Aggregator
Alvin Kamara has ‘no beef or bad blood’ with Saints despite skipping voluntary workouts
Here’s why California’s gas-tax insanity keeps getting worse
Let California’s winds of change sweep all of Blue America
Trump administration brokers cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon
Aaron Judge’s injury looming large as Yankees brace for clearer diagnosis
Rebecca Grossman jury awards $176M in damages for death of two young boys
California universities dominate the most selective universities list — SoCal school takes the top spot
This Odell Beckham Jr. is an easy one for Giants fans to get behind
Amazon Plans Data Center In Wheatfield, Indiana; Will Pay $1.25BN To Reduce Energy Cost Impact On Local Payers
By Georgia Butler of DataCenterDynamics
Amazon Web Services (AWS) is seeking to develop a data center campus in Wheatfield, Indiana. Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, the cloud giant has purchased more land in India.
Located in Jasper County and southwest of Michigan City, Wheatfield is a small town and has a population of around 900 as per the 2020 census. AWS presented its plans for the data center during a recent open house at Kankakee Valley High School, as per a report from the Kankakee Valley Post News, in which it said it was looking to build a campus with up to nine buildings on a 304-acre plot of land.
The land in question is currently owned by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), with the Schahfer Generating Station located just a half mile away.
NIPSCO and AWS are in conversations regarding the project. The land is currently leased for agricultural use from the utility.
According to AWS, by locating the data center near the power plant, it would reduce costs related to infrastructure and transmission. Details about the project remain sparse, with discussions on going, but AWS is estimating an investment of around $7 billion. In addition, the project would increase tax revenue for Jasper County from around $1.2 million to more than $420m over the next 15 years.
Amazon will also pay $1.25bn to reduce the energy use cost impact on local ratepayers. The data center will use natural air cooling for around 98% of the year, so as to minimize water usage.
Speaking at the meeting, AWS president of economic development Roger Wehner said: "We want to go to places where people come in with eyes wide open and we can build a great partnership."
Should the project receive approval, construction is expected to begin quickly, with Wehner telling the audience: "We want to start growing with this community as soon as possible. As you can see, we’re already here. We’re already doing things. If it doesn’t work out, that’s okay, we’ll still love it. We won’t feel bad about a single thing we’ve done.”
AWS already has data centers in Northern Indiana, in New Carlisle, and is developing another in Hobart. The projects are part of a $15bn investment commitment to the area made by AWS in November 2025, in which the company said it aimed to add 2.4GW of capacity to the Hoosier State.
Meta, US Signals, DataBank, Netrality, and Digital Crossroads all have a presence in Indiana, with a host of developers looking to develop new campuses across the state. Microsoft and Google have both announced data center builds in Indiana, in Mishawaka and Fort Wayne, respectively.
Meanwhile, in India, Amazon has purchased a 10.61-acre land parcel in Ambernath in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region for Rs 125.13 crore (~$13m), for data center development.
As reported by the Hindustan Times, the land was acquired from Lodha Developers, and the transaction was registered on May 26, 2026.
Amazon already owns an adjacent 49-acre plot, which it acquired in November 2024 from Macrotech Developers for Rs 450 crore ($48.35m). The company also acquired 38.18 acres of land from Lodha in Palava near Navi Mumbai in December 2024.
Plans for a data center campus at the site were revealed in April 2026. Up to six buildings could be developed, four of which will have seven stories and serve as data centers. The remaining two buildings will have two stories and be used to support the electrical and water needs of the data centers. The data centers will have a capacity of 473MW.
In December 2025, Amazon committed to investing $35bn in India, including in data centers and AI infrastructure. Earlier that year, AWS revealed plans to spend $8.3bn in developing cloud infrastructure for just one of its cloud regions - AWS Asia-Pacific (Mumbai).
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 20:05Jaxson Dart, Odell Beckham Jr. flying to San Antonio to cheer on Knicks in NBA Finals
Rep. Jimmy Gomez’s mystery makeout IDed as Eric Swalwell’s chief of staff
Jill Biden claims she’s brutally honest with Joe during book event: ‘Because no one else will be’
Volunteer firefighter arrested for setting blazes and responding to them with his own department during 30-hour arson spree
Nothing beats summer in NYC — even if the AC breaks
Update in mayoral race shows moves for Karen Bass, Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman
California loses its Fortune 500 crown to a red state as billionaire tax fears loom
Russell Wilson says goodbye to NFL in emotional retirement video: ‘Thank you, football’
Andrew Left's Conviction Could Change The Rules For Every Market Commentator...But How?
Andrew Left's fraud conviction is sending shockwaves through the activist short-selling community, not simply because of the verdict itself, but because it has exposed deep uncertainty about what market commentators are legally allowed to do, according to the Financial Times.
For years, activist short sellers operated in an area where investors would build positions, publish research or opinions about a stock, and trade around the market reaction. These practices were often viewed as part of the normal functioning of financial markets. After all, being short carries with it significant risk (far more than being long, as losses are potentially unlimited) and no market reaction to a new opinion is ever guaranteed.
But Left's conviction changes that perception. Prosecutors argued that the founder of Citron Research misled investors by publicly expressing conviction in stocks while privately trading differently, exiting positions quicker than his public statements implied. The case suggests regulators are less focused on whether a short seller's research is accurate and more focused on whether public messaging matches private trading activity.
The verdict has left many activist investors asking a basic question: what exactly are the rules? To many, it doesn't appear as though Left had a duty to anyone to disclose his trading - and there are no rules around how long someone must hold a position after expressing an opinion on it. After all, financial media, social media and sell side research are all littered - on a second by second basis, daily - with people and institutions who have positions in stocks offering up their opinion on them.
And so, industry participants argue that regulations remain vague on key issues. How long must an investor hold a position after publicly discussing it? When does expressing an opinion become market manipulation if the opinion is genuinely held and the information is truthful? What level of disclosure is required when trading around published research?
Veteran short seller Jim Chanos summarized the emerging concern to FT. He said the danger arises when investors appear to be doing one thing publicly while doing something else privately. Yet many market participants believe the line between permissible trading and illegal conduct remains poorly defined. In and around Left's indictment and trial, many times Left's trades were described as doing the "opposite" of what he claimed, when instead he was simply closing a position...not going long stocks he said he was short or going short names he was long.
Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division said in a press release this week: “Andrew Left used his expertise to profit at the expense of retail investors, ordinary people who owned the stocks he targeted. He callously boasted that it was like ‘taking candy from a baby'.”
“Frauds such as the one perpetrated by Left can erode investor confidence which impacts our capital markets,” said Assistant Director in Charge Patrick Grandy of the FBI Los Angeles Field Office.
F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli, who helped prosecute the case, took to X to possibly try and define the lines: "Short selling is not a crime. Mr. Left was convicted of fraudulently manipulating the market, not for ordinary short selling. He used his reputation and public platform to artificially manipulate the market through misleading statements published in the public domain."
He continued: "Ordinary and lawful short selling involves truthful and good faith research on a stock, but this is not what Mr. Left did. He made misleading statements to move the stock so that he could quickly trade on it for his gain. In essence, he cheated. There was overwhelming evidence that this was not ordinary trading, but a strategy designed to take quick profits through social media posts motivated by his desire to make a quick buck. That is fraud."
Short selling is not a crime. Mr. Left was convicted of fraudulently manipulating the market, not for ordinary short selling. He used his reputation and public platform to artificially manipulate the market through misleading statements published in the public domain. Retail… https://t.co/LJHpOEGhbk
— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) June 3, 2026One "lawyer supporting short activists and whistleblowers" took to X to make a detailed thread pointing out his opinion of the weaknesses and strengths of the government's case:
Fisking the triumphalist DoJ press release in the Left trial. It spotlights the weaknesses of the case, and the few strong points.
Let's start with this bullshit.
Left isn't a financial adviser and has none of the fiduciary duties. DoJ knows this. Horseshit No. 1. pic.twitter.com/eeDPI17Fji
He concluded: "My general take, not legal advice to you the person who is not my client, after the Left verdict. Rely on your research not your reputation. Disclose that you use balance sheet. Include your disclaimer in the report not just via link. Be explicit about risk management."
Veteran biotech writer Adam Feuerstein wrote on X: "Andrew Left found guilty for doing what a lot of accounts on this site do far more egregiously. He’ll win his appeal."
Andrew Left found guilty for doing what a lot of accounts on this site do far more egregiously. He’ll win his appeal.
— Adam Feuerstein ✡️ (@adamfeuerstein) June 2, 2026Said another account on X: "Andrew Left going to jail for trading equities and not disclosing it while short is proof no one really cares what youre doing unless youre selling."
"Ordinary and lawful short selling involves truthful and good faith research on a stock"
The ministry of truth has arrived to ban short selling. https://t.co/EHQCg7XCPA
Charles Gasparino openly admits that CNBC guests might be GUILTY of Securities Fraud if Andrew Left is found Guilty. 🚨
He states: “If Andrew Left is guilty, then just about everybody at CNBC is guilty."
They don’t want this to go viral, REPOST ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/izzyReemc1
The Times wrote in a piece out after the conviction: "Andrew Left’s crimes demonstrate the need for greater scrutiny, but such traders have a legitimate role to play in the market."
But the uncertainty extends beyond short sellers. Several of the charges against Left involved long positions, including stocks such as Tesla and Nvidia, suggesting regulators may be applying the same standards to bullish activists as well.
The FT writes that as a result, the case is creating a chilling effect across an already shrinking activist short-selling industry. Some investors worry that increased legal scrutiny could discourage public research and market criticism. Others argue the verdict establishes necessary guardrails against undisclosed trading practices and hidden relationships with hedge funds.
Regardless of where one stands, the biggest takeaway from the Left case is not that activist short selling is under attack. It is that many investors no longer have confidence that they understand the boundaries. The industry's central question has shifted from "Can we publish this research?" to "What conduct will regulators consider deceptive after the fact?" Until clearer standards emerge, activist short sellers are likely to operate more cautiously, anonymously, and defensively than ever before.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 19:40