Qaasid News

Download Our App

Category: 3. Business

  • FRONTERA DETERMINES BINDING OFFER FROM PAREX RESOURCES INC. IS A SUPERIOR PROPOSAL TO PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED GEOPARK TRANSACTION

    CALGARY, AB, March 5, 2026 /PRNewswire/ – Frontera Energy Corporation (TSX: FEC) (“Frontera” or the “Company“) announces today that the Frontera Board of Directors, in consultation with its external legal counsel and independent financial advisors, has determined that the binding offer (the “Parex Offer“) received from Parex Resources Inc. (“Parex“) to acquire all of Frontera’s upstream Colombian exploration and production business (the “Frontera E&P Assets“) constitutes a “Superior Proposal” (as defined in the GeoPark Arrangement Agreement described below). 

    Under the Parex Offer, Parex would acquire the same assets that Frontera has agreed to sell to a subsidiary of GeoPark Limited (“GeoPark“) under the previously announced arrangement agreement between Frontera and GeoPark dated January 29, 2026 (the “GeoPark Arrangement Agreement“).  The purchase price under the Parex Offer consists of (a) US$500,000,000 in cash payable upon closing; plus, as is the case with the GeoPark transaction (b) an additional US$25,000,000 contingent payment payable upon the achievement of specified development milestones within a period of up to 12 months following the transaction closing date, and (c) the assumption of all of Frontera’s obligations under the US$310,000,000 aggregate principal amount of outstanding 2028 Frontera Unsecured Notes and the US$80,000,000 outstanding under Frontera’s previously announced prepayment facility with Chevron Products Company. The consideration offered in the Parex Offer also assumes the payment of US$25,000,000 Purchaser Break Fee payable to GeoPark by Frontera should Frontera terminate the GeoPark Arrangement Agreement. Except for the consideration being offered, the arrangement agreement that would be entered into with Parex is substantially the same as the GeoPark Arrangement Agreement, and the transaction structure is the same as for the GeoPark transaction.

    Frontera has advised GeoPark of this determination, and the five Business Day period (the “Matching Period“) in which, GeoPark has the right, but not the obligation, to amend the terms of the GeoPark Arrangement Agreement in order for the Parex Offer to cease to be a Superior Proposal (the “Match Right“) has commenced.  The Matching Period will expire at 11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) on March 12, 2026.

    At this time, there can be no assurance that the Parex Offer will result in a transaction or that any transaction contemplated thereby will be completed. The GeoPark Arrangement Agreement remains in effect, and the Frontera Board of Directors continues to act in accordance with its fiduciary duties and the terms of the GeoPark Arrangement Agreement. The Frontera Board of Directors has not changed its recommendation regarding the transaction with GeoPark pursuant to the GeoPark Arrangement Agreement. Frontera will provide updates, including with respect to the determination by GeoPark as to whether or not to exercise its Match Right, as required under applicable securities laws.

    About Frontera:

    Frontera Energy Corporation is a Canadian public company involved in the exploration, development, production, transportation, storage and sale of oil and natural gas in South America, including related investments in both upstream and midstream facilities. The Company has a diversified portfolio of assets with interests in 18 exploration and production blocks in Colombia and Guyana, and pipeline and port facilities in Colombia. Frontera is committed to conducting business safely and in a socially, environmentally and ethically responsible manner.

    If you would like to receive News Releases via e-mail as soon as they are published, please subscribe here: http://fronteraenergy.mediaroom.com/subscribe.

    Social Media

    Follow Frontera Energy social media channels at the following links:

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/fronteraenergy?lang=en
    Facebook: https://es-la.facebook.com/FronteraEnergy/
    LinkedIn: https://co.linkedin.com/company/frontera-energy-corp.

    Cautionary Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release contains forward-looking statements. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. The use of any of the words “estimate”, “will”, “would”, “believe”, “plan”, “expected”, “potential”, and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by such words. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. 

    In particular, and without limiting the foregoing, this news release contains forward looking statements with respect to a potential transaction involving Parex and Frontera and the transaction involving Frontera and GeoPark, and the process and timing for both transactions. These forward-looking statements reflect the current expectations or beliefs of the Company based on information currently available to the Company. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of the Company to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on, the Company. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things: there can be no assurance that any transaction will result from the Parex Offer or that Parex and Frontera will ultimately enter into a definitive agreement for Parex to acquire the Frontera E&P Assets; that the GeoPark transaction will be completed on the terms or within the timeframes currently contemplated; and the failure to obtain all necessary court, third-party and shareholder approvals to complete either such transaction and the risk that either such transaction may be varied, accelerated or terminated in certain circumstances.

    Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.

    www.fronteraenergy.ca

    SOURCE Frontera Energy Corporation


    Continue Reading

  • Swampert with the Mightiest Mark Returns to 7-Star Tera Raid Battles

    Swampert with the Mightiest Mark Returns to 7-Star Tera Raid Battles

    The powerful Swampert is coming back into Pokémon Scarlet and Pokémon Violet 7-star Tera Raid Battles. The Mud Fish Pokémon will appear at black Tera Raid crystals from Friday, 6 March 2026, at 00:00 UTC to Thursday, 12 March 2026, at 23:59 UTC. The Swampert appearing during this event has Poison as its Tera Type. Be prepared—this Pokémon is a formidable foe, and it’s got the Mightiest Mark to prove it! Work together with your friends to topple this powerful Tera Pokémon!

    Whenever you see a sparkling pillar of light shining from a Tera Raid crystal, you can walk up to the crystal and interact with it to start a Tera Raid Battle with a Tera Pokémon. To find the Tera Pokémon featured in this event, you’ll also need to have downloaded the latest Poké Portal News. To do so, follow these steps:

    1. Select Poké Portal in the X menu.

    2. Select Mystery Gift.

    3. Select Check Poké Portal News.

    To challenge Poison–Tera Type Swampert with the Mightiest Mark, Trainers will need to either complete the postgame events that follow the main story or join a 7-star Tera Raid Battle hosted by a Trainer who has completed those events. This special Swampert can be caught only once per save data. You can still participate in Tera Raid Battles against this Swampert if you’ve already caught it to obtain other rewards—including significant amounts of Exp. Candy for leveling up your Pokémon, treasures that can be sold at Pokémon Centers, items for improving your Pokémon’s stats, and Poison Tera Shards for changing your Pokémon’s Tera Type.

    After you’ve caught this mighty Swampert, why not bring it home? Catch some of the cute Swampert merch that’s currently available on Pokémon Center!

    Continue Reading

  • Australian Court Dismisses Santos Greenwashing Case

    The decision was the first case internationally to challenge the veracity of a company’s statements regarding its net-zero emissions targets. It provides valuable guidance regarding how the courts will evaluate representations regarding environmental objectives and energy transition strategies, emphasizing that such statements must be made on reasonable grounds and properly substantiated.

    Key takeaways

    The court’s judgment reinforces the following:1

    • Statements regarding climate ambitions, such as net-zero targets or emissions reductions plans, are representations as to future matters that must be made on reasonable grounds and supported by appropriate evidence. Given that statements may be misleading by omission, it is important to disclose material assumptions or qualifications regarding any such targets.
    • Long-term climate targets necessarily involve assumptions about future technologies, markets, and regulations that cannot be known with certainty. Nevertheless, in determining the reasonableness of emissions targets or clean energy claims, the courts are likely to closely interrogate consideration of whether the target is appropriate and achievable, such as expert evidence and board consideration of the targets. Evidence of robust internal processes for target setting supported by evidence will support an inference that there are reasonable grounds for a target.
    • Whether a particular representation is misleading or deceptive focuses on the effect it has on its audience. Santos’ communications were held to be made to a large and diverse group of investors, with interest in climate change but no scientific training, who would expect that Santos’ objectives may change over time. Santos’ statements regarding their “clean” fuel and “net zero” hydrogen were held not to be misleading to this audience, when viewed in their context. However, it remains possible that similar statements, made in a different context, could mislead investors or consumers, particularly if they are less sophisticated than Santos’ audience. For this reason, it continues to be important to avoid making broad, unsubstantiated claims or using vague terminology regarding “green” credentials. This is consistent with guidance previously issued by the ACCC and ASIC.

    Background

    ACCR’s claims

    Santos is a major Australian oil and gas company. In 2021, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), a shareholder advocacy organization and Santos shareholder, commenced proceedings against Santos in the Federal Court of Australia. The ACCR alleged that Santos had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and the Australian Consumer Law, by statements made in its Investor Day Presentation published on December 1, 2020, its 2020 Annual Report, and its 2021 Climate Change Report.2 The ACCR’s case focused on three main claims:

    • Clean energy representation: First, that Santos represented that it produces “clean energy” and that Santos is a “leading clean fuel company.” The ACCR maintained that this was misleading, on the basis that natural gas is not “clean,” and Santos is a heavy emitter of greenhouse gases.3
    • 2030 target and net-zero roadmap representation: Secondly, that Santos represented that it had a “clear and credible” plan to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 26–30% by 2030 and achieve “net-zero” Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040. The ACCR maintained that this plan did not account for additional emissions associated with expected hydrocarbon growth and was based on undisclosed and unreasonable assumptions that were “nominal,” “notional,” and “speculative.”4
    • Zero-emissions hydrogen representation: Thirdly, that Santos claimed it could, in the future, produce “zero-emissions” or “clean” hydrogen, and hydrogen with “no emissions in its production,” when in fact Santos was proposing to produce “blue hydrogen” (hydrogen made from natural gas using carbon capture and storage) which generates material additional emissions.5

    The ACCR argued that, by these representations, Santos had engaged in conduct that was misleading or likely to mislead in relation to:

    • Santos’ shares, as a financial product, contrary to section 1041H of the Corporations Act
    • the supply of natural gas, contrary to section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law
    • the nature, characteristics, suitability, and quality of natural gas as a product, contrary to section 33 of the Australian Consumer Law.

    The ACCR did not seek financial compensation. Rather it sought a declaration regarding Santos’ alleged breaches and injunction, asserting that it was acting in the public interest to ensure that corporate climate commitments are made on reasonable grounds and not misleading.6

    Santos’ response

    Santos opposed these claims, maintaining that its statements were not misleading or deceptive. It contended that:

    • Clean energy representations: First, that Santos never suggested that natural gas produces no emissions, but rather that natural gas was “cleaner” than coal and diesel, and that no reasonable member of the target audience would have understood otherwise or be led into error.7
    • 2030 target and net-zero roadmap representations: Secondly, that Santos’ statements made it clear that its 2030 targets and net-zero ambitions were long-term targets based on assessments about potential developments and opportunities in a highly uncertain future in an industry marked by rapid changes in markets, technology, economics, and regulation. Santos maintained that a reasonable member of the target audience would have understood this and would not have been misled.8
    • Zero-emissions hydrogen representations: Thirdly, that Santos did not convey that hydrogen production would have no emissions. Rather, at the relevant time, terms like “zero-emissions,” “clean,” and “carbon neutral” hydrogen were industry terms referring to hydrogen produced from natural gas with carbon capture and storage and with offsets for remaining emissions.9

    The court’s decision

    The court (Justice Markovic) found that Santos’ representations were not misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. In doing so, they made a number of key findings.

    Legal framework and target audience for representations

    The court reiterated the well-established test for establishing whether conduct is misleading or deceptive, which requires consideration of the following steps:10

    “[F]irst, identifying with precision the ‘conduct’ said to contravene s 18; second, considering whether the identified conduct was conduct ‘in trade or commerce’; third, considering what meaning that conduct conveyed; and fourth, determining whether that conduct in light of that meaning was ‘misleading or deceptive or … likely to mislead or deceive’.”

    A key focus of the case was on defining the characteristics of the “target audience” for Santos’ communications. This is because whether conduct is misleading or deceptive depends on its likely impact on the ordinary or reasonable member of that audience. Justice Markovic found that the target audience of Santos’ representations was a large and diverse group of investors, including both individuals and institutions, who had the following characteristics:11

    • They have a sufficient interest in climate change but have varying levels of knowledge about it.
    • They are not assumed to have scientific training.
    • They understand there is an ongoing energy transition but do not possess precise familiarity with the means or technologies involved in the transition.
    • They understand that long-term strategic objectives may be achieved in various ways and would expect the pathway to achieve those objectives may change as circumstances change.
    • They would expect Santos to respond or adapt to technological and regulatory developments in the area.
    • They have some degree of familiarity with at least one of the impugned publications.

    The court also found that Santos’ 2030 target and net-zero roadmap representations were representations as to future matters under section 4 of the Australian Consumer Law, meaning that such representations are deemed to be misleading unless they are made on “reasonable grounds.”

    Clean energy representations

    Justice Markovic held that Santos was not misleading or deceptive in using the terms “clean energy” and “clean fuel” to describe natural gas.

    Her Honor held that, when viewed in their context, Santos’ references to “clean” energy in its 2020 Annual Report conveyed that natural gas was cleaner than coal and diesel, rather than suggesting that natural gas had no greenhouse gas emissions on consumption.12 Similarly, the description by Santos as a “clean fuels company” was made in the context of its statements regarding a transition to a lower-carbon future, and the transition from natural gas to hydrogen.13 The court held that, read in context, these statements did not convey that Santos’ present state was as a clean fuels company.

    The court observed that a reasonable member of the target audience would have understood that the consumption of natural gas was a material contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly given that Santos’ publications disclosed its Scope 3 emissions and included a “2030 Scope 3 emissions target.”14 Accordingly, the representations were not misleading or deceptive.

    Zero-emissions hydrogen representations

    Justice Markovic also rejected the ACCR’s claims that the target audience would understand “clean” and “zero-emissions” hydrogen to refer to the production of hydrogen with no emissions.

    The court accepted that at the relevant time, the terms “clean hydrogen” and “zero-emissions hydrogen” were used interchangeably to refer to blue hydrogen produced from natural gas with carbon capture and storage.15 Justice Markovic found that a reasonable member of the target audience would have understood “clean,” “zero-emissions” and “carbon neutral” hydrogen to mean the production of hydrogen from natural gas with carbon capture and storage with no net emissions (referred to as “blue hydrogen”).16 The court accepted expert evidence that at the relevant time there was no settled industry meaning of these terms, but that they were used interchangeably at relevant times to refer to “blue hydrogen.”17

    2030 target and net-zero roadmap representations

    The most substantial part of the judgment concerned Santos’ 2030 target and net-zero roadmap. The court found that the ACCR had not established that Santos lacked reasonable grounds for its targets.18

    Justice Markovic accepted expert evidence from Santos’ expert, Professor Collis (a specialist in long-term corporate strategy), that long-range environmental targets “necessarily involve assumptions about external future contingencies and do not require a basis only in existing, objective or verifiable facts.” The court found that given the long-range nature of Santos’ 2030 target and net-zero roadmap, the reasonable member of the target audience would have understood that they involved assumptions about future markets and developments, including regulatory developments, that were beyond Santos’ control.19

    The court also considered the reasonableness of Santos’ 2030 target and net-zero roadmap, conducting a detailed analysis of evidence adduced by Santos supporting the targets. This included analyzing the reasonableness of Santos’ assertions that carbon capture and storage would be used to avoid or abate emissions. Importantly, the court found the following:

    • Santos had reasonable grounds for its baseline emissions assumptions,20 and for its assumptions regarding hydrogen with carbon capture and storage forming part of its roadmap to net-zero emissions.21
    • The relevant targets were the product of years of strategic development regarding a potential market for hydrogen and were not rushed decisions.22
    • Santos’ net-zero roadmap was presented in a way that conveyed an appropriate level of uncertainty and flexibility.23
    • Santos had clearly indicated that certain activities, such as expansion of carbon capture and storage, were “planned” and conditional.24

    The court found that the targets had a reasonable basis, and rejected the ACCR’s claims that the relevant representations were misleading or deceptive.

    The court ordered that the ACCR pay Santos’ costs of the proceedings.

    Implications of the case

    Representations regarding climate-related commitments

    The Santos case is widely regarded as the first proceeding globally to challenge the validity of a company’s stated pathway to achieving net-zero emissions. The judgment establishes several important principles for companies making environmental claims in their communications:

    • Context is critical: Climate-related statements will be assessed in their full context, including in the context of the document in which the statement is contained, accompanying statements, and the industry landscape.25
    • Climate related representations should be stated clearly, with qualifications identified: To avoid claims of misleading or deceptive conduct, it is important that climate-related claims are stated clearly and supported by appropriate evidence. Any assumptions, qualifications or conditions should be identified with precision. The case emphasizes the difficulties that can arise when ambiguous and overbroad statements regarding climate credentials are used in public communications, such as representations that a product is “clean,” “green,” “sustainable,” or “eco-friendly.” This is consistent with previous guidance from the ACCC and ASIC that the use of such broad language should be avoided when making climate related claims.
    • Long-term targets involve inherent uncertainty, but must be reasonable: The court in Santos was willing to recognize that climate targets necessarily involve assumptions about future technologies, markets, and regulations that cannot be known with certainty based on existing, objective, or verifiable facts.26 However, it was emphasized that such targets are representations as to future matters that must be made on reasonable grounds.
    • Evidence and process are important: In determining the reasonableness of emissions targets or clean energy claims, the courts are likely to closely interrogate internal consideration of whether the target is appropriate and achievable. Evidence of robust internal processes supporting target setting will assist in determining that the target is reasonable.
    • Consider the target audience for communications: The target audience for a relevant communication will be key to determining whether representations are misleading or deceptive. When viewed in their context, Santos’ statements regarding their “clean” fuel and “net zero” hydrogen were held not to be misleading to its “large, diverse investor group” with some knowledge of climate issues and the energy transition. However, a representation may be more likely to be misleading if it is made to less sophisticated groups. For example, a representation regarding a product’s “green” credentials made to a broad audience of consumers may be more likely to be held to be misleading or deceptive as compared to the representations in Santos.

    Actions by public interest groups

    The case also has implications for climate claims by public interest groups:

    • Unsuccessful climate claims may carry significant costs implications: The decision is the latest in a series of judgments demonstrating the potentially material financial consequences for litigants who unsuccessfully pursue climate claims. While the ACCR maintained that its claim was brought in the public interest, it was ultimately ordered by the court to pay Santos’ costs of the proceedings. These costs are likely to be substantial, given the duration and complexity of the matter. This decision follows Santos’ successful application for indemnity costs after its victory in Munkara v. Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd. In those proceedings, the court ordered the Environmental Defenders’ Office, the public interest law firm representing the applicants, to pay Santos AUD9,042,093.05 in legal costs.
    • Risk of climate claims by public interest groups still prevails: Nevertheless, for many public interest groups and environmental organizations, the litigation process itself serves a strategic purpose beyond obtaining a favorable judgment. Climate claims generally attract significant media coverage and public attention, and provide a platform to highlight and scrutinize corporate environmental policies and commitments. Because of this, there remains an ongoing risk of “greenwashing” claims by public interest groups.

    Regulators continue to scrutinize disclosures for “greenwashing”

    Finally, the Santos decision does not signal that environmental representations are immune from regulatory scrutiny. ASIC has recently secured pecuniary penalties following civil penalty proceedings against a number of funds and investment managers in connection with greenwashing claims:

    • In ASIC v. Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2024] FCA 850, the Federal Court ordered Mercer to pay an AUD11.3 million penalty after admitting it made false and misleading statements about its “Sustainable Plus” investment options. Mercer’s website marketed these options as excluding companies involved in carbon-intensive fossil fuels (amongst other matters). However, the court found Mercer’s investment policies permitted investment in such entities, including in BHP. The court noted that greenwashing practices have the potential to reduce consumer confidence in environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) claims, and Mercer agreed to pecuniary penalties for its conduct.
    • In ASIC v. Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1086, the Federal Court ordered that Vanguard pay a AUD12.9m penalty for making false or misleading statements regarding an “ethically conscious” fund. ASIC successfully maintained that Vanguard’s representations regarding the fund were false and misleading because the research and screening of securities for inclusion in the Fund against ESG criteria had significant limitations, and the fund included issuers that failed to meet these criteria.
    • In ASIC v. LGSS Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 205, the Federal Court ordered that Active Super pay a AUD10.5m penalty for making false and misleading representations about its “green” and ESG credentials. Active Super had made representations that its investments would not be made in relation to gambling, coal mining, oil tar sands, and Russian entities following the Ukraine invasion. However, contrary to these representations, Active Super held both direct and indirect investments in companies operating in these sectors.

    Similarly, the ACCC recently secured the first civil penalties for greenwashing claims contrary to the Australian Consumer Law.

    • In ACCC v. Clorox Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 357, the ACCC secured orders that Clorox Australia Pty Ltd pay a penalty of AUD8.25m for making false or misleading representations to consumers that certain GLAD kitchen and garbage bags were partly made of recycled “ocean plastic.”
    • More recently, the ACCC has launched Federal Court proceedings against Australian Gas Networks Limited alleging it made false and misleading representations in its “Love Gas” TV and digital advertising campaign, by alleging the gas it distributes to households on its network will be renewable within a generation. These proceedings are ongoing.

    The decision in Santos provides some comfort to companies that the courts will assess environmental representations in their full context, and that long-term climate targets may involve assumptions that cannot be known with certainty. Nevertheless, it is clear that scrutiny of such representations by both regulators and public interest groups will continue. It remains important that considerable care be exercised in ensuring such claims are accurate, substantiated and appropriately qualified.

    Footnotes

    1. Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v. Santos Limited [2026] FCA 96 (ACCR v. Santos).

    2. ACCR v. Santos, [4].

    3. ACCR v. Santos, [5(1)].

    4. ACCR v. Santos, [5(2)(a)].

    5. ACCR v. Santos, [5(2)(b)].

    6. ACCR v. Santos, [6].

    7. ACCR v. Santos, [7(1)].

    8. ACCR v. Santos, [7(3)].

    9. ACCR v. Santos, [7(2)].

    10. ACCR v. Santos, [456]; citing Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v. Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8 at [80].

    11. ACCR v. Santos, [499].

    12. ACCR v. Santos, [519]–[520].

    13. ACCR v. Santos, [521].

    14. ACCR v. Santos, [523]–[524].

    15. ACCR v. Santos, [562]–[563].

    16. ACCR v. Santos, [545].

    17. ACCR v. Santos, [554]–[555].

    18. ACCR v. Santos, [823] and [851].

    19. ACCR v. Santos, [596]–[607]

    20. ACCR v. Santos, [661].

    21. ACCR v. Santos, [770]; [822].

    22. ACCR v. Santos, [708].

    23. ACCR v. Santos, [604(1)].

    24. ACCR v. Santos, [604(2)].

    25. ACCR v. Santos, [516]–[518] and [828]–[830]

    26. ACCR v. Santos, [596] and [607].

    Continue Reading

  • Sotera Health, Warburg Pincus, and GTCR in $381.75 Million Secondary Stock Offering – Cleary Gottlieb

    1. Sotera Health, Warburg Pincus, and GTCR in $381.75 Million Secondary Stock Offering  Cleary Gottlieb
    2. Sotera Health shares fall 4.2% as private equity firms launch secondary offering  Investing.com
    3. Form 424B7 Sotera Health Co  StreetInsider
    4. Sotera Health Launches Secondary Offering of 25 Million Shares  marketscreener.com
    5. Sotera Health offers to sell 25M shares of common stock for holders  TipRanks

    Continue Reading

  • Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (TNXP)

    Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (TNXP)





    Commercially launched in the U.S. in November 2025, TONMYA (cyclobenzaprine HCl sublingual tablets) for long-term daily dosing at bedtime is the first new FDA-approved treatment for fibromyalgia in adults in more than 15 years

    The sublingual TONMYA tablet containing a basifying agent achieved the design objectives of rapid transmucosal absorption and bypassing first-pass liver metabolism

    TONMYA was designed to decrease production of the active metabolite norcyclobenzaprine, which is believed to improve the durability of analgesic response in fibromyalgia relative to the transient (~1 month) effects of oral, swallowed cyclobenzaprine

    BERKELEY HEIGHTS, N.J., March 05, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (Nasdaq: TNXP) (“Tonix” or the “Company”), a fully integrated, commercial biotechnology company, today announced the publication of a paper, “Single-Dose Pharmacokinetic Assessment of TNX-102 SL (Cyclobenzaprine HCl Sublingual Tablets): Results From Randomized, Open-Label Studies in Healthy Volunteers,” in Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development, the peer-reviewed journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology (ACCP). TONMYA™ was investigated as TNX-102 SL (cyclobenzaprine HCl sublingual tablets) and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on August 15, 2025, for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults. The manuscript can be accessed at: https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpdd.70034.

    “These data demonstrate the importance of the proprietary basifying agent in TONMYA’s sublingual formulation,” said Seth Lederman, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Tonix Pharmaceuticals. “An earlier study conducted by Tonix showed that transmucosal delivery cannot be achieved by simply applying a liquid cyclobenzaprine HCl formulation under the tongue. Due to the basifying agent ingredient, sublingual TONMYA achieves rapid transmucosal absorption that bypasses first-pass hepatic metabolism. This pharmacokinetic profile underpins TONMYA’s unique sublingual formulation, which is designed to increase parent drug exposure during sleep while reducing exposure and side effects to the long half-life, active metabolite.”

    Dr. Lederman continued, “Bedtime oral swallowed cyclobenzaprine was one of the first drugs studied as a treatment for fibromyalgia, but it failed because the benefits were only transient (~1 month) and fibromyalgia is a chronic condition requiring durable responses.1 Our design objective for TONMYA was to improve the durability of cyclobenzaprine’s treatment effect by decreasing liver production of the major active metabolite norcyclobenzaprine, which we believe counteracted the benefits of swallowed cyclobenzaprine over time. We believe the clinical pharmacology studies published in Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development, show that TONMYA achieved this design objective. Later studies2,3 confirmed that TONMYA as a daily bedtime medicine provides a durable analgesic benefit to fibromyalgia patients and is generally well tolerated.”

    The publication reports findings from two Phase 1 single-dose, open-label studies conducted in healthy adult volunteers.

    In Study 1 (n=24), three sublingual formulations of cyclobenzaprine HCl 2.8 mg, each containing a different basifying agent, were compared with oral immediate-release (IR) cyclobenzaprine HCl 5 mg under fasting conditions. All sublingual formulations showed rapid absorption and increased relative bioavailability compared with oral IR cyclobenzaprine HCl. The potassium phosphate dibasic formulation (designated TNX-102 SL) demonstrated the most favorable pharmacokinetic profile, with a 154% relative bioavailability compared to oral IR, an absorption lag of approximately 3 minutes versus approximately 37 minutes for oral IR, and a 783% higher dose-normalized AUC during the first hour post-dose. Based on these results, the potassium phosphate dibasic formulation was selected for further clinical development.

    In Study 2 (n=16), TNX-102 SL 2.8 mg and 5.6 mg were evaluated in a crossover design under fasting and fed conditions. The formulation exhibited dose proportionality between the two dose levels, and pharmacokinetic parameters were not affected by a high-calorie, high-fat meal, confirming the absence of a food effect. This study also provided a full clinical characterization of the active metabolite norcyclobenzaprine, demonstrating an elimination half-life of approximately 60 hours. Reduced exposure to norcyclobenzaprine following sublingual administration, as compared with oral delivery, is believed to contribute to the improved durability of efficacy and favorable tolerability profile observed with TONMYA in Phase 3 fibromyalgia studies.2,3

    Across both studies, single-dose sublingual cyclobenzaprine HCl was generally well tolerated. All treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were oral hypoesthesia and abnormal taste. No serious adverse events were reported, and no clinically meaningful changes were observed in laboratory parameters, vital signs, or electrocardiogram findings.

    Citations

    1Carette S, et al. Arthritis Rheum. 1994. 37(1):32-40. doi: 10.1002/art.1780370106.
    2Lederman S, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2023. 75(11):2359-2368. doi: 10.1002/acr.25142.
    3Lederman S, et al. Pain Med. 2026. 27(1):86-94. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaf089.

    About Fibromyalgia

    Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain disorder that is understood to result from amplified sensory and pain signaling within the central nervous system. Fibromyalgia afflicts an estimated 6-12 million adults in the U.S., approximately 90% of whom are women. Symptoms of fibromyalgia include chronic widespread pain, nonrestorative sleep, fatigue, and morning stiffness. Other associated symptoms include cognitive dysfunction and mood disturbances, including anxiety and depression. Individuals suffering from fibromyalgia struggle with their daily activities, have impaired quality of life, and frequently are disabled. Physicians and patients report common dissatisfaction with currently marketed products.

    About TONMYA™ (cyclobenzaprine HCl sublingual tablets)

    TONMYA (cyclobenzaprine HCl sublingual tablets) is a patented sublingual tablet formulation of cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride which provides rapid transmucosal absorption and reduced production of a long half-life active metabolite, norcyclobenzaprine, due to bypass of first-pass hepatic metabolism. As a multifunctional agent with potent binding and antagonist activities at the 5-HT2A serotonergic, α1-adrenergic, H1-histaminergic, and M1-muscarinic receptors, TONMYA was approved on August 15, 2025, by the FDA for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults. TONMYA is the first new prescription medicine approved for fibromyalgia in more than 15 years. TONMYA was investigated as TNX-102 SL. TNX-102 SL is also being developed to treat acute stress reaction (ASR)/acute stress disorder (ASD), and major depressive disorder (MDD). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued United States Patent No. 9636408 in May 2017, Patent No. 9956188 in May 2018, Patent No. 10117936 in November 2018, Patent No. 10,357,465 in July 2019, and Patent No. 10736859 in August 2020. The Protectic™ protective eutectic and Angstro-Technology™ formulation claimed in the patent are important elements of Tonix’s proprietary TONMYA composition. These patents are expected to provide TONMYA with U.S. market exclusivity until 2034/2035.

    Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp.*

    Tonix Pharmaceuticals is a fully-integrated, commercial-stage biotechnology company focused on central nervous system (CNS) and immunology treatments in areas of high unmet medical need. TONMYA™ (cyclobenzaprine HCl sublingual tablets 2.8mg), the Company’s recently approved flagship medicine, is the first new treatment for fibromyalgia in more than 15 years. Tonix’s CNS commercial infrastructure supports its marketed products, including its acute migraine products, Zembrace® SymTouch® and Tosymra®. Tonix is maximizing the science behind TNX-102 SL in Phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate its potential in major depressive disorder and acute stress disorder. In addition, the company’s CNS portfolio includes TNX-2900, which is Phase 2 ready for the treatment of Prader-Willi syndrome, a rare disease. Tonix is also advancing a pipeline of immunology programs, including monoclonal antibody TNX-4800 for Lyme disease prophylaxis and TNX-1500, a third-generation CD40 ligand inhibitor for the prevention of kidney transplant rejection. To learn more, visit www.tonixpharma.com and follow the Company on LinkedIn and X.

    * Tonix’s product development candidates are investigational new drugs or biologics; their efficacy and safety have not been established and have not been approved for any indication.

    Zembrace SymTouch and Tosymra are registered trademarks of Tonix Medicines. All other marks are property of their respective owners.

    Forward Looking Statements

    Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 including those relating to the completion of the offering, the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, the intended use of proceeds from the offering and other statements that are predictive in nature. These statements may be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “forecast,” “estimate,” “expect,” and “intend,” among others. These forward-looking statements are based on Tonix’s current expectations and actual results could differ materially as a result of a number of factors, including the ability of the Company to satisfy the conditions to the closing of the offering and the timing thereof, as well as those described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, as filed with the SEC on March 18, 2025, and periodic reports filed with the SEC on or after the date thereof. Tonix does not undertake an obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement. All of Tonix’s forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by all such risk factors and other cautionary statements. The information set forth herein speaks only as of the date thereof.

    Investor Contacts
    Jessica Morris
    Tonix Pharmaceuticals 
    (862) 799-8599 
    investor.relations@tonixpharma.com 

    Brian Korb 
    astr partners 
    (917) 653-5122 
    brian.korb@astrpartners.com 

    Media Contacts
    Deborah Elson
    Tonix Pharmaceuticals 
    deborah.elson@tonixpharma.com

    Ray Jordan 
    Putnam Insights 
    ray@putnaminsights.com 

    INDICATION
    TONMYA is indicated for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults.

    CONTRAINDICATIONS
    TONMYA is contraindicated:
    In patients with hypersensitivity to cyclobenzaprine or any inactive ingredient in TONMYA. Hypersensitivity reactions may manifest as an anaphylactic reaction, urticaria, facial and/or tongue swelling, or pruritus. Discontinue TONMYA if a hypersensitivity reaction is suspected. With concomitant use of monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors or within 14 days after discontinuation of an MAO inhibitor. Hyperpyretic crisis seizures and deaths have occurred in patients who received cyclobenzaprine (or structurally similar tricyclic antidepressants) concomitantly with MAO inhibitors drugs.
    During the acute recovery phase of myocardial infarction, and in patients with arrhythmias, heart block or conduction disturbances, or congestive heart failure. In patients with hyperthyroidism.

    WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
    Embryofetal toxicity: Based on animal data, TONMYA may cause neural tube defects when used two weeks prior to conception and during the first trimester of pregnancy. Advise females of reproductive potential of the potential risk and to use effective contraception during treatment and for two weeks after the final dose. Perform a pregnancy test prior to initiation of treatment with TONMYA to exclude use of TONMYA during the first trimester of pregnancy.

    Serotonin syndrome: Concomitant use of TONMYA with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, tramadol, bupropion, meperidine, verapamil, or MAO inhibitors increases the risk of serotonin syndrome, a potentially life-threatening condition. Serotonin syndrome symptoms may include mental status changes, autonomic instability, neuromuscular abnormalities, and/or gastrointestinal symptoms. Treatment with TONMYA and any concomitant serotonergic agent should be discontinued immediately if serotonin syndrome symptoms occur and supportive symptomatic treatment should be initiated. If concomitant treatment with TONMYA and other serotonergic drugs is clinically warranted, careful observation is advised, particularly during treatment initiation or dosage increases.

    Tricyclic antidepressant-like adverse reactions: Cyclobenzaprine is structurally related to TCAs. TCAs have been reported to produce arrhythmias, sinus tachycardia, prolongation of the conduction time leading to myocardial infarction and stroke. If clinically significant central nervous system (CNS) symptoms develop, consider discontinuation of TONMYA. Caution should be used when TCAs are given to patients with a history of seizure disorder, because TCAs may lower the seizure threshold. Patients with a history of seizures should be monitored during TCA use to identify recurrence of seizures or an increase in the frequency of seizures.

    Atropine-like effects: Use with caution in patients with a history of urinary retention, angle-closure glaucoma, increased intraocular pressure, and in patients taking anticholinergic drugs.

    CNS depression and risk of operating a motor vehicle or hazardous machinery: TONMYA monotherapy may cause CNS depression. Concomitant use of TONMYA with alcohol, barbiturates, or other CNS depressants may increase the risk of CNS depression. Advise patients not to operate a motor vehicle or dangerous machinery until they are reasonably certain that TONMYA therapy will not adversely affect their ability to engage in such activities. Oral mucosal adverse reactions: In clinical studies with TONMYA, oral mucosal adverse reactions occurred more frequently in patients treated with TONMYA compared to placebo. Advise patients to moisten the mouth with sips of water before administration of TONMYA to reduce the risk of oral sensory changes (hypoesthesia). Consider discontinuation of TONMYA if severe reactions occur.

    ADVERSE REACTIONS
    The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥2% and at a higher incidence in TONMYA-treated patients compared to placebo-treated patients) were oral hypoesthesia, oral discomfort, abnormal product taste, somnolence, oral paresthesia, oral pain, fatigue, dry mouth, and aphthous ulcer.

    DRUG INTERACTIONS
    MAO inhibitors: Life-threatening interactions may occur.

    Other serotonergic drugs: Serotonin syndrome has been reported.

    CNS depressants: CNS depressant effects of alcohol, barbiturates, and other CNS depressants may be enhanced.

    Tramadol: Seizure risk may be enhanced.
    Guanethidine or other similar acting drugs: The antihypertensive action of these drugs may be blocked.

    USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS
    Pregnancy: Based on animal data, TONMYA may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. The limited amount of available observational data on oral cyclobenzaprine use in pregnancy is of insufficient quality to inform a TONMYA-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes. Advise pregnant women about the potential risk to the fetus with maternal exposure to TONMYA and to avoid use of TONMYA two weeks prior to conception and through the first trimester of pregnancy. Report pregnancies to the Tonix Medicines, Inc., adverse-event reporting line at 1-888-869-7633 (1-888-TNXPMED).

    Lactation: A small number of published cases report the transfer of cyclobenzaprine into human milk in low amounts, but these data cannot be confirmed. There are no data on the effects of cyclobenzaprine on a breastfed infant, or the effects on milk production. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for TONMYA and any potential adverse effects on the breastfed child from TONMYA or from the underlying maternal condition.

    Pediatric use: The safety and effectiveness of TONMYA have not been established.

    Geriatric patients: Of the total number of TONMYA-treated patients in the clinical trials in adult patients with fibromyalgia, none were 65 years of age and older. Clinical trials of TONMYA did not include sufficient numbers of patients 65 years of age and older to determine whether they respond differently from younger adult patients.

    Hepatic impairment: The recommended dosage of TONMYA in patients with mild hepatic impairment (HI) (Child Pugh A) is 2.8 mg once daily at bedtime, lower than the recommended dosage in patients with normal hepatic function. The use of TONMYA is not recommended in patients with moderate HI (Child Pugh B) or severe HI (Child Pugh C). Cyclobenzaprine exposure (AUC) was increased in patients with mild HI and moderate HI compared to subjects with normal hepatic function, which may increase the risk of TONMYA-associated adverse reactions.

    Please see additional safety information in the full Prescribing Information.
    To report suspected adverse reactions, contact Tonix Medicines, Inc. at 1-888-869-7633, or the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

    Source: Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp.

    Released March 5, 2026

    Continue Reading

  • FDA Approves Teclistamab and Daratumumab For Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

    FDA Approves Teclistamab and Daratumumab For Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

    On March 5, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved teclistamab (Tecvayli) in combination with daratumumab hyaluronidase-fihj for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior line of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. 

    In addition, the approval converts the 2022 accelerated approval for teclistamab as monotherapy to a traditional approval. The monotherapy indication is for adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. 

    This approval was considered through the FDA Commissioner’s National Priority Review Voucher pilot program for accelerating the review of products with the potential to address key national priorities.

    Efficacy and Safety

    Efficacy for the teclistamab combination was evaluated in MajesTEC-3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05083169), a randomized, open-label, multi-center trial. A total of 587 patients were randomly assigned in the trial to the teclistamab and daratumumab hyaluronidase group (n = 291) or to the investigator’s choice control group of either daratumumab hyaluronidase, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd) or daratumumab hyaluronidase, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) (n = 296).

    The major efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival by independent review committee assessment based on International Myeloma Working Group 2016 criteria. Overall survival was an additional efficacy outcome measure. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the teclistamab and daratumumab hyaluronidase arm and was 18.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14.6–22.8) in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.12–0.23; P < .0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either arm (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.32–0.65; P < .0001).

    Prescribing information for teclistamab includes a Boxed Warning for life threatening or fatal cytokine-release syndrome and neurologic toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity. Teclistamab is available only through a restricted program under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), called the Tecvayli-Talvey REMS.

    In addition to cytokine-release syndrome, the most common adverse effects of teclistamab in combination with daratumumab hyaluronidase include hypogammaglobulinemia, upper respiratory tract infection, cough, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, COVID-19, pneumonia, injection site reaction, fatigue, pyrexia, headache, nausea, gastroenteritis, and decreased weight.

    Expedited Programs

    This review was conducted under Project Orbis, a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology drugs among international partners. For this review, the FDA collaborated with Health Canada (HC) and Switzerland’s Swissmedic (SMC). The applications may still be under review at the other regulatory agencies.

    Additionally, the review used the Real-Time Oncology Review pilot program, which streamlines data submission prior to filing the entire clinical application, as well as the Assessment Aid, a voluntary submission from the applicant to facilitate the FDA’s assessment.

    The application was also granted a Priority Review designation, and teclistamab has previously received Breakthrough and Orphan Drug designations.

    Continue Reading

  • Dow falls more than 1,000 points, S&P 500 and Nasdaq tank as Iran war jitters return with another oil surge

    Dow falls more than 1,000 points, S&P 500 and Nasdaq tank as Iran war jitters return with another oil surge

    Block’s (XYZ) CFO Amrita Ah explained the mechanics behind the decision to lay off 40% of its staff to pursue AI-driven work functions in a call last night.

    Some excerpts below.

    What’s the read on the business since announcing the decision?

    Ah: I mean, look, we’ve been on this journey for a little while. This is not just a fly-by-night decision for us or something that we took frivolously. We’ve been using tools, developing, actually, our own agents called codename Goose that we’ve been using now for 18 months, and so we see directly the power of automating our workflows and building faster using these tools, and that’s what gave us the confidence to do this. We can envision that other companies get on that journey as well. We also know that there is, you know, constraints on creativity, and that we are asking our teams to do more, but we’re also empowering them with all the most powerful tools in the world, so they can build the ways in which they will be getting more done with automation. And so that’s how we’ve chosen to go about it. We decided to take this more bold, upfront, decisive action so that we could rebuild and move forward from here, versus continuously being reactive and, you know, death by a 1,000 cuts through the intervals over the next couple of years. We wanted to make a bold move here so that we could frankly be more front-footed in our stance.

    What did you see in the business that warranted doing this now?

    I think it started with a few areas, a few disciplines, and it has now spread to really across every discipline within the business. The two that I would highlight are engineering and customer service. With our engineers, we are seeing a 40% increase in productivity and efficiency towards production code being shipped per engineer since September. I mean, this is the pace at which things are accelerating. We’d obviously seen increases before that, as people started to get their hands on tools, but even since September, we’ve seen a 40% improvement with customer service. 75% of Cash App’s customer service, questions, and answers are handled through automation, and oftentimes these agents actually get a customer to their answer faster. And so with strong NPS and CSAT scores, we’re actually able to automate a lot of this work, which then means we, the humans that are working at Block, can do more of the strategic work, more of the thinking, more of the things that involve taste and judgment, which is really a lot of the exciting work. So that’s some of what we saw over the past, you know, year plus. We’re now seeing designers able to push code into production. We now see accountants being able to use these tools to speed up our workflows and get to insights faster. And again, that’s part of what led to the decision.

    What’s your advice to other CFOs wrestling with a decision like this?

    Ah: I think it’s better to do it a little bit early than to do it too late. And I would encourage everybody, including my fellow CFOs, to just be curious and using the tools you often don’t get the aha moment until you realize you’ve automated a piece of your work, something that might have taken days before, can now take hours or less. You know, it is pretty powerful to see in action, and so I would say there’s nothing like just getting deep in it yourself. We as leaders now are not managing people; we are managing outcomes. And so in order to understand that, you need to actually get deep into the work. And as a CFO, you no longer are being prized on your finance acumen. You’re being praised on how you’re on your system thinking like how the work actually happens, and how it happens in a durable way, with integrity. And I think that is increasingly going to involve evolutions in the technology that we’re using to do our work.

    Continue Reading

  • Nvidia stops H200 chip production, Anthropic restarts talks with Pentagon

    Nvidia stops H200 chip production, Anthropic restarts talks with Pentagon

    Apple (AAPL) continued its March product rollout on Tuesday with the debut of its latest MacBook Air and MacBook Pro, alongside more powerful M5 Pro and M5 Max chips.

    The MacBook Air, Apple’s volume seller, now starts at $1,099, a $100 price jump over last year’s model, and comes with the company’s M5 processor and more storage, 512GB rather than 256GB.

    In addition to the Air, Apple announced its M5 Pro and M5 Max processors. The company says the chips use what Apple calls its Fusion Architecture, which combines two dies into a single processor. Both the M5 Pro and M5 Max can be outfitted with 18-core CPUs that include 6 “super cores” and 12 new “performance cores.”

    Both processors slot into Apple’s new MacBook Pro 14-inch and MacBook Pro 16-inch. Apple is leaning into the laptops’ AI capabilities, saying that the MacBook Pro with the M5 Pro chip gets up to 6.9x faster LLM prompt processing than the M1 Pro, while the MacBook Pro with the M5 Max offers 8x faster AI image generation than the MacBook Pro with the M1 Max.

    As with the Air, Apple is increasing the MacBook Pro’s base storage from 512GB in the M4 Pro the 1TB for the M5 Pro. The M5 Max model now gets 2TB, compared to the M4 Max’s 1TB.

    The Pros will cost you, though. The base MacBook Pro 14-inch with a standard M5 chip starts at $1,699, up from $1,599 last year.

    Jump to the M5 Pro, and you’ll pay $2,199. The M5 Max version, meanwhile, starts at $3,599.

    Opt for a MacBook Pro 16-inch with all the bells and whistles, and you’ll end up paying $7,349.

    Read the full story here.

    Continue Reading

  • Valeo at SxSW 2026: Bridging gaming, AI and mobility

    Valeo at SxSW 2026: Bridging gaming, AI and mobility

    Valeo Group | 5 Mar, 2026
    | 5 min

    Join us at Fairmont, Manchester Ballroom, March 12-14, 2026


    Thursday, March 5, 2026 —Paris, France – From March 12-14, Valeo returns to South by Southwest (SXSW) in Austin, Texas – a forward-thinking tech event – to present live demonstrations of innovations combining the finest automotive engineering with the most advanced digital technology to enhance the experience of passengers and drivers.

    “Since our debut at SxSW 2024, we have used this strategic platform to showcase how Valeo’s leading-edge solutions converge at the intersection of hardware, software, and creative innovation,” said Jeffrey Shay, National President – Valeo North America. “Valeo transforms visionary concepts into market-ready realities, and SxSW is an amazing opportunity to connect with current and new partners and to demonstrate our pivotal role in connecting the automotive industry with the wider tech ecosystem.”

    Redefining in-cabin experience

    Two years after its SxSW debut, the Valeo Racer concept is now a commercial reality, launched as a standard feature in the new Renault Filante. At this year’s event, visitors can experience how Valeo merges automotive hardware with gaming software. Using the vehicle’s actual ADAS sensors, this enhanced system delivers dynamic, location-based content by incorporating live road environments into mobile gameplay. This synchronisation effectively addresses sensory mismatch and motion sickness by aligning in-game visuals with the car’s real-time physical movement, with a smooth transition into Augmented Reality mode. For car manufacturers, this platform offers customizable game designs to reinforce brand identity. Visitors can experience the system’s latest evolution, including challenge and time trial modes, developed together with our partner holoride.

    Beyond entertainment, Valeo’s digital solutions also improve safety. Valeo Panovision transforms the entire windshield into a pillar-to-pillar information surface, projecting driving data and safety alerts directly into the driver’s field of view. By projecting context-aware warnings directly into the driver’s line of sight, reaction times are drastically reduced.

    Seamlessly extending automotive technology to wearables, the Valeo e-Chromic Glasses leverages the car’s existing Automotive Universal Rain and Ambient (AURA) sensors and, combined with GPS trajectory data, to anticipate lighting changes. Through a specific API, the vehicle communicates with the eyewear via Bluetooth to adjust the tint level proactively.

    Intelligent Design & Expressive Lighting

    Lighting solutions’ top priority is to ensure perfect visibility for all road users while empowering automakers to define their unique brand identity. The fascia of the Zeekr 7X, turns standard headlights into smart communication tools, transforming advanced safety technology into key identity and differentiation features. It includes over 1,700 customizable front-end LEDs, an illuminated logo and continuous horizontal line of light connecting the two Adaptive driving beam ultra-slim (15mmx200mm) headlamps.

    Cooling the AI Revolution

    To meet the intense energy demands of the AI revolution, Valeo is bridging the technology and automotive industries with several breakthrough cooling innovations for data centers. Valeo will present one of its solutions : a completely passive, pump-free, two-phase direct to chip cooling system that utilizes a specialized fluid to dissipate heat from server chips. This autonomous, closed-loop solution enables a doubling of compute capacity within the same cooling power capacity or significantly reduces server power consumption for the same workload. Beyond powering Cloud Computing, AI data centers and AI Factories, this versatile technology is perfectly suited to cool the advanced central computers—the “brains”—of autonomous vehicles.

    Find out more at SXSW 2026; Valeo Tech Drive – In, Fairmont Hotel – in front of Manchester Ballroom, Level 5-101 Red River St, Austin

    Continue Reading

  • Navigating the New Frontier: A Comparative Analysis of Stablecoin and Crypto-Asset Regulation in the US and Hong Kong – Cooley

    1. Navigating the New Frontier: A Comparative Analysis of Stablecoin and Crypto-Asset Regulation in the US and Hong Kong  Cooley
    2. Candid to go public via reverse merger with Rallybio  Endpoints News
    3. Rallybio Investor Alert: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Investigates Merger of Rallybio Corporation – RLYB  Business Wire
    4. Candid Therapeutics Strikes Up Merger With Rallybio to Advance Its Autoimmune Drug Pipeline  Dealbreaker
    5. Rallybio merger deal includes $50M breakup fee, $200M financing floor  Hartford Business Journal

    Continue Reading