en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbit_Systems

Elbit Systems’ own current corporate-governance page states that David Federmann is the Chair of the Board and that he has served in that role since August 2023. The company’s July 1, 2026 SEC proxy statement likewise is signed by “DAVID FEDERMANN, Chair of the Board of Directors.”

Michael Federmann remains a director and major shareholder, but the current chairman listed by the company is David Federmann. That makes the infobox entry naming Michael Federmann as chairman incorrect.

This sentence is historically describing the 2000 merger, but the phrase “current Elbit chairman, Michael Federmann” is no longer accurate.

Elbit Systems’ official corporate-governance page says David Federmann is the Chair of the Board and has served in that position since August 2023. The company’s 2026 SEC proxy statement also identifies David Federmann as Chair of the Board of Directors. So while Michael Federmann was associated with El-Op and remains a director/shareholder, he is not the current chairman of Elbit Systems.

This sentence misstates who contracted with Elbit.

Elbit Systems’ own February 26, 2024 announcement says it “was awarded a contract worth approximately $600 million to supply systems to Hanwha Defense Australia” for Land 400 Phase 3. In other words, the direct contracting party named by Elbit is Hanwha Defense Australia, not the Australian Army.

That matches statements from Australia’s defence leadership: in an August 23, 2024 ministerial press conference, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said of the Redback program, “we are not a direct contractor with Elbit.” So the article’s wording that the Australian Army made the US$600 million contract with Elbit Systems is inaccurate.

This sentence assigns police detention powers to the wrong institution.

The UK Home Office’s Counter-terrorism disruptive powers report 2024 states that terrorism-related arrests are made under PACE or the Terrorism Act 2000, and that “Whether to arrest someone under PACE or TACT is an operational decision made by the police.” The same report adds that “Under Section 41 of TACT 2000, police officers have the power to arrest persons suspected of terrorism-related offences without a warrant.”

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation likewise explains that terrorism-related arrests are made under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or general arrest powers, while separately noting that the CPS later said it would submit that the Bristol/Elbit offences had a terrorist connection. In other words, police used the arrest/detention powers; the CPS did not itself use Terrorism Act detention powers to hold people without charge.