Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
China to handle 144 mln railway passenger trips during May Day holiday
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
China to handle 144 mln railway passenger trips during May Day holiday
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
WASHINGTON, DC – The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed a bipartisan bill introduced by U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI) that would help American businesses identify and avoid doing business with foreign entities linked to human rights abuses, particularly the use of forced labor in China.
“We must do everything we can to condemn and deter human rights abuses being committed by our adversaries, including China,” said Senator Peters, a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. “This bipartisan bill would provide our businesses with important insight that can help them avoid business dealings with foreign entities that might be involved in these atrocities. I’ll continue working with my colleagues to see the bill pass the full Senate.”
The Combating CCP Labor Abuses Act – which Peters introduced with U.S. Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and John Curtis (R-UT) – would direct the Commerce Department to offer training and guidance to U.S. exporters that are, or are considering, exporting goods to businesses in the People’s Republic of China where forced labor and significant human rights abuses have occurred. The bill – which unanimously passed the Senate last Congress – would also require the Commerce Department to provide additional insight that might help U.S. exporters avoid doing business with foreign entities that are subject to the influence or control of nations such as the People’s Republic of China that may be implicated in forced labor or human rights violations.
The bipartisan legislation has earned the support of the Uyghur Human Rights Project and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
“Business complicity in the genocide of the Uyghurs has to be stopped,” said Omer Kanat, Uyghur Human Rights Project Executive Director. “The US government should act on its 2021 genocide finding, by ensuring small businesses have options. This bill is important for them to stop any kind of business with the companies involved in the ongoing slow-genocide policies in China – including hi-tech surveillance, textiles, EV batteries, and much more.”
The government of the People’s Republic of China has perpetrated egregious human rights abuses—including in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region—against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups. The Chinese government’s actions have encompassed mass detention in internment camps, the use of forced labor, and other atrocities. This has led the U.S. State Department to determine that the People’s Republic of China, “under the direction and control” of the Chinese Communist Party, “has committed genocide against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.”
The U.S. Department of Commerce provides valuable assistance to help U.S. businesses and exporters increase sales and tap into new markets, such as through export counseling provided by the U.S. Commercial Service. Peters’ bipartisan bill would build on existing human rights training for Department staff by ensuring its workforce is specifically informed about emerging trends and issues with respect to human rights abuses occurring around the world, such as the situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
Washington Free Beacon: HHS to Reevaluate $89 Billion Contract Awarded to Shadowy University of California Nonprofit
Sen. Chuck Grassley hails agency’s decision to reverse Biden’s ‘outrageous’ award
Andrew Kerr
April 30, 2025
The National Institutes of Health is having second thoughts about a behemoth $89 billion contract it awarded to a seemingly dormant California nonprofit organization during the final days of former president Joe Biden’s term.
The National Cancer Institute, a subsidiary of the NIH, awarded a 25-year, $89 billion contract to the Alliance for Advancing Biomedical Research to operate a cancer research lab at Maryland’s Fort Detrick on January 17, just three days before Biden left office. The reward marked a remarkable turn of fortune for the nascent nonprofit organization, which shares close ties to the University of California’s National Laboratories but hadn’t raised or spent a penny since its founding in 2022, according to its available Form 990 tax filings. The nonprofit group exists with the “specific purpose to operate exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, and/or to carry out the purposes of The Regents of the University of California,” according to its 2022 tax filing.
But the Alliance for Advancing Biomedical Research now risks seeing its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-funded windfall slip through its fingers, according to an April 8 notice obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, showing that the Department of Health and Human Services—NIH’s parent agency—is reevaluating all the original bids for the contract and will possibly award it to another company.
The agency’s move came just weeks after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) sent a letter in late February to the NIH demanding to know why the agency awarded the massive contract to an untested nonprofit with close ties to the University of California, a system that, according to the senator, not only has a history of spending around 40 percent of its federal research funding on administrative costs, but also has a dubious record of leaving its laboratories open to national security breaches by the Chinese Communist Party.
“It’s outrageous Biden’s NIH shoved a nearly $90 billion contract out the door just days before President Trump returned to office,” Grassley told the Free Beacon. “Even worse, the money would have flowed to an organization that can’t clearly protect itself from adversaries like China. I’m very glad HHS heeded my calls to reverse course and is now re-evaluating its initial proposal. I urge the department to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars as it works to defeat cancer and save lives.”
…
The nonprofit’s close ties to the University of California was of great concern to Grassley, who noted in his February 26 letter to NIH acting director Matthew Memoli that the university has a record of keeping about 40 percent of its federal research funding for research costs, a figure that far exceeds the Trump administration’s cap on such expenditures at 15 percent.
“It is critical to ensure taxpayer-funded research dollars are actually spent on research, not university administrative expenses,” Grassley wrote in his letter.
Grassley also said he was concerned about the University of California’s well-documented failure to protect its labs from security breaches by China’s government.
“It has been reported that between 1987 and 2021, at least 162 scientists who had worked at Los Alamos [National Laboratory] returned to China to support a variety of domestic research and development programs, including at least 59 who were involved with China’s talent programs,” Grassley wrote. “It appears that the University of California’s inability to keep China out of U.S. R&D is an issue that spans nearly four decades.”
…
HHS notified Leidos on April 9 that NIH had taken the “voluntary corrective action” to reevaluate the initial contract proposals and possibly make a new reward determination, according to a letter obtained by the Free Beacon.
…
-30-
?
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
JIUQUAN, April 30 — The return capsule of the Shenzhou-19 crewed spaceship, carrying astronauts Cai Xuzhe, Song Lingdong and Wang Haoze, touched down at the Dongfeng landing site in north China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region on Wednesday.
The three astronauts are all in good health condition, according to the China Manned Space Agency.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
May Day holiday expected to see tourism boom in China
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John James (Michigan 10th District)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution led by Representative John James (MI-10) utilizing the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the Biden Administration’s approval of California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule. This Biden era waiver would allow California to ram its comply-or-die “zero-emission truck” rule down the throat of America– essentially killing Michigan’s trucking industry. It would mandate truck makers to only sell zero-emission trucks which would increase vehicle prices for consumers, increase costs and manufacturing complexities for automakers, and convolute the regulatory environment.
James’ legislation would nullify an overreaching and impractical mandate that threatens American consumers, small businesses, and the nation’s supply chain. The Advanced Clean Trucks rule, if left unchecked, would force costly transitions to electric trucks, driving up prices for goods and disproportionately burdening working families and truckers across the country.
“Michigan is not afraid of the future, but we demand to be a part of it. The Biden Administration left behind comply-or-die Green New Deal mandates that threaten to crush our trucking industry and drive-up costs for hardworking Americans,” said Congressman James. “I know — my family has a trucking company. Republicans are working hard to implement President Trump’s America First agenda, and the first step is repealing the rules and waivers that fueled Bideninflation.”
“The passage of these resolutions is a victory for Americans who will not be forced into purchasing costly EVs because of California’s unworkable mandates,” said Chairmen Brett Guthrie and Morgan Griffith. “If not repealed, the California waivers would lead to higher prices for both new and used vehicles, increase our reliance on China, and strain our electric grid. The passage of these three resolutions will help to protect Americans from some of the worst policies of the Biden-Harris Administration. Thank you to Vice Chairman Joyce, Congressman Obernolte, and Congressman James for your work to ensure that families and businesses can continue choosing the vehicles they need.”
“This is not the United States of California. California should never be given the keys to set policies that impact our interstate supply chains. The trucking industry is grateful to our Congressional leaders who are removing Sacramento from the driver’s seat and restoring common sense to our nation’s environmental policies. ” Said Chris Spear, American Trucking Associations President & CEO.
“The Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA) is urging Congress to adopt the House resolutions this week authored by Congressman John James and his colleagues that would reverse the Biden EPA waivers that allows California to impose electric vehicle (EV) sales mandates,” said Jake Jacoby, Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA) President & CEO. “TRALA wishes to thank Congressman James in his leadership on this critical issue and it asks the…Senate to follow suit and pass the CRAs immediately.”
“America’s small business truck dealers want to sell trucks that their customers want to buy, and those trucks must be affordable and fit their customers’ needs,” said the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA). “A one-size-fits-all ZEV mandate that restricts then bans the sale of diesel trucks would reduce customer choice without an affordable replacement and could have unintended consequences for the supply chain and the economy.”
This bill is a part of a broader package introduced by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which included two additional CRA’s:
The California Clean Truck CRA builds on James’ efforts to push back on the Biden Administration’s burdensome regulations. In 2024, he successfully introduced a CRA to block Biden Administration rules on electric vehicle mandates for light- and medium-duty vehicles, as well as the National Labor Relations Board’s joint employer rule. His latest effort has garnered support from industry leaders, including the American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, who have praised the move to safeguard truckers and the broader economy.
Rep. James’ CRA to nullify the Clean Trucks rule passed the House with 231 bipartisan votes. This is James’ second legislative item to pass the House this week.
Click here to view the CRA text.
###
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
Chinese vice premier urges efforts to consolidate poverty alleviation achievements, prevent agricultural disasters
ZHENGZHOU, April 30 — Chinese Vice Premier Liu Guozhong has urged sustained poverty alleviation efforts, and emphasized the need to fully implement agricultural disaster prevention and mitigation measures to secure a bumper summer grain harvest.
Liu, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks during a research trip to the provinces of Shaanxi and Henan which took place from Monday to Wednesday.
In Shangluo City of Shaanxi, he called for targeted measures to boost industries with distinctive local features and advantages to create job opportunities and enrich farmers.
As winter wheat is in a critical period of growth that will affect the year’s output, he went to the fields in Weinan City of Shaanxi and Luoyang City of Henan, urging strengthened technical guidance and precise irrigation to minimize the impact of drought. He also stressed the importance of enhancing weather forecasting and early warning services and guarding against potential disasters such as plant diseases and insect pests to secure a bumper harvest.
During the trip, Liu visited health service stations and child care centers, stressing the need to enhance prevention and control of key infectious diseases, leverage the unique advantages of traditional Chinese medicine to improve primary healthcare services, and boost integrated child care services.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, April 30 — China’s national lawmakers on Wednesday voted to adopt the country’s first fundamental law dedicated to promoting the private sector, underscoring support for a key part of the world’s second-largest economy.
After over a year of legislative process, the private sector promotion law, passed at a session of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, will take effect on May 20, 2025.
The law stipulates that the promotion of the sustainable, healthy and high-quality development of the private economy is a significant and long-term policy of China.
From ensuring fair market access and financing support to enhancing services and protection of original innovation, the 78-article law cements efforts to encourage, support and guide the growth of the private sector.
The law will provide a clearer and more solid legal guarantee for the private sector, said Li Shuguang, a professor at China University of Political Science and Law.
This marks China’s latest step in strengthening the sector — recognized by the law as a key component of the socialist market economy — amid efforts to tackle economic headwinds both at home and abroad.
Officials and analysts view the formation and adoption of the law as “highly timely and absolutely essential,” given the private sector’s significant role in the economy.
Boosting the private sector should feature prominently on the country’s economic policy agenda: Whether it is to stimulate domestic demand, expand the domestic market, or boost production and improve the quality of supply, private businesses will be a key participant and contributor, according to Anbound, an independent think tank in China.
Private enterprises have long been a key driving force behind China’s economic growth, contributing more than 60 percent of GDP and 80 percent of urban employment. By the end of March 2025, the country’s more-than-57-million registered private enterprises made up over 92 percent of all businesses in China.
From electric vehicle maker BYD to artificial intelligence innovator DeepSeek and robotics pioneer Unitree Robotics, private enterprises have also become key players in China’s push for innovation-driven growth.
Yet, industry insiders note that challenges remain — domestically, private businesses may face financing constraints and invisible market access barriers in some sectors; while abroad, they must navigate increasing impact from external shocks.
The law will transform policy support into legal guarantees, giving entrepreneurs greater reassurance and motivation to keep moving forward, said Qi Xiangdong, chairman of cybersecurity firm Qi-Anxin and vice chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce.
“The rule of law is the best business environment,” Qi said.
In February, the country held a high-level symposium on private enterprises, which was widely viewed as a strong signal to boost the confidence and growth of the private sector.
A month later, at the “two sessions”, the country reiterated support for private enterprises, vowing to take effective moves to stimulate the vitality of all market entities.
To support the private sector, China has established a special bureau under the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) dedicated to serving the sector’s development. Multiple provincial-level regions, including Guangdong, Shanxi, Qinghai and Zhejiang, have all set up such bureaus.
Efforts to level the playing field are also underway. Last week, the NDRC unveiled the new version of the market access negative list, which specifies fields that are off-limits to both domestic and overseas business entities, reducing the number of items on the list from 117 to 106.
Nan Yi, chairman of Wontai Group, said the law will support private firms’ entry into sectors such as infrastructure and energy, and provide a strong guarantee for their continuous investment in research and development.
“The enactment of this law will inject strong impetus into the sound development of the private economy,” Nan said.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, April 30 — China’s economic output continued to rise in April, though changes in the external trade environment brought a level of disruption to the manufacturing sector, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said on Wednesday.
In April, China’s composite purchasing managers’ index (PMI) stood at 50.2, indicating that overall business activity continued to expand, according to data released by the NBS.
The PMI for the manufacturing sector fell to 49, while the PMI for the non-manufacturing sector came in at 50.4. The composite PMI is calculated based on the weighted average of the two indices.
A reading above 50 indicates expansion, while a reading below 50 reflects contraction.
NBS statistician Zhao Qinghe attributed the manufacturing PMI decline to a high base effect from the previous period’s rapid growth in the sector and drastic changes in the external environment.
Wen Tao, an analyst at the China Logistics Information Center, said that April saw market demand and production cool temporarily amid rising external pressures, which also led to fluctuations in raw materials procurement and market prices.
However, he noted that China’s economic fundamentals remain solid, supported by its supersized domestic market and resilient industrial and supply chains, along with policy measures that have helped sustain steady growth.
Though overall manufacturing activity moderated, certain sectors continued to show resilience and growth.
The PMI for high-tech manufacturing stood at 51.5 percent, well above the overall manufacturing level, with both production and new orders sub-indices exceeding 52 percent, reflecting the sector’s continued strong momentum.
Sectors such as agricultural and sideline food processing, food, liquor, pharmaceuticals, and beverages and refined tea also saw their production and new orders sub-indices come in above 53 percent, driven by the continued release of demand potential in China’s supersized domestic market.
Despite headwinds, business expectations remained in expansion territory, with the production and business activity expectations index standing at 52.1 percent in April.
In particular, enterprises in sectors such as food, liquor, beverages and refined tea, automobiles, and railway, ship and aerospace equipment all saw their expectations indices rise above 58, indicating strong business optimism.
In the non-manufacturing sector, the PMI has stayed above 50 for four consecutive months this year, indicating a stable pace of expansion.
Business activity indices in sectors related to air transport, telecommunications, radio, television and satellite transmission services, internet software and information technology services, and insurance remained above 55, indicating robust growth in overall business volume.
The business activity expectations index came in at 56.4, remaining in a relatively high range, with most services enterprises maintaining a positive outlook.
China’s economy has started 2025 with renewed vigor, with its gross domestic product registering 5.4 percent year-on-year growth in the first quarter.
Chinese policymakers recognized this positive trend at a high-level meeting of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee last Friday, while cautioning that an economic recovery requires further consolidation to withstand intensifying external shocks.
Looking ahead, it is imperative that the country coordinates domestic economic work with responses to international economic headwinds, and deals with the uncertainty of drastic changes in the external environment with the certainty of its own high-quality development, Zhao said.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, in the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) helped advance legislation she introduced with Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) to strengthen American telecommunications against foreign adversaries. The bipartisan Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency (FACT) Act would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to publicly identify entities that hold FCC licenses, authorizations, or other grants of authority that are owned, wholly or partially, by foreign, adversarial governments. It now awaits consideration on the Senate floor.
“We must protect our nation in every way we can from global adversaries who are trying to hack our systems and access our information,” said Senator Rosen. “I’m glad to see that our bipartisan bill to help protect our telecommunications systems from adversarial nations, including China, Russia, and Iran, passed out of committee today. I’ll keep pushing to secure our networks and strengthen our national security.”
“We cannot let authoritarian and adversarial regimes like China and Russia continue to have silent footholds in our tech and telecommunications markets,” said Senator Fischer. “My bill will direct the FCC to evaluate the communications risks foreign ownership ties pose to America’s national security and ensure that we can respond to these threats. I’m grateful a bipartisan group of my colleagues voted yes on this legislation, and I look forward to its passage on the Senate Floor.”
Senator Rosen has been pushing to reduce the influence of our adversaries and strengthen our national security. Earlier this month, her bipartisan bill to direct the U.S. Department of State and other federal agencies to assess and counter Hezbollah’s influence in Latin America advanced in committee. Rosen also helped introduce the bipartisan No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act to prevent any person who participated in Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attacks from entering the United States. Additionally, Senator Rosen introduced bipartisan legislation to prohibit the use of DeepSeek — a new artificial intelligence (AI) platform with direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party — on all government devices and networks.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Trent Kelly (R-Miss)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-8), and Representative Trent Kelly (R-MS-1) re-introduced the Ship-building and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act, comprehensive legislation to revitalize the United States shipbuilding and commercial maritime industries. Other cosponsors in the Senate include Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator John Fetterman (D-PA).
There are currently 80 U.S.-flagged vessels in international commerce while China has 5,500. The SHIPS for America Act aims to close this gap and boost the U.S. Merchant Marine by establishing national oversight and consistent funding for U.S. maritime policy, making U.S.-flagged vessels commercially competitive in international commerce by cutting red tape, rebuilding the U.S. shipyard industrial base, and expanding and strengthening mariner and shipyard worker recruitment, training, and retention.
“After decades of dangerously neglecting our shipbuilding industry, we’re finally doing something about it. The SHIPS for America Act is the most ambitious effort in a generation to revitalize the U.S. shipbuilding and commercial maritime industries and counter China’s dominance over the oceans,” said Senator Kelly, a U.S. Navy veteran and the first U.S. Merchant Marine Academy graduate to serve in Congress. “Building and staffing more U.S.-flagged ships will create good-paying American jobs, make our supply chains more resilient, lower costs, and strengthen our ability to resupply our military at times of war. We’ll keep working with our colleagues in Congress, this administration, and our partners in the industry to make our country safer and competitive by passing the SHIPS for America Act.”
“America has been a maritime nation since our founding, and seapower was a significant contributor to our rise to being the most powerful nation on earth. Unfortunately, the bottom line now is America needs more ships. Shipbuilding is a national security priority and a stopgap against foreign threats and coercion. Our bill will revitalize the U.S. maritime industry, grow our shipbuilding capacity, rebuild America’s shipyard industrial base, and support nationwide workforce development in this industry. This legislation is critical to our warfighting capabilities and keeping peace with China,” said Senator Young, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate.
“Strengthening America’s shipbuilding capacity and revitalizing our commercial maritime industry is critical to national security and economic resilience. Under President Trump’s leadership, we’re prioritizing these vital sectors. I’m proud to work alongside Senator Mark Kelly, Senator Todd Young, and Congressman John Garamendi to help safeguard our maritime future,” said Congressman Kelly.
“With China’s growing influence in the global maritime sector, the United States can no longer afford to overlook our maritime industries. The SHIPS for America Act will give our shipyards and merchant mariners the tools they need to rebuild America’s maritime industry and create good-paying American jobs,” said Congressman Garamendi. “I’m proud to lead this effort alongside Senator Kelly, Senator Young, and Representative Kelly to strengthen America’s national security, economic strength, and global leadership on the high seas.”
“Because of our vast geography, the maritime industry is uniquely vital to Alaska, with many of our coastal communities relying on a strong U.S.-flagged fleet for everything from everyday logistics, to commercial fishing and homeland defense. I am proud to cosponsor the SHIPS Act, which advances common-sense solutions that will invest in the workforce and revitalize our nation’s shipbuilding, increasing Alaska’s resilience and security,” said Senator Murkowski.
When it comes to maintaining our competitive edge against China, failure is not an option. The SHIPS for America Act will help the United States compete with China’s production of ships while creating new manufacturing jobs in shipyards across the nation,” said Senator Fetterman. “Not only will this strengthen our national security, but it’ll also grow our local economies and support working families right here in Pennsylvania. I’m proud to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will help us build more ships in America and stand up to China.”
The SHIPS for America Act would:
• Coordinate U.S. maritime policy by establishing the position of Maritime Security Advisor within the White House, who would lead an interagency Maritime Security Board tasked with making whole-of-government strategic decisions for how to implement a National Maritime Strategy. The bill also establishes a Maritime Security Trust Fund that would reinvest duties and fees paid by the maritime industry into maritime security programs and infrastructure supporting maritime commerce.
• Establish a national goal of expanding the U.S.-flag international fleet by 250 ships in 10 years by creating the Strategic Commercial Fleet Program, which would facilitate the development of a fleet of commercially operated, U.S.-flagged, American crewed, and domestically built merchant vessels that can operate competitively in international commerce.
• Enhance the competitiveness of U.S.-flagged vessels in international commerce by establishing a Rulemaking Committee on Commercial Maritime Regulations and Standards to cut through the U.S. Coast Guard’s bureaucracy and red tape that limits the international competitiveness of U.S.-flagged vessels, modify duties to make cargo on U.S.-flagged vessels more competitive, requiring that government-funded cargo move aboard U.S.-flagged vessels, and requiring a portion of commercial goods imported from China to move aboard U.S.-flagged vessels starting in 2030.
• Expand the U.S. shipyard industrial base, for both military and commercial oceangoing vessels, by establishing a 25 percent investment tax credit for shipyard investments, transforming the Title XI Federal Ship Financing Program into a revolving fund, and establishing a Shipbuilding Financial Incentives program to support innovative approaches to domestic ship building and ship repair.
• Make historic investments in maritime workforce by supporting a Maritime Workforce Promotion and Recruitment Campaign, allowing mariners to retain their credentials through a newly established Merchant Marine Career Retention Program, investing in long-overdue infrastructure needs for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, and supporting State Maritime Academies and Centers for Excellence for Domestic Maritime Workforce Training and Education. The bill also makes long-overdue changes to streamline and modernize the U.S. Coast Guard’s Merchant Mariner Credentialing system.
The legislation will be introduced in two pieces in the Senate, the SHIPS for America Act and the Building SHIPS in America Act.
Background:
Since first introducing the SHIPS for America Act in December, the urgency to boost American shipbuilding has emerged as a priority of bipartisan consensus this year, particularly after the U.S. Trade Representative revealed its findings regarding China’s shipbuilding dominance and President Trump signed a shipbuilding executive order.
Sen. Kelly earned his B.S. degree in marine engineering and nautical science from the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and later an M.S. degree in aeronautical engineering from the United States Naval Postgraduate School. He spent 25 years in the United States Navy as a pilot and is the first ever USMMA alumnus to serve in Congress. In 2023, he was elected chair of the USMMA Board of Visitors for the 118th Congress.
The following organizations have endorsed the SHIPS for America Act:
Keystone Shipping Company, American Shipbuilding Suppliers Association, Navy League, General Dynamics-NASSCO, American Waterway Operators, American Maritime Partnership, San Jacinto College, Oceantic Network, California State University Maritime Academy, Maine Maritime Academy, Senesco Marine, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Great Lakes Maritime Academy, USMMA Alumni Association and Foundation, American Maritime Officers, International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development (MIRAID), International Propeller Club, Crowley, American Maritime Officers Service, The Pasha Group, Saltchuk, Tropical, Saltchuk Marine, Overseas Shipholding Group, Core Power, Govini, US Ocean, Small Shipyard Grant Coalition, The American Club, Transportation Institute, Blue Water Autonomy, American Bureau of Shipping, With Honor Action, Texas A&M Maritime Academy, National Defense Transportation Association (NDTA), American Iron and Steel Institute, Shipbuilders Council of America, Maritime Association of the Port of NY/NJ, United Steelworkers, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Matson, American Legion, Inc., Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (M.E.D.A.), Ocean Shipholdings, Inc, Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA), Hanwha Philly Shipyard, Ports America, Seafarers International Union (SIU), U.S. Marine Management, AUVSI, Maritime Accelerator for Resilience, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., Chamber of Shipping of America, National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE), Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP), California Forever, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Alliance for American Manufacturing, Nucor, Steel Manufacturers Association, Blue Sky Maritime, New American Industrial Alliance, and Ship Operations and Marine Technical Support (SOMTS).
See what maritime leaders and stakeholders are saying about the SHIPS for America Act:
“The USA Maritime coalition supports the SHIPS for America Act and has been honored to work with Senators Kelly and Young and Congressmen Garamendi and Kelly as the bill has taken shape over the last two years. This bill represents the most comprehensive maritime policy initiative in more than half a century. Now, more than ever, the United States needs a strong, vibrant and growing Merchant Marine, capable of carrying a substantial portion of our foreign commerce and supporting our military in time of war. This initiative will ensure our country has the U.S.-Flag ships and American mariners needed to preserve, protect and defend America and our economic security. We look forward to continuing to work with Congress on this legislation,” said Brian W. Schoeneman, Chair, USA Maritime.
“The Shipbuilders Council of America commends Senator Kelly, Congressman Kelly, Senator Young, and Congressman Garamendi for their leadership in advancing the SHIPS for America Act. This legislation represents a significant step forward in strengthening the nation’s shipyard industrial base and establishing a comprehensive national maritime strategy. We are encouraged by its focus on bolstering American shipbuilding and ensuring a robust maritime sector capable of supporting our nation’s economic and national security. SCA is committed to continuing its engagement with these Congressional members and staff to refine and enhance the legislation, especially to better support our domestic ship repair industry, and we look forward to collaborating with policymakers to ensure the success of initiatives that secure the future of America’s shipyard industrial base and maritime workforce,” Matthew Paxton, President, Shipbuilders Council of America.
“The Navy League applauds the introduction of the SHIPS for America Act, a landmark legislative achievement that will comprehensively meet the needs of the U.S. merchant marine and bolster our shipbuilding industrial base. In today’s global threat environment, arguably the most perilous since the end of the Cold War, the United States must not only maintain the finest Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard on the seas, but also ensure a robust U.S.-flag merchant marine and a resilient shipbuilding industrial base. These elements are crucial for safeguarding our national and economic security in the event of large-scale military conflict. The SHIPS for America Act addresses these vital considerations and reaffirms that America is, and always will be, a maritime nation,” said Mike Stevens, CEO, Navy League.
“In any conflict with China, the outcome will hinge on our ability to project power across the Pacific via military sealift. The vast majority of the USN Strategic Sealift Officers are service-obligated graduates of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. We are deeply grateful to the sponsors of the SHIPS for America Act for recognizing that the USMMA campus at Kings Point, NY, built in the 1940s, urgently requires modernization to meet the demands of today’s national security threats,” said Captain James F. Tobin ’77, President/CEO, USMMA Alumni Association and Foundation.
“The Masters, Mates & Pilots strongly supports the SHIPS for America Act. This comprehensive and pragmatic maritime policy initiative will create and support jobs for American mariners, ensuring that our country has the maritime manpower needed to protect and enhance our nation’s economic and military security,” said Captain Don Josberger, International President, International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots.
“The International Propeller Club is a steadfast advocate for the SHIPS for America Act. Our nation’s maritime industry is at a critical crossroads. This comprehensive maritime policy initiative will protect and enhance foreign policy, national security, and economic prosperity through increased U.S.-flag shipping capability and a revitalization of the domestic shipbuilding industry,” said Maria Conatser, International President, International Propeller Club.
“The Consortium of State Maritime Academies strongly supports the SHIPS for America Act, and is grateful for the bipartisan and bicameral leadership of Sen. Kelly, Sen. Young, Rep. Kelly, and Rep. Garamendi. The Consortium is united in our goal of working with our elected officials to support passage of this Act. Once enacted, the SHIPS Act will result in the United States Merchant Marine once again playing a leading role on the global stage, and the growth of the American maritime industry, a strategically important industry that provides thousands of well paid positions for the nation,” said the Consortium of State Maritime Academies.
“With Honor Action applauds Senator Mark Kelly, a Navy veteran, and Senator Todd Young, a Marine Corps veteran, for proposing real solutions to revitalize our nation’s shipbuilding base and create more job opportunities for Americans. As advocates for bipartisan, principled veteran leadership in Congress, we are pleased to see veterans who have chosen to continue to serve in Congress working together to address the critical issues facing our nation,” said Ryan Barcott, Co-Founder and CEO, With Honor.
“NDTA supports the strategic rebuilding of the United State’s fleet of ships who fly our flag. We must have a fleet of ocean-going vessels to protect the economic security of our nation. The SHIPS for America Act is truly a significant step in the right direction. Everyone in America needs to get educated about the importance of this bill. Rebuilding our U.S. fleet, our shipbuilding capacity, and workforce is a national imperative,” said William A. Brown, Vice Admiral, USN (Retired), President and CEO, NDTA The Association for Global Logistics and Transportation.
“U.S. economic and national security is inexorably tied to our nation’s shipbuilding capacity. Yet, for too long, China has dominated this critical sector, costing the U.S. tens of thousands of jobs across the shipbuilding supply chain and leaving us less secure as we rely on foreign-made vessels to meet our needs. Our union commends Sens. Kelly and Young and Reps. Garamendi and Kelly as they introduce the SHIPS for America Act. USW members stand ready to contribute their skills in manufacturing the plate steel, coatings, cable, glass, rubber, engines and countless other products we’ll need to revitalize American shipbuilding,” said Dave McCall, President, USW International.
“In the United States, we have a small number of shipyards focused on building Navy and Coast Guard ships, and a far smaller amount focused on building ocean-going vessels for commercial use. At the shipbuilding supplier level, we have many components that are provided by a manufacturer who may be one of the few, if not the sole, remaining means of production. As noted in the SHIPS Act, we must work with our industrial partners in NATO and Allied nations, but also invest in our American workforce and capabilities. The elements of Buy America legislation incorporated in this Bill are important to reaching this goal,” said Roger Camp, President and CEO, American Shipbuilding Suppliers Association.
“The reintroduction of the SHIPS for America Act marks as a vital step forward in strengthening our maritime supply chain and revitalizing the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry. This legislation will help ensure that American goods move on American-built ships, operated by American mariners, supporting our economic security and national resilience. We appreciate the inclusion of legislation that would authorize terminal operators to establish tax free accounts for the purchase of cargo handling equipment knowing this will help our industry provide state-of-the-art services. Ports and terminal operators across the country are ready to meet the future with modern infrastructure and a highly skilled workforce – but we need a commercial fleet that can match that capability. The SHIPS for America Act helps close that gap and brings long-overdue investment to a sector critical to our competitiveness. NAWE applauds Senators Kelly and Young for their bipartisan leadership and looks forward to working alongside Congress to advance this important legislation,” said Carl Bentzel, President, National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE).
“Hanwha Philly Shipyard recognizes and commends U.S. Senators Mark Kelly and Todd Young, and Congressmen Trent Kelly and John Garamendi for their maritime policy leadership in reintroducing the bipartisan SHIPS for America Act. This bill offers tangible incentives to the domestic maritime industry with the goal of expanding the U.S. flag ocean-going fleet. It supports a major recapitalization of the shipbuilding infrastructure in the U.S., provides substantial incentives for the purchase of U.S.-built commercial vessels, and supports the national security and naval shipbuilding goals of the U.S. We see tremendous value in this legislation and believe it would have a long-term positive impact on Hanwha Philly Shipyard, other shipbuilders in the U.S. and Hanwha’s investments in America’s shipping industry and maritime industrial base,” said David Kim, CEO, Hanwha Philly Shipyard.
“For too long, the United States has allowed its maritime strength to decline. In an era of rising great-power competition, revitalizing our maritime capabilities and sending strong signals to the private sector is more essential than ever. The American Legion, on behalf of our 1.6 million dues-paying members, is proud to support this legislation,” said James A. LaCoursiere, Jr., National Commander, The American Legion.
Source: GlobalData
China VC funding value down by more than 50% YoY in Q1 2025, finds GlobalData
Posted in Business Fundamentals
The venture capital (VC) funding landscape in China has experienced a notable contraction in the first quarter (Q1) of 2025 wherein deal volume and value have both seen significant declines compared to the same period in previous year. China recorded a year-on-year (YoY) decrease of around 18% in VC deal volume in Q1 2025. The value of VC funding has YoY plummeted even more drastically at more than 50%, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.
Aurojyoti Bose, Lead Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “The contraction highlights the challenges startups are facing in securing funding for growth and innovation. The downturn could be attributed to several factors, including increased regulatory scrutiny, slowdown in economy, and geopolitical tensions that have made investors more cautious. Although the recent downturn raises concerns related to investor sentiments, the country still holds a significant share of global VC activity.”
An analysis of GlobalData’s Deals Database revealed that despite the decline, China’s share of global deal volume remains substantial, accounting for more than 15% of the total number of VC deals announced globally during the quarter.
But on the other hand, this sharp drop in funding value has resulted in China’s share of global deal value fall from 21.8% in Q1 2024 to 9.3% in Q1 2025. In contrast, the US has seen a remarkable increase in VC funding value, further widening the gap between these two economic powerhouses.
Bose concludes: “While the country remains a vital hub for venture capital, the current environment reflects a recalibration of investor sentiment. The decline in both deal volume and value indicates that investors are becoming more selective, focusing on sectors or start-ups with clear growth potential and sustainable business models.”
Note: Historic data may change in case some deals get added to previous months because of a delay in disclosure of information in the public domain.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
New York, April 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Oak Woods Acquisition Corporation. (Nasdaq: OAKU) (the “Company”) today announced it received a delinquency notification letter from Nasdaq on April 24, 2025, which indicated that the Company was not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1) as a result of the delayed filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2024 (the “Annual Report”). The Nasdaq Listing Rule requires listed companies to timely file all required periodic financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). This notification has no immediate effect on the listing of the Company’s securities on Nasdaq.
The Notice states that the Company has 60 calendar days to submit a plan to regain compliance and if the Nasdaq accepts such plan, the Nasdaq can grant an exception of up to 180 calendar days from the Annual Report’s due date, or until October 13, 2025 (the “Compliance Date”), to regain compliance. The Notification Letter does not impact the Company’s listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market at this time.
The Company is currently in the final stages of completing the audit of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024. While the Company has not yet filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K, it is working diligently with its independent registered public accounting firm to complete the remaining audit procedures. The delay in filing is not due to any disagreement with the Company’s auditors and the Company expects to file the Form 10-K promptly upon completion of the audit review process.
About Oak Woods Acquisition
Oak Woods Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company organized for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, or other similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities. On August 11, 2023, Oak Woods Acquisition Corporation, a Cayman Islands corporation (“Oak Woods”), entered into a Merger Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”) with Oak Woods Merger Sub, Inc., a Cayman Islands corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Oak Woods (“Merger Sub”), Huajin (China) Holdings Limited, a Cayman Islands corporation (“Huajin”) and Xuehong Li, in his capacity as the representative of the Huajin shareholde (“Shareholders’ Representative”), as amended by its agreement to extend the date by which a Business Combination is required to be completed to June 28, 2024, dated March 23, 2024, and subsequently by the First Amendment to the Merger Agreement entered into by Oak Woods, Huajin, Merger Sub, and the Shareholders’ Representative on June 26, 2024 extending the time to complete its business combination to September 28, 2024.
On October 1, 2024 the Company announced that, as approved by the shareholders of the Company at the Extraordinary General Meeting adjourned from September 25, 2024 and held on September 26, 2024 (the “September EGM”), the following proposals were approved thereby amending the Amended and Restated Articles and Memorandum of Association of the Company to give the Company the right to extend the date by which the Company has to complete a business combination from September 28, 2024 to March 28, 2025, by depositing into the Trust Account $172,500 per for each one-month extension, on or prior to the date of the applicable deadline, for up to six (6) times.
On March 26, 2025 the Company announced that, as approved by the shareholders of the Company at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on March 20, 2025 (the “March EGM”), the following proposals were approved thereby amending the Amended and Restated Articles and memorandum of Association to give the Company the right to extend the date by which the Company has to complete a business combination from March 28, 2025 to September 28, 2025, by depositing into the Trust Account $172,500 per for each one-month extension, on or prior to the date of the applicable deadline, for up to six (6) times.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward looking statements are statements that are not historical facts. Such forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from the forward-looking statements. The Company expressly disclaims any obligations or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations with respect thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any statement is based.
Contact:
Lixin Zheng
Chief Executive Officer
Oak Woods Acquisition Corporation
(+1) 403-561-7750
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
/ Q1 2025 Results
PITTSBURGH, April 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ANSYS, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANSS) today reported first quarter 2025 revenue of $504.9 million, an increase of 8% in reported currency, or 10% in constant currency, when compared to the first quarter of 2024. For the first quarter of 2025, the Company reported diluted earnings per share of $0.59 and $1.64 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, compared to $0.40 and $1.39 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, for the first quarter of 2024. Additionally, the Company reported first quarter ACV growth of 1% in reported currency, or 2% in constant currency, when compared to the first quarter of 2024. The results for the first quarter met the Company’s expectations and it continues to expect double-digit FY 2025 ACV growth.
As previously announced, on January 15, 2024, Ansys entered into a definitive agreement with Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) under which Synopsys will acquire Ansys. Since the Company’s last earnings release, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority has formally cleared the transaction in Phase 1 subject to previously announced divestitures. Additionally, Ansys and Synopsys have received clearances from the Turkey Competition Authority, Japan Fair Trade Commission, Korea Fair Trade Commission and Taiwan Fair Trade Commission. We continue to work with the regulators in other relevant jurisdictions to conclude their reviews. The transaction is anticipated to close in the first half of 2025, subject to the receipt of required regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. As previously announced, in light of the pending transaction with Synopsys, Ansys has suspended quarterly earnings conference calls and no longer provides quarterly or annual guidance.
The non-GAAP financial results highlighted represent non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these measures to the comparable GAAP measures can be found later in this release.
/ Summary of Financial Results
Ansys’ first quarter 2025 and 2024 financial results are presented below. The 2025 and 2024 non-GAAP results exclude the income statement effects of stock-based compensation, excess payroll taxes related to stock-based compensation, amortization of acquired intangible assets, expenses related to business combinations and adjustments for the income tax effect of the excluded items.
Our results are as follows:
| GAAP | ||||||||||
| (in thousands, except per share data and percentages) | Q1 2025 | Q1 2024 | % Change | |||||||
| Revenue | $ | 504,891 | $ | 466,605 | 8.2 | % | ||||
| Net income | $ | 51,865 | $ | 34,778 | 49.1 | % | ||||
| Diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.59 | $ | 0.40 | 47.5 | % | ||||
| Gross margin | 85.6 | % | 85.3 | % | ||||||
| Operating profit margin | 11.7 | % | 9.3 | % | ||||||
| Effective tax rate | 19.6 | % | 15.1 | % | ||||||
| Non-GAAP | ||||||||||
| (in thousands, except per share data and percentages) | Q1 2025 | Q1 2024 | % Change | |||||||
| Net income | $ | 144,149 | $ | 121,996 | 18.2 | % | ||||
| Diluted earnings per share | $ | 1.64 | $ | 1.39 | 18.0 | % | ||||
| Gross margin | 91.2 | % | 90.9 | % | ||||||
| Operating profit margin | 33.5 | % | 32.2 | % | ||||||
| Effective tax rate | 17.5 | % | 17.5 | % | ||||||
| Other Metrics | ||||||||
| (in thousands, except percentages) | Q1 2025 | Q1 2024 | % Change | |||||
| ACV | $ | 410,068 | $ | 407,405 | 0.7 | % | ||
| Operating cash flows | $ | 398,935 | $ | 282,817 | 41.1 | % | ||
| Unlevered operating cash flows | $ | 407,128 | $ | 292,667 | 39.1 | % | ||
| Supplemental Financial Information |
/ Annual Contract Value
| (in thousands, except percentages) | Q1 2025 | Q1 2025 in Constant Currency |
Q1 2024 | % Change | % Change in Constant Currency |
|||||||||
| ACV | $ | 410,068 | $ | 416,640 | $ | 407,405 | 0.7 | % | 2.3 | % | ||||
Recurring ACV includes both subscription lease ACV and all maintenance ACV (including maintenance from perpetual licenses). It excludes perpetual license ACV and service ACV.
/ Revenue
| (in thousands, except percentages) | Q1 2025 | Q1 2025 in Constant Currency |
Q1 2024 | % Change | % Change in Constant Currency |
|||||||||
| Revenue | $ | 504,891 | $ | 512,570 | $ | 466,605 | 8.2 | % | 9.9 | % | ||||
| REVENUE BY LICENSE TYPE | |||||||||||||||||
| (in thousands, except percentages) | Q1 2025 | % of Total | Q1 2024 | % of Total | % Change | % Change in Constant Currency |
|||||||||||
| Subscription Lease | $ | 96,919 | 19.2 | % | $ | 94,800 | 20.3 | % | 2.2 | % | 4.0 | % | |||||
| Perpetual | 63,036 | 12.5 | % | 65,521 | 14.0 | % | (3.8)% | (2.9)% | |||||||||
| Maintenance1 | 324,392 | 64.2 | % | 289,340 | 62.0 | % | 12.1 | % | 13.9 | % | |||||||
| Service | 20,544 | 4.1 | % | 16,944 | 3.6 | % | 21.2 | % | 22.5 | % | |||||||
| Total | $ | 504,891 | $ | 466,605 | 8.2 | % | 9.9 | % | |||||||||
1Maintenance revenue is inclusive of both maintenance associated with perpetual licenses and the maintenance component of subscription leases.
| REVENUE BY GEOGRAPHY | |||||||||||||||||
| (in thousands, except percentages) | Q1 2025 | % of Total | Q1 2024 | % of Total | % Change | % Change in Constant Currency |
|||||||||||
| Americas | $ | 230,377 | 45.6 | % | $ | 208,697 | 44.7 | % | 10.4 | % | 10.5 | % | |||||
| Germany | 35,021 | 6.9 | % | 36,198 | 7.8 | % | (3.3)% | (0.4)% | |||||||||
| Other EMEA | 83,839 | 16.6 | % | 82,417 | 17.7 | % | 1.7 | % | 3.9 | % | |||||||
| EMEA | 118,860 | 23.5 | % | 118,615 | 25.4 | % | 0.2 | % | 2.6 | % | |||||||
| Japan | 43,297 | 8.6 | % | 36,532 | 7.8 | % | 18.5 | % | 20.9 | % | |||||||
| Other Asia-Pacific | 112,357 | 22.3 | % | 102,761 | 22.0 | % | 9.3 | % | 12.9 | % | |||||||
| Asia-Pacific | 155,654 | 30.8 | % | 139,293 | 29.9 | % | 11.7 | % | 15.0 | % | |||||||
| Total | $ | 504,891 | $ | 466,605 | 8.2 | % | 9.9 | % | |||||||||
| REVENUE BY CHANNEL | |||||
| Q1 2025 | Q1 2024 | ||||
| Direct revenue, as a percentage of total revenue | 69.1 | % | 66.5 | % | |
| Indirect revenue, as a percentage of total revenue | 30.9 | % | 33.5 | % | |
/ Deferred Revenue and Backlog
| (in thousands) | March 31, 2025 |
December 31, 2024 |
March 31, 2024 |
|||||
| Current Deferred Revenue | $ | 490,318 | $ | 504,527 | $ | 433,167 | ||
| Current Backlog | 511,197 | 524,617 | 433,106 | |||||
| Total Current Deferred Revenue and Backlog | 1,001,515 | 1,029,144 | 866,273 | |||||
| Long-Term Deferred Revenue | 30,840 | 31,778 | 21,434 | |||||
| Long-Term Backlog | 595,388 | 657,345 | 481,746 | |||||
| Total Long-Term Deferred Revenue and Backlog | 626,228 | 689,123 | 503,180 | |||||
| Total Deferred Revenue and Backlog | $ | 1,627,743 | $ | 1,718,267 | $ | 1,369,453 | ||
/ Currency
The first quarter of 2025 revenue, operating income and ACV, as compared to the first quarter of 2024, were impacted by fluctuations in the exchange rates of foreign currencies against the U.S. Dollar. The currency fluctuation impacts on revenue, GAAP and non-GAAP operating income and ACV based on 2024 exchange rates are reflected in the tables below. Deferred revenue and backlog as of March 31, 2025, as compared to the balances at December 31, 2024, were also impacted by fluctuations in the exchange rates of foreign currencies against the U.S. Dollar. Amounts in brackets indicate an adverse impact from currency fluctuations.
| (in thousands) | Q1 2025 | ||
| Revenue | $ | (7,679 | ) |
| GAAP operating income | $ | (2,848 | ) |
| Non-GAAP operating income | $ | (3,044 | ) |
| ACV | $ | (6,572 | ) |
| Deferred revenue and backlog | $ | 19,166 | |
The most meaningful currency impacts are typically attributable to U.S. Dollar exchange rate changes against the Euro and Japanese Yen. Historical exchange rates are reflected in the charts below.
| Period-End Exchange Rates | |||
| As of | EUR/USD | USD/JPY | |
| March 31, 2025 | 1.08 | 150 | |
| December 31, 2024 | 1.04 | 157 | |
| March 31, 2024 | 1.08 | 151 | |
| Average Exchange Rates | |||
| Three Months Ended | EUR/USD | USD/JPY | |
| March 31, 2025 | 1.05 | 152 | |
| March 31, 2024 | 1.09 | 148 | |
/ GAAP Financial Statements
| ANSYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES | |||||
| Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets | |||||
| (Unaudited) | |||||
| (in thousands) | March 31, 2025 | December 31, 2024 | |||
| ASSETS: | |||||
| Cash & short-term investments | $ | 1,828,559 | $ | 1,497,517 | |
| Accounts receivable, net | 754,655 | 1,022,850 | |||
| Goodwill | 3,799,809 | 3,778,128 | |||
| Other intangibles, net | 694,235 | 716,244 | |||
| Other assets | 903,755 | 1,036,692 | |||
| Total assets | $ | 7,981,013 | $ | 8,051,431 | |
| LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY: | |||||
| Current deferred revenue | $ | 490,318 | $ | 504,527 | |
| Long-term debt | 754,287 | 754,208 | |||
| Other liabilities | 556,933 | 706,256 | |||
| Stockholders’ equity | 6,179,475 | 6,086,440 | |||
| Total liabilities & stockholders’ equity | $ | 7,981,013 | $ | 8,051,431 | |
| ANSYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES | ||||||||
| Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income | ||||||||
| (Unaudited) | ||||||||
| Three Months Ended | ||||||||
| (in thousands, except per share data) | March 31, 2025 |
March 31, 2024 |
||||||
| Revenue: | ||||||||
| Software licenses | $ | 159,955 | $ | 160,321 | ||||
| Maintenance and service | 344,936 | 306,284 | ||||||
| Total revenue | 504,891 | 466,605 | ||||||
| Cost of sales: | ||||||||
| Software licenses | 9,370 | 10,044 | ||||||
| Amortization | 23,429 | 22,484 | ||||||
| Maintenance and service | 39,770 | 36,139 | ||||||
| Total cost of sales | 72,569 | 68,667 | ||||||
| Gross profit | 432,322 | 397,938 | ||||||
| Operating expenses: | ||||||||
| Selling, general and administrative | 230,415 | 219,643 | ||||||
| Research and development | 137,292 | 128,811 | ||||||
| Amortization | 5,722 | 6,145 | ||||||
| Total operating expenses | 373,429 | 354,599 | ||||||
| Operating income | 58,893 | 43,339 | ||||||
| Interest income | 16,743 | 10,995 | ||||||
| Interest expense | (10,177 | ) | (12,369 | ) | ||||
| Other expense, net | (930 | ) | (1,007 | ) | ||||
| Income before income tax provision | 64,529 | 40,958 | ||||||
| Income tax provision | 12,664 | 6,180 | ||||||
| Net income | $ | 51,865 | $ | 34,778 | ||||
| Earnings per share – basic: | ||||||||
| Earnings per share | $ | 0.59 | $ | 0.40 | ||||
| Weighted average shares | 87,653 | 87,067 | ||||||
| Earnings per share – diluted: | ||||||||
| Earnings per share | $ | 0.59 | $ | 0.40 | ||||
| Weighted average shares | 88,127 | 87,780 | ||||||
/ Glossary of Terms
Annual Contract Value (ACV): ACV is a key performance metric and is useful to investors in assessing the strength and trajectory of our business. ACV is a supplemental metric to help evaluate the annual performance of the business. Over the life of the contract, ACV equals the total value realized from a customer. ACV is not impacted by the timing of license revenue recognition. ACV is used by management in financial and operational decision-making and in setting sales targets used for compensation. ACV is not a replacement for, and should be viewed independently of, GAAP revenue and deferred revenue as ACV is a performance metric and is not intended to be combined with any of these items. There is no GAAP measure comparable to ACV. ACV is composed of the following:
When we refer to the anniversary dates in the definition of ACV above, we are referencing the date of the beginning of the next twelve-month period in a contractually committed multi-year contract. If a contract is three years in duration, with a start date of July 1, 2025, the anniversary dates would be July 1, 2026 and July 1, 2027. We label these anniversary dates as they are contractually committed. While this contract would be up for renewal on July 1, 2028, our ACV performance metric does not assume any contract renewals.
Example 1: For purposes of calculating ACV, a $100,000 subscription lease contract or a $100,000 maintenance contract with a term of July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 would each contribute $100,000 to ACV for fiscal year 2025 with no contribution to ACV for fiscal year 2026.
Example 2: For purposes of calculating ACV, a $300,000 subscription lease contract or a $300,000 maintenance contract with a term of July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2028 would each contribute $100,000 to ACV in each of fiscal years 2025, 2026 and 2027. There would be no contribution to ACV for fiscal year 2028 as each period captures the full annual value upon the anniversary date.
Example 3: A perpetual license valued at $200,000 with a contract start date of March 1, 2025 would contribute $200,000 to ACV in fiscal year 2025.
Backlog: Deferred revenue associated with installment billings for periods beyond the current quarterly billing cycle and committed contracts with start dates beyond the end of the current period.
Deferred Revenue: Billings made or payments received in advance of revenue recognition.
Subscription Lease or Time-Based License: A license of a stated product of our software that is granted to a customer for use over a specified time period, which can be months or years in length. In addition to the use of the software, the customer is provided with access to maintenance (unspecified version upgrades and technical support) without additional charge. The revenue related to these contracts is recognized ratably over the contract period for the maintenance portion and up front for the license portion.
Perpetual / Paid-Up License: A license of a stated product and version of our software that is granted to a customer for use in perpetuity. The revenue related to this type of license is recognized up front.
Maintenance: A contract, typically one year in duration, that is purchased by the owner of a perpetual license and that provides access to unspecified version upgrades and technical support during the duration of the contract. The revenue from these contracts is recognized ratably over the contract period.
/ Reconciliations of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures (Unaudited)
| Three Months Ended | |||||||||||||||||||
| March 31, 2025 | |||||||||||||||||||
| (in thousands, except percentages and per share data) | Gross Profit | % of Revenue | Operating Income | % of Revenue | Net Income | EPS – Diluted1 | |||||||||||||
| Total GAAP | $ | 432,322 | 85.6 | % | $ | 58,893 | 11.7 | % | $ | 51,865 | $ | 0.59 | |||||||
| Stock-based compensation expense | 3,977 | 0.8 | % | 70,243 | 14.0 | % | 70,243 | 0.80 | |||||||||||
| Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards | 354 | 0.1 | % | 6,016 | 1.2 | % | 6,016 | 0.07 | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions | 23,429 | 4.6 | % | 29,151 | 5.7 | % | 29,151 | 0.33 | |||||||||||
| Expenses related to business combinations | 405 | 0.1 | % | 4,787 | 0.9 | % | 4,787 | 0.05 | |||||||||||
| Adjustment for income tax effect | — | — | % | — | — | % | (17,913 | ) | (0.20 | ) | |||||||||
| Total non-GAAP | $ | 460,487 | 91.2 | % | $ | 169,090 | 33.5 | % | $ | 144,149 | $ | 1.64 | |||||||
1 Diluted weighted average shares were 88,127.
| Three Months Ended | |||||||||||||||||||
| March 31, 2024 | |||||||||||||||||||
| (in thousands, except percentages and per share data) | Gross Profit | % of Revenue | Operating Income | % of Revenue | Net Income | EPS – Diluted1 | |||||||||||||
| Total GAAP | $ | 397,938 | 85.3 | % | $ | 43,339 | 9.3 | % | $ | 34,778 | $ | 0.40 | |||||||
| Stock-based compensation expense | 3,343 | 0.7 | % | 58,664 | 12.7 | % | 58,664 | 0.66 | |||||||||||
| Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards | 378 | 0.1 | % | 5,362 | 1.1 | % | 5,362 | 0.06 | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions | 22,484 | 4.8 | % | 28,629 | 6.1 | % | 28,629 | 0.33 | |||||||||||
| Expenses related to business combinations | — | — | % | 14,261 | 3.0 | % | 14,261 | 0.16 | |||||||||||
| Adjustment for income tax effect | — | — | % | — | — | % | (19,698 | ) | (0.22 | ) | |||||||||
| Total non-GAAP | $ | 424,143 | 90.9 | % | $ | 150,255 | 32.2 | % | $ | 121,996 | $ | 1.39 | |||||||
1 Diluted weighted average shares were 87,780.
| Three Months Ended | |||||||
| (in thousands) | March 31, 2025 |
March 31, 2024 |
|||||
| Net cash provided by operating activities | $ | 398,935 | $ | 282,817 | |||
| Cash paid for interest | 9,931 | 11,939 | |||||
| Tax benefit | (1,738 | ) | (2,089 | ) | |||
| Unlevered operating cash flows | $ | 407,128 | $ | 292,667 | |||
/ Use of Non-GAAP Measures
We provide non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP diluted earnings per share and unlevered operating cash flows as supplemental measures to GAAP regarding our operational performance. These financial measures exclude the impact of certain items and, therefore, have not been calculated in accordance with GAAP. A detailed explanation of each of the adjustments to these financial measures is described below. This press release also contains a reconciliation of each of these non-GAAP financial measures to its most comparable GAAP financial measure, as applicable.
We use non-GAAP financial measures (a) to evaluate our historical and prospective financial performance as well as our performance relative to our competitors, (b) to set internal sales targets and spending budgets, (c) to allocate resources, (d) to measure operational profitability and the accuracy of forecasting, (e) to assess financial discipline over operational expenditures and (f) as an important factor in determining variable compensation for management and employees. In addition, many financial analysts that follow us focus on and publish both historical results and future projections based on non-GAAP financial measures. We believe that it is in the best interest of our investors to provide this information to analysts so that they accurately report the non-GAAP financial information. Moreover, investors have historically requested, and we have historically reported, these non-GAAP financial measures as a means of providing consistent and comparable information with past reports of financial results.
While we believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide useful supplemental information to investors, there are limitations associated with the use of these non-GAAP financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures are not prepared in accordance with GAAP, are not reported by all our competitors and may not be directly comparable to similarly titled measures of our competitors due to potential differences in the exact method of calculation. We compensate for these limitations by using these non-GAAP financial measures as supplements to GAAP financial measures and by reviewing the reconciliations of the non-GAAP financial measures to their most comparable GAAP financial measures.
The adjustments to these non-GAAP financial measures, and the basis for such adjustments, are outlined below:
Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions. We incur amortization of intangible assets, included in our GAAP presentation of amortization expense, related to various acquisitions we have made. We exclude these expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance because these costs are fixed at the time of an acquisition, are then amortized over a period of several years after the acquisition and generally cannot be changed or influenced by us after the acquisition. Accordingly, we do not consider these expenses for purposes of evaluating our performance during the applicable time period after the acquisition, and we exclude such expenses when making decisions to allocate resources. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology and information used by us in our financial and operational decision-making, and (b) compare our past reports of financial results as we have historically reported these non-GAAP financial measures.
Stock-based compensation expense. We incur expense related to stock-based compensation included in our GAAP presentation of cost of maintenance and service; research and development expense; and selling, general and administrative expense. We also incur excess payroll tax expense related to stock-based compensation, which is an additional non-GAAP adjustment. Although stock-based compensation is an expense and viewed as a form of compensation, we exclude these expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance. Specifically, we exclude stock-based compensation during our annual budgeting process and our quarterly and annual assessments of our performance. The annual budgeting process is the primary mechanism whereby we allocate resources to various initiatives and operational requirements. Additionally, the annual review by our Board of Directors during which it compares our historical business model and profitability to the planned business model and profitability for the forthcoming year excludes the impact of stock-based compensation. In evaluating the performance of our senior management and department managers, charges related to stock-based compensation are excluded from expenditure and profitability results. In fact, we record stock-based compensation expense into a stand-alone cost center for which no single operational manager is responsible or accountable. In this way, we can review, on a period-to-period basis, each manager’s performance and assess financial discipline over operational expenditures without the effect of stock-based compensation. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate our operating results and the effectiveness of the methodology used by us to review our operating results, and (b) review historical comparability in our financial reporting as well as comparability with competitors’ operating results.
Expenses related to business combinations. We incur expenses for professional services rendered in connection with acquisitions and divestitures, which are included in our GAAP presentation of selling, general and administrative expense. We also incur other expenses directly related to business combinations, including compensation expenses and concurrent restructuring activities, such as employee severances and other exit costs. These costs are included in our GAAP presentation of cost of maintenance and service, selling, general and administrative and research and development expenses. We exclude these acquisition-related expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance, as we generally would not have otherwise incurred these expenses in the periods presented as a part of our operations. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate our operating results and the effectiveness of the methodology used by us to review our operating results, and (b) review historical comparability in our financial reporting as well as comparability with competitors’ operating results.
Non-GAAP tax provision. We utilize a normalized non-GAAP annual effective tax rate (AETR) to calculate non-GAAP measures. This methodology provides better consistency across interim reporting periods by eliminating the effects of non-recurring items and aligning the non-GAAP tax rate with our expected geographic earnings mix. To project this rate, we analyzed our historic and projected non-GAAP earnings mix by geography along with other factors such as our current tax structure, recurring tax credits and incentives, and expected tax positions. On an annual basis we re-evaluate and update this rate for significant items that may materially affect our projections.
Unlevered operating cash flows. We make cash payments for the interest incurred in connection with our debt financing which are included in our GAAP presentation of operating cash flows. We exclude this cash paid for interest, net of the associated tax benefit, for the purpose of calculating unlevered operating cash flows. Unlevered operating cash flow is a supplemental non-GAAP measure that we use to evaluate our core operating business. We believe this measure is useful to investors and management because it provides a measure of our cash generated through operating activities independent of the capital structure of the business.
Non-GAAP financial measures are not in accordance with, or an alternative for, GAAP. Our non-GAAP financial measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP financial measures and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP.
We have provided a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures as listed below:
| GAAP Reporting Measure | Non-GAAP Reporting Measure |
| Gross Profit | Non-GAAP Gross Profit |
| Gross Profit Margin | Non-GAAP Gross Profit Margin |
| Operating Income | Non-GAAP Operating Income |
| Operating Profit Margin | Non-GAAP Operating Profit Margin |
| Net Income | Non-GAAP Net Income |
| Diluted Earnings Per Share | Non-GAAP Diluted Earnings Per Share |
| Operating Cash Flows | Unlevered Operating Cash Flows |
Constant currency. In addition to the non-GAAP financial measures detailed above, we use constant currency results for financial and operational decision-making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons by excluding the effects of foreign currency fluctuations on the reported results. To present this information, the 2025 period results for entities whose functional currency is a currency other than the U.S. Dollar were converted to U.S. Dollars at rates that were in effect for the 2024 comparable period, rather than the actual exchange rates in effect for 2025. Constant currency growth rates are calculated by adjusting the 2025 period reported amounts by the 2025 currency fluctuation impacts and comparing the adjusted amounts to the 2024 comparable period reported amounts. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology and information used by us in our financial and operational decision-making, and (b) compare our reported results to our past reports of financial results without the effects of foreign currency fluctuations.
/ About Ansys
Our Mission: Powering Innovation that Drives Human Advancement™
When visionary companies need to know how their world-changing ideas will perform, they close the gap between design and reality with Ansys simulation. For more than 50 years, Ansys software has enabled innovators across industries to push boundaries by using the predictive power of simulation. From sustainable transportation to advanced semiconductors, from satellite systems to life-saving medical devices, the next great leaps in human advancement will be powered by Ansys.
/ Forward-Looking Information
This document contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Forward-looking statements are statements that provide current expectations or forecasts of future events based on certain assumptions. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and factors relating to our business which could cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “intend,” “likely,” “may,” “outlook,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target” or other words of similar meaning. Forward-looking statements include those about the proposed transaction with Synopsys, including the expected date of closing and the potential benefits thereof, and other aspects of future operations. We caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law.
The risks associated with the following, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in any forward-looking statements:
Ansys and any and all ANSYS, Inc. brand, product, service and feature names, logos and slogans are registered trademarks or trademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States or other countries. All other brand, product, service and feature names or trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Visit https://investors.ansys.com for more information.
ANSS-F
Photos accompanying this announcement are available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/555457d0-68c2-4e39-9654-7433c0575e9e
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/f9600ece-a84c-4586-bb8a-98965ce32a1c
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/131c8a8b-e47c-4724-bdab-f0846535f0df
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today questioned President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Terrance Cole. Prior to his nomination, Cole had worked for the DEA for over two decades, including service in Mexico and Colombia.
On a photo of tattoos on the hand of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant and suspected MS-13 gang member who has been deported to El Salvador by the Trump Administration:
On China’s role in the fentanyl poisoning crisis:
GRAHAM: “Mr. Cole, you mentioned something that most Americans need to pay more attention to. Three hundred Americans… die every day from fentanyl poisoning?”
COLE: “Yes sir.
GRAHAM: “And fentanyl comes across the U.S.-Mexico border?
COLE: “Yes that’s correct.”
GRAHAM: “The precursors to fentanyl come from what country, mainly?”
COLE: “From China.”
GRAHAM: “Do you agree that China has done very little to combat the precursor problem that exists in China?
COLE: “I would agree. Yes sir.”
GRAHAM: “Do you believe that China is complicit in the fentanyl poisoning of America?”
COLE: “Yes, I do.” https://youtu.be/r0RpPl815n4?si=AGo4Q0cefXj21VLZ&t=9
Click here to watch Graham’s questions
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
First Quarter Results
HOUSTON, April 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — NCS Multistage Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: NCSM) (the “Company,” “NCS,” “we” or “us”), a leading provider of highly engineered products and support services that facilitate the optimization of oil and natural gas well construction, well completions and field development strategies, today announced its results for the quarter ended March 31, 2025.
Review and Outlook
NCS’s Chief Executive Officer, Ryan Hummer commented, “NCS had a strong start to 2025, with total revenues and Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter exceeding our expectations as provided in the last earnings call, led by our performance in Canada.
Total revenues of $50.0 million increased by 14% year-over-year and 11% sequentially and represents our highest quarterly revenue since the first quarter of 2020. This is reflective of the consistent efforts of our team to deliver differentiated performance through the implementation of our core strategies.
Our adjusted gross margin improved to 44% for the quarter, compared to 40% for the same period one year ago, as we benefitted from the higher revenue, including higher-margin international work in both the Middle East and the North Sea.
Our Adjusted EBITDA was $8.2 million for the first quarter, an improvement of $2.1 million, or 35%, year-over-year. This demonstrates the operating leverage in our business and the benefits of our capital light operating model, as our Adjusted EBITDA margin for the first quarter of 2025 of 16% improved from 14% in the first quarter of 2024.
This improved operating performance resulted in net income attributable to NCS of $4.1 million, or $1.51 per diluted share for the first quarter of 2025, a meaningful improvement as compared to $2.1 million and $0.82 per diluted share, respectively, for the same period in 2024.
Our cash balance as of March 31, 2025, totaled $23.0 million and our net cash position was $15.4 million. Total liquidity was $49.8 million as of March 31, 2025, inclusive of our cash balance and availability under our undrawn revolving credit facility, an increase of $15.4 million compared to one year ago.
We have not experienced a significant impact on our business from escalating global trade tensions, and we expect that to continue to be the case in the second quarter of 2025. However, such global trade tensions and potential additional U.S. tariffs — along with retaliatory measures by other countries — present risks to commodity prices that could result in lower drilling and completions activity as compared to our initial expectations for both the second half and full year in 2025. If sustained, such conditions may result in a more pronounced decrease in drilling and completion activity across these markets. In addition, we are evaluating options to mitigate the impact of potential cost increases from tariffs that have been imposed by the U.S. on products from China and on steel imports, in particular.
I want to express my continued appreciation to our team at NCS and Repeat Precision. Our accomplishments and our upcoming opportunities reflect the talent, effort and dedication of our outstanding teams. We have the right people, the right technology, and the right strategies in place to deliver extraordinary outcomes to our customers, drive innovation in the industry and create value for our shareholders. We’ve had a good start for the year and remain cautiously optimistic about the remainder of 2025. Our strong balance sheet remains a strategic asset for NCS and we will react swiftly and decisively in response to changing market conditions and opportunities.”
Financial Review
Total revenues were $50.0 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 compared to $43.9 million for the first quarter of 2024. Revenue growth was driven primarily by an increase in Canadian product sales and increases in services revenue across all of our geographic regions, partially offset by a decline in U.S. product sales attributed to certain project delays. The increase in product and service sales for Canada reflects robust activity levels, particularly for fracturing systems completions, a trend that began in the fourth quarter of 2024 and continued throughout the first quarter. The increase in international service revenues was driven by Middle East tracer diagnostics projects and North Sea fracturing systems product sales and services.
Compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, total revenues increased by 11%, with an increase in Canada of 26% due to continued strong activity levels. This increase was partially offset by a decline of 34% in international revenues, primarily associated with the timing of tracer service work in the Middle East, and a 13% decline in U.S. revenues.
Gross profit was $21.1 million, with a gross margin of 42%, for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $17.0 million, with a gross margin of 39%, for the first quarter of 2024. Gross margin for 2025 improved due to an increase in higher-margin international work in both the Middle East and North Sea, and increased product sales in Canada. We also benefitted from efficiencies related to our supply chain and our manufacturing/assembly operations, leveraging certain fixed costs and capitalizing on lean manufacturing strategies implemented over the last year. Adjusted gross profit, which we define as total revenues less total cost of sales, exclusive of depreciation and amortization (“DD&A”), was $21.9 million, or an adjusted gross margin of 44%, for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $17.6 million, or 40%, for the first quarter of 2024.
Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses totaled $16.2 million for the first quarter of 2025, an increase of $2.4 million compared to the same period in 2024. This increase in expense reflects a higher annual incentive bonus accrual year-over-year, higher professional fees and an increase in share-based compensation expense attributable to cash settled awards, which are remeasured at the balance sheet date based on the price of our common stock.
Other income was $0.9 million for the first quarter of 2025 compared to $1.1 million for the first quarter of 2024. The decline in other income reflects the absence of a contribution from a technical services and assistance agreement with our local partner in Oman for the first quarter of 2025, as that program ended in November 2024. Partially offsetting this year-over year decrease was an increase in the royalty income earned from licensees for these periods.
Net income was $4.1 million, or $1.51 per diluted share, for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 compared to net income of $2.1 million, or $0.82 per diluted share for the quarter ended March 31, 2024.
Adjusted EBITDA was $8.2 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, an increase of $2.1 million compared to the same period a year ago. This improvement is primarily the result of an increase in Canada revenues and higher-margin international projects partially offset by an increase in SG&A expenses due to higher annual incentive bonus accruals. Adjusted EBITDA margin of 16% for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, compared to 14% for the same period a year ago.
Cash flow from operating activities for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was a use of cash of $(1.6) million, a $0.2 million improvement compared to the same period in 2024. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, free cash flow less distributions to non-controlling interest was a use of cash of $(2.1) million compared to a use of cash of $(2.5) million for the same period in 2024. The overall change in free cash flow was largely attributed to our operating results, change in net working capital including payment of incentive bonuses and cash-settled awards remeasured based on the price of our stock in the first quarter of 2025, and the absence of a distribution to our non-controlling interest in 2025, partially offset by an increase in net cash invested in capital expenditures.
Liquidity and Capital Expenditures
As of March 31, 2025, NCS had $23.0 million in cash, $7.6 million in total indebtedness related to finance lease obligations, and a borrowing base under the undrawn asset-based revolving credit facility (“ABL Facility”) of $26.8 million. Our working capital, defined as current assets minus current liabilities, was $85.2 million and $80.2 million as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively.
Net working capital, calculated as working capital, less cash and excluding the current maturities of long-term debt, was $64.4 million and $56.4 million as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. The increase in our net working capital was primarily attributable to an increase in accounts receivable and a decrease in accrued expenses due in part to payment of our 2024 incentive bonus in the first quarter of 2025, partially offset by an increase in accounts payable.
NCS incurred capital expenditures, net of proceeds from the sale of property and equipment, of $0.5 million and $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively.
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin, Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation, Adjusted Gross Profit, Adjusted Gross Margin, Free Cash Flow, Free Cash Flow Less Distributions to Non-Controlling Interest and Net Working Capital are non-GAAP financial measures. For an explanation of these measures and a reconciliation, refer to “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below.
Conference Call
The Company will host a conference call to discuss its first quarter 2025 results and updated guidance on Thursday, May 1, 2025 at 7:30 a.m. Central Time (8:30 a.m. Eastern Time). For those participants who wish to ask questions, please dial (800) 715-9871 (U.S. toll-free) or +1 (646) 307-1963 (international) and enter the Conference ID: 7182351. A listen-only option is also available through this link. Participants are encouraged to log in to the webcast or dial in to the conference call approximately ten minutes prior to the start time. To listen via live webcast, please visit the Investors section of the Company’s website, www.ncsmultistage.com.
The replay will be available in the Investors section of the Company’s website shortly after the conclusion of the call and will remain available for approximately seven days.
About NCS Multistage Holdings, Inc.
NCS Multistage Holdings, Inc. is a leading provider of highly engineered products and support services that facilitate the optimization of oil and natural gas well construction, well completions and field development strategies. NCS provides products and services primarily to exploration and production companies for use in onshore and offshore wells, predominantly wells that have been drilled with horizontal laterals in both unconventional and conventional oil and natural gas formations. NCS’s products and services are utilized in oil and natural gas basins throughout North America and in selected international markets, including the North Sea, the Middle East, Argentina and China. NCS’s common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “NCSM.” Additional information is available on the website, www.ncsmultistage.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “seeks,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects” and similar references to future periods, or by the inclusion of forecasts or projections. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements we make regarding the outlook for our future business and financial performance. Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and assumptions regarding our business, the economy and other future conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, by their nature, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. As a result, our actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include regional, national or global political, economic, business, competitive, market and regulatory conditions and the following: declines in the level of oil and natural gas exploration and production activity in Canada, the United States and internationally; oil and natural gas price fluctuations; significant competition for our products and services that results in pricing pressures, reduced sales, or reduced market share; inability to successfully implement our strategy of increasing sales of products and services into the U.S. and international markets; loss of significant customers; losses and liabilities from uninsured or underinsured business activities and litigation; change in trade policy, including the impact of tariffs; our failure to identify and consummate potential acquisitions; the financial health of our customers including their ability to pay for products or services provided; our inability to integrate or realize the expected benefits from acquisitions; our inability to achieve suitable price increases to offset the impacts of cost inflation; loss of any of our key suppliers or significant disruptions negatively impacting our supply chain; risks in attracting and retaining qualified employees and key personnel; risks resulting from the operations of our joint venture arrangement; currency exchange rate fluctuations; impact of severe weather conditions; our inability to accurately predict customer demand, which may result in us holding excess or obsolete inventory; failure to comply with or changes to federal, state and local and non-U.S. laws and other regulations, including anti-corruption and environmental regulations, guidelines and regulations for the use of explosives; impairment in the carrying value of long-lived assets including goodwill; system interruptions or failures, including complications with our enterprise resource planning system, cybersecurity breaches, identity theft or other disruptions that could compromise our information; our inability to successfully develop and implement new technologies, products and services that align with the needs of our customers, including addressing the shift to more non-traditional energy markets as part of the energy transition and the adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning; our inability to protect and maintain critical intellectual property assets, the inability to protect our current royalty income, or the losses and liabilities from adverse decisions in intellectual property disputes; loss of, or interruption to, our information and computer systems; our failure to establish and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting; restrictions on the availability of our customers to obtain water essential to the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes; changes in legislation or regulation governing the oil and natural gas industry, including restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases; our inability to meet regulatory requirements for use of certain chemicals by our tracer diagnostics business; the reduction in our ABL Facility borrowing base or our inability to comply with the covenants in our debt agreements; and our inability to obtain sufficient liquidity on reasonable terms, or at all and other factors discussed or referenced in our filings made from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any forward-looking statement made by us in this press release speaks only as of the date on which we make it. Factors or events that could cause our actual results to differ may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of them. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required by law.
Contact
Mike Morrison
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(281) 453-2222
IR@ncsmultistage.com
| NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (In thousands, except per share data) (Unaudited) |
||||||||
| Three Months Ended | ||||||||
| March 31, | ||||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| Revenues | ||||||||
| Product sales | $ | 35,066 | $ | 31,758 | ||||
| Services | 14,939 | 12,100 | ||||||
| Total revenues | 50,005 | 43,858 | ||||||
| Cost of sales | ||||||||
| Cost of product sales, exclusive of depreciation and amortization expense shown below | 20,352 | 19,692 | ||||||
| Cost of services, exclusive of depreciation and amortization expense shown below | 7,798 | 6,595 | ||||||
| Total cost of sales, exclusive of depreciation and amortization expense shown below | 28,150 | 26,287 | ||||||
| Selling, general and administrative expenses | 16,195 | 13,830 | ||||||
| Depreciation | 1,204 | 1,073 | ||||||
| Amortization | 167 | 167 | ||||||
| Income from operations | 4,289 | 2,501 | ||||||
| Other income (expense) | ||||||||
| Interest expense, net | (42 | ) | (100 | ) | ||||
| Other income, net | 883 | 1,137 | ||||||
| Foreign currency exchange loss, net | (3 | ) | (498 | ) | ||||
| Total other income | 838 | 539 | ||||||
| Income before income tax | 5,127 | 3,040 | ||||||
| Income tax expense | 673 | 487 | ||||||
| Net income | 4,454 | 2,553 | ||||||
| Net income attributable to non-controlling interest | 398 | 483 | ||||||
| Net income attributable to NCS Multistage Holdings, Inc. | $ | 4,056 | $ | 2,070 | ||||
| Earnings per common share | ||||||||
| Basic earnings per common share attributable to NCS Multistage Holdings, Inc. | $ | 1.58 | $ | 0.83 | ||||
| Diluted earnings per common share attributable to NCS Multistage Holdings, Inc. | $ | 1.51 | $ | 0.82 | ||||
| Weighted average common shares outstanding | ||||||||
| Basic | 2,568 | 2,508 | ||||||
| Diluted | 2,686 | 2,539 | ||||||
| NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (In thousands, except share data) (Unaudited) |
||||||||
| March 31, | December 31, | |||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| Assets | ||||||||
| Current assets | ||||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 22,997 | $ | 25,880 | ||||
| Accounts receivable—trade, net | 38,403 | 31,513 | ||||||
| Inventories, net | 40,756 | 40,971 | ||||||
| Prepaid expenses and other current assets | 1,852 | 2,063 | ||||||
| Other current receivables | 5,033 | 5,143 | ||||||
| Total current assets | 109,041 | 105,570 | ||||||
| Noncurrent assets | ||||||||
| Property and equipment, net | 20,477 | 21,283 | ||||||
| Goodwill | 15,222 | 15,222 | ||||||
| Identifiable intangibles, net | 3,523 | 3,690 | ||||||
| Operating lease assets | 5,773 | 5,911 | ||||||
| Deposits and other assets | 660 | 712 | ||||||
| Deferred income taxes, net | 422 | 424 | ||||||
| Total noncurrent assets | 46,077 | 47,242 | ||||||
| Total assets | $ | 155,118 | $ | 152,812 | ||||
| Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity | ||||||||
| Current liabilities | ||||||||
| Accounts payable—trade | $ | 11,751 | $ | 8,970 | ||||
| Accrued expenses | 5,348 | 8,351 | ||||||
| Income taxes payable | 1,103 | 683 | ||||||
| Operating lease liabilities | 1,676 | 1,602 | ||||||
| Current maturities of long-term debt | 2,250 | 2,141 | ||||||
| Other current liabilities | 1,737 | 3,672 | ||||||
| Total current liabilities | 23,865 | 25,419 | ||||||
| Noncurrent liabilities | ||||||||
| Long-term debt, less current maturities | 5,370 | 6,001 | ||||||
| Operating lease liabilities, long-term | 4,662 | 4,891 | ||||||
| Other long-term liabilities | 207 | 206 | ||||||
| Deferred income taxes, net | 178 | 186 | ||||||
| Total noncurrent liabilities | 10,417 | 11,284 | ||||||
| Total liabilities | 34,282 | 36,703 | ||||||
| Commitments and contingencies | ||||||||
| Stockholders’ equity | ||||||||
| Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 10,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024 | — | — | ||||||
| Common stock, $0.01 par value, 11,250,000 shares authorized, 2,607,362 shares issued and 2,540,849 shares outstanding at March 31, 2025 and 2,563,979 shares issued and 2,507,430 shares outstanding at December 31, 2024 | 26 | 26 | ||||||
| Additional paid-in capital | 447,936 | 447,384 | ||||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (87,615 | ) | (87,604 | ) | ||||
| Retained deficit | (254,968 | ) | (259,024 | ) | ||||
| Treasury stock, at cost, 66,513 shares at March 31, 2025 and 56,549 shares at December 31, 2024 | (2,211 | ) | (1,943 | ) | ||||
| Total stockholders’ equity | 103,168 | 98,839 | ||||||
| Non-controlling interest | 17,668 | 17,270 | ||||||
| Total equity | 120,836 | 116,109 | ||||||
| Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 155,118 | $ | 152,812 | ||||
| NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In thousands) (Unaudited) |
||||||
| Three Months Ended | ||||||
| March 31, | ||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||
| Cash flows from operating activities | ||||||
| Net income | $ | 4,454 | $ | 2,553 | ||
| Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash used in operating activities: | ||||||
| Depreciation and amortization | 1,371 | 1,240 | ||||
| Amortization of deferred loan costs | 52 | 51 | ||||
| Share-based compensation | 1,445 | 902 | ||||
| Provision for inventory obsolescence | (35 | ) | 316 | |||
| Deferred income tax expense | 1 | 5 | ||||
| Gain on sale of property and equipment | (36 | ) | (172 | ) | ||
| Provision for credit losses | 42 | — | ||||
| Net foreign currency unrealized loss (gain) | (849 | ) | 373 | |||
| Proceeds from note receivable | — | 61 | ||||
| Changes in operating assets and liabilities: | ||||||
| Accounts receivable—trade | (6,978 | ) | (10,282 | ) | ||
| Inventories, net | 200 | 1,521 | ||||
| Prepaid expenses and other assets | 890 | 29 | ||||
| Accounts payable—trade | 3,742 | 2,355 | ||||
| Accrued expenses | (3,003 | ) | 130 | |||
| Other liabilities | (3,273 | ) | (1,339 | ) | ||
| Income taxes receivable/payable | 332 | 377 | ||||
| Net cash used in operating activities | (1,645 | ) | (1,880 | ) | ||
| Cash flows from investing activities | ||||||
| Purchases of property and equipment | (464 | ) | (299 | ) | ||
| Purchase and development of software and technology | — | (13 | ) | |||
| Proceeds from sales of property and equipment | 13 | 176 | ||||
| Net cash used in investing activities | (451 | ) | (136 | ) | ||
| Cash flows from financing activities | ||||||
| Payments on finance leases | (522 | ) | (449 | ) | ||
| Line of credit borrowings | 1,963 | 1,158 | ||||
| Payments of line of credit borrowings | (1,963 | ) | (602 | ) | ||
| Treasury shares withheld | (268 | ) | (237 | ) | ||
| Distribution to noncontrolling interest | — | (500 | ) | |||
| Net cash used in financing activities | (790 | ) | (630 | ) | ||
| Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents | 3 | (70 | ) | |||
| Net change in cash and cash equivalents | (2,883 | ) | (2,716 | ) | ||
| Cash and cash equivalents beginning of period | 25,880 | 16,720 | ||||
| Cash and cash equivalents end of period | $ | 22,997 | $ | 14,004 | ||
| Noncash investing and financing activities | ||||||
| Assets obtained in exchange for new finance lease liabilities | $ | — | $ | 696 | ||
| Assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities | $ | 244 | $ | — | ||
| NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC. REVENUES BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA (In thousands) (Unaudited) |
||||||||
| Three Months Ended | ||||||||
| March 31, | ||||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| United States | ||||||||
| Product sales | $ | 6,867 | $ | 7,767 | ||||
| Services | 2,505 | 2,244 | ||||||
| Total United States | 9,372 | 10,011 | ||||||
| Canada | ||||||||
| Product sales | 26,843 | 22,675 | ||||||
| Services | 10,875 | 8,994 | ||||||
| Total Canada | 37,718 | 31,669 | ||||||
| Other Countries | ||||||||
| Product sales | 1,356 | 1,316 | ||||||
| Services | 1,559 | 862 | ||||||
| Total other countries | 2,915 | 2,178 | ||||||
| Total | ||||||||
| Product sales | 35,066 | 31,758 | ||||||
| Services | 14,939 | 12,100 | ||||||
| Total revenues | $ | 50,005 | $ | 43,858 | ||||
NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC.
RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin, Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation, Adjusted Gross Profit, Adjusted Gross Margin, Free Cash Flow, Free Cash Flow Less Distributions to Non-Controlling Interest and Net Working Capital (our “non-GAAP financial measures”) are not defined under generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), are not measures of net income, income from operations, gross profit and gross margin (inclusive of DD&A), cash provided by (used in) operating activities, working capital or any other performance measure derived in accordance with GAAP, and are subject to important limitations. Our non-GAAP financial measures may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies in our industry and are not measures of performance calculated in accordance with GAAP. Our non-GAAP financial measures have important limitations as analytical tools and you should not consider them in isolation or as substitutes for analysis of our financial performance as reported under GAAP, and they should not be considered as alternatives to net income, income from operations, gross profit, gross margin, cash provided by (used in) operating activities, working capital or any other performance measures derived in accordance with GAAP as measures of operating performance or as alternatives to cash flow from operating activities as measures of our liquidity.
However, EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin, Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation, Adjusted Gross Profit, Adjusted Gross Margin, Free Cash Flow, Free Cash Flow Less Distributions to Non-Controlling Interest and Net Working Capital are key metrics that management uses to assess the period-to-period performance of our core business operations or metrics that enable investors to assess our performance from period to period relative to the performance of other companies that are not subject to such factors, or who may provide similar non-GAAP measures in their public disclosures.
The tables below set forth reconciliations of our non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable measures of financial performance calculated under GAAP:
NET WORKING CAPITAL
Net working capital is defined as total current assets, excluding cash and cash equivalents, minus total current liabilities, excluding current maturities of long-term debt. Net working capital excludes cash and cash equivalents and current maturities of long-term debt in order to evaluate the investments in working capital that we believe are required to support our business. We believe that net working capital is useful in analyzing the cash flow and working capital needs of the Company, including determining the efficiencies of our operations and our ability to readily convert assets into cash.
| March 31, | December 31, | |||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| Working capital | $ | 85,176 | $ | 80,151 | ||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | (22,997 | ) | (25,880 | ) | ||||
| Current maturities of long term debt | 2,250 | 2,141 | ||||||
| Net working capital | $ | 64,429 | $ | 56,412 | ||||
NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC.
RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
ADJUSTED GROSS PROFIT AND ADJUSTED GROSS MARGIN
Adjusted gross profit is defined as total revenues minus cost of sales, exclusive of depreciation and amortization expense, which we present as a separate line item in our statement of operations. Adjusted gross margin represents adjusted gross profit as a percentage of total revenues.
| Three Months Ended | ||||||||
| March 31, | ||||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| Total revenues | $ | 50,005 | $ | 43,858 | ||||
| Total cost of sales, exclusive of depreciation and amortization expense | 28,150 | 26,287 | ||||||
| Total depreciation and amortization associated with cost of sales | 715 | 616 | ||||||
| Gross Profit | $ | 21,140 | $ | 16,955 | ||||
| Gross Margin | 42 | % | 39 | % | ||||
| Exclude total depreciation and amortization associated with cost of sales | (715 | ) | (616 | ) | ||||
| Adjusted Gross Profit | $ | 21,855 | $ | 17,571 | ||||
| Adjusted Gross Margin | 44 | % | 40 | % | ||||
NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC.
RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)
EBITDA, ADJUSTED EBITDA, ADJUSTED EBITDA MARGIN, AND ADJUSTED EBITDA LESS SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION
EBITDA is defined as net income before interest expense, net, income tax expense and depreciation and amortization. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as EBITDA adjusted to exclude certain items which we believe are not reflective of ongoing operating performance or which, in the case of share-based compensation, is non-cash in nature. Adjusted EBITDA Margin represents Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of total revenues. Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation is defined as Adjusted EBITDA minus share-based compensation expense. We believe that Adjusted EBITDA is an important measure that excludes costs that do not reflect the Company’s ongoing operating performance, legal proceedings for intellectual property as further described below, and certain costs associated with our capital structure. We believe that Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation presents our financial performance in a manner that is comparable to the presentation provided by many of our peers.
We periodically incur legal costs associated with the assertion of, or defense of, intellectual property, which we exclude from our definition of Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation, unless we believe that settlement will occur prior to any material legal spend (included in the table below as “Professional Fees”). Although these costs may recur between periods, depending on legal matters then outstanding or in process, we believe the timing of when these costs are incurred does not typically match the settlement or recoveries associated with such matters, and therefore, can distort our operating results. Similarly, we exclude from Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation the one-time settlement or recovery payment associated with these excluded legal matters when realized but would not exclude any go forward royalties or payments, if applicable. We expect to continue to incur these legal costs for current matters under appeal and for any future cases that may go to trial, provided that the amount will vary by period.
| Three Months Ended | ||||||||
| March 31, | ||||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| Net income | $ | 4,454 | $ | 2,553 | ||||
| Income tax expense | 673 | 487 | ||||||
| Interest expense, net | 42 | 100 | ||||||
| Depreciation | 1,204 | 1,073 | ||||||
| Amortization | 167 | 167 | ||||||
| EBITDA | 6,540 | 4,380 | ||||||
| Share-based compensation (a) | 552 | 766 | ||||||
| Professional fees (b) | 989 | 253 | ||||||
| Foreign currency exchange loss (c) | 3 | 498 | ||||||
| Other (d) | 130 | 180 | ||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA | $ | 8,214 | $ | 6,077 | ||||
| Adjusted EBITDA Margin | 16 | % | 14 | % | ||||
| Adjusted EBITDA Less Share-Based Compensation | $ | 7,662 | $ | 5,311 | ||||
___________________
| (a) | Represents non-cash compensation charges related to share-based compensation granted to our officers, employees and directors. |
| (b) | Represents non-capitalizable costs of professional services primarily incurred or reversed in connection with our legal proceedings associated with the assertion of, or defense of, intellectual property as further described above as well as the cost incurred for the evaluation of potential strategic transactions. |
| (c) | Represents realized and unrealized foreign currency exchange gains and losses primarily due to movement in the foreign currency exchange rates during the applicable periods. |
| (d) | Represents the impact of a research and development subsidy that is included in income tax expense in accordance with GAAP along with other charges and credits. |
NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS, INC.
RECONCILIATION OF GAAP TO NON-GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)
FREE CASH FLOW AND FREE CASH FLOW LESS DISTRIBUTIONS TO NON-CONTROLLING INTEREST
Free cash flow is defined as net cash provided by (used in) operating activities less purchases of property and equipment (inclusive of the purchase and development of software and technology) plus proceeds from sales of property and equipment, as presented in our consolidated statement of cash flows. We define free cash flow less distributions to non-controlling interest as free cash flow less amounts reported in the financing activities section of the statement of cash flows as distributions to non-controlling interest. We believe free cash flow is useful because it provides information to investors regarding the cash that was available in the period that was in excess of our needs to fund our capital expenditures and other investment needs. We believe that free cash flow less distributions to non-controlling interest is useful because it provides information to investors regarding the cash that was available in the period that was in excess of our needs to fund our capital expenditures, other investment needs, and cash distributions to our joint venture partner.
| Three Months Ended | ||||||||
| March 31, | ||||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| Net cash used in operating activities | $ | (1,645 | ) | $ | (1,880 | ) | ||
| Purchases of property and equipment | (464 | ) | (299 | ) | ||||
| Purchase and development of software and technology | — | (13 | ) | |||||
| Proceeds from sales of property and equipment | 13 | 176 | ||||||
| Free cash flow | $ | (2,096 | ) | $ | (2,016 | ) | ||
| Distributions to non-controlling interest | — | (500 | ) | |||||
| Free cash flow less distributions to non-controlling interest | $ | (2,096 | ) | $ | (2,516 | ) | ||
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
LIVERMORE, Calif., April 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FormFactor, Inc. (Nasdaq: FORM) today announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2025 ended March 29, 2025. Quarterly revenues were $171.4 million, a decrease of 9.6% compared to $189.5 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024, and an increase of 1.6% from $168.7 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2024.
“As expected, FormFactor reported sequentially lower first-quarter revenue and profitability due to anticipated reductions in demand for both DRAM probe cards and Systems,” said Mike Slessor, CEO of FormFactor, Inc. “Longer-term, we remain confident in the growth prospects for FormFactor and the semiconductor industry overall, driven by the fundamental trends of Advanced Packaging, High-Bandwidth-Memory, and Co-Packaged Optics.”
The company also announced that its Board of Directors has authorized a $75 million stock repurchase plan. This new stock repurchase authorization will expire April 23, 2027, and may be suspended, modified or discontinued at any time. Under the new repurchase authorization, repurchases may be made both in the open market and through privately negotiated transactions.
First Quarter Highlights
On a GAAP basis, net income for the first quarter of fiscal 2025 was $6.4 million, or $0.08 per fully-diluted share, compared to net income for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024 of $9.7 million, or $0.12 per fully-diluted share, and net income for the first quarter of fiscal 2024 of $21.8 million, or $0.28 per fully-diluted share. Gross margin for the first quarter of 2025 was 37.7%, compared with 38.8% in the fourth quarter of 2024, and 37.2% in the first quarter of 2024.
On a non-GAAP basis, net income for the first quarter of fiscal 2025 was $18.0 million, or $0.23 per fully-diluted share, compared to net income for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024 of $21.3 million, or $0.27 per fully-diluted share, and net income for the first quarter of fiscal 2024 of $14.3 million, or $0.18 per fully-diluted share. On a non-GAAP basis, gross margin for the first quarter of 2025 was 39.2%, compared with 40.2% in the fourth quarter of 2024, and 38.7% in the first quarter of 2024.
A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP measures is provided in the schedules included below.
GAAP net cash provided by operating activities for the first quarter of fiscal 2025 was $23.5 million, compared to $35.9 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024, and $33.0 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2024. Free cash flow for the first quarter of fiscal 2025 was $6.3 million, compared to free cash flow for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024 of $28.8 million, and free cash flow for the first quarter of 2024 of $19.7 million. A reconciliation of net cash provided by operating activities to non-GAAP free cash flow is provided in the schedules included below.
Outlook
Dr. Slessor added, “Although our sequential growth outlook is tempered by the uncertainty created by the current tariff situation, we expect to deliver double-digit sequential revenue growth, with increases across all our major served markets and segments.”
For the second quarter ending June 28, 2025, FormFactor is providing the following outlook*:
| GAAP | Reconciling Items** | Non-GAAP | |||||
| Revenue | $190 million +/- $5 million | — | $190 million +/- $5 million | ||||
| Gross Margin | 38.5% +/- 1.5% | $3 million | 40% +/- 1.5% | ||||
| Net income per diluted share | $0.18 +/- $0.04 | $0.12 | $0.30 +/- $0.04 | ||||
| *This outlook assumes consistent foreign currency rates. | |||||||
| **Reconciling items are stock-based compensation, amortization of intangible assets and fixed asset fair value adjustments due to acquisitions, and restructuring charges, net of applicable income tax impacts. | |||||||
We posted our revenue breakdown by geographic region, by market segment and with customers with greater than 10% of total revenue on the Investor Relations section of our website at www.formfactor.com. We will conduct a conference call at 1:25 p.m. PT, or 4:25 p.m. ET, today.
The public is invited to listen to a live webcast of FormFactor’s conference call on the Investor Relations section of our website at www.formfactor.com. A telephone replay of the conference call will be available approximately two hours after the conclusion of the call. The replay will be available on the Investor Relations section of our website, www.formfactor.com.
Use of Non-GAAP Financial Information:
To supplement our condensed consolidated financial results prepared under generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, we disclose certain non-GAAP measures of non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP net income per basic and diluted share, non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, non-GAAP operating income and free cash flow, that are adjusted from the nearest GAAP financial measure to exclude certain costs, expenses, gains and losses. Reconciliations of the adjustments to GAAP results for the three and three months ended March 29, 2025, and for outlook provided before, as well as for the comparable periods of fiscal 2024, are provided below, and on the Investor Relations section of our website at www.formfactor.com. Information regarding the ways in which management uses non-GAAP financial information to evaluate its business, management’s reasons for using this non-GAAP financial information, and limitations associated with the use of non-GAAP financial information, is included under “About our Non-GAAP Financial Measures” following the tables below.
About FormFactor:
FormFactor, Inc. (NASDAQ: FORM), is a leading provider of essential test and measurement technologies along the full semiconductor product life cycle – from characterization, modeling, reliability, and design de-bug, to qualification and production test. Semiconductor companies rely upon FormFactor’s products and services to accelerate profitability by optimizing device performance and advancing yield knowledge. The Company serves customers through its network of facilities in Asia, Europe, and North America. For more information, visit the Company’s website at www.formfactor.com.
Forward-looking Statements:
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the federal securities laws, including with respect to the Company’s future financial and operating results, and the Company’s plans, strategies and objectives for future operations. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs as of the date of this release, and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding future financial and operating results, including under the heading “Outlook” above, market trends, conditions in and the growth of the semiconductor industry and the Company’s performance, and other statements regarding the Company’s business. Forward-looking statements may contain words such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “forecast,” “continue,” and “prospect,” and the negative or plural of these words and similar expressions, and include the assumptions that underlie such statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements: changes in and impacts from export control, tariffs and other trade barriers; changes in demand for the Company’s products; customer-specific demand; market opportunity; anticipated industry trends; the availability, benefits, and speed of customer acceptance or implementation of new products and technologies; manufacturing, processing, and design capacity, goals, expansion, volumes, and progress; difficulties or delays in research and development; industry seasonality; risks to the Company’s realization of benefits from acquisitions; reliance on customers or third parties (including suppliers); changes in macro-economic environments; events affecting global and regional economic and market conditions and stability such as tariffs, military conflicts, political volatility, infectious diseases and pandemics, and similar factors, operating separately or in combination; and other factors, including those set forth in the Company’s most current annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other filings by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, there are varying barriers to international trade, including restrictive trade and export regulations such as the US-China restrictions, dynamic tariffs, trade disputes between the U.S. and other countries, and national security developments or tensions, that may substantially restrict or condition our sales to or in certain countries, increase the cost of doing business internationally, and disrupt our supply chain. No assurances can be given that any of the events anticipated by the forward-looking statements within this press release will transpire or occur, or if any of them do so, what impact they will have on the results of operations or financial condition of the Company. Unless required by law, the Company is under no obligation (and expressly disclaims any such obligation) to update or revise its forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
Investor Contact:
Stan Finkelstein
Investor Relations
(925) 290-4273
ir@formfactor.com
| FORMFACTOR, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (In thousands, except per share amounts) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||
| Three Months Ended | |||||||||
| March 29, 2025 |
December 28, 2024 |
March 30, 2024 |
|||||||
| Revenues | $ | 171,356 | $ | 189,483 | $ | 168,725 | |||
| Cost of revenues | 106,833 | 115,903 | 105,987 | ||||||
| Gross profit | 64,523 | 73,580 | 62,738 | ||||||
| Operating expenses: | |||||||||
| Research and development | 27,800 | 30,504 | 28,627 | ||||||
| Selling, general and administrative | 33,454 | 35,226 | 33,079 | ||||||
| Total operating expenses | 61,254 | 65,730 | 61,706 | ||||||
| Gain on sale of business | — | — | 20,271 | ||||||
| Operating income | 3,269 | 7,850 | 21,303 | ||||||
| Interest income, net | 3,317 | 3,472 | 3,156 | ||||||
| Other income, net | 890 | 617 | 520 | ||||||
| Income before income taxes | 7,476 | 11,939 | 24,979 | ||||||
| Provision for income taxes | 1,075 | 2,234 | 3,198 | ||||||
| Net income | $ | 6,401 | $ | 9,705 | $ | 21,781 | |||
| Net income per share: | |||||||||
| Basic | $ | 0.08 | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.28 | |||
| Diluted | $ | 0.08 | $ | 0.12 | $ | 0.28 | |||
| Weighted-average number of shares used in per share calculations: | |||||||||
| Basic | 77,345 | 77,267 | 77,452 | ||||||
| Diluted | 77,884 | 77,982 | 78,490 | ||||||
| FORMFACTOR, INC. NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURE RECONCILIATIONS (In thousands, except per share amounts) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||||
| Three Months Ended | |||||||||||
| March 29, 2025 |
December 28, 2024 |
March 30, 2024 |
|||||||||
| GAAP Gross Profit | $ | 64,523 | $ | 73,580 | $ | 62,738 | |||||
| Adjustments: | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangibles and fixed asset fair value adjustments due to acquisitions | 542 | 555 | 586 | ||||||||
| Stock-based compensation | 2,005 | 1,944 | 1,928 | ||||||||
| Restructuring charges | 60 | 32 | 44 | ||||||||
| Non-GAAP Gross Profit | $ | 67,130 | $ | 76,111 | $ | 65,296 | |||||
| GAAP Gross Margin | 37.7 | % | 38.8 | % | 37.2 | % | |||||
| Adjustments: | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangibles and fixed asset fair value adjustments due to acquisitions | 0.3 | % | 0.4 | % | 0.4 | % | |||||
| Stock-based compensation | 1.2 | % | 1.0 | % | 1.1 | % | |||||
| Restructuring charges | — | % | — | % | — | % | |||||
| Non-GAAP Gross Margin | 39.2 | % | 40.2 | % | 38.7 | % | |||||
| GAAP operating expenses | $ | 61,254 | $ | 65,730 | $ | 61,706 | |||||
| Adjustments: | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangibles | (191 | ) | (191 | ) | (191 | ) | |||||
| Stock-based compensation | (7,791 | ) | (8,269 | ) | (8,477 | ) | |||||
| Restructuring charges | (2,823 | ) | (371 | ) | (49 | ) | |||||
| Costs related to sale and acquisition of businesses | (217 | ) | (1,689 | ) | (646 | ) | |||||
| Non-GAAP operating expenses | $ | 50,232 | $ | 55,210 | $ | 52,343 | |||||
| GAAP operating income | $ | 3,269 | $ | 7,850 | $ | 21,303 | |||||
| Adjustments: | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangibles and fixed asset fair value adjustments due to acquisitions | 733 | 746 | 777 | ||||||||
| Stock-based compensation | 9,796 | 10,213 | 10,405 | ||||||||
| Restructuring charges | 2,883 | 403 | 93 | ||||||||
| Gain on sale of business, net of cost related to sale and acquisition of businesses | 217 | 1,689 | (19,625 | ) | |||||||
| Non-GAAP operating income | $ | 16,898 | $ | 20,901 | $ | 12,953 | |||||
| FORMFACTOR, INC. NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURE RECONCILIATIONS (In thousands, except per share amounts) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||||
| Three Months Ended | |||||||||||
| March 29, 2025 |
December 28, 2024 |
March 30, 2024 |
|||||||||
| GAAP net income | $ | 6,401 | $ | 9,705 | $ | 21,781 | |||||
| Adjustments: | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangibles and fixed asset fair value adjustments due to acquisitions | 733 | 746 | 777 | ||||||||
| Stock-based compensation | 9,796 | 10,213 | 10,405 | ||||||||
| Restructuring charges | 2,883 | 415 | 93 | ||||||||
| Gain on sale of business, net of cost related to sale and acquisition of businesses | 217 | 1,689 | (19,625 | ) | |||||||
| Income tax effect of non-GAAP adjustments | (2,026 | ) | (1,445 | ) | 913 | ||||||
| Non-GAAP net income | $ | 18,004 | $ | 21,323 | $ | 14,344 | |||||
| GAAP net income per share: | |||||||||||
| Basic | $ | 0.08 | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.28 | |||||
| Diluted | $ | 0.08 | $ | 0.12 | $ | 0.28 | |||||
| Non-GAAP net income per share: | |||||||||||
| Basic | $ | 0.23 | $ | 0.28 | $ | 0.19 | |||||
| Diluted | $ | 0.23 | $ | 0.27 | $ | 0.18 | |||||
| FORMFACTOR, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In thousands) (Unaudited) |
|||||||
| Three Months Ended | |||||||
| March 29, 2025 |
March 30, 2024 |
||||||
| Cash flows from operating activities: | |||||||
| Net income | $ | 6,401 | $ | 21,781 | |||
| Selected adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: | |||||||
| Depreciation | 8,156 | 7,193 | |||||
| Amortization | 674 | 640 | |||||
| Stock-based compensation expense | 9,796 | 10,405 | |||||
| Provision for excess and obsolete inventories | 2,879 | 3,146 | |||||
| Gain on sale of business | — | (20,271 | ) | ||||
| Non-cash restructuring charges | 2,102 | — | |||||
| Other activity impacting operating cash flows | (6,469 | ) | 10,118 | ||||
| Net cash provided by operating activities | 23,539 | 33,012 | |||||
| Cash flows from investing activities: | |||||||
| Acquisition of property, plant and equipment | (18,584 | ) | (13,436 | ) | |||
| Proceeds from sale of business | — | 21,275 | |||||
| Purchase of equity investment | (67,156 | ) | — | ||||
| Proceeds from (purchases of) marketable securities, net | 1,080 | (11,659 | ) | ||||
| Net cash used in investing activities | (84,660 | ) | (3,820 | ) | |||
| Cash flows from financing activities: | |||||||
| Purchase of common stock through stock repurchase program | (22,135 | ) | (17,334 | ) | |||
| Proceeds from issuances of common stock | 21,576 | 4,948 | |||||
| Principal repayments on term loans | (273 | ) | (266 | ) | |||
| Tax withholdings related to net share settlements of equity awards | (2,132 | ) | (1,840 | ) | |||
| Net cash used in financing activities | (2,964 | ) | (14,492 | ) | |||
| Effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash | 180 | (1,592 | ) | ||||
| Net increase (decrease) in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash | (63,905 | ) | 13,108 | ||||
| Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, beginning of period | 197,206 | 181,273 | |||||
| Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, end of period | $ | 133,301 | $ | 194,381 | |||
| FORMFACTOR, INC. RECONCILIATION OF CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES TO NON-GAAP FREE CASH FLOW (In thousands) (Unaudited) |
|||||||||||
| Three Months Ended | |||||||||||
| March 29, 2025 |
December 28, 2024 |
March 30, 2024 |
|||||||||
| Net cash provided by operating activities | $ | 23,539 | $ | 35,913 | $ | 33,012 | |||||
| Adjustments: | |||||||||||
| Sale of business and acquisition related payments in working capital | 1,221 | 506 | 47 | ||||||||
| Cash paid for interest | 92 | 93 | 100 | ||||||||
| Capital expenditures | (18,584 | ) | (7,663 | ) | (13,436 | ) | |||||
| Free cash flow | $ | 6,268 | $ | 28,849 | $ | 19,723 | |||||
| FORMFACTOR, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (In thousands) (Unaudited) |
|||||||
| March 29, 2025 |
December 28, 2024 |
||||||
| ASSETS | |||||||
| Current assets: | |||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 129,889 | $ | 190,728 | |||
| Marketable securities | 169,099 | 169,295 | |||||
| Accounts receivable, net of allowance for credit losses | 98,605 | 104,294 | |||||
| Inventories, net | 109,965 | 101,676 | |||||
| Restricted cash | 967 | 3,746 | |||||
| Prepaid expenses and other current assets | 42,716 | 35,389 | |||||
| Total current assets | 551,241 | 605,128 | |||||
| Restricted cash | 2,445 | 2,732 | |||||
| Operating lease, right-of-use-assets | 20,054 | 22,579 | |||||
| Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation | 208,317 | 210,230 | |||||
| Equity investment | 68,667 | — | |||||
| Goodwill | 199,700 | 199,171 | |||||
| Intangibles, net | 9,681 | 10,355 | |||||
| Deferred tax assets | 92,759 | 92,012 | |||||
| Other assets | 3,303 | 4,008 | |||||
| Total assets | $ | 1,156,167 | $ | 1,146,215 | |||
| LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY | |||||||
| Current liabilities: | |||||||
| Accounts payable | $ | 64,536 | $ | 62,287 | |||
| Accrued liabilities | 34,909 | 43,742 | |||||
| Current portion of term loan, net of unamortized issuance costs | 1,113 | 1,106 | |||||
| Deferred revenue | 14,996 | 15,847 | |||||
| Operating lease liabilities | 8,461 | 8,363 | |||||
| Total current liabilities | 124,015 | 131,345 | |||||
| Term loan, less current portion, net of unamortized issuance costs | 11,927 | 12,208 | |||||
| Long-term operating lease liabilities | 15,980 | 17,550 | |||||
| Deferred grant | 18,000 | 18,000 | |||||
| Other liabilities | 20,371 | 19,344 | |||||
| Total liabilities | 190,293 | 198,447 | |||||
| Stockholders’ equity: | |||||||
| Common stock | 77 | 77 | |||||
| Additional paid-in capital | 844,488 | 837,586 | |||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (6,037 | ) | (10,840 | ) | |||
| Accumulated income | 127,346 | 120,945 | |||||
| Total stockholders’ equity | 965,874 | 947,768 | |||||
| Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 1,156,167 | $ | 1,146,215 | |||
About our Non-GAAP Financial Measures:
We believe that the presentation of non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP net income per basic and diluted share, non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, non-GAAP operating income and free cash flow provides supplemental information that is important to understanding financial and business trends and other factors relating to our financial condition and results of operations. Non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP net income per basic and diluted share, non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, and non-GAAP operating income are among the primary indicators used by management as a basis for planning and forecasting future periods, and by management and our board of directors to determine whether our operating performance has met certain targets and thresholds. Management uses non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP net income per basic and diluted share, non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, and non-GAAP operating income when evaluating operating performance because it believes that the exclusion of the items indicated herein, for which the amounts or timing may vary significantly depending upon our activities and other factors, facilitates comparability of our operating performance from period to period. We use free cash flow to conduct and evaluate our business as an additional way of viewing our liquidity that, when viewed with our GAAP results, provides a more complete understanding of factors and trends affecting our cash flows. Many investors also prefer to track free cash flow, as opposed to only GAAP earnings. Free cash flow has limitations due to the fact that it does not represent the residual cash flow available for discretionary expenditures, and therefore it is important to view free cash flow as a complement to our entire consolidated statements of cash flows. We have chosen to provide this non-GAAP information to investors so they can analyze our operating results closer to the way that management does, and use this information in their assessment of our business and the valuation of our Company. We compute non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP net income per basic and diluted share, non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, and non-GAAP operating income, by adjusting GAAP net income, GAAP net income per basic and diluted share, GAAP gross profit, GAAP gross margin, GAAP operating expenses, and GAAP operating income to remove the impact of certain items and the tax effect, if applicable, of those adjustments. These non-GAAP measures are not in accordance with, or an alternative to, GAAP, and may be materially different from other non-GAAP measures, including similarly titled non-GAAP measures used by other companies. The presentation of this additional information should not be considered in isolation from, as a substitute for, or superior to, net income, net income per basic and diluted share, gross profit, gross margin, operating expenses, or operating income in accordance with GAAP. Non-GAAP financial measures have limitations in that they do not reflect certain items that may have a material impact upon our reported financial results. We may expect to continue to incur expenses of a nature similar to the non-GAAP adjustments described above, and exclusion of these items from our non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP net income per basic and diluted share, non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross margin, non-GAAP operating expenses, and non-GAAP operating income should not be construed as an inference that these costs are unusual, infrequent or non-recurring. For more information on the non-GAAP adjustments, please see the table captioned “Non-GAAP Financial Measure Reconciliations” and “Reconciliation of Cash Provided by Operating Activities to non-GAAP Free Cash Flow” included in this press release.
Source: FormFactor, Inc.
FORM-F
Source: Government of Canada News
Ottawa, Ontario, April 30, 2025—The Canadian International Trade Tribunal today continued its order made on August 22, 2019, in expiry review RR‑2018‑003, continuing, without amendment, its finding made on November 19, 2013, in inquiry NQ‑2013‑003, concerning the dumping and subsidizing of silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight, and silicon metal containing between 89.00 percent and 96.00 percent silicon by weight that contains aluminum greater than 0.20 percent by weight, of all forms and sizes, from the People’s Republic of China.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal found that the expiry of the order was likely to result in injury to the domestic industry. As such, the Tribunal continued its order. The Canada Border Services Agency will therefore continue to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on this product.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is an independent quasi-judicial body that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Finance. It hears cases on dumped and subsidized imports, safeguard complaints, complaints about federal government procurement and appeals of customs and excise tax rulings. When requested by the federal government, the Tribunal also provides advice on other economic, trade and tariff matters.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
April 30, 2025
“These reports raise questions about the nature of your conversations with President Trump, and what promises or favors you may have received in exchange for your subservience to him.”
Text of Letter (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) slammed Amazon founder Jeff Bezos in a new letter, following reports that Amazon considered an initiative to illustrate the cost of President Trump’s tariffs to customers — only to reverse course after a private conversation between Bezos and Trump.
“If Amazon had followed through on any plans to provide transparency on tariff costs, it could have provided important information for consumers, allowing them to find out for themselves some of the true costs of President Trump’s broad and chaotic tariff policies,” wrote Senator Warren.
Amazon, one of the nation’s largest retailers, has a significant stake in the outcome of President Trump’s tariffs. According to a recent report, Amazon was planning to “show how much [President] Trump’s tariffs are adding to the price of each product” on at least one of its websites by displaying “how much of an item’s cost is derived from tariffs.”
On Tuesday morning, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke strongly against Amazon’s decision to show the price of tariffs, calling the move a “hostile and political act.” But before the company could put this plan into place, President Trump reportedly called Bezos and asked him to intervene. The price transparency initiative was then reversed.
President Trump confirmed Bezos’s role in the decision not to provide transparency on tariff costs, saying that “Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific… He solved the problem very quickly. Good guy.”
“[Y]esterday’s activity appears to be another example of Big Tech working together with President Trump to seek special favors or support his policies in what can appear to be a quid pro quo,” wrote Senator Warren, highlighting the chaos, corruption, and economic damage that has accompanied Trump’s tariff rollout. She requested that Bezos provide information about the nature of his conversations with Trump and any potential secret deals between the two.
Senator Warren previously pressed Apple CEO Tim Cook on his engagement with the Trump administration following its announcement of China tariffs, which resulted in massive tariff exemptions for Apple products.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and colleagues introduced a resolution designating April 29th, 2025, as “National Fentanyl Awareness Day” to highlight the dangers of counterfeit fentanyl pills.
“Tens of thousands of Americans die each year from fentanyl. In President Trump’s first 100 Days, Republicans have done their best to fight this epidemic, including advancing my HALT Fentanyl Act,” said Dr. Cassidy. “Let’s bring the death toll to zero.”
“Fentanyl overdoses claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans last year, many of whom suffered from accidental poisonings after taking counterfeit prescription pills. President Trump has taken strong action to stem the flow of fentanyl pills. Additionally, Congress must act to hold corporations accountable for their role in the illicit drug trade,” Grassley said. “Our resolution demonstrates continuing resolve to put an end to America’s fentanyl epidemic.” “Fentanyl overdoses claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans last year, many of whom suffered from accidental poisonings after taking counterfeit prescription pills. President Trump has taken strong action to stem the flow of fentanyl pills. Additionally, Congress must act to hold corporations accountable for their role in the illicit drug trade,” said Senator Grassley. “Our resolution demonstrates continuing resolve to put an end to America’s fentanyl epidemic.”
Cassidy and Grassley were joined by U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Fetterman (D-PA), Dave McCormick (R-PA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Steve Daines (R-MT), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Jim Justice (R-WV), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jim Risch (R-ID), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Todd Young (R-IN), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) Deb Fischer (R-NE), Jerry Moran (R-KS), John Hoeven (R-ND), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Joni Ernst (R-IA), and Susan Collins (R-ME).
Background
In February, Cassidy spoke on the U.S. Senate floor amid Senate Democrats’ attempt to undermine his HALT Fentanyl Act to make permanent the temporary classification of fentanyl-related substances as a Schedule I drug of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Drug overdoses, largely driven by fentanyl, are the leading cause of death among young adults aged 18 to 45 years old. Synthetic opioids like fentanyl account for 66 percent of the total U.S. overdose deaths. In the last two fiscal years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized record amounts of fentanyl —nearly 50,000 pounds—enough to produce more than 2 billion lethal doses. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2023, there were an estimated 107,543 drug overdose deaths—74,702 of which were attributed to fentanyl. This was primarily fueled by synthetic opioids, including illegal fentanyl, which are largely manufactured in Mexico from raw materials supplied by China. In 2022, there were over 50.6 million fentanyl-laced fake prescription pills seized by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), more than doubling the amount seized in 2021.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
The Secretary for Culture, Sports and Tourism, Miss Rosanna Law, continued her visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Miss Law met with the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Culture of the UAE, HE Mubarak Al Nakhi, today (April 30, Abu Dhabi time). She highlighted Hong Kong’s ongoing efforts to strengthen international cultural exchanges, expressing strong interest in collaborations with the UAE, a key partner under the Belt and Road Initiative. Miss Law looked forward to establishing closer cultural links and was glad to have identified new opportunities for cooperation on performing arts with the country.
Earlier, on April 29 (Dubai time), Miss Law met the Chief Executive Officer of the Dubai Future Foundation (the Foundation) and Vice Chairman of Dubai Sports Council, HE Khalfan Belhoul. She was impressed by Dubai’s visionary initiatives, such as the Foundation’s projects in artificial intelligence, robotics, and sustainability, as well as the government’s forward-thinking approach in shaping a sustainable and better future for the world. On the sports development front, discussions focused on integrating creativity, innovation, and technology into youth education, with both parties noted the shared aspirations of Hong Kong and Dubai. Miss Law highlighted the similarities in both regions’ sports landscapes, emphasising opportunities for collaboration.
In that afternoon, Miss Law met with the Chief Executive Officer of Dubai Corporation for Tourism and Commerce Marketing at Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism, HE Issam Kazim. The discussions underscored shared goals of enhancing tourism through innovative collaboration. Miss Law also noted how Hong Kong is actively promoting tailor-made, high-end travel packages to attract the Middle East tourists.
Miss Law also paid a courtesy call on and attended a dinner hosted by the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People’s Republic of China to the UAE, Mr Zhang Yiming last night (April 29, Abu Dhabi time). Ambassador Zhang highlighted Hong Kong’s unique strengths as a global hub for business, culture, and tourism. He also underlined the importance of and expressed optimism about the city’s promising future in engaging the Middle East. Miss Law remarked that through the visit, she gained a deeper understanding of the UAE’s proactive and ambitious vision, affirming that Hong Kong and the UAE share many parallels in their development strategies. She emphasised the importance of leveraging these synergies to foster stronger ties between the two regions and expressed her gratitude to the Embassy for its strong support to Hong Kong.
While in the UAE, Miss Law visited a number of iconic historical and tourist attractions, taking herself in the country’s vibrant cultural and architectural marvels. These included the Burj Khalifa and the Museum of the Future in Dubai (April 29, Dubai time), as well as the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, the national and cultural landmark; the Qasr Al Watan, the Presidential Palace; and the Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum, in Abu Dhabi (April 30, Abu Dhabi time) to gain insights into their operations, tourism appeal and the possible collaboration of cultural exchanges.
Miss Law will conclude her visit to the UAE and depart for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia tonight (April 30, Abu Dhabi time).
Source: Republic of China Taiwan
MOFA welcomes ANZMIN joint statement supporting cross-strait peace and stability
Date:2024-12-07
Data Source:Department of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
December 7, 2024No. 452 Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles and Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong met with New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Judith Collins in Auckland on December 6 for the second Australia-New Zealand Foreign and Defence Ministerial Consultations (ANZMIN) this year. In the joint statement issued after the meeting, they reiterated the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, opposed unilateral changes to the status quo, and expressed concern over the situation in the South China Sea. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) welcomes and appreciates this statement. Australia and New Zealand are important friends of Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific region, and bilateral relations with both countries have made significant strides in recent years. Given that maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea has become a global consensus, MOFA invites the international community to continue expressing its concerns and take practical action to uphold the rules-based international order. The Taiwan government will continue to promote values-based diplomacy and work with like-minded countries to advance democracy, peace, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. (E)
Source: Republic of China Taiwan
MOFA responds to China’s military activities around first island chain; urges international community to jointly safeguard cross-strait peace and stability
Date:2024-12-11
Data Source:Department of Policy Planning
December 11, 2024
No. 457
China has recently deployed large numbers of PLA Navy and China Coast Guard vessels around the first island chain for days-long military exercises. It has also repeatedly dispatched military aircraft and vessels to harass Taiwan, unilaterally disrupting peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, unnecessarily escalating regional tensions, and interfering with regular international shipping and trade. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) demands that the Beijing authorities immediately cease their military intimidation and all other unreasonable behavior that is jeopardizing regional peace and stability.
An international consensus has been reached on the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific region. Although cross-strait and regional developments are closely followed by the international community, China continues to ramp up rhetorical and military intimidation against Taiwan. China’s large-scale military buildup around the first island chain has created uncertainty and risk, giving countries in the region cause for concern. This underscores the fact that China is a destabilizing force that is undermining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.
China’s provocative actions toward Taiwan and other countries in the region are a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which stipulates that all countries must refrain from the threat or use of force to infringe on the territorial sovereignty of another country. MOFA solemnly demands that China immediately stop violating international law and demonstrate that it can be a responsible major power.
Taiwan will do its utmost to fulfill its international responsibilities, calmly respond to China’s military threats, staunchly safeguard its sovereignty and national security, and firmly defend democracy and freedom. MOFA urges democratic partners worldwide to unite with Taiwan to jointly counter authoritarian expansionism and encroachment, prevent repeated attempts to unilaterally and deliberately disrupt the status quo, uphold the rules-based international order, and together preserve peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific. (E)
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chee Meng Tan, Assistant Professor of Business Economics, University of Nottingham
US ports are now starting to see scheduled shipments from China decline as the result of Donald Trump’s 145% tariffs on Chinese goods. The port of Los Angeles, the biggest port for Chinese goods in the US, is predicting scheduled shipments in early May to be about a third lower than the same time last year.
Declining numbers of ships arriving stocked with Chinese imports are likely to affect US supermarket shelves soon, and after warnings from US supermarket bosses, Trump responded by saying trade talks between the US and China were under way in the past few days. But Chinese president Xi Jinping quickly denied talks were happening, suggesting he has no intention of backing away from a fight with the US.
As one of the most powerful leaders in the history of the People’s Republic of China, Xi has fashioned himself as a nationalistic icon. So if China perceives Trump’s tariffs as a bully tactic designed to undermine it, backing down from a confrontation with the US would seriously undermine Xi’s strongman image and rhetoric.
This is something that Trump probably hadn’t considered. At a rally marking his 100 days in office, the US president was still suggesting that China would just back down and “eat the tariffs”.
While tariffs appear to be the primary weapon in the trade war, China might have more tactics to hit back at Trump and the US economy. The question is what might they be?
A few weeks ago it seemed like Washington might punish China’s lack of willingness to negotiate with more tariffs, but now it’s clear that Trump is willing to make a deal and is trying to get China to come to the table. Trump is now implying that US tariffs on China could come down substantially. And US treasury secretary Scott Bessent has called the trade war with China “unsustainable”.
China has reduced its reliance on US farm imports since the trade war began in Trump’s first presidency. This is bad news for Washington as agriculture is one few sectors in the US that actually has a large trade surplus with China. The 125% retaliatory tariffs will harm the sector’s profitability.
But China’s retaliatory tariffs aren’t the only issue American farmers have to contend with. As the trade war escalates, China has been using bureaucratic hurdles to restrict US agricultural products from entering China and as a potential negotiation tool. For instance, China has delayed the renewals of export license renewals of US pig farmers, and refused to renew licenses of poultry farmers for “health and safety” reasons.
Beijing’s actions might be designed to particularly hit the economy in core Trump supporting states. A major part of Trump and the Republican party’s base lies in “red states”, such as Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, all have significant farming communities. Focusing on agricultural issues is a tactic that Beijing realises will hit home with Trump voters.
Out of the 444 US counties designated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as farming-dependent, 77.7% voted for Trump during the 2024 US presidential election. So, any hardship faced by the agriculture sector due to Trump’s own actions is likely to lose him support from a major political base. And with mid-term elections in 2026, Trump has to tread carefully when antagonising Beijing.
Another support base that Beijing might seek to undermine is those involved in the fossil fuel sector. In the past, the US has been a top supplier of natural gas to China.
China has not imported natural gas from the US since early February 2025, and has sought its natural gas from Australia, Indonesia, and Brunei. As the trade war continues, it is unlikely that the US would be able to sell its natural gas to China anytime soon, and this will have an impact on the energy industry – one of Trump’s major political support bases.
Another huge problem that the US faces stems from China’s restriction of the export of critical minerals. They include seven rare earth minerals namely samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. While these are used in the clean energy and automobile sectors, the biggest concern would come from the US defence complex.
These critical minerals are used in manufacturing fighter jets, submarines, missiles, and radar systems. China has an effective monopoly on the extraction and processing of rare earths, while the US lacks such capabilities. This means that China’s export restrictions are likely to affect America’s defence industry, while Beijing rapidly expands its ammunition and military technology.
The White House probably anticipated export restrictions of critical minerals from China. After all, Beijing had banned the export of critical minerals to Japan in 2010 over a fishing trawler dispute, and stopped exporting “dual-use” metals that can be used to produce civilian and military technology, such as gallium, germanium and tungsten.
For the last few years, China has been trying to overcome an ailing economy that was primarily fuelled by a real-estate crisis. Trump probably expected China to buckle under pressure and come crawling to the negotiation table. After all, the Chinese Communist Party needs to fix its economy fast. The establishment has long relied on delivering economic prosperity to legitimise its rule over China.
Right now the tit-for-tat battle continues. By April 11, US tariffs on China peaked at 145%, while China’s retaliatory tariffs on US goods reached an unprecedented 125%.
Although it is clearly fighting back, China could go even further by selling off US treasuries and increasing US interest rates and thus borrowing cost. But unlike Trump, Xi often plays the long game. After all, Trump’s term as president will be over in less than four years, while Chinese president Xi has no term limits. All the latter has to do is exercise patience, and a friendlier US president might come around.
Chee Meng Tan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. China has identified how to fight back against Trump’s tariffs, and is not ready to back down – https://theconversation.com/china-has-identified-how-to-fight-back-against-trumps-tariffs-and-is-not-ready-to-back-down-255325
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, UK edition
Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and limiting energy consumption to tackle climate change is “a strategy doomed to fail” according to former UK prime minister Tony Blair.
In the foreword of a new report, Blair urges governments to rethink their approach to reaching net zero emissions.
Instead of policies that are seen by people as involving “financial sacrifices”, he says world leaders should deploy carbon capture and storage, including technological and nature-based approaches, to meet the rising demand for fossil fuels.
But speak to many academic experts on climate change and they will tell a very different story: that there is no strategy for addressing climate change that does not involve ending, or at least massively reducing, fossil fuel combustion.
This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.
“There is a wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that a fossil fuel phase-out will be essential for reining in the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change,” says Steve Pye, an associate professor of energy at UCL.
Read more:
COP28 president is wrong – science clearly shows fossil fuels must go (and fast)
“I know because I have published some of it.”
Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, agrees.
“Rapidly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, and not issuing new licenses to extract oil and gas, is the most effective way of minimising future climate-related disruptions,” he says.
Read more:
Science shows the severe climate consequences of new fossil fuel extraction
“The sooner those with the power to shape our future recognise this, the better.”
Fossil fuels are responsible for 90% of the carbon dioxide heating the climate. The amount burned annually is still rising, and so is the rate at which the world is getting hotter. Scientists now fear we are approaching irreversible tipping points in the climate system, hence their support for an urgent replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy.
Read more:
Climate tipping points are nearer than you think – our new report warns of catastrophic risk
Blair is confident that an emergency response on this scale can be avoided by absorbing CO₂ immediately after burning fossil fuels, from the smokestacks where the greenhouse gas is concentrated.
Not all of the emissions responsible for climate change would be prevented. UCL earth system scientist Mark Maslin says that natural gas, which would linger as an energy source thanks to carbon capture, still leaks from pipelines and storage vessels upstream of power plants.
Read more:
The UK’s £22 billion bet on carbon capture will lock in fossil fuels for decades
Commercial applications of the technology also have a poor track record. Just two large-scale coal-fired power plants are operating with CCS worldwide – one in the US and one in Canada.
“Both have experienced consistent underperformance, recurring technical issues and ballooning costs,” Maslin says.
Blair might baulk at what he perceives to be the expense of ditching fossil fuels. But economic modelling led by Oxford University’s Andrea Bacilieri suggests his concern is misplaced. A rapid phase-out of fossil fuels could save US$30 trillion (US$1 trillion a year) by 2050 she concludes, compared with allowing power plants and factories to keep burning them with CCS.
Developing CCS will be necessary to help manage an orderly transition from fossil fuels according to Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at Oxford University. But it is not a substitute for undergoing that transition, he says.
Read more:
Getting carbon capture right will be hard – but that doesn’t make it optional
“Above all, we need to make sure the availability of CCS does not encourage yet more CO₂ production.”
Is Blair right to fret about a public backlash to lower energy use? Academics suggest multiple reasons to think otherwise if the alternative is prolonging the use of fossil fuels.
Read more:
Should you get a heat pump? Here’s how they compare to a gas boiler
Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump that runs on electricity, for example, can lower a household’s energy consumption without a deliberate effort. That’s because renewable appliances convert power to heat more efficiently (how much depends on how well insulated the home is).
In fact, it’s dependence on fossil fuel that is preventing many households from making this switch. The high wholesale price of gas determines the cost of electricity for UK consumers.
Read more:
How gas keeps the UK’s electricity bills so high – despite lots of cheap wind power
And surveys repeatedly show that support for net zero policies is broad and deep in the UK – including those that would involve lifestyle changes say Lorraine Whitmarsh (University of Bath), Caroline Verfuerth and Steve Westlake (both Cardiff University), who research public behaviour and climate change.
“Crucially, the public wants and needs the government to show clear and consistent leadership on climate change,” they say.
Meanwhile, what can corrode public acceptance of sacrifices is the high-consuming behaviour of a minority (think pop stars in rockets, as Westlake recently argued). And, arguably, the statements of powerful people like Blair.
Read more:
Why Katy Perry’s celebrity spaceflight blazed a trail for climate breakdown
New research even suggests the politics that Blair and many others like him favour might also play a role here. Felix Schulz (Lund University) and Christian Bretter (The University of Queensland) are social scientists who study how ideology affects personal views on climate policy.
They identified respondents in six countries (the UK, US, Germany, Brazil, South Africa and China) who shared Blair’s neoliberal worldview, which the pair define as a belief that individuals are primarily responsible for their own fortune, and need to take care of themselves – as well as an abiding faith in the free market.
Read more:
People with neoliberal views are less likely to support climate-friendly policies – new research
“We observed a strong link between a neoliberal worldview and lack of support for the climate policies in our study,” they say.
Schulz and Bretter urge us to consider how someone’s ideology ultimately shapes their understanding of the problem and its solutions as well.
– ref. Tony Blair opposes phasing out fossil fuels. These academics disagree – https://theconversation.com/tony-blair-opposes-phasing-out-fossil-fuels-these-academics-disagree-254530
Source: US State of North Dakota
Company’s Prompt Self-Disclosure and Extraordinary Cooperation Led to Employee’s Successful Prosecution for Unlawfully Exporting Software to a Restricted Chinese University
Note: View the declination letter here.
The Justice Department today announced that it has declined the prosecution of Universities Space Research Association (USRA) after it self-disclosed to the Department’s National Security Division (NSD) criminal violations of U.S. export control laws committed by its former employee, Jonathan Soong. Soong pleaded guilty to willfully violating the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by exporting U.S. Army-developed aviation software to a university in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that had been placed on the Commerce Department’s Entity List and was sentenced to 20 months in prison.
“If we stay vigilant, all of us — including our citizens, small businesses, and large corporations — can play a critical role in protecting our country,” said Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “A criminal who compromised our national security was brought to justice because his employer caught him and immediately turned him in. We decline to prosecute his employer and are ready to work together with such responsible corporate actors who are committed to joining us in this fight to protect our country from foreign adversaries.”
“USRA discovered that one of its employees was funneling sensitive aeronautics software to a Beijing university in violation of export control laws and at risk to our national security,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Patrick D. Robbins for the Northern District of California. “What the company did next made all the difference in the Government’s decision not to prosecute it: the company took swift and proactive measures to disclose the employee’s wrongdoing, provide all known facts, and cooperate – and continue to cooperate – with the government’s investigation.”
According to court documents, in April 2016, USRA contracted with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to, among other things, license and distribute for a fee aeronautics-related and U.S. Army-owned flight control software. Soong was employed by USRA as a program administrator under the contract and was responsible for performing due diligence on prospective purchasers to ensure that the sale or transfer of software licenses complied with applicable law, including by checking the Entity List. Soong willfully exported software subject to the EAR to Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, also known as Beihang University (Beihang), a university in the PRC, knowing that an export control license was required for the export to Beihang because it was on the Entity List. Beihang was on the Commerce Department’s Entity List due to its involvement in the development of military rocket systems and unmanned air vehicle systems. Soong further used an intermediary to complete the transfer and export of the software to Beihang to avoid detection, and embezzled tens of thousands of dollars in software license sales by directing purchasers to make payment to an account he personally owned and controlled.
This scheme continued until NASA inquired about the sales of software licenses to PRC-based purchasers and USRA began to investigate. Soong initially lied to USRA and fabricated evidence that he had conducted due diligence on the purchasers and provided it to USRA’s counsel to provide to NASA, but after USRA’s counsel investigated further and confronted Soong with evidence that contradicted his statements, he admitted to knowing that Beihang was on the Entity List when he exported the software to Beihang and that a license had been required for the export.
Within days of learning that Soong had willfully violated U.S. export control laws, and before USRA had completed its own investigation to understand the scope of the misconduct, USRA self-disclosed the crime to NSD and fully cooperated with the ensuing criminal investigation, which eventually established that Soong had acted alone at USRA. USRA’s cooperation included proactively identifying, collecting, and disclosing relevant evidence to investigators, including foreign language evidence and evidence located overseas, and providing detailed and timely responses to the government’s requests for information and evidence. USRA remediated the root cause of the misconduct by disciplining a supervisory employee who failed appropriately to supervise Soong, and by significantly improving its internal controls and compliance program. USRA also compensated the government both for the funds Soong embezzled, and for the time Soong had spent embezzling funds instead of performing his duties under USRA’s contract with NASA.
The Justice Department declined USRA’s prosecution after considering the factors set forth in the Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations and the National Security Division Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations (NSD Enforcement Policy). The NSD Enforcement Policy creates a presumption that companies that (1) voluntarily self-disclose to NSD potentially criminal violations arising out of or relating to the enforcement of export control or sanctions laws, (2) fully cooperate, and (3) timely and appropriately remediate will generally receive a non-prosecution agreement, unless aggravating factors are present. In appropriate cases, the NSD Enforcement Policy authorizes prosecutors to go further, and exercise discretion to decline a company’s prosecution. This is the second time that NSD has exercised its discretion to decline the prosecution of a company under the NSD Enforcement Policy.
The case was investigated by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security; the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service; and the FBI. The NASA Office of Inspector General; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division; U.S. Army Counterintelligence; and the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations provided valuable assistance.
Trial Attorney Rachel Craft of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Barbara Valliere for the Northern District of California prosecuted the case.
Source: United States Attorneys General
Company’s Prompt Self-Disclosure and Extraordinary Cooperation Led to Employee’s Successful Prosecution for Unlawfully Exporting Software to a Restricted Chinese University
Note: View the declination letter here.
The Justice Department today announced that it has declined the prosecution of Universities Space Research Association (USRA) after it self-disclosed to the Department’s National Security Division (NSD) criminal violations of U.S. export control laws committed by its former employee, Jonathan Soong. Soong pleaded guilty to willfully violating the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by exporting U.S. Army-developed aviation software to a university in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that had been placed on the Commerce Department’s Entity List and was sentenced to 20 months in prison.
“If we stay vigilant, all of us — including our citizens, small businesses, and large corporations — can play a critical role in protecting our country,” said Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “A criminal who compromised our national security was brought to justice because his employer caught him and immediately turned him in. We decline to prosecute his employer and are ready to work together with such responsible corporate actors who are committed to joining us in this fight to protect our country from foreign adversaries.”
“USRA discovered that one of its employees was funneling sensitive aeronautics software to a Beijing university in violation of export control laws and at risk to our national security,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Patrick D. Robbins for the Northern District of California. “What the company did next made all the difference in the Government’s decision not to prosecute it: the company took swift and proactive measures to disclose the employee’s wrongdoing, provide all known facts, and cooperate – and continue to cooperate – with the government’s investigation.”
According to court documents, in April 2016, USRA contracted with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to, among other things, license and distribute for a fee aeronautics-related and U.S. Army-owned flight control software. Soong was employed by USRA as a program administrator under the contract and was responsible for performing due diligence on prospective purchasers to ensure that the sale or transfer of software licenses complied with applicable law, including by checking the Entity List. Soong willfully exported software subject to the EAR to Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, also known as Beihang University (Beihang), a university in the PRC, knowing that an export control license was required for the export to Beihang because it was on the Entity List. Beihang was on the Commerce Department’s Entity List due to its involvement in the development of military rocket systems and unmanned air vehicle systems. Soong further used an intermediary to complete the transfer and export of the software to Beihang to avoid detection, and embezzled tens of thousands of dollars in software license sales by directing purchasers to make payment to an account he personally owned and controlled.
This scheme continued until NASA inquired about the sales of software licenses to PRC-based purchasers and USRA began to investigate. Soong initially lied to USRA and fabricated evidence that he had conducted due diligence on the purchasers and provided it to USRA’s counsel to provide to NASA, but after USRA’s counsel investigated further and confronted Soong with evidence that contradicted his statements, he admitted to knowing that Beihang was on the Entity List when he exported the software to Beihang and that a license had been required for the export.
Within days of learning that Soong had willfully violated U.S. export control laws, and before USRA had completed its own investigation to understand the scope of the misconduct, USRA self-disclosed the crime to NSD and fully cooperated with the ensuing criminal investigation, which eventually established that Soong had acted alone at USRA. USRA’s cooperation included proactively identifying, collecting, and disclosing relevant evidence to investigators, including foreign language evidence and evidence located overseas, and providing detailed and timely responses to the government’s requests for information and evidence. USRA remediated the root cause of the misconduct by disciplining a supervisory employee who failed appropriately to supervise Soong, and by significantly improving its internal controls and compliance program. USRA also compensated the government both for the funds Soong embezzled, and for the time Soong had spent embezzling funds instead of performing his duties under USRA’s contract with NASA.
The Justice Department declined USRA’s prosecution after considering the factors set forth in the Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations and the National Security Division Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations (NSD Enforcement Policy). The NSD Enforcement Policy creates a presumption that companies that (1) voluntarily self-disclose to NSD potentially criminal violations arising out of or relating to the enforcement of export control or sanctions laws, (2) fully cooperate, and (3) timely and appropriately remediate will generally receive a non-prosecution agreement, unless aggravating factors are present. In appropriate cases, the NSD Enforcement Policy authorizes prosecutors to go further, and exercise discretion to decline a company’s prosecution. This is the second time that NSD has exercised its discretion to decline the prosecution of a company under the NSD Enforcement Policy.
The case was investigated by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security; the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service; and the FBI. The NASA Office of Inspector General; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division; U.S. Army Counterintelligence; and the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations provided valuable assistance.
Trial Attorney Rachel Craft of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Barbara Valliere for the Northern District of California prosecuted the case.
Source: Microsoft
Headline: Microsoft announces new European digital commitments
Forty-two years ago, Microsoft released the very first version of Microsoft Word. It was a major milestone in the company’s journey to enhance people’s productivity through innovation. It also marked the young and growing company’s first big step in Europe with the first Microsoft product localized in multiple European languages, starting with German and French.
Since then, our economic reliance on Europe has always run deep. We recognize that our business is critically dependent on sustaining the trust of customers, countries, and governments across Europe. We respect European values, comply with European laws, and actively defend Europe’s cybersecurity. Our support for Europe has always been–and always will be–steadfast.
In a time of geopolitical volatility, we are committed to providing digital stability. That is why today Microsoft is announcing five digital commitments to Europe. These start with an expansion of our cloud and AI infrastructure in Europe, aimed at enabling every country to fully use these technologies to strengthen their economic competitiveness. And they include a promise to uphold Europe’s digital resilience regardless of geopolitical and trade volatility.
As a multinational company, we believe in trans-Atlantic ties that promote mutual economic growth and prosperity. We were pleased the Trump administration and the European Union recently agreed to suspend further tariff escalation while they seek to negotiate a reciprocal trade agreement. We hope that successful talks can resolve tariff issues and reduce non-tariff barriers, consistent with the recommendations in the recent Draghi report.
We will always be dedicated to creating jobs, promoting economic opportunities, and strengthening cybersecurity on both sides of the Atlantic. The five commitments below, like the very first European version of Microsoft Word, take our support for Europe another step forward.
We recognize that European nations want and need a world class and broad AI and cloud ecosystem. Today, we are announcing plans to increase our European datacenter capacity by 40% over the next two years. We are expanding datacenter operations in 16 European countries. When combined with our recent construction, the plans we’re announcing today will more than double our European datacenter capacity between 2023 and 2027. It will result in cloud operations in more than 200 datacenters across the continent.
This expansion will play an important role in boosting Europe’s economic growth and competitiveness. We believe that broad AI diffusion will be one of the most important drivers of innovation and productivity growth over the next decade. Like electricity and other general-purpose technologies in the past, AI and cloud datacenters represent the next stage of industrialization. They are creating real-world capabilities to fuel business and manufacturing innovation, run national health systems, enable secure government services, and support digital tools in education—all while keeping data and operations close to home, subject to European laws and regulations.
Our public cloud datacenters are a foundation for the diversified cloud ecosystem we are committed to supporting across Europe. This includes the Microsoft Cloud for Sovereignty, a package of technologies and configurations to help governments and other customers run on Azure in our public cloud datacenters with greater control over data location, encryption, and administrative access.
A second aspect of our diversified approach involves sovereign cloud datacenters. In France, Microsoft has partnered with Capgemini and Orange, who formed a joint venture named Bleu. Designed as a “cloud de confiance” (trusted cloud) platform, Bleu offers a broad range of Microsoft Azure cloud services and Microsoft 365 productivity tools operated under French control. In Germany, a similar sovereign cloud initiative is underway through a partnership between Microsoft, SAP, and Arvato Systems (a Bertelsmann IT subsidiary). This effort, through SAP’s subsidiary, Delos Cloud GmbH, is creating a sovereign cloud platform for the German public sector, hosted in German datacenters and operated by German personnel.
A third aspect of our work involves our collaboration with European cloud providers to offer Microsoft applications and services on their local cloud infrastructure. This partnership provides these European providers with the opportunity to run Microsoft applications on more favorable terms than we make available to Amazon and Google. Additionally, we are developing new technology and licensing solutions tailored for these European providers and the markets they serve.
Given recent geopolitical volatility, we recognize that European governments likely will consider additional options. Some of these may involve public financing to support European home-grown offerings. We recognize the importance of a diversified technology ecosystem, and we are committed to collaborating with European participants across the tech ecosystem.
Microsoft is investing tens of billions of dollars annually in expanding its datacenters across Europe. These investments aren’t on wheels. They are permanent structures and subject to local laws, regulations, and governments. Like every citizen and company, we don’t always agree with every policy of every government. But even when we’ve lost cases in European courts, Microsoft has long respected and complied with European laws.
We understand that European laws apply to our business practices in Europe, just as local laws apply to local practices in the United States and similar laws apply elsewhere in the world. This includes European competition law and the Digital Markets Act, among others. We’re committed not only to building digital infrastructure for Europe, but to respecting the role that laws across Europe play in regulating our products and services.
By building a European cloud for Europe, Microsoft is committed to helping Europe navigate the uncertain geopolitical and trade environment and better manage risk by strengthening the continent’s digital resilience. We will always strive to be a voice of reason that promotes mutual opportunities and stable ties across the Atlantic. We in fact believe that even amidst current trade and tariff disputes, there is a strong consensus in Washington supporting the sustained flow of digital services from the United States to Europe.
We also are listening closely to the views of European governments and leaders. We recognize that European countries, like nations everywhere, need to have rock-solid confidence in the digital infrastructure on which they rely. To ensure this confidence, we will take the following three steps:
Microsoft is headquartered in the United States, but we provide cloud services to Europe through corporate entities headquartered in Europe. To further cement the nexus between Microsoft and Europe, going forward our European datacenter operations and their boards will be overseen by a European board of directors that consists exclusively of European nationals and operates under European law.
In the unlikely event we are ever ordered by any government anywhere in the world to suspend or cease cloud operations in Europe, we are committing that Microsoft will promptly and vigorously contest such a measure using all legal avenues available, including by pursuing litigation in court. By including a new European Digital Resilience Commitment in all of our contracts with European national governments and the European Commission, we will make this commitment legally binding on Microsoft Corporation and all its subsidiaries.
Microsoft has a demonstrated history of pursuing litigation when that has been needed to protect the rights of our customers and other stakeholders. This includes four lawsuits we filed against the U.S. Executive Branch during President Obama’s tenure, including to protect the privacy of our customers’ data in the United States and Europe. It also included, during President Trump’s first term, a successful decision before the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the rights of employees who are immigrants. When necessary, we’re prepared to go to court.
We are confident of our legal rights to ensure continuous operation of our datacenters in Europe. And we are prepared to back this confidence with our contractual commitments to European governments.
Finally, we will designate and rely upon European partners with contingency arrangements for operational continuity in the unlikely event Microsoft were ever required by a court to suspend services. We are already enabling our partners in France and Germany to do this for the Bleu and Delos datacenters, and we will pursue arrangements for our public cloud datacenters in Europe. We will store back-up copies of our code in a secure repository in Switzerland, and we will provide our European partners with the legal rights needed to access and use this code if needed for this purpose.
Microsoft has long been at the forefront in designing and implementing technology solutions to protect customer data. We enable customers to control where their data is stored and processed, how it is encrypted and secured, and when Microsoft can access it. We offer customers robust capabilities across the entire cloud stack from infrastructure to platform to software as a service, from Azure to Microsoft 365 to Dynamics 365. We back our technical solutions with strong contractual commitments and, as noted above, a demonstrated history of going to court on behalf of our customers.
Reflecting our continuing commitment to innovation, we recently finished implementing our EU Data Boundary project. This offers European customers the ability to have their data stored and processed in Europe. Since January 2024, our European commercial and public sector customers have been able to store and process their data and personal identifiers for Microsoft core cloud services—including Microsoft 365, Dynamics 365, Power Platform, and Azure services—within the EU and EFTA regions. Three months ago, Microsoft completed the project by extending the EU Data Boundary to include professional services data from technical support interactions. And, critically, we make these solutions available in all our European cloud regions and throughout our tech stack, from IaaS, to PaaS, to SaaS, including M365 Copilot.
In addition to the EU Data Boundary, we provide European customers with multiple options for securing and encrypting their data. Our Confidential Compute offerings in Azure eliminate the ability of third parties—including Microsoft—to access customer data by ensuring data is processed within a trusted environment the customer alone controls. We enable customers to create a “lockbox” around their data across Azure, Dynamics 365, and Microsoft 365 by giving them the ability to review and approve before Microsoft accesses their data for customer and service support operations. We also enable customers to secure their data with encryption keys that they, not Microsoft, control with Azure Key Vault and Microsoft Purview Customer Key. Our Microsoft Cloud for Sovereignty offers customers a range of other tools to secure data, protect against unauthorized access, and satisfy legal requirements.
In addition to technical measures, we will continue our fight to protect the rights of European customers. Microsoft has a strong track record of going to court in the rare instances that we need to protect European data from unauthorized access. We have consistently fought legal demands that conflict with European law and have taken our challenges all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 2018, as a direct result of litigation Microsoft brought on behalf of our European customers, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation that guarantees our right to object to U.S. law enforcement demands to access European data that conflict with EU law.
We codified our promise to protect our European customers’ data with our Defending Your Data commitment, in which we agreed to challenge any government demand for EU public sector or enterprise customer data where we have a legal basis for doing so. We have included that commitment in our customer contracts and backed it up with a promise to compensate customers if we disclose their data in violation of EU law.
Today we commit to further strengthen and expand solutions that allow European customers to control and protect their data. We are embarking on new steps to listen to and consult with European customers to build on what already is the most complete, widest range of privacy, security, and sovereignty solutions that any cloud services provider now offers to customers in Europe. We look forward to sharing in the coming months the conclusions that emerge and the new steps we decide to take.
For more details about Microsoft’s data protection and compliance programs, see the Microsoft Trust Center.
As war erupted in 2022, Microsoft immediately helped evacuate Ukraine’s critical data and technology services to our datacenters across Europe. This move ensured Ukraine’s continued digital operation outside the range of cruise missile and air attacks. In many ways, this illustrates the role that a broad network of datacenters plays in supporting not only digital but broader resilience, both for a country and a continent.
In addition to safeguarding the country’s data, we immediately helped Ukraine’s officials and citizens defend their nation from Russian cyberattacks. Since the start of the war, Microsoft has provided more than $500 million of free technology and financial assistance to Ukraine and has sustained our substantial support to this day. Without interruption, we have provided cybersecurity support to NATO, Ukraine, and other European governments, including by sharing cybersecurity threat intelligence, protecting elections, and disrupting attacks against European governments, companies, and citizens.
More than three years since the start of the war in Ukraine, European governments and countries confront ongoing cyberattacks from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. As these threats grow in number and sophistication, strong cybersecurity protection and coordination are more important than ever, as is the ability to respond rapidly to regional demands. That is why today we are announcing the following cybersecurity steps, which will be followed by additional announcements in the coming weeks.
Today, our Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Igor Tsyganskiy announced that we are appointing a new Deputy CISO for Europe as part of the Microsoft Cybersecurity Governance Council. This senior executive will be dedicated to Microsoft’s security responsibilities in Europe. Last year we created this council, consisting of our Global CISO and Deputy Chief Information Security Officers (Deputy CISOs) representing each of our technology services. This Council oversees the company’s cyber risks, defenses, and compliance across regions and domains.
The appointment of a Deputy CISO for Europe reflects the importance and global influence of EU cybersecurity regulations and the company’s commitment to meeting and exceeding those expectations to prioritize cybersecurity across the region. This new position will report directly to Microsoft’s CISO. The Deputy CISO for Europe will be accountable for compliance with current and emerging cybersecurity regulations in Europe, including the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), the NIS 2 Directive, and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). These laws will prove transformative not only in EU markets, but worldwide, and Microsoft is actively engaged in preparing for what lies ahead.
We believe the CRA will reshape the regulatory landscape as a new gold standard for cybersecurity, much as the GDPR did for privacy. We will build on the work of our Secure Future Initiative and dedicate additional resources to comply with the CRA. As its deadlines approach, we look forward to continuing our years of engagement with the European Commission, industry partners, and customers on CRA implementation efforts. We are committed to our role as a member of the European Commission’s Expert Group on Cybersecurity of Products with Digital Elements.
To that end, Microsoft will continue to engage with stakeholders across a range of CRA topics. These will include incident and vulnerability reporting, security by design and default, cybersecurity best practices and improving open-source security and attestation. We will share our innovations that support implementing the CRA essential security requirements to help European economic operators also prepare for CRA compliance.
Security is the foundation of trust. To sustain that trust, we will engage an independent auditor to verify and validate our commitments to Europe. We know that people will only use technology that they trust, which is why we are dedicating resources to accelerate our compliance with the CRA and committing to independent validation.
We recognize the importance of ensuring open access to our AI and cloud platform and infrastructure across Europe, including for open-source development. That is why we announced last year a set of AI Access Principles and we will introduce new enhancements to these commitments in the coming months.
These principles have ensured that our Azure AI platform and infrastructure is open to a variety of business models—both open-source and proprietary. We now host more than 1,800 AI models. Most of these models are open-source models, such as those from European-based AI developers Mistral and Hugging Face. And they are all available via public APIs to facilitate interoperability. This means that customers can choose which models to use and where to build their AI-powered solutions: on Azure, in another public cloud, or in their own datacenter. Finally, we enable customers to export and transfer their data. Last year we eliminated fees for the transfer of data when customers choose to switch to another cloud provider.
Over the past year, we have seen European startups, established businesses, and other organizations take advantage of the open access to models and tools that we provide to innovate, grow, and compete in the new AI economy. This includes technology startups such as Factorial in Spain to build AI-driven automation for HR professionals, iGenius in Italy to develop AI solutions for regulated industries, and Visma in Norway to provide AI solutions for companies in accounting, payroll, invoicing, and beyond. And it includes the Institute Curie in France to research new therapies for cancer, UBS in Switzerland to create the future of banking, and Heineken in The Netherlands to boost employee productivity.
We recognize that Microsoft must constantly remain focused on earning and sustaining our “license to operate” in each country across Europe. With datacenters and digital technology, this starts with each local community and country and includes officials with continental-wide responsibilities.
Since we first brought the first version of Microsoft Word to Europe 42 years ago, digital technology has changed the ways people work many times over. Yet as we look forward, we believe the second quarter of the 21st century may bring even bigger changes ahead. Artificial intelligence offers what may become the most powerful tool for people in the history of humanity. And like all tools, there will be some who will seek to turn it into a weapon.
More than ever, it will be critical for us to help Europe harness the power of this new technology to strengthen its competitiveness. We will need to partner with smaller and larger companies alike. We will need to support governments, non-profit organizations, and open-source developers across the continent. And we will need to listen closely to European leaders, respect European values, and adhere to European laws. We are committed to doing all these things well.
As we celebrated Microsoft’s 50th birthday earlier this month, we recognized that our longstanding presence in Europe has been a lynchpin of our success. Europe has treated us well. Our support for Europe has always been—and always will be—steadfast.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Felix Schulz, Research Fellow, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund University
Donald Trump won the US election on a campaign that included rolling back environmental laws. In the UK, Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch has called the national net zero target “impossible”. And former prime minister Tony Blair has said the current approach of phasing out fossil fuels is “doomed to fail”.
Meanwhile in Germany, the parties in the most likely incoming coalition government hardly engaged with climate policy during the recent election campaign – and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which openly denies human-made climate change, received 20% of the vote.
With political leaders around the world moving away from progressive climate policy, it’s worth asking: is this what the public wants?
When it comes to the climate, what people think is influenced by where they live and what else they believe in. In recently published research, we sought to find out just how much people’s ideologies affected their views on climate policy.
We surveyed representative samples of the public in six countries about their attitudes towards different types of climate policy. We asked about support for regulation (for example, building and vehicle standards or product bans), taxes (like carbon taxes), subsidies (to promote low-carbon alternatives), and information-based policies (such as emission disclosure requirements). Our survey covered policies in transport, housing, energy and industry.
We also asked respondents about their ideologies: cultural worldviews, personal values, free market beliefs and political trust. Our findings reveal how people’s ideologies shape their support for climate policies.
We included three high-income countries of the global north (the US, UK and Germany) and three upper-middle income countries from the global south (Brazil, South Africa and China). Together, these six countries are responsible for half of global CO₂ emissions.
Our definition of global south, which includes countries such as China, is based on work by UN Trade and Development and the UN G-77 countries. It includes Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, most of Asia (excluding Israel, Japan and South Korea) and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand). These countries generally have lower per capita income and are considered “developing” compared to global north countries.
This comparison is important because, as we will explain, political and economic ideologies that originated in the global north can influence how people view climate policies.
Across all policy types, we found more support for climate policies in the global south countries. In the global north countries, we found only minority support for regulatory policies and climate-related taxes. In Germany, support for regulatory policies and taxes was as little as 18%.
Subsidies for the four sectors – for example, to support renewable energy projects or the production of green steel – received 35% support in Germany and 48% in the US. In contrast, the majority of the public in the three countries of the global south supported subsidies and regulatory climate policies.
As with subsidies, we found strong majority support for information-based policies in the three countries of the global south (74-79%), against only minority support in Germany (36%) and the US (49%). In the UK, 53% supported information-based climate policies.
Personal values play a role in support for the policies. Our findings show people with stronger biospheric values – the importance people place on the environment and the relationship between humans and nature – are more supportive of climate policies. This is true irrespective of the country they live in. People who are more trusting of political institutions and politicians also support these policies more.
But demographics such as age, gender, education or income have a negligible effect on attitudes towards these policies, when accounting for other factors in our analysis.
We observed a strong link between a neoliberal worldview and lack of support for the climate policies in our study. As a political economic project, neoliberalism originated in the global north. But it continues to take root in the global south, particularly in Latin America.
The belief that individuals need to take care of themselves and are responsible for their own fortune and problems was associated with less support for climate policies. And in every country we studied, we found a strong relationship between support for the free market and lack of support for climate policies.
People who believe the free market is best at allocating outcomes efficiently and meeting human needs without government interference, and that it is more important than some local environmental concerns, show less support for the climate policies.
These two sets of beliefs – individualistic worldviews and support for the free market – are the core principles of neoliberal thought.
The superiority of the market over governments as an efficient and fair allocation machine has been the mantra of neoliberal politicians, thinktanks and institutions for more than half a century.
Neoliberalism opposes government regulation and spending, and supports the free market. It also fosters an individualistic worldview. Instead of seeing themselves as workers, citizens or members of a collective, people are persuaded to internalise market logic – to see themselves as individuals who are out to maximise their personal profit.
The cultural shift from more communitarian and egalitarian ideals towards an ideology based on the self-driven individual and the free market has been quite successful. Empirical evidence from 41 countries shows that individualist practices and values around the world have surged significantly over the past 50 years.
We know from research that what the public thinks (or votes for) does influence what governments do. This is true even when accounting for the influence of powerful interest groups.
So, those creating and campaigning for urgently needed climate policies need to take this into account. Support for climate policies isn’t just about whether someone believes in human-made climate change or cares about the planet – there are deeply-rooted ideological factors at play too.
Felix Schulz receives funding from Formas, a Swedish research council for sustainable development and the Hans-Böckler-Foundation.
Christian Bretter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. People with neoliberal views are less likely to support climate-friendly policies – new research – https://theconversation.com/people-with-neoliberal-views-are-less-likely-to-support-climate-friendly-policies-new-research-253478
Source: United States Department of Justice 2
Note: View the declination letter here.
The Justice Department today announced that it has declined the prosecution of Universities Space Research Association (USRA) after it self-disclosed to the Department’s National Security Division (NSD) criminal violations of U.S. export control laws committed by its former employee, Jonathan Soong. Soong pleaded guilty to willfully violating the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by exporting U.S. Army-developed aviation software to a university in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that had been placed on the Commerce Department’s Entity List and was sentenced to 20 months in prison.
“If we stay vigilant, all of us — including our citizens, small businesses, and large corporations — can play a critical role in protecting our country,” said Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “A criminal who compromised our national security was brought to justice because his employer caught him and immediately turned him in. We decline to prosecute his employer and are ready to work together with such responsible corporate actors who are committed to joining us in this fight to protect our country from foreign adversaries.”
“USRA discovered that one of its employees was funneling sensitive aeronautics software to a Beijing university in violation of export control laws and at risk to our national security,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Patrick D. Robbins for the Northern District of California. “What the company did next made all the difference in the Government’s decision not to prosecute it: the company took swift and proactive measures to disclose the employee’s wrongdoing, provide all known facts, and cooperate – and continue to cooperate – with the government’s investigation.”
According to court documents, in April 2016, USRA contracted with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to, among other things, license and distribute for a fee aeronautics-related and U.S. Army-owned flight control software. Soong was employed by USRA as a program administrator under the contract and was responsible for performing due diligence on prospective purchasers to ensure that the sale or transfer of software licenses complied with applicable law, including by checking the Entity List. Soong willfully exported software subject to the EAR to Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, also known as Beihang University (Beihang), a university in the PRC, knowing that an export control license was required for the export to Beihang because it was on the Entity List. Beihang was on the Commerce Department’s Entity List due to its involvement in the development of military rocket systems and unmanned air vehicle systems. Soong further used an intermediary to complete the transfer and export of the software to Beihang to avoid detection, and embezzled tens of thousands of dollars in software license sales by directing purchasers to make payment to an account he personally owned and controlled.
This scheme continued until NASA inquired about the sales of software licenses to PRC-based purchasers and USRA began to investigate. Soong initially lied to USRA and fabricated evidence that he had conducted due diligence on the purchasers and provided it to USRA’s counsel to provide to NASA, but after USRA’s counsel investigated further and confronted Soong with evidence that contradicted his statements, he admitted to knowing that Beihang was on the Entity List when he exported the software to Beihang and that a license had been required for the export.
Within days of learning that Soong had willfully violated U.S. export control laws, and before USRA had completed its own investigation to understand the scope of the misconduct, USRA self-disclosed the crime to NSD and fully cooperated with the ensuing criminal investigation, which eventually established that Soong had acted alone at USRA. USRA’s cooperation included proactively identifying, collecting, and disclosing relevant evidence to investigators, including foreign language evidence and evidence located overseas, and providing detailed and timely responses to the government’s requests for information and evidence. USRA remediated the root cause of the misconduct by disciplining a supervisory employee who failed appropriately to supervise Soong, and by significantly improving its internal controls and compliance program. USRA also compensated the government both for the funds Soong embezzled, and for the time Soong had spent embezzling funds instead of performing his duties under USRA’s contract with NASA.
The Justice Department declined USRA’s prosecution after considering the factors set forth in the Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations and the National Security Division Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations (NSD Enforcement Policy). The NSD Enforcement Policy creates a presumption that companies that (1) voluntarily self-disclose to NSD potentially criminal violations arising out of or relating to the enforcement of export control or sanctions laws, (2) fully cooperate, and (3) timely and appropriately remediate will generally receive a non-prosecution agreement, unless aggravating factors are present. In appropriate cases, the NSD Enforcement Policy authorizes prosecutors to go further, and exercise discretion to decline a company’s prosecution. This is the second time that NSD has exercised its discretion to decline the prosecution of a company under the NSD Enforcement Policy.
The case was investigated by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security; the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service; and the FBI. The NASA Office of Inspector General; U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division; U.S. Army Counterintelligence; and the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations provided valuable assistance.
Trial Attorney Rachel Craft of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Barbara Valliere for the Northern District of California prosecuted the case.