Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

AI stocks take a beating, with South Korean memory-chip maker Samsung Electronics setting the tone for the broader market.

SAN FRANCISCO, July 07, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Girard Sharp LLP, a national investment, securities, and consumer class action firm, is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of former Berry Global Group, Inc (“Berry”) investors who received shares of Amcor plc (“Amcor” or the “Company”) in connection with Amcor’s acquisition of Berry on April 30, 2025 (“Merger”).

AMCOR STOCK DECLINES FOLLOWING APRIL 2025 MERGER

Amcor is a Switzerland–based global packaging company that develops and manufactures packaging solutions across a wide range of market segments, including healthcare, agriculture, and food service. The Company states, “As a global leader in packaging solutions for consumer and healthcare products, our industry-leading innovation capabilities, global scale and technical expertise help our customers grow and meet the needs of millions of consumers every day.” Since the closing of the Merger, the Company’s stock price has declined in value.

If you are a former Berry Global investor with losses, please fill out this form, email [email protected], or call (866) 981-4800 for a free consultation. 

Why Girard Sharp? 

Girard Sharp represents investors, consumers, and institutions in class actions and other complex litigation nationwide. We recently obtained a $36.5 million securities settlement against Maxar Technologies, a space imagery company, after its share price collapsed following its acquisition of DigitalGlobe. Our attorneys have obtained multimillion-dollar recoveries for victims of unfair and deceptive practices in antitrust, financial fraud, and consumer protection matters against some of the country’s largest corporations, including Raymond James, John Hancock, and Sears. Girard Sharp has earned top-tier rankings from U.S. News and World Report for Securities and Class Action Litigation and has been repeatedly selected as an Elite Trial Lawyers finalist by the National Law Journal. 

Contact 

Girard Sharp LLP 

(866) 981-4800  

[email protected] 

[email protected] 

www.girardsharp.com 

, /PRNewswire/ -- Markel Insurance, the insurance operation within Markel Group Inc. (NYSE: MKL), today announced the appointment of Grant Smith as Director of Marine Transportation at Markel International.

Grant Smith, Director of Marine Transportation at Markel International Smith will lead the development of the new Marine Transportation business, bringing together Markel International's Hull & Hull War, MECO, Marine & Energy Liabilities, and Transport & Logistics classes under a single leadership structure. The move reflects the increasingly interconnected nature of marine and transportation risks and is designed to provide brokers and clients with more coordinated access to expertise across the portfolio.

In his new role, Smith will be responsible for shaping strategy across multiple classes and geographies while leading initiatives to strengthen underwriting capabilities, improve processes and support the delivery of tailored solutions for brokers and insureds. He will also serve as a senior point of contact for brokers, clients and industry bodies, working closely with Claims and Actuarial teams to strengthen underwriting discipline and risk selection as risk exposures continue to evolve.

Based in London, Smith will report to Dan McCarthy, Managing Director – Marine, Energy & Construction.

Smith joined Markel in 2024 as Director – Marine & Energy Liabilities, before assuming responsibility for Transport & Logistics in 2025. He has more than 17 years' experience across marine specialty lines and underwriting leadership roles.

McCarthy commented: "The marine transportation industry is facing heightened risk exposures, from increasing supply chain disruptions to rising thefts at ports as geopolitical tensions escalate worldwide.

"As these risks become more interconnected, it's increasingly important that brokers and clients can access expertise across the full spectrum of marine and transportation exposures. Bringing these capabilities together under a single leadership structure will help us provide deeper insight, more coordinated solutions and a stronger experience for our trading partners.

"Grant has made a significant contribution since joining Markel in 2024. His experience across marine specialty lines makes him exceptionally well placed to lead this business and support our clients and brokers navigate a rapidly evolving operating environment."

Smith added: "I'm delighted to be taking on the role of Director of Marine Transportation at Markel International. By bringing our marine and transportation capabilities closer together, we have an opportunity to offer clients and brokers more connected expertise across increasingly complex risks, while continuing to build on Markel's long-standing reputation for disciplined underwriting and strong service."

About Markel Insurance
We are Markel Insurance, a leading global specialty insurer with a truly people-first approach. As the insurance operations within the Markel Group Inc. (NYSE: MKL), we leverage a broad array of capabilities and expertise to create intelligent solutions for the most complex specialty insurance needs. However, it is our people – and the deep, valued relationships they develop with colleagues, brokers and clients – that differentiates us worldwide. 

, /PRNewswire/ -- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Insulet Corporation ("Insulet" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PODD) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 21, 2025 and May 26, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 31, 2026.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at [email protected].

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Insulet suffered from defective controls over its manufacturing processes. The Company faced increased risks of safety violations due to these deficiencies. The Company's manufacturing problem necessitating its March 2026 Medical Device Cirrection impacted a greater number of its Pod Products than it claimed. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Insulet, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.             

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com

Office: 310-301-3335

[email protected]

SOURCE The Schall Law Firm

, /PRNewswire/ -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Commvault Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVLT) securities between April 29, 2025 and January 26, 2026, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until Friday, July 17, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Commvault class action lawsuit. Captioned Imbert v. Commvault Systems, Inc., No. 26-cv-05654 (D.N.J.), the Commvault class action lawsuit charges Commvault as well as certain of Commvault's top current and former executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Commvault class action lawsuit, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-commvault-systems-inc-class-action-lawsuit-cvlt.html

You can also contact attorneys Ken Dolitsky or Michael Albert of Robbins Geller by calling 800/851-7783 or via e-mail at [email protected].

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Commvault provides cyber resiliency solutions for enterprises to protect, secure, and recover data, applications, and identity systems.

The Commvault class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false impression that Commvault's annualized recurring revenue ("ARR") growth would remain steady throughout fiscal year 2026; (ii) Commvault knew or recklessly disregarded the impact that different types of sales would have on its ARR growth; and (iii) the variation in net ARR growth is strongly based on the type of sale Commvault is making, thus, Commvault's projected net new ARR should not have been determined without properly factoring in sale type.

The Commvault class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 27, 2026, Commvault released its third quarter 2026 financial results, revealing net new ARR of $39 million, below Commvault's previously guided $45 million. On this news, the price of Commvault stock fell more than 31%, according to the complaint.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Commvault securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Commvault class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Commvault class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Commvault class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Commvault class action lawsuit.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors – $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. 

Contact:
          Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
          Ken Dolitsky
          Michael Albert
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
          800/851-7783
          [email protected]

SOURCE Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Crinetics and Vertex have entered into a definitive agreement under which Vertex will acquire Crinetics for $85 per share in cash, representing a total equity value of approximately $10 billion.

Crinetics Pharmaceuticals shares jumped 99.1% to $83.67 in pre-market trading.

Here are some other stocks moving in pre-market trading.

GainersLosersMarket 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.

A securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Peabody investors after its stock plummeted over 9% because Peabody allegedly misled investors regarding the coal production at Centurion, its flagship premium hard coking coal mine.

, /PRNewswire/ -- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) and certain of the Company's senior executives for securities fraud after its significant stock drop resulting from potential violations of the federal securities laws.

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

Key Details of the Peabody ($BTU) Class Action:

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2026 Alleged Misconduct: Securities fraud relating to Peabody's statements about the coal production at Centurion, its flagship premium hard coking coal mine. Largest Alleged Stock Drop: March 30, 2026 – 9.7% stock drop Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Action: Contact BFA Law to discuss your rights Investors have until August 24, 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 Peabody common stock. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. It is captioned McGeachy v. Peabody, et al., No. 26-cv-01020.

Why is Peabody Being Sued for Securities Fraud?

Peabody is a producer of metallurgic and thermal coal that owns interests in 16 active coal mining operations in the United States and Australia.

According to the complaint, during the relevant period, Peabody announced it would be increasing production from its flagship premium hard coking coal mine, Centurion due to an acceleration of longwall operations. Peabody stated that shipments of Centurion's premium hard coking coal would expand sevenfold in 2026 to 3.5 million tons and even more beyond that time. On February 5, 2026, Peabody indicated that the team was "putting the finishing touches on the Centurion mine in advance of starting longwall mining, well ahead of its original schedule."

As alleged, in truth, the Centurion mine was facing significant commissioning challenges resulting in increased costs and volume decreases in its production.

Why did Peabody's Stock Drop?

On March 30, 2026, Peabody announced lower sales volume from the Centurion mine due to a delivery of only 250,000 tons in the first quarter. Peabody attributed the low volume to "greater than anticipated mine commissioning challenges."

This news caused the price of Peabody common stock to drop $3.82 per share, or 9.7%, from $39.50 per share on March 27, 2026, to $35.68 per share on March 30, 2026.

Then, on May 5, 2026, Peabody announced additional delays to the commissioning of the Centurion mine as well as increased costs and lower volume. Peabody stated it only expected to sell about 300,000 tons in the second quarter and reduced its full year sales outlook for Centurion from 3.5 million tons to 2.5 million tons.

This news caused the price of Peabody common stock to drop $1.52 per share, or 5.7%, from $26.52 per share on May 4, 2026, to $25.00 per share on May 5, 2025.

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

What Can You Do?

If you invested in Peabody, 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/peabody-class-action-lawsuit

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."

Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered 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/peabody-class-action-lawsuit

Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

SOURCE Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP

Key Takeaways:

Parsons has been awarded a three-year contract to provide program management, construction management, and construction supervision for the Lusail City Infrastructure Program in Qatar, one of the Middle East’s most significant master-planned developments.At 38 square kilometers, Lusail’s 19 districts position it as a key driver of investment, tourism, and sustainable growth in Qatar.The award extends Parsons’ nearly 20-year relationship with Qatari Diar, delivering complex urban development programs across the region. CHANTILLY, Va., July 07, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Parsons Corporation (NYSE: PSN) announced today that it has been selected by Lusail Real Estate Development Company (LREDC), to provide program management, construction management, and construction supervision (PMCMCS) to support the delivery of the Lusail City Infrastructure Program, a master-planned development north of Doha. The three-year contract represents a continuation of Parsons’ ongoing engagement in Lusail under a new contractual arrangement.

Under the contract, Parsons will provide oversight of design and construction, interface management, project controls, quality assurance, and coordination with multiple stakeholders across the program to drive the successful delivery.

“Lusail is one of the most significant urban developments in the region, and we are proud to continue supporting its delivery,” said Ahmed El-Essnawi, Vice President – Qatar Country Manager at Parsons. “Since 2006, we have been working with LREDC to provide project management, construction management and site supervision for infrastructure, utilities, and landscape projects. This new program reflects our longstanding relationship in delivering complex, multi-stakeholder developments that support the Qatar National Vision 2030.”

Spanning 38 square kilometers, Lusail comprises 19 residential, mixed-use, commercial, entertainment, and waterfront districts, including four islands and growing hospitality, reinforcing its role as a catalyst for investment, tourism, and sustainable urban growth in Qatar. This award strengthens Parsons’ position as a trusted delivery partner for complex Middle East development programs, supporting public and private‑sector clients with integrated PMCMCS. In November 2026, Qatari Diar is celebrating its 20th anniversary, a true milestone reflecting two decades of improving the quality of life and its commitment to local communities, partnerships and sustainability.

This award builds on Parsons’ nearly 20 years of partnership with Qatari Diar on the Lusail City program, during which the company has supported the delivery of large scale infrastructure and landmark urban development programs including Lusail Marina District, The Seef Lusail Development, Lusail Plaza, the Lusail Commercial Boulevard, as well as the Qetaifan Islands earning multiple industry recognitions including MEED and Big Project Middle East Awards for Road Project of the Year and Residential/Urban Development Project of the Year, respectively.

Parsons has had a presence in the EMEA region for nearly 70 years, supporting clients across the full project lifecycle. From urban and destination development, transport infrastructure and smart mobility to industrial and commercial development, asset management, and defense and security, Parsons draws on its global expertise and local knowledge to deliver projects that are aligned with national strategic frameworks and priorities.

About Parsons
Parsons (NYSE: PSN) is a leading disruptive technology provider in the national security and global infrastructure markets, with capabilities across cyber and electronic warfare, space and missile defense, transportation, water and environment, urban development, and critical infrastructure protection. Please visit Parsons.com and follow us on LinkedIn to learn how we’re making an impact.

To join Parsons in creating the future of Europe and the Middle East, visit parsons.com/emea

Media Contact
Lara Masri
+971 4 4029767
[email protected]

Investor Relations Contact:
Dave Spille
+1 703.775.6191
[email protected]

Forward-Looking Statements: This document contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations, beliefs and assumptions, and are not guarantees of future performance. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to uncertainties, risks, changes in circumstances, trends and factors that are difficult to predict, many of which are outside of our control. Accordingly, actual performance, results and events may vary materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements, and you should not rely on the forward-looking statements as predictions of future performance, results or events. Numerous factors could cause actual future performance, results and events to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements, including, among others: any issue that compromises our relationships with the U.S. federal government or its agencies or other state, local or foreign governments or agencies; any issues that damage our professional reputation; changes in governmental priorities that shift expenditures away from agencies or programs that we support; our dependence on long-term government contracts, which are subject to the government’s budgetary approval process; the size of our addressable markets and the amount of government spending on private contractors; failure by us or our employees to obtain and maintain necessary security clearances or certifications; failure to comply with numerous laws and regulations; changes in government procurement, contract or other practices or the adoption by governments of new laws, rules, regulations and programs in a manner adverse to us; the termination or nonrenewal of our government contracts, particularly our contracts with the U.S. federal government; our ability to compete effectively in the competitive bidding process and delays, contract terminations or cancellations caused by competitors’ protests of major contract awards received by us; our ability to generate revenue under certain of our contracts; any inability to attract, train or retain employees with the requisite skills, experience and security clearances; the loss of members of senior management or failure to develop new leaders; misconduct or other improper activities from our employees or subcontractors; our ability to realize the full value of our backlog and the timing of our receipt of revenue under contracts included in backlog; changes in the mix of our contracts and our ability to accurately estimate or otherwise recover expenses, time and resources for our contracts; changes in estimates used in recognizing revenue; internal system or service failures and security breaches; and inherent uncertainties and potential adverse developments in legal proceedings, including litigation, audits, reviews and investigations, which may result in materially adverse judgments, settlements or other unfavorable outcomes. These factors are not exhaustive and additional factors could adversely affect our business and financial performance. For a discussion of additional factors that could materially adversely affect our business and financial performance, see the factors included under the caption “Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements are based on currently available information and speak only as of the date on which they are made. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statement made in this press release that becomes untrue because of subsequent events, new information or otherwise, except to the extent we are required to do so by law.

Jonas Ström
Chief Executive Officer

Okay. Good morning, all, and a warm welcome to ABG Sundal Colliers Q2 Results Presentation. I will shortly walk you through our performance during the second quarter. But before I do that, I'd like to mention that we will, as usual, have a Q&A session after the presentation. And you want to raise a question, please use the Q&A function in teams, and I will answer all questions you might have in turn.

Okay. It's difficult to be anything than pleased with our performance in the second quarter. We have delivered our second strongest Q2 revenue number in our history, growing our top line by 27% in the quarter year-on-year. The top line growth has been achieved with good contribution across geographies, strong growth in Sweden coupled with stellar performance in Denmark, Denmark delivering its strongest quarter ever, highlighting the enhanced position as the #1 adviser in Denmark, post the acquisition of FIH Partners.

From a Product perspective, the biggest contributor to the strong top line growth was our Corporate Finance operations. On Private Banking, we are pleased with the reception of our services, good growth of customers and assets under management with committed capital above SEK 2 billion, supported by the fact that we have delivered a strong performance in our discretionary portfolios outperforming all relevant indices.

And finally, before digging deeper into the numbers and our performance in the quarter, as announced today, I have decided to step down as CEO effective from September 1, after more than 7 years in this position. It has been an extraordinary journey, and I'm grateful to all of our employees, partners, clients

Jaké faktory budou v druhé polovině roku určovat vývoj světových trhů? Analytici Patria Finance ve svém rozsáhlém investičním výhledu mapují klíčová rizika i příležitosti pro akcie, dluhopisy, měny a technologický sektor.

Pokračování článku je dostupné jen klientům placených služeb Patria Plus / Investor Plus případně uživatelům platformy Patria Direct. Pokud jste klientem těchto služeb, potom je nutné se Přihlásit.

V rámci placeného informačního servisu získáte přístup ke kompletnímu zpravodajství www.patria.cz bez jakýchkoliv omezení. Veškeré zprávy, komentáře a horké zprávy jsou zobrazovány terminálovou metodou (bez nutnosti obnovovat stránku) bez zpoždění a v plné verzi.

Nejen zpravodajství, ale i další služby získáte v Patria Plus / Investor Plus - sms a e-mailové zpravodajství, data z finančních trhů v reálném čase, kompletní analytický servis, rozsáhlé databáze časových řad ke stažení, prognózy vývoje a valuace, ekonomické fundamenty, nástroje a kalkulátory... více

7.7.2026 11:40, BAACEZ

V nové analýze na akcie společnosti ČEZ zvyšujeme v základním scénáři cílovou cenu z úrovně 1044 Kč na 1150 Kč. Zároveň v kontextu plánované transformace ČEZu přinášíme alternativní scénář s valuací v rozmezí 1359 – 1474 Kč, když separátně oceňujeme výrobní a zákaznický segment společnosti. Doporučení zvyšujeme ze stupně „redukovat“ na „držet“.

Valuace ČEZu je v jeho před-transformační fázi specifičtější záležitostí. ČEZ zatím stále funguje v nezměněné podobě, proto v rámci základního ocenění na společnost nahlížíme jako na jeden celek a aplikujeme tradiční DCF model. Při této valuaci jsme přistoupili ke zvýšení cílové ceny z úrovně 1044 Kč na 1150 Kč. Blízkovýchodní krize vyvolala tlaky a nejistoty na globálních komoditních trzích, což se projevilo i do nárůstu tržních cen elektřiny. Tato situace z našeho pohledu nejvíce ovlivní prodejní ceny silové elektřiny ČEZu v letošním a příštím roce. Jejich predikci tak oproti předchozí analýze zvyšujeme o 6,3%, resp. 12 % s pozitivním dopadem do predikce EBITDA zisku v letech 2026 a 2027, kterou navyšujeme z původních 110,3 mld. Kč, resp. 103 mld. Kč na 113,9 mld. Kč, resp. 111,4 mld. Kč. Pro střednědobý horizont zlepšujeme výhled realizačních cen elektřiny už jen mírně k úrovni 90 EUR/MWh, když primárně zohledňujeme vyšší spread mezi cenami na české a německé energetické burze. Ostatní faktory působící na ceny silové elektřiny vnímáme nadále jako vyvážené: z jedné strany zklidnění blízkovýchodní krize, dostatečná globální nabídka zemního plynu a rozvoj OZE bude vytvářet tlak na pokles cen elektřiny. Na druhou stranu emisní povolenky, rostoucí poptávka po zemním plynu jakožto základní suroviny pro transmisi k bezemisní energetice, postupná elektrifikace průmyslu či rozvoj elektromobility by měly naopak ceny elektřiny podporovat.

V kontextu očekávané realizace transformace společnosti nabízíme i alternativní pohled na valuaci ČEZu. Záměrem managementu ČEZu je od sebe oddělit výrobní a zákaznickou část, resp. v rámci plánu optimalizace vlastnické struktury je snaha zřetelněji vyprofilovat a vydefinovat zákaznický segment, jenž je tvořen především regulovaným distribučním byznysem se stabilní ziskovostí. Cílem vyčlenění zákaznického segmentu do samostatné dceřiné společnosti je zefektivnit řízení celé skupiny, otevřít si větší možnosti pro externí financování s potenciálem snížit úrokové náklady, obecně vylepšit si obraz před těmi investory, jenž nechtějí investovat do utilit s uhelnými či jadernými aktivy. Souhrn těchto zmíněných aspektů má pak potenciál podpořit hodnotu celého ČEZu. V rámci alternativní valuace ČEZu oceňujeme zákaznický segment na úrovni 10x EV/EBITDA 2026, což indikuje jeho hodnotu 520 mld. Kč.

Výrobní segment, s výraznou expozicí na tržní riziko, naceňujeme na nižších násobcích. S ohledem na valuaci konkurenčních utilit, na diverzifikované výrobní portfolio ČEZu s efektivními jadernými elektrárnami, stanovujeme násobek výrobní části do rozmezí 7 – 8x EV/EBITDA 2026 indikující enterprise value v intervalu 433 – 495 mld. Kč. Součet valuací obou částí ČEZu tedy činí 953 – 1015 mld. Kč. Po zohlednění čistého dluhu a hodnoty nekontrolních podílů pak, v přepočtu na akcii, oceňujeme ČEZ v rámci alternativního scénáře do rozmezí 1359 – 1474 Kč. Separátní pohled na obě části ČEZu tak dle našich expertních předpokladů přináší vyšší valuaci než v případě náhledu na společnost jako na jednotný celek. Plánovaná transformace ČEZu tak podle našeho názoru má potenciál navýšit hodnotu společnosti. 

Jan Raška, analytik
Fio banka, a.s.
Prohlášení

5.56K Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Sandisk (SNDK 0.03%) stock has made investors significantly richer over the past year, delivering stunning gains of more than 3,660% as of this writing. The stock's phenomenal jump can be justified by the incredible increase in its revenue and earnings, fueled by the artificial intelligence (AI)-driven demand for storage chips.

The demand for the NAND flash chips that Sandisk sells has significantly outpaced supply. The supply shortage has resulted in a significant jump in NAND flash prices, powering Sandisk's growth in the process. However, a recent announcement by memory giant SK Hynix may dent the very catalyst that's fueling Sandisk growth.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

SK Hynix plans to significantly increase NAND flash production According to a recent report, SK Hynix is reportedly going to invest $51 billion to build a new NAND flash production facility in South Korea by 2029. The company intends to address the ongoing NAND flash supply shortage, which has been exacerbated by the rapidly rising demand for storage in AI data centers.

Today's Change

(

-0.03

%) $

-0.57

Current Price

$

1744.43

This seems like a red flag for Sandisk stock at first. After all, SK Hynix controls 18% of the global NAND flash market, according to Counterpoint Research. Sandisk, for comparison, has a 13% market share. Moreover, SK Hynix also sells dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), which explains why it has deeper pockets than Sandisk.

The South Korean semiconductor giant reported $35.5 billion in Q1 revenue. Sandisk, for comparison, has just over $13 billion in trailing-twelve-month revenue. So, SK Hynix is in a stronger position to move the needle in the NAND flash market, and the massive outlay that it is planning over the next three years could substantially increase supply.

Ideally, this should indeed be a cause for concern for Sandisk investors. However, a closer look at the dynamics of the NAND flash space suggests otherwise.

The additional supply is unlikely to dent Sandisk's momentum The storage requirements of AI data centers are so strong that the market is expected to remain undersupplied through 2028. In fact, SK Hynix itself estimates that the shortage of memory chips could persist through the end of the decade despite the addition of new capacity. So, the price increases powering Sandisk's outstanding growth are unlikely to go away any time soon.

Data by YCharts

According to Silicon Motion, a company that supplies NAND flash controllers, estimates that the shortage could get worse next year. That's the reason why market research firm TrendForce is now anticipating NAND flash industry revenue to increase to $379 billion in 2027, up significantly from the earlier estimate of $176 billion.

For comparison, the overall NAND flash revenue is anticipated to increase to $271 billion this year, up from $71.1 billion in 2025. So, the memory boom powering Sandisk's growth isn't going to disappear despite new capacity additions.

As such, investors looking to buy this AI stock can consider doing so even after its astronomical surge over the past year, especially given that it trades at an attractive 27 times forward earnings.

Space Exploration Technologies (SPCX 0.97%), otherwise known as SpaceX, is joining the Nasdaq-100 index today. This means that exchange-traded funds (ETFs) tracking the index, including the Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ +1.43%), will soon own the stock indirectly.

J.P. Morgan, part of JPMorgan Chase, expects this index inclusion to trigger about $4.3 billion in passive buying from index-tracking funds. Although this will serve as a clear near-term demand catalyst for SpaceX, Invesco QQQ Trust investors are also getting exposure to a founder-controlled company with a limited number of publicly traded shares (float) and an unprofitable business.

Image source: Getty Images.

Why SpaceX's Nasdaq-100 entry matters for QQQ investors Invesco QQQ Trust tracks the Nasdaq-100, which includes the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq.

Invesco QQQ Trust

Today's Change

(

1.43

%) $

10.22

Current Price

$

722.82

SpaceX's quick entry became possible because the Nasdaq-100 changed its inclusion rules in 2026. Starting May 1, large newly public companies like SpaceX can be added after just 15 trading days if they rank among the top 40 eligible Nasdaq-listed companies. However, if only a limited number of shares are publicly traded, Nasdaq can limit how much weight the stock gets in the index. The change reflects today's market, where some very large companies stay private for longer and list with only a limited number of shares available for public investors.

SpaceX's Nasdaq-100 inclusion will give Invesco QQQ Trust investors exposure to the space, satellite broadband, and artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure company before S&P 500 (^GSPC +0.72%) index fund investors get it automatically. Reuters reported that SpaceX would need at least 12 months of public trading history, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) profitability, and a public float of at least 10% before it can be considered for inclusion in the S&P 500. However, according to Reuters' estimates, SpaceX's public float is only 3% to 4%. The company also posted a $4.94 billion net loss in 2025.

Since only a small portion of SpaceX shares is available for public trading, buying by funds that track the Nasdaq-100 can have a bigger effect on the stock price. But once that buying is complete, the same limited supply of tradable shares can also make the stock move more sharply if investors start selling. So, Invesco QQQ Trust investors should ask whether SpaceX's Nasdaq-100 inclusion has already lifted the stock enough to limit its near-term gains.

Starlink is the key business to watch The best reason for Invesco QQQ Trust investors to take SpaceX seriously is its Starlink satellite internet business. SpaceX generated $18.7 billion of revenue in 2025, with the Starlink-powered connectivity business accounting for about 60% of total sales. The business had about 10.3 million users across roughly 9,600 satellites at the end of the first quarter.

Today's Change

(

-0.97

%) $

-1.58

Current Price

$

160.42

Starlink is SpaceX's clearest profit engine and is helping offset losses from the company's other growth initiatives. In the first quarter, the connectivity segment generated $1.2 billion of operating profit. But SpaceX still reported a total operating loss of $1.9 billion on $4.7 billion of revenue.

SpaceX's reusable Falcon 9 rocket has helped make the company a leading launch provider for NASA, the Pentagon, and commercial customers. According to Reuters, SpaceX has gone from one launch in 2006 to more than two launches per week, giving it a much faster launch pace than its rivals.

The Federal Communications Commission has approved SpaceX to deploy another 7,500 second-generation Starlink satellites, bringing the approved Gen2 satellite count to 15,000. More satellites should give Starlink more network capacity, which can support faster broadband and mobile connectivity service, as well as growth in aviation, maritime, enterprise, and government markets.

Additionally, if the next-generation reusable rocket system, Starship, works at commercial scale, it could lower launch costs and help SpaceX deploy larger, higher-capacity satellites faster.

Investors are getting growth, but also uncertainty The biggest risk is that Invesco QQQ Trust is being required to buy an expensive story. SpaceX currently trades at nearly 81 times trailing-12-month sales, even though it is a money-losing business.

SpaceX's AI business could become a major long-term growth engine, especially after Anthropic agreed to pay SpaceX $1.25 billion per month through May 2029 for compute capacity. But investors should not treat that as guaranteed revenue. Reuters reported that either company can terminate the agreement with 90 days' notice, and that fees are lower during the ramp-up period. The company is also spending heavily on an AI infrastructure business that is not yet profitable. In the first quarter, the AI segment reported an operating loss of nearly $2.5 billion on $818 million of revenue.

Additionally, Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk accounts for 82.3% of SpaceX's voting power. Hence, although public investors may own the stock, they will have little control over major company decisions. So, Invesco QQQ Trust investors are getting automatic exposure to a company where major decisions will remain heavily shaped by Musk, not by public shareholders.

NASA's inspector general said SpaceX's Artemis III Starship work has faced delays, while refueling the vehicle in space remains one of the biggest technical challenges. With Starship being crucial to SpaceX's plan to launch more satellites at lower cost and support NASA's moon missions, it also adds to the company's execution risk.

Invesco QQQ Trust investors should not panic over one index addition. SpaceX will likely be a modest initial QQQ position because of its limited float. But investors should recognize that QQQ is becoming a slightly more aggressive fund, with higher valuation risk, more execution risk, and more Musk-specific governance risk.

While SpaceX's addition is not a reason to abandon the ETF, it should also remind investors that the Invesco QQQ Trust is not a broad-market fund. Investors should watch Starlink profits, AI losses, Starship progress, and future earnings reports before assuming this index addition is automatically good news.

SpaceX stock NASDAQ:SPCX is all set to enter the Nasdaq-100 on Tuesday, less than a month after its June 12 market debut, giving one of 2026’s biggest IPO trades a powerful new technical catalyst.

Nasdaq confirmed the fast-track inclusion late last month, opening the door for index-tracking funds to buy the stock.

J.P. Morgan estimates the move could draw about $4.3 billion in passive inflows.

The question for investors is whether that mechanical demand can extend the rally, or whether the good news is already priced in.

The Nasdaq-100 entry matters because it creates forced demand.

Funds that track the benchmark, including products such as Invesco QQQ and QQQM, do not buy SpaceX because they have suddenly become more bullish on rockets, Starlink or AI infrastructure.

They buy because their rules require them to mirror the index.

That makes Tuesday’s inclusion a clean near-term trading event. Passive flows can be powerful, especially when a stock has a limited public float and heavy retail interest.

SpaceX’s addition follows recent rule changes that allow very large IPOs to enter major benchmarks faster than before, reflecting the market’s rush to make room for new mega-cap technology names.

For traders, the Nasdaq-100 entry is less about SpaceX’s rockets and more about mechanical demand.

The question is whether that demand is still strong enough to lift a stock that has already traded like a market event in itself.

SpaceX has been volatile since listing.

The stock surged as much as 67% after its debut before sliding sharply in the following days, a move analysts tied more to IPO dynamics and positioning than to a major shift in fundamentals.

Bulls say the story is bigger than rocketsThe bullish case is that SpaceX is being misread as a rocket company when Wall Street should be valuing it as a space, broadband and AI infrastructure platform.

Morgan Stanley has initiated coverage with an Overweight rating and a $300 price target.

The firm argues that SpaceX’s next leg of growth could come from a vertically integrated terrestrial-and-orbital compute stack, not only launch services and Starlink broadband.

That is a much bigger story than index inclusion alone. If investors accept the AI infrastructure thesis, SpaceX could command a valuation closer to fast-growing technology platforms than traditional aerospace peers.

Wedbush is also constructive, though with a more measured target as the firm initiated SpaceX with an Outperform rating and a $190 price target, citing Starlink, Starship, AI infrastructure and space-based connectivity as multiple growth drivers.

That gives bulls a simple argument: Nasdaq-100 buying may help the stock today, but the longer-term case rests on whether SpaceX can become a platform company across launch, broadband and AI-linked infrastructure.

The bear case is just as clear. SpaceX may be an exceptional company, but the stock already carries exceptional expectations.

Morningstar’s Michael Field told Reuters that the fast-track index entry shows strong demand for SpaceX shares, but he also said Morningstar views the stock as overvalued.

That warning matters because index buying can support a stock temporarily, but it does not settle the valuation debate.

Options markets are also signalling caution.

Susquehanna Financial Group strategist Christopher Jacobson saw traders assigning about a 40% probability that SpaceX would trade below $130 by mid-September.

Short interest adds another layer of volatility as it has climbed to 196 million shares, or about 31% of SpaceX’s tradable float.

Short sellers were sitting on about $760 million in mark-to-market losses since the IPO.

Ortex co-founder Peter Hillerberg called the rise in short bets “extraordinary” for a stock public for less than a month, and said continued strength could provide “potential fuel” for a squeeze.

Apple (AAPL +1.36%) lost roughly $500 billion of its market cap over 25 days in June. That's the equivalent of an AbbVie (ABBV 2.42%), Caterpillar (CAT +0.66%), or Mastercard (MA 1.15%) being completely wiped out.

What was once a solid year-to-date performance for Apple has turned into a puny gain. But is the stock a buy after its recent pullback? Here's what history suggests.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

What's behind Apple's recent decline? The first factor that caused Apple stock to fall in recent weeks stems from the company's discussions about a new version of the Siri AI assistant at its 2026 Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) in early June. Deepwater Asset Management's Gene Munster summed up the concerns in a post on X (formerly Twitter):

$AAPL has sold off 2.6% because the jury is still out on whether Apple can deliver compelling AI.

Yes, the demo is amazing, but Craig didn't give any timing updates on the new Siri. Most investors (including Gurman) expected it to launch this fall, but Apple provided no comfort... https://t.co/WUC6EQ5h83

-- Gene Munster (@munster_gene) June 8, 2026 Munster was probably right that some investors aren't confident that Apple's new Siri will excite customers. And he was almost certainly on point about concerns over the timing of the Siri launch, especially considering the company's previous delays.

Today's Change

(

1.36

%) $

4.21

Current Price

$

312.84

However, the biggest reason for Apple's recent decline was last week's announcement that it would increase prices for its Mac and iPad products. The company said in a statement, "The consumer electronics industry is facing an unprecedented challenge. The rapid expansion of AI data centers has created an extraordinary surge in demand for memory and storage. We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly."

Apple CEO Tim Cook told The Wall Street Journal that the memory and storage shortage is like a "hundred-year flood." The big question for investors is whether or not this flood's waters will impact pricing for Apple's crown jewel -- the iPhone.

History lessons History is clear about what investors should do when Apple's shares pull back. In every previous case, the stock declined by nearly 10% or more, which presented a great opportunity to invest in Apple stock.

The most recent example was only a few months ago. Apple's stock fell roughly 13% between Dec. 2, 2025, and Jan. 20, 2026. That proved to be just a temporary trough, though. Apple quickly rebounded, erasing its losses and tacking on a solid gain.

AAPL data by YCharts

We have seen Apple recover from much worse sell-offs in the past. For example, in 2013, many investors worried that iPhone sales had peaked. Apple responded by launching new iPhones with larger screens, spurring a new growth wave.

Fears arose again in 2016 that iPhone demand was slowing. Apple's services business came to the rescue, with strong growth reassuring investors. Fast-forward a couple of years. The tariffs imposed during the first Trump administration negatively impacted Apple's sales in China. Yet again, though, the stock made a comeback.

Is this time different? However, the question for investors now is: Is this time different? When Apple's CEO refers to a "hundred-year flood," it could seem reasonable to conclude that the answer is "yes." However, investors shouldn't make too much of Cook's analogy.

To be sure, memory and storage costs aren't likely to come down anytime soon. But supply will eventually catch up with demand, resulting in at least price stabilization.

More importantly, the reasons why Apple has survived and thrived every previous challenge remain intact. Apple's competitive advantages haven't disappeared. Its customer base is still highly loyal. And the headwinds affecting the company will hurt its competitors just as much.

Wall Street remains generally bullish about Apple. The consensus 12-month price target reflects a potential upside of over 10%. Of the 47 analysts surveyed by S&P Global (SPGI +1.67%) in June, 29 (roughly 62%) rated Apple as a "buy" or "strong buy." Apple also continues to rank among the favorite tech stocks for billionaires.

This time could be different for Apple in some respects. However, I predict that history will repeat itself. Buying Apple on the dip should pay off for patient investors.

Google released a newly proposed "AI Governance In America" framework that is worth digging into.

getty

In today’s column, I examine a newly released AI governance framework that is being floated by Google as a means of providing national guidance and oversight of frontier AI. Frontier AI is the type of AI that is customarily considered leading-edge, large-scale in size and scope, and is exemplified by the latest generative AI and large language models (LLMs) of the major AI makers such as OpenAI ChatGPT and GPT-5, Anthropic Claude, xAI Grok, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and others.

Currently, there isn’t any overarching AI governance mechanism that officially stipulates how, when, where, what, why, and who regarding frontier AI. We are in the early days of the Wild West about AI and the advancement of AI. Some worry that if we don’t formally do something to closely regulate frontier AI, we are doomed. AI makers will continue to rush ahead to get their newest frontier AI into the marketplace and not give sufficient credence to concerns about the AI going awry, potentially leading to an unthinkable existential risk.

A controversial debate is raging over whether regulating frontier AI is a good idea or a bad idea. Too much regulation could dampen AI progress in the U.S. and have us fall behind in the pell-mell global race to advance AI. Too little regulation could allow the unleashing of devilish AI that might wipe us out or at least be horrendously destructive. Which shall we choose? Google posits that a middle ground is to establish an independent entity in the U.S. that would be known as the FARO (Frontier AI Regulatory Organization) and use this new organization to be dedicated to regulating frontier AI in America. The proposal has gotten support and also drawn ire, perhaps emblematic of the controversy all told of how or if frontier AI ought to be regulated.

Let’s talk about it.

This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).

AI And The LawAs a quick background, I’ve been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of facets regarding the intersection of AI and the law for many years. You can find my writings not only in my Forbes column but also as posted in Bloomberg Law, ABA Law Journal, The National Jurist, The Global Legal Post, Lawyer Monthly, The Legal Technologist, MIT Computational Law Journal, and so on.

MORE FOR YOU

There are two major perspectives on the mixture of AI and law:

(1) Law & AI. The application of laws to the governance and regulation of AI. (2) AI & Law. The application of AI to perform legal reasoning.Thus, you can apply the law to AI, and conversely, you can apply AI to the law. For my big picture overview of both of these exciting and rapidly evolving realms, see my discussion at the link here and the link here.

When it comes to applying the law to AI, the aim is to establish suitable regulations and provide appropriate governance on how AI should be devised and implemented. There are longstanding concerns that AI makers aren’t giving due attention to the ethical ramifications of their wares. Ethical issues are construed as “soft laws” and aren’t as formidable as legally enacted laws, known as “hard laws”. To level the playing field and keep AI makers on the up-and-up, some believe that we need more AI laws.

On the other side of the coin is the application of AI to the law. This consists of using AI to aid legal activities. Lawyers tap into the latest AI to devise legal strategies, brainstorm to find creative legal arguments, draft court filings, and prepare for cases by having the AI pretend to be an able adversary. For my extensive coverage on AI for legal reasoning (AILR), see the link here.

The Current Situation LegallyIn terms of the AI laws in the United States, they have not yet stood the test of time, meaning that we won’t really know how well they stand up until there are court cases that test these new laws. It is too early to know whether the laws will survive legal battles waged by AI makers and other contenders. Just because AI laws are enacted does not mean they are proper. All sorts of improper provisions and constitutionally contentious stipulations are undoubtedly buried within these shiny new AI laws.

Congress has repeatedly waded into establishing an overarching federal law that would encompass AI. So far, no dice. The efforts have ultimately faded from view. Thus, at this time, there isn’t an overarching federal law devoted to these controversial AI matters. The big question will be to what degree a sweeping federal law would impact the numerous state-level AI laws. The odds are that many of the state-level laws would run afoul of a federal mandate, and a tsunami of legal cases would arise as a tussle between federal law and state law is undertaken. It surely will be a legal mess.

The crux is that there is intense and pervasive interest in using the law to govern AI. It is an abundantly burgeoning realm. AI companies would be wise to keep a close eye on what is happening in the hallways and byways of regulators and legislative bodies. I have repeatedly noted that a profitable specialty for budding lawyers is to consider concentrating on the exciting and dynamic field of AI and the law; see my predictions and suggestions at the link here.

Frontier AI Is The AimThe advent of generative AI and large language models (LLMs) has spawned a now-common phrase for being at the leading edge or frontier of AI. When an AI maker comes out with their latest LLM, it is said to be at the cutting edge or frontier of where AI is heading. These frontier models tend to incorporate brand-new foundational advances in AI; the models are usually massive in size and require vast amounts of computing to produce. A simple analogy is to liken this to cars, whereby one might say that an automaker has come up with a new, fully loaded car that has all the latest advances and capabilities.

The policy issue is whether the maker of a frontier AI model should be required to undergo some kind of legally mandated federal pre-checks and testing before the AI maker can release the AI to the public or even for private use. One argument in favor of such legislation is that an AI maker could otherwise freely unleash an AI that is going to wreak havoc. In the car analogy, you might say that it would be akin to having no federally mandated requirements to pre-test cars for safety and reliability.

AI makers are in a free-for-all and can currently do as they wish. Concerns about the unabated release of frontier AI models came to the fore when a recent frontier model was found to have discovered cybersecurity hacks that could potentially undermine computer systems everywhere; see my coverage at the link here. The AI maker opted to wait to release the frontier model. Ought that choice be up to the AI maker, or should Congress pass a federal law that requires frontier models to undergo strictly stipulated pre-checks before they can be released?

A contention made by some is that federally mandated pre-checking would dampen and slow the advancement of AI in the United States. Other countries that don’t force such pre-checks would proceed ahead of us. We would be shooting our own foot in the high-stakes race of AI progress. The counterargument is that we could potentially gut our own country by allowing our AI to go unchecked into the marketplace. Others argue that there can be a middle ground that serves as a Goldilocks approach, namely that the porridge is not too cold or too hot, and that federal laws could be crafted to achieve a balance of risk versus reward.

For more on my analysis of this topic, see the link here.

Google Offers Its Middle GroundSpeaking of a middle ground, Google recently released an AI policy document entitled “A Pragmatic Approach to AI Governance in America” (June 2026) that they assert provides a sensible and practical middle-ground approach to “regulating” frontier AI. To clarify, this doesn’t identify specific new AI laws that might be enacted but instead focuses on the creation of a national entity that would have responsibility for overseeing frontier AI in the U.S.

Here are some excerpted salient points from the AI policy proposal:

“Just as there isn’t a single question about AI, or a single goal policy can achieve, there is no single answer to what AI policy should be. In this paper, we build on the best ideas we have seen to separately address the national security risks of frontier AI and the economic and social impacts of widely deployed AI.”“To protect American innovation and ensure global AI leadership while providing for a safe and secure digital future, leading labs need a unified framework for frontier AI safety, security, incident reporting, and transparency.”“We suggest federal policymakers consider a frontier AI regulatory organization (FARO). A FARO could progress and promote national and international standards, guiding requirements for how developers should identify and mitigate risks and verifying that companies implement security practices and incident response plans before releasing frontier models publicly.”“The issues raised by the widespread use of AI applications like chatbots are distinct from the kinds of national security issues posed by advanced frontier AI models. The U.S. federal government should also, but separately, address everyday uses of AI across the economy through a series of discrete frameworks.”I will walk you through some of the aspects that have particularly drawn controversy or have at least gotten a lot of chatter online. One thing to realize is that this isn’t some far-fetched or out-of-the-blue proposal; namely, there have been others calling for establishing an entity of this nature. The mainstay is that this is Google making this recommendation and therefore carries perhaps hefty weight in comparison to AI researchers or others who have been doing likewise.

Debating The Degree Of AI RegulationsOne notable grievance is that there seems to be a new vibe going around overall that attempts to couch the AI regulatory gambit somewhat perniciously. This Google proposal appears to play into that vibe. Allow me to lay this out for you.

We have so far been mired in the on/off dichotomy debate, consisting of two starkly contrasting possibilities:

(1) No regulations on AI.(2) Heavy regulations on AI.You can imagine that this is the typical polarization we seem to have in our society today. Things are either one way or the other way. There is no room in between. To try and get above this earthly dichotomy, many are now saying they are tired of the on/off earsplitting disputes and wish to offer a third option. This certainly sounds refreshing.

The third option is nearly always placed smack dab in the middle of the other two:

(1) No regulations on AI.(2) Middle-ground regulations on AI.(3) Heavy regulations on AI.The beauty of this clever positioning is that anyone taking this stance appears to be above the fray. You would thus fall into the mental trap that they must be taking a balanced approach. It is a trick of taking your mind away from the distasteful extremes of debate and appearing to offer a reasonable compromise, which maybe it is or maybe it isn’t.

To show you what I mean, we could split the apple pie into four slices rather than three, such as this:

(1) No regulations on AI.(2) Modest regulations on AI.(3) Substantial regulations on AI.(4) Heavy regulations on AI.The gist is that we now have a middle ground that consists of two possibilities. The other middle ground in the three-count setup could have been closer to no regulations or closer to heavy regulations. We don’t really know that it is somehow purely in the middle. It appears to be in the middle simply because it is the third option that happens to be between the other two extremes.

Of course, we can keep going in this splitting of the pie:

(1) No regulations on AI. (2) Minimal regulations on AI.(3) Modest regulations on AI.(4) Substantial regulations on AI.(5) Heavy regulations on AI.Claiming that something is a middle ground is not necessarily a middle ground in the sense of being perfectly positioned as the middle stance of two extremes. We must be careful in falling for semantic wording that instantly gets us to perceive a so-called middle ground as the better or best option. I say this due to the recent tendency for lots of pundits at the extremes who are now claiming their opinion is the middle ground, doing so by either making this up or by replacing the goalposts with extremes that seem to cast their posture into a middle ground.

Focus Of AI RegulationsAnother crucial consideration is that there is a trend to divide up AI into two types, consisting of frontier AI and non-frontier AI. Some refer to the non-frontier AI as being below frontier AI. In that sense, we are to think of frontier AI as the tiptop advanced AI, and then anything else is accordingly below that top level. If we merely said non-frontier AI, presumably this could suggest that there is other AI above the frontier AI.

Not everyone is comfortable with dividing AI into those two types. The Google proposal opts to use that framing, such that the FARO would only be overseeing frontier AI, while the below-frontier AI would be handled elsewhere.

We have this categorization:

(1) Frontier AI.(2) Below Frontier AI.What other ways might we divide up AI?

Some believe that it is better to consider the risks associated with AI (this has become both famous and infamous due to the EU AI Act; see my coverage at the link here). There is a claim that an AI doesn’t have to be a frontier AI to necessarily pose grave risks. The frontier AI is likely to have greater risks, but not exclusively so. If our attention is going to be on coping with AI risks, the belief is that rather than setting up an overseeing entity that is mandated to focus on frontier AI, it ought to be focused on risk levels instead.

Therefore, under that logic, we might have an entity that is directed at considering these risk levels:

(1) Low-risk AI.(2) Medium-risk AI.(3) High-risk AI.We could then declare that the entity is perhaps only to focus on high-risk AI, and allow the medium-risk and low-risk to be handled elsewhere. Or we could say that the entity encompasses medium-risk and high-risk, and leave the low-risk for our avenues.

Devising A New EntityThe Google proposal recommends that an independent entity be established. There is plenty of precedent for this in many other areas of societal domain-specific oversight. The proposal identifies several common examples.

Even that aspect of an independent entity carries controversy. Some ardently believe that a new independent entity is going to be a distraction. It will need to be created from scratch, and dedicated workers will need to be hired. The entity might start to become bloated. It could veer from its designated mission. The entity might fight for resources to survive, drifting from its main purpose. On and on, these open-ended horror stories are expressed.

What other options might there be?

The usual possibilities are these:

(1) Assign an existing U.S. governmental agency to oversee all AI governance.(2) Establish a new U.S. governmental agency to oversee all AI governance.(3) Establish a new independent organization with governmental agency oversight.The third one is the gist of the Google proposal, and the document provides its rationale for going that route. The other options are more heavily tilted toward the U.S. government having direct oversight of frontier AI. Some would say they are much more comfortable with the entity being a formal governmental organization. Others would decry that this is worse by far than an independent organization that would have arms-length governmental agency oversight.

Your choice is likely based on your perception of which can do a better job and how much the U.S. government should have a direct versus indirect role in overseeing frontier AI.

The Big Picture ViewpointLet’s consider the big picture positives of an independent nationwide entity that would oversee frontier AI and have a federal agency semblance of oversight:

Creates a single overarching federally mandated focal point with a focus on frontier AI.Would consist of dedicated experts on AI, national security, economics, etc.Provides for the establishment of across-the-board consistent AI standards and safety guidelines.Improves AI national security coordination.Collects and analyzes AI critical incidents akin to aviation safety.Promotes international cooperation regarding frontier AI advances and releases.Reduces regulatory duplication within and between existing federal agencies and is hopefully nimbler than conventional governmental efforts.And so on. Now that we have the upbeat side, let’s think about the tradeoffs and downsides:

Determining what constitutes frontier AI is still murky and could leave out AI that ought to be encompassed within the scope of this entity.The below-frontier AI could still pose grave risks and is seemingly left to a sketchy and scattered range of oversight options.The independent entity might not move quickly enough to cope with the rapidly evolving pace of frontier AI and fall behind its crucial mission.The entity might foster a risk of regulatory capture, wherein AI makers get cozy, and the entity no longer sufficiently performs its independent role.If there are costs associated with dealing with the independent entity, this might aid the large AI makers and be a disadvantage or discouragement to startups and smaller AI players.The entity might go down the path of gradual mission creep and find other avenues for pursuing its interests, drifting from its core mission and splintering its attention.It might get into bitter fights with existing federal agencies, leading to extensive and exhaustive court cases to try to settle these disagreements.And so on.I kept those lists to about seven key points each. Please know that there are a lot more upsides and downsides. That is to be expected and not a surprise. No matter which route we go, there are going to be weighty tradeoffs. There isn’t a rabbit in a hat that is simply waiting to be put on display.

The World We Are InFor those of you who are keenly interested in AI policy and AI governance, especially those who are AI ethicists and AI legal beagles, you ought to give a close read to the Google proposal. I suppose it is obvious to point out that Google has a big stake in these matters, and they are not on the sidelines. A smarmy cynic would say that whatever is proposed would be a sign of something that the tech bros want and, ergo, should be opposed. I don’t think we are going to make progress on these challenging matters if that’s the viewpoint that is going to be utilized.

We need to keep the dialogue going. Advances in AI are coming at a frenetic pace. A lot is on the line. What can we do to mitigate AI risks and yet retain and support AI advantages and benefits? This is the demonstrative question facing us now, and the answer will inexorably shape our future.

As the great statesman and philosopher Francis Bacon once remarked: “They are ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but sea.” Let’s keep our minds open – I’m optimistic that we can find a fruitful place to land.

6.88K Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of MSFT, NVDA either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Denmark will buy two P-8A Poseidon maritime ​patrol aircraft from ​Boeing , the country's defence ⁠ministry said on ​Tuesday.

HomeStock IdeasLong IdeasFinancials 

SummaryMastercard Incorporated is a buy at current levels, trading below its five-year average valuation despite robust growth.MA's Q1 2026 revenue rose 15.7% YoY, with operating margin expanding to 58.4%, reflecting resilient consumer spending and efficient cost control.Cross-border transactions, digital wallet adoption, and integration with stablecoins are key growth drivers, further supported by a strong balance sheet.Technicals remain bullish with strong momentum, though overbought conditions suggest potential short-term dips may offer additional entry points. shaun/iStock Unreleased via Getty Images

As the world goes cashless, e-wallets, digital banks, and cards continue to expand and penetrate more households and businesses. The financial sector is evolving fast and nonstop with the rise of crypto and AI. Yet, businesses like Mastercard Incorporated (

925 Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, but may initiate a beneficial Long position through a purchase of the stock, or the purchase of call options or similar derivatives in MA over the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

By Reuters

July 7, 20267:57 AM UTCUpdated 1 hour ago

The blue Ford oval logo is displayed on the new Ford World Headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S. November 16, 2025. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

CompaniesJuly 7 (Reuters) - Ford (F.N), opens new tab is recalling 110,626 Mustang vehicles in the U.S. ​in two separate recalls over ‌malfunctioning windshield wipers and a rear differential pinion shaft that may ​fracture, the U.S. National ​Highway Traffic Safety Administration said ⁠on Tuesday.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Ford will recall 67,842 ​Mustang and Mustang GTD vehicles ​because in certain cold temperature conditions, the windshield wipers may function only ​at their high-speed setting and ​the washing system may fail to function ‌properly, ⁠NHTSA said.

Separately, Ford is recalling 42,784 Mustang Mach-E vehicles because the rear differential pinion ​shaft may ​fracture, ⁠resulting in loss of drive power or unintended ​movement if the vehicle ​is ⁠parked without the parking brake applied.

Dealers will repair or replace ⁠the ​damaged parts free ​of charge, NHTSA added.

Reporting by Sumedha Mukherjee ​in Bengaluru; Editing by Nivedita Bhattacharjee

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Enhanced itineraries bring guests deeper into Norway's famed fjords, including the
UNESCO-listed Nærøyfjord region

, /PRNewswire/ -- Holland America Line is expanding opportunities for guests to experience Norway's dramatic fjord landscapes in 2027, updating five cruises aboard Rotterdam to include calls to Flåm and Hellesylt. The additions give travelers more access to some of Norway's most sought-after fjord destinations, including the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Nærøyfjord and Storfjorden — the gateway to Geirangerfjord. UNESCO considers the Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord regions to be among "the most scenically outstanding fjord areas on the planet," placing guests at the heart of two of Norway's most celebrated natural wonders.

The itineraries are now open for booking and available on five seven-day cruises aboard Rotterdam. Three departures — May 30, June 27 and Aug. 1, 2027 — combine some of Norway's most beloved cities and fjord landscapes, with calls at Oslo, Kristiansand, Sandnes (Stavanger) and Flåm, plus scenic cruising through the Sognefjord and Oslofjord. On July 25 and Aug. 8, 2027, guests can explore the heart of Norway's fjord country with visits to Eidfjord, Hellesylt, Ålesund and Bergen, alongside scenic cruising in the Hardangerfjord and Storfjorden.

"Northern Europe continues to be one of the most sought-after regions we sail, with fjord cruising ranking among the most desired experiences for our guests," said Paul Grigsby, vice president of deployment and revenue planning for Holland America Line. "By adding Flåm and Hellesylt to these itineraries, we're giving guests even more opportunities to experience the incredible scenery, rich history and unforgettable landscapes that make this part of the world so special. From cruising the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Nærøyfjord and riding the iconic Flåmsbana Railway through Norway's mountains to exploring the dramatic waterfalls and viewpoints of the Storfjorden region, these additions bring guests closer to some of the country's most extraordinary experiences."

Holland America Line's Northern Europe Season Offers More Ways to Explore
Northern Europe remains one of Holland America Line's signature regions and a destination deeply connected to the cruise line's heritage. Founded in Rotterdam in 1873, Holland America Line brings more than 150 years of European history and expertise to the region. In 2027, the cruise line will deploy three ships — Rotterdam, Nieuw Statendam and Zuiderdam — throughout Northern Europe, offering guests a wide variety of opportunities to explore Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the British Isles, Scandinavia and the Baltic.

Guests can choose from seven-day voyages to longer journeys of up to 21 days, with opportunities to sail through Norway's famed fjords, visit historic capitals and discover destinations across Northern Europe. Whether exploring Viking heritage, taking in dramatic natural landscapes or experiencing the cruise line's Dutch roots, travelers will find a range of immersive experiences throughout the season.

For more information about Holland America Line shore excursions or to book a cruise, consult a travel advisor, call 1-877-SAIL HAL (877-724-5425) or visit hollandamerica.com.

Find Holland America Line on Facebook, Instagram and the Holland America Blog. You can also access all social media outlets via the home page at hollandamerica.com.

About Holland America Line
Holland America Line has been exploring the world for more than 150 years with expertly crafted itineraries, extraordinary service and genuine connections to the destinations. Offering a perfectly-sized ship experience, its fleet of 11 vessels visits nearly 400 ports in 114 countries around the world and has shared the thrill of Alaska for more than 75 years — longer than any other cruise line. Savour the Journey isn't just a tagline, it's a reinforcement that the cruise line provides experiences too good to hurry through, connecting travelers to the world and each other. Award-winning enrichment programming, entertainment and cuisine that brings each locale on board, including a revolutionary Global Fresh Fish Program, put Holland America Line at the forefront of premium cruising. Holland America Line is part of Carnival Corporation, the world's largest cruise company with a portfolio of cruise lines operating in over 800 ports & destinations worldwide. (NYSE: CCL).

SOURCE Holland America Line

, /PRNewswire/ -- The DJS Law Group reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against First Solar, Inc. ("First Solar" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FSLR) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Shareholders who purchased shares of FSLR during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointments. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

CLASS PERIOD: February 26, 2025 to February 24, 2026

DEADLINE: August 24, 2026

CASE DETAILS: According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. First Solar overstated its ability to shift operations from Asia to the United States. The Company misled the market with its supposed plans to manage the impact of U.S. tariffs. Based on these facts, First Solar's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, contact us to participate.

WHY DJS LAW GROUP? DJS Law Group's primary focus is to enhance investor return through balanced counseling and aggressive advocacy. We specialize in securities class actions, corporate governance litigation, and domestic/international M&A appraisals. Our clients are some of the largest and most sophisticated hedge funds and alternative asset managers in the world. The litigation claims of our clients are extraordinarily valuable assets that demand respect, focus, and results.

Join the case to recover your losses.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

CONTACT:

David J. Schwartz

DJS Law Group

274 White Plains Road, Suite 1

 Eastchester, NY 10709

Phone: 914-206-9742

Email: [email protected]

SOURCE DJS Law Group LLP

Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - July 7, 2026) - Spartan Metals Corp. (TSXV: W) (OTCQB: SPRMF) (FSE: J03) ("Spartan" or the "Company"), an exploration and development company focused on tungsten in the western United States, is pleased to announce assay results from recent sampling conducted at its past producing Rees Tungsten Mine ("Rees" or "Mine") located within the Rees Claims at its 100% owned Eagle Project, Nevada (Figure 1).

Highlights:

Rock chip samples from inside the Mine assayed at 6.76% and 3.75% tungsten trioxide ("WO")3, which are among the highest tungsten grades reported at the Eagle ProjectHistoric United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) sampling1 from within the Mine returned 8.48%, 1.50%, 0.83%, and 0.83% WO3Historic USBM surface sampling1 at Rees returned 3.40%, 1.80%, and 1.46% WO3Historic production records1 detail approximately 1,306 Short Ton Units (stu) or 1,185 Metric Ton Units (mtu) at an average grade of 3.51% WO3 was shipped in 1954 and 1955The Rees Tungsten Mine is the third past producing tungsten mine at the Eagle Project where Spartan has validated reported historic tungsten grades that are in excess of 1% WO3, which suggests potentially significant tungsten endowment across the Eagle ProjectInitial results confirm past producing grades and further support the belief that the Eagle Project represents one of the highest-grade tungsten districts in the United StatesBrett Marsh, Spartan's President and CEO, stated, "The assay results from within the Rees Tungsten Mine are particularly exciting as they include some of the highest tungsten grades reported by Spartan Metals at the Eagle Project to date. Our sampling not only confirms the exceptional tenor of mineralization observed historically, but also closely aligns with historic United States Bureau of Mines sampling and documented production records. This independent validation continues to strengthen our confidence in the quality and reliability of the historical data across the Eagle Project."

Mr. Marsh, continued, "Perhaps most importantly, Rees is now the third past-producing tungsten mine at Eagle where we have confirmed historic tungsten grades that exceed 1% WO₃. When viewed alongside our recent results from Yellow Jacket and the newly identified tungsten skarn mineralization and new tungsten-silver veins at Tungstonia, a compelling picture is emerging of a large and well-endowed tungsten district with multiple styles of mineralization. We believe these results further demonstrate the exploration potential of the Eagle Project and reinforce our strategy of evaluating both historical producers and previously unexplored targets as we continue to advance the Eagle Project. These grades continue to support our team's interpretation that this project is one of the most prospective and highest-grade tungsten districts in the United States."

These samples were collected as part of the exploration program announced on May 21, 2026 and were taken from within the Rees Mine with approximate locations shown in Figures 2 and 3 with results listed in Table 1. The Rees Mine was entered with the assistance of mine safety professional from High Desert Mining ("High Desert") from Salt Lake City, UT. High Desert was engaged to evaluate the Spartan's past producing mines (Tungstonia, Rees, and Antelope) for potential reopening, which provided Spartan an opportunity to safely enter the abandoned mine to conduct validation sampling.

Figure 4 shows samples RE-2026-001 and RE-2026-002 under ultraviolet ("UV") light with the scheelite mineralization fluorescing as blue or bluish white. Figure 5 shows images taken of the mineralized faces within the mine walls showing pervasive scheelite mineralization. Additional images and videos of the Rees Tungsten Mine are located on Spartan's website here.

Figure 6 shows the Rees Tungsten Mine entrance and an example of remaining underground infrastructure which is believed to have been operated as recently as the 1980s2 and could be potentially reused.

Significance of Assay Results

The Rees Tungsten mine results are particularly notable when viewed in a global tungsten context. Published geological references commonly cite typical tungsten skarn grades in the range of approximately 0.3% to 1.4% WO₃, with many large porphyry, disseminated, greisen and stratabound tungsten systems reported at lower average grades, often below 1% WO₃3. By comparison, Spartan's underground samples at Rees grading 6.76% and 3.75% WO₃, historic USBM samples of up to 8.48% WO₃, and documented historic shipments averaging 3.51% WO₃ highlight the exceptional tenor of tungsten mineralization present within the Mine. While selected rock samples, historic samples and historic production records are not necessarily representative of broader mineralization and do not constitute a Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserve, the repeated confirmation of +1% WO₃ grades at Rees, Yellow Jacket and Tungstonia reinforces Spartan's view that the Eagle Project hosts a potentially significant, district-scale tungsten system with multiple past-producing mines and multiple styles of mineralization.

Next Steps

Spartan will continue to execute its 2026 exploration program as discussed in the May 21, 2026, announcement including:

Continued surface sampling of soils and rocks - including backpack drilling - over claims acquired in November 2025 to potentially extend previously identified tungsten, silver, and rubidium soil anomalies at the Tungstonia.Continued rock sampling and backpack core drilling at the Rees Claims to cover the past producing Rees Tungsten and Antelope Mine areas.Evaluation of a geophysics program for the Rees Claims.Evaluation of establishing safe entry for all past operating mines at the Eagle Project.In Process: Ground geophysics surveys at the Tungstonia Claims to inform depths of existing 2+ km tungsten-silver veins and potential tungsten skarn mineralization that is coincident with tungsten-silver-rubidium soil anomalies and at Yellow Jacket.Early to mid-August: Approximately 3,000 meters (m) diamond core drilling at high priority targets identified through surface sampling and geophysics surveys at the Eagle Project.Table 1 Sample results from Rees Mine with selected USBM samples1 (widths as reported, true widths are not yet known)

Sample IDWO3
(%)Ag
(g/t)Width
(m)CommentsRE-2026-0013.751.1-Rock chip sample in adit from approximately 20m from mine entranceRE-2026-0026.761.0-Rock chip sample in adit from approximately 30.5m from lower crosscut entrance approximately 10m vertically below mine entranceTG-RK-GA-0020.7511.4-Grab sample from mine dump near mine entrance

BM 15421.80N/A1.77Channel sample at surfaceBM 15470.72N/A0.61Channel sample at surfaceBM 15480.69N/A0.49Channel sample at surfaceBM 15491.46N/A0.27Channel sample at surfaceBM 15503.40N/A0.94Channel Sample at surfaceBM 15518.48N/A0.55In adit approximately 4.9m from mine entranceBM 15520.84N/A0.55Near #1 raise approximately 1m from adit floorBM 15531.50N/A0.61From bottom of adit floor below BM 1552BM 15540.83N/A0.34East side of #1 raise about 6.1 m above adit floor

Figure 1 Location map for the Eagle Project showing the Rees and Tungstonia claims

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12484/304127_331d45ae247cabb6_001full.jpg

Figure 2 The Rees Tungsten mine location within the Rees Claims

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12484/304127_331d45ae247cabb6_002full.jpg

Figure 3 Rees Tungsten Mine with schematic of underground workings with USBM and approximate Spartan sample locations. RE-2026-001 was taken from near the Number 1 stope and BM 1443. RE-2026-002 was taken from with a lower crosscutting adit that terminated approximately 10 m below the "Portal" noted above.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12484/304127_331d45ae247cabb6_003full.jpg

Figure 4 Samples RE-2026-001 and RE-2026-002 from within Rees Mine under ultraviolet light (UV) showing extensive scheelite mineralization (blue/white fluorescence)

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12484/304127_331d45ae247cabb6_004full.jpg

Figure 5 Images from within Rees Mine under UV light showing scheelite (blue/white fluorescence) in the adit walls. Each image is approximately 2 m in width across the image.

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12484/304127_331d45ae247cabb6_005full.jpg

Figure 6 Aerial photo of Rees Mine (A) with example of timber infrastructure and chute remaining in the main adit (B).

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12484/304127_331d45ae247cabb6_006full.jpg

QA/QC Procedures

Samples were submitted to American Assay Lab (AAL) of Sparks, Nevada, which is a certified and accredited laboratory, independent of the Company. Samples are prepared using industry standard-prep methods and analyzed using method IM-4AB52 (52 element suite: 0.5g 4-acid plus boric acid hot block, ICP-OES + MS plus IO-NFEx [Sodium Peroxide Fusion, ICP-OES] for W over 500ppm). AAL undertakes its own internal coarse and pulp duplicate analysis to ensure proper sample preparation and equipment calibration. Spartan's QAQC includes regular insertion of CRM standards, duplicates, and blanks with a stringent review of results completed by the Company's Qualified Person, Brett R. Marsh, President and CEO of Spartan Metals.

Qualified Person Statement

The technical information contained in this news release has been prepared under the supervision of, and approved by Brett R. Marsh, CPG. Mr. Marsh is President and CEO of Spartan Metals Corp. and a "qualified person" as defined under National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.

The Company cautions that production, tonnage, grade and recovery information relating to the historic Rees Tungsten Mine are considered "historical" in nature and are not supported by a current NI 43-101 compliant technical report. A Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimates or production records as current mineral resources or mineral reserves, and Spartan is not treating these historical estimates as current mineral resources or reserves.

The historical information referenced herein is derived from a United States Bureau of Mines report1, which the Company believes to be reliable, but has not independently verified. While two samples were collected near those referenced within the report, there has been no systematic exploration and/or verification work completed by Spartan to date to confirm the historical mining, grade or metallurgical information reported for these past producing operations.

The references in this news release to historical production, resources, and economic assessments are provided for context only and should not be interpreted as indicative of the mineralization that may be present on Spartan's current claims, nor as evidence of the economic viability of the Rees Tungsten Mine. There is no assurance that Spartan's exploration programs will confirm the presence of economically mineable mineralization, or that any future resource estimates will reflect similar grades, tonnages or recoveries to those historically reported.

References

1 Gentry G., G., and Pampeyan E., H., 1955, DMEA 3654 Rees Mining Company Antelope Mining Claims, White Pine County, Nevada

2 https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10037285

3 Pitfield, P.E.J. and Brown, T.J. (2011). Tungsten. British Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Profile, Table 3.

4 Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1988, Bulletin 105 p213-217

About The Eagle Project

The Eagle Project presents a unique opportunity to delineate one of the largest and highest-grade Tungsten ("W") and Rubidium ("Rb") districts in the United States. The Project consists of the past-producing4 high-grade Tungstonia, Yellow Jacket, and Rees/Antelope tungsten (W-Cu-Ag) mines. Operations at these mines were from 1915 to 1942 with intermittent small-scale production occurring until 1956. Tungsten production from these mines totaled 8,379 units at grades between 0.6%-0.9% WO3.

The Project is ~36.5 km² in size and located approximately 120 kilometers northeast of the town of Ely, in the Kern Mountains of White Pine County, Nevada. The Project covers 9,033 acres consisting of 445 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unpatented lode mining claims.

Three deposit types are present at Eagle; Porphyry, Skarn, and Carbonate Replacement (CRD) that contain significant or anomalous grades of Tungsten (W), Silver (Ag), and Rubidium (Rb) plus Cu-Sb±Au-Pb-Zn-Bi-As across three project focus areas that also includes the potential to recover W-Rb-Ag from the legacy Tungstonia Mill Tailings.

About Spartan Metals Corp.

Spartan Metals is focused on developing critical minerals projects in well-established and stable mining jurisdictions in the Western United States, with an emphasis on building a portfolio of diverse strategic defense minerals such as Tungsten, Rubidium, Antimony, Bismuth, and Arsenic.

Spartan's high quality project portfolio includes an option to earn 100% of the Victorio Tungsten-Molybdenum Project in New Mexico and the 100% owned Eagle Tungsten-Silver-Rubidium Project in Nevada. Victorio hosts the largest tungsten resource in the United States and contains significant concentrations of beryllium and fluorspar, while the Eagle Project consists of the highest-grade historic tungsten resource in the USA which includes significant under-defined resources consisting of: high-grade silver; rubidium; antimony; bismuth; indium; as well as precious and base metals, and more information about Spartan Metals can be found at www.SpartanMetals.com.

On behalf of the Board of Spartan
"Brett Marsh"
President, CEO & Director

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Service Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this press release

Forward Looking Statements
This news release contains statements that constitute "forward-looking statements." Such forward looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company's actual results, performance or achievements, or developments in the industry to differ materially from the anticipated results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "intends," "estimates," "projects," "potential" and similar expressions, or that events or conditions "will," "would," "may," "could" or "should" occur. Forward-Looking Information in this news release, Spartan has applied several material assumptions, including, but not limited to, assumptions that: the current objectives concerning the Company's projects can be achieved and that its other corporate activities will proceed as expected; that general business and economic conditions will not change in a materially adverse manner; and that all requisite information will be available in a timely manner.

Although the Company believes the forward-looking information contained in this news release is reasonable based on information available on the date hereof, by their nature forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements, or other future events, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. By their nature, these statements involve a variety of assumptions, known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, which may cause actual results, levels of activity and achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements.

Examples of such assumptions, risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, assumptions, risks and uncertainties associated with general economic conditions; adverse industry events; future legislative and regulatory developments; the Company's ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources, and/or inability to access sufficient capital on favorable terms; the ability of the Company to implement its business strategies; competition; the ability of the Company to obtain and retain all applicable regulatory and other approvals and other assumptions, risks and uncertainties.

THE FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS NEWS RELEASE REPRESENTS THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMPANY AS OF THE DATE OF THIS NEWS RELEASE AND, ACCORDINGLY, IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AFTER SUCH DATE. READERS SHOULD NOT PLACE UNDUE IMPORTANCE ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION AND SHOULD NOT RELY UPON THIS INFORMATION AS OF ANY OTHER DATE. WHILE THE COMPANY MAY ELECT TO, IT DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO UPDATE THIS INFORMATION AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME EXCEPT AS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/304127

Source: Spartan Metals Corp.

Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

Micron stock NASDAQ:MU has fallen roughly 22% from its record high, sliding to around $985 on Monday after touching an all-time high near $1,255.

The drop looks jarring because the memory-chip maker only recently posted record quarterly results and upbeat guidance.

The selloff has shifted the debate from Micron’s earnings strength to valuation risk, with investors weighing an overheated AI chip trade against a memory market that remains unusually tight.

The latest pullback does not appear to be a Micron-specific blow-up, but part of a broader reset across the AI hardware trade after a blistering rally in memory and storage stocks.

Meta’s reported move to build a third-party AI compute business rattled investors because it was read as a possible sign that some hyperscalers may eventually have excess capacity to sell.

That hit sentiment across chipmakers and AI infrastructure names, not just Micron.

The analyst linked MU’s drop to Meta’s cautious data-centre signals and broader worries about whether the memory boom can sustain its momentum.

The selling also came after a huge run.

Even after the pullback, Micron remains up more than 250% year-to-date. That makes the 22% fall look less like a collapse and more like profit-taking after a powerful AI-driven run.

Hedge-fund positioning may have amplified the move.

As per Goldman Sachs, US hedge funds had sold technology hardware stocks for a fourth straight week ahead of earnings season, reflecting caution after sharp semiconductor gains.

Analysts remain broadly constructive because the fundamentals still look strong.

Micron reported record fiscal third-quarter revenue of $41.5 billion, up from $23.9 billion in the prior quarter and $9.3 billion a year earlier.

Non-GAAP net income came in at $28.9 billion, or $25.11 per diluted share, while operating cash flow reached $25.4 billion.

Bank of America’s Vivek Arya raised his Micron price target to $1,500 from $950 while keeping a Buy rating.

His bullish view reflects the idea that AI infrastructure is shifting from a pure demand story to a physical bottleneck story, where memory, chips and power remain scarce.

Citi’s Atif Malik has also stayed upbeat as the analyst raised his target to $1,200 in June, citing better-than-expected memory pricing, strong data-centre demand and constrained supply.

UBS is even more bullish as analyst Nicolas Gaudois viewed the latest dip as a buying opportunity and kept a $1,625 target, citing persistent memory-industry strength and tight supply.

Still, the buying-window argument is not risk-free.

Michael Burry has reportedly taken a short position against Micron, while questioning whether the stock’s surge reflects AI hype rather than sustainable value.

There is also the classic memory-cycle risk, as today’s shortage can become tomorrow’s glut if rivals add too much capacity.

Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix plan a combined $2.1 trillion in long-term investment, a scale that could eventually pressure pricing if AI demand cools or supply arrives faster than expected.