring separate Ethereum precompiles for every signature type.
Ethereum developers have not approved EIP-8288, which remains a draft requiring further implementation and network consensus.
The proposed system would keep large proofs outside block data while retaining transaction commitments for verification.

In a series of October 19 posts on X, Buterin argued that Ethereum’s existing virtual machine and specialized cryptographic functions are unsuitable for supporting every new signature or proof system. He instead favored a design that would let users generate proofs locally and submit them through an aggregation mechanism.

The proposal, EIP-8288, would allow Ethereum to verify that cryptographic operations were performed correctly without including every original signature or proof in a block.

Vitalik Buterin described this approach as part of his vision for Ethereum as a cryptographic world computer, where substantial computation can happen outside the blockchain while its results remain verifiable.

The specification remains a draft and has not received approval for deployment on Ethereum mainnet.

Vitalik Buterin wants less cryptographic work inside Ethereum
Vitalik Buterin’s latest comments focus on how Ethereum handles cryptographic operations that require large amounts of computation or data.

Currently, developers can use the Ethereum Virtual Machine, or EVM, to run smart contracts that verify certain cryptographic statements.

Ethereum provides precompiles, which are built-in functions that perform specific calculations more efficiently than ordinary smart contract code.

These functions can help developers verify signatures, hashes and zero-knowledge proofs.

However, supporting additional cryptographic methods directly through precompiles can require changes to Ethereum’s protocol.

Vitalik Buterin argued that neither approach should become the default solution for every new cryptographic system.

His concern centers on the amount of data that must be included in Ethereum blocks when applications submit large signatures or cryptographic proofs for verification.

In the October 19 discussion, he estimated that even with improvements such as PeerDAS and blocks-in-blobs, the network would face practical limits around 8 megabytes per second before additional data became difficult to handle.

Ultimately, precompiles and EVM are both the wrong place to put most cryptography support into Ethereum. The reason is that precompiles and EVM both operate on data that has to be included into the ethereum chain somehow, which realistically means included in a block as calldata.… https://t.co/kb3JfEQKpj

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) October 19, 2026

The estimate represents Buterin’s assessment of future engineering constraints, not Ethereum’s currently measured transaction throughput.

He described Ethereum as a cryptographic world computer in which the blockchain should handle only information requiring shared execution and verification.

The idea is consistent with his earlier work on reducing the amount of computation that every Ethereum validator must independently perform.

In September, crypto.news covered his cryptographic computer vision, which described Ethereum’s proposed transition toward proof-based verification, privacy and more efficient handling of data.

His October comments focused on a specific proposal for making that approach work across different cryptographic systems.

EIP-8288 would combine proofs before they reach Ethereum
The proposed mechanism is described in EIP-8288, titled In-mempool signature and proof aggregation.

Buterin and Ethereum researcher Thomas Coratger created the proposal on June 3, 2026.

According to the official specification, the system would let transactions declare which cryptographic statements must be verified without including all of the original proof material in the final block.

Those declarations would identify the verification scheme, a hash representing the relevant data and a hash associated with the verification key.

The network would use these references to connect transactions with evidence that the required operations were performed correctly.

Users would generate signatures or cryptographic proofs outside Ethereum’s main execution environment.

The proposal allows these proofs to be combined recursively, meaning one proof can establish the validity of several smaller proofs.

Instead of individually verifying every original signature and STARK, Ethereum would verify an aggregated proof covering the relevant transaction dependencies.

A STARK is a cryptographic proof that allows someone to demonstrate that a computation was performed correctly without requiring every verifier to repeat the entire calculation.

The proposed aggregation system would use Lean Ethereum tooling to generate and verify these proofs.

EIP-8288 describes a new transaction frame mode that would declare cryptographic dependencies. The proposal builds on EIP-8141, which introduces a framework for transactions with multiple execution and verification steps.

At the block level, a recursive STARK would demonstrate that the declared dependencies had been satisfied.

The system would continue recording necessary transaction information and cryptographic commitments on Ethereum.

However, its intended design would avoid publishing the original large signatures and proofs as ordinary transaction calldata.

The proposal is not a plan to remove all transaction data from the blockchain or allow applications to operate without verifiable records.

Quantum-resistant signatures are a major part of the proposal
EIP-8288 includes support for cryptographic signatures designed to resist attacks from future quantum computers.

Ethereum currently relies on established digital signature systems for account authentication and blockchain consensus.

Developers are researching alternatives that would remain secure if sufficiently powerful quantum computers become available.

Some proposed quantum-resistant signatures are much larger than the signatures used in conventional Ethereum transactions.

According to EIP-8288, hash-based signatures under consideration can require roughly 2–3 kilobytes and an estimated 150,000–200,000 gas to verify directly.

Lattice-based signatures present comparable challenges in the proposal’s cost discussion.

STARK proofs can require more than 128 kilobytes, with some configurations reaching approximately 512 kilobytes when optimized for fast proof generation.

Including large amounts of this material directly in transactions could create substantial data and execution costs.

Vitalik Buterin argued that users should be able to produce their preferred signatures locally and prove their validity through STARK aggregation.

He discussed the possibility of using lattice-based cryptography for Ethereum accounts and wallets if the relevant security assumptions were established.

His October 19 statement referred specifically to cryptography that might be proven secure against AI-related attacks. That condition is separate from the standard definition of resistance to quantum-computer attacks.

Earlier reporting on Ethereum’s roadmap described how quantum resistance and privacy had become priorities for the network’s future development.

The roadmap includes changes to signature verification and the cryptographic systems supporting Ethereum’s consensus and data availability.

EIP-8288 addresses part of that work by proposing a common method for verifying multiple cryptographic schemes.

Recursive aggregation would start before block production
The proposed process does not depend solely on a block producer collecting every signature and generating one final proof.

EIP-8288 describes recursive aggregation beginning in Ethereum’s mempool, where transactions wait before being included in blocks.

Under the design, users would submit transactions along with the cryptographic evidence required to authorize them.

Mempool participants could validate the submitted evidence, combine several proofs into one and pass the resulting package to other participants.

The specification describes an aggregation interval of 1,000 milliseconds for this process.

Block builders would then collect the relevant transactions and aggregated proofs before constructing an Ethereum block.

A final recursive STARK would cover the dependencies associated with the transactions selected for inclusion.

The draft proposes technical limits intended to prevent malicious users from overwhelming the aggregation system with excessive proof requirements.

For example, its current parameters allow up to 16 specified signature dependencies and one STARK dependency per transaction.

The specification also addresses compatibility with FOCIL, a proposed transaction-inclusion mechanism designed to make censorship more difficult.

An Ethereum analysis of proof-based verification published in September examined the distinction between verifying a computation’s result and ensuring the underlying data remains accessible.

EIP-8288 addresses cryptographic verification while retaining the transaction information needed to identify and validate dependencies.

Its design introduces additional work for mempool participants and block builders, which would need to generate, update and combine proofs. The proposal’s security section identifies the correctness of the proof circuits, hashing functions and recursive verification as assumptions that require careful evaluation.

EIP-8288 remains a draft requiring network approval
The official Ethereum Improvement Proposal repository classifies EIP-8288 as a draft standards-track proposal in the core category.

Its implementation would alter Ethereum’s consensus rules because blocks containing the proposed recursive proof format would not be understood by nodes running software without the update.

The specification identifies EIP-2718 and EIP-8141 as dependencies. Several implementation details remain incomplete, including parameters associated with the aggregated verification key and dependency hashing.

The proposal’s reference implementation is listed as forthcoming. Ethereum developers would need to complete technical work, review the security assumptions and agree on network activation before the design could be deployed. The repository does not currently list an approved mainnet activation date for EIP-8288.

The proposal’s existing test cases cover individual signature verification, multiple proof dependencies, invalid recursive proofs, mempool aggregation and compatibility with transaction inclusion lists.

Its backward-compatibility section states that ordinary transactions without the new cryptographic verification frames would retain their existing behavior.

Nodes that do not implement the new rules would reject transactions using the proposed frame mode and blocks carrying the recursive proof header.

The proposal therefore requires a coordinated network upgrade before its cryptographic aggregation system can become part of Ethereum’s mainnet rules.

Standard Chartered has enabled eligible wealthy clients in the United Arab Emirates to buy and sell Bitcoin and Ethereum directly through their existing bank accounts.

Standard Chartered has begun offering direct cryptocurrency trading to its wealthy clients classified as professional investors in the United Arab Emirates. Under the new service, eligible clients will be able to buy and sell Bitcoin and Ethereum using their existing bank accounts.

According to the bank’s statement, custody and settlement operations will be conducted within the Standard Chartered ecosystem via a closed-loop model. Therefore, customers will not need to create a separate cryptocurrency wallet, store private keys, or open an account on a third-party exchange.

The service combines Standard Chartered’s asset and retail banking units with its corporate and investment banking activities. Transactions are conducted through the Zodia Markets platform, which is backed by the bank’s venture capital arm, SC Ventures.

Standard Chartered announced that it has received the necessary license approval from the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority for the service. The bank states that this product is the first of its kind offered by an international bank in the United Arab Emirates. This also marks Standard Chartered’s first foray into offering cryptocurrency trading directly to wealthy individual clients in any country.

The bank had previously launched institutional Bitcoin and Ethereum spot trading through its UK arm, later expanding its institutional service to the UAE. It also offers crypto ETFs, structured products, and over-the-counter derivatives to eligible clients.

It shouldn’t be assumed that the service is open to all individual customers. Users need to meet professional investor requirements, and initially, only Bitcoin and Ethereum are supported. While Standard Chartered has stated its intention to expand the system to other markets, it has not announced any new countries or implementation schedule.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and X account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

On 23 September, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce stood up at SIFMA’s Digital Assets Conference in New York and described the current approach to customer checks as building “ever bigger data haystacks” in the hope of finding a needle or two. Her speech, Looking for Change in Haystacks, argued that know-your-customer rules risk turning financial rails into a panopticon, and that regulators should move toward verifying specific facts instead of collecting raw personal data. She was clear that the views were her own and not the Commission’s, and no rule has changed. Even so, it is the plainest statement yet from a sitting US regulator of the model behind zero-knowledge KYC, and it is the model Ontology has been building infrastructure for since 2018.

The case against the haystack The argument in the speech is about cost and effectiveness. Every exchange, broker and bank collects the same passport, the same proof of address and the same tax number, and holds its own copy. Peirce’s point is that the costs of this system dwarf what it catches, and that each extra copy is one more place where sensitive data can be mishandled or stolen. The same identity documents end up, in her words, put at risk across dozens of institutions.

We made the same argument from the security side in May, in the honeypot piece from the Privacy Hour series: concentrated stores of personal data are the prize in every breach, and the answer is a different shape of system rather than a bigger vault. The UK regulator says it in a regulator’s terms. The ICO’s data minimisation guidance tells organisations they should not hold more personal data than their purpose needs. A securities regulator arriving at the same place from the cost and effectiveness side is new.

Four proposals, and the infrastructure each one needs The speech makes four concrete proposals. Each maps onto a piece of infrastructure that already exists on Ontology.

Verify facts, not files. Peirce describes credentials that attest to specific facts, such as age, citizenship, accredited investor status or absence from a sanctions list, without revealing the data underneath. On Ontology that is a W3C verifiable credential: a signed, scoped statement issued once and held by the person it describes. When a service needs to know one thing, the holder presents that one thing. This is the starting point for zero-knowledge KYC.

Rely on checks that have already been done. She proposes making it easier for firms to rely on a trustworthy third party’s identity verification, so that a customer verified once does not have to be verified from scratch everywhere. That only works if a later firm can check the earlier verification without phoning the firm that did it. ONT ID anchors identifiers and their keys on a public chain, following the W3C Decentralized Identifiers model, so a verifier can confirm who issued a credential and that it is still valid without routing a request through the issuer. The issuer is never told who asked.

Fewer copies of the same data. If the credential travels and the document stays with the person, the number of databases holding a given passport scan falls toward one. On Ontology the chain holds only what is needed to check a claim: the identifier, its keys and the credential’s status. No documents and no profile.

Ask whether each field is needed. Her test for regulators is a single question: do we need this specific piece of information, or only a fact that it proves? A credential system lets a firm act on the answer, because the fact can be requested on its own.

Underneath all four sits one more requirement the speech implies without naming: permission and validity have to be withdrawable. A status list lets an issuer revoke a credential so that every later verification fails, which is what turns a one-off check into something a firm can rely on over time.

Where zero-knowledge KYC fits Zero-knowledge KYC is the strongest form of this model. With an ordinary credential, the holder can choose which signed statements to show. With a zero-knowledge proof, the holder can show something derived from a statement, such as “over 18” from a date of birth, and the verifier learns that the condition is met and nothing more. Peirce’s own example is a proof that tells a counterparty yes, this person meets your requirement.

The standards work here is moving. The W3C’s Data Integrity BBS Cryptosuites, a Candidate Recommendation Draft, let a holder reveal only chosen parts of a signed credential, with proofs that cannot be linked back to each other. That unlinkability matters for KYC in particular: a person who proves their age to five services should not leave five matching records that can be joined up into a profile.

Zero-knowledge KYC is a layer on top of the identity infrastructure, and it depends on that infrastructure being in place. A proof is only as useful as the trust in the issuer behind it and the ability to check that the credential has not been revoked. That is the part Ontology runs: decentralised identifiers, verifiable credentials and status, on a public chain that any verifier can read.

The missing piece is regulatory The most useful line in the speech may be the one about what is holding this back. Peirce says the technology exists and that what is missing is the regulatory framework that would allow and encourage its adoption. That is a fair description from where Ontology sits. The identity layer has been live for years. What changes adoption is a regulated firm being allowed to accept a scoped, verifiable claim in place of a stored document. Zero-knowledge KYC becomes routine when a regulator says that claim is enough.

ONTO Wallet is built for that world. It holds a person’s verified identity alongside the social, gaming and health data they choose to connect, with the holder deciding, item by item, what each counterparty sees. KYC becomes one more thing a person can prove without handing over.

Peirce gave this speech in her penultimate week at the Commission, so it should be read as an argument rather than a forecast. But the direction it sets out, from collecting data to verifying facts, is one Ontology has been working toward since before the products existed. If you are building something that needs to know a fact about its users and would rather not hold their documents, the infrastructure for zero-knowledge KYC is ready to use.

Further reading from Ontology: our Korea Blockchain Week recap, Beyond Data Ownership: Consent, Audit, Revocation, AI Chatbot Privacy: Public versus Private and the Privacy Hour recap that opened the series.

Beam Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BEAM – Get Free Report) CEO John Evans sold 25,000 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction dated Thursday, October 15th. The stock was sold at an average price of $23.57, for a total transaction of $589,250.00. Following the sale, the chief executive officer owned 1,047,205 shares in the company, valued at $24,682,621.85. This trade represents a 2.33% decrease in their ownership of the stock. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which is available through this hyperlink.

Beam Therapeutics Stock Performance Shares of BEAM stock opened at $23.47 on Monday. The stock has a 50-day simple moving average of $26.30 and a 200 day simple moving average of $28.62. The stock has a market capitalization of $2.42 billion, a P/E ratio of -27.29 and a beta of 2.20. Beam Therapeutics Inc. has a fifty-two week low of $20.23 and a fifty-two week high of $38.26. The company has a quick ratio of 14.57, a current ratio of 14.57 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.09.

Beam Therapeutics (NASDAQ:BEAM – Get Free Report) last posted its quarterly earnings results on Tuesday, August 4th. The company reported ($1.18) earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, missing the consensus estimate of ($1.11) by ($0.07). The company had revenue of $0.49 million during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $16.37 million. Beam Therapeutics had a negative net margin of 54.75% and a negative return on equity of 30.71%. During the same period in the prior year, the company posted ($1.00) EPS. Beam Therapeutics’s quarterly revenue was down 94.2% on a year-over-year basis. On average, sell-side analysts expect that Beam Therapeutics Inc. will post -4.49 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.

Institutional Trading of Beam Therapeutics Large investors have recently added to or reduced their stakes in the business. BlackRock Inc. acquired a new stake in shares of Beam Therapeutics in the second quarter worth $308,796,000. ARCH Venture Management LLC acquired a new position in Beam Therapeutics in the 2nd quarter valued at $155,771,929. ADAR1 Capital Management LLC bought a new position in Beam Therapeutics in the 1st quarter worth $34,467,000. MWG Caph Ltd bought a new position in Beam Therapeutics in the 4th quarter worth $35,119,000. Finally, Bank of America Corp DE acquired a new position in Beam Therapeutics during the 2nd quarter worth $24,733,000. 99.68% of the stock is owned by institutional investors. Analysts Set New Price Targets Several brokerages recently issued reports on BEAM. Wall Street Zen raised Beam Therapeutics from a “strong sell” rating to a “sell” rating in a research note on Saturday, October 3rd. HC Wainwright restated a “buy” rating and set a $80.00 price objective on shares of Beam Therapeutics in a research report on Thursday. William Blair raised Beam Therapeutics to a “strong-buy” rating in a research note on Wednesday, September 23rd. Weiss Ratings reiterated a “sell (d-)” rating on shares of Beam Therapeutics in a report on Thursday. Finally, Wedbush reissued an “outperform” rating and issued a $65.00 price target on shares of Beam Therapeutics in a research report on Wednesday, October 14th. One research analyst has rated the stock with a Strong Buy rating, eight have issued a Buy rating, two have given a Hold rating and one has assigned a Sell rating to the stock. Based on data from MarketBeat, Beam Therapeutics has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus target price of $50.10.

Check Out Our Latest Stock Analysis on Beam Therapeutics

Beam Therapeutics Company Profile (Get Free Report)

Beam Therapeutics Inc is a biotechnology company developing precision genetic medicines using base editing, a technology designed to make targeted changes to DNA without cutting both strands of the DNA double helix. The company’s platform is intended to address diseases caused by specific genetic mutations and to support the development of potentially durable treatments.

Beam’s research and development activities focus on areas including hematology, liver diseases and genetic disorders.

See Also Five stocks we like better than Beam Therapeutics These 3 Green Stocks Have a Growth Story That Goes Far Beyond Washington Meta Claims Frontier-Class AI Status With New Muse Wonder Models Berkshire Just Backed This Little-Known Stock—Should You Chase It? Broadcom’s CEO Sees Years of AI Demand But Warns of a Bigger Threat to the Boom

Receive News & Ratings for Beam Therapeutics Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Beam Therapeutics and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

-

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--KKR & Co. Inc. (NYSE: KKR) and Ares Management Corporation (NYSE: ARES) (“Ares”) today announced a definitive agreement under which KKR will sell Infinity Transportation (“Infinity” or the “Company”), a scaled, full-service railcar and intermodal equipment lessor, to Ares Infrastructure Equity and Ares Insurance Solutions funds for an enterprise value of approximately $2.9 billion. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals and is expected to close in the first quarter of 2027.

Founded in 2004, Infinity owns and manages approximately 50,000 railcars leased to more than 350 unique lessees across the United States, Canada and Mexico. KKR’s wholly owned subsidiary, Global Atlantic, has invested in Infinity since 2016. Since 2021, the Company – with KKR’s support – established its standalone operating platform and expanded its fleet, increasing book value by 150% and scaling the business into one of the largest railcar lessors in the United States.

Following the close of the transaction, Ares intends to leverage its extensive infrastructure investing capabilities and scaled capital to support Infinity’s experienced management team, continued fleet growth and deep customer relationships across North America.

“Infinity is a great example of KKR's ability to scale ABF platforms into industry leaders and accelerate their long-term growth,” said Daniel Pietrzak, Partner and Head of ABF at KKR. “This transaction demonstrates the value that can be created when you combine long-term patient capital with strong partnership and deep expertise. We are proud of what we have built together over the past decade and are confident that Ares will be an exceptional partner to Infinity going forward.”

“We appreciate KKR’s partnership and support, which enabled us to invest in the team, expand our fleet and build Infinity into the industry leader it is today,” said Jeff Edelman, President and CEO of Infinity. “We're proud of what we've achieved to date and are excited to begin a new chapter with Ares, whose scale and experience will support our continued growth.”

“Infinity’s railcar portfolio is a critical component of the U.S. transportation and logistics supply chain, and we are pleased to build on our expanding activity in the sector through this transaction,” said Mike Roth, Partner in Ares Infrastructure Equity, and Anup Agarwal, Head and Chief Investment Officer of Ares Insurance Solutions. “Transportation and logistics assets continue benefiting from the reshoring of manufacturing, increased investment in domestic industrial capacity and growing need for more resilient supply chains. Alongside this strong underlying demand, Infinity’s high-quality, long-lived assets are well suited for long-term investment. We look forward to partnering with Jeff and his team to support continued fleet growth, deepen customer relationships and pursue new acquisition opportunities.”

Macquarie Capital is serving as financial advisor and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is serving as legal counsel to KKR. Citi is serving as financial advisor and Kirkland & Ellis LLP is serving as legal counsel to Ares.

About KKR
KKR is a leading global investment firm that offers alternative asset management as well as capital markets and insurance solutions. KKR aims to generate attractive investment returns by following a patient and disciplined investment approach, employing world-class people, and supporting growth in its portfolio companies and communities. KKR sponsors investment funds that invest in private equity, credit and real assets and has strategic partners that manage hedge funds. KKR’s insurance subsidiaries offer retirement, life and reinsurance products under the management of Global Atlantic Financial Group. References to KKR’s investments may include the activities of its sponsored funds and insurance subsidiaries. For additional information about KKR & Co. Inc. (NYSE: KKR), please visit KKR’s website at www.kkr.com. For additional information about Global Atlantic Financial Group, please visit Global Atlantic Financial Group’s website at www.globalatlantic.com.

About Ares Management Corporation
Ares Management Corporation (NYSE: ARES) is a leading global alternative investment manager offering clients complementary primary and secondary investment solutions across the credit, real estate, private equity and infrastructure asset classes. We seek to advance our stakeholders' long-term goals by providing flexible capital that supports businesses and creates value for our investors and within our communities. By collaborating across our investment groups, we aim to generate consistent and attractive investment returns throughout market cycles. As of June 30, 2026, Ares Management Corporation's global platform had over $671 billion of assets under management, with operations across North America, South America, Europe, Asia Pacific and the Middle East. For more information, please visit www.ares.com.

About Infinity Transportation
Infinity Transportation Equipment Leasing is a scaled, full-service rail and intermodal equipment lessor providing net and full-service leases, as well as other structured financing solutions, that address the logistical and financial needs of its customers. Founded in 2004 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Infinity owns and manages approximately 50,000 railcars leased to more than 350 unique lessees across North America. Infinity is led by a veteran management team with a broad range of technical expertise, asset-level knowledge and transaction experience across transportation operations, maintenance and finance. For more information, please visit www.infinitytransport.com.

More News From KKR & Co. Inc.

Back to Newsroom

TRON’s third-quarter figures show $2.21 trillion in stablecoin settlement alongside $701.4 million in network fees. The two totals measure different things, and neither is a payment to TRON DAO.

Summary

TRON recorded $2.2126 trillion in stablecoin settlement during Q3, up 5.1% from the preceding quarter. Network fees totaled $701.4 million across July, August and September, according to TRON DAO Research. Approximately 1.10 billion transactions went through the chain in Q3, broadly unchanged from Q2. TRON generated 360.2 million TRX and burned 234.5 million TRX in Q3, leaving net issuance of 125.8 million. The network’s $93.88 billion USDT and USDD balance at quarter-end measures outstanding tokens, not fee income. TRON settled more stablecoin value in the third quarter even as the number of transactions barely changed. TRON DAO Research’s quarterly report recorded $2.2126 trillion in stablecoin settlement, up from $2.106 trillion in Q2. It put fees at $701.4 million, or about $7.62 million a day using its reported daily series. The latest figures raise a straightforward question behind a large transfer headline: who paid to move the dollars, and who received the economic benefit?

No single company took a $701.4 million check. TRON is a blockchain where accounts pay for computation and transaction data through a resource system. Users may obtain those resources by staking TRX, receive them from another account, or burn TRX when their allocation falls short. Service providers can charge their own customers separately. Stablecoin issuers operate a different business again. Untangling those flows is necessary before treating quarterly transfers as earnings for the chain, its validators or holders of its native token.

JUST IN: TRON adds $4.8 billion to its stablecoin supply in 90 days

The network’s stablecoin market cap growth nearly doubled the combined $2.59 billion added by the other nine chains in the top 10 over the same period. pic.twitter.com/AAlUklr9Yg

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) September 21, 2026 What the $2.21 trillion actually counts A settlement figure is the dollar value of stablecoin movements over a period. It is not the amount of new money deposited into TRON, the number of customers served, or a balance held by a payment company. One stablecoin can move between accounts more than once. A transfer from an exchange to a merchant and a later transfer from that merchant to another exchange can enter the aggregate separately even when the same token funds both.

TRON DAO’s report says the daily average reached $24.05 billion, compared with $23.14 billion in Q2. Growth in the average daily amount was 3.9%, while the full-quarter total rose 5.1%. Both numbers can be true because Q3 has 92 days and Q2 has 91. Time periods matter when comparing a running total to a daily average. Neither number describes final retail purchases or cross-border payments exclusively; the underlying transfer category includes movements between addresses without assigning an economic purpose to every transfer.

At quarter-end, the report counted $93.88 billion in combined USDT and USDD supply on TRON, up $4.88 billion from Q2. Supply is a stock measured at a date; settlement is the sum of movements during a period. Dividing $2.2126 trillion by the closing balance yields about 23.6, a rough turnover comparison, but it cannot identify how often a particular coin changed hands. Supply changed during the quarter and the mix of wallets, exchanges and businesses is not fixed.

JUST IN: TRON averages 4.41M daily active accounts

The $TRX network has maintained an average of 4.41 million daily active accounts over the past 30 days. pic.twitter.com/uuwJxB3XtS

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 4, 2026 The network processed roughly 1.10 billion transactions in Q3, about flat with Q2. More value moved while the total count barely shifted, which is consistent with a larger average value per transfer, a different mix of transactions, or both. The total transaction count covers activity outside stablecoins, so dividing the entire settlement value by 1.10 billion would not produce a measured average stablecoin transfer size. TRON has not supplied a matched count of stablecoin transfer events alongside that settlement total in the cited report.

TRON’s prior quarter helps put the shift in context. Crypto.news’s account of Q2 USDT transfers reported $2.1 trillion in USDT transfers and $699.4 million in network fees, using Messari’s figures. The Q3 report describes combined stablecoin settlement, so the two transfer totals should not be labeled as identical series without checking their definitions. The Q2 fee figure and Q3 fee total are close in nominal dollars. On those two published totals alone, quarterly fees rose approximately $2 million, or 0.3%, rather than climbing in line with the reported 5.1% growth in Q3 stablecoin settlement.

Fees, burns and the recipient are different questions A person sending USDT does not pay a percentage of the dollars transferred to the chain. TRON meters bandwidth, broadly linked to the bytes recorded, and Energy, which covers smart contract execution. Sending $10 or $10,000 of USDT through the same kind of contract call can require similar resources. The payment amount alone is not the fee basis. A wallet’s available resources, the contract’s execution path and current chain parameters can change the cost.

The TRON developer guide to Bandwidth and Energy says both resources can be obtained by staking TRX or through a delegation from another account. Bandwidth includes a free allowance for qualifying accounts, while Energy has no free tier. Both resource quotas recover over a rolling 24 hours after use. Staking creates access to a recurring allowance; spending that allowance is not the same event as burning a token on each transfer.

Where an account lacks the required resources, the network can burn TRX to cover the shortfall. TRON’s resource payment documentation lists current mainnet rates of 0.001 TRX per Bandwidth unit and 0.0001 TRX per Energy unit, with chain parameters subject to change. Bandwidth rules normally use one source that covers the whole transaction: staked or delegated capacity, then free capacity if available, then a TRX burn. For Energy, an account can use its allocation and burn TRX for the remaining caller-side cost.

The $701.4 million fee series is therefore a report of network-level charges under the provider’s methodology. It should not be described as corporate sales, a cash distribution to validators, or a direct dividend to TRX holders. The report says 234.5 million TRX was burned in Q3, but a dollar valuation for network fees and the token quantity destroyed need their respective definitions and prices to be reconciled. Multiplying every transfer dollar by an assumed fee rate would manufacture an amount that nobody reported.

TRON elects 27 Super Representatives to produce blocks. Newly issued TRX rewards support producers and voters, while resource burns destroy tokens rather than handing the burned amount to a representative as cash. Staked TRX can confer voting power and recurring resources, but holding TRX without staking does not automatically entitle a holder to a share of reported fee dollars. Businesses that rent resources can receive payment under their own arrangements; such payments are distinct from an additional onchain burn on the same transaction.

A visible fee on a wallet screen may likewise be a bundled service price. A wallet can quote USDT to the sender, sponsor the underlying Energy, rent Energy, or supply it from TRX the operator has staked. The customer’s unit of payment does not tell us which underlying resource source settled the transaction. Crypto.news described Binance Wallet’s USDT fee option as a wallet-level way to fund network costs rather than a change in the chain’s native fee rules. A promotion covering a customer’s cost still leaves a provider bearing it.

The arithmetic behind a busy quarter A direct comparison reveals why the scale of transfers is visually misleading. Divide $701.4 million of reported Q3 network fees by $2.2126 trillion of reported stablecoin settlement and the result is about 0.0317%, equivalent to approximately 3.17 basis points. That is an arithmetic ratio between two published totals, not the price paid by each USDT sender. The numerator covers network activity beyond stablecoins, and the denominator omits non-stablecoin activity. A large customer may acquire resources more cheaply than a casual wallet user; some users burn TRX and others consume previously obtained capacity.

Another rough comparison divides $701.4 million by 1.10 billion transactions, producing roughly $0.638 per reported transaction. TRON DAO separately reports an average daily transaction fee of $0.643. The approximated ratio depends on the rounded 1.10 billion count and need not equal the mean of daily fee observations. Both figures are useful as scale checks, but neither is the fee for a standard USDT transfer. Contract execution and account conditions differ substantially among transactions.

TRON DAO breaks the $701.4 million total into $234.6 million in July, $231.3 million in August and $235.5 million in September. September exceeded August by $4.2 million while stablecoin settlement and transaction mix could vary day to day. The quarterly sum makes a consistent source series more useful than picking one unusually expensive transaction or a promotional wallet quote as the representative cost of all payments.

There is a discrepancy worth carrying into the reporting rather than smoothing away. TRON DAO says Q3 average daily fees of $7.62 million were down 4% from $7.94 million in Q2. Messari’s Q2 report summary, however, states $699.4 million in total Q2 fees. Across 91 calendar days, that published Q2 total implies approximately $7.69 million per day, not $7.94 million. Q3’s $701.4 million over 92 days likewise gives approximately $7.62 million. The Q3 daily figure matches its total; the Q2 daily comparison does not reconcile with Messari’s reported Q2 total under simple calendar-day division. Different data windows or methodologies may explain it, but neither report establishes that explanation in the figures cited here. A claim of a 4% quarter-over-quarter fall in daily fees should consequently be attributed to TRON DAO’s series rather than inferred from Messari’s published Q2 total.

A $2 million increase in nominal quarterly fees alongside more transfer value does not prove that users received a cheaper service per transfer. It indicates that those aggregates did not rise at the same pace. Fee prices, token price, resource staking, the share of transfers requiring contract execution and composition of non-stablecoin transactions can move independently. The matched, transaction-level data needed to isolate each contributor are not supplied by a single quarterly settlement headline.

JUST IN: Tron Inc. adds 148,175 $TRX to its treasury

The Nasdaq-listed company bought the tokens at an average $0.3374 each, lifting its total $TRX holdings above 719.3 million as it continues expanding its Tron treasury. pic.twitter.com/nnkC0mqTu0

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 18, 2026 Who pays when a wallet says a transfer is free? A zero-fee checkout does not necessarily mean the network performed work without a resource cost. A company may stake TRX to obtain Energy, then delegate capacity to customer addresses. An exchange can sponsor withdrawals, a wallet can pay in another currency and procure the underlying resource, and a business can rent Energy from a provider. The visible sender pays nothing at the point of transfer in some of these setups, while a different party finances the service.

The resource guide says exchanges and application operators commonly delegate capacity from a central staking pool. The network does not need each receiving customer to own TRX for every transaction under that arrangement. Energy recovers over 24 hours, so a pool sized to normal daily demand can support recurring operations without consuming the underlying staked tokens on every use. A usage surge beyond the allowance may change the calculation: the business may rent more capacity, hold more TRX, or burn tokens for a shortfall.

Crypto.news’s report on a gasless USDT wallet illustrates the consumer side of this separation. Removing the need for a customer to keep a second token balance simplifies a transfer, but the provider still must settle network resource costs. Reporting should ask the operator whether it pays from staked capacity, rentals, a quoted USDT charge or a temporary subsidy. Without that disclosure, the phrase “gasless” establishes a user experience rather than an independently audited network cost.

Contract deployers can sometimes cover part of a user’s Energy under TRON’s documented sharing mechanism. The contract configuration sets a caller share and a deployer contribution subject to the deployer’s resource budget. Sponsorship can run out. A transfer that appeared free under one set of limits can require the caller to contribute under another. Bandwidth is accounted for separately. Operators can still set terms outside the network, including withdrawal fees or currency conversion charges, that do not appear in the network-fee series.

Cost comparisons between two wallets should therefore specify the same transfer type and recipient conditions. A USDT transfer to an address holding the token can take a different execution path from a transfer to an address whose token balance has to be initialized. A quoted wallet charge may cover exchange service, insurance, or a routing step as well as network resources. The chain’s reported fee total cannot reveal the final consumer price without information from the service provider.

Why more stablecoins may bring less fee income per dollar Stablecoin transfers are measured in dollars; resource use is tied to network operations. An institutional account sending one large payment may contribute the same number of contract calls as a small account sending a modest payment. A market in which average transfer size rises can therefore increase dollar settlement without proportionally increasing network fee activity. That is one plausible interpretation of Q3’s higher settlement and nearly flat transaction count, though the combined transaction figure cannot isolate it as the cause.

Staking and delegation offer another explanation for the weak mechanical link. If more exchanges obtain enough Energy to cover their usual flows, the same count of transactions can generate fewer direct TRX burns than if their wallets had been paying the burn fallback. The operators’ capital commitment and any fee paid to a resource supplier still matter economically, even if they do not resemble a conventional per-transfer gas payment. A change in how much capacity is staked may affect an operator’s effective cost without a corresponding change in the value of USDT moving across the chain.

Chain governance sets the underlying resource parameters. A fee cut can reduce the burn required for a shortage even when usage does not fall. Messari said Q2’s rebound in fees was the first quarterly rise since an August 2025 cut to TRON’s Energy unit price. Comparing transactions across the cut without recording the parameter change would confuse a change in tariff with a change in demand. Current TRON documentation explicitly advises querying chain parameters because the resource pools and prices are adjustable.

Heavy use of a particular contract adds a further complication. TRON’s dynamic Energy model raises the effective Energy requirement for frequently called contracts when thresholds are met. The model can alter the cost of invoking a popular stablecoin contract independently of the number of dollars sent. Its penalty factor can change between maintenance periods and decay when usage eases. A flat posted rate per Energy unit is only one input to a wallet’s expected outlay.

Competition may shape which fee changes governance accepts. A chain can seek more affordable transfers to preserve stablecoin demand, while the reduction in token burns changes the economics for TRX holders. A higher resource price may lift burns in the short term but cause payment businesses to rent resources, stake more, batch activity differently or use another chain. The reports do not establish a single price that maximizes both usage and fee generation. Readers should resist treating higher transfer volume as a guaranteed higher revenue line.

TRX holders receive an indirect exposure The clearest token-level effect of a resource shortfall is the burn of TRX. The clearest counterweight is newly created TRX paid under the network’s reward schedule. TRON DAO says 360.2 million TRX was generated and 234.5 million burned during Q3. Subtracting one from the other gives net issuance of approximately 125.7 million, rounded to the report’s 125.8 million. Burns covered 65.1% of generated tokens. Supply expanded despite substantial fee activity.

A quarter of positive net issuance does not by itself predict a falling TRX price. Token demand, circulating supply, exchange liquidity and market expectations all matter. It does, however, invalidate a simple claim that every dollar of stablecoin settlement makes the asset scarcer. The $2.21 trillion transfer figure is not a buy order for TRX, and the $701.4 million fee valuation is not an equivalent distribution to all existing holders.

The staked side of the ledger is material. TRON DAO put staked TRX at 45.71 billion, or 48.16% of circulating supply at quarter-end. Its report assigned 18.87 billion staked tokens to Energy and 26.84 billion to Bandwidth. People who stake can obtain resource allocation and voting power; participants who vote for Super Representatives can receive protocol rewards under the network’s rules. An investor buying unstaked TRX on an exchange has a different immediate claim than a business using staked resources to process transfers.

The report’s validator voting snapshot showed the five highest-ranked Super Representatives held 37.1% of votes. Representatives participate in governance that can change chain parameters affecting resource prices. Fee economics consequently depend on political choices inside the protocol as well as the technical workload. Users, resource suppliers and TRX holders may prefer different combinations of cheap payments, reward issuance and burn rates.

An exchange-traded product can provide another form of TRX exposure. Crypto.news covered the staked TRX fund’s launch, including the fund’s stated plan to reflect staking rewards in net asset value. Its trading price, expenses and fund flows belong to a separate product. They should not be presented as a way for every TRX holder to collect a fraction of the network’s quoted fee dollars.

The case for low fees The strongest argument against maximizing immediate network fees is that cheaper transfers can be a core part of the service. Exchanges, payroll providers and people sending money across borders compare their actual all-in costs. Businesses can choose a route that works reliably at scale and automate the resource management behind it. If a fee reduction brings enough additional sustained transfers, the network’s usefulness can grow even if the fee earned per dollar of settlement falls.

October’s Polygon Open Money Stack integration with TRON points to that distribution question. The announced first phase connects TRON USDT activity with bank funding, wallet services and payouts for businesses. It does not provide a count of live customer payments or a forecast of incremental TRON fees. A commercially successful rollout could add transactions, but it could also route larger transfers through a small number of well-resourced accounts. Those outcomes produce different network-fee and token-burn profiles.

Low visible fees can be financed through staking rather than cash burn. Large operators may rationally tie up TRX to lower repeated costs, creating demand for resources without creating proportional burns. Smaller customers may prefer a USDT-denominated wallet charge rather than buying TRX to maintain a resource pool. A transfer service can succeed commercially while the protocol captures less revenue from each dollar moved. Protocol fees, resource rental payments, issuer income and the wallet’s own markup should be reported on separate lines.

Evidence that would weaken the low-fee case is equally concrete. If quarterly transfer value rises but transaction counts, unique active users and economic payments stagnate, the apparent growth may be recycled liquidity rather than a wider payments business. If a resource subsidy expires and customers leave, the underlying service may be less competitive than its advertised checkout price suggested. If heavy use creates costs for operators that they cannot pass through, fee compression would not demonstrate durable demand. Current aggregate data cannot settle those questions.

What to watch Q4 settlement and transaction count: Compare stablecoin dollars moved with the number of onchain transactions and, if available, matched stablecoin transfer counts. Monthly fees in one consistent series: Follow October, November and December network fees using the same provider and definitions before asserting an acceleration. Resource parameters: Check Energy prices, Bandwidth rules and governance votes, especially if a proposed fee change alters the cost of USDT contract calls. Stake, burns and issuance: Track the TRX committed to resources and the amount burned against newly generated rewards to separate usage from supply effects. Business adoption disclosures: Seek actual payment counts, subsidy terms and resource funding arrangements from new wallet and payment integrations. FAQ Does TRON earn $2.21 trillion from stablecoins? No. The figure sums stablecoin value transferred across the network in Q3. It is not revenue and does not represent unique dollars paid to an operator. A token can contribute to the total more than once when it moves again.

How much were TRON’s network fees in Q3 2026? TRON DAO Research reports $701.4 million in network fees for the quarter, split among $234.6 million in July, $231.3 million in August and $235.5 million in September. That measure should be named as network fees, not profit for TRON DAO.

Does a USDT sender always need to own TRX? No. A sender can receive delegated resources or use a wallet or service that sponsors the underlying cost and charges in another currency. The network still accounts for Bandwidth and Energy. The sender’s visible payment method does not change those resource rules.

Who receives the TRX paid as network fees? When a transaction uses the TRX burn fallback for insufficient resources, the charged tokens are burned. That is different from newly issued rewards for block producers and voters or a private payment to an Energy supplier.

Why did fees not rise in step with stablecoin settlement? The stablecoin figure measures dollars sent; network charges reflect resource use and the fee methodology. Larger transfer amounts, different transaction types, resource staking, delegated Energy and parameter changes can all break a proportional relationship. The quarterly totals alone cannot identify the precise contribution of each factor.

Did TRX become deflationary during Q3? No. TRON DAO reports 360.2 million TRX generated and 234.5 million burned, leaving roughly 125.8 million in net issuance. Burns reduced but did not exceed issuance during that reporting period.

Is the fee figure the same as Tether’s revenue? No. Tether issues USDT and operates its own business. A TRON network fee is associated with the blockchain’s resource model; an issuer’s reserve income, redemption arrangements and other business lines are distinct from that network metric.

Can the Q3 figures predict TRX’s price? No. They describe past activity, token issuance and resource use, not future buying or selling. Price depends on market conditions and demand beyond the network’s fee statistics. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of October 19, 2026.

 | Source:

CBIZ, Inc

Third-Quarter Financial Highlights: 

Total revenue of $702M, up 1.2%; Financial Services revenue up 1.2%Net income of $47M, up 56.7%; GAAP EPS of $0.79, up 64.6%Adjusted EBITDA of $132M, up 6.3%; Adjusted diluted EPS of $1.21, up 14.2% Nine Months Ended September 30, 2026 Financial Highlights:

Total revenue of $2,233M, up 0.8%; Financial Services revenue up 1.1%Net income of $219M, up 12.2%; GAAP EPS of $3.62, up 18.3%Adjusted EBITDA of $479M, down 1.2%; Adjusted diluted EPS of $4.64, up 5.9%Operating cash flow up $98M; Free cash flow up $91M CLEVELAND, Oct. 19, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CBIZ, Inc., (NYSE: CBZ) (“CBIZ” or the “Company”), a leading national professional services advisor, today announced results for the third quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2026.

Proposed Transaction with Grant Thornton and New Mountain
As previously disclosed, CBIZ and an affiliate of Grant Thornton in the U.S. (“Grant Thornton”), backed by New Mountain Capital, announced on July 29, 2026 that they entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Grant Thornton will acquire CBIZ in an all-cash transaction with an enterprise value of $5.0 billion, or $55.00 per share (the “proposed transaction”).

The proposed transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2026, subject to approval by CBIZ shareholders, receipt of required regulatory approvals, and satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. Following the completion of the proposed transaction, CBIZ’s common stock will no longer be listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and CBIZ will become a private company.

Full Year Financial Outlook and Conference Call Information
Due to the proposed transaction and as previously disclosed, the Company will not be providing financial guidance for the full year 2026 or hosting a conference call to discuss third quarter results.

About CBIZ
CBIZ, Inc. (NYSE: CBZ) is a leading professional services advisor to middle market businesses nationwide. With industry knowledge and expertise in accounting, tax, advisory, benefits, insurance, and technology, CBIZ delivers actionable insights to help clients anticipate what is next and discover new ways to accelerate growth. CBIZ has more than 9,500 team members across 23 major markets coast to coast. For more information, visit www.cbiz.com.

Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this release, including, without limitation, statements about the proposed transaction, our financial position, business strategy, plans and objectives for future performance, are forward-looking statements. You can identify these statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements are commonly identified by the use of such terms and phrases as “will,” “could,” “can,” “may,” “strive,” “hope,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “continue,” “plan,” “expect,” “project,” “anticipate,” “outlook,” “foreseeable future,” “seek” and words or phrases of similar import in connection with any discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, future performance or results of current and anticipated services, sales efforts, expenses, and financial results.

From time to time, we may also provide oral or written forward-looking statements in other materials we release to the public. Any or all of our forward-looking statements in this release and in any other public statements that we make are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: that one or more closing conditions to the proposed transaction, including certain regulatory approvals, may not be satisfied or waived, on a timely basis or otherwise, or that the required approval by the shareholders of CBIZ may not be obtained; the risk that the proposed transaction may not be completed on the terms or in the time frame expected by CBIZ and Grant Thornton, or at all; unexpected costs, charges or expenses resulting from the proposed transaction; uncertainty of the expected financial performance and results of operations of the combined company following completion of the proposed transaction; failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction, including as a result of delay in completing the proposed transaction or integrating the businesses of CBIZ and Grant Thornton, on the expected timeframe or at all; the ability of the combined company to implement its business strategy; difficulties and delays in the combined company achieving revenue and cost synergies; inability of the combined company to retain and hire key personnel; the occurrence of any event that could give rise to termination of the proposed transaction; the risk that shareholder litigation in connection with the proposed transaction or other litigation, settlements or investigations may affect the timing or completion of the proposed transaction or result in significant costs of defense, indemnification and liability; evolving legal, regulatory and tax regimes; changes in general economic, competitive, technological and/or industry-specific conditions affecting the businesses and industries in which CBIZ and Grant Thornton operate; actions by third parties, including government agencies and ratings agencies, relating to the proposed transaction; risks that any debt financing anticipated in connection with the proposed transaction is not obtained or that such financing cannot be obtained on the anticipated timing or terms or unexpected costs or expenses in connection therewith; risks related to the disruption of management time from ongoing business operations due to the pendency of the proposed transaction, or other effects of the pendency of the proposed transaction on the relationship of any of the parties to the transaction with their employees, customers, partners, or other counterparties; risks that any announcements relating to the proposed transaction could have adverse effects on the market price of CBIZ’s common stock, credit ratings, or operating results, and may have an adverse effect on the ability of CBIZ to retain and hire key personnel, retain customers, and maintain relationships with business partners, suppliers and customers; the risk that the market price of CBIZ’s common stock may decline if the proposed transaction is not completed; our ability to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures, including ability to remediate our material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting; payments on accounts receivable may be slower than expected, or amounts due on receivables or notes may not be fully collectible; our business could be adversely affected if the non-attest business assets we acquired, or the attest assets CBIZ CPAs P.C. acquired, from Marcum LLP (“Marcum”) do not perform to our expectations or we underestimate the liabilities we have assumed; we are dependent on the services of our executive officers, and other key employees, the loss of any of whom may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations; our profitability could suffer if we are not able to effectively utilize our employees, maintain operational efficiencies or manage our cost structure; restrictions imposed by independence requirements and conflict of interest rules, as well as the nature and terms of our current administrative service agreements, limit our ability to provide services to clients of the attest firms with which we have contractual relationships and the ability of such attest firms to provide attestation services to our clients; our goodwill and other intangible assets could become impaired, which could lead to material non-cash charges against earnings and a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition; certain liabilities resulting from acquisitions are estimated and could lead to a material impact on our results of operations; we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of acquisitions, or they may prove disruptive and could result in the combined business failing to meet our expectations; claims or adverse publicity could harm our brand, reputation and ability to compete and attract and retain clients, talent and future acquisition targets; we may not be able to acquire and finance additional businesses, which could limit our ability to pursue our business strategy; we will incur transaction, integration, and restructuring costs in connection with our acquisition program; governmental regulations and interpretations are subject to changes, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition; uncertainty in the current economic and geopolitical environment could lead to declines in demand for certain of our services; changes in the United States healthcare environment, including new healthcare legislation, may adversely affect the revenue and margins in our healthcare benefit business; we are subject to risks relating to processing customer transactions for our payroll and other transaction processing businesses; cyberattacks or other security breaches involving our computer systems or the systems of one or more of our vendors could materially and adversely affect our business; we are subject to risk as it relates to software that we license from third parties; we are reliant on information processing systems and any failure or disruptions of these systems could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations; we could be held liable for errors and omissions; the business services industry is competitive and fragmented, if we are unable to compete effectively, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted; failure to maintain our reputation and brand could impact our ability to attract and retain clients, employees and future acquisition targets, and may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations; we are dependent on our existing client base and our ability to retain and expand our relationships with those clients; our clients may terminate our engagements with little or no notice and without penalty, which may result in unexpected declines in our revenue or unexpected costs; given our levels of share-based compensation, our tax rate may vary significantly depending on our stock price; we may be subject to the actions of activist stockholders; rapid technological changes could significantly impact our competitive position, client relationships and operating results and our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of our acquisition of the non-attest business assets and liabilities of Marcum and CBIZ CPAs P.C.’s purchase of substantially all of Marcum’s attest business assets (the “Marcum Transaction”); the widespread outbreak of a communicable illness or any other public health crisis could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations; we require a significant amount of cash for interest payments on our debt and to expand our business as planned; terms of our amended and restated credit agreement providing for $2.0 billion in senior secured credit facilities, consisting of a $1.4 billion term loan and $600 million revolving credit facility, could adversely affect our ability to run our business and/or reduce stockholder returns; our failure to satisfy covenants in our debt instruments could cause a default under those instruments; our increased leverage following the Marcum Transaction may adversely impact our business; we may be more sensitive to revenue fluctuations than other companies, which could result in fluctuations in the market price of our common stock; the significant number of shares issuable as the stock consideration in the Marcum Transaction may adversely impact our stock price; the future issuance of additional shares could adversely affect the price of our common stock; and there is volatility in our stock price.

Such forward-looking statements can be affected by inaccurate assumptions we might make or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. Should one or more of these risks materialize, or should the underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated, projected or implied. Consequently, no forward-looking statement can be guaranteed. Our actual future results may vary materially. All forward looking statements made in this release are made only as of the date hereof, and we undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. You are advised, however, to consult any further disclosures we make on related subjects in the current, quarterly, periodic and annual reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Also note that we provide a cautionary discussion of the risks, uncertainties and possibly inaccurate assumptions relevant to our businesses in “Item 1. Business” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, as amended. These are factors that we think could cause our actual results to differ materially from expected and historical results. Other factors besides those described here could also adversely affect our operating or financial performance.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures
To supplement our consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), we also present Adjusted Net Income (Loss), Adjusted Diluted Earnings Per Share (“EPS”), Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin and Free Cash Flow, which are non-GAAP measures. These non-GAAP measures are adjusted to exclude the impact of the Marcum Transaction, integration costs, amortization of acquired intangible assets, and other significant non-operating related gains and losses management does not consider ongoing in nature. The presentation of non-GAAP financial information is designed to supplement the Company’s financial information presented in accordance with GAAP, is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. We use these non-GAAP financial measures for financial and operational decision-making, and to evaluate results relative to employee compensation targets. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide meaningful supplemental information to stockholders, debt holders, and other interested parties in assessing our performance. These non-GAAP financial measures also facilitate management’s internal comparisons to our historical performance by excluding significant acquisition expenses, certain one-time non-recurring items, and gains and losses that management does not consider ongoing in nature. We believe these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors both because (1) they allow for greater transparency with respect to key measures used by management in its financial and operational decision-making and (2) they are used by our stockholders and analyst community to determine the health of our business. These non-GAAP measures may not be comparable to similar non-GAAP measures presented by other companies. The presentation of such non-GAAP measures, which may include exclusions of non-recurring items, should not be construed as an inference that the Company's future results will be unaffected by other non-recurring items. Management provides specific information regarding the GAAP amounts excluded from or included in these non-GAAP financial measures. Additionally, management provides reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most comparable financial measures presented in accordance with GAAP. Please see the schedules captioned “GAAP Reconciliation” at the end of this release for additional information and the applicable reconciliations.

Contact:
Investor Relations: Chris Sikora, VP, Investor Relations & Corporate Finance, [email protected]  
Media: Amy McGahan, Director of Corporate & Strategic Communications, [email protected]
CBIZ, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, (216) 447-9000

CBIZ, INC.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (UNAUDITED)
THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 AND 2025
(In thousands, except percentages and per share data)
   Three Months Ended September 30,   2026  %  2025  %Revenue $702,240  100.0 % $693,818  100.0 %Operating expenses(1)  588,186  83.8   603,689  87.0 Gross margin  114,054  16.2   90,129  13.0 Corporate general and administrative expenses(1)  23,877  3.4   31,265  4.5 Operating income  90,177  12.8   58,864  8.5 Other (expense) income:        Interest expense  (23,986) (3.4)  (27,960) (4.0)Gain from acquisition related adjustments, net  —  —   1,124  0.2 Other income, net(1) (2)  1,449  0.2   8,378  1.2 Total other expense, net  (22,537) (3.2)  (18,458) (2.6)Income before income tax expense  67,640  9.6   40,406  5.9 Income tax expense  20,404     10,260   Net income $47,236  6.7 % $30,146  4.3 %         Diluted income per share:        Diluted earnings per share $0.79    $0.48            Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding  59,986     62,699   Other data:        Adjusted EBITDA(3) $131,852  18.8 % $124,005  17.9 %Adjusted Diluted EPS(3) $1.21    $1.06    (1) We sponsor a Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “deferred compensation plan”), under which a CBIZ employee’s compensation deferral is held in a rabbi trust and invested accordingly as directed by the employee. The activities related to the deferred compensation plan are recorded in “Corporate and Other” for segment reporting purposes. Gains and losses resulting from the adjustments to the fair value of the invested assets in the deferred compensation plan are recorded as an increase or decrease to the “Other income (expense), net”, directly offset by the same adjustments as an increase or decrease to compensation expense (recorded as “Operating expense” or “Corporate general and administrative expense”) in the accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. The deferred compensation plan has no impact on “Income before income tax expense” or diluted earnings per share.     Income and expenses related to the deferred compensation plan for the three months ended September 30, 2026, and 2025, are as follows (in thousands, except percentages):   Three Months Ended September 30,Income statement line items:  2026  % of Revenue  2025 % of RevenueOperating expenses $(566) (0.1)% $7,847 1.1 %Corporate general & administrative expenses  (191) —  1,076 0.2 %Other income, net  (757) (0.1)%  8,923 1.3 %              Excluding the impact of the above-mentioned income and expenses related to the deferred compensation plan, the operating results for the three months ended September 30, 2026, and 2025, are as follows (in thousands, except percentages):

  Three Months Ended September 30,  2026   2025   As Reported
  Deferred Compensation Plan
   Adjusted % of Revenue  As Reported  Deferred Compensation Plan   Adjusted  % of RevenueGross margin$114,054 $         (566) $113,488 16.2 % $  90,129 $       7,847  $  97,976  14.1 %Operating income     90,177             (757)      89,420 12.7 %      58,864           8,923       67,787  9.8 %Other income (expense), net       1,449              757         2,206 0.3 %        8,378          (8,923)         (545) (0.1)%Income before income tax expense     67,640                 —       67,640 9.6 %      40,406                 —       40,406  5.8 % (2) Included in “Other income, net” for the three months ended September 30, 2026, and 2025, is income of $1.1 million and expense of $0.5 million, respectively, related to net changes in the fair value of contingent consideration related to CBIZ's prior acquisitions.   (3) Refer to the schedules reconciling Adjusted Diluted EPS and Adjusted EBITDA to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures at the end of this release, and for additional information as to the usefulness of the non-GAAP financial measures to stockholders and investors, see “Non-GAAP Financial Measures”. CBIZ, INC.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (UNAUDITED)
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 AND 2025
(In thousands, except percentages and per share data)
   Nine Months Ended September 30,   2026  %  2025  %Revenue $2,233,025  100.0 % $2,215,328  100.0 %Operating expenses(1)  1,820,516  81.5   1,809,188  81.7 Gross margin  412,509  18.5   406,140  18.3 Corporate general and administrative expenses(1)  103,754  4.6   86,972  3.9 Operating income  308,755  13.9   319,168  14.4 Other (expense) income:        Interest expense  (72,237) (3.2)  (80,983) (3.7)Gain from acquisition related adjustment, net  57,955  2.6   1,124  0.1 Other income, net(1) (2)  11,382  0.5   31,786  1.4 Total other income (expense), net  (2,900) (0.1)  (48,073) (2.2)Income before income tax expense  305,855  13.7   271,095  12.2 Income tax expense  87,228     76,234   Net income  218,627  9.8 %  194,861  8.8 %         Diluted earnings per share $3.62    $3.06            Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding  60,333     63,609   Other data:        Adjusted EBITDA(3) $479,345  21.5 % $485,127  21.9 %Adjusted Diluted EPS(3) $4.64    $4.38    (1) We sponsor a Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “deferred compensation plan”), under which a CBIZ employee’s compensation deferral is held in a rabbi trust and invested accordingly as directed by the employee. The activities related to the deferred compensation plan are recorded in “Corporate and Other” for segment reporting purposes. Gains and losses resulting from the adjustments to the fair value of the invested assets in the deferred compensation plan are recorded as an increase or decrease to the “Other income (expense), net”, directly offset by the same adjustments as an increase or decrease to compensation expense (recorded as “Operating expense” or “Corporate general and administrative expense”) in the accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. The deferred compensation plan has no impact on “Income before income tax expense” or diluted earnings per share.     Income and expenses related to the deferred compensation plan for the nine months ended September 30, 2026, and 2025, are as follows (in thousands, except percentages):   Nine Months Ended September 30,Income statement line items:  2026 % of Revenue  2025 % of RevenueOperating expense $13,478 0.6 % $17,132 0.8 %Corporate general and administrative expenses  1,788 0.1 %  2,415 0.1 %Other income, net  15,266 0.7 %  19,547 0.9 %              Excluding the impact of the above-mentioned income and expenses related to the deferred compensation plan, the operating results for the nine months ended September 30, 2026, and 2025, are as follows (in thousands, except percentages):

 Nine Months Ended September 30,  2026   2025   As Reported Deferred Compensation Plan  Adjusted  % of Revenue  As Reported  Deferred Compensation Plan   Adjusted % of RevenueGross margin$412,509 $13,478  $425,987  19.1 % $406,140 $17,132  $423,272 19.1 %Operating income 308,755  15,266   324,021  14.5 %  319,168  19,547   338,715 15.3 %Other income, net 11,382  (15,266)  (3,884) (0.2)%  31,786  (19,547)  12,239 0.6 %Income before income tax expense 305,855  —   305,855  13.7 %  271,095  —   271,095 12.2 % (2) Included in “Other income, net” for the nine months ended September 30, 2026, and 2025, is income of $2.6 million and expense of $2.0 million, respectively, related to net changes in the fair value of contingent consideration related to CBIZ's prior acquisitions.   (3) Refer to the schedules reconciling Adjusted Diluted EPS and Adjusted EBITDA to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures at the end of this release and for additional information as to the usefulness of the non-GAAP financial measures to stockholders and investors see “Non-GAAP Financial Measures”. CBIZ, INC.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (UNAUDITED)
SELECT SEGMENT DATA
(In thousands)
   Three Months Ended
September 30, Nine Months Ended
September 30,   2026   2025   2026   2025 Revenue        Financial Services(1) $597,791  $590,431  $1,918,445  $1,897,036 Benefits and Insurance Services  104,449   103,387   314,580   318,292 Total Revenue $702,240  $693,818  $2,233,025  $2,215,328          Gross Margin        Financial Services(1) $109,931  $95,905  $400,003  $386,813 Benefits and Insurance Services  18,299   19,305   56,901   64,845 Operating expenses - unallocated(2):        Other expense $(14,742)
 $(17,234)
 $(30,917)
 $(28,386)
Deferred compensation  566
  (7,847)
  (13,478)
  (17,132)
Total Gross Margin $114,054  $90,129  $412,509  $406,140 As a % of Revenue  16.2 %  13.0 %  18.5 %  18.3 % (1) During the nine months ended September 30, 2026, the National Practice group was combined with the Financial Service practice group to better align with internal management and reporting structure. As a result, the Financial Services revenue and gross margin for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 was adjusted to reflect this change.   (2) Represents operating expenses not directly allocated to individual businesses, including stock-based compensation, consolidation and integration charges, and certain advertising expenses. “Operating expenses - unallocated” also includes gains or losses attributable to the assets held in a rabbi trust associated with the Company's deferred compensation plan. These gains or losses do not impact “Income before income tax expense” as they are directly offset by the same adjustment to “Other income (expense), net” in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. Net gains or losses recognized from adjustments to the fair value of the assets held in the rabbi trust are recorded as compensation expense (income) in “Operating expenses” and “Corporate, general and administrative expenses,” and offset in “Other income (expense), net.” CBIZ, INC.
SELECT CASH FLOW DATA (UNAUDITED)
(In thousands)
   Nine Months Ended September 30,   2026   2025 Net income $218,627  $194,861 Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:    Gain on sale of operations, net of tax  —   (1,124)Depreciation and amortization expense  70,411   74,313 Bad debt expense, net of recoveries  5,072   3,216 Adjustment to contingent purchase price liabilities  (2,638)  1,984 Stock-based compensation expense  22,158   19,572 Deferred income taxes  22,939   8,815 Other, net  5,477   5,256 Changes in assets and liabilities, net of acquisitions and divestitures:    Accounts receivable, net  (231,285)  (186,884)Other assets  (8,771)  (31,071)Accounts payable  (8,835)  9,162 Income taxes payable  45,465   46,364 Accrued personnel costs  (14,389)  (33,962)Other liabilities  22,824   (61,656)Net cash provided by operating activities  147,055   48,846 Net cash used in investing activities  (29,303)  (16,913)Net cash used in financing activities  (185,915)  (75,233)Net decrease in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash  (68,163)  (43,300)Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of year  218,090   187,170 Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period $149,927  $143,870      Reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash to the consolidated balance sheet:Cash and cash equivalents $17,551  $16,969 Restricted cash  40,853   44,455 Cash equivalents included in funds held for clients  91,523   82,446 Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash $149,927  $143,870  CBIZ, INC.
GAAP RECONCILIATION
Operating Cash Flow to Free Cash Flow(1)
(Unaudited. Amounts in thousands, except per share data)
   Nine Months Ended September 30,   2026   2025 Net cash provided by operating activities $147,055  $48,846 Less:    Additions to property and equipment  (21,820)  (15,035)Free Cash Flow $125,235  $33,811  (1) This table reconciles Free Cash Flow to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure of net cash provided by operating activities. Free Cash Flow is a non-GAAP measure that management believes provides a more complete understanding of the factors and trends affecting our cash flows. This information is useful to investors, as it offers a measure of cash generated from our business that can be used for our strategic business objectives. CBIZ, INC.
SELECT FINANCIAL DATA AND RATIOS (UNAUDITED)
(In thousands, except percentages, DSO, and per share data)
   September 30,
2026 December 31,
2025Cash and cash equivalents $17,551  $18,290 Restricted cash  40,853   38,234 Accounts receivable, net  782,392   555,995 Other current assets  88,389   79,693 Current assets before funds held for clients $929,185  $692,212 Funds held for clients  134,454   207,037 Goodwill and other intangible assets, net  2,828,643   2,869,790      Total assets $4,610,429  $4,409,528      Current liabilities before client fund obligations, excluding short-term debt $468,227  $462,484 Client fund obligations  135,305   206,738 Current portion, Term Loan(1) $96,250  $70,000 Revolver Facility(1)  176,500   142,400 Long-term portion, Term Loan(1)  1,181,250   1,260,000      Total liabilities $2,697,705  $2,647,461      Treasury stock  (1,156,495)  (1,078,521)     Total stockholders' equity $1,912,724  $1,762,067      Debt to equity  66.8%   75.5%      Shares outstanding  54,761   54,380 Basic weighted average common shares outstanding  60,057   62,909 Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding  60,333   63,240  (1) Reflects the gross debt for the Term Loan and Revolving Credit Facility excluding the associated unamortized deferred debt issuance costs totaling $13.8 million and $16.5 million, respectively, as of September 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025. CBIZ, INC.
GAAP RECONCILIATION
Net Income (Loss) and Diluted Earnings Per Share (“EPS”) to Adjusted Net Income (Loss), Adjusted Diluted EPS,
Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA Margin(1)
(Unaudited. Amounts in thousands, except per share data)  Three Months Ended September 30, 2026 Financial Services Benefits and Insurance Services Corporate &
Other Consolidated EPSNet income (loss)$110,323  $18,495  $(81,582) $47,236  $0.79 Adjustments:         Amortization of acquired intangible assets 17,138   1,085   —   18,223   0.30 Integration costs related to acquisitions(2) 1,008   1   16,312   17,321   0.29 Corporate projects related costs(3) 110   190   1,836   2,136   0.04 Stock-based compensation(4) 944   —   2,498   3,442   0.06 ESPP correction income(6) —   —   (5,933)  (5,933)  (0.10)Income tax effect related to adjustments —   —   (10,222)  (10,222)  (0.17)Adjusted net income (loss)$129,523  $19,771  $(77,091) $72,203  $1.21 Interest expense —   —   23,986   23,986   Income tax expense —   —   20,404   20,404   Tax effect related to the adjustments above —   —   10,222   10,222   Depreciation(7) 3,159   491   1,387   5,037   Adjusted EBITDA$132,682  $20,262  $(21,092) $131,852   As a % of Revenue 22.2%   19.4%  N/A  18.8%                        Three Months Ended September 30, 2025 Financial
Services Benefits and Insurance Services Corporate &
Other Consolidated EPSNet income (loss)$96,410  $19,347  $(85,611) $30,146  $0.48 Adjustments:         Amortization of acquired intangible assets 17,090   1,658   —   18,748   0.30 Integration costs related to acquisitions(2) 10,340   228   18,071   28,639   0.46 Legal settlement and related costs(5) —   —   (293)  (293)  — Stock-based compensation(4) —   —   3,977   3,977   0.06 Gain on sale of operations, net (1,124)  —   —   (1,124)  (0.02)Income tax effect related to adjustments —   —   (12,635)  (12,635)  (0.22)Adjusted net income (loss)$122,716  $21,233  $(76,491) $67,458  $1.06 Interest expense —   —   27,960   27,960   Income tax expense —   —   10,260   10,260   Tax effect related to the adjustments above —   —   12,635   12,635   Depreciation(7) 4,015   525   1,152   5,692   Adjusted EBITDA$126,731  $21,758  $(24,484) $124,005   As a % of Revenue 21.5%   21.0%  N/A  17.9%    (1) This table reconciles Adjusted net income (loss), Adjusted diluted EPS, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA margin to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. Adjusted net income (loss), Adjusted diluted EPS, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA margin exclude the impact of the Marcum Transaction and other significant non-operating related gains and losses that management does not consider on-going in nature. Please refer to the 'Non-GAAP Financial Measures' section for further management discussion.   (2) These costs include, but are not limited to, certain consulting, technology, personnel, as well as other integration costs related to the Marcum Transaction.   (3) These costs included unusual and one-time legal and professional services costs associated with the Company’s pending transaction.   (4) Stock-based compensation expense reported for the three months ended September 30, 2026 and 2025 excluded $3.1 million and $3.4 million, respectively, of stock-based compensation expense reported as “Integration costs related to acquisitions” above.   (5) During the three months ended September 30, 2025, the Company recorded a $0.3 million adjustment to the accrued legal costs associated with the $12.5 million legal settlement when payments were made.   (6) Represents amounts relating to the impact of the previously disclosed ESPP correction.   (7) Depreciation expense reported for the three months ended September 30, 2026 and 2025 excluded $16 thousand and $0.2 million, respectively, of depreciation expense reported as “Integration costs related to acquisitions” above. The accelerated depreciation was associated with certain technology assets from the Marcum Transaction. CBIZ, INC.
GAAP RECONCILIATION
Net Income (Loss) and Diluted Earnings Per Share (“EPS”) to Adjusted Net Income (Loss), Adjusted Diluted EPS
and Adjusted EBITDA(1)
(Unaudited. Amounts in thousands, except per share data)
  Nine months ended September 30, 2026 Financial
Services Benefits and Insurance
Services Corporate &
Other Consolidated EPSNet income (loss)$399,407  $57,533  $(238,313) $218,627  $3.62 Adjustments:         Integration costs related to acquisitions(2) 21,395   24   34,572   55,991   0.93 Amortization of acquired intangible assets 51,396   3,844   —   55,240   0.92 Gain from acquisition related adjustment, net(3) —   —   (57,955)  (57,955)  (0.96)Corporate projects related costs(4) 110   190   5,193   5,493   0.09 Legal settlement and related costs(5)     7,200   7,200   0.12 Stock-based compensation(6) 2,605   —   10,152   12,757   0.21 ESPP correction expense(7) —   —   7,404   7,404   0.12 Income tax effect related to adjustments —   —   (24,564)  (24,564)  (0.41)Adjusted net income (loss)$474,913  $61,591  $(256,311) $280,193  $4.64 Interest expense —   —   72,237   72,237   Income tax expense —   —   87,228   87,228   Tax effect related to the adjustments above —   —   24,564   24,564   Depreciation(8) 9,424   1,475   4,224   15,123   Adjusted EBITDA$484,337  $63,066  $(68,058) $479,345   As a % of Revenue 25.2%   20.0%  N/A  21.5%              Nine months ended September 30, 2025 Financial
Services Benefits and
Insurance
Services Corporate &
Other Consolidated EPSNet income (loss)$387,477  $65,260  $(257,876) $194,861  $3.06 Adjustments:         Integration costs related to acquisitions(2) 17,840   609   45,045   63,494   1.00 Amortization of acquired intangible assets 51,071   5,133   —   56,204   0.88 Legal settlement and related costs(5) —   —   (11,356)  (11,356)  (0.18)Stock-based compensation(6) —   —   9,530   9,530   0.15 Gain on sale of operations, net (1,124)  —   —   (1,124)  (0.02)Income tax effect related to adjustments —   —   (32,830)  (32,830)  (0.51)Adjusted net income (loss)$455,264  $71,002  $(247,487) $278,779  $4.38 Interest expense —   —   80,983   80,983   Income tax expense —   —   76,234   76,234   Tax effect related to the adjustments above —   —   32,830   32,830   Depreciation(8) 11,364   1,608   3,329   16,301   Adjusted EBITDA$466,628  $72,610  $(54,111) $485,127   As a % of Revenue 24.6%   22.8%  N/A  21.9%    (1) This table reconciles Adjusted net income (loss), Adjusted diluted EPS, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA margin to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. Adjusted net income (loss), Adjusted diluted EPS, Adjusted EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA margin exclude the impact of the Marcum Transaction and other significant non-operating related gains and losses that management does not consider on-going in nature. Please refer to the 'Non-GAAP Financial Measures' section for further management discussion.   (2) These costs include, but are not limited to, certain consulting, technology, personnel, as well as other integration costs related to the Marcum Transaction.   (3) Gain related to the finalization of working capital and related purchase price adjustments associated with the Marcum Transaction.   (4) These costs included unusual and one-time legal and professional services costs associated with the Company’s pending transaction.   (5) During the nine months ended September 30, 2026, the Company recorded an estimated loss of $7.2 million associated with a legal matter which the Company plans to settle. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the Company recorded a gain of $12.5 million related to a legal settlement payment from a small group of former employees. The settlement loss and gain were recorded in “other income (expense), net” on the consolidated statement of comprehensive income. The costs associated with this litigation were $1.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and were recorded in “Corporate general and administrative expenses” on the consolidated statement of comprehensive income.   (6) Stock-based compensation expense reported for the nine months ended September 30, 2026 and 2025 excluded $9.4 million and $6.7 million, respectively, of stock-based compensation expense reported as “Integration costs related to acquisitions” above.   (7) Represents amounts relating to the impact of the previously disclosed ESPP correction.   (8) Depreciation expense reported for the nine months ended September 30, 2026 and 2025 excluded $48 thousand and $1.8 million, respectively, of depreciation expense reported as “Integration costs related to acquisitions” above. The accelerated depreciation was associated with certain technology assets from the Marcum Transaction.

Let me begin with what seems like a pretty easy prediction: By the end of 2028, Archer Aviation (ACHR -4.68%) will more than triple its revenue. In fact, if it continues on the path that it's on, Archer's present-day revenue will explode -- possibly growing by four digits. Here's how.

$4.07-$0.20 (-4.68%)

NYSE · As of 4:00 PM ET 10/16/26

What the next two fiscal years could look like for Archer Currently, Archer is still living through its pre-certification days. Indeed, while its Midnight aircraft can fly, it hasn't gotten the FAA approval needed for full-scale commercial passenger operations. That's why Archer has barely squeezed out $7 million in revenue over the last 12 months.

Data by YCharts

As shown in the chart above, analysts have high expectations for Archer. Between today and the end of 2028, it's generally believed that Archer will grow revenue to about $506 million.

This is, of course, a forecast, not a guarantee. Archer may earn less revenue than expected in 2028; it may earn more. But given some of the company's recent activities, I believe there's good reason to believe Archer could actually exceed these expectations.

For starters, there's Archer's planned acquisition of three subsidiaries from Boeing, one of which is a profitable drone business that generates more than $200 million in annual revenue. If this deal closes, Archer will secure about two-fifths of that $500 million in annual revenue.

There's also Archer's partnership with Anduril. Last November, Archer announced an agreement to supply electric powertrains for Anduril's Omen, an autonomous aircraft developed in partnership with a defense company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE has, in fact, committed to purchasing 50 Omen systems.

Image source: Archer Aviation.

Meanwhile, in July, Archer and Anduril unveiled a jointly developed autonomous aircraft platform with two versions: Thunder, designed for military operations, and Halo, for commercial.

Finally, there's Archer's electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) business, arguably its future bread and butter. Archer has been steadily working through the regulatory process to get its eVTOL Midnight certified for commercial operations. Although no definite date has been established for when Midnight will carry paying passengers, the progress it has made has me convinced it will carry that certification in 2028, if not before.

What does this mean for Archer stock? All of these -- the drone business, the partnership with Anduril, and its own passenger commercial operation -- could combine to generate $500 million in revenue in 2028. That doesn't, however, mean that Archer stock will then soar over that same period.

The sad truth is that $500 million in annual revenue is not enough to plug Archer's spending hole. Last quarter, Archer's operating expenses totaled about $284 million, more than half of its projected annual revenue two years from now.

Two years from now, however, Archer could be a much stronger business, with a certified Midnight and multiple sources of revenue. Aggressive investors with an appetite for risk might want to consider adding some shares today, before that potential growth is reflected in the price.