NewzIntel.com

Category: Economy

  • MIL-OSI USA: Luján, Cortez Masto Lead Senate Spotlight Forum on Trump’s Tariffs and Their Impact on American Families

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)

    Costs, Chaos, Corruption: The Household Impact of Trump’s Tariffs

    Photos from the forum available here.

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), members of the Senate Committee on Finance, hosted a Spotlight Forum titled “Costs, Chaos, Corruption: The Household Impact of Trump’s Tariffs.” The forum examined how President Trump’s tariff policies fuel economic instability, raise costs on working families, harm the travel and tourism sector, and benefit special interests. The event featured testimony from policy experts, labor leaders, and small business owners directly impacted by the reckless tariffs. 

    “Across New Mexico and the country, Americans arefeeling pain from President Trump’s tariffs,” said Senator Luján. “Costs, Chaos, Corruption – those aren’t just buzzwords. They’re the reality for hardworking families in New Mexico and across America. President Trump’s tariffs are expected to cost American households $2,600 a year, a price that’s far too expensive for many Americans to afford. That’s why I partnered with Senator Cortez Masto to show the American people that President Trump’s tariffs are a tax on working families, a gut punch to small businesses, and a green light for corruption.”

    “President Trump’s tariffs and the haphazard manner in which he’s deploying them are causing real damage to real Americans,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “It’s now more important than ever that we give a microphone to those most impacted by Trump’s shortsighted economic policies. Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for working families.”

    During the forum, witnesses highlighted that President Trump’s reckless tariffs are hurting small businesses, the economy, and the American consumer.

    The forum featured testimony from:

    • Adam Posen, President, Peterson Institute for International Economics
    • Thea Lee, Economist and Former Deputy Undersecretary for International Labor Affairs
    • Preston Martin, CEO, Bicycle Technologies International
    • Steve Wright, President and General Manager of Jay Peak Resort 
    • Emma Jagoz, Owner of Moon Valley Farm

    “This is one of the worst ways to impose a tax and one of the most regressive ways to redistribute income from poorer to richer Americans and increase the tax burden on poorer people. In addition, because they cause uncertainty, provoke retaliation by other nations, and create opportunities for government corruption, tariffs have many destructive side effects that other forms of taxes do not,” said Adam Posen in his opening statement. 

    “The Trump tariffs bring all pain and no gain. In the short term, there will be uncertainty, supply bottlenecks, unpredictable price hikes on essential items, and likely decreases in both imports and exports as some trading partners implement retaliatory tariffs. In the long term, there will be irreparable rifts with valued trading partners and lack of coordination on shared goals,” said Thea Lee in her opening statement. 

    “With over 90% of bicycles, bicycle parts and bicycle accessories manufactured outside the US, the bike industry depends on a global supply chain. BTI imports from around the globe, especially Asia and Europe. Even our US sourced bike products are being affected since they are made from foreign-sourced raw materials. The bicycle industry works on low margins, thus cannot absorb higher tariff expenses,” said Preston Martin in his opening statement. 

    “In a normal year, roughly 750k Canadian tourists come into Vermont and inject roughly $150m into the State’s economy. Recent data shows that hotel reservations from CAD visitors are down 45% between Jan-April, credit card spending is down nearly 40% across that same time period, border crossings have been declining every month and are down nearly 35% and visits to the Vermont.com website, a data point reflecting the likelihood of visiting in the future are off 70% across the first few months of the year,” said Steve Wright in his opening statement. 

    “Small and medium-scale farmers of all political affiliations are bracing for a tough year. Input costs are rising, labor costs are soaring, USDA support is being cut, and consumers are stretched thin,” said Emma Jagoz in her opening statement. 

    Footage of the full forum can be foundHERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: New Zealand food and fibre exports on track to break new records

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Farmers, growers, foresters, fishers and primary processors are driving New Zealand’s economic recovery with export revenue on track to surpass $60 billion for the first time, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay announced today at Fieldays. 
    “The latest Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries (SOPI) report forecasts export earnings of $59.9 billion for the year ending 30 June 2025, $3 billion higher than projected in December. This momentum is expected to continue, with exports reaching $65.7 billion by 2029,” Mr McClay says.
    “These figures reflect the hard work and resilience of the hard working men and women of provincial New Zealand.
    “Strong global demand and healthy prices across key markets are positioning our high-quality, safe and sustainable food and fibre exports for record growth.”
    Growth highlights include: 

    dairy export revenue lifting 16 per cent to reach a record $27 billion
    meat and wool export revenue increasing 8 per cent to $12.3 billion
    horticulture export revenue growing by an impressive 19 per cent reaching $8.5 billion
    forestry export revenue jumping 9 per cent to $6.3 billion
    Seafood export revenue lifting 2 per cent to $2.2 billion.

    “The numbers speak for themselves, but the Government remains laser-focused on doubling the value of exports in 10 years, driving higher farm and forest gate returns, and backing the long-term capability, resilience, and health of rural New Zealand,” Mr McClay says.
    “We’re investing heavily to deliver tools and technology to farmers and growers to tackle agricultural emissions with more than $400 million in continuing funding over the next four years and making targeted reforms to support farmer and grower success.
    “Through the Budget, we launched the new $246 million Primary Sector Growth Fund (PSGF) to boost on-farm productivity and resilience.
    “Our trade work continues at pace to open doors for Kiwi exporters, and our new Investment Boost tax incentive will encourage businesses to invest, be more competitive, grow the economy, and lift wages.
    “When rural New Zealand does well, the whole country benefits,” Mr McClay says. 
    “That’s why we’re making sure our Primary Sector have the tools and support they need to deliver long-term economic growth and regional prosperity for all New Zealanders.”
    The June 2025 SOPI is available at: www.mpi.govt.nz/sopi

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI: Xtract One Technologies Inc. Announces $7 Million “Bought Deal” Public Offering

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THE U.S. NEWSWIRE OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

    BASE SHELF PROSPECTUS IS ACCESSIBLE AND PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE ON SEDAR+ WITHIN TWO BUSINESS DAYS

    TORONTO, June 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — June 11, 2025 – Xtract One Technologies Inc. (TSX: XTRA) (OTCQX: XTRAF) (FRA: 0PL), a leading technology-driven threat detection and security solution that prioritizes the patron access experience by leveraging AI, (the “Company” or “Xtract One“) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement with Ventum Capital Markets (the “Underwriter“) pursuant to which the Underwriter has agreed to purchase 18,000,000 units (the “Offered Securities“) from the treasury of the Company, at a price of $0.39 per Unit (the “Issue Price”) and offer them to the public by way of prospectus supplement for total gross proceeds of $7,020,000 (the “Offering“). Each Unit will consist of one common share of the Company (each a “Common Share”) and one common share purchase warrant (each full warrant, a “Warrant” and collectively the “Warrants”).

    The Company has granted the Underwriter an option to purchase up to an additional 15% of the Offered Securities at the Issue Price. The Over-Allotment Option may be exercised in whole or in part to purchase Offered Securities as determined by the Underwriter upon written notice to the Company at any time up to 30 days following the Closing Date (the “Over-Allotment Option”).

    The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the Offering for working capital and general corporate purposes.

    The Offered Securities will be offered (i) by way of a prospectus supplement to the base shelf prospectus of the Company dated February 6, 2024 (the “Base Shelf Prospectus”) to be filed in all provinces and territories of Canada, except Quebec (the “Prospectus Supplement”); (ii) may be distributed in the United States to Qualified Institutional Buyers (as defined in Rule 144A under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “U.S. Securities Act”)) pursuant to an exemption under Rule 144A; and (iii) may be distributed outside Canada and the United States on a basis which does not require the qualification or registration of any of the Company’s securities under domestic or foreign securities laws.

    This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to sell any of securities in the United States. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to U.S. Persons unless registered under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available.

    The Offering is expected to close on or about June 18, 2025, or such other date as the Company and the Underwriter may agree, and is subject to customary closing conditions, including the approval of the securities regulatory authorities and the Toronto Stock Exchange.

    Access to the Prospectus Supplement, the Base Shelf Prospectus and any amendments thereto are provided in Canada in accordance with securities legislation relating to procedures for providing access to a shelf prospectus supplement, a base shelf prospectus supplement and any amendment to such documents. The Base Shelf Prospectus is, and the Prospectus Supplement will be (within two business days from the date hereof), accessible through SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com. An electronic or paper copy of the Prospectus Supplement, the Base Shelf Prospectus and any amendment thereto may be obtained, without charge, from Ventum Financial Corp., or email at ecm@ventumfinancial.com by providing the contact with an email address or address, as applicable.

    About Xtract One

    Xtract One Technologies is a leading technology-driven provider of threat detection and security solutions leveraging AI to deliver seamless and secure experiences. The Company makes unobtrusive weapons and threat detection systems that are designed to assist facility operators in prioritizing- and delivering improved “Walk-right-In” experiences while enhancing safety. Xtract One’s innovative portfolio of AI-powered Gateway solutions excels at allowing facilities to discreetly screen and identify weapons and other threats at points of entry and exit without disrupting the flow of traffic. With solutions built to serve the unique market needs for schools, hospitals, arenas, stadiums, manufacturing, distribution, and other customers, Xtract One is recognized as a market leader delivering the highest security in combination with the best individual experience. For more information, visit www.xtractone.com or connect on Facebook, X, and LinkedIn.

    About Threat Detection Systems

    Xtract One solutions, when properly configured, deployed, and utilized, are designed to help enhance safety and reduce threats. Given the wide range of potential threats in today’s world, no threat detection system is 100% effective. Xtract One solutions should be utilized as one element in a multilayered approach to physical security.

    For further information, please contact:
    Xtract One Inquiries: info@xtractone.com, http://www.xtractone.com
    Media Contact: Kristen Aikey, JMG Public Relations, 212-206-1645, kristen@jmgpr.com
    Investor Relations: Chris Witty, Darrow Associates, 646-438-9385, cwitty@darrowir.com

    Forward-Looking Information
    This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. All statements that are not historical facts, including, without limitation, statements regarding the anticipated completion of the Offering, intended use of proceeds from the Offering, future estimates, plans, programs, forecasts, projections, objectives, assumptions, expectations or beliefs of future performance, are “forward-looking statements”. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “estimates”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results, events or developments to be materially different from any future results, events or developments expressed or implied by such forward looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among others, the Company’s limited operating history and lack of historical profits; risks related to the Company’s business and financial position; fluctuations in the market price of the Company’s Common Shares; that the Company may not be able to accurately predict its rate of growth and profitability; the failure of the Company and/or the Underwriter to satisfy closing conditions to the Offering; whether the Over-Allotment Option will be exercised; the failure of the Company to satisfy certain TSX additional listing requirements in respect of the Offered Securities; the failure of the Company to use any of the proceeds received from the Offering in a manner consistent with current expectations; reliance on management; the Company’s requirements for additional financing, and the effect of capital market conditions and other factors on capital availability; competition, including from more established or better financed competitors; and the need to secure and maintain corporate alliances and partnerships, including with research and development institutions, clients and suppliers. These factors should be considered carefully, and readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Although the Company has attempted to identify important risk factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other risk factors that cause actions, events or results to differ from those anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements. The Company has no intention to update any forward-looking statement, even if new information becomes available as a result of future events, new information or for any other reason, except as required by law.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Extensions on Extensions: Statement on Further Extension of the Form PF Compliance Date

    Source: Securities and Exchange Commission

    Today’s open meeting looks like a straightforward Commission vote to extend a compliance date for a recently adopted rulemaking.[1] But there is more here than meets the eye. The reality of our action today is more complex – and more concerning. And the clock is ticking because the compliance date at issue is, in fact, tomorrow.

    Form PF is the confidential form on which certain SEC-registered investment advisers to private funds report information to the SEC that helps us to understand potential systemic risk.[2] The SEC, and other regulators including FSOC, depend on these detailed data to better comprehend when the private markets may be experiencing turbulence that could affect our entire financial system. Because these entities generally operate outside of our regulatory view, these data are our best – and perhaps only – way to spot large scale financial disasters originating in the private funds market, or amplified by private fund exposure, before they happen. And, these data can help us understand more fully the impact of a market event if it has already occurred.

    The recent amendments, and the “new” version of the form they create, would improve the quality of these data so that they are more precise and helpful for identifying and responding to systemic risk.[3] Remember, many of our pension fund dollars are invested in private funds – so understanding risks in this market is important for American retirement savings.

    Today, the Commission is attempting to extend the new form’s compliance date under the wire, with just hours to spare, to accommodate a last-minute request[4] from some of the most highly sophisticated, highly resourced entities in our financial system, who have already been given an extension several months ago.[5] Now they’re back for more time with what doesn’t seem like a credible reason.

    The truth is that we are here to extend this compliance date not because firms actually need additional time to comply, but to allow for reconsideration of these amendments more broadly. If you look closely, you’ll find the proof in footnote 12 of today’s release. That footnote admits that the Commission is delaying the Form’s compliance date so it can revisit – or perhaps endeavor to abandon – this information altogether.[6] So, although this extension is for just a few more months, I suspect that we will continue to accommodate requests to extend this compliance date until we have significantly revised or undone this rule.[7],[8]

    Abandoning the APA

    And so, with this vote, we plough ahead and do exactly that. We are simply disregarding the authority of two previous Commissions – at both the SEC and the CFTC – who adopted this new form just one year ago. And while I would posit that entities in such a situation should abide by regulations lawfully adopted and thus file the new form, this procedural quagmire is certainly a far cry from what the APA intends.[9] Much has been said about the Commission’s desire to “return” to a reasoned agency process, [10] but this desire is nowhere to be found when there’s a looming compliance date that some would like to dodge.

    Less Information, But More Retail Access

    Finally, it is important to remember that this timing also just so happens to be aligned with a powerful policy push to increasingly open private markets to retail investors.[11] By preventing these amendments from coming online, we are willfully blindfolding the Commission and similarly hobbling our and other financial regulators’ ability to conduct more precise and effective analysis of private markets. This further undermines our ability to do data-driven rulemaking in the future,[12] including our ability to effectively do an economic analysis if this or any future Commission tries to open private markets to retail investors. And the timing couldn’t be worse, as evidenced by increasingly widespread concern about the stability of private markets.[13]

    Refusing to receive these improved data on systemic risk doesn’t make those risks go away. And we can’t have it both ways. We can’t suggest that its perfectly safe and appropriate for investors of all stripes to gain exposure to these markets while we are going out of our way to put our head in the sand about what’s actually going on in those same markets.[14]

    Conclusion

    Of course, if this Commission wants to revisit Form PF and reconsider any part of the Form, it can attempt to do so as part of the rulemaking process and in proper coordination with the CFTC. Not by forcing through an eleventh-hour compliance date extension under false pretenses.

    Thank you to the staff in the Division of Investment Management, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, and the Office of the General Counsel for their work on this release. I’m particularly grateful to many of these team members who also worked on the final form amendments last year. I hope that, one day, the Commission will actually experience the benefits of your work and the important data from these Form PF amendments.

    [1] See Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers and Large Hedge Fund Advisers; Further Extension of Compliance Date, Release No. [ ] (Jun. 11, 2025) (“Current Compliance Date Extension Release”).

    [2] See Sections 404 and 406 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

    [3] See Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers and Large Hedge Fund Advisers, Release No. IA-6546 (Feb. 8, 2024) [89 FR 17984 (Mar. 12, 2024)].

    [5] See Form PF; Reporting Requirements for All Filers and Large Hedge Fund Advisers; Extension of Compliance Date, Release No. IA-6838 (Jan. 29, 2025) [90 FR 9007 (Feb. 5, 2025)].

    [6] “During the interim period prior to the compliance date of October 1, 2025, the Commissions may continue to review whether Final Form PF raises substantial questions of fact, law, or policy.” Current Compliance Date Extension Release, supra note 1 at n. 12.

    [8] See Current Compliance Date Extension Release, supra note 1.

    [9] The release admits that, in this instance, we are not providing for notice and comment under the APA “[g]iven the time constraints […].” I question the assertion in the release that dispensing with the APA requirements in this circumstance are for “good cause” as required by the statute. See section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) (providing that an agency may dispense with prior notice and comment when it finds, for good cause, that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”).

    [11] Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Prepared Remarks Before SEC Speaks (May 19, 2025) (“Much has changed since 2002 — including the growth of private markets and the increased oversight and enhanced reporting by both private fund advisers and registered funds. Indeed, in the last 10 years alone, private fund assets have almost tripled from $11.6 trillion to $30.9 trillion. Allowing [for more retail exposure to private funds via registered closed-end funds] could increase investment opportunities for retail investors seeking to diversify their investment allocation in line with their investment time horizon and risk tolerance.”).

    [13] “‘If growth [from retail investors] outpaces the industry’s ability to manage such complexities, such challenges could have systemic consequences. Private asset managers also face reputational risk if—in a scramble to grow share—credit standards slip or risk management falter.’” Matt Wirz, Moody’s Sounds Alarm on Private Funds for Individuals, The Wall Street Journal (Jun. 10, 2025).

    [14] “A few large private-fund managers now dominate the market and they often invest in the same deals and in each other’s funds. This makes it harder for individuals to diversify their investments and “this kind of interconnectedness can amplify systemic vulnerabilities.’” Id.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Arra Finance To Acquire Crescent Auto Finance, Rapidly Scaling Its Subprime Auto Finance Platform

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    IRVING, Texas, June 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Arra Finance, LLC (“Arra” or the “Company”), a subprime indirect auto finance company, today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the auto financing division of Crescent Bank (“Crescent”), a New Orleans-based FDIC insured bank with approximately $1 billion in assets that has provided nationwide indirect auto lending since 1991. The deal accelerates the rapid expansion of Arra’s platform, enhancing its technology stack and analytics capacity well ahead of growth expectations. Crescent will retain its branch and online retail banking platforms, as well as its commercial lending program, and Arra will become the servicer for Crescent’s $815 million originated auto loan portfolio. The transaction is expected to close in 3Q 2025. Financial terms were not disclosed.

    As a well-established operator in the subprime auto financing space, Crescent has originated upwards of $5.3 billion in auto loans nationwide over its 30-year history and $652 million in the last two years. This acquisition brings Crescent’s e-contracting, internal loan servicing and accelerated auto-decision capabilities to the Arra platform, alongside advanced analytics and additional fraud protection tools in underwriting and funding.

    With financial backing from Obra Capital (“Obra”), Arra now has the operational bandwidth and capital structure necessary to provide a comprehensive suite of financing solutions to auto dealers across the country. Arra expects to rapidly scale delivery of customer financing solutions to dealers by leveraging Crescent’s existing operations, with a significantly increased auto finance origination capacity, larger dealer base and the ability to respond to credit applications within seconds of submission.

    As part of the acquisition, Arra will welcome approximately 180 new employees from Crescent, expanding Arra’s best-in-class team by a factor of six. This includes 24 new sales team members, who will support the deployment of Arra’s capital base and provide a consistent touchpoint for new and existing dealer customers alike. The new additions will continue to be primarily based in Carrollton, Texas, supporting a seamless operational integration while opening new pathways for opportunity, as enabled by Arra’s access to asset-backed financing solutions.

    “With today’s announcement, we have rapidly advanced Arra’s growth trajectory, substantially improving our ability to be the premier financing partner for franchise and select independent dealers,” said Kenn Wardle, Chief Executive Officer of Arra Finance. “After only six months in market, we are on track to outpace our growth targets by a number of years, and we have developed the platform capabilities necessary to deliver responses to credit applications in a matter of seconds. I look forward to welcoming our new team members as we bring our combined offerings to market and continue to streamline the car buying experience for dealers and consumers across the country.”

    Gary Solomon Sr., Chairman of Crescent Bank praised the transaction, stating: “Partnering with Arra and Obra has ensured the talent, momentum and reputation Crescent has garnered over the years will continue to support the auto industry, as Crescent Bank shifts its focus to our core retail banking business.” Crescent Bank has significantly grown its online banking presence nationwide in recent years, particularly in its offering of Certificates of Deposits. Mr. Solomon added, “This is a pivotal moment for Crescent Bank, as we refocus our investment strategy in support of our local New Orleans area community and nationwide customers alike.”

    “Today’s announcement is a major growth milestone for Arra, and a testament to the opportunity in the auto finance market,” added Blair Wallace, President and CEO of Obra. “With the capital structure and flexibility provided by Obra’s insurance company balance sheets, Arra has taken decisive and aggressive steps to meet the needs of dealers across the country and become a leading player in the subprime space. The business is capitalized for success in the long term, and we look forward to seeing what’s next.”

    About Arra Finance
    Arra Finance is a subprime indirect auto finance company that purchases and services retail installment contracts originated by U.S. automobile dealers. Arra offers fast, simplified solutions and options for dealers. The company’s cutting-edge auto finance platform provides more than 1,200 franchise and independent dealerships across 15 states (with planned business expansion to dealerships in 37 states) with auto financing solutions for used car buyers. Its scalable origination system and data warehouse provide dealers with access to finance solutions and enables them to facilitate auto sales for the dealership’s customers. For more information about Arra Finance, please visit www.arrafinance.com.

    About Crescent Bank
    Crescent Bank is a Louisiana chartered, FDIC insured bank which has served the New Orleans area community since 1991 providing retail banking services and direct lending to businesses and consumers. Shortly after its founding, Crescent Bank began to open loan production offices throughout Louisiana to provide auto loans to consumers who were not being served by traditional lending institutions. As the bank succeeded and grew, its geographical lending footprint expanded nationwide. In recent years it has further expanded its retail operations to include offering certificates of deposits to consumers and investors in all states.

    About Obra Capital
    Obra is a specialized alternative asset management firm with approximately $5.8 billion in capital under management as of May 31, 2025. Obra provides investment products and solutions across insurance, multi-sector credit, asset-based finance and longevity investment strategies. Obra aims to generate long-term value and attractive returns for investors through a variety of funds and separate accounts. With capabilities in investing, originating, structuring and servicing, Obra strives to provide differentiated investment opportunities and capital solutions for investors worldwide. For more information about Obra and its registered investment advisors, please visit www.obra.com.

    Media Contact:
    Dan Gagnier
    Gagnier Communications
    Obra@gagnierfc.com
    646-569-5897

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Baltimore County Man Facing Federal Charges in Connection With Bribing Former Baltimore City Finance Official

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Baltimore, Maryland – Today, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland unsealed an indictment charging James Carroll Erny Jr., 54, of Glen Arm, Maryland, with paying more than $10,000 in bribes to Joseph Gillespie, a former Baltimore City Department of Finance, Revenue Collections, employee.

    Kelly O. Hayes, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the indictment with Acting Special Agent in Charge Amanda M. Koldjeski, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – Baltimore Field Office. 

    As alleged in the indictment, from about August 2021 through September 2023, Erny paid Gillespie at least $10,000 in bribes in exchange for Gillespie extinguishing various financial obligations he owed to Baltimore City. The debt was in connection with various properties Erny owned, including unpaid water bills.

    On February 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett sentenced Gillespie to four years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, in connection with his role in the bribery scheme, along with an unrelated fraud scheme. According to his plea agreement, beginning in 2016, and continuing into 2023, Gillespie engaged in a bribery scheme. Through the scheme, Gillespie abused his position of trust as a public official within the Baltimore City Department of Finance for personal gain.

    As an employee of the Department of Finance’s Revenue Collections, Gillespie routinely accepted bribes from various property owners in Baltimore City. These property owners were subject to financial obligations with Baltimore City, and if these debts remained unpaid, the property became subject to a tax sale. 

    Gillespie accepted these bribes — typically 10-15 percent of the amount owed to the City — in exchange for removing or extinguishing these financial obligations, including for citations, tax, and water obligations, which caused losses for the City.  He also accepted bribes in exchange for delaying or postponing due dates — without approval or permission from other City officials — for payments owed to the City. By adjusting payment due dates, this prevented the City from placing liens on these properties.

    Once Gillespie received bribe payments, he then extinguished the financial obligation owed by marking it as paid in the City’s online records.  After removing the obligation, Gillespie sometimes sent a photograph of a cashier slip reflecting that the City received payment toward the financial obligation when, in fact, no such payment was made.

    The bribery scheme continued for years, and Gillespie admitted that he enlisted the help of multiple co-conspirators.  According to the plea agreement, Gillespie received more than $250,000 in connection with the bribery scheme and caused losses to the City in excess of $1.25 million.

    Erny faces one charge of Bribery in connection with his role in the bribery scheme.  If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. A federal district court judge determines sentencing after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.  An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    U.S. Attorney Hayes commended the FBI for its work in the investigation and the Baltimore County Police Department for its valuable assistance.  Ms. Hayes also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul A. Riley and Evelyn L. Cusson who are prosecuting the federal case.

    For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to report fraud, visit justice.gov/usao-md  and justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach.

    # # #

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Stifel Announces Victor Nesi to Retire as Co-President and Head of Institutional Group; Joins Board of Directors

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ST. LOUIS, June 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Stifel Financial Corp. (NYSE: SF) today announced that Victor Nesi, Co-President and Head of the Institutional Group, will retire from his day-to-day operating responsibilities effective July 1, 2025, after 16 years of distinguished service. Mr. Nesi will, however, continue to serve the firm, simultaneously joining its Board of Directors.

    “Victor has been instrumental in building the platform we have today,” said Ronald J. Kruszewski, Chairman and CEO of Stifel. “The transformation of our Institutional Group under his guidance is one of the great success stories in our firm’s history. His strategic vision, leadership, and relentless focus on client service elevated Stifel into a major player in the investment banking world. On a personal level, I am grateful for Victor’s partnership and steady counsel, and I am thrilled he will continue to contribute as a valued member of our Board.”

    Mr. Nesi joined Stifel in 2009, at a formative moment for the firm’s Institutional Group. Under his stewardship, the Institutional Group’s overall revenue grew from $391 million in 2008 to a peak of $2.2 billion in 2021, while extending its reach across geographies, products, and capabilities. Investment banking revenue alone climbed 20x during this time from $84 million to a record $1.6 billion.

    In 2024, the Institutional Group reported $1.6 billion in revenue, which represents a more than fourfold increase since Mr. Nesi’s arrival.

    “Importantly, Victor has also ensured that the Institutional Group is well-positioned for continued success,” added Mr. Kruszewski. “He has put in place a seasoned leadership team and a strong organizational structure designed to carry forward the culture that he helped establish.”

    “It has been an honor and privilege to help grow Stifel into a premier full-service investment bank,” said Mr. Nesi. “Our success is a direct reflection of the extraordinary people of Stifel – their talent, relentless drive, and unwavering commitment have made everything possible. Together, we have built something enduring with the momentum to achieve even greater things. Consequently, I believe this is the appropriate time for me to step back and allow the next generation of leaders to continue driving our firm forward. I am still energized and eager for new challenges and I look forward to supporting Stifel’s continued success in my new role on the Board.”

    Mr. Nesi’s career in investment banking spans four decades. Before coming to Stifel, he held several leadership positions at Merrill Lynch, including Head of Americas Investment Banking. He has also worked as an investment banker at Salomon Brothers and Goldman Sachs and practiced corporate and securities law at Shea & Gould.

    Stifel Company Information
    Stifel Financial Corp. (NYSE: SF) is a financial services holding company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, that conducts its banking, securities, and financial services business through several wholly owned subsidiaries. Stifel’s broker-dealer clients are served in the United States through Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, including its Eaton Partners business division; Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.; Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC; and Stifel Independent Advisors, LLC. The Company’s broker-dealer affiliates provide securities brokerage, investment banking, trading, investment advisory, and related financial services to individual investors, professional money managers, businesses, and municipalities. Stifel Bank and Stifel Bank & Trust offer a full range of consumer and commercial lending solutions. Stifel Trust Company, N.A. and Stifel Trust Company Delaware, N.A. offer trust and related services. To learn more about Stifel, please visit the Company’s website at www.stifel.com. For global disclosures, please visit https://www.stifel.com/investor-relations/press-releases.

    Media Contact
    Neil Shapiro, +1 (212) 271-3447
    shapiron@stifel.com

    Investor Relations Contact
    Joel Jeffrey, +1 (212) 271-3610
    investorrelations@stifel.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Extreme weather could send milk prices soaring, deepening challenges for the dairy industry

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milena Bojovic, Lecturer, Sustainability and Environment, University of Technology Sydney

    Australia’s dairy industry is in the middle of a crisis, fuelled by an almost perfect storm of challenges.

    Climate change and extreme weather have been battering farmlands and impacting animal productivity, creating mounting financial strains and mental health struggles for many farmers.

    Meanwhile, beyond the farm gate, consumer tastes are shifting to a range of dairy substitutes. Interest and investment in alternative dairy proteins is accelerating.

    Earlier this month, industry figures warned consumers to prepare for price rises amid expected shortages of milk, butter and cheese. Already mired in uncertainty, the dairy industry is now being forced to confront some tough questions about its future head on.

    Dairy under pressure

    Dairy is Australia’s third-largest rural industry. It produces more than A$6 billion worth of milk each year, and directly employs more than 30,000 people.

    But the sector has been under sustained pressure. This year alone, repeated extreme weather events have affected key dairy-producing regions in southern and eastern parts of Australia.

    In New South Wales, dairy farmers face increased pressure from floods. In May, many regions had their monthly rainfall records broken – some by huge margins.

    In Victoria, drought and water shortages are worsening. Tasmania, too, continues to endure some of the driest conditions in more than a century.

    Conditions have prompted many farmers to sell down their cattle numbers to conserve feed and water.

    All of this heavily impacts farm productivity. Agriculture has long been predicated on our ability to predict climate conditions and grow food or rear animals according to the cycles of nature.

    As climate change disrupts weather patterns, this makes both short and long-term planning for the sector a growing challenge.

    High costs, low profits

    Climate change isn’t the only test. The industry has also been grappling with productivity and profitability concerns.

    At the farm level, dairy farmers are feeling the impacts of high operating costs. Compared to other types of farming (such as sheep or beef), dairy farms require more plant, machinery and equipment capital, mostly in the form of specialised milking machinery.

    The price of milk also has many farmers concerned. The modest increase in farmgate milk prices – just announced by dairy companies for the start of the next financial year – left many farmers disappointed. Some say the increase isn’t enough to cover rising operating costs.

    Zooming out, there are concerns about a lack of family succession planning for dairy farms. Many young people are wary of taking on such burdens, and the total number of Australian dairy farms has been in steady decline – from more than 6,000 in 2015 to just 4,163 in 2023.

    What’s the solution?

    Is there a way to make the dairy industry more productive, profitable and sustainable? Australian Dairy Farmers is the national policy and advocacy group supporting the profitability and sustainability of the sector.

    In the lead up to this year’s federal election, the group called for $399 million in government investment to address what it said were key priorities. These included:

    • investment in on-farm technologies to improve efficiencies
    • funding for water security
    • upskilling programs for farmers
    • support for succession planning.
    Industry figures have warned consumers to brace for possible increases in the cost of dairy products.
    wisely/Shutterstock

    However, as the industry struggles to grapple with a changing climate, financial strain and mental health pressures, there should also be pathways for incumbent farmers to transition, either to farming dairy differently (such as by reducing herd sizes) or exiting out of dairy farming and into something else.

    Dairy without the cows

    The push to make dairy production more sustainable and efficient faces its own competition. A number of techniques in development promise dairy products without the cows, through cellular agriculture – and more specifically, “precision fermentation”.

    Australian company Eden Brew, in partnership with dairy giant Norco, has plans to produce and commercialise precision fermentation dairy proteins.

    And last year, Australian company All G secured approval to sell precision fermentation lactoferrin (a key dairy ingredient in baby formula) in China – another animal-free milk product.

    It is important to note that cost and scalability for cellular agriculture remains a challenge.

    Nonetheless, Australia’s rapidly growing non-dairy milk market – soy, oat, and so on – is now worth over $600 million annually. This reflects the global shift towards plant-based options driven by health, environmental, and ethical concerns.

    Is there a win-win outcome?

    Is there a possible future where more funding is given to produce milk at scale through precision fermentation while we also look after incumbent dairy workers, farms and the rural sector at large to diversify or leave the sector altogether?

    Some believe this future is possible. This is what researchers call “protein pluralism” – a market where traditional and alternative proteins coexist. Long-term planning from both the dairy industry and government would be needed.

    Remember, while techniques like precision fermentation offer the promise of animal-free dairy products, their benefits are largely yet to materialise. How they will ultimately benefit the whole of society remains speculative.

    What we can do now

    For this reason, some scholars have argued we should prioritise actions that can be taken now. This includes support for practices such as agroecology, which seek to address injustice and inequity in food systems to help empower primary food producers.

    A recent study found Australian dairy farmers were interested in financial and technical advice to make decisions about where they take their business in future.

    Despite growing recognition of the challenges facing the dairy sector, responses from government and alternative dairy remain uneven. A more coordinated approach is needed for affected farmers, helping them adapt or diversify with guidance from government and industry experts.

    Milena Bojovic volunteers with Farm Transitions Australia, a registered charity which helps Australian dairy and beef farmers facing hardship and seeking a transition from the industry. She is affiliated with ARC Centre for Excellence in Synthetic Biology.

    – ref. Extreme weather could send milk prices soaring, deepening challenges for the dairy industry – https://theconversation.com/extreme-weather-could-send-milk-prices-soaring-deepening-challenges-for-the-dairy-industry-258175

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

    Higher productivity has quickly emerged as an economic reform priority for Labor’s second term.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has laid down some markers for a productivity round table in August, saying he wants it to build the “broadest possible base” for further economic reform.

    The government is right to focus on productivity. Improving economic efficiency will increase real wages, help bring down inflation and interest rates, and improve living standards.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers is flagging a broad productivity agenda, but acknowledges the rewards will take time to percolate through the economy:

    Human capital, competition policy, technology, energy, the care economy – these are where we are going to find the productivity gains, and not quickly, but over the medium term.

    Making the economy operate more efficiently is simple in concept. But Albanese and Chalmers would be well aware productivity is hard to measure, and even more difficult to shift.

    The numbers are fraught

    What do we mean by productivity growth? And how will it help lift the economy? The authors of the bestselling new book Abundance offer this neat explanation:

    People need to think up new ideas. Factories need to innovate new processes. These new ideas and new processes must be encoded into new technologies. All this is grouped under the sterile label of productivity: How much more can we produce with the same number of people and resources?

    At its most basic, productivity measures outputs divided by inputs – what we produce compared to the resources such as labour and capital used to produce it.

    But large parts of the “non-market” economy including the public service, health care and education are excluded from the official productivity figures.

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics is working to address the gap in the data. For example, it is developing “experimental estimates” for the health sector, which suggests hospital productivity has fallen.

    However measurement is fraught. If a nurse, for instance, who previously cared for four patients now looks after eight, is that a productivity improvement? Or a drop in standard of care?

    Flatlining productivity

    Australian productivity growth has averaged just 0.4% a year since 2015 – the lowest rate in 60 years.

    The exception was during COVID, when industries with low productivity, such as accommodation and food, were shut down and those with high productivity – such as IT and communications – thrived.

    The objective must be to return to, or even surpass, historical levels of productivity. However, it won’t be easy given economists have no clear idea why productivity growth has fallen in Australia and overseas.

    Theories include:

    • measurement problems
    • new industries
    • decline in business investment in equipment and technology
    • more service industries, where productivity is lower
    • the easy reforms have all been done.

    No shortage of advice

    Productivity is multidimensional, with an absurd number of moving parts. It depends on skills, technology, investment, knowledge, management, and a host of other factors. Like the movie, it’s “everything, everywhere all at once”.

    The government has a plethora of advice on how to improve productivity. Scientists argue for more scientific research; business lobbies for more investment breaks;
    innovators for more technological advances.

    This poses a dilemma for the Treasurer. Most suggestions on their own would make some difference. Doing all of them would make a huge difference. Alas, government cannot do everything. It must choose where to apply its limited resources.

    Beyond money and time, the government must also have appetite for the fight.

    Interest groups typically support productivity reforms in principle, but resist them if they are directly affected. Every inefficient regulation or program has a supporter somewhere.

    Five pillars

    Jim Chalmers does not need another shopping list. He needs help to sort through options and set priorities for which fights to pick. To this end, in December year he tasked the Productivity Commission with new inquiries into the five main drivers – “pillars” – of higher productivity.



    Read more:
    Labor says its second term will be about productivity reform. These ideas could help shift the dial

    Yet the Albanese government has already been handed a comprehensive blueprint for productivity reform.

    In March 2023, the Productivity Commission released the Advancing Prosperity report, which it described as a “road map”.

    However, it had more of a shopping list feel, incorporating 71 recommendations and 29 “reform directives”. Many were of the “should” variety, lacking a detailed plan of how to do them.

    Roughly speaking, any government only has bandwidth for one big and a few small reforms a term. It cannot implement more than 70, even if that’s ideal.

    Productivity reform will succeed if it involves only a few changes – preferably those that deliver the most improvement for the least complaint.

    Some proposed measures are desirable but controversial. The tax system, for example, is crying out for improvement, but the government is unlikely to take it on.

    Reforming occupational licences to make it easier for tradies to move states is a more modest aim. It would not generate the same productivity gains, but politically would be simpler to implement.

    Nothing to fear

    Finally, some words of caution.

    Productivity is not code for exploiting workers. As The Guardian recently noted:

    When most people hear the word ‘productivity’ they think of their boss wanting them to take on more duties for the same pay. That’s not the case. It’s about getting more out of the hours you work.

    Working harder to get the same result is in fact a drop in productivity. Working shorter hours for the same outputs is productivity growth, with the benefits seen in better work-life balance.

    Nor is productivity just about producing more outputs. Who needs more useless stuff?

    And statistics can mislead, because they measure the value of production, not the quality. A broader accounting for production, incorporating society and the environment, would help the productivity debate avoid this trap.

    Albanese and Chalmers readily acknowledge the government can do more on productivity. Anyone with an interest in driving a more efficient economy, higher real wages and better living standards will hold them to their word.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the productivity dilemma.

    Stephen Bartos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge – https://theconversation.com/hard-to-measure-and-difficult-to-shift-the-governments-big-productivity-challenge-257968

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A reversal in US climate policy will send renewables investors packing – and Australia can reap the benefits

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Downie, Professor, Australian National University

    President Donald Trump is trying to unravel the signature climate policy of his predecessor Joe Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act, as part of a sweeping bid to dismantle the United States’ climate ambition.

    The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, is a A$530 billion suite of measures that aims to turbocharge clean energy investment and slash emissions in the US. Once hailed as a game-changer for the global clean energy transition, it set in train a fierce international competition for renewable energy investment.

    But the policy is now hanging by a thread, after the US House of Representatives last month narrowly passed a bill to repeal many of its clean energy measures.

    Should the bill pass the Senate, billions of dollars in renewables investment once destined for the US could be looking for a new home. Now is the time for the Albanese government to woo investors with a bolder program of climate action in Australia.

    The Trump administration is seeking to wind back Biden’s signature climate policy.
    Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Climate Power 2020

    What is the Inflation Reduction Act?

    The Inflation Reduction Act passed US Congress in 2022. It legislated billions of dollars in tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and geothermal plants, among other technologies.

    It included around A$13 billion in rebates for Americans to electrify their homes, tax credits of almost A$11,000 to electrify their cars, and billions more to establish a “green bank” and target agricultural emissions.

    The money flowed. Last year, almost A$420 billion was invested in the manufacture and deployment of clean energy – double that in 2021, the year before the legislation passed.

    Even in the first quarter of this year, under a Trump presidency, A$103 billion was invested in clean energy tech – an increase on the first quarter results of 2024. Electric vehicle manufacturing projects, especially batteries, were standout performers.

    Then US president Joe Biden in August 2023, celebrating the first anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act. The policy aimed to turbocharge the clean energy transition.
    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    But then came the proposed repeal. The Trump administration wants to gut tax credits for clean energy technologies. The measures passed the House of Representatives and must now clear the US Senate, where the Republicans have a margin of three votes.

    Initial modelling suggests the bill, if passed, could derail clean energy manufacturing in the US – including in Republican states where new projects were planned.

    The potential economic damage has sparked concern even among Trump’s own troops. Some Republicans last week reportedly urged the scaling back of the cuts, despite voting for the bill in the House.

    Opportunities for Australia

    After the IRA was enacted, many countries followed the US’ lead – including Australia’s Albanese government, which legislated the A$22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package.

    So how will Trump’s unravelling of the policy affect the rest of the world?

    The economic impacts are still being modelled. Some studies suggest the US could cede A$123 billion in investment to other countries.

    The US axing of tax credits for battery and solar technology paves the way for nations such as China and South Korea to capitalise – given, for example, they already dominate battery manufacturing.

    Australia should be doing its utmost to attract investors that no longer see the US as an option. Our existing policies are a start, but they are not sufficient.

    In February this year, Labor increased the investment capacity of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – Australia’s “green bank” – by A$2 billion. But more will be needed if the government is serious about crowding-in private investment in low-emission technologies exiting the US.

    The government would also be wise to remove incentives that increase fossil fuel use. This includes the diesel fuel rebate, which encourages the use of diesel-powered trucks on mine sites. Fortescue Metals this week announced a push for the subsidy to be wound back – potentially providing the political opening Labor needs.

    What about nuclear?

    Trump has also promised a “nuclear renaissance”, signing four executive orders designed to reinvigorate the US nuclear energy industry.

    But those measures are likely to fail, just as Trump’s 2016 promise to revive the coal industry never eventuated.

    In fact, his cuts to the Loan Programs Office – which helps finance new energy projects including nuclear – threaten to undermine the viability of new nuclear plants. The office has been the guarantor for every new US nuclear plant this century, bar one.

    If the US is struggling to scale up its existing nuclear industry, this does not bode well for the technology’s hopes in Australia. Here, the prospect of a nuclear energy policy still appears alive in the Coalition party room, even though the technology remains politically unpopular, and the economics don’t stack up.

    What’s next?

    Predicting US climate and energy policy is a fool’s errand, given the potential IRA repeal, flip-flopping tariff announcements and daily social media tirades from Trump, including a social media bust-up with former ally Elon Musk over the merits of the repeal itself.

    Stepping back from the politics, we cannot ignore the climate harms flowing from a walk-back on US climate action.

    The US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. As climate change reaches new extremes, the policy vacuum created by Donald Trump must urgently be filled by the rest of the world.

    Christian Downie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

    – ref. A reversal in US climate policy will send renewables investors packing – and Australia can reap the benefits – https://theconversation.com/a-reversal-in-us-climate-policy-will-send-renewables-investors-packing-and-australia-can-reap-the-benefits-258388

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray Opening Remarks at Hearing on Army Corps, Bureau of Reclamation Budgets

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s opening remarks***

    Washington, D.C. — Today, during a Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee hearing on the president’s fiscal year 2026 budget requests for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation—U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, underscored the indispensable role each agency plays in ensuring America’s waterways are flowing, supporting our economy, and protecting the American people—and slammed President Trump’s politicization of America’s water resources and proposal to gut investments in the Corps and Bureau.

    Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:

    “Thank you very much, Chair Kennedy. Good morning to all of you, Acting Assistant Secretary Forsgren, Lieutenant General Graham, and Acting Assistant Secretary Cameron—thank you all for being here today.

    “We are here today to talk about the fiscal year 2026 budget requests for the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. Whether they know it or not—every American depends on the work of these agencies every day. And that is especially true for folks in my home state of Washington, and anyone who lives out West or near a major waterway.

    “The Army Corps keeps our ports running smoothly, which is critical for our economy and trade. They manage critical infrastructure like our dams, levees, and bridges—and protect communities from dangerous floods. And they support our ecosystems and help protect keystone species like salmon, among a lot else. Bureau of Reclamation brings water to over 30 million people and irrigation to one-in-five farmers out West, it generates power to keep the lights on in millions of homes, and it protects farmers and communities against drought—to name a few things!

    “It is critical work—work that we cannot afford to shortchange. But President Trump’s budget request shows yet again that he has no clue, and no problem gutting essential water investments our communities rely on to feed their families and stay safe from flooding. The president’s budget requests a nearly 25 percent cut for the Corps of Engineers.

    “And when you consider the fact that House Republicans’ last yearlong CR already cut funding for the Corps, we are really talking about a nearly 30 percent cut for the Corps relative to the funding level just a few months ago. This request, for example, falls $1.7 billion below the target level for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund—leaving more than half of that target funding on the table.

    “Not only that, you include just $60 million for Donor and Energy ports like in my home state, when our bipartisan Water Resources Development Act has specifically instructed that there be $417 million for these ports. And President Trump’s budget also proposes a massive 30 percent cut for the Bureau of Reclamation. These cuts would end critical work on flood prevention, port dredging, basic management of our water resources, and more. This is flat-out dangerous—and Trump’s budget is dead on arrival here in Congress as far as I’m concerned.

    “But we have a lot more to cover beyond the budget request. Because, as we sit here today, the President seems bent on doing everything he can to undermine the work of the Corps and the Bureau with reckless staffing cuts, and by brazenly—and corruptly—politicizing the allocation of funding and control over our nation’s water resources. In the span of just a few months, DOGE has pushed out a quarter of the Bureau’s staff without any discernible strategy. This mass exodus of talent puts the Bureau’s mission at serious risk. The last thing we need are fewer dam safety inspections or big delays on repair projects.

    “And when it comes to politicization, the President spent much of his first few weeks in office making up conspiracies about California’s water supply as wildfires raged; vowing to block disaster relief, picking fights with the state’s governor, and—against the advice of all experts—ultimately ordered the Corps to open two dams and unleash billions of gallons of water on California’s central valley. That move, predictably, did absolutely nothing to stop the fires and came nowhere near LA. But it did waste huge quantities of precious water and nearly flooded—yes, flooded—local farms and communities and put agriculture at risk.

    “It was one of the first instances we saw of this president meddling in the Corps’ work and overruling experts to chase some fixation, but it was not the last. A few weeks ago, the Corps released plans detailing how it is allocating funding for construction projects in FY-25. Now, usually, that is something we decide here in Congress. But that decision-making power was turned over to the Trump administration with House Republicans’ yearlong, slush-fund CR.

    “That was one of the many reasons I voted against that bill, and it’s a reminder to all of us about why we need strong, bipartisan spending bills. So instead of allocating construction funding to projects that were selected in both our bipartisan Senate appropriations bill and the Republican House bill and giving funding to red and blue states roughly evenly—as both bills did—this administration decided to steal hundreds of millions of dollars in critical investments from blue states, and steer those investments instead to red states and the president’s political allies.

    “Every single construction project in California—the most populous state in the country—was zeroed out. We’re talking about funds to protect people in one of the most flood-prone states in the country—gone. And Trump completely defunded construction at the Howard Hansom Dam in Washington state, leaving a literal hole in the ground! This is a shovel-ready project that will ensure water reliability for over one million people in the region. And of course, the administration’s budget proposal does not fund those projects in FY-26 either.

    “All told, two-thirds of Army Corps construction funding is now headed to red states, for no reason other than Trump wanting to punish political enemies and reward his friends. This is not how these projects should work—ever—in the United States of America.

    “Lieutenant General Graham, a few weeks ago the Assistant Secretary’s office was asked in a House hearing about this nakedly partisan allocation. That official didn’t even try to justify it. Instead, they said, tellingly, the buck stopped with OMB. So, there it is: Trump and Russ Vought called the final shots and defunded these projects on their own.

    “Now, I shouldn’t need to tell anyone here, floods hit red states and blue states alike. Droughts hammers farmers in rural districts, and strain families in big ways. Every single American—in one way or another—depends on our ports being well-maintained to get the basic goods we count on and keep our economy humming. And everyone should be able to trust their government will decide how to invest resources and protect them from threats like flooding, drought, and wildfire based on science, based on engineering—that is, what’s best for people—not on a president’s desire for retribution.

    “I believe Congress needs to reject the reckless cuts you’re requesting for the Corps and the Bureau. And we need to see an end to the egregious politicization of these resources—this is not a path we can afford to continue going down as a country.

    “So, I will just give a warning to all of my colleagues, once again: It may have not been your state this time, but you all know full well just how fickle the President can be.

    “Let’s not leave this authority with him. We do need to come together and write a strong bipartisan bill.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cassidy on Senate Floor: Reestablishing American Energy Dominance Starts in Louisiana

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Louisiana Bill Cassidy

    [embedded content]

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) delivered a speech on the U.S. Senate floor highlighting Louisiana’s energy abundance and detailing how unleashing American energy will benefit American families, the economy, and our national security.
    “The benefits of unleashing American energy go beyond our borders. President Trump’s America First policies are good for the U.S., good for Louisiana, and good for the world,” said Dr. Cassidy. 
    “America has the resources. We have an abundance. Let’s put it to use,” concluded Dr. Cassidy. 
    Background
    In January, Cassidy released a statement applauding President Trump’s executive order to lift the Biden administration’s harmful pause on liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permitting. In March, Cassidy was joined by U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) in reiterating support for President Trump’s approach to American energy. 
    Last year, immediately following the Biden administration’s announcement that they would freeze pending applications for LNG export permits, Cassidy led 25 of his Republican colleagues in condemning the decision. Cassidy later delivered a speech on the U.S. Senate floor blasting the decision. In February 2024, Cassidy penned an op-ed with U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) in the Houston Chronicle underscoring the devastating economic, environmental, and national security impacts of the LNG export freeze.
    Cassidy also introduced the LNG Security Act to reverse President Biden’s LNG export ban and require the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to approve LNG exports to all countries that have imported, currently import, or are capable of importing Russian or Iranian natural gas. Additionally, he introduced the Unlocking Domestic LNG Potential Act, which depoliticizes the export of American LNG. It eliminates the requirement for the DOE to authorize exports and instead gives the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) sole authority over the approval process. 
    Cassidy’s remarks as prepared for delivery are below:
    Louisiana fuels the world.
    That is what we say in my state. And that is true.
    Louisiana accounted for more than 60% of U.S. energy exports last year. The United States is the world’s largest LNG exporter—Louisiana has some of the largest export terminals in the world.
    And it’s a whole-of-state initiative! A lot of the gas that we export is produced in the Haynesville shale, which is in Northwest Louisiana.
    And that gas comes down to Cameron LNG in Hackberry, Louisiana. That one is capable of exporting 12 million metric tons of LNG per year.
    Cheniere Energy in Cameron Parish. 30 million metric tons of LNG per year.
    Venture Global in Plaquemines Parish. 27 million metric tons of LNG per year, and it is growing.
    President Trump wants to reestablish American energy dominance. That dominance starts in Louisiana.
    Louisiana has the infrastructure, the strategic location, and most importantly the workers to put America back on top.
    Louisiana’s ports, railroads, highways, and pipelines provide an outlet for gas and oil from landlocked states to export through our ports.
    Some oil is transported by rail. And the only place in the United States of America where six major freight railway carriers converge is in—you guessed it—Louisiana. 
    Our fully integrated, 50,000-mile pipeline network and 11,000 miles of state highways make Louisiana an obvious choice when considering which states can best transport these goods.
    We’re positioned where the Mississippi River drains into the Gulf of America.
    Besides our LNG export terminals, we have six combined deep draft ports.
    Louisiana moves oil and gas, and we also move the refined products of that oil and gas, which is part of fueling the world.
    Louisiana is critical to production and distribution of fuel and fuel products.
    I’m making these points because reestablishing American energy dominance is about creating better jobs—higher-paying jobs—changing the trajectory of a family in my state and across the nation. 
    By the end of President Biden’s term, after four years of attacks against American energy production, the Department of Energy reported tens of thousands of jobs lost.
    But tens of thousands of jobs is a statistic! **These are real people, real families we’re talking about!
    Think of the young couple with children who have lost their job!
    The wife immediately wonders how they’re going to pay the house note.
    The husband feels as if he’s letting his family down.
    The kids see conflict that was never there before between the parents.
    Those are human stories and those stories are relived over and over when those jobs are killed. Not because the fuel is not needed, but because the last administration decided they didn’t like it. 
    That was the case for tens of thousands of Americans under President Biden. His war on American energy was a war on American jobs, which is a war on American families.
    That war on the American family is over. I recognize, President Trump recognizes, that American energy dominance fueling our state, our country, and the world—and along with it, giving enough product for the manufacturing of the refined products that we all need—creates with it the high-paying jobs for the Americans who should never have been out of work in the first place. 
    Woodside Energy recently announced the largest single foreign direct investment in Louisiana history: a $17.5 billion investment in Calcasieu Parish for a new LNG export facility.
    It will support 15,000 jobs during construction and, once operational, thousands more after it’s built.
    By the way, there are other things we do with this plentiful, abundant energy! There are wonderful spin-offs!
    Last month, Hyundai Steel announced a $5.8 billion investment to build a new, next-generation steel production facility in Ascension Parish. The facility is expected to generate $4.1 billion in annual revenue and will bring nearly 1,500 direct jobs to the state, plus thousands of indirect jobs.
    That’s low-cost energy paving the way for more opportunity!
    By the way, this benefits my state, our nation, but guess who else it benefits? Our allies!
    Europe imports 45% of its LNG from the United States. Now they still get 20 from Russia, and the rest from Qatar and other countries.
    But WE send them 45% of their LNG. Before the Russia-Ukraine war, it was only 27%!
    We have a bill before Congress now to put even stricter sanctions upon Russia. If the Europeans buy even less gas from Russia, they’ll need more gas from us.
    We can make up that difference.
    With our LNG export facilities and with our gas, I want to send MORE natural gas from the Haynesville shale, through those LNG export facilities, across the Atlantic Ocean, creating tax revenue for my parish governments and wealth for my workers—to help their national security, to help our economy, to help my working families.
    The European Union using more U.S. LNG hurts Vladimir Putin’s war machine.
    Last year, the EU paid 22 billion euros for Russian natural gas, and Putin used that for his war machine.
    Next year, if the Europeans buy that much U.S. natural gas, that’s $25 billion coming to OUR economy!
    After Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine in 2022, America stood up against Putin. Europe did too. Let’s help them do it even more so.
    We can help them by saying, “Don’t buy Putin’s gas to fuel his war, buy OUR gas.”
    Louisiana is ready to help.
    America has the resources. We have an abundance. Let’s put it to use.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Files Amicus Brief Supporting Challenge to the Trump Administration’s Unlawful Freeze to Federal Research Funding for Harvard

    Source: US State of California

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week, as part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of Harvard University’s motion for summary judgment in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s freeze of federal funding for research grants at Harvard University. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the freezing and termination of Harvard’s research grants would pose an existential threat to universities, disrupt state’s economies, public health efforts, and the pipeline for the next generation of researchers. 

    “The Trump Administration is going after Harvard because it refused to bend to its unprecedented – and blatantly unlawful – demands,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In California, we remain committed to upholding and protecting the constitutional and civil rights of our educational institutions and their students. I’m proud to stand with Harvard in ensuring that we continue to protect our students, their wellbeing, and their freedom of speech.”

    In April 2025, Harvard filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts arguing that the Trump Administration exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority and violated the First Amendment in freezing, terminating, and refusing to issue or continue research and other grants in retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to restructure its internal governance, change its hiring and admissions practices, and modify what it teaches its students to align with the government’s views.

    In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the court to grant Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Trump Administration’s unlawful freeze of federal funding poses an existential threat to the university which will (1) impact the state’s economy, (2) threaten current jobs and businesses, (3) halt career development for promising new scientists debilitating the pipeline for future innovators, and (4) prevent research for lifesaving medicines and transformative technologies with the potential to improve the health and lives of residents.

    Harvard’s contributions to Massachusetts are a prime example of the significant impact research universities can have. Since its founding in 1636, Harvard has been critical to Massachusetts’s flourishing, directing billions of dollars to the state’s businesses and organizations and driving countless of innovations in medicine and technology. In addition, Harvard is one of Massachusetts’s largest employers and frequently collaborates with state and local partners on initiatives that support the local economy.

    In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys generals of Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

    A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Trump Signs Executive Orders on Drones, Flying Cars, and Supersonics

    US Senate News:

    Source: US Whitehouse
    WASHINGTON, DC – President Trump has signed three executive orders that will accelerate domestic drone production, secure our airspace, and position America to once again lead the world in supersonic technology.
    “Decades of regulatory gridlock have grounded advancements in drones, flying cars, and supersonic flight in the U.S. With today’s EOs, the Trump Administration is giving America’s innovators greater ability to test, develop, and commercialize these cutting-edge aircrafts that will reshape aviation,” said White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios. “President Trump’s actions will unleash a new era of American aviation dominance, fostering innovation, driving economic growth, and protecting our national security.
    Burdensome red tape has hindered homegrown drone innovation and grounded progress in supersonic flight for generations. Today’s executive orders accelerate domestic drone innovation, secure supply chains, reduce reliance on adversarial nations, repeal regulations that stalled supersonic flight, and assert U.S. leadership in emerging aviation sectors. They also enable routine beyond line-of-sight operations, which will empower our domestic drone economy to assist with critical infrastructure, emergency response, and long-distance cargo and medical delivery.
    The executive orders also create a pilot program testing flying cars, also known as electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, for EMS, air taxis, cargo, and defense logistics. The eVTOL pilot program builds on the successes of President Trump’s 2017 drone pilot program, highlighting how President Trump’s actions continue to put America in a position to lead.
    Additionally, these orders address the growing threats from criminal, terrorist, and foreign misuse of drones inside U.S. airspace. This administration is securing our borders against aerial threats by cracking down on unlawful drone activity and prioritizing real-time detection and identification of drones to safeguard national security. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: COLUMN: Walker: Your Money, Your Future: Delivering Real Tax Relief

    Source: US State of Georgia

    By: Sen. Larry Walker, III (R–Perry)

    Across Middle Georgia, folks are working hard to provide for their families, and every dollar matters. Whether you’re filling up your gas tank, checking out at the grocery store, or trying to cover your utility bill, the cost of living has gone up. I’ve heard it from farmers in Pulaski County, parents in Houston County, and retirees in Laurens and Dooly…Georgians are stretched thin.

    This year, we delivered real relief. I’m proud to report that the General Assembly passed two crucial measures, House Bills 111 and 112, to put more money back in your pocket and help ease the strain on household budgets.

    HB 111 reduces Georgia’s personal income tax rate from 5.39 percent to 5.19 percent, with a plan to reduce it even further to 4.99 percent in the coming years. While that may sound like a small number, it adds up in a big way for working families. Those savings will show up in take-home pay across our state, giving folks more flexibility to cover everyday costs.

    We know that when government takes in more than it needs, it should return the surplus to the people who earned it, not spend it on bureaucracy or pet projects. That’s why we also passed HB 112, which sends a one-time refund to Georgia taxpayers. The Department of Revenue is now issuing these checks. If you filed both your 2023 and 2024 tax returns on time and have no outstanding debt to the state, you can expect to receive a refund of $250 if you filed as a single taxpayer, $375 if you filed as head of household or $500 if you filed jointly as a married couple. It’s a direct result of responsible, conservative budgeting and the third year in a row we’ve been able to return excess revenue to Georgia families.

    We’re doing all this while still fully funding critical priorities. Our budget includes investments in school safety, teacher pay raises, mental health services, and rural healthcare infrastructure. We’ve supported hurricane recovery efforts and made sure our rural communities aren’t left behind. In fact, our state’s economy remains strong. Georgia’s net tax collections for May were up more than nine percent from last year, thanks in part to strong individual and corporate income tax returns. That’s not just good news for the state, it’s proof that our conservative approach is working.

    To my constituents in the 20th District, these policies were written with you in mind. Whether you’re running a small business in Eastman, tending a family farm in Cochran or living on a fixed income in Hawkinsville, this tax relief matters. It means fewer hard choices at the end of the month. It means peace of mind when planning for the future.

    I’ve always believed that Georgians know how to spend their money better than the government does. As Chairman of the Senate Insurance and Labor Committee and a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I take that belief seriously. It’s my job to protect your hard-earned income and ensure the state lives within its means.

    Georgia didn’t become the best state to do business by accident. We got here through discipline, smart policy and a deep respect for the taxpayer. This year’s tax relief package is just the latest chapter in that story, and I’ll keep fighting to make sure it’s not the last.

    If you have questions about your rebate or how these changes might affect your family or your business, please don’t hesitate to reach out to my office. It’s an honor to serve you, and I remain committed to building a stronger, more affordable Georgia—one that works for every family in our part of the state.

    # # # #

    Sen. Larry Walker serves as Secretary of the Majority Caucus and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Insurance and Labor. He represents the 20th Senate District, which includes Bleckley, Dodge, Dooly, Laurens, Treutlen, Pulaski and Wilcox counties, as well as portions of Houston County.  He may be reached by phone at (404) 656-0095 or by email at Larry.Walker@senate.ga.gov.

    For all media inquiries, please reach out to SenatePressInquiries@senate.ga.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Stein Urges Senate Leaders to Support NC Economy By Protecting IRA Tax Credits

    Source: US State of North Carolina

    Headline: Governor Stein Urges Senate Leaders to Support NC Economy By Protecting IRA Tax Credits

    Governor Stein Urges Senate Leaders to Support NC Economy By Protecting IRA Tax Credits
    lsaito

    Raleigh, NC

    Today Governor Stein urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Finance Committe Chair Mike Crapo, and North Carolina Senators Ted Budd and Thom Tillis to reconsider the U.S. House of Representative’s efforts to end the energy and manufacturing tax credits that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 created. These tax credits have helped North Carolina emerge as a top state for clean energy business investment.

    “Our state’s clean energy economy is booming, and companies’ decisions to locate their clean energy advanced manufacturing facilities in North Carolina have brought jobs and opportunities to our state,” said Governor Josh Stein. “H.R. 1’s abrupt changes to these credits would jeopardize much of this investment, stifle the demand that many companies were counting on, and conflict with the goals of reshoring manufacturing that the Trump Administration has championed. H.R. 1 would weaken our economy, raise utility prices on consumers, and undermine our national security.”

    Since the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 passed, more than $24 billion in clean energy technology investments have been announced across North Carolina. These announcements include batteries for storage and vehicle applications, solar panels, cells, and wafers, electric vehicle charging stations, transformers, critical minerals, and a wide variety of grid-enhancing products. These businesses already or will soon employ tens of thousands of people, in addition to the more than 100,000 people already employed in North Carolina’s clean energy sector. The U.S. House budget resolution’s repeal of these tax credits would threaten jobs in North Carolina and put billions of dollars in investments at risk. 

    Moreover, H.R. 1 could cause a significant cost in electricity prices for North Carolinians – a more than 13 percent increase for households and a more than 20 percent increase for businesses. In total, if these tax credits were repealed, an average North Carolina family could expect to pay $200 more per year to power their homes. 

    Read Governor Stein’s letter calling for the US Senate to protect IRA tax credits here.  

    Jun 11, 2025

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Capital Southwest Announces Transition to Monthly Regular Dividends and Declares Total Dividends of $0.64 per share for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    DALLAS, June 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Capital Southwest Corporation (“Capital Southwest” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: CSWC), an internally managed business development company focused on providing flexible financing solutions to support the acquisition and growth of middle market businesses, is pleased to announce a change to its regular dividend payment frequency from quarterly to monthly beginning in July 2025.

    In addition, the Company is pleased to announce that its Board of Directors has declared monthly regular dividends of $0.1934 per share for each of July, August, and September 2025 and a quarterly supplemental dividend of $0.06 per share payable in September 2025, each of which is detailed in the table below.

    Michael Sarner, President and Chief Executive Officer, stated, “We believe that transitioning to a monthly regular dividend is a shareholder friendly initiative which will benefit all shareholders of Capital Southwest. We are pleased with the strong earnings generation and credit quality of our portfolio, which allows us to continue to distribute significant recurring dividends to our shareholders.”

    The Company’s regular monthly dividends for the quarter ending September 30, 2025 will be payable as follows:

    Declared Ex-Dividend Date Record Date Payment Date Amount Per Share
    6/11/2025 7/15/2025 7/15/2025 7/31/2025 $0.1934
    6/11/2025 8/15/2025 8/15/2025 8/29/2025 $0.1934
    6/11/2025 9/15/2025 9/15/2025 9/30/2025 $0.1934

    The Company’s supplemental dividend for the quarter ending September 30, 2025 will be payable as follows:

    Declared Ex-Dividend Date Record Date Payment Date Amount Per Share
    6/11/2025 9/15/2025 9/15/2025 9/30/2025 $0.06
    Total Regular Dividends per Share for Quarter Ending September 30, 2025: $0.58
    Total Supplemental Dividend per Share for Quarter Ending September 30, 2025: $0.06
    Total Dividends per Share for Quarter Ending September 30, 2025: $0.64

    When declaring dividends, the Board of Directors reviews estimates of taxable income available for distribution, which may differ from net investment income under generally accepted accounting principles. The final determination of taxable income for each year, as well as the tax attributes for dividends in such year, will be made after the close of the tax year.

    Capital Southwest maintains a dividend reinvestment plan (“DRIP”) that provides for the reinvestment of dividends on behalf of its registered stockholders who hold their shares with Capital Southwest’s transfer agent and registrar, Equiniti Trust Company. Under the DRIP, if the Company declares a dividend, registered stockholders who have opted in to the DRIP by the dividend record date will have their dividend automatically reinvested into additional shares of Capital Southwest’s common stock.

    About Capital Southwest

    Capital Southwest Corporation (Nasdaq: CSWC) is a Dallas, Texas-based, internally managed business development company with approximately $1.8 billion in investments at fair value as of March 31, 2025. Capital Southwest is a middle market lending firm focused on supporting the acquisition and growth of middle market businesses with $5 million to $50 million investments across the capital structure, including first lien, second lien and non-control equity co-investments. As a public company with a permanent capital base, Capital Southwest has the flexibility to be creative in its financing solutions and to invest to support the growth of its portfolio companies over long periods of time.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains historical information and certain forward-looking statements with respect to the business and investments of the Company, including, but not limited to, the timing, form and amount of any distributions or supplemental dividends in the future. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical statements and can often be identified by words such as “will,” “believe,” “expect” and similar expressions and variations or negatives of these words. These statements are based on management’s current expectations, assumptions and beliefs. They are not guarantees of future results and are subject to numerous risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement. These risks include risks related to: changes in the markets in which the Company invests; changes in the financial, capital, and lending markets; changes in the interest rate environment and its impact on the Company’s business and its portfolio companies; regulatory changes; tax treatment; the uncertainty associated with the imposition of tariffs and trade barriers and changes in trade policy and its impact on the Company’s portfolio companies and the Company’s financial condition; an economic downturn and its impact on the ability of the Company’s portfolio companies to operate and the investment opportunities available to the Company; the impact of supply chain constraints on the Company’s portfolio companies; and the elevated levels of inflation and its impact on the Company’s portfolio companies and the industries in which it invests.

    Readers should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements and are encouraged to review Capital Southwest’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2025 and any subsequent filings with the SEC, including the “Risk Factors” sections therein, for a more complete discussion of the risks and other factors that could affect any forward-looking statements. Except as required by the federal securities laws, Capital Southwest does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, changing circumstances or any other reason after the date of this press release.

    Investor Relations Contact:

    Michael S. Sarner, President and Chief Executive Officer
    214-884-3829

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: GOP bill seeks to ban and deport visa holders who support Hamas amid wave of antisemitic violence in America

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11)

    Originally Published in Fox News on June 11, 2025.

    FIRST ON FOX: New legislation would broadly ban any visa holders who support Hamas or other designated terror groups from remaining in the U.S. 

    The Terrorist Inadmissibility Codification Act, led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, expands current law under the Immigration and Nationality Act to ban any members of Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, ISIS and Palestine Islamic Jihad from entering or remaining in the U.S. – in addition to anyone who endorses or espouses the activity of these groups. 

    “There is no place in America for foreign adversaries or terrorist sympathizers. As our nation faces a disturbing rise in antisemitic and illegal alien terror attacks, along with increasing pro-Hamas sentiment on our college campuses,” Pfluger said in a statement. “We must take action to ensure our borders are secure from those wishing harm against Americans.”

    The bill comes after a wave of antisemitic attacks in light of Israel’s offensive campaign in Gaza that followed Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks. 

    The Trump administration has started revoking student visas of those who engage in pro-Gaza protest activity. The State Department paused new student visa interviews late last month while it restructures the vetting process. 

    The Immigration and Nationality Act already bars individuals who engage in terrorist activity, are members of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations or who provide material support to such groups. However, much of this is interpreted on a case-by-case basis, often requiring evidentiary thresholds such as proof of direct involvement or financial or material aid. It is subject to the whims of administrative designations. 

    The Terrorist Inadmissibility Codification Act seeks to broaden these standards by codifying that mere endorsement or espousal of terrorist groups’ ideology could be grounds for inadmissibility or deportation. 

    This could signal a shift from conduct-based immigration enforcement to speech- or association-based scrutiny: even those who are not formal members of foreign terrorist organizations could have their speech scrutinized for support of such groups. 

    An attack in Boulder, Colorado, on June 1 on a group gathered to raise awareness about hostages gathered in Gaza was the latest in a string of violence believed to be antisemitic in nature. 

    The suspect, Mohammed Sabry Soliman, told police he wanted to “kill all Zionist people” and is accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators. 

    In May, a young Washington, D.C., couple was killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum by a suspect who shouted “free Palestine” following the shooting.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: RELEASE: Senators Mullin and Coons Introduce World Franchise Day Resolution to Celebrate Entrepreneurs Across the Country

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator MarkWayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma)

    RELEASE: Senators Mullin and Coons Introduce World Franchise Day Resolution to Celebrate Entrepreneurs Across the Country

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) and Chris Coons (D-DE) introduced a resolution to commemorate June 11th, 2025, as World Franchise Day. This resolution highlights the importance of franchising for entrepreneurship, job creation, and community and economic development.

    The franchise model promotes entrepreneurship by offering individuals an opportunity to pursue the American Dream and own their own business. Franchising is a proven business model that offers the benefits of brand awareness, and ongoing support, which are critical for success.

    “I am proud to recognize today as World Franchise Day in honor of the thousands of franchised businesses across Oklahoma, this country, and the world, that support their communities,” said Senator Mullin. “We celebrate the global community of franchising for their contributions and innovation within the business landscape.”

    “Everyone in America deserves the chance to pursue their American dream,” said Senator Coons. “For many families, franchises are a way to become entrepreneurs and build the life they want while supporting their community. I’m excited to be able to shine a light on this engine of opportunity with Senator Mullin, because Congress should recognize all the tools our constituents have at their disposal to unleash their entrepreneurial spirit.”

    Background:

    • Franchising is used in over 200 industries – childhood education centers, action parks, spas, hardware stores, health care laboratories, home remodeling and repair services, salons, campgrounds, hotels, fitness clubs, auto shops, pet stores, tax preparation offices, restaurants, and more.
    • 830,876 franchise businesses across America.
    • 8.8 million direct jobs supported by franchise establishments.
    • $896.9 billion in economic output for the economy.

    Full text of the World Franchise Day Resolution can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The leading risk factor for cancer isn’t what you think

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kristen Haase, Associate Professor, Nursing, University of British Columbia

    International guidelines say that all older adults should have a geriatric assessment prior to making a decision about their cancer treatment. (Shutterstock)

    If you were to ask most people what causes cancer, the answer would probably be smoking, alcohol, the sun, hair dye or some other avoidable element. But the most important risk factor for cancer is something else: aging. That’s right, the factor most associated with cancer is unavoidable — and a condition that we will all experience.

    Why is this important? Older adults are the fastest growing population in Canada and globally. By 2068, approximately 29 per cent of Canadians will be over age 65. With cancer being one of the most common diseases in older adults and one of the most common diseases in Canada, it means we need to think about how to provide the best cancer care for older adults.

    Demographic shift

    So how are we doing so far? The answer is: not great. This may be surprising, but we also have a great opportunity to innovate and prepare for this demographic shift in cancer care.

    International guidelines — including those from the American Society of Clinical Oncology — say that all older adults should have a geriatric assessment prior to making a decision about their cancer treatment. The most widely used models of geriatric assessment involve a geriatrician.

    With cancer being one of the most common diseases in older adults and one of the most common diseases in Canada, it means we need to think about how to provide the best cancer care for older adults.
    (Shutterstock)

    Consultation with a geriatrician for an older adult allows the oncologist and older adult to engage in a conversation about cancer treatment armed with information. Things like how treatment might affect their cognition, their function, their existing illnesses (which most older adults have when they are diagnosed with cancer), and the years of remaining life.

    Importantly, geriatricians centre their assessment on what matters most to patients. This approach anchors any decision about cancer around the wishes of older adults and their support system. When diagnosed with cancer, older adults undergo many tests and measures of function, but the evidence supports that these are not as accurate as geriatric assessment for identifying problems that may be below the surface.

    Care in Canada

    In Canada, there are currently only a handful of specialized geriatric oncology clinics. The oldest clinic is in Montréal at the Jewish General Hospital, followed closely by the Older Adult with Cancer Clinic at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, led by Shabbir Alibhai, one of the authors of this story. As researchers, we are in touch with clinics in Ontario and Alberta that have told us they have geriatric oncology services under development, so we hope to see new programs soon.

    These clinics aren’t just good for patients. In fact, a study led by Shabbir Alibhai demonstrated a cost savings of approximately $7,000 per older adult seen in these clinics. If we map this onto the number of older adults diagnosed with cancer in Canada every year, this represents a huge cost savings for our public health system. Despite this overwhelming evidence, this is still not routine care.

    In Canada, there are currently only a handful of specialized geriatric oncology clinics.
    (Shutterstock)

    In British Columbia, there are currently no specialized services for older adults with cancer. Over the last five years, Kristen Haase — also an author of this story — has been working with colleagues to understand whether these services are needed and how they could help older adults with cancer in B.C.

    This work involved conversations with more than 100 members of the cancer community. The research team spoke with older adults undergoing cancer treatment, who sometimes had to relocate for cancer treatment. Other participants included caregivers who cared for elderly family members during their cancer treatment and described numerous challenges they faced, and volunteers who ran a free transportation service — a service also mostly staffed by older adult volunteers.

    The research team also heard from health-care professionals: oncologists, nurses, physiotherapists and social workers. The latter group coalesced around the need for additional supports within the cancer care system so they could do their job well, and best support older adults.

    The results indicate that both those working in the system and those using the system want and need better support.

    Barriers to care

    So where are we now and why don’t we have these services across Canada?

    Cost is obviously a barrier to any health-care service. But with evidence that any costs will be offset by demonstrated cost savings, this is a non-starter.

    Health human resources are one huge restriction. Geriatricians are in high demand and there is low supply. However, nurse-led models have also been shown to be successful. With the expanding role of nurse practitioners across Canada, this option has huge potential to innovate care, and at a lower cost.

    There is an opportunity to innovate models of care that are targeted to those who need services the most: those who are most frail, are most likely to benefit from tailored care, and will reap the most benefit in terms of quality of life.
    (Shutterstock)

    Another reason is good old inertia. Our clinical care model in oncology has remained mostly intact for over three decades. It is primarily a single physician-driven model. Although modern therapies for cancer have emerged at a breathtaking pace and have been introduced into clinical practice, it is much harder to change the model of care, particularly for strategies such as geriatric assessment that are harder to implement than a new drug or surgical/radiation technique.

    The last, and perhaps the most difficult to pin down of all potential reasons for the absence of specialized cancer services for older adults, is agism. Agism is discrimination based on age. It is one of the most common forms of discrimination and it is deeply embedded in many of our systems. Imagine a scenario where children diagnosed with cancer couldn’t access a pediatrician. We would collectively be outraged. Yet somehow, we accept this for older adults.

    Due to the overwhelming number of older adults who are and will be diagnosed with cancer in the coming years, it will never be possible for all of them to receive specialized geriatric services. But there is an opportunity to innovate models of care that are targeted to those who need services the most: those who are most frail, are most likely to benefit from tailored care, and will reap the most benefit in terms of quality of life.

    Stratifying these programs around those who need them the most will also have the greatest financial impact. And if personal stories of improving quality of life for older adults with cancer or international guidelines don’t move decision-makers, hopefully cost savings will.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The leading risk factor for cancer isn’t what you think – https://theconversation.com/the-leading-risk-factor-for-cancer-isnt-what-you-think-253834

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Texas Man Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison and Ordered to Pay $2M Fine for Conspiring to Monopolize International Transit Industry, Fix Prices, Extort $9.5M, and Launder Money

    Source: US State of Vermont

    Carlos Martinez, 39, of Mission, Texas, was sentenced today to 11 years in prison and a fine of $2 million for his conduct in a long-running and violent conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante forwarding agency (TFA) industry in the Los Indios, Texas, border region. Martinez and his co-defendants controlled the TFA industry through monopolization and extortion of competitors.

    Transmigrantes transport used vehicles and other goods from the United States through Mexico for resale across Central America. There are only a few locations where transmigrantes are permitted to cross from the United States into Mexico, one of those being the Los Indios Bridge in Texas. TFAs are U.S.-based businesses that provide services to transmigrante clients, including helping clients complete the customs paperwork required to export vehicles into Mexico. According to court documents and statements made in court, Martinez and his co-defendants fixed prices for TFA services and created a centralized entity known as “The Pool” to collect and divide revenues among the conspirators, limit competition from other agencies, and increase prices for their services.

    “The defendants exploited hardworking professionals in the freight forwarding business using extortion and illegal price-fixing schemes to manipulate the market and inflate the cost of moving goods,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The lead defendant’s 11-year prison sentence reflects the serious economic harm inflicted on the business community along the southern border. The Criminal Division will continue to pursue and prosecute those who threaten fair competition and the integrity of our markets.”

    “Today’s sentence reflects the significant danger and harm the American people face from violent and extortive actions aimed at fixing prices and monopolizing the market for essential services in the Texas border region,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division will continue to aggressively pursue violent criminals who aim to corrupt America’s free markets and advocate for their incarceration.”

    “Price fixing is not a victimless crime; it harms customers in the form of artificially high prices. Consumers need to have faith that the prices they pay are fairly determined by the market, rather than the product of illegal collusion,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei for the Southern District of Texas. “The 11-year sentence Mr. Martinez received reflects the size and scope of his criminal operation, as well as his leadership role in organizing and facilitating the unlawful scheme.”  

    “All of these defendants used their positions with the TFA to extort hardworking individuals who relied on these services to support their families and livelihood,” said Assistant Director Jose A. Perez of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “The FBI is committed to dismantling criminal enterprises that prey on vulnerable communities, and today’s sentencing sends a clear message that those who abuse systems will be found, stopped and brought to justice.”

    “This case underscores the serious threat posed by transnational criminal networks operating at our borders,” said Special Agent in Charge Craig Larrabee of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) San Antonio. “Carlos Martinez and his co-conspirators orchestrated a violent scheme that extorted small businesses, fixed prices, and laundered millions of dollars — all while threatening the safety and integrity of lawful commerce. HSI will continue to aggressively pursue those who exploit legitimate industries through corruption and intimidation, and we remain steadfast in our mission to protect our communities and our economy.”

    Individuals in the industry who were not part of the conspiracy were forced to join and pay into The Pool or face financial and violent consequences. Martinez and other members enforced the rules by monitoring whether forwarding agencies were charging the agreed-upon prices and whether the forwarder was making payments to The Pool.  

    Martinez and some of his co-defendants also conspired to force forwarding agencies to pay other extortion fees, including a “piso” for every transaction processed as well as a “fine” for operating in the market outside of Pool rules. Martinez and his co-defendants intimidated, coerced, and used threats and acts of violence in furtherance of the antitrust and extortion conspiracies.

    Martinez was responsible for collecting at least $9.5M in extortion payments. Cash obtained from the extortions was laundered through bank accounts controlled by Martinez and his family, with the cash deposits disguised to hide the nature, source, ownership, and control of the dirty money.

    Martinez is the son-in-law of the former leader of the Gulf Cartel in Mexico, a violent criminal syndicate that operates at the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere. Martinez took control of  Los Indios Bridge and employed individuals who worked to track TFA transactions to calculate the piso owed by each forwarding agency. Pool and piso payments were made in cash to the individuals working for Martinez. Martinez ordered disciplinary actions against those operating in the transmigrante market without permission, those who violated Pool rules, those who did not charge the fixed prices, and those who did not pay the piso. Disciplinary actions could include clients not being allowed to cross Los Indios Bridge, cars being stolen, or more serious repercussions such as kidnappings, beatings, firebombings, shootings, and murder.

    Carlos Martinez pleaded guilty in February  to conspiracy to illegally fix prices and allocate the market for TFA services, conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante market, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by extortion, interference with commerce by extortion, and money laundering conspiracy. The government will also seek forfeiture of at least one house, luxury vehicles, a boat, and expensive watches.

    Prior to Martinez’s sentencing, his co-defendants were sentenced as follows:

    Carlos Yzaguirre, 66, of McAllen, Texas, was sentenced to two years in prison, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by extortion.

    Sandra Guerra Medina, 70, of Rancho Viejo, Texas, was sentenced to eight months of home detention, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to illegally fix prices and allocate the market for TFA services and conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante market.

    Juan Hector Ramirez Avila, 59, a citizen of Mexico, was sentenced to time served, after pleading guilty to one count of structuring a financial transaction to evade reporting requirements.

    Jose Tapia, Mireya Miranda, Pedro Calvillo and Roberto Garcia Villarreal pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Three other defendants, Rigoberto Brown, Miguel Hipolito Caballero Aupart, and Diego Ceballos-Soto, were also charged in the superseding indictment and remain fugitives.

    The Court will determine the final restitution amount owed to victims of the conspiracies at a hearing set for Sept. 3, 2025. 

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations and the FBI investigated the case.

    Trial Attorney Christina Taylor of the Criminal Division’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section; Senior Litigation Attorney John Davis and Trial Attorneys Brittany E. McClure, Anne Veldhuis, and Michael G. Lepage of the of the Antitrust Division; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander L. Alum for the Southern District of Texas prosecuted the case.

    Anyone with information in connection with this investigation should contact the HSI Tip Line at 866-347-2423; the FBI Tipline at tips.fbi.gov, or by contacting the FBI San Antonio Field Office at 210-225-6741; or the Antitrust Division’s Complaint Center at 888-647-3258, or visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Docking, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

    wedmoments.stock/Shutterstock

    Timely access to high-quality medical imaging can be lifesaving and life-altering. Radiology can confirm a fractured bone, give us an early glimpse of our baby or detect cancer.

    But behind the x-ray, ultrasound, CT and MRI machines is a growing, highly profitable industry worth almost A$6 billion a year.

    Corporate ownership dominates the sector. In our new study, we show how for-profit corporations own about three in every five private radiology clinics.

    As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, are we letting business interests reshape a key part of our health-care system?

    30 million scans and counting

    In 2023–24, two in five Australians had an x-ray, ultrasound, CT scan or MRI. That’s about 30.8 million scans in total (individuals may have two or more scans).

    Medicare funds most of this imaging. In fact, imaging is now Medicare’s second-largest area of spending, behind only GP visits.

    But a growing number of scans are not bulk billed and patients are out of pocket on average about $125 per scan. An estimated 274,000 Australians are delaying or forgoing scans each year because of the cost.

    There have also been dramatic changes behind the scenes. Since the early 2000s, for-profit corporations have been buying small radiologist-owned clinics.

    Today, 65% of private radiology practices are owned by publicly listed shareholders or private investors, including private equity firms. This marks a significant shift from clinician-led to investor-driven health care.

    Need an ultrasound? You may end up at a private radiology clinic.
    Inside Creative House/Shutterstock

    Why should we care?

    Advocates of corporate ownership suggest this business-focused approach can make the system more efficient through economies of scale. They say this allows consolidation of administration tasks and a reduction in overheads.

    Easy access to finance can help buy expensive imaging machines. It can also provide investment towards new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

    Yet, there are three main reasons why corporate ownership of the radiology sector may be cause for concern.

    1. It reduces competition

    Large corporations buying up a bunch of smaller practices ultimately leads to less competition. In Tasmania, for example, 11 of the 17 private radiology clinics are owned by one company, significantly limiting patient choice.

    We also found limited competition among radiology providers in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.

    When a single company dominates a local market, it creates the conditions for higher fees and reduced incentives to bulk bill. However, objective data on the impact of reduced competition on the affordability of scans is scarce.

    2. It may lead to too many expensive scans

    High-cost scans, such as MRIs and CTs, are lucrative. Medicare expenditure on MRI scans alone has doubled since 2012.

    This may reflect improved access and a recommended shift towards more sensitive tests for some conditions. However, for-profit corporations now own about 76% of MRI machines in private clinics. These corporations may be financially incentivised to offer more costly imaging over equally effective, lower-cost options.

    With profits tied to the number of scans, there’s growing unease financial motives may be influencing when and how often these scans are used.

    While radiology corporations are not the ones requesting scans, there is little incentive for them to address overuse of radiology services, an issue for high-income countries such as Australia.

    Low-value imaging may also generate overdiagnosis (when something shows up on imaging but will never cause the patient any health issues, for example). It can lead to unnecessarily exposing patients to radiation and cause unwarranted patient (and doctor) anxiety. This can ultimately lead to more tests and unnecessary treatment.

    Is an MRI scan really necessary? Sometimes cheaper imaging is best.
    illustrissima/Shutterstock

    3. Radiology clinics become an asset

    Private equity firms view radiology clinics as a commodity to be bought, their value increased, then sold over a relatively short time frame (typically three to seven years).

    These firms generate profit not from delivering care, but from boosting the clinic’s value and charging them annual “management fees”.

    A prime example is unfolding. I-MED, Australia’s largest radiology provider, is considering listing the business on the Australian Stock Exchange after failing to sell at a reported $3 billion. Its UK private equity owner bought I-MED for about $1.26 billion in 2018. If sold, this would be the latest of multiple owners since delisting from the stock exchange in 2006.

    If there are debts, health-care companies can collapse, as we’ve seen recently with hospital chain Healthscope, which is owned by a Canadian-based private equity firm.

    Experience of private equity’s role in health care in the United States also offers a cautionary tale. Reductions in the quality of care, asset stripping and ultimately the closure and bankruptcy of vital health-care providers have prompted Congressional investigations. The state of Oregon is on the verge of blocking private equity firms from controlling health-care providers.

    What next?

    As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, questions are mounting about whether this profit-driven model can coexist with the public’s need for affordable, accessible health care.

    Medicare was designed to guarantee affordable access to quality health care for all Australians, not guarantee revenue for corporations.

    While unwinding corporate participation in the radiology sector is near impossible, there is still time to implement safeguards that prevent wealthy investors from prioritising financial gain over Australians’ health and wellbeing.

    Stronger oversight and greater transparency from these corporations are needed to ensure Medicare dollars deliver real value for patients and the public.

    We would like to acknowledge Jenn Lacy-Nichols (University of Melbourne) and Martin Hensher (University of Tasmania) who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.

    Sean Docking is a member of UniSuper (Industry Super Holdings Pty Ltd) as part of his superannuation; Unisuper is an investor in PRP Diagnostic Imaging. He has no direct investments in any diagnostic imaging companies.

    Rachelle Buchbinder has received grant funding from NHMRC, MRFF, Arthritis Australia and HCF Foundation. She receives royalties from UpToDate for writing and editing ‘Plantar fasciitis’. She also receives royalties for her book entitled ‘Hippocrasy: How doctors are betraying their oath’. She has not received funding from for-profit industry, including from radiology companies.

    – ref. Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned – https://theconversation.com/medical-scans-are-big-business-and-investors-are-circling-here-are-3-reasons-to-be-concerned-257820

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall: We Will Strengthen and Preserve Medicaid

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
    Senator Marshall Joins Squawk Box to Discuss the ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’
    Washington – On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), joined Joe Kernen and Becky Quick on Squawk Box to discuss President Trump’s ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill,’ the preservation of Medicaid for those who need it most, and the ongoing negotiations in the House and Senate.
    Click HERE or on the image above to watch the full interview.
    On how the OBBB presents the largest tax increase in American history:
    “…The greatest challenge that America faces is our national debt. But the purpose of this bill is to prevent the largest tax increase in American history. We think that by stopping that tax increase and other provisions that the average American family is going to get to keep $1,000 a month more of their hard-earned money. It’s obviously going to secure the border, [and] it’s going to cut $1.7 trillion in spending. So, this is a step in the right direction.
    “You know, Rome wasn’t built in a day, either. So, the first thing we have to do is grow the economy. Then we need to flatten spending, and over the next four years, get to those pre-pandemic spending levels. I think it’s very feasible. We’ll take a bite of the apple now, we’re going to have to take a couple more bites as these next three years go along, though.”
    On how to improve Medicaid for Americans who need it:
    “We need to strengthen and preserve Medicaid for those who need it the most. As a physician, as an obstetrician, we took care of everybody, regardless of their ability to pay. And I want everyone to have meaningful access to primary care, and Medicaid provides that. We’re certainly not going to touch seniors, we’re not going to touch people with disabilities – again, we want to impact those who need it the most.
    “On the other hand, we have 7 million healthy American men of working age who aren’t working. Let’s help those people find a job [and] help them get off Medicaid. Let’s help them either get on the ACA exchange or maybe health insurance through their employer. That’s a win-win opportunity. The best safety net out there is a job, so I’m trying to look for that. You can’t look at this in silos, but I think that would be my goal, is to help those people that are on Medicaid, that are on food stamps right now, that are working age, they’re healthy. Let’s help them find a job as well.”
    “…I think the big problem with Medicaid right now, though, is that we’ve increased spending 50% in five years. So, we need to figure out how do we slow down that spending. In many states, they figured out ways to game the system so that we are reimbursing hospitals more for Medicaid patients than Medicare. So, we need to go back and look at this provider tax and make it fair at the same time.”
    On the struggles that rural hospitals are facing:
    “No one knows more about rural hospitals up here in the Capitol than I do – I’m the only person who’s actually run a hospital, and a rural hospital at that. And there are efficiencies that many are not doing. But at the end of the day, we have something called a critical access hospital, which functions on a system of Medicare Plus, so those would not be touched with this situation as well.
    “I would make nursing homes immune from this provider tax cut as well. That’s such a small amount of money to keep those rural hospitals going. There are other ways to do that, and certainly there are other systems, there’s other funding, other mechanisms that they get because they are rural as well. Things are changing in rural America every day. We’d love to come back and talk about what the rural hospital of the future looks like. It’s probably a really good emergency room with good outpatient services, and go from there.”
    On how the Senate’s negotiations with the House to move the One Big Beautiful Bill forward:
    “Everyone is negotiating through the press right now, and everything is negotiable. Look, we’re going to get the no tax on tips, overtime wage, and social security across the finish line in some shape or shape or form.
    “…On the SALT tax, my goodness – why should red states be subsidizing blue states to the tune of about $400 billion over the next 10 years? I think there’s a sweet spot for us to land on, and we may very well do a bill, send it to them, and they may reject it and send us a bill back. You know, we’re not going home, though, until we get something to the President’s desk. But this is what’s going on – these are powerful negotiations. I’ve never seen such intense negotiations going on within the Republican caucus right now. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. The future of this country is at stake.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall Joins Colleagues in Introducing Legislation to “Strengthen and Expand” Pension Healthcare

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
    Washington – On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) joined fellow Senators Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), and Thom Tillis, (R-North Carolina) to introduce the Strengthening Benefit Plans Act of 2025, which would allow for overfunded 401(H) retiree pension accounts to be transferred to help pay for active healthcare programs. 
    “The Strengthening Benefit Plans Act of 2025 is good for workers, and it’s good for businesses,” said Senator Marshall. “It will allow employers to reinvest in employee health plans, strengthening and expanding benefits for workers. That’s what I call commonsense policy.”
    “Allowing for surplus dollars to be shifted to active healthcare plans is a common-sense approach that benefits both businesses and employees,” said Senator Scott. “This targeted solution allows for employers to redirect funds to better serve those who make their businesses work.”
    “Allowing businesses to reinvest in their employees’ health care strengthens the nation’s economy,” said Dr. Cassidy. “This commonsense legislation allows companies to transfer excess funds from overfunded 401(h) accounts to support their employees’ health care needs.”  
    “This legislation gives hard-working employees a stronger financial future, retirement security, and better health coverage by allowing employers to reinvest surplus benefit assets into the current workforce,” said Senator Tillis. “This is a smart, commonsense solution that protects retiree obligations while benefiting today’s workforce.”
    “BMW thanks Senator Scott for his support of this important issue. He is always a strong advocate for us and our associates,” said Bryan Jacobs, Vice President, External Affairs, BMW. “Senator Scott’s bill would allow surplus assets to fund healthcare benefits for a broader population of employees, which under current regulation is not possible. We applaud his efforts and look forward to working with him to get the legislation enacted into law.” 
    Click here to view the legislation text.
    Background:
    A 401(H) plan is an employer-sponsored fund for post-retirement medical benefits.
    By funding these benefits with previously paid contributions, employers would avoid paying additional costs out of pocket.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Murkowski Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Ensure Tax Parity for Tribes & Boost Economic Development in Indian Country

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced bipartisan legislation to ensure that Tribes receive the same tax benefits and economic development tools as local and state governments. Specifically, this bill will help create good-paying jobs, foster local investment, and support businesses in Indian Country by updating the federal tax code and removing unfair tax burdens on Native American communities.

    “Tribes in Nevada and across the country deserve access to the same tools as state and local governments to strengthen their communities and support their local businesses and services like health, housing, and education,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “Our bill makes commonsense updates to the tax code to ensure fairness, create more good paying jobs, and keep more money in Indian County.”

    “I’m pleased to join Senator Cortez Masto in introducing the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act, which aims to fix unfair tax rules that have limited economic growth in Native communities for far too long. By allowing Tribal governments to make better use of housing tax credits, improve the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds and incentivize new investment incentives, we’re opening the door for them to finance more infrastructure projects and promote job growth,” said Senator Murkowski. “I appreciate Senator Cortez Masto’s leadership as we have worked to ensure more Native communities benefit from this bill. Together, we have an opportunity to empower Tribal nations to build stronger, more resilient economies.”

    This bipartisan legislation would create parity between Tribal and state and local governments in the federal tax code by:

    • Updating rules for issuing tax-exempt debt to ensure Tribal governments are treated the same as state and local governments;
    • Ensuring that essential pension and employment benefits are taxed in the same way as benefits from state governments;
    • Ensuring that Tribal General Welfare Benefits are not unfairly categorized as income related to Supplemental Social Income eligibility or benefit amounts;
    • Creating new business opportunities in low-income Tribal communities with a $175 New Markets Tax Credit;
    • Increasing the effectiveness of Tribal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits in Indian Country;
    • Extending and updating the Indian Employment Tax Credit to better serve Tribal families;
    • Allowing Indian Health Service (IHS) professionals to access recruitment and retention tax incentives; and
    • Making it easier for Tribal families to adopt children and for Tribes to enforce child support.

    “Providing for parity and equity among States and Local Governments, and Tribes and ANCs, when it comes to Tax Exempt Bonding for governmental and economic development purposes, as this bill will do if enacted, is long overdue and will be a major stimulator for growth, economic development, and job creation in Indian Country, the areas of our Nation that desperately need it, and will productively use it,” said Old Harbor Native Corporation CEO, Kristina Woolston.

    “The introduction of the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act in the Senate is a necessary and overdue effort to modernize the federal tax code in recognition of Tribal sovereignty. The bill reflects decades of Tribal efforts to secure tax parity. It guarantees Tribal governments have equitable access to financial tools, including tax credits and housing incentives, needed to build strong self-determined economies. NAFOA commends the bipartisan leadership behind the legislation, especially Senators Cortez Masto and Murkowski. We urge Congress to act swiftly to ensure that Indian Country is fully included in the nation’s tax and investment framework,” said NAFOA Board President Rodney Butler, Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.

    “We thank Senators Cortez Masto and Murkowski for their consistent engagement with Tribal issues and for leading the bill’s introduction in the Senate. The Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act takes essential steps to align federal tax policy with Tribal sovereignty by addressing long-standing barriers to capital, workforce, and infrastructure development. As the legislation advances, NAFOA is committed to providing technical expertise that centers the realities of Tribal communities to support its passage,” said NAFOA Executive Director Cory Blankenship, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Member.

    You can read the text HERE and a summary of the legislation HERE.

    Senator Cortez Masto is one of the strongest champions for Native American communities in the Senate. In 2020, alongside Senator Murkowski, she passed the bipartisan Not Invisible Act and Savanna’s Act to help address the epidemic of missing, murdered, and trafficked Indigenous women. She has repeatedly called on the administration to do more to address the epidemic of violence against Native women and girls, including securing funding to protect Native communities. She is pushing bipartisan legislation to support Tribal law enforcement and improve public safety in Native communities—one of the recommendations of the Not Invisible commission. Cortez Masto has also helped secure $125 million in additional funding for Tribes and urban Indian health organizations within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to address the mental health needs of Native communities. She has also introduced legislation to help make it easier for IHS to recruit and retain doctors and to address health disparities for Native Americans in urban areas.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: DOJ and drug development researcher settle allegations he violated terms of National Science Foundation grant

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Seattle – The United States Department of Justice and the recipient of a federal research grant have resolved allegations the lead researcher violated the terms of the grant when he performed the research outside the U.S., announced Acting United States Attorney Teal Luthy Miller. Protein Engines, LLC (Protein Engines), founded and operated by Joshua Salafsky PhD, was awarded a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant in late 2021 for scientific research with pharmaceutical applications. Protein Engines LLC will pay the U.S. $155,000 to resolve the allegations.

    “Despite being repeatedly informed that all research under the grant needed to be performed in the U.S., Dr. Salafsky spent little more than a month in the U.S. while he was accepting NSF grant funding for his research,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Miller. “These Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants require work in the U.S. so that federal funds go to support innovation here, using labs and equipment that generate business in the U.S. This deception defeated that purpose.”

    According to the settlement agreement, on November 26, 2021, Protein Engines LLC was awarded a $256,000 grant. The research was to be performed in the U.S. between December 1, 2021, and November 30, 2022. However, the principal researcher on the grant lived in the U.K. for all but 38 days of the grant funding.

    The National Science Foundation suspended the grant funding on September 8, 2023, when it determined the research had not been conducted in the U.S. as required.

    The Small Business Innovation Research/Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) program is a critically important and highly competitive program created to fund technological advancements within the United States. Funding for this program strengthens the competitive free enterprise system and the U.S. economy. To maximize that impact, SBIR regulations require all research and development to be conducted in the United States.  This investigation resulted from the NSF Office of Inspector General’s proactive initiative to protect national security interests by identifying SBIR recipients who improperly operate outside the U.S.

    “When companies fail to follow the domestic requirements of the SBIR program, it is not only a misuse of taxpayer dollars but also takes away funding from deserving U.S. businesses. NSF OIG remains committed to pursuing oversight of these programs to ensure taxpayer funds are invested in the United States to benefit U.S. businesses, the U.S. economy, and national security. I commend the U.S. Attorney’s Office for supporting this important proactive effort,” said Megan E. Wallace, NSF’s Acting Inspector General.

    Of the $155,000 settlement, $77,500 is restitution and the rest is a penalty for the misconduct. Additionally, $25,000 in grant funds were never paid out to Protein Engines LLC.

    Protein Engines LLC says the settlement is not an admission of liability but chooses to resolve the matter instead of the expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation.

    The case was investigated by the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General (NSF-OIG). The U.S. Attorney’s Office was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Kayla C. Stahman in this matter.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Leader in scheme to monopolize transmigrantes market imprisoned for 11 years

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    HOUSTON – A 39-year-old Mission man has been sentenced for his role in a long-running and violent conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante forwarding agency (TFA) industry in the Los Indios border region, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

    Carlos Martinez, who pleaded guilty Feb. 6, and his co-conspirators controlled the transmigrate industry through monopolization and extortion of competitors.

    U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks Jr. has now ordered Martinez to serve 132 months in federal prison to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release. He must also pay a $2 million fine. 

    Martinez and others used fear to control pricing, eliminate competition and keep the transmigrante industry profitable through “pool” allocations and piso payments.

    Transmigrantes transport used vehicles and goods from the United States through Mexico for resale in Central America. Only a few U.S. border crossings, including the Los Indios Bridge, allow transmigrantes to enter Mexico.

    Transmigrante forwarding agencies are U.S.-based businesses that help clients complete customs paperwork to export vehicles into Mexico. Martinez and his co-conspirators fixed prices for forwarding services and created a centralized entity, known as the “pool,” to collect and divide revenue among conspirators. They used the pool to eliminate competition and raise prices.

    “Price fixing is not a victimless crime; it harms customers in the form of artificially high prices. Consumers need to have faith that the prices they pay are fairly determined by the market, rather than the product of illegal collusion,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. “The 11-year sentence Mr. Martinez received reflects the size and scope of his criminal operation, as well as his leadership role in organizing and facilitating the unlawful scheme.”

    “The defendants extorted victims trying to make an honest living in the freight forwarding business, and by fixing prices illegally drove up the cost of moving goods,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The lead defendant’s sentence of 11 years in prison reflects the harm caused to the business community along the Southern border. The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division will continue to work to ensure that competition is fairly preserved.”

    “Today’s sentence reflects the significant danger and harm the American people face from violent and extortive actions aimed at fixing prices and monopolizing the market for essential services in the Texas border region,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division will continue to aggressively pursue violent criminals who aim to corrupt America’s free markets and advocate for their incarceration.”

    “This case underscores the serious threat posed by transnational criminal networks operating at our borders,” said Special Agent in Charge Craig Larrabee of Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations (ICE-HSI) San Antonio. “Carlos Martinez and his co-conspirators orchestrated a violent scheme that extorted small businesses, fixed prices, and laundered millions of dollars — all while threatening the safety and integrity of lawful commerce. HSI will continue to aggressively pursue those who exploit legitimate industries through corruption and intimidation, and we remain steadfast in our mission to protect our communities and our economy.”

    “The FBI will remain laser focused on transnational criminal organizations, including organizations that use violence, threats or extortion to fix prices and eliminate competition,” said Special Agent in Charge Aaron Tapp of the FBI’s San Antonio Field Office. “The American people deserve access to fair markets, free from threats of violence or the corrosive impact of illegal market interference, manipulation, or collusion. Together with our partners, we are committed to protecting our borders and dismantling every component of transnational criminal organizations.”

    Martinez, the son-in-law of a former Gulf Cartel leader in Mexico, ran a violent criminal syndicate operating at the U.S.-Mexico border. He seized control of the Los Indios bridge near Harlingen and Brownsville and hired workers to monitor transmigrante forwarding agencies and calculate the piso each owned.

    Workers collected piso payments in cash and submitted them to Martinez’s organization. He enforced compliance by ordering disciplinary action against agencies that operated without permission, violated pool rules, failed to charge fixed prices or refused to make extortionate payments.

    Forwarders not involved in the conspiracy were forced to join and pay into the pool. Martinez and other pool members monitored whether agencies followed pricing rules and made required payments. Martinez and his co-conspirators also demanded additional extortion fees, including a piso for each processed transaction and a fine for operating outside the pool. They used threats, intimidation and violence to enforce compliance and further their antitrust and extortion conspiracies.

    Clients who didn’t comply faced consequences ranging from being denied access to the Los Indios Bridge to having their cars stolen. In more severe cases, they were kidnapped, beaten, firebombed, shot or killed.

    Martinez personally collected at least $9.5 million in extortion payments. He and his family laundered the money through bank accounts they controlled, disguising the deposits to hide the true source, nature and ownership of the illicit funds.

    To date, seven others have been convicted, three of whom have already been sentenced in the case.

    ICE-HSI and FBI conducted the investigation.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander L. Alum is prosecuting the case along with Trial Attorney Christina Taylor of the Criminal Division’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section; Senior Litigation Attorney John Davis and Trial Attorneys Brittany E. McClure, Anne Veldhuis and Michael G. Lepage, all of the of the Antitrust Division.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Texas Man Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison and Ordered to Pay $2M Fine for Conspiring to Monopolize International Transit Industry, Fix Prices, Extort $9.5M, and Launder Money

    Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

    Carlos Martinez, 39, of Mission, Texas, was sentenced today to 11 years in prison and a fine of $2 million for his conduct in a long-running and violent conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante forwarding agency (TFA) industry in the Los Indios, Texas, border region. Martinez and his co-defendants controlled the TFA industry through monopolization and extortion of competitors.

    Transmigrantes transport used vehicles and other goods from the United States through Mexico for resale across Central America. There are only a few locations where transmigrantes are permitted to cross from the United States into Mexico, one of those being the Los Indios Bridge in Texas. TFAs are U.S.-based businesses that provide services to transmigrante clients, including helping clients complete the customs paperwork required to export vehicles into Mexico. According to court documents and statements made in court, Martinez and his co-defendants fixed prices for TFA services and created a centralized entity known as “The Pool” to collect and divide revenues among the conspirators, limit competition from other agencies, and increase prices for their services.

    “The defendants exploited hardworking professionals in the freight forwarding business using extortion and illegal price-fixing schemes to manipulate the market and inflate the cost of moving goods,” said Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “The lead defendant’s 11-year prison sentence reflects the serious economic harm inflicted on the business community along the southern border. The Criminal Division will continue to pursue and prosecute those who threaten fair competition and the integrity of our markets.”

    “Today’s sentence reflects the significant danger and harm the American people face from violent and extortive actions aimed at fixing prices and monopolizing the market for essential services in the Texas border region,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division will continue to aggressively pursue violent criminals who aim to corrupt America’s free markets and advocate for their incarceration.”

    “Price fixing is not a victimless crime; it harms customers in the form of artificially high prices. Consumers need to have faith that the prices they pay are fairly determined by the market, rather than the product of illegal collusion,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei for the Southern District of Texas. “The 11-year sentence Mr. Martinez received reflects the size and scope of his criminal operation, as well as his leadership role in organizing and facilitating the unlawful scheme.”  

    “All of these defendants used their positions with the TFA to extort hardworking individuals who relied on these services to support their families and livelihood,” said Assistant Director Jose A. Perez of the FBI Criminal Investigative Division. “The FBI is committed to dismantling criminal enterprises that prey on vulnerable communities, and today’s sentencing sends a clear message that those who abuse systems will be found, stopped and brought to justice.”

    “This case underscores the serious threat posed by transnational criminal networks operating at our borders,” said Special Agent in Charge Craig Larrabee of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) San Antonio. “Carlos Martinez and his co-conspirators orchestrated a violent scheme that extorted small businesses, fixed prices, and laundered millions of dollars — all while threatening the safety and integrity of lawful commerce. HSI will continue to aggressively pursue those who exploit legitimate industries through corruption and intimidation, and we remain steadfast in our mission to protect our communities and our economy.”

    Individuals in the industry who were not part of the conspiracy were forced to join and pay into The Pool or face financial and violent consequences. Martinez and other members enforced the rules by monitoring whether forwarding agencies were charging the agreed-upon prices and whether the forwarder was making payments to The Pool.  

    Martinez and some of his co-defendants also conspired to force forwarding agencies to pay other extortion fees, including a “piso” for every transaction processed as well as a “fine” for operating in the market outside of Pool rules. Martinez and his co-defendants intimidated, coerced, and used threats and acts of violence in furtherance of the antitrust and extortion conspiracies.

    Martinez was responsible for collecting at least $9.5M in extortion payments. Cash obtained from the extortions was laundered through bank accounts controlled by Martinez and his family, with the cash deposits disguised to hide the nature, source, ownership, and control of the dirty money.

    Martinez is the son-in-law of the former leader of the Gulf Cartel in Mexico, a violent criminal syndicate that operates at the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere. Martinez took control of  Los Indios Bridge and employed individuals who worked to track TFA transactions to calculate the piso owed by each forwarding agency. Pool and piso payments were made in cash to the individuals working for Martinez. Martinez ordered disciplinary actions against those operating in the transmigrante market without permission, those who violated Pool rules, those who did not charge the fixed prices, and those who did not pay the piso. Disciplinary actions could include clients not being allowed to cross Los Indios Bridge, cars being stolen, or more serious repercussions such as kidnappings, beatings, firebombings, shootings, and murder.

    Carlos Martinez pleaded guilty in February  to conspiracy to illegally fix prices and allocate the market for TFA services, conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante market, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by extortion, interference with commerce by extortion, and money laundering conspiracy. The government will also seek forfeiture of at least one house, luxury vehicles, a boat, and expensive watches.

    Prior to Martinez’s sentencing, his co-defendants were sentenced as follows:

    Carlos Yzaguirre, 66, of McAllen, Texas, was sentenced to two years in prison, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce by extortion.

    Sandra Guerra Medina, 70, of Rancho Viejo, Texas, was sentenced to eight months of home detention, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to illegally fix prices and allocate the market for TFA services and conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante market.

    Juan Hector Ramirez Avila, 59, a citizen of Mexico, was sentenced to time served, after pleading guilty to one count of structuring a financial transaction to evade reporting requirements.

    Jose Tapia, Mireya Miranda, Pedro Calvillo and Roberto Garcia Villarreal pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Three other defendants, Rigoberto Brown, Miguel Hipolito Caballero Aupart, and Diego Ceballos-Soto, were also charged in the superseding indictment and remain fugitives.

    The Court will determine the final restitution amount owed to victims of the conspiracies at a hearing set for Sept. 3, 2025. 

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations and the FBI investigated the case.

    Trial Attorney Christina Taylor of the Criminal Division’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section; Senior Litigation Attorney John Davis and Trial Attorneys Brittany E. McClure, Anne Veldhuis, and Michael G. Lepage of the of the Antitrust Division; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander L. Alum for the Southern District of Texas prosecuted the case.

    Anyone with information in connection with this investigation should contact the HSI Tip Line at 866-347-2423; the FBI Tipline at tips.fbi.gov, or by contacting the FBI San Antonio Field Office at 210-225-6741; or the Antitrust Division’s Complaint Center at 888-647-3258, or visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What family firms like Rothschild can teach Canadian businesses about resilience

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Liena Kano, Professor, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary

    The Gunnersbury Estate, which was purchased by merchant and financier Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1835, is seen in London in 2022. (Shutterstock)

    Family businesses constitute a vital component of Canada’s economic landscape. They make up 63 per cent of privately held firms, employ nearly seven million people and generate about $575 billion a year.

    While Canadian family-run businesses express international ambitions, their overseas engagement tends to be more conservative compared to their non-family counterparts.

    In today’s turbulent economic environment — marked by geopolitical tensions, technological disruption and shifting trade patterns — international competitiveness is more important than ever.

    Around the world, family firms have shown remarkable resilience in the face of external shocks. Some of the world’s longest-standing corporations are family-owned, having endured world wars, revolutions, natural disasters and pandemics. For Canadian family firms aspiring to expand abroad, such examples offer both inspiration and insight.

    Among such long-standing multinationals is Rothschild, a centuries-old European family-run investment bank. Our case study of Rothschild, based on historical analysis, highlights how the family’s enduring relationships, reliable routines and long-term goals gave it significant advantages in international business.

    At the same time, however, families can contribute unique biases, especially “bifurcation bias” — a tendency to favour family resources over equally or more valuable non-family ones. Our study reveals that bifurcation bias can compromise a firm’s international trajectory, especially in distant and complex markets.

    A brief history of Rothschild

    Mayer Amschel Rothschild was a German-Jewish banker and the founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
    (Wikimedia Commons)

    Initially a merchant business, the firm was founded in the late 18th century by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a Frankfurt Jew.

    Rothschild and his wife, Guttle, had 10 children, including five sons: Amschel, Salomon, Nathan, Carl and James.

    In 1798, Rothschild sent Nathan to Manchester, England, which initiated the firm’s growth in that country and a transition from merchant operations to financial transactions.

    By the 1820s, Rothschild became a multinational bank, with Amschel, Salomon, Nathan, Carl and James leading banking houses in Frankfurt, Vienna, London, Naples and Paris, respectively.

    Bonuses and burdens of family bonds

    Nathan Mayer Rothschild was sent to Manchester in 1798.
    (Wikimedia Commons)

    In the 19th century, the Rothschild’s strategy of relying on family members initially worked well for the firm.

    The five Rothschild brothers corresponded in a coded language and shared a common pool of resources at a time when shared balance sheets were uncommon in international banking.

    Their close familial bonds allowed the brothers to move information, money and goods across international borders with a speed and reach that wasn’t accessible to competitors. Rivals, by contrast, had to worry about protecting sensitive information and enforcing commitments.

    This internal cohesiveness safeguarded the Rothschild’s business, facilitated transactions and allowed them to maintain resilience through the periods of significant political upheaval: the Napoleonic wars, revolutions and, ultimately, the First World War, which interrupted economic and social progress in Europe.

    However, this same over-reliance on family became a disadvantage when Rothschild expanded into the United States.

    Missed opportunity and bifurcation bias

    The Rothschilds showed an interest in the American market as early as the 1820s. However, their repeated attempts to send family members to the U.S to expand operations failed, as none were willing to stay, preferring the comforts of European life.

    August Belmont was a German-Jewish immigrant to New York City in 1837 as an agent of the Rothschild bank in Frankfurt.
    (Shutterstock)

    Since they were unable to establish a family-based anchor in the country, the Rothschilds appointed an agent, August Belmont, to run the U.S. operations on their behalf in 1837.

    However, Belmont wasn’t given the authority to exercise entrepreneurial judgment, make investments or enter into deals. He also didn’t have unrestricted access to capital, was never entrusted with an official Rothschild mandate or acknowledged as a full-fledged partner.

    The Rothschilds were unwilling to delegate such decisions to someone who was not a direct male descendant of the founder, Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

    This failure to use Belmont as a link between the family — with its successful experiences, capabilities, routines and connections in Europe — and the American market — with its growing opportunities and the valuable networks Belmont had begun to develop — ultimately prevented Rothschild from replicating its success in the U.S.

    The Rothschilds were eventually eclipsed by the Barings and JP Morgan banks in America. Both competitors followed a different path in the market by opening full-fledged U.S. subsidiaries under their corporate brands with significant funds and decision-making autonomy.

    Escaping the trap of bifurcation bias

    Bifurcation bias does not always have an immediate negative impact. In fact, biased governance practices remained inconsequential for the Rothschilds — as long as there were enough capable family heirs available to lead the bank’s dispersed operations.

    In the short- to medium-term, the family’s connections, time-tested routines and mutual reliability built a well of resilience that sustained the bank through the 19th century, one of the most volatile political periods in European history.

    But as a firm’s international ambitions outgrow the size of the family, bifurcation bias can damage competitiveness, both in international markets and at home.

    At some point, family firms must shift from emotional, biased decision-making to efficient governance systems, which may involve incorporating non-family managers and selecting resources, locations and projects that do not carry emotional significance.

    A Cargill factory building in Wroclaw, Poland in 2020. American business executive William Wallace Cargill founded the Cargill company as an Iowa grain storage business in 1865.
    (Shutterstock)

    Many successful family firms implement tools in their governance systems to detect and eliminate biased behaviour. For instance, family-owned multinationals such as Merck (Germany), Cargill (U.S.) and Tata Group (India) have checks and balances that prevent decision-makers from thinking only in family terms.

    The most successful strategies to safeguard against bifurcation bias invite outside scrutiny into corporate decision-making: appointing non-family CEOs, establishing independent boards, hiring consultants and granting partners decision-making powers.

    Lessons for family firms

    Today, as the global business environment faces arguably unprecedented volatility, firms are seeking to build resilience to survive the turbulence.

    While multi-generational family firms must learn to guard against bifurcation bias to thrive in international markets, their demonstrated ability to withstand external shocks offers valuable lessons for other companies.

    How can non-family firms emulate the Rothschild’s success and longevity? The Rothschild case teaches us the value of having a shared organizational language, setting long-term goals, maintaining stable routines and placing a strong emphasis on brand reputation.

    These strategies can help any company, family-owned or not, build resilience during volatile times.

    Liena Kano receives funding from SSHRC.

    Alain Verbeke receives funding from SSHRC.

    Luciano Ciravegna receives funding from INCAE Business School, where he leads the Steve Aronson Endowed Chair.

    Andrew Kent Johnston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What family firms like Rothschild can teach Canadian businesses about resilience – https://theconversation.com/what-family-firms-like-rothschild-can-teach-canadian-businesses-about-resilience-254279

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Council Leader welcomes Government’s Spending Review

    Source: City of Manchester

    Statement from Council Leader in response to the Government’s Spending Review

    Statement from Council Leader in response to the Government’s Spending Review:

    Cllr Bev Craig, Leader of Manchester City Council, said: “Manchester is leading the way in building homes, creating jobs, growing the economy inclusively and supporting our residents. The announcements in today’s Spending Review will do much to help maintain that positive momentum.

    “We particularly welcome the announcement of £39 billion extra funding nationally for council, social and other genuinely affordable homes. We’re already delivering more affordable homes than at any time in the last 15 years and the availability of very significant extra funding will allow us to go even further in delivering this generational increase. It’s welcome to have an increase in spending for local councils, and I will look forward to the local government settlement to see what this means for places like Manchester who had our budgets cut heavily by Governments since 2010.

    “Following last week’s transport news, we also welcome the commitment to investing in our railways and other infrastructure – the sort of long-term strategic thinking which is vital to address years of underinvestment. Improved rail connections will help us power our aspirations for the city and its people and we look forward to the detail.

    “This Spending Review was delivered in challenging circumstances but there is still much in there which is encouraging as we await the detail in the coming days.

    “I welcome the largest investment in social and affordable housing in 50 years, alongside the record investment to rebuild the NHS. This alongside the expansion of Free School Meals, and investment in public transport address issues that really matter to Manchester people.” 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –