Blog

The settlement ends an investigation opened in 2011 after Santander flagged potential wrongdoings at its branch in Paris, the prosecutor Laure Beccuau said in the statement, which confirmed an earlier report by BFM TV station.

Sign up here.

A judicial case started two years later over potential tax fraud, embezzlement and other offenses between 2003 and 2010, she added.

A Santander spokesperson said the bank had identified the issues 15 years ago and reported them back then.

The bank had provisioned for the settlement so it will not have an impact on its bottom line, he said.

“Santander remains committed to complying with the highest anti-money-laundering industry standards and regulations,” he said.

($1 = 0.8595 euros)

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

To investigate how neural activation for correctly recalled memories varied across different time delays, we examined the contrast of remote >recent correct trials during object presentation at retrieval (Figure 4, ‘Retrieval fMRI’).

We first tested whether the remote > recent contrast significantly differed from zero in each age group and session (day 1 and day 14), as an indicator of differential engagement during memory retrieval. FDR-adjusted results showed no significant results in the anterior and posterior HC (Figure 4A), anterior PHG (Figure 4B), and RSC (Figure 4G) across sessions and age groups (all p>0.054; see Supplementary file 3 for details). To rule out the possibility that these nonsignificant differences reflect an overall absence of retrieval-related activation, we tested whether mean activation for recent and remote items – each relative to the implicit baseline – was significantly above zero. FDR-adjusted results revealed that activation in these ROIs was significantly greater than zero (all p<0.031), except in the recent day 1 condition in children for the posterior HC (p>0.141) and the precuneus (p>0.056, see Supplementary file 4 and Figure 4—figure supplement 1 for details). These findings indicate that the anterior and posterior HC, anterior PHG, and RSC are similarly engaged during successful retrieval of both recent and remote memories, regardless of delay or age group. (As a control analysis, we tested whether the anterior and posterior HC, anterior PHG, and RSC were similarly engaged during retrieval of recent and remote items over time using the LME models. These models included mean activation relative to the implicit baseline, a Session × Delay × Group interaction, and Subject as a random intercept. The results were consistent with the earlier findings, showing no significant main effect of Delay [all p>0.106], Group [all p>0.060], or Session × Delay interaction [all p>0.340], indicating comparable engagement of these ROIs across delays and age groups [see Supplementary file 6 for full statistical details].) Other ROIs showed more differentiated patterns, which are discussed below. (In contrast, the vlPFC, CE, posterior PHG and LOC, precuneus, and mPFC showed a significant main effect of Delay [all p<0.009, see Supplementary file 5 for details], indicating time-related changes in the remote > recent contrast. These effects are examined in more detail below. Notably, these findings are consistent with results from the whole-brain analyses; Supplementary file 7.)

To further explore the more differentiated patterns observed in other ROIs, we examined changes in the remote >recent contrast across age groups and sessions (day 1 and day 14) using LME models, controlling for sex, handedness, general intelligence, and mean reaction time. All main and interaction effects were FDR-adjusted, and all post hoc tests were Sidak-corrected (see Supplementary file 5 for details).

For the posterior PHG (Figure 4B), a significant Session × Group interaction, F_(1,83) = 9.54, p=0.020, ω²=0.09, indicated a more pronounced increase in remote >recent mean signal difference over time in young adults compared to children, b=0.11, t₍₈₃₎ = 3.09, p=0.003.

Similarly, also for the cerebellum (Figure 4C), a significant Session × Group interaction, F_(1,161) = 7.68, p=0.020, ω²=0.04, indicated a stronger increase in remote > recent mean signal difference over time in young adults compared to children, b=0.09, t₍₁₆₀₎ = 2.77, p=0.006.

For the mPFC (Figure 4D), a significant main effect of Group, F_(1,86) = 7.61, p=0.023, ω²=0.07, denoted that the overall remote > recent mean signal difference in children was higher than in young adults, b=–0.10, t₍₈₆₎ = –2.76, p=0.007.

For the vlPFC (Figure 4E), a significant main effect of Group, F_(1,82) = 31.35, p=<0.001, ω²=0.13, indicated an overall lower remote > recent mean signal difference in children compared to young adults, b=–0.125, t₍₁₀₈₎ = –3.91, p<0.001. In addition, a significant main effect of Session, F_(1,99)=10.68, p=0.005, ω²=0.09, pointed out overall higher remote > recent mean signal difference on day 14 compared to day 1, b=0.08, t₍₉₉₎ = 3.27, p=0.001.

For the precuneus (Figure 4F), a significant main effect of Group, F_(1,161) = 5.09, p=0.027, ω²=0.02, indicated an overall lower remote > recent mean signal difference in adults compared to children, b=–0.05, t₍₁₆₀₎ = –2.26, p=0.037. In addition, a significant main effect of Session, F_(1,161) = 6.50, p=0.036, ω²=0.03, denoted an overall lower remote > recent contrast for day 14 compared to day 1, b=–0.05, t₍₁₆₀₎ = –2.55, p=0.012. Although the remote > recent contrasts were mostly negative, the mean activation for recent and remote items – each relative to the implicit baseline – was significantly greater than zero for all delays and group (all p<0.023), except for children’s recent items on day 1 (p=0.056).

For the LOC (Figure 4H), a significant main effect of Group, F_(1,82) = 9.12, p=0.015, ω²=0.09, indicated a higher remote > recent mean signal difference in young adults compared to children, b=0.07, t₍₈₂₎ = 3.02, p=0.003. Additionally, a significant main effect of Session, F_(1,97) = 16.76, p=<0.001, ω²=0.14, showed an overall increase in remote > recent mean signal difference on day 14 compared to day 1, b=0.07, t₍₉₇₎ = 4.10, p=<0.001. Furthermore, a significant Session × Group interaction, F_(1,81) = 6.42, p=0.032, ω²=0.06, demonstrated higher increase in remote > recent mean signal difference over time in adults compared to children, b=0.09, t(81) = 2.53, p=0.013.

Of note, we conducted an additional univariate analysis using a subsample that included only participants who needed two learning cycles to reach the learning criteria (see Supplementary file 8 for details). The subsampled results fully replicated the findings from the full sample and demonstrated that the amount of re-exposure to stimuli during encoding did not affect consolidation-related changes in memory retrieval at the neural level.

In summary, our findings revealed distinct consolidation-related neural upregulation for remote memory between children and adults. From day 1 to day 14, adults showed a higher increase in remote > recent signal difference for remembered items in the posterior PHG, LOC, and cerebellum than children. Adults showed overall higher remote > recent difference in the vlPFC than children, while children showed overall higher remote > recent difference in the mPFC than adults. Furthermore, we observed a constant activation of anterior and posterior HC, anterior PHG, and RSC in memory retrieval across age groups irrespective of memory type or delay.

Story Continues

While the company is growing quickly, its first-quarter earnings report for fiscal 2026 was a bad miss. The company posted a loss of $0.34 per share, while analysts had expected a gain of $0.14 per share.

However, it’s just a paper loss and not operational. Iren posted a $665 million unrealized loss tied to the revaluation of financial instruments connected to its convertible notes. The loss reflects mark-to-market swings and not a change in Iren’s business performance.

Revenue of $240.3 million was up 355% from a year ago, and net income of $384.56 million—before taking into account the $665 million charge—was an improvement over the company’s net loss of $51.7 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2025. Bitcoin mining revenue brought in $232.9 million, while AI cloud services revenue was $7.3 million.

“Iren continues to execute with discipline, delivering record results this quarter and meaningful progress in our AI cloud expansion,” Co-CEO Daniel Roberts said. “We secured several new multi-year contracts, including a landmark partnership with Microsoft, which solidifies Iren’s position as a leading AI cloud service provider and expands our reach into new hyperscale customer segments.”

We already know that Morgan Stanley is bullish. The consensus rating from other analysts isn’t quite as strong, with some growing concern in recent weeks.

Nine of 14 analysts surveyed by Barchart have Iren stock as a “Strong Buy,” with two suggesting investors hold the stock and three others calling it a “Strong Sell.” But three months ago, there were no “sell” ratings at all—the trend of cautious sentiment is slowly building.

The mean price target of $85.45 is a whopping 86% increase from today’s price, and the most bullish call of $136 forecasts a possible 200% jump. The low price target indicates a possible fall of 15%.

On the date of publication, Patrick Sanders had a position in: NVDA, NBIS. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Barchart.com

The New York Times sued an embattled artificial intelligence startup on Friday, accusing the firm of illegal copying of millions of articles. The newspaper alleged Perplexity AI had distributed and displayed journalists’ work without permission en masse.

The Times said that Perplexity AI is also violating its trademarks under the Lanham Act, claiming the startup’s generative AI products create fabricated content, or “hallucinations”, and falsely attribute them to the newspaper by displaying them alongside its registered trademarks.

The newspaper said that Perplexity’s business model relies on scraping and copying content, including paywalled material, to power its generative AI products. Other publishers have made similar allegations.

The lawsuit is the latest salvo in a bitter, ongoing battle between publishers and tech companies over the use of copyrighted content without authorization to build and operate their AI systems.

Perplexity in particular has become a target of multiple legal disputes and faces similar accusations from a number of publishers as it tries to aggressively build market share in a hyper-competitive market for generative AI tools. Cloudflare, one of the world’s most prominent digital infrastructure companies, accused Perplexity earlier this year of hiding its web-crawling activities and scraping websites without permission – a serious accusation with potential copyright implications. Perplexity denied the allegations.

Perplexity has raised around $1.5bn in the past three years through multiple funding rounds, most recently closing a $200m round in September that valued the company at $2obn. It has attracted a variety of big-name investors, including Nvidia and Jeff Bezos, as money has flooded the AI industry.

San Francisco-based Perplexity AI also faced a lawsuit from media baron Rupert Murdoch’s Dow Jones and the New York Post.

Multiple news outlets, including Forbes and Wired, have accused Perplexity of plagiarizing their content, in one case allegedly copying a Wired article about Perplexity’s own plagiarism issues. The Chicago Tribune, Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica have all additionally filed lawsuits against Perplexity in recent months, accusing the company of copyright infringement.

In October, social media company Reddit also sued Perplexity in New York federal court, accusing it and three other companies of unlawfully scraping its data to train Perplexity’s AI-based search engine.

Perplexity faces legal challenges from its fellow tech companies as well. Amazon last month filed a lawsuit against Perplexity over the search engine’s AI agent shopping feature. The suit alleged that Perplexity was covertly accessing Amazon users’ accounts and masking its AI browsing activities, which Perplexity has denied while accusing Amazon of bullying and attempting to stifle competitors.

Perplexity did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.