Just-passed legislation is expected to put up to 250,000 more building products on shelves this year alone – giving Kiwis building and renovating their homes more choice to fit their budgets, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says.“Making it easier and more affordable to build in New Zealand is a central pillar in this Government’s Going for Growth plan to get the economy back on track. “That’s why we have made changes to the Building Act to reduce barriers for using high-quality building products imported from overseas. “The status quo is unacceptable. Construction costs have risen a staggering 40 percent since 2019, spurred on by a lack of competition in the building system. Bringing hundreds of thousands of new options into the market will put downward pressure on prices. “Builders and designers have long called for this change, so they can get the best deals on goods and materials countries like Australia are already benefiting from. “We expect that from July, more than 12,000 essential products – including plasterboard, cladding, and insulation – will be cleared for use through cited standards in the new Building Product Specifications pathway. Building Consent Authorities must accept them, so long as the products are used as intended. “Increasing options on the market is critically important for improving supply chain resilience. Giving our tradespeople alternatives to turn to during product shortages will allow projects to continue without delays. “Local manufacturers will also benefit from being able to test their products against internationally accepted standards, opening the door to valuable export markets. “Work is already underway to establish robust regulations for recognising new products and standards, ensuring only top-quality materials enter the market. This includes targeted consultation with industry leaders and local government.”Note to editors:
Under the new system:
The Minister for Building and Construction will be able to issue a notice that recognises groups of overseas product standards and standards certification schemes for use in New Zealand. A new building product specifications pathway will be introduced to streamline the process of citing international product standards that can be used with acceptable solutions or verification methods to establish compliance with the building code. Building Consent Authorities will be required to accept building products and methods that have been certified by an overseas product certification scheme and recognised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
The Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill responds to recommendations from the Commerce Commission’s 2022 market study into residential building supplies, which highlighted issues with the current lack of competition for the supply and acquisition of building products.
Did you know that you’re legally required to keep certain records for your not-for-profit (NFP)? All organisations including NFPs are required to keep accurate and complete records of all transactions relating to their tax and superannuation affairs. Generally, for tax purposes, you must keep your records in an accessible form (either printed or electronic) for 5 years.
Records that you are required to keep include:
governing documents
financial reports
tax invoices
documentation relating to grants
registrations and certificates.
A good record keeping system will help you run your NFP successfully and help you manage your tax and super obligations.
If your NFP is endorsed as a deductible gift recipient (DGR), you must keep records that explain all transactions and other acts relevant to your organisation’s status as a DGR. This requirement applies to both endorsed DGRs and listed by name DGRs.
If you want to learn more about effective record keeping to keep your NFP on track, take our online Record keepingExternal Link course. This free course will give you the opportunity to dive deeper into the records you need to maintain and ask questions relevant to your NFP. NFPs share many tax obligations with small businesses, and the Small Business online learning platform is a valuable resource to help you avoid common mistakes and understand the tax and super obligations of your NFP better.
If your NFP needs more information phone our NFP Advice Service on 1300 130 248, Monday to Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm AEST.
Keep up to date
Read more articles in the Not-for-profit newsroom and, if you haven’t already, subscribeExternal Link to our free monthly newsletter Not-for-profit news to be alerted when we publish new articles.
For updates throughout the month, Assistant Commissioner Jennifer Moltisanti regularly shares blog posts and updates on her LinkedInExternal Link profile. And you can check out our online platform ATO CommunityExternal Link to find answers to your tax and super questions.
Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)
Experts Say Trump Tariffs Could ThrowU.S. Into a Recession, Increase Annual Costs By Thousands for New Mexico Families
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, issued the following statement on President Trump’s announcement to impose additional tariffs on global trading partners:
“President Trump’s sweeping tariffs are a tax on hardworking New Mexicans. From the cost of groceries, to the price at the pump, to buying a car or building a home, these new tariffs will make daily life more expensive for many New Mexico families and businesses.
“While President Trump should be focused on lowering prices for Americans, he is instigating a trade war and making everyday Americans the casualties. President Trump – who has said that he doesn’t care if costs go up – is creating economic uncertainty, shrinking life savings, putting New Mexico jobs at risk, and driving up costs for working families.
“These tariffs are new and drastic tax increases on New Mexicans and the American people. President Trump is recklessly threatening the American economy – all while working to give the wealthiest few another tax handout and blowing up the national debt.”
What People Are Saying:
Chamber of Commerce: “[T]he imposition of tariffs … will only raise prices for American families and upend supply chains.”
National Association of Manufacturers: “Ultimately, manufacturers will bear the brunt of these tariffs, undermining our ability to sell our products at a competitive price and putting American jobs at risk.”
United Steelworkers: “Our union calls on President Trump to reverse course on Canadian tariffs so that we can focus on trade solutions that will serve working families for the long-term.”
International Association of Machinists: “The 25% tariffs on Canadian goods imported to the U.S., will result in job losses, increased prices, and a variety of other negative impacts.”
National Association of Home Builders: “Tariffs on lumber and other building materials increase the cost of construction and discourage new development, and consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices.”
American Farm Bureau: “farmers and rural communities will bear the brunt of retaliation. … Tariffs that increase fertilizer prices threaten to deliver another blow to the finances of farm families.”
National Farmers Union: “We are already facing significant economic uncertainty, and these actions only add to the strain. … Without a clear plan, family farmers will once again be left to bear the burden of decisions beyond their control, and eventually, so will consumers.”
Retail Industry Leaders Association: “Stacking tariffs on household goods will also raise costs on American families.”
Food Industry Association: “New tariffs will also drive up the cost of doing business and food prices at a time consumers are extremely concerned about prices.”
National Consumers League: “these tariffs could hurt everyday Americans. … Higher prices on basic goods would make life harder for families across the country, all as a result of these ill-conceived trade policies.”
American Automakers: “Our American automakers, who invested billions in the U.S. to meet these requirements, should not have their competitiveness undermined by tariffs that will raise the cost of building vehicles in the United States and stymie investment in the American workforce.”
class=”has-text-align-left”>By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. That threat has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States in the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.
On January 20, 2025, I signed the America First Trade Policy Presidential Memorandum directing my Administration to investigate the causes of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods, including the economic and national security implications and risks resulting from such deficits, and to undertake a review of, and identify, any unfair trade practices by other countries. On February 13, 2025, I signed a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs,” that directed further review of our trading partners’ non-reciprocal trading practices, and noted the relationship between non-reciprocal practices and the trade deficit. On April 1, 2025, I received the final results of those investigations, and I am taking action today based on those results.
Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; inhibited our ability to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries. Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits are caused in substantial part by a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships. This situation is evidenced by disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers that make it harder for U.S. manufacturers to sell their products in foreign markets. It is also evidenced by the economic policies of key U.S. trading partners insofar as they suppress domestic wages and consumption, and thereby demand for U.S. exports, while artificially increasing the competitiveness of their goods in global markets. These conditions have given rise to the national emergency that this order is intended to abate and resolve.
For decades starting in 1934, U.S. trade policy has been organized around the principle of reciprocity. The Congress directed the President to secure reduced reciprocal tariff rates from key trading partners first through bilateral trade agreements and later under the auspices of the global trading system. Between 1934 and 1945, the executive branch negotiated and signed 32 bilateral reciprocal trade agreements designed to lower tariff rates on a reciprocal basis. After 1947 through 1994, participating countries engaged in eight rounds of negotiation, which resulted in the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and seven subsequent tariff reduction rounds.
However, despite a commitment to the principle of reciprocity, the trading relationship between the United States and its trading partners has become highly unbalanced, particularly in recent years. The post-war international economic system was based upon three incorrect assumptions: first, that if the United States led the world in liberalizing tariff and non-tariff barriers the rest of the world would follow; second, that such liberalization would ultimately result in more economic convergence and increased domestic consumption among U.S. trading partners converging towards the share in the United States; and third, that as a result, the United States would not accrue large and persistent goods trade deficits.
This framework set in motion events, agreements, and commitments that did not result in reciprocity or generally increase domestic consumption in foreign economies relative to domestic consumption in the United States. Those events, in turn, created large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits as a feature of the global trading system.
Put simply, while World Trade Organization (WTO) Members agreed to bind their tariff rates on a most-favored-nation (MFN) basis, and thereby provide their best tariff rates to all WTO Members, they did not agree to bind their tariff rates at similarly low levels or to apply tariff rates on a reciprocal basis. Consequently, according to the WTO, the United States has among the lowest simple average MFN tariff rates in the world at 3.3 percent, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2 percent), China (7.5 percent), the European Union (EU) (5 percent), India (17 percent), and Vietnam (9.4 percent) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.
Moreover, these average MFN tariff rates conceal much larger discrepancies across economies in tariff rates applied to particular products. For example, the United States imposes a 2.5 percent tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10 percent), India (70 percent), and China (15 percent) impose much higher duties on the same product. For network switches and routers, the United States imposes a 0 percent tariff, but for similar products, India (10 percent) levies a higher rate. Brazil (18 percent) and Indonesia (30 percent) impose a higher tariff on ethanol than does the United States (2.5 percent). For rice in the husk, the U.S. MFN tariff is 2.7 percent (ad valorem equivalent), while India (80 percent), Malaysia (40 percent), and Turkey (an average of 31 percent) impose higher rates. Apples enter the United States duty-free, but not so in Turkey (60.3 percent) and India (50 percent).
Similarly, non-tariff barriers also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world. The 2025 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE) details a great number of non-tariff barriers to U.S. exports around the world on a trading-partner by trading-partner basis. These barriers include import barriers and licensing restrictions; customs barriers and shortcomings in trade facilitation; technical barriers to trade (e.g., unnecessarily trade restrictive standards, conformity assessment procedures, or technical regulations); sanitary and phytosanitary measures that unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering safety objectives; inadequate patent, copyright, trade secret, and trademark regimes and inadequate enforcement of intellectual property rights; discriminatory licensing requirements or regulatory standards; barriers to cross-border data flows and discriminatory practices affecting trade in digital products; investment barriers; subsidies; anticompetitive practices; discrimination in favor of domestic state-owned enterprises, and failures by governments in protecting labor and environment standards; bribery; and corruption.
Moreover, non-tariff barriers include the domestic economic policies and practices of our trading partners, including currency practices and value-added taxes, and their associated market distortions, that suppress domestic consumption and boost exports to the United States. This lack of reciprocity is apparent in the fact that the share of consumption to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States is about 68 percent, but it is much lower in others like Ireland (27 percent), Singapore (31 percent), China (39 percent), South Korea (49 percent), and Germany (50 percent).
At the same time, efforts by the United States to address these imbalances have stalled. Trading partners have repeatedly blocked multilateral and plurilateral solutions, including in the context of new rounds of tariff negotiations and efforts to discipline non-tariff barriers. At the same time, with the U.S. economy disproportionately open to imports, U.S. trading partners have had few incentives to provide reciprocal treatment to U.S. exports in the context of bilateral trade negotiations.
These structural asymmetries have driven the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficit. Even for countries with which the United States may enjoy an occasional bilateral trade surplus, the accumulation of tariff and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports may make that surplus smaller than it would have been without such barriers. Permitting these asymmetries to continue is not sustainable in today’s economic and geopolitical environment because of the effect they have on U.S. domestic production. A nation’s ability to produce domestically is the bedrock of its national and economic security.
Both my first Administration in 2017, and the Biden Administration in 2022, recognized that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security. According to 2023 United Nations data, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4 percent, down from a peak in 2001 of 28.4 percent.
Over time, the persistent decline in U.S. manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity. The need to maintain robust and resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in certain advanced industrial sectors like automobiles, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, because once competitors gain sufficient global market share in these sectors, U.S. production could be permanently weakened. It is also critical to scale manufacturing capacity in the defense-industrial sector so that we can manufacture the defense materiel and equipment necessary to protect American interests at home and abroad.
In fact, because the United States has supplied so much military equipment to other countries, U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests. Furthermore, U.S. defense companies must develop new, advanced manufacturing technologies across a range of critical sectors including bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics. If the United States wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as for its allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem to manufacture these products without undue reliance on imports for key inputs.
Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods also has compromised U.S. economic security by rendering U.S. supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks. In recent years, the vulnerability of the U.S. economy in this respect was exposed both during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Americans had difficulty accessing essential products, as well as when the Houthi rebels later began attacking cargo ships in the Middle East.
The decline of U.S. manufacturing capacity threatens the U.S. economy in other ways, including through the loss of manufacturing jobs. From 1997 to 2024, the United States lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history. Furthermore, many manufacturing job losses were concentrated in specific geographical areas. In these areas, the loss of manufacturing jobs contributed to the decline in rates of family formation and to the rise of other social trends, like the abuse of opioids, that have imposed profound costs on the U.S. economy.
The future of American competitiveness depends on reversing these trends. Today, manufacturing represents just 11 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, yet it accounts for 35 percent of American productivity growth and 60 percent of our exports. Importantly, U.S. manufacturing is the main engine of innovation in the United States, responsible for 55 percent of all patents and 70 percent of all research and development (R&D) spending. The fact that R&D expenditures by U.S. multinational enterprises in China grew at an average rate of 13.6 percent a year between 2003 and 2017, while their R&D expenditures in the United States grew by an average of just 5 percent per year during the same time period, is evidence of the strong link between manufacturing and innovation. Furthermore, every manufacturing job spurs 7 to 12 new jobs in other related industries, helping to build and sustain our economy.
Just as a nation that does not produce manufactured products cannot maintain the industrial base it needs for national security, neither can a nation long survive if it cannot produce its own food. Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), designates food and agriculture as a “critical infrastructure sector” because it is one of the sectors considered “so vital to the United States that [its] incapacity or destruction . . . would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” Furthermore, when I left office, the United States had a trade surplus in agricultural products, but today, that surplus has vanished. Eviscerated by a slew of new non-tariff barriers imposed by our trading partners, it has been replaced by a projected $49 billion annual agricultural trade deficit. For these reasons, I hereby declare and order:
Section1. National Emergency. As President of the United States, my highest duty is ensuring the national and economic security of the country and its citizens.
I have declared a national emergency arising from conditions reflected in large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, which have grown by over 40 percent in the past 5 years alone, reaching $1.2 trillion in 2024. This trade deficit reflects asymmetries in trade relationships that have contributed to the atrophy of domestic production capacity, especially that of the U.S. manufacturing and defense-industrial base. These asymmetries also impact U.S. producers’ ability to export and, consequentially, their incentive to produce. Specifically, such asymmetry includes not only non-reciprocal differences in tariff rates among foreign trading partners, but also extensive use of non-tariff barriers by foreign trading partners, which reduce the competitiveness of U.S. exports while artificially enhancing the competitiveness of their own goods. These non-tariff barriers include technical barriers to trade; non-scientific sanitary and phytosanitary rules; inadequate intellectual property protections; suppressed domestic consumption (e.g., wage suppression); weak labor, environmental, and other regulatory standards and protections; and corruption. These non-tariff barriers give rise to significant imbalances even when the United States and a trading partner have comparable tariff rates.
The cumulative effect of these imbalances has been the transfer of resources from domestic producers to foreign firms, reducing opportunities for domestic manufacturers to expand and, in turn, leading to lost manufacturing jobs, diminished manufacturing capacity, and an atrophied industrial base, including in the defense-industrial sector. At the same time, foreign firms are better positioned to scale production, reinvest in innovation, and compete in the global economy, to the detriment of U.S. economic and national security. The absence of sufficient domestic manufacturing capacity in certain critical and advanced industrial sectors — another outcome of the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits — also compromises U.S. economic and national security by rendering the U.S. economy less resilient to supply chain disruption. Finally, the large, persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, and the concomitant loss of industrial capacity, have compromised military readiness; this vulnerability can only be redressed through swift corrective action to rebalance the flow of imports into the United States. Such impact upon military readiness and our national security posture is especially acute with the recent rise in armed conflicts abroad. I call upon the public and private sector to make the efforts necessary to strengthen the international economic position of the United States.
Sec. 2. Reciprocal Tariff Policy. It is the policy of the United States to rebalance global trade flows by imposing an additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners except as otherwise provided herein. The additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners shall start at 10 percent and shortly thereafter, the additional ad valorem duty shall increase for trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order at the rates set forth in Annex I to this order. These additional ad valorem duties shall apply until such time as I determine that the underlying conditions described above are satisfied, resolved, or mitigated.
Sec. 3. Implementation. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this order, all articles imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 10 percent. Such rates of duty shall apply with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, except that goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 5, 2025, shall not be subject to such additional duty.
Furthermore, except as otherwise provided in this order, at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, all articles from trading partners enumerated in Annex I to this order imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be, consistent with law, subject to the country-specific ad valorem rates of duty specified in Annex I to this order. Such rates of duty shall apply with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, except that goods loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading and in transit on the final mode of transit before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, and entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, shall not be subject to these country-specific ad valorem rates of duty set forth in Annex I to this order. These country-specific ad valorem rates of duty shall apply to all articles imported pursuant to the terms of all existing U.S. trade agreements, except as provided below.
(b) The following goods as set forth in Annex II to this order, consistent with law, shall not be subject to the ad valorem rates of duty under this order: (i) all articles that are encompassed by 50 U.S.C. 1702(b); (ii) all articles and derivatives of steel and aluminum subject to the duties imposed pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and proclaimed in Proclamation 9704 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), as amended, Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States), as amended, and Proclamation 9980 of January 24, 2020 (Adjusting Imports of Derivative Aluminum Articles and Derivative Steel Articles Into the United States), as amended, Proclamation 10895 of February 10, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States), and Proclamation 10896 of February 10, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States); (iii) all automobiles and automotive parts subject to the additional duties imposed pursuant to section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, and proclaimed in Proclamation 10908 of March 26, 2025 (Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts Into the United States); (iv) other products enumerated in Annex II to this order, including copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber articles, certain critical minerals, and energy and energy products; (v) all articles from a trading partner subject to the rates set forth in Column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); and (vi) all articles that may become subject to duties pursuant to future actions under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
(c) The rates of duty established by this order are in addition to any other duties, fees, taxes, exactions, or charges applicable to such imported articles, except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section below.
(d) With respect to articles from Canada, I have imposed additional duties on certain goods to address a national emergency resulting from the flow of illicit drugs across our northern border pursuant to Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border), as amended by Executive Order 14197 of February 3, 2025 (Progress on the Situation at Our Northern Border), and Executive Order 14231 of March 2, 2025 (Amendment to Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border). With respect to articles from Mexico, I have imposed additional duties on certain goods to address a national emergency resulting from the flow of illicit drugs and illegal migration across our southern border pursuant to Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025 (Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border), as amended by Executive Order 14198 of February 3, 2025 (Progress on the Situation at Our Southern Border), and Executive Order 14227 of March 2, 2025 (Amendment to Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border). As a result of these border emergency tariff actions, all goods of Canada or Mexico under the terms of general note 11 to the HTSUS, including any treatment set forth in subchapter XXIII of chapter 98 and subchapter XXII of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as related to the Agreement between the United States of America, United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), continue to be eligible to enter the U.S. market under these preferential terms. However, all goods of Canada or Mexico that do not qualify as originating under USMCA are presently subject to additional ad valorem duties of 25 percent, with energy or energy resources and potash imported from Canada and not qualifying as originating under USMCA presently subject to the lower additional ad valorem duty of 10 percent.
(e) Any ad valorem rate of duty on articles imported from Canada or Mexico under the terms of this order shall not apply in addition to the ad valorem rate of duty specified by the existing orders described in subsection (d) of this section. If such orders identified in subsection (d) of this section are terminated or suspended, all items of Canada and Mexico that qualify as originating under USMCA shall not be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty, while articles not qualifying as originating under USMCA shall be subject to an ad valorem rate of duty of 12 percent. However, these ad valorem rates of duty on articles imported from Canada and Mexico shall not apply to energy or energy resources, to potash, or to an article eligible for duty-free treatment under USMCA that is a part or component of an article substantially finished in the United States.
(f) More generally, the ad valorem rates of duty set forth in this order shall apply only to the non-U.S. content of a subject article, provided at least 20 percent of the value of the subject article is U.S. originating. For the purposes of this subsection, “U.S. content” refers to the value of an article attributable to the components produced entirely, or substantially transformed in, the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to the extent permitted by law, is authorized to require the collection of such information and documentation regarding an imported article, including with the entry filing, as is necessary to enable CBP to ascertain and verify the value of the U.S. content of the article, as well as to ascertain and verify whether an article is substantially finished in the United States.
(g) Subject articles, except those eligible for admission under “domestic status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.43, which are subject to the duty specified in section 2 of this order and are admitted into a foreign trade zone on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 9, 2025, must be admitted as “privileged foreign status” as defined in 19 CFR 146.41.
(h) Duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A)-(B) shall remain available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section. Duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) shall remain available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section until notification by the Secretary of Commerce to the President that adequate systems are in place to fully and expeditiously process and collect duty revenue applicable pursuant to this subsection for articles otherwise eligible for de minimis treatment. After such notification, duty-free de minimis treatment under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) shall not be available for the articles described in subsection (a) of this section.
(i) The Executive Order of April 2, 2025 (Further Amendment to Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China as Applied to Low-Value Imports), regarding low-value imports from China is not affected by this order, and all duties and fees with respect to covered articles shall be collected as required and detailed therein.
(j) To reduce the risk of transshipment and evasion, all ad valorem rates of duty imposed by this order or any successor orders with respect to articles of China shall apply equally to articles of both the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region.
(k) In order to establish the duty rates described in this order, the HTSUS is modified as set forth in the Annexes to this order. These modifications shall enter into effect on the dates set forth in the Annexes to this order.
(l) Unless specifically noted herein, any prior Presidential Proclamation, Executive Order, or other Presidential directive or guidance related to trade with foreign trading partners that is inconsistent with the direction in this order is hereby terminated, suspended, or modified to the extent necessary to give full effect to this order.
Sec. 4. Modification Authority. (a) The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall recommend to me additional action, if necessary, if this action is not effective in resolving the emergency conditions described above, including the increase in the overall trade deficit or the recent expansion of non-reciprocal trade arrangements by U.S. trading partners in a manner that threatens the economic and national security interests of the United States.
(b) Should any trading partner retaliate against the United States in response to this action through import duties on U.S. exports or other measures, I may further modify the HTSUS to increase or expand in scope the duties imposed under this order to ensure the efficacy of this action.
(c) Should any trading partner take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters, I may further modify the HTSUS to decrease or limit in scope the duties imposed under this order.
(d) Should U.S. manufacturing capacity and output continue to worsen, I may further modify the HTSUS to increase duties under this order.
Sec. 5. Implementation Authority. The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Chair of the International Trade Commission are hereby authorized to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. Each executive department and agency shall take all appropriate measures within its authority to implement this order.
Sec. 6. Reporting Requirements. The United States Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
CLOSING LOOPHOLES IN THE TARIFF SYSTEM: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order eliminating duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value imports from China, a critical step in countering the ongoing health emergency posed by the illicit flow of synthetic opioids into the U.S.
Following the Secretary of Commerce’s notification that adequate systems are in place to collect tariff revenue, President Trump is ending duty-free de minimis treatment for covered goods from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong starting May 2, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.
Imported goods sent through means other than the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption will be subject to all applicable duties, which shall be paid in accordance with applicable entry and payment procedures.
All relevant postal items containing goods that are sent through the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption are subject to a duty rate of either 30% of their value or $25 per item (increasing to $50 per item after June 1, 2025). This is in lieu of any other duties, including those imposed by prior Orders.
Carriers transporting these postal items must report shipment details to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), maintain an international carrier bond to ensure duty payment, and remit duties to CBP on a set schedule.
CBP may require formal entry for any postal package instead of the specified duties.
The Secretary of Commerce will submit a report within 90 days assessing the Order’s impact and considering whether to extend these rules to packages from Macau.
COMBATING CHINA’S ROLE IN THE OPIOID CRISIS: President Trump is targeting deceptive shipping practices by Chinese-based shippers, many of whom hide illicit substances, including synthetic opioids, in low-value packages to exploit the de minimis exemption.
On average, CBP processes over 4 million de minimis shipments into the U.S. each day.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which exerts ultimate control over the government and enterprises of the PRC, has subsidized and otherwise incentivized PRC chemical companies to export fentanyl and related precursor chemicals that are used to produce synthetic opioids sold illicitly in the United States.
Many PRC-based chemical companies hide illicit substances in the flow of legitimate commerce, including through false invoices, fraudulent postage, and deceptive packaging.
While the U.S. previously offered a generous de minimis exemption, China enforces strict import restrictions and tightly limits de minimis exemptions, showing no similar leniency toward U.S. shipments.
Last fiscal year, CBP apprehended more than 21,000 pounds of fentanyl at our borders, enough fentanyl to kill more than 4 billion people.
It is estimated that federal officials are only able to seize a fraction of the fentanyl smuggled across the southern border.
These drugs kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, including 75,000 deaths per year attributed to fentanyl alone.
More Americans are dying from fentanyl overdoses each year than the number of American lives lost in the entirety of the Vietnam War.
KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: When voters overwhelmingly elected Donald J. Trump as President, they gave him a mandate to seal the border and stop the influx of deadly drugs. That is exactly what he is doing.
On the campaign trail, President Trump promised “We will not rest until we have ended the drug addiction crisis.”
Upon returning to office, President Trump immediately took action to seal the border and crack down on drug trafficking.
President Trump implemented 20% tariffs on China to address the threat of the sustained influx of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, flowing from China into the United States.
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
April 02, 2025
In her remarks, the Senator said prior efforts by FAA employees to delegate this safety authority back to Boeing is not just unacceptable, but a “total dereliction of duty”
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)— a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST) and Ranking Member of the CST Aviation Subcommittee—pressed Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg four times whether he would commit to neither seeking nor accepting delegation of airworthiness inspection authority—an authority that would allow the company to self-inspect its own aircraft—from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) until FAA fixed its own oversight lapses. Again and again, Mr. Ortberg dodged the question and refused to make a firm commitment. During her questioning, Duckworth highlighted how inappropriate it would be for Boeing to accept this delegation authority as the FAA continues working to implement all 16 of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General’s recommendations from an October report that found FAA’s oversight of Boeing production was “not effective.” Duckworth’s full questioning can be found on the Senator’s YouTube.
“In October, the DOT Inspector General found that the FAA’s oversight of Boeing was not only not effective, but so bad that it issued 16 separate recommendations for the FAA to fix its process,” said Duckworth. “I believe strongly that FAA must not delegate inspection authority back to Boeing until—at a minimum—FAA fixes its ineffective oversight of Boeing’s production. It’s extremely disappointing that Mr. Ortberg wouldn’t rule out accepting this delegated authority while FAA’s oversight of Boeing production is still so ineffective. Mr. Ortberg is trying to restore Boeing’s reputation, and has taken important actions to do so, but I don’t see how Boeing would improve its safety credibility by accepting authority to once again self-inspect its planes for federal compliance—while the FAA’s oversight is still broken.”
One of the most shocking findings in the DOT Inspector General’s October report was that that shortly before the Boeing door plug blowout, individuals within FAA wanted to delegate airplane airworthiness inspection authority back to Boeing without any criteria by which to assess whether Boeing could be trusted to properly carry out these inspections. This is particularly concerning because, prior to the 737 MAX crashes and production problems with the 787, the FAA allowed Boeing to self-inspect their aircraft to ensure they conformed with their FAA-approved type design. However, in the wake of the MAX crashes, it was found that Boeing had a pattern of abusing this authority and producing 737 MAX aircraft with nonfunctioning Angle of Attack Disagree alerts.
After Mr. Ortberg refused to commit that he would not accept the delegation of such an authority when Duckworth asked a fourth time, Duckworth replied: “You have a track record of abusing self-inspecting authority and you’ve already said that you and senior Board managers would make more money if you can put more aircraft out. It is not appropriate at this time for you to accept the delegation of that authority if it is offered to you by the FAA before the FAA has met all 16 of the IG recommendations on how to fix the inspection system.”
Duckworth has long pushed for improved federal oversight of Boeing. Last year, she urged then-FAA Administrator Whitaker to make sure the FAA requires transparency and accountability as it oversees Boeing’s Safety and Quality Plan. Duckworth also implored FAA to scrutinize Boeing’s bad behavior and use its civil enforcement authority more often, when appropriate, and also called on the agency to review Boeing’s disturbing pattern of failing to disclose critical safety information about 737 MAX planes to pilots.
Last year, Duckworth also called on FAA to reject a petition by Boeing for a safety exemption to allow the 737 MAX 7 to be certified to fly despite having another known safety defect that has not yet been fixed. The Senator subsequently met with then-Boeing CEO David Calhoun and urged him to withdraw the company’s petition, which the company did just days later, crediting Duckworth’s reasoning for the decision.
Duckworth last year helped author the landmark bipartisan FAA reauthorization that was signed into law to extend the FAA’s funding and authorities through Fiscal Year 2028. The reauthorization included several of her provisions to improve consumer safety, expand the aviation workforce and enhance protections for travelers with disabilities. Duckworth has noted that while it was a tremendous victory for the flying public, more needs to be done to address the recent issues that have come to light with Boeing since a door plug blew out of an Alaska Airlines flight mid-flight.
-30-
Jefferson City — Today, Governor Mike Kehoe requested that President Donald J. Trump approve a major disaster declaration to provide federal assistance in a total of 28 counties in response to the severe storms and tornadoes that devastated Missouri March 14-15, claiming 13 lives and causing significant damage to homes, businesses, and public infrastructure.
“The State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) and local partners have been working in close coordination with FEMA to document damage in the areas impacted by these storms,” Governor Kehoe said. “Today, we are requesting a federal disaster declaration to support the affected communities and their recovery efforts. We are confident federal assistance will be forthcoming and greatly appreciate the critical work already being done by local response agencies and many volunteer partners to help Missourians in need.”
Based on the documented damage, Governor Kehoe is requesting FEMA Individual Assistance for the following 25 counties: Bollinger, Butler, Camden, Carter, Dunklin, Franklin, Howell, Iron, Jefferson, Laclede, Madison, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps, Pulaski, Reynolds, Ripley, St. Louis, Stoddard, Wayne, Webster, and Wright.
Individual Assistance would allow eligible residents to seek federal assistance for temporary housing, housing repairs, replacement of damaged belongings, vehicles, and other qualifying expenses.
Based on the documented damage and emergency response costs, Governor Kehoe is also requesting FEMA Public Assistance for the following 20 counties: Bollinger, Butler, Callaway, Carter, Dunklin, Franklin, Howell, Iron, Madison, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, and Wayne.
If approved, Public Assistance would allow local governments and qualifying nonprofit agencies to seek federal assistance for reimbursement of emergency response and recovery costs, including repair and replacement of damaged roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure.
Joint damage assessments conducted by FEMA, SEMA, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and local officials estimate more than $26.9 million in emergency response costs and damage to public infrastructure.
Several Multi-Agency Resource Centers (MARCs), one-stop shops for recovery resources, were hosted March 25 – April 1 in Rolla, Hartville, West Plains, Van Buren, Popular Bluff, Doniphan, Piedmont, Perryville, Florissant, and Arnold. These MARCs served over 2,873 impacted individuals from 1,171 households. Due to the potential for severe weather, the MARC previously scheduled to take place at Eagles Hall in Pacific (707 W. Congress St.) has been rescheduled to Wednesday, April 9 from 1-7 p.m.
Missourians with unmet needs are encouraged to contact United Way by dialing 2-1-1 or the American Red Cross at 1-800-733-2767. For additional resources and information about disaster recovery in Missouri, including general clean-up information, housing assistance, and mental health services, please visit recovery.mo.gov.
CALGARY, Alberta, April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Quorum Information Technologies Inc. (TSX-V: QIS) (“Quorum”), a North American SaaS Software and Services company providing essential enterprise solutions that automotive dealerships and Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”) rely on for their operations, intends to release its Q4 and fiscal year 2024 Results after markets close on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.
Maury Marks, President and Chief Executive Officer and Marilyn Bown, Chief Financial Officer will present the Q4 and fiscal year 2024 Results at a conference call with concurrent audio webcast, scheduled for:
An updated Investor Presentation, replay of the results conference call, and transcripts of the conference call, will also be available at www.QuorumInformationSystems.com.
About Quorum Information Technologies Inc.
Quorum is a North American SaaS Software and Services company providing essential enterprise solutions that automotive dealerships and Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”) rely on for their operations, including:
Quorum’s Dealership Management System (DMS), which automates, integrates, and streamlines key processes across departments in a dealership, and emphasizes revenue generation and customer satisfaction.
DealerMine CRM, a sales and service Customer Relationship Management (“CRM”) system and set of Business Development Centre services that drives revenue into the critical sales and service departments in a dealership.
Autovance, a modern retailing platform that helps dealerships attract more business through Digital Retailing, improve in-store profits and closing rates through its desking tool and maximize their efficiency and CSI through Autovance’s F&I menu solution.
Accessible Accessories, a digital retailing platform that allows franchised dealerships to efficiently increase their vehicle accessories revenue.
VINN Automotive, a premier automotive marketplace that streamlines the vehicle research and purchase process for vehicle shoppers while helping retailers sell more efficiently.
Contacts:
Maury Marks President and Chief Executive Officer 403-777-0036 Maury.Marks@QuorumInfoTech.com
Marilyn Bown Chief Financial Officer 403-777-0036 Marilyn.Bown@QuorumInfoTech.com
Forward-Looking Information
This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (“forward-looking information”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking information is often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “plan”, “intend”, “objective”, “continuous”, “ongoing”, “estimate”, “expect”, “may”, “will”, “project”, “should” or similar words suggesting future outcomes. Quorum believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking information are reasonable but no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct and such forward-looking information should not be unduly relied upon.
Forward-looking information is not a guarantee of future performance and involves a number of risks and uncertainties some of which are described herein. Such forward-looking information necessarily involves known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause Quorum’s actual performance and financial results in future periods to differ materially from any projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forward-looking information.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its regulation services provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) has reviewed this release and neither accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
DUBLIN, Ohio, April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — reAlpha Tech Corp. (Nasdaq: AIRE) (the “Company” or “reAlpha”), a real estate technology company developing and commercializing artificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies, today provides a business update and reports financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.
“We have made great strides in 2024 in advancing reAlpha’s goal to become a leader in the real estate technology industry through strategic innovation and impactful acquisitions,” commented Piyush Phadke, Chief Financial Officer of reAlpha. “Our continued investment in AI-driven technologies and strategic acquisitions has translated into meaningful revenue growth, and we believe we are well-positioned to drive further expansion of our business and deliver value to our stockholders.”
Business Highlights
Strategic and operational highlights during the period ended December 31, 2024, include:
Launched the reAlpha platform, an end-to-end, commission-free homebuying platform, in April 2024, which was designed to reshape the homebuying experience by eliminating traditional commission fees. The reAlpha platform is powered by Claire, reAlpha’s AI-real estate agent, which is available 24/7.
Acquired a controlling interest in Hyperfast Title, LLC, in July 2024, which enabled us to offer title services in 3 U.S. states.
Acquired an 85% stake in AiChat Pte. Ltd. (“AiChat”) in July 2024, which enhanced reAlpha’s AI capabilities in conversational customer engagement and expanded its presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Introduced the reAlpha Super App in August 2024, which provided homebuyers with the ability to use the reAlpha platform and its AI-driven homebuying services directly in their mobile devices.
Completed the acquisition of Debt Does Deals, LLC (“Be My Neighbor”), which allowed us to offer mortgage brokerage services in 27 U.S. states. Later in the year, Be My Neighbor became licensed in an additional state, for a total of 28 U.S. states.
Financial Results and Operational Update
In the beginning of 2024, reAlpha halted its short-term rental operations under its rental business segment due to macroeconomic conditions, such as high interest rates and inflationary pressures. As a result, in the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, reAlpha recognized a goodwill impairment of Roost Enterprises, Inc. (“Rhove”) of $17,337,739, which reAlpha acquired to operate under its rental business segment. As such, reAlpha’s financial statements and related financial notes thereto for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, reflect the Rhove goodwill impairment as discontinued operations. Because macroeconomic conditions persisted during 2024, and in connection with Rhove’s goodwill impairment, the board of directors of reAlpha approved to discontinue its short-term rental business operations entirely in the first quarter of 2025.
Revenue for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 was $948,420, an increase of 270%, compared to $256,436 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. reAlpha’s revenues consist of technology services income that it receives from its technologies and services provided by its subsidiaries. This increase in revenues is mainly attributed to the revenue derived from strategic acquisitions that reAlpha completed during 2024, such as AiChat and Be My Neighbor.
Cash and cash equivalents were $3,123,530 as of December 31, 2024 and $ 6,456,370 as of December 31, 2023.
Net loss was approximately $26.02 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to a net loss of approximately $2.46 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. This increase in net loss is predominantly due to the goodwill impairment of Rhove during the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, and the one-time gain of $5,502,774 from the sale of myAlphie, a technology platform reAlpha previously developed and sold, that was recognized in the comparable 2023 period, which was not present in 2024. Loss from discontinued operations was approximately $18.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $0.31 million for the comparable 2023 period, which is mainly due to Rhove’s goodwill impairment and intangibles being presented as discontinued operations. Net loss from continuing operations was $7.68 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $2.14 million for the comparable 2023 period. The increase in net loss from continuing operations was primarily due to the one-time gain from the sale of myAlphie that was not present in 2024.
Adjusted EBITDA was $(5,572,214) for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $(7,387,223) for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.
About reAlpha Tech Corp.
reAlpha Tech Corp. (Nasdaq: AIRE) is a real estate technology company developing an end-to-end commission-free homebuying platform. Utilizing the power of AI and an acquisition-led growth strategy, reAlpha’s goal is to offer a more affordable, streamlined experience for those on the journey to homeownership. For more information, visit www.realpha.com.
Investor Relations Contact:
Adele Carey, VP of Investor Relations investorrelations@realpha.com
Media Contact:
Fatema Bhabrawala, Director of Public Relations fbhabrawala@allianceadvisors.com
Forward-Looking Statements
The information in this press release includes “forward-looking statements.” Any statements other than statements of historical fact contained herein, including statements as to planned acquisitions, business strategy and plans, objectives of management for future operations of reAlpha, market size and growth opportunities, competitive position and technological and market trends, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may”, “should”, “could”, “might”, “plan”, “possible”, “project”, “strive”, “budget”, “forecast”, “expect”, “intend”, “will”, “estimate”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “predict”, “potential” or “continue”, or the negatives of these terms or variations of them or similar terminology. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, but are not limited to: reAlpha’s ability to pay contractual obligations; reAlpha’s liquidity, operating performance, cash flow and ability to secure adequate financing; reAlpha’s limited operating history and that reAlpha has not yet fully developed its AI-based technologies; whether reAlpha’s technology and products will be accepted and adopted by its customers and intended users; reAlpha’s ability to commercialize its developing AI-based technologies; reAlpha’s ability to successfully enter new geographic markets; reAlpha’s ability to integrate the business of its acquired companies into its existing business and the anticipated demand for such acquired companies’ services; reAlpha’s ability to scale its operational capabilities to expand into additional geographic markets and nationally; the potential loss of key employees of reAlpha and of its subsidiaries; the outcome of certain outstanding legal proceedings against reAlpha; reAlpha’s ability to obtain, and maintain, the required licenses to operate in the U.S. states in which it, or its subsidiaries, operate in, or intend to operate in; reAlpha’s ability to successfully identify and acquire companies that are complementary to its business model; reAlpha’s ability to commercialize its developing AI-based technologies; the inability to maintain and strengthen reAlpha’s brand and reputation; any accidents or incidents involving cybersecurity breaches and incidents; the inability to accurately forecast demand for short-term rentals and AI-based real estate-focused products; the inability to execute business objectives and growth strategies successfully or sustain reAlpha’s growth; the inability of reAlpha’s customers to pay for reAlpha’s services; the inability of reAlpha to obtain additional financing or access the capital markets to fund its ongoing operations on acceptable terms and conditions; the outcome of any legal proceedings that might be instituted against reAlpha; changes in applicable laws or regulations, and the impact of the regulatory environment and complexities with compliance related to such environment; and other risks and uncertainties indicated in reAlpha’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management at the date the statements are made and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. Although reAlpha believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. reAlpha’s future results, level of activity, performance or achievements may differ materially from those contemplated, expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, and there is no representation that the actual results achieved will be the same, in whole or in part, as those set out in the forward-looking statements. For more information about the factors that could cause such differences, please refer to reAlpha’s filings with the SEC. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and reAlpha does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
reAlpha Tech Corp. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheet
December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash
$
3,123,530
$
6,456,370
Accounts receivable
182,425
30,630
Receivable from related parties
12,873
–
Prepaid expenses
180,158
242,795
Current assets of Discontinued operations
56,931
88,036
Other current assets
487,181
582,463
Total current assets
$
4,043,098
$
7,400,294
Property and Equipment, at cost
Property and equipment, net
$
102,638
$
328,539
Other Assets
Investments
215,000
115,000
Other long term assets
31,250
406,250
Intangible assets, net
3,285,406
–
Long term assets of discontinued operations
–
18,335,701
Goodwill
4,211,166
–
Capitalized software development – work in progress
105,900
839,085
TOTAL ASSETS
$
11,994,458
$
27,424,869
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT)
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable
$
655,765
$
431,700
Related party payables
9,287
–
Short term loans – related parties – current portion
115,086
–
Short term loans – unrelated parties – current portion
666,053
190,095
Accrued expenses
1,164,813
799,624
Current liabilities of Discontinued operations
–
47,665
Deferred liabilities, current portion
1,534,433
593,750
Total current liabilities
$
4,145,437
$
2,062,834
Long-Term Liabilities
Deferred liabilities, net of current portion
–
406,250
Mortgage and other long term loans – related parties – net of current portion
45,052
–
Mortgage and other long term loans – unrelated parties – net of current portion
241,121
247,000
Note payable, net of discount
4,909,376
–
Other long term liabilities
1,086,000
–
Total liabilities
$
10,426,986
$
2,716,084
Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value; 5,000,000 shares authorized, 0 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023
–
–
Common stock ($0.001 par value; 200,000,000 shares authorized, 45,864,503 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2024; 200,000,000 shares authorized, 44,122,091 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2023)
45,865
44,123
Additional paid-in capital
39,770,060
36,899,497
Accumulated deficit
(38,260,913
)
(12,237,885
)
Accumulated other comprehensive income
5,011
–
Total stockholders’ equity (deficit) of reAlpha Tech Corp.
1,560,023
24,705,735
Non-controlling interests in consolidated entities
7,449
3,050
Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)
1,567,472
24,708,785
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKOLDERS’ EQUITY
$
11,994,458
$
27,424,869
reAlpha Tech Corp. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss
For the Year Ended December 31, 2024 and Eight Months Ended December 31, 2023 and Year Ended April 30, 2023
For the Year Ended
For the Eight Months Ended
For the Year Ended
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
April 30, 2023
Revenues
$
948,420
$
121,690
$
419,412
Cost of revenues
302,084
94,665
293,204
Gross Profit
646,336
27,025
126,208
Operating Expenses
Wages, benefits and payroll taxes
2,841,591
710,737
1,114,403
Repairs & maintenance
3,216
51,436
24,794
Utilities
11,545
12,321
32,456
Travel
259,661
46,476
–
Dues & subscriptions
118,656
24,426
98,000
Marketing & advertising
793,004
193,612
2,002,884
Professional & legal fees
2,124,946
4,572,026
1,470,306
Depreciation & amortization
282,095
30,029
157,802
Impairment of intangible assets
202,968
–
–
Other operating expenses
911,268
418,697
159,166
Total operating expenses
7,548,950
6,059,760
5,059,811
Operating Loss
(6,902,614
)
(6,032,735
)
(4,933,603
)
Other Income (Expense)
Gain on sale of myAlphie
–
5,502,774
–
Interest expense, net
(333,759
)
(70,119
)
(169,776
)
Other expense, net
(500,601
)
(144,764
)
(334,228
)
Total other (expense) income
(834,360
)
5,287,891
(504,004
)
Net Loss from continuing operations before income taxes
(7,736,974
)
(744,844
)
(5,437,607
)
Income tax (expense) benefit
54,260
(204,286
)
–
Net Loss from continuing operations
(7,682,714
)
(949,130
)
(5,437,607
)
Discontinued operations (Roost and Rhove)
Loss from operations of discontinued Operations
(261,242
)
(302,129
)
(14,776
)
Loss on abandonment of discontinued Operations
(18,078,393
)
–
–
Income tax benefit
–
Loss on discontinued operations
$
(18,339,635
)
$
(302,129
)
$
(14,776
)
Net Loss after income taxes
$
(26,022,349
)
$
(1,251,259
)
$
(5,452,383
)
Less: Net (Loss) Income Attributable to Non-Controlling Interests
679
464
726
Net Loss Income Attributable to Controlling Interests
$
(26,023,028
)
$
(1,251,723
)
$
(5,453,109
)
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation adjustments
5,011
–
–
Total other comprehensive gain
5,011
–
–
Comprehensive Loss Attributable to Controlling Interests
$
(26,018,017
)
$
(1,251,723
)
$
(5,453,109
)
Basic and diluted loss per share
Continuing operations
$
(0.17
)
$
(0.02
)
$
(0.13
)
Discontinued operations
$
(0.41
)
$
(0.01
)
$
(0.00
)
Net Loss per share – basic and diluted
$
(0.58
)
$
(0.03
)
$
(0.13
)
Weighted-average outstanding shares – basic
44,631,577
42,688,666
40,439,190
Weighted-average outstanding shares – diluted
44,631,577
42,688,666
40,439,190
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended December 31, 2024 and Eight Months Ended December 31, 2023 and Year Ended April 30, 2023
For the Year Ended
For the Eight Months Ended
For the Year Ended
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
April 30, 2023
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Net (Loss) income
$
(26,022,349
)
$
(1,251,259
)
$
(5,452,383
)
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization
466,691
289,067
157,802
Stock based compensation – employees
207,453
–
–
Stock based compensation – services
108,730
–
–
Legal & professional expenses
–
3,045,290
Amortization of loan discounts and origination fees
181,875
Write-off of capitalized software costs
145,746
–
–
Impairment of goodwill and Intangible assets
18,280,947
–
–
Commitment fee expenses
500,000
–
–
Loss on sale of properties
301
(85,077
)
(22,817
)
Gain on previously held equity
(20,663
)
–
–
Gain on sale of myAlphie
–
(5,502,774
)
–
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable
(16,437
)
37,490
65,696
Receivable from related parties
(12,873
)
20,874
(20,874
)
Payable to related parties
(56,241
)
–
–
Prepaid expenses
62,637
(226,889
)
96,038
Other current assets
(19,773
)
(419,849
)
(81,689
)
Accounts payable
58,756
48,928
235,433
Accrued expenses
(185,118
)
621,815
60,741
Deferred liabilities
278,080
593,750
–
Total adjustments
19,980,111
(1,577,375
)
490,330
Net cash used in operating activities
(6,042,238
)
(2,828,634
)
(4,962,053
)
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Proceeds from sale of properties
293,307
731,343
1,539,997
Additions to property, plant & equipment
(12,533
)
(40,840
)
19,721
Cash paid to acquire business
(1,268,630
)
(50,000
)
(25,000
)
Cash paid for equity method investment
(50,000
)
–
–
Cash used for additions to capitalized software development and intangibles
(516,544
)
(134,400
)
(452,451
)
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities
(1,554,400
)
506,103
1,082,267
Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
Proceeds from issuance of debt
6,155,539
190,095
247,000
Payments of debt
(1,164,241
)
–
(1,071,709
)
Deferred financing costs
(727,500
)
Proceeds from issuance of common stock
7,331,938
4,282,274
Settling subscription issuance of common stock contributions
–
–
–
Offering costs paid on issuance of common stock
–
–
(416,312
)
Net cash provided by financing activities
4,263,798
7,522,033
3,041,253
Net Increase (decrease) in cash
(3,332,840
)
5,199,502
(838,533
)
Cash – Beginning of Period
6,456,370
1,256,868
2,095,401
Cash – End of Period
$
3,123,530
$
6,456,370
$
1,256,868
Cash
$
3,123,530
$
6,456,370
$
1,256,868
Restricted cash
–
–
–
Total cash
$
3,123,530
$
6,456,370
$
1,256,868
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
Interest expense
$
(58,897
)
$
(70,119
)
$
(169,776
)
Explanatory Notes on Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures
To supplement reAlpha’s financial information presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP (“GAAP”), reAlpha believes “Adjusted EBITDA,” a “non-GAAP financial measure”, as such term is defined under the rules of the SEC, is useful in evaluating reAlpha’s operating performance. reAlpha uses Adjusted EBITDA to evaluate reAlpha’s ongoing operations and for internal planning and forecasting purposes. reAlpha believes that Adjusted EBITDA may be helpful to investors because it provides consistency and comparability with past financial performance. However, Adjusted EBITDA is presented for supplemental informational purposes only, has limitations as an analytical tool, and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with GAAP. In addition, other companies, including companies in reAlpha’s industry, may calculate similarly titled non-GAAP measures differently or may use other measures to evaluate their performance, all of which could reduce the usefulness of reAlpha’s non-GAAP financial measures as tools for comparison. A reconciliation is provided below for each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure stated in accordance with GAAP. Investors are encouraged to review the related GAAP financial measures and the reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, and not to rely on any single financial measure to evaluate reAlpha’s business.
We use Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP financial measure, to evaluate our operating performance and facilitate comparisons across periods and with peer companies. We reconcile our Adjusted EBITDA to our net income (loss) adjusted to exclude interest expense, depreciation and amortization, share-based compensation, and other non-cash, non-operating, or non-recurring items that we believe are not indicative of our core business operations. We believe this measure provides useful insight into our ongoing performance; however, it should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, net income or other financial information prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
The following table provides a reconciliation of net income to Adjusted EBITDA for the periods presented below:
2024
2023
Net (Loss) Income
$
(26,022,349
)
$
(2,462,407
)
Adjusted to exclude the following
Depreciation & amortization
282,095
346,171
Gain on sale of myAlphie
–
(5,502,774
)
Interest Expense
333,759
128,268
Share-based Compensation (1)
316,183
–
GEM commitment fee (2)
500,000
–
Acquisition related expense (3)
517,251
103,519
Gain on previously held equity (4)
(20,663
)
–
Amortization of loan discounts and origination fees (5)
181,875
–
Loss from discontinued operations before tax (6)
18,339,635
–
Adjusted EBITDA
$
(5,572,214
)
$
(7,387,223
)
(1) Reflects share-based compensation provided to non-executive officer employees and certain members of our board of directors for services rendered to us, which is recognized as a non-cash expense.
(2) Reflects the commitment fee incurred in connection with the equity facility we have in place with GEM Global Yield LLC SCS and GEM Yield Bahamas Limited (collectively, “GEM”) pursuant to that certain Share Purchase Agreement, among reAlpha and GEM, dated December 1, 2022.
(3) Reflects expenses related to acquisitions, including professional and legal fees, which are excluded to provide a clearer view of ongoing operational performance.
(4) Reflects the gain from the fair value measurement of previously held equity interests, which is recognized as a non-operational item and treated as a non-GAAP measure.
(5) Reflects the amortized original issue discount related to that certain secured promissory note, dated as of August 14, 2024.
(6) Reflects the loss from the discontinuation of our rental business segment operations, which consists mainly of the goodwill impairment of Rhove operations.
Defendant and Co-Conspirator Both Sentenced to Prison for Conspiring to Send Controlled Aircraft Components to Russia
Oleg Sergeyevhich Patsulya, a Russian national, was sentenced today to 70 months, or nearly six years, in prison for his role in a conspiracy to export controlled aviation technology to Russia and to launder money in connection with the illegal export scheme. In December 2024, Patsulya’s co-conspirator, Russian national Vasilii Sergeyevich Besedin, was sentenced to two years in prison for his role in the scheme.
In April 2024, Patsulya, 46, of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to export items from the United States without a license in violation of the Export Control Reform Act and conspiracy to commit international money laundering. At today’s sentencing hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Dominic W. Lanza for the District of Arizona. found that Patsulya was an organizer and leader of the conspiracy and that the money laundering scheme – which employed numerous shell companies, offshore accounts, and multi-layered transactions – was sophisticated in nature, which led to the application of sentencing enhancements.
In handing down Patsulya’s 70-month sentence, Judge Lanza emphasized the seriousness of the offense, Patsulya’s leadership role in planning and carrying it out, and the fact that Patsulya committed these crimes not long after being granted the privilege of a visa to enter the United States. “It’s hard to imagine a bigger betrayal of the United States than what you did,” Judge Lanza said. The proceedings also established that Patsulya currently lacks legal status to be present in the United States.
According to court documents, beginning in or about May 2022, Patsulya and Besedin conspired with each other and several others to obtain orders for various aircraft parts and components from Russian buyers – primarily commercial airline companies – and then fulfill those requests by acquiring the parts from the U.S. suppliers and unlawfully exporting the parts to Russia. The defendants admitted to knowing the items were controlled and required a license from the Department of Commerce to export.
As part of the scheme, the defendants conspired to export multiple shipments of a carbon disc brake system used on Boeing 737 aircraft. When they contacted various U.S. suppliers in efforts to obtain the brake system, Besedin and Patsulya provided false information that the parts were intended for countries other than Russia. The United States was able to detain, prior to export, multiple shipments made by the defendants containing units of the brake assembly technology.
As part of their guilty pleas, Besedin and Patsulya admitted that they attempted to conceal the illegal exports and avoid detection by law enforcement, including by making false representations about the identities of their true customers and using straw buyer-companies located overseas to obscure the origin of revenue. For example, on Sept. 8, 2022, Besedin and Patsulya traveled to Arizona to close a deal with a U.S. company, in which the defendants sought to purchase units of the brake assembly technology. During their discussions with the company, the defendants misrepresented that the aircraft parts were going to be exported to Turkey, when they were in fact destined for Russia. The defendants made false statements to the company both orally and in signed export compliance forms. In connection with this transaction, the defendants received money from a Russian airline company to make the purchase. The funds were transferred to Patsulya’s American bank account from a Turkish bank account that had previously received the money from Russia.
In total, throughout the conspiracy, American bank accounts associated with MIC P&I LLC, Patsulya’s company, received at least $4,582,288.51 sent from Russian airline companies through Turkish bank accounts to purchase aircraft parts and components intended for unlawful export. As part of his plea and sentence, Patsulya is required to forfeit assets, including a luxury car and personal boat, in the amount of $4,582,288.51.
Sue Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine for the District of Arizona, Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and Special Agent in Charge Richard Fitzpatrick of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Phoenix Field Office made the announcement.
The BIS Phoenix Field Office and the FBI Phoenix Field Office investigated the case, with valuable assistance provided by the BIS Boston Field Office, the FBI Miami Field Office, Homeland Security Investigations Phoenix Field Office, Customs and Border Protection-Phoenix Field Office, and the U.S. Marshals Office in Miami.
Trial Attorney Christopher M. Rigali of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney William G. Voit for the District of Arizona prosecuted the case.
This case was coordinated through the Disruptive Technology Strike Force, an interagency law enforcement strike force co-led by the Departments of Justice and Commerce designed to target illicit actors, protect supply chains, and prevent critical technology from being acquired by authoritarian regimes and hostile nation-states. The Strike Force leverages tools and authorities across the U.S. government to enhance the criminal and administrative enforcement of export control laws.
Governor Shapiro Invests in Pennsylvania Businesses and Main Streets as the Federal Government Raises Taxes and Prices
Governor Josh Shapiro visited Fegley’s Brew Works in the Lehigh Valley to highlight his Administration’s investments in Pennsylvania’s small businesses and main streets – and his work to cut taxes and reduce costs for Pennsylvanians. The Shapiro Administration has committed $20 million to the Main Street Matters Program, helping small businesses and commercial corridors all across the Commonwealth. Over the past year, the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) has supported local economic development efforts, including $20,000 to Bethlehem City for commercial faade improvements, $146,500 for remediation of a blighted property in Bethlehem’s Enterprise Zone, and multiple Neighborhood Assistance Program (NAP) grants to support community development in Bethlehem City. Additionally, last fall, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) awarded more than $516,000 in research and marketing grants to boost sales, production, and quality in Pennsylvania’s craft beer and malt beverage industry.
During his visit, Governor Shapiro highlighted the harmful impact of new federal tariffs, which threaten to raise costs for businesses and put key industries – such as Pennsylvania’s craft beer industry – at risk. With more than 500 craft breweries across the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania is a national leader in craft beer production, supporting thousands of jobs and generating millions in economic impact. Since taking office, the Governor has prioritized investments to help craft brewers expand, modernize, and reach new markets. His Administration remains committed to lowering costs, cutting red tape, and ensuring Pennsylvania’s businesses have the resources they need to compete and grow.
“Every community in Pennsylvania has a main street – places where we come together to shop at small businesses, share a meal with family or friends, or have a beer on the weekends – and those main streets matter. While my Administration invests in our main streets, Washington is making it harder for the small businesses that line them to succeed bydriving up their costs and increasing taxes,” said Governor Shapiro. “The new federal tariffs going into effect today are a tax on our businesses and our consumers that will drive up costs for everyone – they’ll even make beer more expensive. Here in Pennsylvania, instead of raising costs, we’re cutting costs for our businesses and consumers, and focusing on smart, strategic investments that create opportunity and grow our economy.”
List of Speakers: Jeff Fegley, owner of Fegley’s Brew Works Governor Josh Shapiro Beau Baden, owner of Sherman Street Beer Company Bethlehem Mayor Willie Reynolds Senator Lisa Boscola Representative Steve Samuelson Representative Jeanne McNeill
Thank you, Alan, and thank you to the Griswold and Julis-Rabinowitz Centers for the opportunity to speak to you today.1 As someone who has worked in both the public sector and academia, I applaud the common purpose of both centers in connecting researchers, policymakers, and the private sector to pursue policy ideas that serve the public good.
To that end, I can think of few individuals who have done more—as a teacher, researcher, government official, and public figure—than Alan Blinder. That includes educating the public about economic policymaking. In the spring of 2022, as many wondered whether Russia’s war on Ukraine would add to the factors then driving up inflation, Professor Blinder wrote in the Wall Street Journal that a more important factor would probably be the public’s expectations of future inflation.2 As I will relate in these remarks, he was, of course, absolutely correct. As in the past, inflation expectations have played a crucial role in the course of inflation since the spring of 2022, and I expect they will be important in the Federal Reserve’s ongoing effort to achieve sustained inflation of 2 percent. For that reason, I would like to focus on inflation expectations today, before discussing my outlook for the U.S. economy and the implications for appropriate monetary policy. First, I will describe inflation expectations within the conceptual framework that many economists use to connect inflation to broader economic activity, known as the Phillips curve. Second, I will discuss the central importance of the stability of these expectations, which we have come to call the “anchoring” of inflation expectations. Third, I will explain how firms and households form their inflation expectations and how these expectations affect their economic decisionmaking. Throughout, I will make some references to historical experiences with inflation but focus on the period since the pandemic. Economists have long recognized the connection between inflation and overall macroeconomic conditions, but it was in trying to explain this empirical relationship and measure it with some precision that the importance of inflation expectations was revealed. The foundation of this work was laid by New Zealand economist A.W. Phillips, a fascinating figure who was, among other things, a mechanical genius who built an early economic model operated by hydraulics rather than electronics. In contemplating the mechanics of the economy, in 1958 Phillips set about to explain why nominal wage growth was slower when unemployment was high and faster when unemployment was low. His and other subsequent research showed that a crucial factor was the utilization of resources, such as labor and capital.3 Generally, when firms use labor and capital very intensively, production costs tend to rise, and firms have more scope to pass those cost increases along in the form of higher prices for their products and services, which, in turn, may push up inflation across the economy. In contrast, when that level of utilization is low, costs tend to rise more slowly (or even fall), and firms have less scope for raising prices, thus pushing down inflation. This tradeoff has been called the Phillips curve. In this simple form, this tradeoff implies that governments can achieve and maintain very low unemployment only if they allow inflation to rise to a certain level. In the latter 1960s, Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps asserted that this orderly tradeoff was only temporary and would ultimately break down because of the role of expectations and, in particular, inflation expectations.4 To use an example, while current production costs are important to a factory owner setting prices, that owner will also consider future production costs, future levels of demand, and expectations for inflation throughout the economy. Likewise, workers will factor expectations of future economic conditions into their pay demands, and banks will consider future inflation in deciding loan rates. Consumers, whose purchases constitute some two-thirds of economic activity, make decisions about whether to purchase something today with an idea of what it will cost in the future. All these decisions are influenced by expectations, and this is the way in which expectations may shape inflation now. In turn, when we think about the Phillips curve and its tradeoff nowadays, we account for the important role of expectations of different individuals throughout the economy. There are different measures of inflation expectations, some from surveys polling business owners, others asking consumers, and yet others estimating expectations among bond investors based on the differences in yields between nominal and inflation-indexed securities. While most of my points apply broadly to all measures of expectations, my examples come mostly from surveys of consumers and businesses. While there are questions, which I will address, about how well these surveys measure inflation expectations, I closely monitor them because they complement market-based indicators of future inflation that are affected by dynamics intrinsic to financial markets, such as changes in risk premiums. Let me note that, in addition to the way expectations of future inflation influence prices in the near term, there are economic mechanisms that link current inflation with past inflation, such as those that set wages and the terms of rental contracts. In these cases, adjustments in these terms are often benchmarked on past inflation, as, for instance, when workers and landlords aim to recoup losses from increases in general prices. To cite one example, as the economy reopened after the pandemic, workers sought higher wages to compensate for the early wave of inflation in food and core goods, thus further pushing up inflation, especially in the services sector, where labor accounts for the largest share of this sector’s costs.5 And, because rental agreements typically last for 12 months or more, landlords faced a lag in adjusting rents to reflect the escalation of inflation after the pandemic and sought to recoup those losses when renewing leases. By looking at price changes this way, in a rearview mirror, some decisionmakers in the economy end up making inflation more persistent. That is important to me as an economic policymaker who must pay attention to both expectations of future inflation and the persistence of current inflation. When we speak of expectations of future inflation, it is crucial to define the time horizon, and different surveys conducted by the Federal Reserve and others ask about inflation from 1 year to as many as 10 years in the future. Surveys with a shorter horizon, such as the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers’ question on inflation 1 year ahead, shown in figure 1, are heavily influenced by current inflation. Near-term inflation expectations tend to be more volatile, moving up when, for example, energy prices increase, or down when energy or some other volatile set of prices decreases. These expectations are important because many economic decisions, such as major consumer purchases and hiring and investment for firms, focus on horizons of only a few years ahead. By contrast, inflation expectations over longer horizons, such as the Michigan survey’s question on inflation during the next 5 to 10 years (the red line in figure 1), say less about current conditions than about the trend for inflation for some time in the future. You can think about these longer-term expectations as much less affected by the forces that push inflation up or down in the short term, what economists call “shocks.” Longer-term inflation expectations tend to be less volatile, affected less, for example, by what oil or food prices have done lately than by the stability of inflation over years or decades. I mention these different time horizons because they matter in my job as a central banker. Expectations a year from now reflect short-term shocks to the economy, as well as ongoing efforts from monetary policymakers to bring the economy back to its longer-run state. Thus, while short-term expectations may indicate whether inflation is expected to move toward its target, they are not the best gauge of monetary policy credibility. Longer-term inflation expectations, however, should be much less influenced by short-term shocks to the economy, and a change in those expectations has implications for the Federal Reserve’s prospects for meeting its price-stability goal. When these longer-term expectations are reasonably low and unresponsive to shorter-term developments, we say they are “anchored.” It is not clear who first defined the term, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2007 gave a speech on inflation expectations in which he described “anchored” expectations as “relatively insensitive to incoming data.”6 So how should we think about the process of anchoring and de-anchoring of inflation expectations? The dynamics of short- and long-term inflation expectations shed light on this issue. If the public experiences a spell of inflation higher than their shorter-run expectations, they will revise up these shorter-term expectations to ensure that their near-term plans account for the change in the economic environment. That’s what happened after the pandemic, when inflation based on personal consumption expenditures (PCE) rose to a peak of 7.2 percent and one-year expectations rose to more than 5 percent. But longer-term inflation expectations remained anchored, with values within the range seen since 1995. I would contrast this experience with the United States’ previous bout of high inflation from the 1970s to the early 1980s. Among other issues, such as high energy prices and accommodative monetary policy, rising inflation and inflation expectations fed a cycle of escalating inflationary pressures.7 Inflation was high and very volatile over this period, and that is reflected in shorter and longer-term inflation expectations that were high and volatile, too. Another important difference between these two episodes has to do with the performance of the Federal Reserve. As opposed to the late 1960s and most of the 1970s, most recently the Fed acted aggressively to tighten monetary policy, raising the federal funds rate more rapidly than in previous tightenings and lowering inflation more quickly than ever before. This came after 30 years of success in keeping inflation in check, and the credibility earned by the Fed’s inflation discipline surely helped keep longer-term expectations stable. This shows that an important role of the central bank is to convince the public, through actions and communications, about its intention to shape economic conditions and to use its policy tools to bring inflation to its target.8 By committing to keep inflation low in the future, central banks seek to influence expectations of future inflation, which, in turn, influence conditions now and over time. The Fed’s credibility in keeping inflation low and stable, won over decades, kept longer-term inflation expectations stable, and that contributed significantly to the Fed’s success in reducing inflation while keeping the labor market strong. Those are some of the basics about inflation expectations and how they influence the economy and the conduct of monetary policy. Next, I want to note some of the patterns we see in survey measures of inflation expectations, what influences expectations, and how inflation expectations are used by the public in their decisionmaking. Fortunately, there is a rich body of economic research that has shed light on these questions, and I will focus on the evidence for households and firms.9 We can then take some lessons from these empirical patterns for monetary policymaking. One important observation is that both short- and long-term inflation expectations are often notably higher than actual inflation, even after a period of very low inflation. There is evidence that survey respondents often believe the inflation they have experienced is higher than it is. Another pattern is that there is a wide dispersion of views about both shorter and longer-term inflation expectations, reflecting, at least in part, the dispersion of inflation in the consumer baskets of goods and services purchased by different people. Research also finds that some groups, such as women and lower-income households, tend to have systematically higher inflation expectations. In addition to this variation in expectations, there is high uncertainty in forecasts of future inflation. When people are asked to assign probabilities to different forecasts for inflation, surveys report wide distributions in the likelihood of one outcome or another. Finally, short-term inflation expectations tend to be correlated with both recently realized inflation and perceptions about recent inflation.10 These patterns tell policymakers that inflation expectations of households and firms are diffuse and likely harder to influence through monetary policy relative to financial market participants and professional forecasters who follow the news more closely. Still, expectations from business owners and workers ultimately inform firms’ pricing decisions and costs and, thus, may even be more relevant for inflation outcomes; therefore, it is important for policymakers to communicate clearly with the public our intentions to bring inflation back to our target.11 So, because inflation expectations are diffuse and heavily influenced by recent experience, let’s consider the reasons for the dispersion in these expectations. Unsurprisingly, it starts with the considerable variation in the sources that the public uses to collect information about inflation. Households report that their main source of information is their own shopping experiences, making regular purchases such as groceries and gasoline, and the price changes in those goods and services are what affect inflation expectations the most.12 Also, it seems that inflation expectations of homeowners tend to respond to changes in mortgage rates because homeowners have more of an incentive to track changes in rates that might affect, for example, their prospects for loan refinancing.13 Another important source of information is energy bills, with evidence also pointing to households’ inflation expectations being more sensitive to energy prices when inflation is higher.14 More generally, consumers and firms seem to pay more attention to news related to inflation when inflation is high, and this has been found for many countries.15 While the unique experiences of survey respondents matter, this evidence points to inflation expectations being dependent on the state of the economy. Thus, we policymakers should account for different economic conditions when assessing the risks of a de-anchoring of inflation expectations. For instance, with fresh memories of the post-pandemic inflation and with recent surges in prices of some food items regularly purchased, inflation expectations of workers and firms may now be more sensitive to anticipated future price increases relative to the pre-pandemic period. Let me now turn to how households and businesses employ their inflation expectations in their economic decisionmaking, with much of the evidence consistent with what one would expect based on long-standing economic theory. Starting with households, in addition to any influence on wages from past inflation, expectations of future inflation help shape demands for pay raises. Workers care about their inflation-adjusted wages, rather than nominal wages, and (as shown in figure 2) we see a positive correlation between inflation expectations from consumers and wage growth, with a close co-movement during the recent inflationary bout. A complementary decision for the worker is to look for a new job that pays more, especially if the person envisions a low probability of getting a raise in the current job or if the raise will likely not fully cover losses in real incomes from inflation. Indeed, measures of general wage growth are more sluggish relative to those of job switchers. Moreover, researchers also find evidence of higher job-to-job transitions for workers who have higher inflation expectations.16 So inflation expectations of workers are an important influence on nominal wage growth and an important indicator of inflationary pressures for us policymakers. Now let’s consider how these expectations influence firms’ decisions. As I discussed in the context of the Phillips curve, firms with higher inflation expectations would be expected to increase prices more, and, indeed, researchers find causal evidence for this.17 During the recent period of high inflation, the fact that business owners’ short-term expectations about costs or input prices rose only modestly and soon returned to levels close to 2 percent just suggests that firms’ inflation expectations were not a strong source of inflationary pressures (as seen in figure 3). Still, researchers at the Richmond Fed also found that during this period, business leaders incorporated more information about aggregate inflation measures in their own pricing decisions compared with times before the pandemic inflation surge.18 While researchers also find that business leaders paid less attention to inflation as it came down, this evidence points to the inflation expectations of businesses being sensitive to underlying inflationary dynamics, and monetary policymakers should remain attentive to this. Now let me turn to the recent developments in inflation expectations, the current U.S. economic outlook, and the implications for monetary policy. In recent months, we have seen several measures of inflation expectations increase, with both consumers and businesses reporting new and proposed tariffs as an important reason. Among surveys looking one year ahead, there have been notable increases for surveys by the University of Michigan, the Conference Board survey of consumers, the Atlanta Fed’s survey of businesses, the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters, and the New York Fed’s consumer survey. For instance, last Friday’s release of longer-term inflation expectations from the Michigan survey was the highest since February 1993. Additionally, the recent spike in short-term inflation expectations appears to be mostly “anticipatory,” as one can infer from the divergence between falling inflation perceptions—what consumers think price increases have been in the past year—and climbing short-run inflation expectations, both data from the Michigan survey. This anticipatory nature of the recent increase in short-run expectations may allow for price pressures through a second channel: Businesses may feel a greater ability to pass along higher costs to consumers when they come from external factors out of the control of these businesses. Indeed, firms are already reporting not only higher costs, but also expectations of higher costs, according to some surveys, such as the one conducted by the Atlanta Fed, along with other manufacturing surveys. For now, I take some comfort from the much smaller increases in longer-term expectations as measured by the Philadelphia Fed’s Survey of Professional Forecasters, as well as the stability of longer-term measures of what we call inflation compensation, which is based on yields from nominal and inflation-indexed Treasury securities. As in past episodes when inflation expectations increased, uncertainty about future inflation seems to have also gone up, as measured by the disagreement between the 75th and 25th percentiles of the distribution of individual respondents to the Michigan survey. Simultaneously, in recent months, we have also seen measures of economic policy uncertainty increase (seen in figure 4), and there is evidence that policy uncertainty and inflation uncertainty correlate over time.19 One possibility is that policy uncertainty may be contributing to a rise in inflation expectations as well as to uncertainty about future inflation. Still, it is hard to say at this point, and I will keep monitoring these developments. Let me turn from developments on expected inflation to realized inflation. After the substantial decline in inflation from its peak in 2022, recent disinflation has been slower, and the latest data indicate that progress toward the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) 2 percent goal may have stalled. Core PCE inflation was 2.8 percent in the 12 months ended in February, which puts us back at the same level seen in the last quarter of 2024. The best news for February comes from housing services inflation, which has come down steadily for at least a year to a 12‑month rate of 4.3 percent, even if it is still above the pre-pandemic level of 2.5 percent. For the rest of the inflation categories, the news was less positive. Core goods inflation, which had been negative for a large share of 2024, increased to 0.4 percent relative to a year before. February likely also marked an upward shift in market-based services inflation. While I do not discount price pressures in nonmarket services, which remain elevated, the acceleration in market-based services in February from an estimated 3.1 percent to 3.5 percent is also not welcome, given that this category often provides a better signal of inflationary pressures across all services. On the other side of the FOMC’s dual mandate, employment continues to grow at a moderate pace, and the overall labor market has remained resilient through February. The net 151,000 jobs added last month was not too far from the 177,000 average of the previous six months. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.1 percent, and labor force participation moved down to 62.4 percent. Other labor market indicators suggest continued moderation in the labor market but not significant weakening. Given the recent lack of progress on inflation, recent increases in inflation expectations, and upside risks associated with announced and prospective policy changes, I strongly supported the FOMC’s decision at our March meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent. I will support maintaining the current policy rate for as long as these upside risks to inflation continue, while economic activity and employment remain stable. Going forward, I will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and changes in the balance of risks. Thank you.
1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text 2. See Alan S. Blinder (2022), “Wish the Fed Luck as It Seeks a Soft Landing on Inflation,” Wall Street Journal, April 6. Return to text 3. For a literature review on the relationship between inflation and resource utilization, also called the slope of the Phillips curve, see Francesco Furlanetto and Antoine Lepetit (2024), “The Slope of the Phillips Curve (PDF),” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2024-043 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May). Return to text 4. See Milton Friedman (1968), “The Role of Monetary Policy,” American Economic Review, vol. 58 (March), pp. 1–17; and Edmund S. Phelps (1967), “Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time,” Economica, vol. 34 (135), pp. 254–81. Return to text 5. For a discussion about the timing of the inflation waves of different categories, see Adriana D. Kugler (2025), “Navigating Inflation Waves: A Phillips Curve Perspective,” speech delivered at the Whittington Lecture, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, February 20. Return to text 6. See Ben S. Bernanke (2007), “Inflation Expectations and Inflation Forecasting,” speech delivered at the Monetary Economics Workshop of the National Bureau of Economic Research Summer Institute, Cambridge, Mass., July 10, quoted text in paragraph 7. Return to text 7. For evidence on how longer-run inflation expectations may be driven by short-run inflation surprises, see Carlos Carvalho, Stefano Eusepi, Emanuel Moench, and Bruce Preston (2023), “Anchored Inflation Expectations,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 15 (January), pp. 1–47. Return to text 8. For a survey on how central banks communicate with the general public and the effectiveness of such communications, see Alan S. Blinder, Michael Ehrmann, Jakob de Haan, and David-Jan Jansen (2024), “Central Bank Communication with the General Public: Promise or False Hope?” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 62 (June), pp. 425–57. Return to text 9. For a literature review on this topic, see Michael Weber, Francesco D’Acunto, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Olivier Coibion (2022), “The Subjective Inflation Expectations of Households and Firms: Measurement, Determinants, and Implications,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 36 (Summer), pp. 157–84. Return to text 10. See David Lebow and Ekaterina Peneva (2024), “Inflation Perceptions during the Covid Pandemic and Recovery,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19). Return to text 11. See Ricardo Reis (2023), “Four Mistakes in the Use of Measures of Expected Inflation,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, vol. 113 (May), pp. 47–51. Return to text 12. See Francesco D’Acunto, Ulrike Malmendier, Juan Ospina, and Michael Weber (2021), “Exposure to Grocery Prices and Inflation Expectations,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 129 (May), pp. 1615–39. Return to text 13. See Hie Joo Ahn, Shihan Xie, and Choongryul Yang (2024). “Effects of Monetary Policy on Household Expectations: The Role of Homeownership,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 147 (October), 103599. Return to text 14. See Francesco D’Acunto and Michael Weber (2024), “Why Survey-Based Subjective Expectations Are Meaningful and Important,” Annual Review of Economics, vol. 16 (August), pp. 329–57. For evidence on the higher sensitivity of inflation expectations when inflation is higher, see Paula Patzelt and Ricardo Reis (2024), “Estimating the Rise in Expected Inflation from Higher Energy Prices,” CEPR Discussion Paper 18907 (Paris: Centre for Economic Policy Research, March). Return to text 15. See, for instance, Anat Bracha and Jenny Tang (2024), “Inflation Levels and (In)Attention,” Review of Economic Studies; and Michael Weber, Bernardo Candia, Hassan Afrouzi, Tiziano Ropele, Rodrigo Lluberas, Serafin Frache, Brent Meyer, Saten Kumar, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Dimitris Georgarakos, Olivier Coibion, Geoff Kenny, and Jorge Ponce (2025), “Tell Me Something I Don’t Already Know: Learning in Low‐ and High‐Inflation Settings,” Econometrica, vol. 93 (January), pp. 229–64. Return to text 16. See Ina Hajdini, Edward S. Knotek II, John Leer, Mathieu Pedemonte, Robert W. Rich, and Raphael S. Schoenle (2022), “Low Passthrough from Inflation Expectations to Income Growth Expectations: Why People Dislike Inflation,” Working Paper Series 22-21 (Cleveland: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, June); and Laura Pilossoph and Jane M. Ryngaert (2024), “Job Search, Wages, and Inflation,” NBER Working Paper Series 33042 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, October). Return to text 17. For the relationship between inflation expectations and pricing decisions, see Olivier Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Tiziano Ropele (2020), “Inflation Expectations and Firm Decisions: New Causal Evidence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 135 (February), pp. 165–219. Return to text 18. For evidence on the recent inflationary episode, see Felipe F. Schwartzman and Sonya Ravindranath Waddell (2024), “Inflation Expectations and Price Setting among Fifth District Firms,” Economic Brief 24‑03 (Richmond: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, January). Return to text 19. For evidence on how policy uncertainty and inflation uncertainty correlate over time, see Carola C. Binder (2017), “Measuring Uncertainty Based on Rounding: New Method and Application to Inflation Expectations,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 90 (October), pp. 1–12. The measure of economic policy uncertainty is from Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis (2016), “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 131 (November), pp. 1593–1636. The measure of trade policy uncertainty is from Dario Caldara, Matteo Iacoviello, Patrick Molligo, Andrea Prestipino, and Andrea Raffo (2020), “The Economic Effects of Trade Policy Uncertainty,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 109 (January), pp. 38–59. Return to text
TORONTO and TAMPA, Fla. , April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Voxtur Analytics Corp. (TSXV: VXTR; OTCQB: VXTRF) (“Voxtur” or the “Company”), a North American technology company creating a more transparent and accessible real estate lending ecosystem, announces that it has adopted an “Advance Notice By-law” to establish the conditions and framework under which registered or beneficial owners of common shares of the Company (the “Shareholders”) may exercise their right to submit director nominations. The Advance Notice By-law fixes a deadline by which such nominations must be submitted by a Shareholder to the Company prior to any annual or special meeting of Shareholders, and sets forth the information that a Shareholder must include in the notice to the Company for the notice to be in proper written form in accordance with the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) (the “Act”).
The Advance Notice By-law ensures that all Shareholders receive sufficient notice and relevant information about director nominees, which allows them to make informed voting decisions. Among other things, it requires Shareholders to notify the Company of director nominations within the following timeframes:
Annual Meetings: Notice must be given at least 30 days before the meeting. If the meeting date is publicly announced less than 50 days in advance, notice must be provided no later than the close of business on the 10th day following the announcement.
Special Meetings (that are not also annual meetings): Notice must be provided no later than the close of business on the 15th day following the public announcement of the meeting date.
To be valid, a Shareholder’s notice must include specified information about the proposed nominee, as outlined in the Advance Notice By-law. The Advance Notice By-law also prescribes the required written form of the notice and allows the Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, to waive any requirements under these provisions.
The Advance Notice By-law is effective immediately and will be presented to Shareholders for approval, confirmation, and ratification at the next Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders of the Company on June 27, 2025 (the “Meeting”). Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Advance Notice By-law will cease to be effective unless it is approved, ratified, and confirmed by a resolution adopted by a majority of the votes cast by the Shareholders of the Company at the Meeting.
A copy of the Advance Notice By-law has been filed under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+.
About Voxtur
Voxtur is a transformational proptech company that is redefining industry standards in a dynamic lending environment. The company offers targeted data analytics to simplify the multifaceted aspects of the lending lifecycle for investors, lenders, government agencies and servicers. Voxtur’s proprietary data hub and workflow platforms more accurately and efficiently value real estate assets, providing critical due diligence that enables market participants to effectively originate, trade, or service defaults on mortgage loans. As an independent and transparent mortgage technology provider, the company offers primary and secondary market solutions in the United States and Canada. For more information, visit www.voxtur.com.
Forward-Looking Information
This news release may contain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively, “forward-looking information”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current expectations regarding future events, the Company’s operations, performance, or financial results, and speaks only as of the date of this news release. Forward-looking information may be identified by words such as “anticipates”, “believes”, “expects”, “intends”, “plans”, “projects”, or similar expressions. While the Company believes that the expectations reflected in forward-looking information are reasonable, such information is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. For a description of the risks and uncertainties facing the Company and its business, readers should refer to the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and other continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+. These uncertainties and factors include, among others, the failure of Shareholders to ratify the Advance Notice By-law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise this information to reflect new events or circumstances except as required in accordance with applicable laws.
NEITHER THE TSXV NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSXV) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.
Voxtur’s common shares are traded on the TSXV under the symbol VXTR and in the US on the OTCQB under the symbol VXTRF.
Contact: Jordan Ross Chief Operating Officer Tel: (416) 708-9764 jordan@voxtur.com
Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 Time: 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time)
BROOKFIELD, NEWS, April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Brookfield Business Partners will host its First Quarter 2025 Conference Call & Webcast on Friday, May 2, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) to discuss results and current business initiatives.
Results will be released on Friday, May 2, 2025 prior to 8:00 a.m. (ET) and will be available following the release on our website at https://bbu.brookfield.com.
Participants can join by conference call or webcast:
A replay of the webcast will be available on our website.
Brookfield Business Partners is a global business services and industrials company focused on owning and operating high-quality businesses that provide essential products and services and benefit from a strong competitive position. Investors have flexibility to invest in our company either through Brookfield Business Partners L.P. (NYSE: BBU; TSX: BBU.UN), a limited partnership or Brookfield Business Corporation (NYSE, TSX: BBUC), a corporation. For more information, please visit https://bbu.brookfield.com.
Brookfield Business Partners is the flagship listed vehicle of Brookfield Asset Management’s Private Equity Group. Brookfield Asset Management is a leading global alternative asset manager with over $1 trillion of assets under management.
For more information, please contact:
Media: Marie Fuller Tel: +44 207 408 8375 Email: marie.fuller@brookfield.com
Investors: Alan Fleming Tel: +1 (416) 645-2736 Email: alan.fleming@brookfield.com
Appoints CFO, 35-year finance veteran to oversee continued transformation and next phase of growth
Voncannon has a proven track record in managing financial operations during a period of significant growth
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colo., April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Arq, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARQ) (the “Company” or “Arq”), a producer of activated carbon and other environmentally efficient carbon products for use in purification and sustainable materials, today announced the appointment of finance veteran, Jay Voncannon, as Chief Financial Officer, effective April 2, 2025. This addition to Arq’s leadership team reflects the Company’s continued business transformation success, positioning Arq for accelerated growth in the activated carbon market.
Mr. Voncannon, a veteran finance executive with over 35 years of professional and leadership experience, brings proven expertise as a CFO strategically guiding transformational growth. Mr. Voncannon most recently served as CFO of CoorsTek, Inc., a multibillion privately held global manufacturer of advanced engineered ceramic products serving a variety of industries including semiconductors, defense & aerospace, automotive and energy & chemicals. During his tenure at CoorsTek, he successfully guided the company through a pivotal expansion, significantly improving profitability and driving material market share growth. Prior to his time at CoorsTek, Mr. Voncannon served more than 20 years as a senior finance executive at Koch Industries and its affiliates.
Mr. Voncannon will be based out of Arq’s corporate headquarters in Greenwood Village, Colorado, and report directly to Mr. Bob Rasmus, Chief Executive Officer. He will lead all aspects of the Company’s financial strategy and operations, including financial planning and analysis, accounting, tax, treasury, and internal audit. Stacia Hansen, Chief Accounting Officer, will continue serving in her critical role and report directly to Voncannon.
“I am excited to reach this significant milestone in Arq’s ongoing evolution,” said Bob Rasmus, CEO of Arq. “Jay is a proven financial leader with sharp strategic acumen and extensive track record of delivering outstanding results. As we continue to transform and scale our business, Jay’s deep experience and valuable insights will be instrumental in building a world-class finance organization that supports our future growth. I look forward to collaborating closely with Jay as the newest addition to our talented leadership team, further strengthening our deep bench of exceptional leaders and industry experts. I am immensely proud of all that we have accomplished and equally enthusiastic about the opportunities ahead.”
“I’m honored to join Arq during such an exciting and transformative stage in its growth,” said Jay Voncannon, Chief Financial Officer of Arq. “The company’s compelling mission, impressive momentum, and strong values deeply resonate with me. I look forward to partnering closely with Bob and the entire leadership team as we build upon this foundation to deliver enduring value for our stakeholders.”
About Jay Voncannon
Mr. Jay Voncannon is a seasoned finance executive with extensive experience driving strategic growth and profitability, having held pivotal roles at global enterprises including CoorsTek and Koch Industries. As Chief Financial Officer at CoorsTek, a multibillion-dollar manufacturer specializing in advanced engineered ceramic products, Voncannon significantly enhanced organizational performance, notably improving EBITDA margins and steering substantial market-share growth in biomedical sectors. Previously, as CFO and Managing Director at Koch Equity Development, he led principal investment initiatives in excess of $5 billion, delivering exceptional after-tax returns and overseeing significant acquisitions, including Molex and Guardian Industries.
With deep expertise in mergers and acquisitions, treasury management, corporate finance, and strategic leadership developed over a robust career at Koch and its subsidiaries, Voncannon has consistently delivered exceptional financial stewardship. Recognized professionally as a CPA and CGMA, his contributions earned them honors such as Denver Business Journal’s Large Company CFO of the Year and repeated recognition by Deloitte and the Wall Street Journal as part of their “Best Managed Companies” awards.
About Arq
Arq (NASDAQ: ARQ) is a diversified, environmental technology company with products that enable a cleaner and safer planet while actively reducing our environmental impact. As the only vertically integrated producer of activated carbon products in North America, we deliver a reliable domestic supply of innovative, hard-to-source, high-demand products. We apply our extensive expertise to develop groundbreaking solutions to remove harmful chemicals and pollutants from water, land and air. Learn more at: www.arq.com.
Source: Arq, Inc.
Investor Contact:
Anthony Nathan, Arq Marc Silverberg, ICR investors@arq.com
Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
WASHINGTON – Senators John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer today announced that Heather Ranck is being reinstated as the Director of the National Rural Export Center. The senators have worked with the new administration at the Department of Commerce to accelerate the important work of the National Rural Export Center by bringing back Ranck to the position, citing her experience and leadership in founding the center, which specializes in conducting customized market research designed to guide rural U.S. companies toward the most opportune exporting markets.
“Heather has dedicated her career to helping support farmers, ranchers and manufacturers in North Dakota and across the country as they navigate global markets,” said Hoeven. “With 20 years of experience at the Department of Commerce, she has the experience and skillset necessary to help our producers find and expand markets for their products. Given her breadth of knowledge, it only made sense that the Department of Commerce bring her back to lead the National Rural Export Center.”
“Heather’s reinstatement sends a strong message that President Trump values rural exporters and companies looking to sell their goods and services beyond our borders. The Rural Export Center is a critical asset in finding new market opportunities for small, medium size and large companies throughout rural America, and Heather has been the driving force in its success from the beginning. I look forward to working with Heather, Senator Hoeven and the business community we represent, in building on the center’s success and taking rural exporters to even greater economic opportunity,” said Cramer.
“As Chairman of the North Dakota District Export Council (DEC), we are extremely pleased and appreciative that we have Heather Ranck back as Director of the National Rural Export Center. Heather is a proven leader and has served the Rural Export Center as its director in the past with great outcomes and great care for the export communities, and it is great to have her back in leadership. The ND and Northern MN District Export Councils look forward to working with her again. I want to thank Senator Hoeven and Senator Cramer for their leadership in Heathers’ reinstatement, and their insight and belief in the value of exports from North Dakota to the global market,” said Perrie Schafer, Chairman of the North Dakota District Export Council.
Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell
04.02.25
Under Cantwell Questioning, Boeing CEO Commits to Implementing New Safety Protocols In Next 6 Months
CEO Kelly Ortberg: ‘I’m absolutely committed to a mandatory Safety Management System. I appreciate your leadership there, and we’re working to get that done… by October of this year’; Cantwell has long advocated for mandatory Safety Management Systems industrywide, as opposed to voluntary compliance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, questioned Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg on how the company is improving its safety protocols and culture and correcting defects during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
“We’re here today, Mr. Ortberg, to see if Boeing and your new leadership are making the fundamental changes that we would like to see to return the trust,” Sen. Cantwell said in her opening remarks. “We shouldn’t forget that that success is also critical to our national security, to our economy. The company employs over 67,000 people in the State of Washington. I think the whole supply chain is well over 130,000 people, and contributes $79 billion to the American economy […] However, the company must address these manufacturing quality issues.”
In her questioning, Sen. Cantwell focused on Boeing’s implementation of a mandatory, effective Safety Management System (SMS). An SMS is a set of policies and procedures to proactively identify and address potential operational hazards, complete with checks and redundancies to ensure nothing slips through the cracks.
Currently, Boeing adheres to a voluntary SMS that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Organization Designation Authorization Expert Review Panel found was not understood “by the average employee” – the panel issued a report last year with 27 findings of concern and 53 recommendations. FAA finally made SMS mandatory for aviation manufacturers last summer in response to requirements in the 2020 Cantwell-led Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act (ACSAA) to do so, but the FAA extended the timeline for manufacturers to have a fully implemented SMS until 2027.
“The expert panel, I think they were very critical of the SMS structure that existed at Boeing under that voluntary structure. So how is it that this is going to change? And will you commit today to a fully functioning Safety Management System that meets the FAA standards?” Sen. Cantwell asked.
Ortberg responded: “Senator, you’re right. We’ve been operating under a voluntary SMS for approximately the last four years, and I think the Alaska door accident was a cathartic moment for all of us to step back and look at what happened. How could this happen within the Safety Management System?
“We had the expert panel. We also brought in outside consultants. The FAA did a comprehensive audit of our systems, and we found significant gaps in many of the processes that we use to implement our Safety Management System. Those gaps are all a part of our safety and quality plan that we’re working with the FAA to improve the overall performance.
“I’m absolutely committed to a mandatory Safety Management System. I appreciate your leadership there, and we’re working to get that done. Actually, I’d like to have that in place by October of this year. We submitted our draft to the FAA, and we’re absolutely committed to move into a mandatory SMS.”
Ortberg and Sen. Cantwell also discussed the need for the Pacific Northwest to develop a robust advanced aviation materials manufacturing industry – a key component of the Tech Hub designation awarded to a consortium of researchers and manufacturers based out of the Inland Northwest. Sen. Cantwell authored the Tech Hub program in the 2022 CHIPS & Science Act and secured program funding in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
READ MORE:
The Seattle Times: Spokane facility gets $48M to boost thermoplastic research for planes
The Spokesman Review: ‘America is handing the baton to Spokane’: Commerce Department awards $48 million to launch aerospace ‘tech hub’ in Airway Heights
Sen. Cantwell asked: “Do you see this thermoplastics as a really game changing manufacturing technology focus? Is it really what people are saying?”
Ortberg responded: “I think thermoplastics offer a huge advantage for the future, and probably more to streamline the production of aircraft. And so I think it is an important, one of those major, important technology areas we should be investing in, and I think it’s going to find its way into many applications in the future aircraft environment.”
Sen. Cantwell: “Do you see it as something that if we neglect that we could fall behind in as a nation, juxtaposed (to) other countries?”
Ortberg: “I think Europe has invested probably more than we have in general in this particular area. I don’t think we’re behind in a way that we can’t recover. I do think it’s an area that we need to continue to have overall focus, not just as the Boeing Company, but in terms of new technology evolution within the country.”
Sen. Cantwell is a stalwart champion of implementing stronger aviation manufacturing safety regulations. Yesterday, she sent a letter to Acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau urging him to examine whether Boeing has satisfied the conditions needed to reauthorize the company’s Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) renewal, which is set to expire next month.
In February, she vehemently opposed Steven Bradbury as President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The main reason for her opposition was Bradbury’s decision under the first Trump administration to halt a rule requiring plane manufacturers to adhere to a mandatory SMS – just nine days after the first of the two fatal Boeing 737 Max crashes in 2018.
“We need a leader on safety. We need someone who is going to make it the number one priority, not modify the rule to suit the industry,” Sen. Cantwell said during Bradbury’s committee hearing.
In August 2024, Sen. Cantwell introduced the FAA SMS Compliance Review Act. The bill directs the FAA to:
Convene an independent review panel that will make recommendations to help the FAA implement a robust, comprehensive Safety Management System across all lines of business at the agency, which includes Aviation Safety, Air Traffic Organization, Airports, Security & Hazardous Materials Safety, and the Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
Develop and implement effective processes for performing root cause analyses to identify opportunities for improvement in the FAA’s execution of its regulatory oversight responsibilities.
Revise its procedures to shorten the time that manufacturers have to prepare for audits from 50 days to one week.
Following the Alaska Airlines flight 1282 incident in January 2024, Sen. Cantwell has held a series of aviation safety hearings, along with leading legislation and letters calling for stronger safety oversight at the FAA.
In January 2023 and January 2024, Sen. Cantwell requested that FAA perform a special technical audit of Boeing’s production line. The FAA later said the audit found multiple instances where Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems failed to comply with manufacturing quality control requirements.
Sen. Cantwell held an April hearing to review the independent Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) Expert Review Panel’s final report, a March 2024 hearing with National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chair Jennifer Homendy on its investigation of the January incident and a June hearing with FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker on the agency’s oversight of aviation manufacturers.
In May, Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Duckworth led the passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which includes new measures to improve aviation safety, such as putting more safety inspectors on factory floors, addressing the nation’s shortage of air traffic controllers, deploying new runway technology to prevent close calls, mandating new 25-hour cockpit recording systems to assist in investigations, and enhancing aircraft certification reforms.
The FAA Reauthorization Act builds upon the Aircraft Certification, Safety and Accountability Act of 2020, spearheaded by Sen. Cantwell in the aftermath of the Boeing 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019.
Video of Sen. Cantwell’s opening statement today is HERE; video of her first round of Q&A with Ortberg is HERE; video of her second round of Q&A with Ortberg is HERE; video of her third round of Q&A with Ortberg is HERE; and a transcript is HERE.
VANCOUVER, Wash., April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Riverview Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq GSM: RVSB) (“Riverview” or the “Company”) today announced that on March 27, 2025, its Board of Directors approved a quarterly cash dividend of $0.02 per share which remained unchanged compared to the preceding quarter. The dividend is payable on April 25, 2025, to shareholders of record as of April 14, 2025.
About Riverview
Riverview Bancorp, Inc. (www.riverviewbank.com) is headquartered in Vancouver, Washington – just north of Portland, Oregon, on the I-5 corridor. With assets of $1.51 billion at December 31, 2024, it is the parent company of Riverview Bank, as well as Riverview Trust Company. The Bank offers true community banking services, focusing on providing the highest quality service and financial products to commercial, business and retail clients through 17 branches, including 13 in the Portland-Vancouver area, and 3 lending centers. For the past 11 years, Riverview has been named Best Bank by the readers of The Vancouver Business Journal and The Columbian.
This press release contains statements that the Company believes are “forward-looking statements.” These statements relate to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance or business. You should not place undue reliance on these statements, as they are subject to risks and uncertainties. When considering these forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind these risks and uncertainties, as well as any cautionary statements the Company may make including those described in 1A (Risk Factors) of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024. Moreover, you should treat these statements as speaking only as of the date they are made and based only on information then actually known to the Company.
Contacts:
Nicole Sherman and David Lam Riverview Bancorp, Inc. 360-693-6650
CALGARY, Alberta, April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. (TSXV:CMC; OTC PINK:CWSFF) (“Cielo” or the “Company”) today announced that it has received a shareholder meeting requisition notice pursuant to Section 167(1) of the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) (the “Requisition”) from Expander Energy Inc. (“Expander”), the Company’s largest shareholder, which holds in excess of five percent (5%) of the issued common shares of the Company. This follows Cielo’s announcement of April 1, 2025 of its intention to hold an annual general meeting in June 2025 in accordance with applicable corporate laws.
The annual general and special shareholder meeting is being requisitioned by Expander to consider: (a) the fixing of the board of directors of Cielo at five (5); (b) the removal of all of the directors of the Company; (c) the election of five (5) nominees of Expander, namely Larry B. Haggar, Nick Lenstra, P. Eng., John G. F. McLeod P. Eng., James H. Ross, and G. Steven price, P. Eng. (the “Nominees”); (d) the re-appointment of MNP LLP as the auditor of Cielo; (e) the re-approval of the Company’s incentive plan; and (f) to authorize Expander to become a “Control Person” of Cielo within the meaning of the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange. To the Company’s knowledge, the Nominees are all current or former directors, officers and/or significant shareholders of Expander.
The Company is reviewing the Requisition, with the assistance of its professional advisors, and will respond appropriately in due course. The Company intends to comply with its obligations under applicable corporate and securities laws. In the meantime, there is no need for shareholders to take any action.
Cielo’s CEO, Ryan C. Jackson, commented: “The Company appreciates the ongoing support from our shareholders. It is unfortunate that Expander has chosen to escalate its demands in this manner rather than engage in constructive dialogue with the Company, despite our attempts to do so. As we’d disclosed, we have taken steps to initiate the dispute resolution process with Expander and believe that that is the appropriate forum to address the concerns of both Cielo and Expander.”
In Cielo’s view, Expander mistakenly attributes the decline in Cielo’s share price is due solely to the current Board, while ignoring broader market conditions, industry challenges, and the deliberate transformation efforts underway to reposition the Company for sustainable growth. Cielo’s leadership team has been executing a turnaround strategy, and the Board remains confident in the Company’s long-term potential.
As it has in the past, Cielo’s board and management team welcomes the perspectives of its shareholders and endeavours to make itself available for ongoing dialogue about the Company’s governance, performance, and strategic direction. The board and management team will continue to prioritize good governance, perform their duties in the best interest of Cielo, and remain focused on delivering long-term value.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
About Cielo Waste Solutions Corp.
Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. is a publicly traded company focused on transforming waste materials into renewable diesel, kerosene, and naphtha fuels. Through its proprietary technology, Cielo aims to provide environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional fossil fuels, contributing to a circular economy and a sustainable future.
For Investor and Media Inquiries, Please Contact: Investor Relations Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. Phone: (403) 348-2972 Email: investors@cielows.com Website: www.cielows.com
This news release contains certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively referred to herein as “forward-looking statements”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements other than statements of present or historical fact are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “anticipate”, “achieve”, “could”, “believe”, “plan”, “intend”, “objective”, “continuous”, “ongoing”, “estimate”, “outlook”, “expect”, “may”, “will”, “project”, “should” or similar words, including negatives thereof, suggesting future outcomes.
Forward-looking statements are subject to both known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance, or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward looking statements. Forward-looking statements and information are based on plans, expectations and estimates of management at the date the information is provided and are subject to certain factors and assumptions. Cielo is making forward-looking statements, including but not limited to with respect to: the Company’s shareholder meeting to be held in June 2025; the Company’s response to the Requisition, to follow, and to comply with applicable corporate and securities laws; the continued priorities of Cielo’s board and management.
Investors should continue to review and consider information disseminated through news releases and filed by the Company on SEDAR+. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.
Forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future performance and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, some of which are described herein. Such forward-looking statements necessarily involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause the Company’s actual performance and results to differ materially from any projections of future performance or results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements are made as of the date hereof and, except as required by law, the Company assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise such statements to reflect new information, subsequent or otherwise.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Disinfectant Wipes/Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
Trials
United States v. Don M. Rynn
No. 2:24-CR-00653 (District of South Carolina)
AUSA Winston Holliday
AUSA Amy Bower
On March 20, 2025, a jury convicted Don M. Rynn of making false statements to federal agents and falsifying fishing records (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1519).
Rynn managed several commercial fishing vessels in the McClellanville area, including the Maximum Retriever and the Crystal C. The vessels docked at Carolina Seafood, a federally licensed dealer.
On March 21, 2023, the Maximum Retriever embarked on a commercial fishing trip captained by the defendant’s son, who Rynn instructed to catch as many fish as he could (ignoring federally imposed quotas). Rynn told his son he would “take care of things” when he returned.
The Maximum Retriever returned to McClellanville shortly after midnight on March 27, 2023, with almost three times the legal limit of snowy grouper on board, and one and a half times the allowable number of grey tilefish. Rynn was waiting for the boat to arrive. Once the Maximum Retriever was in place, the Crystal C was maneuvered so that the two boats were side-by-side.
Rynn then directed deckhands to move fish from the ice hold of the Maximum Retriever to the Crystal C. They removed additional fish from the Maximum Retriever to Rynn’s truck to take to another seafood dealer in Georgetown.
In the mandatory trip report filed shortly thereafter, Rynn reported his catch only up to the limit, hiding the fact that the Maximum Retriever had vastly overfished. He attributed a substantial portion of the catch to the Crystal C, which had remained moored at the dock.
On March 27, 2023, law enforcement officers received an anonymous tip alerting them to the excessive catch. The Georgetown seafood dealer that had received some of the overage initially lied to cover for Rynn. When he realized the agents were closing in, the dealer threw the fish in the river to get rid of them.
In October 2023, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) agents interviewed Rynn about the incidents in March. Rynn lied, saying the snowy grouper and tilefish had been contaminated by a fuel spill while at sea, and that he had disposed of them in a dumpster. Rynn further implied that a U.S. Coast Guard report addressing an unlawful discharge into Jeremy Creek was inaccurate and should have been attributed to the Crystal C, which would have bolstered his fuel spill story.
In total, the Maximum Retriever caught approximately 560 pounds of snowy grouper and 450 pounds of tilefish. The legal limit for grouper is 200 pounds and 300 for tilefish.
NOAA, the U. S. Coast Guard, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Saltwater Team conducted the investigation.
Photo from dock surveillance camera showing Rynn on back of boat directing two individuals to carry a tote of federally protected fish to his truck.
On March 14, 2025, a court unsealed a complaint charging the chief executive officer of a Georgia-based heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) company with illegally importing 500 cylinders of potent greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) into the United States from Peru.
William Randolph Hires is charged with violating the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act) by unlawfully importing 500 cylinders of HFCs (42 U.S.C. §§ 7675, 7413).
In April 2022, on behalf of his company, Hires purchased 500 cylinders of HFCs in Peru. Over the next several months, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials explained to Hires’s employees that, under the AIM Act and its implementing regulations, Hires’s company could not lawfully import the HFCs into the United States because it did not have the required EPA-issued allowances. In a July 22, 2022, email to one of Hires’s employees, an EPA official stated “it is not possible to import bulk HFCs without consumption allowances.”
Hires’s employees conveyed this information from the EPA to Hires on several occasions. On one occasion, an employee forwarded an email to Hires that the employee had received from an EPA official which stated, “[t]he HFC you listed (R-410A) is a regulated substance. So, if you do not have allowances, you cannot import those bulk HFC refrigerants.” In another email exchange between Hires and an employee, the employee informed Hires that, based on a video conference the employee had with EPA officials, shipping without the necessary allowances would violate import laws so “[i]t is out of our hands.”
Hires nevertheless instructed his employees to illegally import the HFCs into the United States. In a July 28, 2022 email, Hires stated to his employees: “[y]eah you have to be careful what agencies you’re reaching out to because the EPA . . . can create a hassle and they can hold our stuff up in customs there[.]” In a subsequent email, Hires instructed his employees to “get [the HFCs] on the ship and get it out to sea . . . don’t care what it takes[.]” Hires later instructed his employees via email: “Do not call the EPA please do not.”
The EPA Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducted the investigation.
United States v. Leshon E. Johnson
No. 6:25-CR-00012 (Eastern District of Oklahoma)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Ethan Eddy
ECS Trial Attorney Sarah Brown
AUSA Jordan Howantiz
ECS Law Clerk Amanda Backer
On March 20, 2025, Leshon E. Johnson was arraigned on an indictment charging him with violating the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. § 2156(b) & 18 U.S.C. § 49). Specifically, Johnson possessed 190 pit bull-type dogs for the purpose of having the dogs participate in an animal fighting venture, and for selling, transporting, and delivering a dog for use in an animal fighting venture. Federal authorities seized the 190 dogs from Johnson in October 2024 as authorized under the Animal Welfare Act. This is believed to be the largest number of dogs ever seized from a single person in a federal dog fighting case.
Johnson ran a dog fighting operation known as “Mal Kant Kennels” in both Broken Arrow and Haskell, Oklahoma. He previously ran “Krazyside Kennels,” also out of Oklahoma, which led to his guilty plea on state animal fighting charges in 2004. Johnson selectively bred “champion” and “grand champion” fighting dogs — dogs that have respectively won three or five fights — to produce offspring with fighting traits and abilities desired by him and others for use in dog fights. Johnson marketed and sold stud rights and offspring from winning fighting dogs to other dog fighters looking to incorporate the Mal Kant Kennels “bloodline” into their own dog fighting operations. His trafficking of fighting dogs to other dog fighters across the country contributed to the growth of the dog fighting industry and allowed Johnson to profit financially. Trial is scheduled to begin on May 5, 2025.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
Guilty Pleas
United States v. Terrell Williams
No. 4:23-CR-00692 (Eastern District of Missouri)
AUSA Jillian Anderson
On March 7, 2025, Terrell Williams pleaded guilty to an Animal Fighting Venture violation for hosting dog fights in his home and training dogs to fight (7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)-(c); 18 U.S.C. § 49(a)). Sentencing is scheduled for June 6, 2025.
Between September 2020 through May 2022, Williams hosted fights in a wooden “box” setup in the basement of his home in Riverview, Missouri. He also owned and bred bull terriers and terrier mixes that were used for fights. On June 22, 2022, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Williams’s home and seized eight bull terrier mixes and three Yorkshire terriers. The dogs bore scars consistent with fighting. Agents also removed equipment used to train and condition dogs, including weighted vests and a canine treadmill.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
Dog rescued from defendant’s home during execution of search warrant. Photo included with detention motion filed with the court.
On March 11, 2025, Nicholas Dryden pleaded guilty to creating and distributing videos depicting the torture of monkeys (known as animal “crush” videos) (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 48(a)(3)). Co-defendant Giancarlo Morelli entered a similar plea in December 2024.
Dryden commissioned videos from a 17-year-old in Indonesia who was willing to commit specified acts of torture on video in exchange for payment. Dryden utilized Telegram, a cross-platform messaging app that includes encrypted group messaging and private chats, to advertise the animal crush videos and solicit funding for additional videos. Within these private groups, Dryden shared snippets of videos that he commissioned and advertised that the full content was for sale. Co-defendants Morelli and Philip Colt Moss each sent money to Dryden more than a dozen times in exchange for monkey torture videos.
Thereafter, they frequently gave feedback on the videos and Morelli sometimes suggested torturous acts he’d like to see in future videos.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
United States v. Jose Manuel Valenzuela
No. 3:24-CR-01037 (Southern District of California)
ECS Assistant Chief Stephen DaPonte
AUSA Laura Sambataro
On March 18, 2025, Jose Manuel Valenzuela pleaded guilty to intentionally failing to present refrigerant tanks for inspection (19 U.S.C. §§ 1433, 1436). Sentencing is scheduled for June 10, 2025.
On April 22, 2024, Valenzuela (an HVAC technician) attempted to enter the United States from Mexico without declaring four 24-pound tanks of 404A refrigerant (a hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant) in his vehicle.
Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security Investigations, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
United States v. Robert C. Schmid
No. 3:25-mj-00011 (Eastern District of Virginia)
AUSA Carla Jordan-Detamore
On March 25, 2025, Robert C. Schmid pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(1)(A), 1361(b)(1)(B)). Sentencing is scheduled for July 22, 2025.
Schmid owned the Atlantic Manufacturing Group, LLC (AMG), which manufactured and sold cleaning and janitorial products. AMG marketed and sold its products via various means, including a website, as well as through outside sales representatives. In September 2017, AMG entered into an agreement with “Company 1” to purchase a product called “Maquat 64-PD” for which Company 1 had obtained a registration from the EPA. AMG entered into this Agreement because it wanted to distribute and sell its liquid ProAmenities Lemon Detergent Disinfectant, made with Company 1’s Maquat 64-PD.
In October 2017, the EPA approved the label for AMG’s ProAmenities Lemon Detergent Disinfectant. The label made clear that the product was hazardous to humans and animals and was not for use on clothing or on skin.
Beginning in May 2020, and acting on behalf of AMG, Schmid began manufacturing and selling AMG “Hygienic Facility Wipes” that purportedly protected users from COVID-19. Schmid sold these wipes to janitorial services that supported government entities, gyms and health clubs, universities, and janitorial product retailers. AMG manufactured these wipes by applying the ProAmenities Lemon Detergent Disinfectant to dry wipes and packaging the wipes in plastic buckets or plastic packages. These wipes, however, were not registered with the EPA pursuant to FIFRA and did not have EPA approved labels or safety guidance. Investigators also determined that Schmid, his employees, and outside sales reps made unauthorized claims about the efficacy and safety of these wipes to potential customers.
After Company 1 issued Schmid a cease-and-desist email in August of 2020 about the unauthorized use of its product, Schmid switched to “Company 2” to use its liquid, which was not registered with the EPA, in its wipes. Schmid, however, continued to claim that his wipes were an EPA-registered product. AMG also generated product labels claiming the wipes eradicated corona viruses, in addition to other falsified information (to include the ingredient list).
Between March and November 2020, AMG sold approximately 5,000 cases of the wipes, taking in close to $415,000 in sales and making approximately $33,000 in gross profit.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
United States v. Robert J. Bullock, Sr.
No. 1:24-CR-10056 (District of Massachusetts)
AUSA Benjamin Tolkoff
On March 26, 2025, Robert J. Bullock, Sr., pleaded guilty to violating the Safe Drinking Water Act for tampering with public water systems (42 U.S.C. § 300i-1(a)). Sentencing is scheduled for June 25, 2025.
On the evening of November 29, 2022, Bullock, a former Stoughton Water Department employee, went into one of the Water Department’s pumping stations and turned off the pump that introduces chlorine into drinking water. As a result, water that had not been properly disinfected was introduced into the drinking water system.
When questioned by investigators, Bullock claimed to not have tampered with the water system. Specifically, Bullock said that he had not knowingly turned off the chlorine pump at Goddard Pumping Station 7 on the night of November 29, 2022, when in fact he had; and that he did not set the alarms for the chlorine level to zero that night, when he did.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, and the Stoughton Massachusetts Police Department conducted the investigation.
Sentencings
United States v. National Water Main Cleaning Company
No. 3:25-CR-00002 (District of Connecticut)
AUSA Hal Chen
RCEC Man Chak Ng
On March 4, 2025, a court sentenced the National Water Main Cleaning Company (NWMCC) to pay a $500,000 fine, complete a three-year term of probation, and implement an environmental compliance program. The company will also employ an independent outside consultant to perform a compliance audit and identify an environmental compliance manager for its Connecticut facilities. NWMCC will also make a payment of $500,000 to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) to fund aquatic ecosystem enhancement projects in the South-Central Coastal Watershed.
The company pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) for knowingly discharging a pollutant into Cuff Brook while refurbishing a large culvert pipe in Cheshire, Connecticut, in July 2019 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 (c)(2)(A); 1311(a)). The unauthorized discharge of uncured geopolymer mortar killed more than 150 fish and contaminated Cuff Brook.
At the time of the incident, NWMCC was operating under a Code of Conduct as part of a 2014 settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office to resolve civil allegations involving environmental pollution.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation, with assistance from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
United States v. Fidelity Development Group LLC
No. 3:24-CR-00077(Southern District of Ohio)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Adam Cullman
On March 4, 2024, a court sentenced Fidelity Development Group LLC (Fidelity) to pay a $100,000 fine and complete a two-year term of probation. Fidelity pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act for failing to inspect for the presence of asbestos (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1)).
In 2015 or 2016, Fidelity purchased a building and planned to renovate it into a mixed-use property. Fidelity failed to perform or acquire an asbestos survey for the building prior to renovations. Around April 2020, a certified asbestos company conducted an asbestos survey in the Fidelity Building and identified more than 12,000 linear feet of 80% chrysolite asbestos pipe wrap insulation in friable condition.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
United States v. Frock Brothers Trucking, Inc.,et al.
Nos. 1:24-CR-00235, 00250 (Middle District of Pennsylvania)
AUSA William Behe
On March 6, 2025, a court sentenced Frock Brothers Trucking, Inc., to pay an $80,000 fine and complete a two-year term of probation. Mechanic Leon Martin will complete a two-year term of probation, to include three months’ home detention, and pay a $500,000 fine.
Both defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy and to violating the Clean Air Act (CAA) for tampering with the emission control systems for several heavy-duty diesel trucks (18 U.S.C. § 371; 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)).
Between 2018 and October 2023, Martin provided “tuning” or “reprogramming” services by modifying the engine control modules (ECMs) on diesel trucks. The ECM is a computerized system that manages and controls the engine’s performance. During that time, Martin tampered with the emissions diagnostic systems on the vehicles for many companies to prevent the diagnostic system software from monitoring the emission control system hardware.
Frock, a long-distance trucking company based in New Oxford, Pennsylvania, transports a variety of goods, including snack foods, refrigerated items, and produce. Ed Frock owned the company until his death in August 2022.
Between November 13, 2018, and December 28, 2018, Frock contracted with co-defendant Martin to disable and/or remove emission control components from eight of their diesel trucks. Frock removed the vehicles’ ECMs from their engines and shipped them to Martin for reprogramming. Once the devices were “tuned,” Martin shipped them back to Frock, where they were reinstalled on the trucks. Martin also tampered with the onboard diagnostic equipment (OBD) to delete factory-installed emission controls from Frock’s heavy duty diesel trucks. Martin’s tunes enabled those deleted trucks to operate without emission control devices, which are required by federal law.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation.
On March 6, 2025, a court sentencedBenjamin Gathercole to complete a one-year term of probation, after he pleaded guilty to violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for illegally transporting hazardous waste without a manifest (42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(5)).
Gathercole lived in Tappahannock, Virginia, and worked at a local brake manufacturing facility. In 2019, a Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) inspector determined that the brake manufacturing facility failed to make an accurate waste determination for 32 55-gallon drums stored on site. Some of the drums displayed labels noting they contained hazardous waste, but not in accordance with RCRA requirements. The DEQ issued a notice of violation to the facility in May 2019.
In September and October 2019, Gathercole removed 31 of the 55-gallon drums from the facility and transported them to his residence. He dug a hole near his property and buried the drums in the ground. He crushed some of them in the process, causing their contents to spill onto the ground.
In December 2020, a citizen tipped off the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the illegal burial. In November 2021, agents executed a search warrant on the defendant’s property. Gathercole admitted to burying the drums at the request of his employer and directed authorities to where he had buried them. Further testing confirmed the waste was ignitable hazardous waste. The EPA finished excavating the site in November 2022.
The EPA Criminal Investigation Division and the EPA National Enforcement Investigation Center conducted the investigation.
United States v. Keidrick D. Usifo, et al.
No. 24-CR-00040 (Eastern District of Arkansas)
AUSA Edward Walker
On March 6, 2025, a court sentenced Keidrick Usifo to pay a $5,000 fine and complete a five-year term of probation. Co-defendant Deon Johnson will pay a $1,000 fine and complete an 18-month term of probation. Usifo and Johnson previously pleaded guilty to violating the Big Cat Public Safety Act (BCPSA)(16 U.S.C. §§ 3372 (e)(1)(A), 3373 (d)).
Lawmakers enacted the BCPSA in December 2022 to protect the public by prohibiting the private ownership of big cats (such as tigers and lions) as pets and by prohibiting exhibitors from allowing public contact with big cats, including tiger cubs. This law places new restrictions on the commerce, breeding, possession, and use of certain big cat species.
In April 2023, a citizen tipped off local game authorities after seeing a tiger cub in a residential neighborhood in Conway, Arkansas. Further investigation confirmed that Usifo purchased a tiger in March 2023 from a broker in Dallas, Texas, and brought it back to his residence in Arkansas.
After receiving a second complaint about the tiger cub, law enforcement conducted a traffic stop on April 21, 2023, arresting Usifo on a felony state warrant. The Conway Police Department then executed a search warrant at Usifo’s residence. The animal was not there, but they found evidence of its presence, including the fact that rooms in the house matched those in photos of the tiger that Usifo posted on Instagram.
While in the Pulaski County Detention Facility (PCDF), Usifo made several calls to Johnson, asking him to take care of the tiger while Usifo was held in detention. Johnson concealed his knowledge of the tiger when questioned by agents.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation, with assistance from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Conway Police Department, and the Little Rock Police Department.
Tiger cub, now named Fred, rescued by the Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge. Photo taken by case agent June 2024.
United States v. Frankluis Carela De Jesús, et al.
No. 3:24-CR-00174 (District of Puerto Rico)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Patrick Duggan
AUSA Seth Erbe
On March 6, 2025, a court sentenced the final two Dominican nationals who attempted to smuggle tropical birds from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to the Dominican Republic. Frankluis Carela De Jesús will serve 12 months and one day of incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. Domingo Heureau Altagracia will complete eight months of incarceration and three years of supervised release. Waner Balbuena and Juan Graviel Ramírez Cedano were each previously sentenced to serve 12 months and one day of incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. All the defendants pleaded guilty to Lacey Act trafficking and to smuggling wildlife from the United States (18 U.S.C. § 554; 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1), (a)(4), 3373(d)(1)(B)).
On May 3, 2024, the four Dominican nationals traveled in a flagless vessel departing from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to the Dominican Republic. They intended to smuggle various species of tropical birds to the Dominican Republic for financial gain. When the vessel was approximately 30 nautical miles north of Puerto Rico, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) approached the vessel and witnessed the crew tossing objects overboard. Following the boarding of the vessel, USCG authorities recovered several of the jettisoned objects, which were wooden cages containing tropical birds. Approximately 113 birds drowned as a result.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Protection conducted the investigation.
On March 10, 2025, a court sentenced Travis Larson to pay a $40,000 fine and complete a five-year term of probation. Larson will also pay $2,400 in restitution, to be divided between the State of Alaska and the Port Graham Authority. Larson will forfeit $150,000 and is prohibited from hunting anywhere in the world or providing any big game commercial services while under supervision. Larsen pleaded guilty to violating the Lacey Act for illegally transporting four black bears and making false records (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(1)(B); (d)(3)(A)).
Larson worked as a licensed big game transporter since 2010, and provided transport services through his company, Alaska Premier Sportfishing LLC (APS). Larson and APS offered paying clients transportation for multi-day hunting and fishing trips aboard a 65-foot liveaboard vessel, Venturess.
In May 2018, Larson transported eight hunters on a black bear hunt in the Nuka Bay area of the Kenai Peninsula. Each hunter paid $3,500 to participate in the hunt. The group included four Norwegian nationals. Larson knew all four people were not U.S. residents, nor were they accompanied by a licensed hunting guide or assistant guide, as required under state law.
On May 9, 2018, one foreign hunter was transported to a beach adjacent to Surprise Bay to hunt a black bear. The hunter shot and killed a black bear on land belonging to the State of Alaska. On May 10, 2018, Larson transported three foreign hunters to a beach adjacent to Beauty Bay to hunt black bears. Two of the hunters each shot and killed a black bear on land belonging to the Port Graham Corporation, an Alaska Native Corporation, and the other hunter shot and killed a black bear on land belonging to the State of Alaska. On both days, Larson transported the hunters and the illegally harvested black bears back to his vesselvia the smaller motorboat.
On May 11, 2018, Larson transported the four foreign hunters and the four illegally harvested black bears to Homer, Alaska, where he knew the black bears would be transported in interstate and foreign commerce following the hunt. The government dismissed the charges against Larson’s business.
The National Park Service Investigative Services Branch and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.
On March 10, 2025, a court sentenced Dugan Paul Daniels to six months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ supervised release, for falsifying fishing records in violation of the Lacey Act and illegally taking a sperm whale in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(d)(2), 3373(d)(3)(A), 1583(a)(1)(C), 1540(b)(1)). Daniels will also pay a $25,000 fine and perform 80 hours of community service, and is banned from commercial fishing for one year.
Daniels is a commercial fisherman with 20 years of experience. Between October and November 2020, he submitted falsified fishing records to make it appear that he lawfully caught sablefish, aka “black cod,” in federal waters on two separate occasions. In fact, Daniels illegally harvested the fish in State of Alaska waters, specifically, in Chatham Strait and Clarence Strait. The total market value of the illegally harvested fish was $127,528.
In March 2020, Daniels and three crew members were fishing for sablefish southwest of Yakobi Island in the Gulf of Alaska when they came upon a sperm whale. During the encounter, Daniels directed a crewman to shoot the whale multiple times and also tried to ram the whale with his fishing vessel. Daniels documented the encounter in writing and through text messages sent from a GPS communication device. Some of the messages stated he wished he “had a cannon to blow” the whale out of the water and that he hoped “to be reeling in a dead sperm whale.” It is a violation of the ESA to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct involving an endangered species.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.
No. 2:23-CR-00177 (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
AUSA Christopher Parisi
On March 11, 2025, a court sentenced Bien King and Khalil King to each complete three-year terms of probation, to include six months’ home confinement. Bien King was also sentenced to pay a $1,000 fine. The defendants pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for selling a misbranded pesticide and for violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for selling misbranded animal drugs (7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(1)(E); 21 U.S.C. § 331(a)).
Bien King started “Little City Dogs” (LCD) a New York corporation with office space in New York City. Bien King also created a website that sold various products intended to treat diseases or pests in animals. Bien King’s son, Khalil, worked in the New York office. Khalil King was responsible for mixing ingredients and packaging various products for shipment. The defendants obtained the ingredients for these products from various suppliers in China. They knew that these suppliers routinely mislabeled shipments of these products to avoid detection by customs officials.
When LCD received orders from online sales, Khalil King and others shipped the products from the New York office to customers throughout the United States. An undercover agent placed several orders for various products through the LCD website. These purchases included a January 17, 2020, order for fipronil drops and ivermectin. Fipronil is designed to treat external parasites such as fleas and ticks. Ivermectin is designed to control heartworms in dogs and cats.
The defendants shipped the fipronil drops and ivermectin from New York to an address in Springfield, Pennsylvania. The labeling and packaging material accompanying the fipronil drops did not include information required by law. The labeling and packaging material accompanying the ivermectin likewise did not include required information. Furthermore, LCD’s facility in New York City was not registered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations conducted the investigation.
United States v. Jose V. Fernandez
No. 1:24-CR-00071 (District of Rhode Island)
AUSA John McAdams
On March 11, 2025, a court sentenced Jose V. Fernandez to complete a two-year term of probation. Fernandez pleaded guilty to making false statements for distributing false asbestos abatement training certifications (18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(3)).
Fernandez owned the Rhode Island Safety Environment Training Center. The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDH) accredited the facility to provide asbestos abatement training. On multiple occasions between 2021 and 2023, Fernandez submitted false documentation to the RIDH attesting that nearly two dozen individuals paid for, attended, and successfully completed an Environmental Protection Agency-approved abatement training program when, in fact, no one attended any classes.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Rhode Island Department of Health conducted the investigation.
On March 11, 2025, a court sentenced Pedro Luis Bones-Torres to 12 months’ incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release. Bones-Torres pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act for illegally constructing and depositing material into the wetlands and waters of the United States in the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (the “Jobos Estuarine Reserve”) and Las Mareas community of Salinas, Puerto Rico (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 403).
Starting in January 2020, Bones-Torres engaged in construction and land clearing activities on a property to the South of Camino de Galileo in the Las Mareas area of Salinas, Puerto Rico (the “Property”). Much of the Property supported mangrove trees with an open area that was occasionally partially submerged by the sea tides. This wetland area was within the Jobos Estuarine Reserve.
Between January 2020 and October 2022, Bones-Torres removed mangroves from the Property, depositing fill material onto the wetland area using excavation and earth moving equipment. After he filled the wetlands, he built a concrete pad, a concrete gazebo with an outdoor kitchen, a wooden gazebo, and a dock extending into Mar Negro. Bones-Torres did not seek or receive approval to fill the wetlands and was at no point permitted to fill wetlands on or near the Property.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Law Enforcement, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation.
United States v. Royce Gillham
No. 2:24-CR-14046 (Southern District of Florida)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Adam Cullman
AUSA Daniel Funk
On March 13, 2025, a court sentenced Royce Gillham to 37 months’ incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. Gillham, the former General Manager of a biofuel producer based in Fort Pierce, Florida, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and conspiring to make false claims (18 U.S.C.§ 371).
This biofuel company produced and sold renewable fuel and fuel credits and claimed to turn various feedstocks into biodiesel. When reporting the number of gallons produced to the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gillham and his employer vastly overstated their production volume in an effort to generate more credits. When auditors sought more information from the company, Gillham and his co-conspirators gave them false information about their fuel production and customers.
The scheme generated more than $7 million in fraudulent EPA renewable fuels credits and sought over $6 million in fraudulent tax credits connected to the purported production of biodiesel.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations conducted the investigation.
No. 2:24-CR-00161 (Central District of California)
ECS Senior Trial Attorney Ryan Connors
ECS Trial Attorney Lauren Steele
AUSA Dennis Mitchell
ECS Law Clerk Maria Wallace
ECS Law Clerk Tonia Sibblies
On March 14, 2025, a court sentenced Sai Keung Tin, also known as Ricky Tin, to 30 months’ incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release. Tin will also pay a $5,000 fine for his role in smuggling protected turtles from the United States to Hong Kong. Tin pleaded guilty to four counts of exporting merchandise contrary to law (18 U.S.C. § 554).
Between February 2018 and June 2023, Tin, a Chinese citizen, assisted turtle smugglers in the United States. During that time, Tin aided and abetted the trafficking of approximately 2,100 turtles to Hong Kong. The turtles were intended to be sold as part of the illegal Asian pet trade. Based on a conservative, contemporary market valuation of $2,000 per turtle, the smuggled reptiles were valued at $4.2 million.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) agents arrested Tin in February 2024 as he arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
USFWS agents obtained a search warrant to seize Tin’s cell phones, and found evidence that Tin came to the United States to smuggle turtles. He planned to travel to New Jersey, Texas, and Washington — familiarizing himself with tourist locations to present a false story if apprehended. His ultimate plan was to pay for turtles in cash, ship them around the country, and eventually illegally export them to Hong Kong.
Tin was associated with international turtle smuggler Kang Juntao, of Hangzhou City, China, who was extradited from Malaysia in 2019 and later sentenced to prison after pleading guilty to money laundering. Kang caused the shipment of approximately 1,500 turtles (with a market value exceeding $2.25 million) from the United States to Hong Kong, which included shipments to Tin.
The eastern box turtle is a subspecies of the common box turtle and native to the United States. Turtles with colorful markings are highly prized pets, particularly in China and Hong Kong, and are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement conducted the investigation, with assistance from Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.
On March 19, 2025, Hino Motors, Ltd. (HML) was sentenced to pay a criminal fine of $521.76 million, serve a five-year term of probation, during which it will be prohibited from importing any diesel engines it has manufactured into the United States, and implement a comprehensive compliance and ethics program and reporting structure. Additionally, the court entered a $1.087 billion forfeiture money judgment against the company.
Prosecutors charged HML in a single conspiracy count with five objects: to defraud the Environmental Protection Agency, to defraud the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, to violate the Clean Air Act, to commit wire fraud, and to smuggle goods into the United States, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Between 2010 and 2019, HML submitted and caused to be submitted false applications for engine certification approvals. Company engineers regularly altered emission test data, conducted tests improperly, and fabricated data without conducting any underlying tests. HML submitted fraudulent carbon dioxide emissions test data, which resulted in the calculation of false fuel consumption values for its engines. Company engineers also failed to disclose software functions that could adversely affect engines’ emission control systems. As a result of the fraud, HML imported and sold more than 105,000 non-conforming engines between 2010 and 2022.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation.
Nos. 1:24-CR-00124, 1:21-CR-00016 (Northern District of New York)
AUSA Benjamin Clark
On March 20, 2025, a court sentenced Kyle Offringa to pay a $100,000 fine for conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act (CAA). His company, Highway and Heavy Parts, LLC (HHP), was sentenced on December 3, 2024, to pay a $25,000 fine. As part of the sentencing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will monitor the company for ongoing compliance for a two-year period. HHP and Offringa pleaded guilty to conspiring to tamper with a required monitoring device in violation of the CAA (18 U.S.C. § 371).
Between June 2017 and March 2019, HHP and Offringa conspired with a diesel truck operator, and others, including co-conspirators Daim Logistics, Inc., and Patrick Oare, to remove, delete, and tamper with monitoring devices that were required under the CAA to be installed on heavy-duty diesel trucks. Truck operators delete the emissions control hardware on heavy-duty diesel trucks to allow them to run at higher horsepower, with greater fuel efficiency, and with reduced maintenance costs. HHP charged its customers a fee for Offringa to reprogram the vehicles’ on-board detection equipment so regulators would not discover the tampering. Customers paid HHP between $1,000 and $1,500 for each truck Offringa altered.
Oare and Daim Logistics were sentenced in November 2024 for tampering with a monitoring device or method in violation of the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(2)(C)). Oare was sentenced to time served and to pay a $15,000 fine; the company will pay a $13,000 fine. In addition, prior to sentencing, the EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation monitored Daim for approximately 18 months to ensure the company complied with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the emission control devices installed on diesel vehicles owned or operated by the company.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation, with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Police.
WASHINGTON – After a shocking report revealed that the Biden Small Business Administration (SBA) failed to pursue nearly two million individuals suspected of stealing pandemic aid, U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Chair Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and House Committee on Small Business Chair Roger Williams (R-Texas) are introducing the SBA Fraud Enforcement Extension Act.
The bill extends the statute of limitations to 10 years for fraud surrounding the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant (SVOG) and the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) COVID relief programs to ensure criminals are caught and held accountable. Similar action was taken in 2022 to extend the statute of limitations surrounding the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and COVID Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) to 10 years.
“I will not allow criminals to run out the clock and escape justice simply because the Biden administration was asleep at the wheel,” said Ernst. “Thousands of hardworking small businesses were deprived of desperately needed relief because swindlers, gang members, and felons cashing in on COVID drained the programs. Every single con artist who stole from taxpayers will be held accountable.”
“The SBA distributes millions of dollars to small businesses in need every year. However, where small business owners found the capital needed to stay afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic, bad actors saw the opportunity to defraud the government,” said Williams. “It is imperative that every fraudster who stole and exploited taxpayer dollars during our nation’s utmost hour of need be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As we approach the five-year anniversary of the pandemic and its lockdowns, the statute of limitations must be extended to ensure that no fraudster gets away scot-free.”
While criminals cashed in, thousands of small businesses in Iowa, Texas, and across the country were left out in the cold as RRF funds ran out.
Business Insider reported that celebrities received taxpayer funds through the SVOG program for private jets, parties, luxury clothes, and multi-million dollar bonuses for themselves.
Background:In a comprehensive 2023 report, Ernst outlined the Biden SBA’s effort to discount the full extent of fraud and cast doubt on the legitimate estimates made by expert investigators.
Ernst’s tireless advocacy forced the Biden administration to eventually take action to recover billions in COVID aid in January 2024.
Rural and remote Albertans play a crucial role in the province’s prosperity, from feeding the world to producing raw materials and adding to Alberta’s vibrant cultural landscape. They also face unique challenges when it comes to accessing affordable utilities and heating costs. By ensuring rural Albertans have affordable access to the utilities they need, Alberta’s government is helping keep lights on, homes warm and businesses in operation, powering both livelihoods and success.
Budget 2025 provides $8.5 million for the Rural Utilities Program – which consists of the Rural Electric Program, Rural Gas Program and Rural Water Program – and the Remote Area Heating Allowance. This will help communities access critical services like gas, power and water, as well as deliver direct financial relief to thousands of rural Albertans facing high utility bills so that they can continue their vital work.
“Farmers, ranchers and rural communities are the backbone of Alberta, working hard to support us all. In return, we must ensure they can keep doing what they do best, and these grants do just that by ensuring they can access the utilities they need – at a reasonable cost.”
“These grants are making a difference for Albertans across the province, ensuring that everyone, no matter where they live, has access to essential utilities. I’m proud of how this government continues to support and stand by the hard-working rural communities that help drive our province forward.”
A total of $700,000 is allocated to the Rural Electric Program, recognizing the increasing role electricity plays in modern farming and ranching. Under this program, grants are administered by the Alberta Federation of Electrification Associations and support the construction of electrical services for farms and ranches.
“Alberta’s Rural Electric Grant Program is helping rural Albertans access the power they need to continue putting food on tables around the world. We’re grateful for the government’s ongoing support and commitment to rural electrification.”
When it comes to home heating, Budget 2025 commits $5.7 million to the Natural Gas Program, to be administered by the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops, to expand and update natural gas infrastructure. This funding will help provide more rural Albertans with reliable and affordable home heating options as well as help communities attract new businesses, create jobs and diversify the local economy.
For those who are unable to access the natural gas system, Budget 2025 also commits $1.6 million for the Remote Area Heating Allowance program. Direct financial relief is provided to more than 2,000 households, the majority from Indigenous communities, to help with the high cost of alternative heating fuels, such as heating oil and propane.
“With this funding, gas co-operatives can continue the ongoing expansion of our natural gas distribution system so that we can connect even more rural communities to affordable gas heating.”
Equally as important as electricity and heat is access to safe, abundant water for residential, livestock and irrigation needs. Budget 2025 commits $500,000 for the Rural Water Program, first introduced in 2024, to ensure rural water co-ops across the province have access to modern water treatment and distribution systems. Grants are administered by the Alberta Federation of Rural Water Co-operatives.
“Access to clean water is non-negotiable for any home or farming operation. The Rural Water Program is providing support as we work to ensure rural Albertans have the modern water distribution systems they need. ”
Budget 2025 is meeting the challenge faced by Alberta with continued investments in education and health, lower taxes for families and a focus on the economy.
Quick facts:
The Rural Electric Program was established in 2013 and has provided more than $7 million in grants to rural Albertans who are actively farming and where the services are being used for a farming operation.
The Rural Gas Program was established in 2001 and has distributed more than $70 million to help build the largest rural gas distribution system in the world.
More than 18 per cent of Albertans live in rural and remote communities.
Related information
Farm fuel and rural utility programs
Utilities Consumer Advocate
Financial Assistance Resources (UCA)
Related news
Power up, costs down (March 25, 2025)
Don’t default to the Rate of Last Resort (Feb. 4, 2025)
Keeping Albertans’ lights on and homes warm (Oct. 21, 2024)
Introducing the Rate of Last Resort (Sept. 25, 2024)
Power rates slashed in half by new market rules (Sept. 5, 2024)
Power watchdog supports Alberta’s electricity market reforms (Aug. 6, 2024)
Preventing power price spikes (June 26, 2024)
Affordable and reliable electricity for Albertans (March 11, 2024)
Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship
Union Government released Rs 4,906.32, 666.33 crore and 1,238.48 crore under Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana, Jan Shikshan Sansthan scheme and National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme respectively in the last five years (upto 2023-24)
Posted On: 02 APR 2025 6:19PM by PIB Delhi
Under the Government of India’s Skill India Mission (SIM), the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE) delivers skill, re-skill and up-skill training through an extensive network of skill development centers under various schemes, viz. Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY), Jan Shikshan Sansthan (JSS) scheme, National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme (NAPS) and Craftsman Training Scheme (CTS) through Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs), to all the sections of the society across the country. The SIM aims at enabling youth of India to get future ready, equipped with industry relevant skills. The Schemes of MSDE are demand driven and the Training Centers are set up or engaged on need basis. Details of the State-wise Training Centers set up or engaged under the schemes of MSDE are at Annexure.
Funds under PMKVY and JSS scheme are released to implementing agencies for meeting the training cost as per prescribed norms. Funds are released under JSS scheme to Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) directly. Under NAPS, stipend support up to Rs 1500/- per month is released to apprentices through DBT. Day to day administration as well as financial control in respect of ITIs lies with the respective State government/UT Administration. Details of funds released for implementation of skill development schemes of MSDE during last five years up to 2023-24 are as under:
Scheme
Funds Released (Rs in Cr)
PMKVY
4906.32
JSS
666.33
NAPS
1238.48
To promote the digital skills, including advanced digital skills and artificial intelligence, MSDE has undertaken the following initiatives:
New training programs have been introduced under PMKVY 4.0 to enhance digital and technical skills among youth. PMKVY 4.0 has focus on new age skills like AI/ML, Web 3.0, etc. which are specially designed for upcoming market demand and industry requirements.
Under NAPS, there are approx 60 private establishments which are currently providing apprenticeship in seven (07) AI-related courses.
Directorate General of Training (DGT) under the aegis of MSDE has introduced 31 new age /future skills courses under Craftsmen Training Scheme in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) and National Skill Training Institutes (NSTIs) to provide digital training in emerging areas such as Artificial Intelligence, Mechatronics, Internet of Things, Cybersecurity, Semiconductor, etc.
With a view to adopt the best practices in the digital skill training, DGT has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with leading IT tech companies like IBM, CISCO, Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Microsoft. These partnerships facilitate the provision of technical and professional skills training in modern technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data Analytics (BDA), Blockchain, Cloud Computing, etc.
Directorate General of Training (DGT) under MSDE has introduced one course ‘Artificial Intelligence Programming Assistant (AIPA)’ to impart AI-based skill training through Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) and National Skill Training Institutes (NSTIs). Also, a micro-credential course “Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (AI)” of 7.5-hour has been developed for all CTS trainees in Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs), in collaboration with industry and academic experts.
MSDE has launched ‘Skill India Digital Hub (SIDH)’ platform, a comprehensive and accessible platform for skill enhancement, offering industry-relevant skill courses, job opportunities, and entrepreneurship support to youth of the country. SIDH offers an extensive array of AI and ML courses, ranging from foundational programs like ‘Fundamentals of Azure AI Speech’ and ‘Machine Learning’, to specialized offerings such as ‘Google Cloud Generative AI’ and ‘AI Strategy to Create Business Value in Healthcare’, to cater to varying levels of expertise and application, enabling participants to stay at the forefront of AI and ML technology.
National Skill Development Corporation under the aegis of MSDE has partnered with a number of international organizations such as AWS, Microsoft, Intel, Redhat, Pearson VUE, Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Cisco Networking Academy for providing digital courses.
ANNEXURE
State-wise details of the Training Centres set up or engaged under schemes of MSDE
State/UT
PMKVY 4.0
Centres
JSS
Centers
NAPS
Establishments
CTS ( ITIs)
Govt. ITIs
Pvt. ITIs
Andaman and
Nicobar Islands
7
1
20
3
1
Andhra Pradesh
408
6
1,147
85
434
Arunachal Pradesh
86
0
25
7
0
Assam
833
6
941
31
16
Bihar
596
21
548
150
1,219
Chandigarh
9
1
166
2
0
Chhattisgarh
202
14
324
120
106
Delhi
222
3
3,013
18
28
DNH & DD
9
2
130
4
0
Goa
8
1
495
11
2
Gujarat
377
8
12,458
273
215
Haryana
629
2
5,872
159
222
Himachal Pradesh
210
11
740
128
139
Jammu And Kashmir
694
1
554
49
0
Jharkhand
246
13
442
77
269
Karnataka
457
12
2,452
274
1,192
Kerala
145
9
1,904
149
297
Ladakh
12
0
16
3
0
Lakshadweep
1
1
1
1
0
Madhya Pradesh
1,527
29
1,126
195
767
Maharashtra
684
21
9,086
422
615
Manipur
164
4
23
10
0
Meghalaya
99
1
41
7
1
Mizoram
102
1
20
3
0
Nagaland
91
1
22
9
0
Odisha
307
29
738
73
427
Puducherry
23
0
245
8
7
Punjab
617
2
933
115
205
Rajasthan
1,613
9
984
182
1,363
Sikkim
37
0
69
4
0
Tamil Nadu
581
9
2,892
93
363
Telangana
157
6
1,314
66
232
Tripura
151
2
98
20
2
Uttar Pradesh
2,965
47
6,395
294
2,964
Uttarakhand
231
8
738
103
71
West Bengal
344
8
1,352
168
139
Overall
14,844
289
49,788
3,316
11,296
This information was given by Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Shri Jayant Chaudhry, in a written reply in Rajya Sabha on April 02, 2025.
Site Selected and Preparatory Work to Begin for Construction Permit Application as NANO Nuclear Accelerates Toward Microreactor Deployment
NEW YORK, NY, April 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) (“NANO Nuclear” or “the Company”), a leading advanced nuclear energy and technology company focused on developing clean energy solutions, is pleased to announce the signing of a strategic collaboration with the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (U. of I.) to construct the first research KRONOS micro modular reactor (MMR) on the university’s campus.
The agreement formally establishes U. of I. as a partner in the licensing, siting, public engagement, and research operation of the KRONOS MMR, while also identifying the university campus as the permanent site for the reactor as a research and demonstration installation. This milestone marks the beginning of site-specific development for NANO Nuclear’s advanced KRONOS MMR technology and represents a defining moment in NANO Nuclear’s path to commercialization of the KRONOS MMR Energy System.
“This is the milestone we’ve been working so diligently towards, transforming design into reality,” said Jay Yu, Founder and Chairman of NANO Nuclear Energy. “With a site now selected and a world-class university as our partner, we are positioned to be among the first companies to deliver advanced reactor systems within the United States. This isn’t just a research reactor, it’s a proving ground for the future of safe, portable, and resilient nuclear energy. Moreover, this agreement will serve as a foundation for our long-term reactor strategy. Every milestone from this point forward brings us closer to delivering the next generation of nuclear energy to communities, campuses, and industries across the world.”
Figure 1 – NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. Signs Strategic Collaboration with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for the KRONOS MMR
Following initial arrangements, NANO Nuclear will begin the process of geological characterization, including subsurface investigations, to support preparation of a Construction Permit Application (CPA) for submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This preparatory work is essential to understanding the environmental parameters of the site, including critical inputs to safety analysis, to ensure the utmost reliability and safety of the facility, and support NANO Nuclear’s Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and Environmental Report (ER).
“The start of geotechnical investigations represents our first physical action toward constructing the KRONOS MMR,” said James Walker, Chief Executive Officer of NANO Nuclear. “This is a powerful signal to the industry, to investors, and to regulators: NANO Nuclear is building. We are not theorizing. We are much beyond conceptualizing. We are moving toward construction, and this is only the first step.”
Figure 2 – Rendering of NANO Nuclear’s KRONOS MMR™ Energy System at the University of Illinois.
Through this strategic collaboration, U. of I. and NANO Nuclear will work together throughout the regulatory licensing process, plant design implementation, public and stakeholder engagement, and workforce development. The collaboration builds on the university’s prior experience and engagement with nuclear regulators, while introducing an advanced and simplified reactor system to lead the next generation of clean energy deployment.
“The KRONOS MMR project can not only be a national first, it can be a first for academia, enabling students, researchers, regulators, and the public to learn directly from a real-world microreactor development effort,” said Illinois Grainger Engineering Professor Caleb Brooks, Principal Investigator for the University of Illinois. “This system can be the most advanced nuclear research platform on any U.S. campus, with the potential to enable a new paradigm of nuclear power through education, research, and at scale demonstration.”
As part of the agreement, U. of I. will lead the regulatory engagement with the NRC as well as public engagement, support licensing activities including the PSAR and Environmental Report, and play a key role in site layout, constructability assessment, and future operator training programs. NANO Nuclear will oversee plant design, construction, system integration, and commercial pathway development.
“This agreement brings NANO Nuclear to the forefront of advanced reactors deployment in the United States,” said Dr. Florent Heidet, Chief Technology Officer and Head of Reactor Development of NANO Nuclear. “This construction project is where KRONOS’ engineering meets execution and demand. It will set a precedent for all future university-led nuclear technology reactor projects.”
The KRONOS MMR Energy System, NANO Nuclear’s flagship micro modular reactor, is designed to redefine what’s possible in nuclear energy and features:
Truly modular, containerized construction.
Highest in class safety margins, creating an inherently safe reactor.
Rapid & flexible deployment capabilities for remote and secure applications.
Seamless integration with local grids, renewable grids and process heat systems.
The KRONOS MMR Energy System leverages proven, state-of-the-art technology solutions, and combines them into a product that is not reliant on new breakthroughs or lengthy and costly research programs.
This announcement reflects NANO Nuclear’s transition from design to deployment, initiating the first physical project work in the Company’s history. As preparations begin for regulatory licensing and construction activities, NANO Nuclear remains focused on delivering clean, safe, scalable energy through its advanced nuclear technologies. About The Grainger College of Engineering
The Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is one of the world’s top-ranked engineering institutions, and a globally recognized leader in engineering education, research and public engagement. With a diverse, tight-knit community of faculty, students and alumni, Grainger Engineering sets the standard for excellence in engineering, driving innovation in the economy and bringing revolutionary ideas to the world. Through robust research and discovery, our faculty, staff, students and alumni are changing our world and making advances once only dreamed about, including the MRI, LED, ILIAC, Mosaic, YouTube, flexible electronics, electric machinery, miniature batteries, imaging the black hole and flight on Mars. The world’s brightest minds from The Grainger College of Engineering tackle today’s toughest challenges. And they are building a better, cooler, safer tomorrow. Visit https://grainger.illinois.edu for more information.
About NANO Nuclear Energy, Inc.
NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: NNE) is an advanced technology-driven nuclear energy company seeking to become a commercially focused, diversified, and vertically integrated company across five business lines: (i) cutting edge portable and other microreactor technologies, (ii) nuclear fuel fabrication, (iii) nuclear fuel transportation, (iv) nuclear applications for space and (v) nuclear industry consulting services. NANO Nuclear believes it is the first portable nuclear microreactor company to be listed publicly in the U.S.
Led by a world-class nuclear engineering team, NANO Nuclear’s reactor products in development include patented KRONOS MMR™ Energy System, a stationary high-temperature gas-cooled reactor that is in construction permit pre-application engagement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in collaboration with University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (U. of I.), “ZEUS”, a solid core battery reactor,and “ODIN”, a low-pressure coolant reactor, and the space focused, portable LOKI MMR™, each representing advanced developments in clean energy solutions that are portable, on-demand capable, advanced nuclear microreactors.
Advanced Fuel Transportation Inc. (AFT), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is led by former executives from the largest transportation company in the world aiming to build a North American transportation company that will provide commercial quantities of HALEU fuel to small modular reactors, microreactor companies, national laboratories, military, and DOE programs. Through NANO Nuclear, AFT is the exclusive licensee of a patented high-capacity HALEU fuel transportation basket developed by three major U.S. national nuclear laboratories and funded by the Department of Energy. Assuming development and commercialization, AFT is expected to form part of the only vertically integrated nuclear fuel business of its kind in North America.
HALEU Energy Fuel Inc. (HEF), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is focusing on the future development of a domestic source for a High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) fuel fabrication pipeline for NANO Nuclear’s own microreactors as well as the broader advanced nuclear reactor industry.
NANO Nuclear Space Inc. (NNS), a NANO Nuclear subsidiary, is exploring the potential commercial applications of NANO Nuclear’s developing micronuclear reactor technology in space. NNS is focusing on applications such as the LOKI MMR™ system and other power systems for extraterrestrial projects and human sustaining environments, and potentially propulsion technology for long haul space missions. NNS’ initial focus will be on cis-lunar applications, referring to uses in the space region extending from Earth to the area surrounding the Moon’s surface.
This news release and statements of NANO Nuclear’s management in connection with this news release contain or may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In this context, forward-looking statements mean statements related to future events, which may impact our expected future business and financial performance, and often contain words such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “intends”, “plans”, “believes”, “potential”, “will”, “should”, “could”, “would” or “may” and other words of similar meaning. In this press release, forward-looking statements include, among others, statements regarding the anticipated benefits to NANO Nuclear of its agreement with U. of I., as well as NANO Nuclear’s development plans, each as described herein. These forward-looking statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this news release and represent management’s current views and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, events or results and involve significant known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may be beyond our control. For NANO Nuclear, particular risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements include but are not limited to the following: (i) risks related to our U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) or related state nuclear fuel licensing submissions, (ii) risks related the development of new or advanced technology and the acquisition of complimentary technology or businesses, including difficulties with design and testing, cost overruns, regulatory delays, integration issues and the development of competitive technology, (iii) our ability to obtain contracts and funding to be able to continue operations, (iv) risks related to uncertainty regarding our ability to technologically develop and commercially deploy a competitive advanced nuclear reactor or other technology in the timelines we anticipate, if ever, (v) risks related to the impact of government regulation and policies including by the DOE and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including those associated with the recently enacted ADVANCE Act, and (vi) similar risks and uncertainties associated with the operating an early stage business a highly regulated and rapidly evolving industry. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which apply only as of the date of this news release. These factors may not constitute all factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in any forward-looking statement, and NANO Nuclear therefore encourages investors to review other factors that may affect future results in its filings with the SEC, which are available for review at www.sec.gov and at https://ir.nanonuclearenergy.com/financial-information/sec-filings. Accordingly, forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as a predictor of actual results. We do not undertake to update our forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this news release, except as required by law.
Question for written answer E-001220/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Carola Rackete (The Left)
The European Consensus on Development commits the EU and the Member States to implementing a human rights-based approach to development cooperation.
Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products mandates adherence to the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
The Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) demands that projects with the potential to affect indigenous peoples prepare ‘a plan containing measures dedicated to a meaningful consultation of the indigenous peoples affected, the prevention and minimisation of adverse impacts on those indigenous peoples, and, where appropriate, fair compensation’ (recital 20).
Furthermore, the CRMA states that these demands should be implemented according to national and international guidelines, principles and agreements, including, but not limited to, the UNDRIP, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (Annex III).
Although the CRMA does not provide a clear definition of how ‘meaningful consultation’, ‘prevention of adverse impacts’ or ‘fair compensation’ should be understood, these definitions are clearly stated in the referenced guidelines.
What documentary evidence demonstrating that FPIC has been correctly obtained from affected indigenous peoples does the Commission seek and accept?
Source: United States Small Business Administration
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is reminding small businesses and private nonprofit (PNP) organizations in Idaho of the May 2, 2025, deadline to apply for low interest federal disaster loans to offset economic losses caused by severe storms, flooding, landslides and mudslides occurring April 14–15, 2024.
The disaster declaration covers Idaho County.
Under this declaration, the SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program is available to eligible small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, nurseries, and PNPs that suffered financial losses directly related to the disaster. The SBA is unable to provide disaster loans to agricultural producers, farmers, or ranchers, except for aquaculture enterprises.
EIDLs are available for working capital needs caused by the disaster and are available even if the business did not suffer any physical damage. The loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills not paid due to the disaster.
“SBA loans help eligible small businesses and private nonprofits cover operating expenses after a disaster, which is crucial for their recovery,” said Chris Stallings, associate administrator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience at the SBA. “These loans not only help business owners get back on their feet but also play a key role in sustaining local economies in the aftermath of a disaster.”
The loan amount can be up to $2 million with interest rates as low as 4% for small businesses and 3.25% for PNPs, with terms up to 30 years. The SBA sets loan amounts and terms, based on each applicant’s financial condition.
To apply online, visit SBA.gov/disaster. Applicants may also call SBA’s Customer Service Center at (800) 659-2955 or email disastercustomerservice@sba.gov for more information on SBA disaster assistance. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Submit completed loan applications to the SBA no later than May 2.
###
About the U.S. Small Business Administration
The U.S. Small Business Administration helps power the American dream of business ownership. As the only go-to resource and voice for small businesses backed by the strength of the federal government, the SBA empowers entrepreneurs and small business owners with the resources and support they need to start, grow, expand their businesses, or recover from a declared disaster. It delivers services through an extensive network of SBA field offices and partnerships with public and private organizations. To learn more, visit www.sba.gov.
Yesterday, a federal court in Massachusetts entered a consent decree requiring SunSetter Products LP (SunSetter) to pay $9.25 million in civil penalties and implement and maintain a robust compliance program to prevent future illegal conduct, the Justice Department announced.
In a complaint filed April 6, 2023, the government alleged that SunSetter failed to timely report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) a defect affecting approximately 270,000 protective covers used with SunSetter retractable awnings. According to the complaint, removal of the defective awning cover could cause the retractable awning to unexpectedly spring open with enough force to knock over anyone in the awning’s path, putting consumers using ladders to access the awning at risk of death or serious injury. The complaint alleged that multiple consumers were injured, and one killed, as a result of this defect. The complaint alleged that SunSetter violated the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) by failing to report the defect until 2017, despite being aware of consumer complaints as early as 2012 and completing its own simulation testing in 2015 that confirmed the safety hazard. SunSetter recalled the covers in August 2019.
“The failure to immediately report dangerous products puts consumers at unnecessary risk,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Department will continue to work with the CPSC to hold accountable companies that fail to follow the law.”
“This settlement makes clear that companies must prioritize consumer safety and comply with their legal obligations to report hazardous defects in a timely manner,” said U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley for the District of Massachusetts. “SunSetter’s failure to do so had tragic consequences. We will continue to hold companies accountable when they put the public at risk by disregarding federal safety laws.”
“This consent decree is an important reminder of the affirmative obligation to report product hazards in a timely manner,” said Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. “I appreciate the work of CPSC staff and our partners at DOJ in resolving this matter and keeping American consumers safe.”
Trial Attorneys Brett Ruff and Nicole Frazer of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anuj Khetarpal for the District of Massachusetts, with the assistance of Renee McCune of CPSC’s Office of the General Counsel and Amelia Hairston-Porter of CPSC’s Office of Compliance and Field Operations, are handling the case.
For more information about the enforcement efforts of the Consumer Protection Branch visit the Branch’s website at www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch.
The claims resolved by the consent decree announced today are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following an endorsement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Mark R. Warner (D-VA) issued the following statement welcoming broad support for their bipartisan legislation to undo President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian goods, which amount to a 25 percent tax on goods imported from one of America’s top trading partners and closest allies. The legislation will be voted on today.
“We welcome the strong support we continue to receive from both organized labor and businesses, including from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for our legislation to undo Trump’s new sales tax on Canadian goods,” said the senators. “The outpouring of endorsements for our effort highlights that these new taxes are bad for America’s businesses that need stability to thrive and for hardworking families who want prices to go down, not up. We are giving every Senator an opportunity today to put their constituents’ pocketbooks first by challenging a nonsensical trade war with one of America’s closest trading partners and allies.”
“Tariffs are taxes—paid by Americans—and they will quickly increase prices at a time when many are struggling with the cost of living. These import taxes are also harming U.S. manufactures and drawing retaliatory duties, worsening their impact on our economy… It is appropriate for Congress to exercise its authority under IEEPA and pass SJ Res 37, which would terminate the national emergency and the imposition of tariffs under Executive Order 14193,” wrote Neil L. Bradley, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of Strategic Advocacy, in the Chamber’s endorsement letter, which is available here.
In addition to the Chamber, the senators’ bill is supported by the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers (USW), the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), National Retail Federation (NRF), the North America’s Building Trades Unions, the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association (SMACNA), the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Foreign Policy for America (FP4A), the National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and Advancing American Freedom. Here’s what they’re saying:
North America’s Building Trades Unions President Sean McGarvey:“The United States and Canada share far more than just a border—we share a deep, enduring economic and workforce partnership that has strengthened both our nations for generations… That partnership is enshrined in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a comprehensive trade agreement that President Trump himself negotiated and enacted that already governs our economic relations in this hemisphere… By circumventing this agreement and imposing unilateral tariffs on Canada, the Administration is harmfully undermining a key foreign ally while also carelessly shooting holes in the credibility of its own signature economic policy.”
The Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association (SMACNA) Executive Director for Legislative and Political Affairs Stanley E. Kolbe, Jr.: “On behalf of our membership, SMACNA would like to voice its strong support for S.J. Res. 37… Tariff penalties aimed at Canada for non-trade objectives have already caused harsh and unnecessary economic pain for US workers and harm to our nation’s construction and related metal fabricating as well as HVAC equipment manufacturing businesses. In fact, it will punish businesses, labor and economies on both sides of the border, and in direct contravention of the provisions featured in the existing USMCA.”
The National Retail Federation (NRF) Executive Vice President for Government Relations David French:“While we strongly agree with the need to secure our borders, we do not believe using trade tools such as tariffs for non-trade purposes is the right approach to achieve this goal, especially without closest trading partner… U.S. retailers depend on Canada for a wide range of consumer goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which Congress overwhelmingly approved. Canada represents a significant market for U.S. retailers that not only have operations in Canada but also rely on a robust cross-border consumer market, with Canadian consumers hopping in U.S. retail stores on a daily basis. These operations are all now being significantly disrupted because of the tariffs applied to Canada under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Canada’s retaliation against those tariffs.”
The U.S. Conference of Mayors CEO and Executive Director Tom Cochran:“…We write to express our strong support for S.J. Res. 37, the joint resolution to terminate the national emergency declared on February 1, 2025, that launched a trade war with Canada and thus to terminate the tariffs on Canadian imports implemented as part of that unfounded emergency… This declaration has triggered a damaging and unnecessary trade conflict with Canada—our closest ally, largest trading partner, and critical collaborator in addressing economic and public safety challenges across North America… These actions are raising prices for consumers, disrupting key industries such as construction and manufacturing, and threatening jobs in communities large and small. They also risk increasing already high housing costs, as tariffs on Canadian lumber, steel, aluminum, and other critical building materials will make housing construction and infrastructure development significantly more expensive.”
AFL-CIO Director of Government Affairs Jody Calemine:“On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you to support S.J. Res. 37, a resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine to terminate the national emergency that was declared to justify tariffs on imports from Canada under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)… However, imposing large, across the board tariffs on Canada aimed at non-trade objectives will only cause unnecessary economic pain for workers and businesses on both sides of the border.”
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) International President Brian Bryant:“On behalf of the 600,000 active and retired members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), I write today in strong support of S.J. Res. 37… These new tariffs on Canada, one of our closest allies and largest trading partners, are unjust and will have lasting negative impacts on American and Canadian workers… The Trump administration’s erratic approach to tariffs is wreaking havoc on workers and businesses in the United States and Canada. Punishing one of our nation’s closest trading partners based on a false pretense is wrong and the action needs to be reversed.”
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) President Matthew S. Biggs and Secretary-Treasurer Gay Henson:“As the Executive Officers of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), representing 90,000 workers in the private, public, and federal sectors across North America, we are writing in support of S.J. Res. 37… Canada is America’s closest ally and number one trading partner. Our trading relationship uplifts American and Canadian working families alike. Imposing reckless tariffs on Canadian imports will harm both the U.S. and Canadian economies and do even greater harm to working families on both sides of the border. Congress must step in now to block this reckless and destructive policy.”
National Taxpayers Union:“Canada is an important supplier of goods that strengthen U.S. security, including crude oil, natural gas, steel, and aluminum. Tariffs that restrict our access to these supplies and increase their cost will weaken our industrial base and undermine our ability to sustain our defense in the event of a national emergency.”
Taxpayers Protection Alliance President David Williams:“TPA enthusiastically supports Sens. Tim Kaine and Rand Paul’s CRA to overturn President Trump’s February 1, 2025, national emergency declaration. This use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is fraught with issues. The ensuing trade war will inevitably raise costs for consumers. Placing a 25 percent tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico will harm consumers and the vast majority of American businesses.”
United Steelworkers (USW) International President David McCall:“On behalf of the 850,000 active members of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), I urge you to support S.J. Res. 37, a resolution introduced by Senator Tim Kaine to terminate the national emergency that was declared to impose duties on imports from Canada, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)… These new tariffs are misdirected, unsubstantiated by facts, and harmful to the very workers we represent.”
Advancing American Freedom (AAF) President Tim Chapman: “Tariffs are a tax on American families and businesses. The first Trump administration cut an excellent deal with Canada with USMCA. The president should not abandon this agreement and lacks the authority to unilaterally do so.”
DoT Intensifies Action to Curb Unsolicited Commercial Communication (UCC) Through Jan Bhagidari Nearly 1.75 Lakh Unauthorized DID Numbers Disconnected in DoT’s Anti-Spam Drive
DoT’s Chakshu Module of Sanchar Saathi Empowering Public Participation in fighting against Spam and Combatting Cyber Fraud
DoT Urges Enterprises to Comply with Telecom Regulations to Avoid Strict Penalties
Posted On: 02 APR 2025 7:42PM by PIB Delhi
As part of its ongoing efforts to combat spam calls and cyber fraud, DoT has disconnected approximately 1.75 lakh Direct Inward Dialing (DID)/landline telephone numbers that were found to be involved in unauthorized promotional activities and illegal activities.
Recently it has been observed that large number of spam calls are being originated from telecom identifiers like numbers starting from 0731, 079,080 etc by misusing PRIs, Lease Line, Internet Lease Lines, SIP and IPLC. Citizens, under the Jan Bhagidari , have been reporting such instances of Unsolicited Commercial Communication (UCC) / spam / fraud call on Chakshu module of Sanchar Saathi.
DoT analyses this crowd sourced data to act against such telecom resources. Identified cases are forwarded to the DoT’s field offices Licensed Service Areas (LSAs) for detailed investigation. In instances where violations are confirmed, telecom services are suspended for those engaging in unauthorized promotional activities.
Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) have been advised to take immediate necessary steps to ensure the scruples compliance of Unified License conditions relating to the curbing the misuse of PRIs including SIP trunks, Lease Line, Internet Lease Lines, IPLC etc. , and to regularly check for their bonafide use .
Call to Action for Enterprises/Bulk customers:
The DoT calls on Enterprises/Bulk customers/ Consumers to ensure their telecom services are used in compliance with established regulations, avoiding any misuse for unsolicited commercial communication. Violations could result in severe penalties, including disconnection of services.
Additionally, the DoT encourages citizens to continue reporting spam calls through the Chakshu module of Sanchar Saathi(www.sancharsaathi.gov.in), fostering a collaborative effort to make telecom services more secure and user-friendly. The Department remains dedicated to strict monitoring and prompt action against UCC violators to protect consumer interests.
Citizens can use Sanchar Sathi App to report misuse of telecom resources in cybercrime and cyber frauds. The App can be downloaded from