AP Sports SummaryBrief at 4:13 p.m. ESTCompany experts offer predictions across key sectors to help businesses navigate the unexpected MEMPHIS, Tenn. , Dec. 12, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Sedgwick , a leading global provider of claims management, loss adjusting and technology-enabled business solutions, has published its Forecasting 2025 thought leadership report . In preparing the report, Sedgwick's experts conducted research and engaged with clients for notable insights to forecast trends across key sectors and topics. The content focuses on ensuring organizations are aware of new risks and evolving trends and helping them navigate the unexpected in the year ahead. The Forecasting 2025 thought leadership report highlights trends related to: The future of the workplace: Organizational leaders will need to navigate generational differences, an ever-increasing focus on mental health, and new strategies for talent recruitment, retention and development — while developing efficient support systems to respond in the event of workplace injuries, accidents and other crises. Recalls, regulatory landscape and compliance: Strategies like "mock recalls" will be a priority as leaders focus on maintaining public trust, tailoring communication strategies to broader and more segmented audiences, and maximizing awareness and response in the event of a product recall. Catastrophe planning and disaster recovery: Operational continuity in the event of a disaster will be key in 2025, as business and property owners, company leaders and private citizens anticipate the rising frequency and intensity of droughts, extreme temperatures, flooding and storms. Parametric insurance policies will become more common, as will new building methods and construction strategies amid regulatory and policy changes, technological advancements, and environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives. AI and ...: Artificial intelligence and robotics have driven some of the most prominent workplace evolutions over the past few years. In 2025, these and other leading-edge technologies will continue to play a significant role in the way companies promote efficiencies and engage with customers. However, business leaders must be able to keep up with new regulations, understand the associated vulnerabilities and risks, and put a team in place to effectively implement and maintain them. Planning ahead: The world is rapidly changing, becoming more uncertain and volatile every day. Supply chain disruptions, new tariffs, more frequent and sophisticated cyber-attacks and business interruption will greatly impact organizations in 2025. Diversification, rapid response and technology will be critical tools in being as prepared as possible. "2024 was a seismic year across industry sectors as companies navigated the unexpected, and 2025 will be no different," said Kimberly George, Sedgwick's Global Chief Brand Officer . "These predictions serve as a barometer for what's to come, so leaders around the world can prepare accordingly." The trends and predictions in the Forecasting 2025 report will be monitored by Sedgwick's experts throughout the year and serve as part of a larger thought leadership strategy to keep clients and partners informed. With this, Sedgwick will launch a new podcast featuring in-depth conversations with its experts and client partners on a new topic each month. For more on the report insights, visit sedgwick.com . About Sedgwick Sedgwick is a leading global provider of claims management, loss adjusting and technology-enabled business solutions. The company provides a broad range of resources tailored to clients' specific needs in casualty, property, marine, benefits, brand protection and other lines. At Sedgwick, caring counts; through the dedication and expertise of over 33,000 colleagues across 80 countries, the company takes care of people and organizations by mitigating and reducing risks and losses, promoting health and productivity, protecting brand reputations, and containing costs that can impact performance. Sedgwick's majority shareholder is The Carlyle Group; Stone Point Capital LLC, Altas Partners, CDPQ, Onex and other management investors are minority shareholders. For more, see sedgwick.com . View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sedgwick-shares-major-trends-in-forecasting-2025-report-302330767.html SOURCE Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.casino games cards 。

Waddell, Tyler & Cheatum, Shelby to Fairbanks, Tyler & Tara , 3840 Sewell St., $304,000. Wadell, Donald K & Janet L to Alonso, Sonia Gutierrez , 811 Rockhurst Dr., $335,000. Warneke, Barbara A to Tlc By Acd LLC , 3901 N 8th St., $280,000. Wesely, Tyler to Martinez, Hipolito & Rosa , 719 W A St., $230,000. Wetherington, William C & Diessner, Cheyanne M to Dibernardo, Joel & Rachel , 7411 S 18th St., $370,000. Wheeler, Daniel W to Mittan, Gregory N & Christa L , 6001 S 88th St., $504,000. Wheeler, Diana S to Mittan, Gregory N & Christa L , 6001 S 88th St., $504,000. People are also reading... Matt Rhule, Luke Fickell both downplay postgame encounter between Fickell, Donovan Raiola Wisconsin officer grabbing Donovan Raiola's arm a 'misunderstanding,' UW police say ‘I don’t care who’s played': Nebraska’s Dana Holgorsen on personnel changes at tight end Man found dead in north Lincoln, police say Arrest made in 55-year-old cold case of Nebraska teen stabbed to death Here's how Nebraska doctors are finding 'more opportunities to save lives' from lung cancer Amie Just: Bring out the tissues — and the brooms — for Nebraska volleyball's emotional win Cover Five: With pressure rising, Matt Rhule delivers Nebraska a bowl bid in Year 2 Lincoln restaurants open on Thanksgiving Day Nebraska GOP to seek hard-right social policies in 2025 legislative session Signing Day: Meet Nebraska volleyball's five-player 2025 class Here's what Nebraska volleyball's loss to Penn State means for Huskers' Big Ten title hopes Just Askin': What is the best-case scenario for Nebraska football’s bowl destination? Driver of car dead after crash in downtown Lincoln; part of O Street closed Nebraska medical marijuana petitions ruled valid; law set to go into effect Dec. 12 Williamson, Bruce E & Vickie M to Long, Terra Marie & Matthew Loyd , 7421 S 35th St., $430,000. Zimmer Jr Family Trust to Scott, Haydon , 935 La Brea Ave, $227,000. 1033 Brandeis LLC to 333 S 11th St. LLC , 333 S 11th St., $650,000. 51 Holdings LLC to Newman, Barry & Debra , 1600 S 93rd St., $635,734. Allen, David L Estate to Baldwin, Michael P & Jessica L , 5929 Elkcrest Dr., $272,500. Anschutz, Luke F & Anderson-Anschutz, Jessica J to Guy, Amy & David , 5907 Arrowwood Rd., $478,500. Arington, Thomas D to McDowell, Paige & Molly , 2121 W Garfield St., $235,000. Augustyn, Charles Leonard to Hudson Properties LLC , 731 N 58th St., $180,000. Austin, Geraldine J Revocable Trust to Stull, Mary E & William H , 4500 S 50th St., $242,000. Bashore, Joe Walter III Estate to Midwest's Best Home Renovations LLC , 3275 Potter St., $115,000. Baumfalk, Diane to Gerbers, Phillip L Family Trust , 2425 Folkways Blvd (Unit #135), $31,250. Becker, Bradley L & Kelley R to Mok, David & Bryan, Maia , 4105 N 18th St., $257,000. Bell, Aaron & Niki to Zelnio, Lucas & Teagan , 2020 Calvert St., $280,000. Berge, Martin Bradlee to Mmjs Properties LLC , 7024 Stanton St., $109,000. Black Forest Partners Inc to Blosser, James R & D'arcy , 6245 Carveth Dr., $165,000. Blaker, Dennis F & Karen K Living Trust to Almotawa, Safaa M , 4524 NW 49th St., $250,000. Burback, Betty to Gerbers, Phillip L Family Trust , 2425 Folkways Blvd (Unit #135), $31,250. Burjus, John to Hyland, Dan S & Joann M , 7836 Stonewall Ct, $318,800. Byington, Robert T & Jane A to Bel Fury Investments Group LLC , 1500 Stonyhill Rd., $238,450. Calvert Properties LLC to Casey Nelson Estate LLC , 1845 S 1st St., $1,200,000. Caryco Inc to Koll Investment Properties LLC , 924 Garfield St., $415,000. Chimney Rock Capital LLC to Davis, Ardeane M , 1911 Brower Rd., $225,000. Crowley, James B to Regan, Patrick , 2636 Sewell St., $149,900. Csom-ross LLC to Offerside LLC , 3001 S St., $310,000. Csom-ross LLC to Offerside LLC , 2931 Apple St., $310,000. Csom-ross LLC to Offerside LLC , 1425 N 14th St., $310,000. Davis, Dawn Y & Jerrod W to Ordaz, Arturo Gonzalez , 2445 SW 16th St., $255,000. Davis, Thomas R Estate to Schmidt, Marty , 4214 Starr St., $158,000. Domico, Joseph K to Deze Designed Investments LLC , 1633 Euclid Ave, $114,000. Dubas, Paul L & Teddi L to Hm Investing LLC , 945 S 35th St., $140,000. Egelhoff, Frank to Slechta, Joseph , 4930 J St., $245,000. Evergreen Development Inc to Holdsworth, Cathy , 1155 Evergreen Rd. (Bennet), $70,000. F & G Properties LLC to Salazar, Augusto J & Priscilla G , 7740 Kallum Dr., $399,950. Fanelle, Erica to Lott, Patricia , 3601 N 70th St., $209,000. Four Friends LLC to Benavides, Ayden & Mackensie , 6331 Colfax Ave, $248,000. Gardner, Christian to Goodban, Kevin , 535 Tyler St. (Bennet), $198,000. Girmus, Taegan & Kiley to Pawlowski, Luke Wesley , 819 S 45th St., $250,000. Godfrey, Victor Ryun to Knox Properties Revocable Trust , 2744 Jackson Dr., $479,900. Gooch, Matthew to Pham, Tam & Nguyen, Mai H , 6600 NW 105th St. (Malcolm), $515,000. Grant, Fred C to Bel Fury Investments Group LLC , 2284 Sheldon St., $89,000. Gyhra, Wesley & Laurie to Richmond, Luke & Mercedes , 9741 N 151 St. (Waverly), $600,000. Haffner, Doug & Susanna to Wedding, Alex & Fields, Brianna , 3825 A St., $218,000. Hansmeyer Investments LLC to 4606 Grassridge Rd. LLC , 4606 Grassridge Rd., $160,000. Heineke, Doris M Estate to Kaliszewski, Kirk , 265 Garden St. (Bennet), $170,000. Holloway, James Craig Jr & Jessica Marie to Leske, Charlotte Marie , 2411 S Canterbury Ln, $360,000. Homemade Holdings LLC to Sweeney, Brien & Alysha , 3236 Mohawk St., $230,000. Husted, Evan to Scherer, Megan , 1841 Oakdale Ave, $310,000. Jenda Family Services LLC to City Of Lincoln & The County Of Lancaster , 815 K St., $1,100,000. Jenkins, Joseph & Evans, Madisen to Hall, Patricia , 2417 S 39th St., $225,000. Jones, Barbara A to Tempelmeyer, Earl & Mertes, Catherine , 8867 Leighton Ave, $250,000. Khorram Capital LLC to Midwest's Best Home Renovations LLC , 6019 Baldwin Ave, $142,000. Khorram Capital LLC to Lg Rentals LLC , 7301 Morton St., $180,000. Klein, Larry J & Gayle (Aka Tracey) Declaration Of Trust to Kumke, Michaella J & Kennedy, Ariana R , 2401 Marilynn Ave, $138,000. Klein, Robert A Estate to Kumke, Michaella J & Kennedy, Ariana R , 2401 Marilynn Ave, $138,000. Klmd Investments LLC to Montoya, Luis A Portales & Salazar, Elizabeth , 2550 SW 17th St., $300,000. Klodnicki, Richard H Estate to Millennial Estates & Investments LLC , 510 Northborough Ln, $175,000. Koll Investment Properties LLC to 1991 Properties LLC , 924 Garfield St., $420,000. Kreiter, Travis to Solberg, Derek & Homolka, Lacey , 5441 Stockwell St., $280,000. Lambert, Jena N to Egelhoff, Frank & Anna , 8114 Meredeth St., $385,000. Lamp, Adam to Nguyen, Kiet Tuan & Phuong Nga Thi & Thach, Tra & Le, Khoi , 1730 W Big Sky Rd., $385,000. Legacy Homes Omaha LLC to Palmer, Todd C & Elizabeth J , 10231 S 31st St. (Roca), $90,530. Mattern, William & Jean to Schmidt, Ethan M & Kelsey L , 3342 Washington St., $296,800. McCarty, Jasmine to Williams, Justin & Deborah , 1136 A St., $147,000. Melby, Ross & McKenzie to Anderson, Nathan & Melissa , 4210 W Ludwig Dr., $403,000. Merboth, Marcia K to Bogus, Kurt & Christine G , 4631 Birch Hollow Dr., $427,500. Mikus, James & Shelly L to Hitz, Katie & Cox, Braydon , 424 W Cuming St., $330,000. Mundorf, Denise & Edward L to Siedhoff, Eric S & Elizabeth J , 25 Apple St. (Bennet), $525,000. Myers, Chris L & Kasandra to Keating, Jack & McKenna , 101 Scott's Creek Pl (Hickman), $510,000. Nessetti, Shelly M to Bakr, Faris & Eazden, Zainab , 8229 Ryley Ln, $330,000. New Traditions Home And Realty LLC D/B/A Hartland Homes to Tran, Khoa & Vo, Dung , 6401 N 12th Ct, $353,838. Newcomm, Kathy L to Gerbers, Phillip L Family Trust , 2425 Folkways Blvd (Unit #135), $31,250. Nguyen, Vuong H & Truong, Tien T to Mejia, Hugo Vicente , 5100 W Partridge Ln, $195,000. Nichols, Christy to Nw27 LLC , 7002 NW 27th St., $5,573,875. Ntc Leasing LLC to S&kd Company LLC , 1000 Driftwood Dr., $225,000. Oatman, Ashley to Rock And Fortress Ps 144 LLC , 2301 Irving St., $292,500. Obioma, Chigozie John to Mai, Linh & Binh , 2207 Old Glory Rd., $313,000. Offerside LLC to Abundance Real Estate LLC , 3001 S St., $176,000. Offerside LLC to Deze Designed Investments LLC , 2931 Apple St., $133,000. Offerside LLC to Tnd Investments LLC , 1425 N 14th St., $160,000. Opp, Edwin L to Lindburg, Taylor S , 6551 Boxelder Dr., $274,000. Perez, Abner & Ana F to Bauer, Kyle Ln. & Ashley Megan , 125 N Harrison St. (Hallam), $179,000. Perez, Chris & Everth to Perez, Abner & Ana , 2151 S 50th St., $227,500. R C Krueger Development Company to Dunrite Homes Incorporated , 9421 Dalton Dr., $87,950. R C Krueger Development Company to Dunrite Homes Incorporated , 9511 Dalton Dr., $86,950. Randazzo, Richard & Beverly to Le, Hong Van & Vu, Kim Chi Thi , 7001 La Salle St., $298,000. Rasmussen, Pete to Asproperties LLC , 1336 Plum St., $152,000. Rcj Inc to 1943 LLC , 1943 S 34th St., $190,000. Rcj Inc to 1943 LLC , 1943 S 34th St., $75,200. Redland, Benjamin & Abby to West, Joshua , 1512 W Lake Ct, $352,000. Reed, Julie E to Cernik, Leonard G & Debra D , 1600 Kingston Rd., $305,000. Rice, Robert & Celia to Sheets, Caleb & Jenna , 915 Chicory Ln (Hickman), $435,000. Richland Homes LLC to Oatman, Ashley , 7921 Lena St., $494,415. Richmond, Mercedes & Luke to Detzel, Larysa & Matthew , 14138 St. Ronan Cir (Waverly), $490,000. Roehl, Phyllis Mae Revocable Trust, The to Roehl, Louann , 6131 S 48th St., $246,000. Roeker, Jodene R to Grabowski, Haley , 324 Prestwick Rd., $220,000. Rowbal, Roy to Nw27 LLC , 7002 NW 27th St., $5,573,875. Schreiter, Jerris L to Gregg, Austin J & Taylor R & Schreiter, Craig D , 27303 SW 14th St. (Hallam), $358,000. Schwisow, Eldonna Revocable Trust to Oncenter Construction Inc , 7050 N 50th Pl, $80,000. Schwisow, Eldonna Revocable Trust to Oncenter Construction Inc , 7100 N 50th Pl, $80,000. Schwisow, Roger H Revocable Trust to Oncenter Construction Inc , 7050 N 50th Pl, $80,000. Schwisow, Roger H Revocable Trust to Oncenter Construction Inc , 7100 N 50th Pl, $80,000. Smetter Custom Homes Inc to Russell Wilshusen & Teresa M Eisenmenger-Wilshusen , 6961 Claystone Dr., $418,489. Smith, Cheryl to Nw27 LLC , 7002 NW 27th St., $5,573,875. Stelzer, James R Revocable Trust to The Revocable Living Trust Of The Barcus Family , 8433 Augusta Dr., $585,000. Stone, Sondra L Estate to Polygon Corporation , 2011 Surfside Dr., $250,000. Sullivan, Shaun to Zenor, Brenton & Rachel , address unspecified, $456,010. Sullivan, Shaun to Zenor, Brenton & Rachel , 4909 W Raymond Rd. (Raymond), $456,010. Sumner, John & Natasha to Kovar, Richard & Brenda , 5820 Bridle Ln, $368,000. Swiftsale LLC to Sanchez, Antonio Balderas , 4923 Martin St., $265,000. Szlapka, Mario A Sr to Baker, David & Susan , 501 S 53rd St., $210,000. Szlapka, Nancy Roman to Baker, David & Susan , 501 S 53rd St., $210,000. U.s. Bank National Association to Golden Touch Investments LLC , 5400 W Benton St., $111,250. Union College to Csh Properties LLC , 3803 S 48th St., $280,000. Van Horn Custom Homes LLC to Christo, James R & Vicki V , 911 S 88th St., $92,000. Van Vliet, Tami L Living Trust to Suddarth, Zachery T & Lori L , 9510 Clear Sky Rd., $580,000. Vo, Sy & Nguyen, Su T to Nguyen, Khanh Hoa & Vu, Thi Ngoc Van , 839 Karen Dr., $294,000. Weander, Sheryl A Revocable Trust to Vella, L Jaylen & Thompson, Lindsay T , 1010 Colony Ln, $287,500. Weisbeck, Linda S to Benzel, Taylor E , 2917 N 44th St., $135,000. Welch, Amber Rose to Zlq Investments LLC , 2793 E St., $182,000. Wheeler, Gerdan & Fadili, Meriem to Petersen, Logan , 448 Floyd Dr. (Malcolm), $255,000. Williams, Carol to Hipple, Suzette M , 2516 Bishop Rd., $400,000. 200164man LLC to Buresh Properties LLC , 515 W S St. (Unit #30), $275,000. 916 Properties LLC to Holle, Luke , 2445 Cheshire S, $347,500. Acorn Properties LLC to Rosowski, David , 2812 Arlington Ave, $185,000. Amberly, Donna J Trust to Mowrey, Sheree , 9147 Round Hill Dr., $319,900. Augustyn, Daniel J & Lindsay C to Brockman, David & Julie , 2731 Katy Cir, $505,000. Ayres, Madisyn to Sack, Barbara & Gerald , 8337 S 63rd St., $350,000. Baade Property LLC to Schneider Custom Homes Inc , 1824 E 8th St. (Hickman), $72,500. Bade, Michelle to Reardon, Kirby & Dana , 4661 Pioneer Greens Ct, $605,000. Baker, Glenda to Gerdes, Michael J , 8900 Gold Dust Rd., $525,000. Bechtolt, Delores A to Taylor, Vernadine & Tucker, Terrence , 5229 Wilshire Blvd, $225,000. Beek, Terry L & Karen S to Kruske, Kyle M & Kayla M , 5000 S 47th St., $260,000. Benes, Douglas A & Patricia to Emily Kalberg Hruza & Rodolfo Antonio Villegas , 4341 Abbott Rd., $215,000. Birn, Ryan C & Rachael L to McMackin, Jade & Lubbers, Christopher , 7725 Tropp Ridge Dr., $475,000. Blackwell, Victoria to Wild Park Investments LLC , 3342 W St., $130,000. Bmv Properties LLC to Manceaux, Blake W , 7101 Starr St., $240,000. Broman, Jeffrey A to Moore, Connie & Kaffenberger, Anthony , 3025 N 63rd St., $265,000. Broman, Kenneth to Moore, Connie & Kaffenberger, Anthony , 3025 N 63rd St., $265,000. Buckwalter, Joan E Trust to Scoggins, Jesse D & Carol , 7124 Phoenix Dr., $439,000. Buhr Construction Inc to Matson, Kerri , 9460 Merryvale Dr., $365,000. Carl, Brendan M & Jennifer M to Raastad, Chandler & Reeves, Christian , 5333 N St., $215,000. Carnie, David T Family Trust to Enquist, Arlan , 6901 S 89th St., $247,000. Clark, Norman L & Linda M to Luna, Santiago & Rosa , 2551 SW 17th St., $312,500. Colling, David F & Emma Jean to 100 Year Homes Inc , 4001 Pioneers Blvd, $245,000. Crosby, Amber to Homemade Holdings LLC , 3420 N 53rd St., $102,961. Cudaback, Richard D Estate to 916 Properties LLC , 1625 W Rose St., $190,000. Dawson, Randy G to A&K Real Estate LLC & JTR Development, LLC , 3018 S 42nd St., $100,000. Dell, Carrie to Aksamit, Toni S & Baker, Shawn , 7141 Willow Ave, $220,000. Demar, Clinton & Kyla to Demar, Clinton R , 5040 Union Hill Rd., $210,910. Derby Homes LLC to McCarthy, Nicholas & Madisen , 6401 Lexington Ave, $315,000. Diamond Investments LLC to Gibson, Durant & Tiffany , 1206 W Jean Ave, $99,450. Dinh, Xuan Mai Thi to Boman, Thomas D , 516 N 23rd St., $159,000. Dinh, Xuan Mai Thi & Nguyen, Mai Thao Thi to Boman, Thomas D , 516 N 23rd St., $159,000. Dixon, Clifford N to Musgrave, Tom M & Michelle R , 4043 Saint Paul Ave, $170,000. Fried, Brandon L & Lisa A to Mefferd, Debora , 1916 Morningside Dr., $278,500. Garmel Properties LLC to Nunnally, Elizabeth , 3839 S 57th St., $180,000. Genereux, Troy A to Eischen, Leah , 7029 S Eldora Ln, $170,000. Gilligan, Adam T & Rebecca R to Nei Global Relocation Company , 2841 W Rose St., $360,000. Gonzales, Mitchell D to Lepinski Properties LLC , 7938 Phares Dr., $280,000. Goodson, Lloyd E & Susan S to Goodson, Lloyd E , 2644 B St., $NaN. Grady, Christopher & Jade to Kirchner, Jami , 5111 W Partridge Ln, $240,000. Griffith, James & Charity to Nordhues, Rachael , 6433 Platte Ave, $209,000. Gullion, Adam M to Essink, Grayson & Holly , 8541 Lincoln St. (Cheney), $149,950. Hagerman, Jay C Estate to Wilson, Shanda H & Seth T , 7201 Cedar Creek Cir, $373,102. Hagood, Britney to Schaaf, Cody R , 2725 S 38th St., $214,000. Haith, Lowell E Family Trust to Haith, Linda S , 7200 Thomasbrook Cir, $325,000. Hajek, Larry G & Rhonda E to Middleton, Elizabeth A , 2511 Alicia Ln, $304,195. Hall, Patricia to Johnathon Michael Scott Janda & Wendy Mae Janda , 4515 Grassridge Rd., $230,000. Hanna, Dianna L to Ponce, Isaias Gustavo , 4903 Calvert St., $195,000. Hanner, Michael P & Season R to Wehrs, Brian & Denee , 7815 W Walin Ln, $600,000. Harris, Bo & Vermaas, Jessica to Koll Investment Properties LLC , 3420 Timber Ridge Cir, $205,000. Hawley, Caleb C & Amanda S to Schwarting, Jason & Valerie , 615 Eldon Dr., $300,000. Heritage Lakes LLC to Lnk Modern Design And Build LLC , 1245 S 95th St., $180,000. Heritage Lakes LLC to Smith, Dave & Heather , 9709 Casa Colina Ct, $95,000. Heritage, Jennifer to Jessica Jo Andersen-Anschutz & Luke F Anschutz , 15900 S 58th Pl (Roca), $1,000,000. Hermance, Julie A & Whiteside, Sally J to Hammer, Jaclyn Belle , 2451 S 60th St. (Unit #1), $211,500. Hipple, Suzette M to Cunningham, Nancy E , 2609 Bishop Ln, $389,000. Hoelscher, Mary L to Sawtelle, Grant T , 1929 S 53rd St., $255,000. Homemade Holdings LLC to Hotep Real Estate LLC , 3772 F St., $190,000. Hutchison, Jerry R & Rebecca L to Sommarstrom, Don & Penny , 5920 Cavvy Rd., $399,900. Ignatowski, Eric William & Ashley Kay to Unger, Shannon L , 7830 Patrick Ave, $392,500. Invest Enterprise LLC to Niehus, Nolan J & Jaylee , 2520 N 63rd St., $272,000. Janson, Sonya F Revocable Trust to Siebert, Alene , 3353 M St., $370,000. Jp Investments LLC to Hayes, Isaiah & Thomas, Jessalyn , 2308 Q St., $257,000. Kamarad, Jaime M to Tello, Jose A , 1934 Timber Ridge Rd., $300,000. Kammuna, Hussam Z to Morgan, Lyle L & Joan A Family Trust , 401 N Coddington Ave, $230,000. Kritner, Willa J Estate to Bubb, Anastacie M , 2738 S 44th St., $247,000. Krug, Kristopher to Taylor, Corey & Camille , 3100 Laramie Cir, $230,000. Lamb, Donna D Estate to Mizerski, Alex & Jessica , 3519 Neerpark Dr., $252,000. Lancaster Development LLC to Heine, Darin E , address unspecified, $80,000. Legacy Model Properties LLC to Hallmark Homes LLC , 2900 Walter Ter (Roca), $115,000. Lesoing Rentals LLC to Neighborhoods Inc Dba Neighborworks Lincoln , 1135 Furnas Ave, $85,000. Lesoing Rentals LLC to Neighborhoods Inc Dba Neighborworks Lincoln , 1131 Furnas Ave, $85,000. Lincoln Holdings Trust to Starr, Karen , 301 Snowberry Rd., $645,000. Lipovsky, Brendan & Emily to Hughes, Christopher & Deanna , 1535 SW 26th St., $300,000. Lnk Modern Design And Build LLC to Nations, Keely C , 8905 Gold Dust Rd., $899,900. Louis Carl Estates LLC to Grow Hallam LLC , 410 Lou Dr. (Hallam), $54,000. Louis Carl Estates LLC to Grow Hallam LLC , 401 Railroad St. (Hallam), $54,000. Luke, Kathleen M to Bentley, Roger & Rita , 6212 Windhaven Dr., $235,000. Manion Construction Inc to Makesh Kumar Palaniswamy & Chaithanya Makesh Kumar , 7335 Isidore Dr., $487,605. Martin, Tawni & Ottmann, Carter to Smith, Kobe & Hillman, Olyvia , 2735 S 9th St., $198,000. Matthews, Dylan to Sack, Barbara & Gerald , 8337 S 63rd St., $350,000. McGill, Lawrence D & Marilyn S to McGill, John L Living Trust , address unspecified, $156,000. McPherson, Cynthia A to Culp, Travis O , 3640 D St., $235,500. Medley, Jacob to Stastny, Ryan & Kayla , 1433 W Silverado Dr., $126,000. Murray Custom Homes LLC to Gatewood, Joshua Luke & Katharine Lindsay , 8719 Dragonfly Ln, $615,000. Naylor, Jonathan L & Katie M to Lind, Jay E , 5215 Normal Blvd, $202,000. Ncd-1 Inc to Matthews, Dylan & Madisyn , 315 Kristi Ln (Hickman), $453,528. Nei Global Relocation Company to Hamo, Aeid , 2841 W Rose St., $360,000. Newman, Barry L & Debra A to Kadavy, Matthew & Jody , 8240 Trail Ridge Ct, $374,900. Nuss, Rene' to Moore, Connie & Kaffenberger, Anthony , 3025 N 63rd St., $265,000. Odgers Family Trust, The to Strizek, Harvey & Nancy , 5741 Enterprise Dr., $299,000. Operation Outreach Inc to Waly, Abdulameer & Jaf, Ronak , 5725 Chatsworth Ln, $440,000. Packett, Beau L Estate to Stern, Stephen , 2019 S 12th St., $144,500. Paramount Holdings LLC to Brosh, Jayn , 6613 Ballard Ave, $215,000. Parks, Tabitha M to Bernadt, Kevin J , 4800 Tipperary Trl, $168,000. Paxtor, Isabel Lopez & Lopez, Franco to Gonzalez, Marcelina , 4339 N 15th St., $214,500. Peaks, Laverne L to Benes, Gabriel R , 21200 NW 70th St. (Raymond), $230,000. Pierce, Jeffrey Charles & Jennifer Marie to Lipovsky, Brendan & Emily , 1535 SW 26th St., $278,500. Polzin Family Revocable Trust to Hywood, Karen , 7963 Yellow Knife Dr., $445,000. Prairie Home Builders Inc to Newman, Nancy J & Timothy W , 2727 N 91st St., $553,724. Predmore Real Estate Pc to Gardner, Christian & Alyssa , 165 Switchgrass Ln (Bennet), $460,069. Rekart, Marsha to Mattus, Janina Lea Revocable Trust , 561 Blue Sage Blvd, $432,600. Rodriguez, Carlos E Sr to Stastny, Ryan & Kayla , 1433 W Silverado Dr., $125,000. Rodriguez, Melissa to Stastny, Ryan & Kayla , 1433 W Silverado Dr., $125,000. Rp Holdings LLC to Draper Renovations LLC , 1744 S 25th St., $162,000. Saunders, Gerald Allen & Connie Fay to Saunders, Spencer , 3838 S 17th St., $180,000. Schneider Custom Homes Inc to Carlson, James & Beth , 9500 Wilderness Sky Dr., $521,888. Schwarting, Jason A & Valerie R to Mitchell, Ethan & Cloyd, Alcina , 2415 N 64th St., $195,000. Scioto Properties Sp-16 LLC to Sally L Schmieding Revocable Trust & Robert E Schmieding Revocable Trust , 4001 Pleasantview Cir, $205,000. Seng, Richard L 1996 Trust to King, Melissa , 6547 Boxelder Dr., $245,000. Shaffer, Julie to Harris, Janice L , 8438 S Tularosa Ct, $240,000. Smetter Custom Homes Inc to Brown, Chad & Cara , 6953 Claystone Dr., $405,899. Southview Inc to Elevate Luxury Homes LLC , 7910 Ephraem Ln, $93,000. Stertz, Dale & Marilyn Joint Trust, The to Pagles, Cody & Lacey , 10600 Stagecoach Rd. (Hickman), $465,000. Stolley, Roger M to Pence, Brad , 2325 NW 6th St., $220,000. Streeter, Nancy L Revocable Trust to Jon Paul & Sheri Ann Stewart & Bradley E & Sharleen R Riemenschneider , 7032 Shamrock Rd., $215,000. Ten Hulzen, Lonnie Leon & Kelli Ann to Pierce, Jeffrey & Jennifer , 28785 S 96th St. (Firth), $522,500. Tesfazion, Fiseha to Ghebreyohannes, Senay , 9344 Benziger Dr., $390,000. Troy Bugbee Homes LLC to Qasim, Sabah Ibrahim , 6020 N 15th Ct, $405,353. Tuscany Townhomes to Castillo, Rene & Carmen Y , address unspecified, $20,000. Vanarsdale, Tana & Christopher to Tran, Thu Minh & Do, Nam X , 5332 NW Tudor Ln, $372,000. Vandeventer, Betty A to Knaak, Robert & Kristi , 6455 Boxelder Dr., $260,000. Walters, Lezlie to Justus, Harold Jr & Staci , 6933 Platte Ave, $180,000. Waly, Abdulameer Kareem to 4hlg LLC , 7947 Twinoaks Rd., $275,000. Webb, Jill C to Easley, Bryan W & Kallie L , 12301 Yankee Hill Rd. (Bennet), $750,000. Weston Painting LLC & Hollywood Cleaners to Weston Painting LLC , 2764 S St., $1. Worth Rentals LLC to Hansen, Jacob & Cherokee , 940 Fairfield St., $185,000. Yankee Hill Townhomes LLC to Lancaster Development LLC , 6549 Maple View Ct, $250,185. Yankee Hill Townhomes LLC to Lancaster Development LLC , 6349 S 7th Pl, $211,185. Yankee Hill Townhomes LLC to Lancaster Development LLC , 6343 S 7th Pl, $211,185.Angela Merkel’s memoir shows how little she’s learned | GUEST COMMENTARY

Ramaco Resources, Inc. Announces Initial 2025 Guidance; First Quarter 2025 Class A Dividend; Fourth Quarter 2024 Dividend DetailsVenezia ready to consider sacking Di Francesco after defeat

WILMINGTON, Del., Dec. 05, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced that its Board of Directors has declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.45 per share on its common stock, payable on January 22, 2025, to shareholders of record at the close of business on January 8, 2025. About InterDigital ® InterDigital is a global research and development company focused primarily on wireless, video, artificial intelligence (“AI”), and related technologies. We design and develop foundational technologies that enable connected, immersive experiences in a broad range of communications and entertainment products and services. We license our innovations worldwide to companies providing such products and services, including makers of wireless communications devices, consumer electronics, IoT devices, cars and other motor vehicles, and providers of cloud-based services such as video streaming. As a leader in wireless technology, our engineers have designed and developed a wide range of innovations that are used in wireless products and networks, from the earliest digital cellular systems to 5G and today’s most advanced Wi-Fi technologies. We are also a leader in video processing and video encoding/decoding technology, with a significant AI research effort that intersects with both wireless and video technologies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on Nasdaq. InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc. For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com . InterDigital Contact: investor.relations@interdigital.com +1 (302) 300-1857

Cozy winter fare: Make a French-style cassoulet at home

BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec 5, 2024-- Smartsheet Inc. (NYSE: SMAR), the AI enhanced enterprise grade work management platform, today announced financial results for its third fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2024. Third Quarter Fiscal 2025 Financial Highlights Revenue: Total revenue was $286.9 million, an increase of 17% year over year. Subscription revenue was $273.7 million, an increase of 18% year over year. Professional services revenue was $13.2 million, a decrease of (2)% year over year. Operating loss: GAAP operating loss was $(3.4) million, or (1)% of total revenue, compared to $(35.5) million, or (14)% of total revenue, in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Non-GAAP operating income: Non-GAAP operating income was $56.4 million, or 20% of total revenue, compared to $19.4 million, or 8% of total revenue, in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Net income (loss): GAAP net income was $1.3 million, compared to GAAP net loss of $(32.4) million in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. GAAP basic and diluted net income per share was $0.01, compared to GAAP basic and diluted net loss per share of $(0.24) in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Non-GAAP net income: Non-GAAP net income was $61.0 million, compared to $22.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Non-GAAP basic and diluted net income per share was $0.44 and $0.43, respectively, compared to non-GAAP basic and diluted net income per share of $0.17 and $0.16, respectively, in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Cash flow: Net operating cash flow was $63.5 million, compared to $15.1 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Free cash flow was $61.8 million, or 22% of total revenue, compared to $11.4 million, or 5% of total revenue, in the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Third Quarter Fiscal 2025 Operational Highlights Annualized recurring revenue ("ARR") was $1.133 billion, an increase of 15% year over year Average ARR per domain-based customer was $10,708, an increase of 16% year over year Dollar-based net retention rate was 111% Number of all customers with ARR of $100,000 or more grew to 2,137, an increase of 20% year over year Number of all customers with ARR of $50,000 or more grew to 4,293, an increase of 15% year over year Number of all customers with ARR of $5,000 or more grew to 20,430, an increase of 5% year over year Third Quarter Fiscal 2025 Business Highlights Announced that Smartsheet entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Blackstone and Vista Equity Partners in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $8.4 billion, or $56.50 per share Sold out our U.S. ENGAGE customer conference for the second consecutive year, welcoming over 4,000 attendees to Seattle to participate in more than 60 breakout sessions Unveiled the most comprehensive transformation of our offerings to date, debuting a new user experience and a range of first-of-a-kind features to empower organizations to operate at their peak Introduced a Smartsheet connector for Amazon Q Business, which will give Amazon Q Business customers the power to ask an intelligent assistant for information about their work in Smartsheet, eliminating data silos and enhancing visibility The section titled "Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures" below contains a description of the non-GAAP financial measures with a reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP information. The section titled "Definitions of Key Business Metrics" contains definitions of certain non-financial metrics provided within this press release. Transaction with Blackstone and Vista Equity Partners In a separate press release issued on September 24, 2024, we announced that we have entered into a definitive agreement ("Merger Agreement"), to be acquired by Blackstone and Vista Equity Partners. A copy of the press release and supplemental materials can be found on the "Investors" page of our website at www.investors.smartsheet.com and on the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, website at www.sec.gov . Additional details and information about the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are available in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 24, 2024. Given the announced transaction, we will not be hosting an earnings conference call nor providing financial guidance in conjunction with this press release. For further detail and discussion of our financial performance, please refer to our third quarter 2025 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2024, filed today with the SEC. Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures To supplement our condensed consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP, we use certain non-GAAP financial measures, as described below, to understand and evaluate our core operating performance. These non-GAAP financial measures, which may be different than similarly titled measures used by other companies, are presented to enhance investors’ overall understanding of our financial performance and should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. Investors are encouraged to review the reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to such GAAP measures can be found in the accompanying financial statements included with this press release. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide useful information about our financial performance, enhance the overall understanding of our past performance and future prospects, and allow for greater transparency with respect to important metrics used by our management for financial and operational decision-making. We are presenting these non-GAAP financial metrics to assist investors in seeing our financial performance through the eyes of management, and because we believe that these measures provide an additional tool for investors to use in comparing our core financial performance over multiple periods with other companies in our industry. We define non-GAAP operating income as GAAP operating loss excluding share-based compensation expense, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets, one-time costs associated with mergers and acquisitions, lease restructuring costs, and litigation expenses and settlements related to matters that are outside the ordinary course of our business, as applicable. We define non-GAAP net income as GAAP net income (loss) excluding non-recurring income tax adjustments associated with mergers and acquisitions and the same exclusions that are used to derive non-GAAP operating income. We define basic non-GAAP net income per share as non-GAAP net income divided by weighted-average shares outstanding ("WASO"). We define diluted non-GAAP net income per share as non-GAAP net income divided by diluted WASO. Diluted WASO includes the impact of potentially dilutive securities, which include stock options, restricted share units, performance share units, and shares subject to our 2018 employee stock purchase plan. There are a number of limitations related to the use of these non-GAAP measures as compared to GAAP operating loss and net income (loss), including that the non-GAAP measures exclude share-based compensation expense, which has been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, a significant recurring expense in our business and an important part of our compensation strategy. We use the non-GAAP financial measure of free cash flow, which is defined as GAAP net cash flows from operating activities, reduced by cash used for purchases of property and equipment (inclusive of spend on internal-use software) and principal payments on finance lease obligations. We believe free cash flow is an important liquidity measure of the cash that is available, after capital expenditures and operational expenses, for investment in our business, share repurchases, and potential acquisitions. Free cash flow is useful to investors as a liquidity measure because it measures our ability to generate excess cash beyond what is required for our operations. Once our business needs and obligations are met, cash can be used to maintain a strong balance sheet and invest in future growth. There are a number of limitations related to the use of free cash flow as compared to net cash from operating activities, including that free cash flow includes capital expenditures, the benefits of which are realized in periods subsequent to those when expenditures are made. Definitions of Key Business Metrics Annualized recurring revenue We define annualized recurring revenue, or ARR, as the annualized recurring value of all active subscription contracts at the end of a reporting period. We exclude the value of non-recurring revenue streams, such as our professional services revenue, that are recognized at a point in time. We use ARR as one of our operating measures to assess the strength of the Company’s subscription services. ARR is a performance metric and should be viewed independently of revenue and deferred revenue, and is not intended to be a substitute for, or combined with, any of these items. Both multi-year contracts and contracts with terms less than one year are annualized by dividing the total committed contract value by the number of months in the subscription term and then multiplying by 12. Annualizing contracts with terms less than one year results in amounts being included in our ARR calculation that are in excess of the total contract value for those contracts at the end of the reporting period. The value of subscription contracts that are sold through third-party resellers, wherein we do not have visibility into the pricing provided, is based on the list price. Average ARR per domain-based customer We use average ARR per domain-based customer to measure customer commitment to our platform and sales force productivity. We define average ARR per domain-based customer as total outstanding ARR for domain-based subscriptions as of the end of the reporting period divided by the number of domain-based customers as of the same date. We define domain-based customers as organizations with a unique email domain name. Dollar-based net retention rate We calculate dollar-based net retention rate as of a period end by starting with the ARR from the cohort of all customers as of the 12 months prior to such period end (“Prior Period ARR”). We then calculate the ARR from these same customers as of the current period end (“Current Period ARR”). Current Period ARR includes any upsells and is net of contraction or attrition over the trailing 12 months, but excludes subscription revenue from new customers in the current period. We then divide the total Current Period ARR by the total Prior Period ARR to arrive at the dollar-based net retention rate. Any ARR obtained through merger and acquisition transactions does not affect the dollar-based net retention rate until one year from the date on which the transaction closed. The dollar-based net retention rate is used by us to evaluate the long-term value of our customer relationships and is driven by our ability to retain and expand the subscription revenue generated from our existing customers. About Smartsheet Smartsheet (NYSE: SMAR) is the modern enterprise work management platform trusted by millions of people at companies across the globe, including over 85% of the 2024 Fortune 500 companies. The category pioneer and market leader, Smartsheet delivers powerful solutions fueling performance and driving the next wave of innovation. Visit www.smartsheet.com to learn more. Disclosure of Material Information Smartsheet announces material information to its investors using SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls, and on its investor relations page of the company’s website at www.investors.smartsheet.com . SMARTSHEET INC. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (in thousands, except per share data) (unaudited) Three Months Ended October 31, Nine Months Ended October 31, 2024 2023 2024 2023 Revenue Subscription $ 273,703 $ 232,470 $ 786,328 $ 659,993 Professional services 13,168 13,448 39,939 41,396 Total revenue 286,871 245,918 826,267 701,389 Cost of revenue Subscription 41,445 34,258 115,216 101,009 Professional services 12,291 12,780 36,693 38,948 Total cost of revenue 53,736 47,038 151,909 139,957 Gross profit 233,135 198,880 674,358 561,432 Operating expenses Research and development 63,477 58,257 189,514 172,805 Sales and marketing 127,854 137,920 383,315 382,685 General and administrative 45,155 38,153 124,489 109,654 Total operating expenses 236,486 234,330 697,318 665,144 Loss from operations (3,351 ) (35,450 ) (22,960 ) (103,712 ) Interest income 8,272 6,976 24,934 18,040 Other income (expense), net 47 (790 ) (593 ) (1,381 ) Income (loss) before income tax provision 4,968 (29,264 ) 1,381 (87,053 ) Income tax provision 3,644 3,164 1,057 8,602 Net income (loss) $ 1,324 $ (32,428 ) $ 324 $ (95,655 ) Net income (loss) per share, basic $ 0.01 $ (0.24 ) $ 0.00 $ (0.71 ) Net income (loss) per share, diluted $ 0.01 $ (0.24 ) $ 0.00 $ (0.71 ) Weighted-average shares outstanding used to compute net income (loss) per share, basic 139,007 135,189 138,287 133,868 Weighted-average shares outstanding used to compute net income (loss) per share, diluted 142,668 135,189 141,306 133,868 Share-based compensation expense included in the condensed consolidated statements of operations was as follows (in thousands, unaudited): Three Months Ended October 31, Nine Months Ended October 31, 2024 2023 2024 2023 Cost of subscription revenue $ 2,983 $ 3,164 $ 9,055 $ 9,980 Cost of professional services revenue 1,485 1,777 4,734 5,602 Research and development 17,763 17,220 54,036 52,263 Sales and marketing 14,453 17,462 45,472 55,505 General and administrative 9,151 10,024 29,827 30,099 Total share-based compensation expense $ 45,835 $ 49,647 $ 143,124 $ 153,449 SMARTSHEET INC. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands, except share data) (unaudited) October 31, 2024 January 31, 2024 Assets Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 454,281 $ 282,094 Short-term investments 306,640 346,701 Accounts receivable, net of allowances of $5,335 and $6,560, respectively 200,436 238,708 Prepaid expenses and other current assets 69,840 64,366 Total current assets 1,031,197 931,869 Restricted cash 18 19 Deferred commissions 156,724 148,867 Property and equipment, net 39,139 42,362 Operating lease right-of-use assets 29,693 39,480 Intangible assets, net 20,635 27,960 Goodwill 141,477 141,477 Other long-term assets 4,408 5,445 Total assets $ 1,423,291 $ 1,337,479 Liabilities and shareholders’ equity Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 1,128 $ 2,937 Accrued compensation and related benefits 74,840 77,453 Other accrued liabilities 37,309 30,534 Operating lease liabilities, current 15,288 16,040 Finance lease liabilities, current 255 216 Deferred revenue 556,320 568,670 Total current liabilities 685,140 695,850 Operating lease liabilities, non-current 23,936 33,100 Finance lease liabilities, non-current 279 455 Deferred revenue, non-current 4,095 1,785 Other long-term liabilities 696 434 Total liabilities 714,146 731,624 Shareholders’ equity: Preferred stock, no par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding as of October 31, 2024 and January 31, 2024 — — Class A common stock, no par value; 500,000,000 shares authorized, 139,302,943 shares issued and outstanding as of October 31, 2024; 500,000,000 shares authorized, 136,884,011 shares issued and outstanding as of January 31, 2024 — — Class B common stock, no par value; 500,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding as of October 31, 2024 and January 31, 2024 — — Additional paid-in capital 1,621,429 1,468,805 Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) 196 (146 ) Accumulated deficit (912,480 ) (862,804 ) Total shareholders’ equity 709,145 605,855 Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 1,423,291 $ 1,337,479 SMARTSHEET INC. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (in thousands) (unaudited) Nine Months Ended October 31, 2024 2023 Cash flows from operating activities Net income (loss) $ 324 $ (95,655 ) Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities: Share-based compensation expense 143,124 153,449 Depreciation and amortization 21,121 20,008 Net amortization of premiums (discounts) on investments (6,059 ) (8,746 ) Amortization of deferred commission costs 50,328 38,439 Unrealized foreign currency (gain) loss (577 ) 684 Non-cash operating lease costs 7,513 9,450 Impairment of long-lived assets 3,237 1,448 Other, net 5,495 3,089 Changes in operating assets and liabilities: Accounts receivable 33,770 16,541 Prepaid expenses and other current assets (5,576 ) 1,060 Other long-term assets (1,039 ) (1,401 ) Accounts payable (1,665 ) (997 ) Other accrued liabilities 6,656 4,100 Accrued compensation and related benefits (5,483 ) 2,021 Deferred commissions (58,185 ) (58,705 ) Deferred revenue (9,952 ) 25,439 Other long-term liabilities 262 278 Operating lease liabilities (10,544 ) (12,326 ) Net cash provided by operating activities 172,750 98,176 Cash flows from investing activities Purchases of short-term investments (235,421 ) (375,387 ) Maturities of short-term investments 281,965 281,900 Purchases of property and equipment (1,437 ) (2,097 ) Proceeds from sale of property and equipment 53 28 Capitalized internal-use software development costs (6,549 ) (7,850 ) Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 38,611 (103,406 ) Cash flows from financing activities Proceeds from exercise of stock options 10,957 1,330 Taxes paid related to net share settlement of restricted stock units (14,896 ) (1,644 ) Proceeds from contributions to Employee Stock Purchase Plan 14,403 15,664 Principal payments of finance leases (141 ) — Repurchases of Class A Common Stock and related costs (50,000 ) — Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities (39,677 ) 15,350 Effects of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash 379 (248 ) Net increase in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash 172,063 9,872 Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash at beginning of period 282,442 223,757 Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash at end of period $ 454,505 $ 233,629 Supplemental disclosures Cash paid for interest $ 43 $ — Cash paid for income tax 7,655 9,471 Accrued purchases of property and equipment, including internal-use software 1,081 1,264 Share-based compensation expense capitalized in internal-use software development costs 2,355 3,283 Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities 558 1,684 Right-of-use asset reductions related to operating leases 2,832 4,451 Purchases of fixed assets under finance leases — 693 SMARTSHEET INC. Reconciliation from GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures (unaudited) Reconciliation from GAAP operating loss to non-GAAP operating income and operating margin Three Months Ended October 31, Nine Months Ended October 31, 2024 2023 2024 2023 (dollars in thousands) Loss from operations $ (3,351 ) $ (35,450 ) $ (22,960 ) $ (103,712 ) Add: Share-based compensation expense (1) 46,842 50,170 145,511 154,919 Amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets (2) 2,308 2,701 7,320 8,117 Lease restructuring costs (3) 40 1,934 3,359 2,051 One-time acquisition costs 10,525 — 10,525 — Non-GAAP operating income $ 56,364 $ 19,355 $ 143,755 $ 61,375 Operating margin (1 )% (14 )% (3 )% (15 )% Non-GAAP operating margin 20 % 8 % 17 % 9 % (1) Includes amortization related to share-based compensation that was capitalized in internal-use software and other assets in previous periods. (2) Consists entirely of amortization of intangible assets that were recorded as part of purchase accounting. The amortization of intangible assets related to acquisitions will recur in future periods until such intangible assets have been fully amortized. (3) Includes charges related to the reassessment of our real estate lease portfolio. Reconciliation from GAAP net income (loss) to non-GAAP net income and per share data Three Months Ended October 31, Nine Months Ended October 31, 2024 2023 2024 2023 (in thousands, except per share data) Net income (loss) $ 1,324 $ (32,428 ) $ 324 $ (95,655 ) Add: Share-based compensation expense (1) 46,842 50,170 145,511 154,919 Amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets (2) 2,308 2,701 7,320 8,117 Lease restructuring costs (3) 40 2,142 3,359 2,258 One-time acquisition costs 10,525 — 10,525 — Non-GAAP net income $ 61,039 $ 22,585 $ 167,039 $ 69,639 Non-GAAP net income per share, basic $ 0.44 $ 0.17 $ 1.21 $ 0.52 Non-GAAP net income per share, diluted $ 0.43 $ 0.16 $ 1.18 $ 0.51 (1) Includes amortization related to share-based compensation that was capitalized in internal-use software and other assets in previous periods. (2) Consists entirely of amortization of intangible assets that were recorded as part of purchase accounting. The amortization of intangible assets related to acquisitions will recur in future periods until such intangible assets have been fully amortized. (3) Includes charges related to the reassessment of our real estate lease portfolio. SMARTSHEET INC. Reconciliation from GAAP to Non-GAAP Financial Measures (unaudited) Non-GAAP reconciliation from basic to diluted weighted-average shares outstanding Three Months Ended October 31, Nine Months Ended October 31, 2024 2023 2024 2023 (in thousands) Weighted-average shares outstanding; basic 139,007 135,189 138,287 133,868 Effect of dilutive securities: Shares subject to outstanding common stock awards 3,661 3,232 3,019 3,653 Weighted-average common shares outstanding; diluted 142,668 138,421 141,306 137,521 Reconciliation from net operating cash flow to free cash flow Three Months Ended October 31, Nine Months Ended October 31, 2024 2023 2024 2023 (in thousands) Net cash provided by operating activities $ 63,528 $ 15,146 $ 172,750 $ 98,176 Less: Purchases of property and equipment (414 ) (702 ) (1,437 ) (2,097 ) Capitalized internal-use software development costs (1,232 ) (3,035 ) (6,549 ) (7,850 ) Principal payments of finance leases (89 ) — (141 ) — Free cash flow $ 61,793 $ 11,409 $ 164,623 $ 88,229 View source version on businesswire.com : https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241205301940/en/ CONTACT: Smartsheet Inc. Investor Relations Contact Aaron Turner investorrelations@smartsheet.comMedia Contact Lisa Henthorn pr@smartsheet.com KEYWORD: WASHINGTON UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: SOFTWARE DATA ANALYTICS FINANCE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DATA MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY FINTECH SOURCE: Smartsheet Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 12/05/2024 04:07 PM/DISC: 12/05/2024 04:06 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241205301940/en

CRA Update: No Taxes on Your First $16,129 in 2025!

Part of the reason we started a Cannabis Industry team at a Southeastern-based law firm before any Southeastern state had adopted a marijuana program was because we had a hunch that the expansion of cannabis would eventually make its way to our neck of the woods. And we guess it was just kind of a slow day around the office. It turns out that our hunch – which even we are modest enough to admit was pretty much obvious and inevitable – turned out to be true. In the last seven years, there has been an explosion of cannabis activity and controversy in the Southeast. From marijuana in various forms to hemp and all of its iterations, the Southeast has been playing catchup with the rest of the country and in doing so is experiencing the progression of cannabis reform at an accelerated pace with the benefit of seeing the experiences of earlier cannabis adopters. We aren’t alone in observing this phenomenon. Jessica Billingsley, for Rolling Stone , has written on the topic several times . Don’t get me wrong, we’re not so naïve as to think that states around the country aren’t also experiencing dramatic and dynamic debates and reforms about the cannabis industry. In fact, we’ve dedicated a great deal of time and effort to writing about those issues and how they reflect – or in some cases depart from – cannabis programs in other states. But the speed of reform efforts and their concentration in a specific portion of the country have made the Southeastern U.S. the – ok, at least a – current hotbed of cannabis activity. C’mon. What’s Happening in the Southeast That Makes It So Special? Aren’t You Just Writing This Because You Live There? Could You Be More Egocentric? Wow, that got a little weird and revealing there for a second but we’re back. For those who may not enjoy the privilege of calling the Southeastern U.S. home, here is a sampling of the cannabis activity currently taking place in the region: Florida’s Medical Marijuana Market Matures, but Voters Narrowly Rejected the Ballot Initiative for an Adult-Use Program; Hemp Program Survives by Governor’s Veto (for Now) Florida broke the seal on medical marijuana in the Southeast when it adopted a medical program in 2016. While the program has certainly had its hiccups, it has generally proven to be a popular program as it has matured over the years. On April 1, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that voters would decide whether Florida will become the 24 th state to legalize adult-use marijuana at the ballot boxes in November. The significant opposition that succeeded in keeping a similar initiative off the 2022 ballots evidently prevailed this year. The initiative came short of receiving the required 60% approval to pass with only about 56% of Florida voters voting in favor. On the hemp front, earlier this year we wrote that the Florida Legislature passed a bill that would limit the amount of THC in hemp-derived products and upend the novel cannabinoid industry in the state by banning delta-8 and delta-10 products. But in a surprising move described by Marijuana Moment as “somewhat contradictory,” conservative Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed the legislation, even as he campaigns against adult-use marijuana. This being the South and a controversial issue involving potentially extraordinary amounts of money, there are strange bedfellows and innuendo : The governor of Florida is reportedly planning to veto a bill that would ban consumable hemp-derived cannabinoid products such as delta-8 THC, apparently because he’s hoping the hemp industry will help finance a campaign opposing a marijuana legalization initiative on the state’s November ballot. As Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) prepares to step up his push against the legalization measure, officials close to the governor... say he’s plotting to leverage the hemp industry’s economic interest in participating in the intoxicating cannabinoid market to convince people to vote against marijuana reform. Safe to same there’s more to come in the next couple of months for what has become the 5,000 lbs. gorilla in the Southeastern cannabis landscape. Arkansas’ Medical Program Booms While Adult Use and Hemp in Limbo During Court Battles Like Florida, Arkansas was one of the pioneers of bringing medical marijuana to the Southeast. Arkansans voted to approve a medical marijuana program in 2016 via Amendment 98, although the first legal sales did not occur until May 2019. The program eclipsed $1 billion in sales by late 2023, and as of August 2024, sales in 2024 exceeded $158.5 million. From all metrics, the program appears to be doing very well. And, while an effort to place on the November ballot an initiative that would have further expanded the program was stymied by the Arkansas Supreme Court just before the election, a ballot initiative in 2022 to create an adult-use program didn’t fail by an insurmountable margin, with 43.8% voting in favor. On the hemp front, all eyes are on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. That court conducted oral arguments in the Sanders v. Bio Gen appeal on September 24, so a decision should be forthcoming. The trial court action was filed by hemp companies challenging an Arkansas law (known as Act 629) that the plaintiffs contended impermissibly outlawed hemp-derived consumable products in Arkansas. The appeal followed issuance of an injunction by U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson blocking enforcement of Act 629. Mississippi Struggling to Reconcile Supply and Demand on the Marijuana Front; Unsettled Hemp Rules Mississippi surprised many observers when a statewide ballot initiative in 2020 went overwhelmingly in support of medical marijuana. After a couple of years of frustrating and largely obstructionist legal wrangling, Mississippi’s medical program is fully up and running now, going on almost two years. One of the most notable and unique aspects of Mississippi’s program is the absence of any limitations on the number of licenses available to operators. While there are components of the Mississippi laws and regulations governing the program that necessarily limit how many licenses can be issued (e.g., local government opt-outs and distance setback limitations) the program is struggling due in large part to an oversupply of product and not enough patients (as of November 21, 2024, the state reports 48,129 patients). Last legislative session, the Mississippi Legislature modified the state’s medical cannabis law in certain ways that were aimed to improve patient access hurdles, and more amendments are expected in the upcoming session. On the hemp front, Mississippi lacks any real legislative or regulatory guidance on the subject. Consequently, many in the state view the hemp-derived intoxicating products sold in gas stations and other retail stores as a real problem . Last legislative session, a bill (HB 1676) aimed to regulate intoxicating hemp products failed. Since then, state law enforcement has conducted raids and arrests of retail stores that sell products they believe are illegal under Mississippi law. Also, the Mississippi attorney general recently issued an opinion concluding that hemp-derived THC beverages could be illegal under Mississippi law. We wrote about that opinion here . The Mississippi legislature will almost assuredly revisit legislation governing these products next session while it also explores ways to amend the Medical Cannabis Act. Texas Low-THC Marijuana Program Continues as Fierce Debates Rage Over Hemp Texas passed the Texas Compassionate Use legislation in 2015, allowing certain qualified physicians to prescribe low THC products (max of 1% THC by weight) to patients having certain medical conditions. Currently, the state has only licensed three entities, all located in the central region of the state, as “dispensing organizations” to cultivate, process, and dispense low-THC cannabis. While the state has implied it may issue more licenses and a third-party consultant it hired recently recommended that it should, that has not yet occurred. The last application window closed on April 28, 2023. We, along with most everyone in the industry, is watching what Texas ends up doing with this program; everything is supposed to be bigger in Texas, and a real-deal medical cannabis program shouldn’t be any exception. The hemp world in Texas slightly resembles the one in Arkansas; it’s mired in litigation. Texas has a robust legal and regulatory program that governs hemp and consumable hemp products. That program operated for years without much interruption until the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) took action in 2020 and 2021 to restrict the sale of certain consumable hemp products. This culminated in the publication of an official statement online in October 2021 stating that Texas law only “allows Consumable Hemp Products in Texas that do not exceed 0.3% Delta-9 . . . THC [, and] [a]ll other forms of THC, including Delta-8 in any concentration and Delta-9 exceeding 0.3% are considered Schedule 1 controlled substances.” In response, a group of plaintiffs sued the TDSHS and its commissioner seeking to enjoin the “‘effectiveness going forward’ of the amendments to the terms ‘tetrahydrocannabinols; and ‘Marihuana extract’ in the Department’s 2021 Schedule of Controlled Substances.” The trial court granted the requested injunction, ordered the TSDHS to “remove from its currently published Schedule of Controlled Substances the most recent modifications” the subject definitions and any subsequent publications, and “enjoin[ed] the effectiveness going forward of the rule stated on [the Department’s] website that Delta-8 THC in any concentration is considered a Schedule 1 controlled substance.” The state appealed, the Austin Court of Appeals affirmed, and the matter now sits with the Texas Supreme Court. THC-infused beverages have also been a focus in Texas recently. As we wrote last month, the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs held a hearing on October 17, 2024, to discuss how the state might soon regulate THC-infused beverages. That issue will most assuredly be addressed by the Texas legislature this next session. Louisiana Medical Program Expands Amidst Fight Over Scope of Hemp Program While Louisiana technically legalized medical marijuana in 1978 and passed several laws in the years that followed in that pursuit, the first products weren’t sold until 2019. The very limited license (only two authorized cultivators and processors) regime is now headed towards a bustling program. The number of dispensaries that can exist in Louisiana is currently capped at 30, but that number will only grow as the patient numbers increase in the regions identified throughout the state. Louisiana’s hemp program, which is governed by a well-developed regulatory regime, is also in a current state of uncertainty. During the 2024 legislative session, the Legislature amended the hemp laws to restrict where certain hemp-derived products can be sold and their potency. As in Arkansas and Texas, the hemp industry quickly responded with litigation. In that matter, Hemp Assoc. of La. v. Landry , No. 3:24-cv-00871, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, was filed on October 18, 2024. The plaintiffs alleged that the 2018 Farm Bill preempts the legislation and is unconstitutional on other grounds. The state disagreed and moved to dismiss, but on November 19, 2024, the state informed the court that it would stay the effective date of the new legislation so that the parties could fully brief the pending motions and the court could reach a decision. The motions are due to be fully briefed in the coming days. Georgia Trying to Get Its Act Together The Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission describes the Georgia law as “much more limited than some other states.” The statute does little more than allow registered people to buy and possess low-THC oil from licensed dispensaries. This oil may contain CBD and up to 5% THC by weight. Only a select number of licensed producers can grow the cannabis that will eventually be turned into the allowed low-THC oil. As in many other states, the application and licensing process is quite strict . To obtain a registration card, prospective patients must have a qualifying condition or disease and be registered through their physician. Once a patient has their card, they can buy low-THC oil and possess 20 fluid ounces or less so long as they keep it in the manufacturer-labeled pharmaceutical packaging. On the hemp side, the Georgia Legislature recently passed SB 494, which Gov. Brian Kemp subsequently signed into law. This law introduces substantial changes to the hemp industry. The Georgia Department of Agriculture is in the process of drafting the corresponding and required agency rules. It appears that most hemp extracts like delta-8-THC, delta-10-THC, HHC, and other cannabinoids remain legal under Georgia law as “consumable hemp products.” Alabama Medical Marijuana Program on the Ropes While Hemp Flourishes Sigh... where do we even begin when it comes to medical marijuana in Alabama? There have been more twists and turns than a classic Iron Bowl. The Legislature approved a medical program in 2021, and recent court hearings suggest that we are potentially no further along after three years, with a possibility of the Legislature being forced to take action to modify (or end) the program. We have written extensively about the years of litigation and dysfunction that have plagued the Alabama medical marijuana program. In a nutshell, the cap on the number of licenses for various categories (cultivators, processors, dispensaries, etc.) has led to a scenario where applicants dissatisfied with the regulators’ decision to award licenses have sued on multiple occasions, and the regulators have either acceded to the demands or ended up in a court that has not acted quickly to impose order on the process. In the midst of this chaos, the Legislature had an opportunity to tweak the law but overwhelmingly chose not to do so . We’re choosing to take the optimistic view that the court system will be able to find a resolution to the years of litigation without putting the matter into the Legislature’s hands. We stress that view is very optimistic, but we should know more by the beginning of 2025. On a brighter note for cannabis advocates, hemp is growing strong in the state, benefiting largely from a relatively liberal regulatory regime. Although the Legislature considered a significant rollback of hemp sales during the last session, the only law passed was a statewide age-limit on products containing hemp. There have been recent reports of law enforcement activity related to hemp businesses being raided for selling unlawful products, but on the whole Alabama should be considered hemp-friendly for the moment. Tennessee Marijuana Reform Frustrated While Hemp Market Experiences Growth But Tighter Regulation For years we were astonished that Tennessee was not a huge marijuana (at least medical) spot, but years of hearing over and over from friends and colleagues in the state have finally convinced us of the political complexities at play. We, likely as most people, tend to view Tennessee as being dominated by Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga, and other hemp-friendly areas of east Tennessee. If the decision was up to the citizens of those areas, Tennessee would likely have a well-established marijuana program. But, as it turns out, Tennessee is a big state with widely varying views on all ranges of social issues, including marijuana. For that reason, marijuana proposals have had little success in the largely conservative state Legislature. We still think Tennessee could be a monster player with the right program in place, but we’d be lying if we predicted that was imminent. On the hemp side, Tennessee was an early adopter, and its hemp industry blossomed for years under a hands-off regulatory regime. In May 2023, Tennessee enacted T.C.A. § 43-27-201 , which is an industry-friendly statutory framework for products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids like delta-8 and delta-10 THC. The statute delegated rulemaking authority to the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) to flesh out its requirements. That is where the trouble began. In December 2023, TDA published emergency rules that largely aligned with T.C.A. § 43-27-201 with respect to its licensing and labeling requirements, leaving those operators that focus on edible hemp-derived cannabinoid products pleased. But the rules contained a bombshell: specifically, the requirement that hemp contain 0.3% or less total THC , which includes both delta-9 THC and THCA. The TDA maintained this total THC standard in the permanent rules it promulgated in September 2024. The TDA’s total THC requirement is at odds with Tennessee’s hemp statute , which defines hemp as cannabis containing 0.3% or less delta-9 THC (with no mention of THCA). In reliance on this statutory scheme, many Tennessee hemp companies that focus on psychoactive products have made high-THCA smokable products a large part of their offerings. The TDA’s new rules, which go into effect on December 26, 2024, pose a grave danger to those operators. Industry groups, including the Tennessee Growers Coalition , are preparing for war to prevent these new rules from going into effect. Stay tuned to Budding Trends for updates on the lawsuits against the TDA that are coming down the pike. Kentucky Begins Medical Marijuana Program and Remains Hemp Stalwart The OG of hemp, with the help of its powerful Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky has an outsized responsibility for passage of the two most recent farm bills that have led to the explosion of the hemp industry. Kentucky’s hemp program remains strong, and many of its Congressional delegation represent a bulwark against efforts to severely limit the availability of hemp products. Kentucky’s medical cannabis program is just now off to the races. Licenses are currently being awarded and industry observers are carefully watching the Bluegrass State’s progress as the program gets off the ground. Nothing to Show Yet, But South Carolina Begins to Show Signs of Life in Cannabis Reform Efforts Ah, South Carolina. Its siren song has tempted cannabis advocates for years with its diversity – political, geographical, geological, and otherwise. But to date, nada. We’ve written about the fits and starts with the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act in the past few years. The Legislature has not enacted the law as of yet, but we are keeping our eyes on it during the next legislative session. On the hemp side, coming from a state that has famously been near the back of the line on cannabis liberalization, we’ll admit that we were surprised to read a recent letter from the solicitor general of South Carolina stating that, as a general rule, hemp beverages containing less than .3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis are legal. We suspect that will be a topic of discussion at the next legislative session. North Carolina Not Quite there on Marijuana , Stalled on Hemp North Carolina is going to be a monster marijuana jurisdiction, but like Tennessee, the geopolitical makeup of the state has restrained cannabis liberalization to date. Maybe we should have known better than to predict that the Tar Heel State was going to take action on marijuana legislation in an election year in which the speaker of the N.C. House, Tim Moore (R), is running for an open U.S. Congress seat. Passing a marijuana legalization bill was not going to be a political priority and could have given political adversaries an opportunity to paint supporters as soft on crime, even if a majority of the state’s electorate does support some kind of legalization. For its part, the state Senate passed yet another medical marijuana and hemp regulation bill, House Bill 563, though one of the most restrictive in the country, only to see it stall in the hose. As in years past, Moore has not allowed the House to take a vote on a bill and has cited his “majority of the majority” policy and lack of Republican support in the House as a basis for refusing to bring the Senate bill to the House floor for a vote. It’s likely not going to move anytime soon, but what’s in HB 563? Half the bill is dedicated to the regulation of hemp, while the second half – the North Carolina Compassionate Care Act – opens the door to legalizing medicinal marijuana. On the medicinal marijuana side, the bill creates a state commission to oversee the distribution of medical marijuana and regulate which medical conditions are eligible for treatment. It also outlines the process for patients to obtain medical cannabis cards, creating restrictions on where cannabis can be smoked, and requires physicians to write prescriptions for patients to use medical cannabis. Some Senate Republicans expressed concern that legalization of medicinal marijuana was a fast and slippery slope towards legalizing recreational marijuana. To alleviate that concern, an amendment was adopted that clarified that recreational use would remain illegal in North Carolina even if the federal government reclassified or legalized marijuana nationwide. On the hemp regulation side, HB 563 would require all hemp product manufacturers and distributors to be licensed. In addition, there are new safety and testing standards, marketing and label restrictions, and more strict product regulations on the amount of cannabinoids that can be included in ingestible or inhalable products. Politically, it makes sense for supporters of medical marijuana to tie its fate to hemp regulation. Hemp regulation has broad bipartisan support and would likely pass both chambers if presented as a standalone bill. By linking hemp regulation to the Compassionate Care Act, medical marijuana supporters are daring their House and Senate colleagues to vote against hemp regulation. For the time being, that leaves the hemp industry with the uncertainty, and opportunity, of North Carolina continuing to have very limited regulations for the industry. Why Is the Southeast Experiencing Such Explosive, Concentrated Cannabis Activity? Part of the reason for the accelerated pace of developments of cannabis reform in the Southeast is precisely because the Southeast started cannabis programs later than other parts of the country. As a result, Southeastern cannabis efforts are, on the whole, not as mature as markets in other states. There are examples from other states that legislatures and regulators can look to for how other states in recent years have addressed the issues just now facing Southeastern states. There is a great scene in the movie Major League where Willie Mays Hayes, played by the wonderful Wesley Snipes, is removed from the Cleveland (then) Indians’ baseball spring training while he sleeps in bed because there is no record of anyone by that name being invited to spring training (because he wasn’t invited). When Willie wakes up in the morning to the sound of potential Indians running sprints, Willie jumps out of bed in his pajamas and starts running, eventually finding himself running between two uniformed players. Because of his remarkable speed (“I hit like Mays, and I run like Hayes”), Willie explodes past the other two even though they had a head start. The manager Lou Brown, played sublimely by the delightful James Gammon, immediately says “[g]et him a uniform.” What the hell are we talking about? We think the Southeastern cannabis market is a little like Willie Mays Hayes. The market was late to the cannabis industry, but once it arrived it has the benefit of seeing the experiences of other states and, like Willie, has the benefit of hitting the ground running. Separately, the issue of cannabis reform is ripe for political battles in the Southeast. The region is certain not as socially progressive on most issues like cannabis. After all, in this part of the country there are still knock-down, drag-out fights about whether to allow the sale of beer before noon on Sundays. But the region is proving to be more progressive than many would have thought, in part perhaps because people around these parts have heard anecdotal reports about friends and family who have used cannabis products safely and perhaps in part because we have seen that cannabis liberalization in other parts of the country has not led to the type of Reefer Madness scenarios long feared. So, What’s Next? As with most trends, the rapid expansion of cannabis activity mirrors – and is in many ways a microcosm – of the policies, setbacks, and successes experienced across America. If we were certain what the future holds for cannabis in the Southeastern United States, we would be sitting on an island somewhere instead of writing blog posts. That said, we expect (1) clear, if not sometimes frustratingly paced expansion of medical cannabis across the region; (2) an expansion of qualifying medical conditions and form factors; (3) an eventual tipping point in the direction of adult-use programs; and (4) hemp continuing to see strong sales unless the federal or state governments enact laws to thwart that growth. At the conclusion of the wonderful Ken Burns’ epic documentary on country music, the great Marty Stuart says the following about the genre: Country music has something for everybody, and it’s inside the song, it’s inside the characters. It’s really colorful in here. I invite you in. Cannabis in the Southeastern United States has something for everybody, and maybe not enough for some people. And we certainly have colorful characters making some of the important decisions about the future of cannabis policy in our little corner of the world. We see this area as one of massive potential growth, particularly with the help of the right people. We invite you in. Listen to this PostCyclacel Pharmaceuticals Announces Its Exploration of Potential Strategic Alternatives and Reduction of Operating Costs

Chesapeake Gold Corp. ( CVE:CKG – Get Free Report ) shares hit a new 52-week low during mid-day trading on Friday . The stock traded as low as C$0.81 and last traded at C$0.85, with a volume of 67518 shares traded. The stock had previously closed at C$0.85. Chesapeake Gold Trading Down 3.5 % The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.43, a current ratio of 7.94 and a quick ratio of 19.07. The firm has a market cap of C$56.08 million, a PE ratio of -10.25 and a beta of 0.94. The company’s 50 day moving average price is C$1.30 and its 200 day moving average price is C$1.75. About Chesapeake Gold ( Get Free Report ) Chesapeake Gold Corp., a mineral exploration and evaluation company, focuses on acquisition, evaluation, and development of precious metal deposits in North and Central America. The company primarily explores for gold and silver deposits. Its flagship project is the Metates project that includes 14 mining concessions covering an area of 14,727 hectares located in Durango State, Mexico. See Also Receive News & Ratings for Chesapeake Gold Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Chesapeake Gold and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .

Ukraine says war has damaged most of its civilian airports

BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec 5, 2024-- Smartsheet Inc. (NYSE: SMAR), the AI enhanced enterprise grade work management platform, today announced financial results for its third fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2024. The section titled "Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures" below contains a description of the non-GAAP financial measures with a reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP information. The section titled "Definitions of Key Business Metrics" contains definitions of certain non-financial metrics provided within this press release. In a separate press release issued on September 24, 2024, we announced that we have entered into a definitive agreement ("Merger Agreement"), to be acquired by Blackstone and Vista Equity Partners. A copy of the press release and supplemental materials can be found on the "Investors" page of our website at and on the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, website at . Additional details and information about the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are available in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 24, 2024. Given the announced transaction, we will not be hosting an earnings conference call nor providing financial guidance in conjunction with this press release. For further detail and discussion of our financial performance, please refer to our third quarter 2025 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2024, filed today with the SEC. To supplement our condensed consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP, we use certain non-GAAP financial measures, as described below, to understand and evaluate our core operating performance. These non-GAAP financial measures, which may be different than similarly titled measures used by other companies, are presented to enhance investors’ overall understanding of our financial performance and should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. Investors are encouraged to review the reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to such GAAP measures can be found in the accompanying financial statements included with this press release. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide useful information about our financial performance, enhance the overall understanding of our past performance and future prospects, and allow for greater transparency with respect to important metrics used by our management for financial and operational decision-making. We are presenting these non-GAAP financial metrics to assist investors in seeing our financial performance through the eyes of management, and because we believe that these measures provide an additional tool for investors to use in comparing our core financial performance over multiple periods with other companies in our industry. We define non-GAAP operating income as GAAP operating loss excluding share-based compensation expense, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets, one-time costs associated with mergers and acquisitions, lease restructuring costs, and litigation expenses and settlements related to matters that are outside the ordinary course of our business, as applicable. We define non-GAAP net income as GAAP net income (loss) excluding non-recurring income tax adjustments associated with mergers and acquisitions and the same exclusions that are used to derive non-GAAP operating income. We define basic non-GAAP net income per share as non-GAAP net income divided by weighted-average shares outstanding ("WASO"). We define diluted non-GAAP net income per share as non-GAAP net income divided by diluted WASO. Diluted WASO includes the impact of potentially dilutive securities, which include stock options, restricted share units, performance share units, and shares subject to our 2018 employee stock purchase plan. There are a number of limitations related to the use of these non-GAAP measures as compared to GAAP operating loss and net income (loss), including that the non-GAAP measures exclude share-based compensation expense, which has been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, a significant recurring expense in our business and an important part of our compensation strategy. We use the non-GAAP financial measure of free cash flow, which is defined as GAAP net cash flows from operating activities, reduced by cash used for purchases of property and equipment (inclusive of spend on internal-use software) and principal payments on finance lease obligations. We believe free cash flow is an important liquidity measure of the cash that is available, after capital expenditures and operational expenses, for investment in our business, share repurchases, and potential acquisitions. Free cash flow is useful to investors as a liquidity measure because it measures our ability to generate excess cash beyond what is required for our operations. Once our business needs and obligations are met, cash can be used to maintain a strong balance sheet and invest in future growth. There are a number of limitations related to the use of free cash flow as compared to net cash from operating activities, including that free cash flow includes capital expenditures, the benefits of which are realized in periods subsequent to those when expenditures are made. We define annualized recurring revenue, or ARR, as the annualized recurring value of all active subscription contracts at the end of a reporting period. We exclude the value of non-recurring revenue streams, such as our professional services revenue, that are recognized at a point in time. We use ARR as one of our operating measures to assess the strength of the Company’s subscription services. ARR is a performance metric and should be viewed independently of revenue and deferred revenue, and is not intended to be a substitute for, or combined with, any of these items. Both multi-year contracts and contracts with terms less than one year are annualized by dividing the total committed contract value by the number of months in the subscription term and then multiplying by 12. Annualizing contracts with terms less than one year results in amounts being included in our ARR calculation that are in excess of the total contract value for those contracts at the end of the reporting period. The value of subscription contracts that are sold through third-party resellers, wherein we do not have visibility into the pricing provided, is based on the list price. We use average ARR per domain-based customer to measure customer commitment to our platform and sales force productivity. We define average ARR per domain-based customer as total outstanding ARR for domain-based subscriptions as of the end of the reporting period divided by the number of domain-based customers as of the same date. We define domain-based customers as organizations with a unique email domain name. We calculate dollar-based net retention rate as of a period end by starting with the ARR from the cohort of all customers as of the 12 months prior to such period end (“Prior Period ARR”). We then calculate the ARR from these same customers as of the current period end (“Current Period ARR”). Current Period ARR includes any upsells and is net of contraction or attrition over the trailing 12 months, but excludes subscription revenue from new customers in the current period. We then divide the total Current Period ARR by the total Prior Period ARR to arrive at the dollar-based net retention rate. Any ARR obtained through merger and acquisition transactions does not affect the dollar-based net retention rate until one year from the date on which the transaction closed. The dollar-based net retention rate is used by us to evaluate the long-term value of our customer relationships and is driven by our ability to retain and expand the subscription revenue generated from our existing customers. Smartsheet (NYSE: SMAR) is the modern enterprise work management platform trusted by millions of people at companies across the globe, including over 85% of the 2024 Fortune 500 companies. The category pioneer and market leader, Smartsheet delivers powerful solutions fueling performance and driving the next wave of innovation. Visit to learn more. Smartsheet announces material information to its investors using SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls, and on its investor relations page of the company’s website at . Subscription $ 273,703 $ 232,470 $ 786,328 $ 659,993 Professional services 13,168 13,448 39,939 41,396 Total revenue 286,871 245,918 826,267 701,389 Subscription 41,445 34,258 115,216 101,009 Professional services 12,291 12,780 36,693 38,948 Total cost of revenue 53,736 47,038 151,909 139,957 Gross profit 233,135 198,880 674,358 561,432 Research and development 63,477 58,257 189,514 172,805 Sales and marketing 127,854 137,920 383,315 382,685 General and administrative 45,155 38,153 124,489 109,654 Total operating expenses 236,486 234,330 697,318 665,144 Loss from operations (3,351 ) (35,450 ) (22,960 ) (103,712 ) Interest income 8,272 6,976 24,934 18,040 Other income (expense), net 47 (790 ) (593 ) (1,381 ) Income (loss) before income tax provision 4,968 (29,264 ) 1,381 (87,053 ) Income tax provision 3,644 3,164 1,057 8,602 Net income (loss) $ 1,324 $ (32,428 ) $ 324 $ (95,655 ) Net income (loss) per share, basic $ 0.01 $ (0.24 ) $ 0.00 $ (0.71 ) Net income (loss) per share, diluted $ 0.01 $ (0.24 ) $ 0.00 $ (0.71 ) Weighted-average shares outstanding used to compute net income (loss) per share, basic 139,007 135,189 138,287 133,868 Weighted-average shares outstanding used to compute net income (loss) per share, diluted 142,668 135,189 141,306 133,868 Share-based compensation expense included in the condensed consolidated statements of operations was as follows (in thousands, unaudited): Cost of subscription revenue $ 2,983 $ 3,164 $ 9,055 $ 9,980 Cost of professional services revenue 1,485 1,777 4,734 5,602 Research and development 17,763 17,220 54,036 52,263 Sales and marketing 14,453 17,462 45,472 55,505 General and administrative 9,151 10,024 29,827 30,099 Total share-based compensation expense $ 45,835 $ 49,647 $ 143,124 $ 153,449 Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $ 454,281 $ 282,094 Short-term investments 306,640 346,701 Accounts receivable, net of allowances of $5,335 and $6,560, respectively 200,436 238,708 Prepaid expenses and other current assets 69,840 64,366 Total current assets 1,031,197 931,869 Restricted cash 18 19 Deferred commissions 156,724 148,867 Property and equipment, net 39,139 42,362 Operating lease right-of-use assets 29,693 39,480 Intangible assets, net 20,635 27,960 Goodwill 141,477 141,477 Other long-term assets 4,408 5,445 Total assets $ 1,423,291 $ 1,337,479 Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 1,128 $ 2,937 Accrued compensation and related benefits 74,840 77,453 Other accrued liabilities 37,309 30,534 Operating lease liabilities, current 15,288 16,040 Finance lease liabilities, current 255 216 Deferred revenue 556,320 568,670 Total current liabilities 685,140 695,850 Operating lease liabilities, non-current 23,936 33,100 Finance lease liabilities, non-current 279 455 Deferred revenue, non-current 4,095 1,785 Other long-term liabilities 696 434 Total liabilities 714,146 731,624 Shareholders’ equity: Preferred stock, no par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding as of October 31, 2024 and January 31, 2024 — — Class A common stock, no par value; 500,000,000 shares authorized, 139,302,943 shares issued and outstanding as of October 31, 2024; 500,000,000 shares authorized, 136,884,011 shares issued and outstanding as of January 31, 2024 — — Class B common stock, no par value; 500,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding as of October 31, 2024 and January 31, 2024 — — Additional paid-in capital 1,621,429 1,468,805 Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) 196 (146 ) Accumulated deficit (912,480 ) (862,804 ) Total shareholders’ equity 709,145 605,855 Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 1,423,291 $ 1,337,479 Net income (loss) $ 324 $ (95,655 ) Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities: Share-based compensation expense 143,124 153,449 Depreciation and amortization 21,121 20,008 Net amortization of premiums (discounts) on investments (6,059 ) (8,746 ) Amortization of deferred commission costs 50,328 38,439 Unrealized foreign currency (gain) loss (577 ) 684 Non-cash operating lease costs 7,513 9,450 Impairment of long-lived assets 3,237 1,448 Other, net 5,495 3,089 Changes in operating assets and liabilities: Accounts receivable 33,770 16,541 Prepaid expenses and other current assets (5,576 ) 1,060 Other long-term assets (1,039 ) (1,401 ) Accounts payable (1,665 ) (997 ) Other accrued liabilities 6,656 4,100 Accrued compensation and related benefits (5,483 ) 2,021 Deferred commissions (58,185 ) (58,705 ) Deferred revenue (9,952 ) 25,439 Other long-term liabilities 262 278 Operating lease liabilities (10,544 ) (12,326 ) Net cash provided by operating activities 172,750 98,176 Purchases of short-term investments (235,421 ) (375,387 ) Maturities of short-term investments 281,965 281,900 Purchases of property and equipment (1,437 ) (2,097 ) Proceeds from sale of property and equipment 53 28 Capitalized internal-use software development costs (6,549 ) (7,850 ) Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 38,611 (103,406 ) Proceeds from exercise of stock options 10,957 1,330 Taxes paid related to net share settlement of restricted stock units (14,896 ) (1,644 ) Proceeds from contributions to Employee Stock Purchase Plan 14,403 15,664 Principal payments of finance leases (141 ) — Repurchases of Class A Common Stock and related costs (50,000 ) — Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities (39,677 ) 15,350 Effects of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash 379 (248 ) Net increase in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash 172,063 9,872 Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash at beginning of period 282,442 223,757 Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash at end of period $ 454,505 $ 233,629 Cash paid for interest $ 43 $ — Cash paid for income tax 7,655 9,471 Accrued purchases of property and equipment, including internal-use software 1,081 1,264 Share-based compensation expense capitalized in internal-use software development costs 2,355 3,283 Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities 558 1,684 Right-of-use asset reductions related to operating leases 2,832 4,451 Purchases of fixed assets under finance leases — 693 Loss from operations $ (3,351 ) $ (35,450 ) $ (22,960 ) $ (103,712 ) Add: Share-based compensation expense (1) 46,842 50,170 145,511 154,919 Amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets (2) 2,308 2,701 7,320 8,117 Lease restructuring costs (3) 40 1,934 3,359 2,051 One-time acquisition costs 10,525 — 10,525 — Non-GAAP operating income $ 56,364 $ 19,355 $ 143,755 $ 61,375 Operating margin (1 )% (14 )% (3 )% (15 )% Non-GAAP operating margin 20 % 8 % 17 % 9 % Net income (loss) $ 1,324 $ (32,428 ) $ 324 $ (95,655 ) Add: Share-based compensation expense (1) 46,842 50,170 145,511 154,919 Amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets (2) 2,308 2,701 7,320 8,117 Lease restructuring costs (3) 40 2,142 3,359 2,258 One-time acquisition costs 10,525 — 10,525 — Non-GAAP net income $ 61,039 $ 22,585 $ 167,039 $ 69,639 Non-GAAP net income per share, basic $ 0.44 $ 0.17 $ 1.21 $ 0.52 Non-GAAP net income per share, diluted $ 0.43 $ 0.16 $ 1.18 $ 0.51 Weighted-average shares outstanding; basic 139,007 135,189 138,287 133,868 Effect of dilutive securities: Shares subject to outstanding common stock awards 3,661 3,232 3,019 3,653 Weighted-average common shares outstanding; diluted 142,668 138,421 141,306 137,521 Net cash provided by operating activities $ 63,528 $ 15,146 $ 172,750 $ 98,176 Less: Purchases of property and equipment (414 ) (702 ) (1,437 ) (2,097 ) Capitalized internal-use software development costs (1,232 ) (3,035 ) (6,549 ) (7,850 ) Principal payments of finance leases (89 ) — (141 ) — Free cash flow $ 61,793 $ 11,409 $ 164,623 $ 88,229 View source version on : CONTACT: Smartsheet Inc. Investor Relations Contact Aaron Turner Contact Lisa Henthorn KEYWORD: WASHINGTON UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: SOFTWARE DATA ANALYTICS FINANCE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DATA MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY FINTECH SOURCE: Smartsheet Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 12/05/2024 04:07 PM/DISC: 12/05/2024 04:06 PM

Maharashtra election results: With 'Sajag raho' campaign, Sangh Parivar drives BJP-led juggernautDecember 12 - Tetairoa McMillan, one of the best wide receivers in Arizona history, will skip his final year of eligibility and enter the 2025 NFL Draft, he announced on social media on Thursday. Projected as a top-10 draft pick, the 6-foot-5, 212-pound McMillan finished his illustrious career at Arizona with 3,423 receiving yards, breaking the mark set by Bobby Wade (3,351). In three seasons, the Hawaii native also posted the fourth-most catches (213) and third-most touchdowns (26) in school history. "Wildcat Nation, this journey has been everything I dreamed of and more," McMillan wrote on Instagram. "From the moment I committed to the University of Arizona, to every second spent wearing that Arizona jersey ... it's been an absolute honor. "The University of Arizona has provided me with the platform to grow and chase my dreams. ... Thank you from the bottom of my heart. To the best fans in the country, I appreciate you for all of the love and support you have given me these last 3 years. I will always be a Wildcat." In 2024, McMillan totaled 84 grabs (ninth in Division I) for 1,319 yards (third in Division I) and eight touchdowns for the 4-8 Wildcats. He also ranked third in Division I with 109.9 receiving yards per game. McMillan is a finalist for the Biletnikoff Award, given to the most outstanding receiver in college football. --Field Level Media Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

CHICAGO — Efforts to transfer a parcel of land in Chinatown from the state to the city were hitting a wall in the spring of 2018, and much of it had to do with a political cold war going on between then-state Sen. Martin Sandoval and Chicago Ald. Daniel Solis, who had backed the opponent of Sandoval’s daughter for county commissioner. Lobbyist Nancy Kimme, a Republican with connections in the administration of then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, called a longtime confidant of Democratic House Speaker Michael Michael Madigan to talk it through. Kimme told Michael McClain that Sandoval was putting the brick on the plan to transfer the land, which was owned by the Illinois Department of Transportation, by amending an existing real estate bill, and it may be because of the blood with Solis. “I believe that Sandoval is just mad at Solis,” Kimme said on the April 2018 call played in Madigan’s corruption trial Thursday. “Kinda makes sense what’s happening,” McClain responded. “Sandoval’s a small man.” The call was one of nearly a dozen played for jurors during Kimme’s testimony so far that have painted a detailed picture of the political mechanizations, power plays, and bruised egos that unfolded in 2018 over the tiny 2 1/2-acre parking lot along Wentworth Avenue that a group of deep-pocketed Chinatown developers wanted to turn into a hotel. Prosecutors allege Madigan agreed to help Solis, whose 25th Ward included the land, with the transfer in return for an introduction to the developers so he could pitch his private real estate firm to do their property tax appeals. But Madigan knew Rauner, his arch political enemy, would never let the land transfer go through if he knew the speaker’s fingerprints were on it. So Madigan enlisted the help of his friend, retired lobbyist McClain, who in turn went to Kimme to try and seal the deal. That’s when the problems with Sandoval, a Democrat who headed the powerful Senate Transportation Committee, reared their head. In call after call, Kimme and McClain commiserated over Sandoval’s boorishness, and also lamented the behavior of his colleague, state Sen. Tony Munoz, who at the time was vying to be the next Senate president. In one call played for the jury, Kimme told McClain, I don’t know why (Sandoval) goes out of his way to piss off the speaker...That’s short-sighted. Madigan could take him out pretty easily.” McClain responded that all Madigan has to do is put up a Latino in Cicero to beat him. A few days later, Kimme and McClain talked about ways to get Sandoval and Munoz to “settle down.” Munoz, Kimme said seemed to be consumed with becoming the Senate president and was “not gonna want to piss off Marty,” “I’m sure that’s why he got involved (in blocking the Chinatown deal) in the first place...Sandoval’s so crazy,” Kimme said. “I don’t believe there is any way for Solis to make peace now,” McClain responded. He said Sandoval “had a rally or something several months ago where Sandoval announced that Alex Acevedo is the next alderman.” Kimme said after a long pause, said, “We’re in the middle of some kind of range war.” On the stand, Kimme was asked by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia Schwartz what she meant by that statement. “That they were all shootin’ at each other for different reasons,” Kimme testified. You mean for political reasons? Schwartz asked. “Yes.” McClain said suppose they got the Chinese Chamber of Commerce involved to show Munoz “there is a political consequence.” Kimme said Munoz probably wouldn’t care. “He knows that Marty is a bad enemy to have because he reacts so much.” At the end of the call, Kimme asked, Who is close to Sandoval? “Victor Reyes,” McClain said, the longtime Democratic political consultant and fundraiser. “Who is Reyes close to?” McClain paused for several seconds. “Well...Victor Reyes is close to Victor Reyes,” he said, “But um I got him you know a lot of business over the years.” A few weeks later, Kimme again asked McClain how they could solve the Sandoval issue, maybe “try and get Victor (Reyes) to go after Sandoval and quiet him down?” “I think I ought to call somebody and let ’em know that Sandoval is blowing it up,” McClain responded. “So why don’t you give me a day or two?” Kimme later told McClain that she’d found out Munoz was angry about a city-owned property on Damen Avenue that he’d wanted Solis to sign off on for development, but the alderman was dragging his feet. So she negotiated a plan with Munoz to put both properties in the same bill. “I think that’s a good deal,” McClain said. “That’s why you’re the master.” In May 2018, with the session deadline looming, Kimme reached out to Democratic state Rep. Theresa Mah to make her a sponsor of the land transfer. But the deal was later tabled due to pressure from the community that caused other political heavyweights to oppose it, including then-Secretary of State Jesse White, according to evidence the jury has heard. Sandoval later pleaded guilty to an arrange of bribery schemes unrelated to the Chinatown parcel and was cooperating with investigators when he died of COVID-19 in December 2020. Kimme’s testimony will continue after a lunch break. Madigan, 82, of Chicago, who served for decades as speaker of the Illinois House and the head of the state Democratic Party, faces racketeering charges alleging he ran his state and political operations like a criminal enterprise. He is charged alongside his longtime confidant McClain, 77, a former ComEd contract lobbyist from downstate Quincy. Both men have pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. Prosecutors could rest their case in chief as early as next week. Before the jury took their seats Thursday, prosecutors said they want to call former state Rep. Eddie Acevedo as a witness next week. But Acevedo’s attorney signaled that she would try to keep him off the stand on grounds that he is not competent to testify, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Amarjeet Bhachu. In addition, Bhachu said, Acevedo has invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, meaning prosecutors must jump through administrative hoops in order to compel him to the stand. Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat, pleaded guilty in 2021 to a relatively minor tax charge stemming from the federal probe into ComEd’s lobbying practices. He was sentenced to six months in prison. Before his sentencing, his attorneys filed a memo from his doctor on the public docket saying he had “mild cognitive impairment,” gout, hypertension, high cholesterol and depression and anxiety. Acevedo has not testified in any of the Madigan-related trials so far. One of the conspiracy counts against Madigan and McClain alleges that AT&T Illinois boss Paul La Schiazza agreed to pay $22,500 to Acevedo for a do-nothing consulting job in exchange for Madigan’s help passing a bill to end mandated landline service. Acevedo also allegedly was hired by ComEd as a favor to Madigan, one of many people whom prosecutors say were given jobs as part of a bribery scheme. Jurors last month saw a memorable email in which then-ComEd executive Fidel Marquez seemingly lost his cool after Acevedo asked for a job for a friend. “Geez...he has a son and a nephew at ComEd. He’s got a contract at ComEd. Has he no limit?” Marquez emailed McClain. McClain responded using his frequent euphemism for Madigan, saying that Marquez’s rant “sounded like our Friend.” Also Thursday, jurors heard a series of phone calls meant to emphasize Madigan’s influence over state board appointments. “Think about Carrie to go to the Illinois Commerce Commission,” then-state Rep. Michael J. Zalewski told McClain in a November 2018 call, referring to his wife. “Pritzker gets two picks in January and the pay is the same, so it wouldn’t get us a story for bumping her pay, he could say she gets the same amount of money,” Zalewski said. Madigan ended up successfully recommending that Pritzker put Carrie Zalewski on the commission. Madigan and McClain are accused of getting ComEd to hire Michael J. Zalewski’s father, former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski, as a no-work subcontractor, in order to sway Madigan’s support for utility-friendly legislation. Jurors also heard Madigan tell McClain about a meeting he had with Pritzker in December 2018. Madigan’s former chief of staff testified Wednesday that at that meeting, Madigan suggested Pritzker could reconstitute boards and commissions and appoint all new members. “You can wipe out the board too ... So I put that idea in his head,” Madigan told McClain on the recording jurors heard Thursday. Madigan’s sway over board seats is crucial to prosecutors’ allegations that he was planning to recommend Solis to a lucrative position on a board. Solis has testified he was not actually interested in a seat, but the FBI directed him to ask about it. Jurors last week saw undercover video from an August 2018 meeting in which Solis asked Madigan about a board seat appointment, and emphasized all the business he could bring in for Madigan’s firm. Moments later, Madigan asked Solis to put in a good word with the nonprofit Resurrection Project on behalf of his son Andrew, who worked at an insurance broker. The CEO and co-founder of the Resurrection Project, Raul Raymundo, testified Thursday that Solis had reached out to him in 2018 and asked him to consider meeting with Andrew Madigan. Raymundo subsequently connected Andrew Madigan with the Resurrection Project’s chief financial officer, who ultimately decided to start working with Andrew Madigan’s firm. ©2024 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.