Aggregator

Ryan Cohen’s Massive $35 Billion Pay Deal Draws Shareholder Lawsuit

A GameStop shareholder has taken the company to court in an effort to delay a July vote on Ryan Cohen's proposed $35 billion pay package, arguing investors aren't getting the full story before being asked to approve it, according to Yahoo Finance. 

The lawsuit accuses GameStop's board of repeatedly changing the voting process in ways that could tilt the outcome toward management. Among the disputed changes are whether Cohen can vote his own sizable stake and how non-votes are treated when tallying results.

At the center of the fight is a compensation plan that could make Cohen one of the highest-paid executives in history—assuming GameStop reaches a series of extremely ambitious financial targets. Critics say the bigger issue isn't the payout itself, but the company's shifting explanations of how the vote will work.

The complaint alleges GameStop initially suggested independent shareholders would effectively decide the proposal, only to later adopt a framework that gives insiders far more influence over the result. According to the plaintiff, that could allow the package to pass even if most ordinary investors aren't on board.

The complaint says: "GameStop's audacious attempts to reduce the power of its disinterested shareholders — in contrast to its prior public statements and in disregard of its Certificate of Incorporation — must stop. Cohen may want $35 billion. That does not allow him and his board to disenfranchise stockholders and violate Delaware law along the way."

"I obviously want to build something much larger, but I don't benefit unless shareholders benefit," Cohen had said in a recent CNBC interview. 

In other words, shareholders are being asked to sign off on a potentially record-setting payday while still trying to figure out which rules apply—a situation the lawsuit argues is no accident.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 06:55

Three Saudi-flagged supertankers with six million barrels of crude onboard sailed through the Strait of Hormuz hours after US President Donald Trump signed a deal with Iran over an end to the conflict, ship tracking data showed on Thursday.

Bullock, 47, says she has traveled alone for many years before she called out the alleged discrimination she faced from airline staffers.

ECB: Iran Peace Deal Won't Erase Europe's Energy Price Shock

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Europe will have to contend with the energy price shock for months despite the tentative U.S.-Iran agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, European Central Bank (ECB) officials said this week.

The ECB last week raised key interest rates for the euro area for the first time since 2023 as the Middle East conflict hiked energy prices that have started to feed into core inflation.

The ECB raised the key interest rate by 25 basis points to 2.25%, its first hike since 2023. Eurozone annual inflation climbed to 3.2% in May, from 3.0% in April, due to the Middle East conflict.

ECB officials are not ruling out further increases in interest rates this year, despite the U.S.-Iran deal, as the energy price shock is expected to linger for months to come.

“Higher energy costs are likely to remain with us longer than many had hoped,” ECB Governing Council member Peter Kazimir said in remarks carried by Bloomberg.

“Even with the just-announced US-Iran peace framework, the damage in the Middle East cannot be undone overnight,” Kazimir added.

The energy price shock has led to European companies raising selling prices and employees and workers asking for higher pay, which would keep inflation rates elevated and well above the ECB’s target of 2%.

Hopes of an imminent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz have eased some of the pressure on the ECB, but the deal hasn’t materially changed the near-term inflation prospects in the Eurozone, according to analysts.

The tentative U.S.-Iran deal doesn’t mean that “pressure to hike has been reduced very significantly,” JP Morgan economist Greg Fuzesi told Bloomberg.

ECB Governing Council member and Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, Gabriel Makhlouf, said earlier this week, “Let me be clear: an end to the conflict does not necessarily mean an immediate end to the shock.”

“Last week’s rate rise was necessary to prevent temporary energy-driven inflation from becoming embedded in wage and price expectations, reflecting the ECB's primary mandate to maintain price stability across the Eurozone,” Makhlouf added.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 06:30

Mayor Katie Wilson herded thousands of drug addicts away from the Lumen Field football stadium and downtown’s hotels — then bragged Seattle was ready for its World Cup close-up.

Swift has tapped Jennifer Lawrence's wedding planner for the Eras tour-level job.

Swift has tapped Jennifer Lawrence's wedding planner for the Eras tour-level job.

It's love and basketball -- but only if it's the Knicks.

Instead of hitting the parade, they have to work to get the grade.

It's time to paint NYC blue and orange.

It's time to paint NYC blue and orange.

Today, it's Knick York City.

In New York City fashion, eateries across the Big Apple are getting into the game showing their Knickerbocker spirit with deals and freebies.

Ferrari Reportedly Tells Buyers To Buy Unpopular Luce To Move Up On Wait List

Ferrari is reportedly using its first-ever EV, the Luce, a €550,000 model that looks more like a cross between a Tesla and a Kia, as a loyalty test inside its highly coveted allocation system.

Ferrari's allocation system is a notoriously exclusive, invitation-only process managed directly by the factory in Maranello. Rather than using waitlists, Ferrari curates ownership by evaluating a buyer's loyalty to the brand, requiring customers to build a multi-million-dollar history of ownership, participate in factory events, and retain cars in order to qualify to buy hypercars right off the production line.

Bloomberg sources say Ferrari is dangling the Luce to buyers in its allocation program, not only to offload the widely unpopular EV but also to give clients a path to move up in the allocation system.

"It is like a restaurant where it is impossible to get a table," Max Girardo, founder of collector-car advisory firm Girardo & Co. and a former RM Sotheby's auctioneer and motor-car specialist, told the outlet in an interview.

Girardo noted, "If you go every week, eventually they find you one. With Ferrari, the more you buy, the more you are treated as an important client."

Here's more detail on what Ferrari is telling clients in their allocation system:

Bloomberg spoke with more than half a dozen investors and collectors from Italy to China to gather details about how Ferrari communicated with clients following the Luce’s presentation.

One buyer said Ferrari made clear to him that taking the car mattered if he wanted to keep his place among top clients.

Another collector said the company is signaling to many clients, especially potential new buyers, that access to a future one-off model may first depend on buying the Luce or cheaper entry-level models.

Ferrari has long preserved its pricing power by intentionally keeping production below market demand, with output capped at roughly 14,000 vehicles last year. That scarcity drives the brand's exclusivity and fuels its coveted allocation system.

The Luce will likely still be purchased by clients looking to leapfrog in the allocation system, especially if it helps secure access to more desirable future releases.

Related: 

• Ferrari Vs Tesla: $640K Luce EV Loses Key Speed And Range Battles To Model S Plaid

Our view is that the Luce risks becoming a modern repeat of the Mondial, the less-loved Ferrari produced in the 1980s and early 1990s that has been shunned by collectors.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 05:45

"I didn’t want to be on set.”

"I didn’t want to be on set.”

Authorities said the alleged abuse occurred over a period spanning from January 2023 to March 2026. 

Too Young For TikTok, Old Enough To Vote?

Authored by Clive Pinder via DailySceptic.org,

There are few sights more comic than a modern minister pretending to be the stern parent of the nation.

We know the routine. The concerned expression. The voice lowered half an octave. The carefully arranged background of flags, earnest young people and laminated safeguarding jargon. Then comes the announcement. The government is going to protect children online.

At which point every parent in the country is expected to breathe a sigh of relief, put down the gin and thank the Department for Being Sensible on Our Behalf.

This would be comic enough at any time. It is even better when the Government now proposing to supervise teenagers online gives the impression of being unable to supervise itself. Sir Keir Starmer wants to childproof the internet while presiding over a state that cannot produce a defence policy that convinces its own side, let alone our allies or enemies.

Still, never mind the Russian threat. Has anyone thought about Chloe scrolling Instagram?

To be fair, there is a problem. Social media is not exactly a moral health spa. Much of it resembles a Victorian freak show redesigned by behavioural psychologists and funded by advertising executives. It is addictive, vain, cruel, stupid and often deranging. The idea that a 14 year-old girl with a smartphone is simply exercising ‘choice’ while being stalked by an algorithm designed to exploit insecurity is absurd.

So no, this is not a libertarian hymn to TikTok.

The problem is not that politicians worry about the effect of social media on young people. The problem is that they worry about it selectively.

The same political class that increasingly tells us young people must be protected from online manipulation is also very keen to tell us that those same young people are mature enough to vote.

This is where the argument begins to wobble like a drunk on a paddleboard.

Apparently, a teenager may not have the judgement to scroll through Instagram without state supervision, but does have the judgement to help choose the next government.

This is not a principle. It is a convenience.

Defenders of the idea will say social media and voting are entirely different activities. One involves psychological harm. The other involves civic empowerment.

Up to a point. But both depend on the same basic faculties. Judgement, emotional maturity, resistance to manipulation, the ability to process information and some capacity to distinguish truth from nonsense.

These are precisely the faculties politicians tell us young people lack when the topic is social media. Yet they mysteriously reappear when the topic is extending the franchise.

If a 16 year-old is too impressionable to cope with Andrew Tate videos, dieting influencers or Chinese-owned dopamine dispensers, why is he or she suddenly immune to political propaganda?

Modern electioneering is not a seminar in constitutional philosophy. It is organised emotional manipulation. It uses fear, flattery, identity, resentment, slogans and carefully tested nonsense. It promises free things that are not free. It manufactures panic. It tells voters that unless they vote correctly, the planet will boil, fascism will return, public services will collapse and everyone decent will suffer.

But this, apparently, is citizenship.

The difference is not that social media manipulates while politics enlightens. The difference is that one form of manipulation sits outside the control of approved institutions. The other benefits them.

That is the real story.

The modern state has developed an elastic theory of childhood. Young people are treated as children when the state wants more power over families, technology, schools or speech. They are treated as adults when the state wants their votes, their assent or their moral authority.

Too young to smoke. Too young to drink. Too young to rent a car. Too young, increasingly, to open an app without the digital equivalent of a permission slip.

Yet old enough to help determine who runs the country.

Parents have been quietly demoted in this arrangement. A mother and father may apparently lack the wisdom to decide how their child uses a phone. Yet that same child, guided by teachers, activists, celebrities and taxpayer-funded campaigns, is expected to make profound democratic choices.

The absurdity is not hard to spot. It merely requires the increasingly unfashionable skill of noticing.

This is not an argument that teenagers are stupid. Many are thoughtful, curious and better informed than adults who spend their evenings shouting at the television. Nor is it an argument that all social media regulation is wrong. Some of it may be necessary, particularly where very young children are concerned.

It is an argument for coherence.

Parliament cannot say young people need protection from algorithms then invite them to swim in the sewage works of political campaigning and call it citizenship.

It cannot claim to defend autonomy while constantly transferring authority from families to bureaucracies.

This is the contradiction at the heart modern government. It does not want young people to grow up. It wants them managed, mobilised and morally useful.

So by all means let us have a serious debate about children, screens and harm. Let us talk about addiction, anxiety, pornography, bullying, parental responsibility and the tech companies that have turned childhood attention into a commodity.

But let us also drop the pretence.

A government that does not trust teenagers or their parents to navigate social media cannot then turn around and declare those same teenagers mature enough to help govern the nation.

That is not democracy.

It is babysitting with a ballot box.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 05:00

Ukraine hit a Moscow oil refinery for a second time in a week and disrupted commercial flights at Moscow airports in one of its biggest drone attacks since Russia’s invasion more than four years ago, Russian officials said Thursday.

Judge Spencer Levine wrote that restricting young adults would make the Second Amendment a 'second-class' right.