When four people were arrested and charged with a conspiracy to illegally export Nvidia chips to China, there was an interesting side note. One of the arrestees, Alabama resident Brian Raymond, was the chief technology officer of an AI company called Corvex.

Or was he? Corvex certainly seemed to think that Raymond was its CTO in the days before his indictment. Corvex named Raymond as its CTO in a press release and filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which detailed plans for a merger with Movano Health.

But once Raymond was arrested, Corvex told media outlets that it had never completed the process of hiring him as an employee. While someone could technically be a CTO as a contractor and not a regular employee, a company spokesperson subsequently claimed to Ars that Raymond had never been the CTO.

The company spokesperson asked Ars for a “correction” to our story, which accurately reported that Corvex itself described Raymond as its CTO and as part of its leadership team.

“Raymond was not CTO of Corvex—so the statement above is inaccurate,” Corvex spokesperson Christopher Buscombe, who is apparently with a third-party firm doing media relations for Corvex, told Ars Monday in an email seeking a correction. “The headline is also misleading as a result, as taken together it suggests Ramyond [sic] was CTO of Corvex. Raymond was CEO of Bitworks, a completely different company.”

Our article quoted both Corvex’s press release describing Raymond as the CTO and Corvex’s subsequent statement saying that he had never been hired. Buscombe asked for a correction to our article, saying it “has caused quite a lot of confusion,” though it seems more likely that any confusion was caused by Corvex’s conflicting statements about Raymond’s position at the company.

Meanwhile, the Corvex press release and SEC filings haven’t been changed or corrected. They still say Raymond was already the Corvex CTO and will continue to serve in that role after the merger. The documents make no mention of Bitworks.

Pre-indictment press release

On November 10, Corvex and Movano Health issued their joint press release announcing the merger. Corvex is a private company and Movano a public one, so the transaction requires approval of Movano shareholders. If the merger is completed, the combined company will be public and go by the name Corvex.

The press release says, “Corvex is an AI cloud computing company specializing in GPU-accelerated infrastructure for AI workloads. Corvex is based in Arlington, Virginia, and is led by Seth Demsey and Jay Crystal, Co-Chief Executive Officers and Co-Founders, and Brian Raymond, Chief Technology Officer.” It goes on to say that after the merger, the combined company will be led by Demsey, Crystal, Raymond, “and other members of the Corvex management team.”

The “is led by” phrase in the press release clearly indicates that Raymond was already the CTO, while the additional statement about the post-merger company indicated he would continue as CTO after the merger’s completion. At the same time, Raymond announced on LinkedIn that he had “formally joined Corvex as the CTO, driving AI at scale for customers around the world.”

The Corvex/Movano joint press release naming Raymond as CTO was submitted to the SEC as an exhibit to a Movano filing about the Corvex/Movano merger. A merger agreement submitted to the SEC by Corvex and Movano includes another exhibit listing three “post-closing officers,” specifically Demsey, Crystal, and Raymond.

The timing of Corvex’s statements about Raymond being its CTO could hardly have been worse. Raymond was indicted in a federal court on November 13 and the indictment was unsealed last week. The US Justice Department alleged that Raymond operated an Alabama-based electronics company through which he supplied Nvidia GPUs to his alleged conspirators “for illegal export to the PRC [People’s Republic of China] as part of the conspiracy.”

Raymond, 46, of Huntsville, Alabama, faces two charges for illegal exports, one charge of smuggling, a charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and seven counts of money laundering. There are maximum prison sentences of 20 years for each export violation and each money laundering count, and 10 years for the smuggling charge. Raymond was reportedly released on bond after his arrest.

Raymond “was transitioning into an employee role”

With media outlets reporting on the charges, Corvex answered queries from reporters with a statement saying, “Corvex had no part in the activities cited in the Department of Justice’s indictment. The person in question is not an employee of Corvex. Previously a consultant to the company, he was transitioning into an employee role but that offer has been rescinded.”

Law professors with expertise in corporate governance and securities regulations told Ars that someone can legally be an officer of a company without being an employee. But Corvex may still have misled investors with its statements about Raymond’s status.

“It could be the case that this person was the chief technology officer but was not an employee of the company, was an independent contractor instead,” Andrew Jennings, an Emory University law professor, told Ars. But even if one interprets Corvex telling the press that it never hired Raymond in the most charitable way, the distinction is “splitting hairs… because one doesn’t need to be an employee to be an officer of the company,” Jennings said.

Corvex went further in asking at least one news outlet for a correction and claiming that Raymond was never the CTO. “I suspect that what they are saying to the press that this person was never CTO, is probably not correct,” Jennings said. The merging companies are “represented by serious law firms” and aren’t likely to have been lying about Raymond being the CTO, Jennings said.

“I can’t imagine that there would be a press release and a merger agreement that lists him as an officer and specifically as the chief technology officer if it weren’t the case,” he said. “I think they would have some more explaining to do if they really wanted to argue that it’s incorrect to refer to him as the CTO or the former CTO.”

Ars sent an email with several questions to the listed contact for Corvex, co-CEO Jay Crystal, yesterday but received no response. We instead received another email from Buscombe, who offered to provide information on background that “would respond to the questions you have put to Corvex.”

Buscombe said the background information he was offering “cannot be quoted directly” and cannot be “attributable to anyone.” We declined this offer and offered to publish any on-the-record statements that Corvex would provide, but we haven’t received anything further.

A spokesperson for the SEC declined to comment when contacted by Ars. We contacted Movano and Raymond with several questions yesterday and will update this article if we receive any responses.

False statements can lead to litigation or SEC charges

If Raymond really wasn’t the CTO, that probably would be a material misstatement because of the nature of the company, Jennings said. For an AI firm or any kind of tech company, the chief technology officer is an important position. The fact that Raymond was one of just three listed officers adds to the likelihood that it could be a material misstatement, if he really was never the CTO.

“Knowing what sort of technical leadership the company has could be something of import to a reasonable investor” who is voting on a merger, Jennings said.

A false statement about who is the CTO could be used in private litigation brought by investors against the company or in enforcement actions by the SEC. “The SEC could bring an enforcement action under a number of statutes for that sort of false statement, if it were in fact a false statement,” Jennings said.

Robert Miller, a law professor at George Mason University, told Ars “that it’s not absolutely impossible to have someone in a role like CTO or even CEO when the person is not an employee, legally speaking.” But even “if that was the case, it would very likely be misleading for the company to say, without qualification or explanation, that ‘Raymond is the CTO of the company.’ That would reasonably be understood to mean that Raymond was an employee.”

Not explaining a company officer’s employment status could be a “material omission” in violation of Rule 10b-5, an anti-fraud regulation, he said.

“A 10b-5 violation could result in enforcement action by the SEC,” Miller told Ars. “It could also result in private lawsuits from shareholders, but such shareholders would also have to show damages—e.g., a stock drop when the truth came out. In this case, given that Raymond was likely more liability than asset, there may be no damages to the shareholders from the omission.”

Companies can face liability for false statements to investors, even if they’re not made in SEC filings. An SEC filing “creates potential additional avenues for liability,” Jennings said. “Certainly the securities statutes will apply to communications made by a public company in really any channel, including just putting out a press release, and so that could spark private litigation or it could spark SEC enforcement. It’s also illegal to knowingly make a false statement to a government agency, whether that’s the FBI or the SEC or a committee of Congress, etc. And so the act of filing could create additional avenues of liability, but those would be sort of stacked on top of each other.”

Read full article

Comments

If you’re a parent of a teenager, there’s a decent chance you’ve heard the phrase “Can I get a Sur Ron?” sometime in the last year. Before you panic‑Google it or head to Amazon to see what one of these bikes costs, there are some important things you should know about this class of electric two-wheelers that have become all the rage with teenagers these days.

Plex is starting to enforce its new rules, which prevent users from remotely accessing a personal media server without a subscription fee.

Previously, people outside of a server owner’s network could access the owner’s media library through Plex for free. Under the new rules announced in March, a server owner needs to have a Plex Pass subscription, which starts at $7 per month, to grant users remote access to their server. Alternatively, someone can remotely access another person’s Plex server by buying their own Plex Pass or a Remote Watch Pass, which is a subscription with fewer features than a Plex Pass and that Plex started selling in April for a $2/month starting price.

Plex’s new rules took effect on April 29. According to a recent Plex forums post by a Plex employee that How-To Geek spotted today, the changes are rolling out this week, with a subscription being required for people using Plex’s Roku OS app for remote access. The Plex employee added:

This requirement change for remote streaming will come to all other Plex TV apps (Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, etc.) and any third-party clients using the API to offer remote streaming in 2026.

Plex started as a Mac port of the Xbox Media Center project in 2009 before evolving into a media server company and, more recently, a streaming service provider. Its new remote access rules will be a test for the company, which has been challenging long-time users with numerous changes over the past year, including a Plex Pass price hike, a foray into renting out officially licensed movies, and the introduction of social features and a mobile app redesign.

Plex has previously emphasized its need to keep up with “rising costs,” which include providing support for many different devices and codecs. It has also said that it needs money to implement new features, including an integration with Common Sense Media, a new “bespoke server management app” for managing server users, and “an open and documented API for server integrations,” including custom metadata agents,” per a March blog post.

In January 2024, TechCrunch reported that Plex was nearing profitability and raised $40 million in funding (Plex raised a $50 million growth equity round in 2021). Theoretically, the new remote access rules can also increase subscription revenue and help Plex’s backers see returns on their investments.

However, Plex’s evolution could isolate long-time users who have relied on Plex as a media server for years and those who aren’t interested in subscriptions, FAST (free ad-supported streaming TV) channels, or renting movies. Plex is unlikely to give up on its streaming business, though. In 2023, Scott Hancock, Plex’s then-VP of marketing, said that Plex had more people using its online streaming service than using its media server features since 2022. For people seeking software packages more squarely focused on media hosting, Plex alternatives, like Jellyfin, increasingly look attractive.

Read full article

Comments

The popularity of GLP-1 weight-loss medications continues to soar—and their uptake is helping to push down obesity rates on a national scale—but a safe, evidence-based way off the drugs isn’t yet in clear view.

An analysis published this week in JAMA Internal Medicine found that most participants in a clinical trial who were assigned to stop taking tirzepatide (Zepbound from Eli Lilly) not only regained significant amounts of the weight they had lost on the drug, but they also saw their cardiovascular and metabolic improvements slip away. Their blood pressure went back up, as did their cholesterol, hemoglobin A_1c (used to assess glucose control levels), and fasting insulin.

In an accompanying editorial, two medical experts at the University of Pittsburgh, Elizabeth Oczypok and Timothy Anderson, suggest that this new class of drugs should be rebranded from “weight loss” drugs to “weight management” drugs, which people may need to take indefinitely.

Some studies have found that about half of people who start taking a GLP-1 drug for weight loss stop taking it within a year—for various reasons—and many people think they can stop taking anti-obesity drugs once they’ve reached a desired weight, Oczypok and Anderson write. But that’s not in line with the data.

“It may be helpful to compare them to other chronic disease medications; patients do not stop their anti-hypertensive medications when their blood pressure is at goal,” they write.

In the trial, researchers—led by Eli Lilly scientists—followed 670 participants with obesity or overweight (but without diabetes) who were treated with tirzepatide for 36 weeks. Then the participants were split into either continuing with the drug for another 52 weeks (88 weeks total) or getting a placebo for that period of time. Both groups were told to continue a reduced-calorie diet and an exercise plan.

In all, 335 participants were randomized to switch to a placebo, and the researchers monitored changes in their weight and cardiovascular health metrics after the switch. Not everyone in the first phase of the trial lost significant amounts of weight on the drug. So, the researchers only closely tracked the 308 of the 335 who lost at least 10 percent of their body weight on the drug.

Of the 308 who benefited from tirzepatide, 254 (82 percent) regained at least 25 percent of the weight they had lost on the drug by week 88. Further, 177 (57 percent) regained at least 50 percent, and 74 (24 percent) regained at least 75 percent. Generally, the more weight people regained, the more their cardiovascular and metabolic health improvements reversed.

Data gaps and potential off-ramps

On the other hand, there were 54 participants of the 308 (17.5 percent) that didn’t regain a significant amount of weight (less than 25 percent.) This group saw some of their health metrics worsen on withdrawal of the drug, but not all— blood pressure increased a bit, but cholesterol didn’t go up significantly overall. About a dozen participants (4 percent of the 308) continued to lose weight after stopping the drug.

The researchers couldn’t figure out why these 54 participants fared so well; there were “no apparent differences” in demographic or clinical characteristics, they reported. It’s clear the topic requires further study.

But, overall, the study offers a gloomy outlook for patients hoping to avoid needing to take anti-obesity drugs for the foreseeable future.

Oczypok and Anderson highlight that the study involved an abrupt withdrawal from the drug. In contrast, many patients may be interested in slowly weaning off the drugs, stepping down dosage levels over time. So far, data on this strategy and the protocols to pull it off have little data behind them. It also might not be an option for patients who abruptly lose access or insurance coverage of the drugs. Other strategies for weaning off the drugs could involve ramping up physical activity or calorie restriction in anticipation of dropping the drugs, the experts note.

In addition to more data on potential GLP-1 off-ramps, the pair calls for more data on the effects of weight fluctuations from people going on and off the treatment. At least one study has found that the regained weight after intentional weight loss may end up being proportionally higher in fat mass, which could be harmful.

For now, Oczypok and Anderson say doctors should be cautious about talking with patients about these drugs and what the future could hold. “These results add to the body of evidence that clinicians and patients should approach starting [anti-obesity medications] as long-term therapies, just as they would medications for other chronic diseases.”

Read full article

Comments

Guest Commentary written by

Ellie Cohen

Ellie Cohen is CEO of The Climate Center, a California-based climate and energy policy nonprofit.

Governor Gavin Newsom stood before global leaders in Brazil recently at COP30, the annual United Nations climate conference, and introduced himself to the world as the new face of U.S. climate ambition. 

The scene raised a question back home in California: Why did Newsom recently veto climate solutions that would have made electricity cleaner and more affordable for Californians?

For decades, California has shown the world that states and regions can drive climate and economic progress, even when national governments lag. 

Now the world’s fourth-largest economy, our state has paired consistent cuts in emissions with sustained economic growth and set a standard for clean car rules that is copied worldwide. It also built the nation’s first economy-wide “Cap and Invest” program, the cap-and-trade energy credit program recently reformed and extended under Newsom’s watch.

Yet as the climate crisis escalates, even that legacy faces scrutiny. While Newsom was preparing for COP30, his administration was delaying or diluting key domestic reforms and quietly expanding in-state oil and gas drilling.

In Brazil, Newsom urged fellow Democrats to start framing climate as an affordability issue — of course, it is. This rhetoric earned him praise abroad. 

But Newsom has balked at several recent opportunities to address climate and cost-of-living challenges together. 

Just weeks ago, the governor vetoed three bipartisan bills that would have advanced virtual power plants, which are systems that deliver clean power back to the electrical grid during peak hours by aggregating power from devices many of us already have in our homes — such as smart thermostats, rooftop solar panels, home and electric vehicle batteries and electric heat pumps. 

Managing strain on the grid with virtual power plants helps avoid blackouts, reduces reliance on gas powered plants and saves electricity customers money on their utility bills, including those not participating in a virtual power plant program. 

One recent study predicted virtual power plants could save Californians up to $13.7 billion on electricity over the next five years. That is the kind of climate-forward and affordability-focused policy that California voters and global climate champions want. 

But all three bills were doomed because investor-owned utilities like PG&E continue to work against local-scale electricity solutions like virtual power plants, and they know they can count on Newsom as an ally.

It’s time for Newsom to start treating climate like a winning issue here in California — not just on the international stage in the lead-up to the 2028 presidential race. Investing in solutions like virtual power plants creates jobs, lowers electricity bills and builds resilience to wildfires and floods. 

Californians pay twice the national average for electricity and yet still endure frequent planned blackouts. We want solutions that work, protect our families and save money, and we want our governor to champion them.

Newsom is right to emphasize affordability as a pillar of climate progress, creating further contrast between himself and President Donald Trump. That’s good politics and good policy — but it’s also puzzling when his administration vetoes the most cost-effective clean energy solutions available today.

After his time in Brazil, Newsom needs more than rhetoric to cement his legacy as a true climate champion. In his final months as governor, he should advance policies that combat the climate crisis and provide economic relief to hardworking Californians. Here are two ways he can show the world how to tackle climate change while lowering the cost of living.

First, knock down state barriers to local, clean, affordable energy. Newsom must stop deferring to corporate utilities like PG&E and mobilize the state to support rooftop solar, virtual power plants and other clean, decentralized electricity solutions. 

Second, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and make corporate polluters pay for climate disasters. California hands billions to the oil and gas industry while communities bear the costs of extreme weather and fossil fuel pollution. Making polluters pay their fair share would help finance the transition to a cleaner economy, improve public health and take the burden off taxpayers. 

These solutions can be replicated around the world. And, thanks to Newsom’s strong showing in Brazil, the world will be watching. 

The website tied to Argentinian President Javier Milei’s Viva La Libertad Project, which supposedly provided the utility case for the controversial LIBRA token, has been taken down while millions of dollars from LIBRA-connected wallets continue to move.

The Viva La Libertad Project site allowed small Argentinian businesses to apply for funding that would supposedly be raised via profits from the LIBRA token.

Milei publicly endorsed the token on February 18 and since then, its market capitalization has crashed 99%. The project is now mired in numerous lawsuits and links to corruption, with investigators working to discover exactly what happened and recoup victims’ funds.

Programmer Maximiliano Firtman noted that the Viva La Libertad site lasted nine months before its disappearance and suggests that the individuals running it have either intentionally shuttered it or are now no longer able to pay for Weglot, the third-party service keeping it online.

Read more: Hayden Davis sent millions in crypto weeks before LIBRA promo

He ruled out the possibility of a temporary server error, such as an SSL issue, causing the website’s demise, or the scenario where a prepaid plan might’ve run out. 

Firtman also claims that the form businesses used to apply for funding is still online, and that Hayden Davis, one of the individuals accused of orchestrating the LIBRA token, once knew how many people had applied.

This is despite the fact, Firtman says, that no one has claimed to be the administrator of the site during any legal proceedings.

LIBRA funds move as courts decide freezing order

Earlier this week, crypto analysts reported that a “Milei” multisig wallet started moving funds, including $9 million worth of SOL.

This crypto was converted into the stablecoin USDC and bridged to another blockchain. Blockworks analyst Fernando Molina says the funds are now sitting in a TRON wallet as USDT. 

This happened days after multiple wallets tied to LIBRA began to convert $61.5 million worth of  USDC into SOL. Burwick Law, a crypto law firm leading a US case on behalf of LIBRA victims, suspected these transactions were the “the ‘staging’ phase for anonymization,” and applied for a freezing order. 

The order is still being debated by both the defendants and plaintiffs and would prohibit the defendants from using anonymization-enhancing mechanisms to move the crypto.

A hearing has been scheduled today that should decide the outcome of the proposed order. 

Read more: Hayden Davis hit with asset freeze as LIBRA investigation deepens in Argentina

As for the LIBRA investigations in Argentina, this month an Argentine congressional committee released a final report into the scandal that called for Congress to evaluate whether Milei carried out misconduct within his office.  

It also advocated for criminal charges to be filed against various executive branch officials for refusing to cooperate with the investigation, including the country’s Minister of Justice, head of the Anti-Corruption Office, and the former head of the LIBRA investigation unit that was disbanded by Milei in May. 

An Argentinian judge has already ordered this month the freezing of property and financial assets belonging to Davis and two other cryptocurrency “intermediaries” tied to the LIBRA token.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

The post LIBRA website vanishes with millions in project funds on the move appeared first on Protos.