NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senators Coons, Welch, other lawyers on Judiciary Committee send letter commending law firms that have resisted Trump’s unconstitutional executive orders

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) today joined lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Subcommittee on the Constitution Ranking Member Peter Welch (D-Vt.), in sending a letter to the American Bar Association (ABA) commending lawyers and law firms that are resisting President Trump’s unconstitutional attacks on the legal profession. 

    “As fellow members of the legal community, we applaud lawyers who are resisting President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional attacks on the legal profession,” the senators wrote. “These orders are unlawful—a tool of intimidation, and a weaponization of the federal government. The president’s actions existentially threaten essential rights guaranteed by our Constitution.”

    “The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is undermined when a president signals that choosing to represent his political opponents carries the risk of retribution,” the senators added. “The First Amendment protection against viewpoint discrimination is imperiled when a president seeks to punish lawyers who advocate against his policies. By levying punishments outside the ordinary legal process, these orders violate constitutional due process.”

    The senators concluded, “The American Bar Association has stalwartly supported lawyers that have resisted President Trump’s bullying. We join the ABA in commending these lawyers, who have taken financial and professional risks to fight for the rule of law and our constitutional rights. We urge others to join you.”

    Between March 6th and March 27th, President Trump issued executive orders targeting four law firms against which he has personal grievances, such as representing his political opponents and associating with lawyers who have been critical of the president. The executive orders limit the targeted law firms’ access to federal buildings, suspend security clearances, and prevent federal agencies from engaging with firm lawyers.

    Three law firms—Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Perkins Coie—have rightfully challenged the president’s executive orders in court, asserting that the orders are in violation of the Constitution and the principles that underlie it. In each of these cases, judges appointed by presidents from both political parties have properly issued temporary restraining orders against President Trump.

    In addition to Senators Coons and Welch, the letter was signed by the following lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee: Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Senator Coons is a graduate of Yale Law School.

    You can read the full letter here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s statement on the second anniversary of the Sudanese conflict

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    Two years into a devastating war, Sudan remains in a crisis of staggering proportions, with civilians paying the highest price.
     
    Indiscriminate shelling and air strikes continue to kill and maim. Markets, hospitals, schools, places of worship and displacement sites are being attacked. Sexual violence is rampant, with women and girls subjected to horrific acts. Civilians suffer from gross violations and abuses from all warring parties.
     
    Almost 12 million people have fled their homes, in what has become the world’s largest displacement crisis. More than 3.8 million of these have crossed into neighbouring countries.
     
    More than 30 million people require humanitarian support. Half of the population – some 25 million people – are acutely hungry. As the lean season looms, famine has been identified in at least five locations and is projected to spread further.
     
    Aid workers have been targeted: at least 90 have lost their lives since the fighting began.
     
    Basic services have been decimated, with millions of children deprived of education, and less than one-quarter of health facilities are functional in the hardest hit areas. Attacks on infrastructure have left people without electricity and access to safe water.
     
    Last year, the United Nations and its partners reached more than 15.6 million people with at least one form of assistance. But the needs remain overwhelming. Conflict and insecurity, coupled with bureaucratic impediments and drastic funding cuts, have kept humanitarians from increasing their presence in many areas where assistance is needed most.
     
    Civilians continue to bear the brunt of the parties’ disregard for human life. In addition to their obligations under international humanitarian and international human rights law, the warring parties have made commitments to protect civilians, including in the Jeddah Declaration of May 2023. Such commitments must be translated into concrete action. Independent, impartial and transparent investigations into all reports of violations and abuses are also crucial.
     
    The only way to ensure the protection of civilians is to end this senseless conflict.
     
    I am deeply concerned that weapons and fighters continue to flow into Sudan, allowing the conflict to persist and spread across the country. The external support and flow of weapons must end. Those with greatest influence on the parties must use it to better the lives of people in Sudan – not to perpetuate this disaster.
     
    Comprehensive, revitalised and well-coordinated political efforts are urgently needed to prevent Sudan’s further fragmentation. As an international community, we must find ways to help the Sudanese people bring this unspeakable catastrophe to an end and establish acceptable transitional arrangements.
     
    Sudan remains a highest priority for the United Nations. I will continue to engage with regional leaders on means to enhance our collective efforts for peace.
     
    This will complement the ongoing work of my Personal Envoy, Ramtane Lamamra, who will seek to ensure international mediation efforts are mutually reinforcing.
     
    He will also continue to explore with the parties ways to bring them closer to a peaceful solution and support and empower civilians as they work towards a common vision for Sudan’s future.
     
    We must renew our focus on finding an end to this brutal war. The world must not forget the people of Sudan.  
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: B.C. nominee program focused on meeting workforce priorities

    The Province is updating the BC Provincial Nominee Program to do what it can to best meet its workforce priorities, and provide as much fairness and clarity as possible, following the federal government’s decision to reduce the nomination allocation spots.

    B.C. had fully met its allocation for 2024 to nominate 8,000 workers and entrepreneurs who support provincial priorities, and the Province has requested an allocation of 11,000 for 2025. In January 2025, B.C.’s 2025 allocation was cut to 4,000 by the federal government, significantly affecting the Province’s ability to meet its workforce needs.

    As part of the updated approach, the Province will process the majority of its application inventory and accept approximately 1,100 new applications this year, mainly for positions that contribute directly to the delivery of health-care services, such as doctors, nurses and allied-health professionals.

    The nominee program is the only tool that allows B.C. to nominate new immigrants in high-demand jobs to stay in the province. The vast majority of applicants already live and work in B.C. It is intended to help address labour demands in priority sectors, such as health care, child care, construction and housing. The Province will continue to advocate for the federal government to restore the BC Provincial Nominee Program allocation to previous levels, to support B.C.’s efforts to attract and retain in demand professionals.

    Learn More:

    For the latest BC Provincial Nominee Program guide, visit: https://www.welcomebc.ca/immigrate-to-b-c/guides-forms-reports-documents

    For more information about the program, visit: https://www.welcomebc.ca/immigrate-to-b-c/about-the-bc-provincial-nominee-program

    For Canada’s 2025-2027 immigration levels plan, visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2024/10/20252027-immigration-levels-plan.html

    And: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/supplementary-immigration-levels-2025-2027.html

    A backgrounder follows.

    The Province is making changes to the BC Provincial Nominee Program (BC PNP) in 2025 to process existing applications and accept new applications in the highest-priority jobs, making the best use of the reduced allocation.

    Management of existing applications

    • The program will process all applications received in 2024 for streams that require a job offer, so people who are working in B.C. and have submitted a nominee program application with the support of their employer can get a decision in 2025.
    • All international post-graduate (IPG) applications received before Sept. 1, 2024, will be processed in 2025.
    • IPG applications received between Sept. 1, 2024, and Jan. 7, 2025, when the stream closed, will be waitlisted and processed only when more nominee program nominations become available by the federal government.
      • In March 2024, the BC PNP announced that the IPG stream would close at the end of 2024.
      • By the time the IPG stream was closed, the BC PNP had received more than double the IPG applications than it did in 2023.
      • Most IPG applicants qualify for a three-year post-graduate work permit, which allows them to remain in Canada for an extended period following the completion of their studies.
      • The ministry is seeking support from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to extend the work permits of the individuals whose immigration status will expire soon.

    New applications

    • While the health-authority stream continues to accept new applications, it is now restricted to a limited number of health-care positions. The BC PNP program guide provides a detailed description of which health occupations are now eligible under the health-authority stream.
    • Due to the limited nomination space, no general or priority-occupation invitations to apply (ITA) are planned in 2025. ITAs will be issued to approximately 100 candidates with the highest economic-impact potential.

    Other program updates

    • The launch of previously announced student streams will remain on hold for the time being.
    • Going forward, the BC PNP will distinguish between early childhood educator and early childhood educator assistant.
    • Enhanced guidelines will be developed for social and community service workers, with greater emphasis on the qualifications for this role.

    Existing applicants and individuals interested in the program are encouraged to refer to the latest BC PNP program guide for eligibility requirements: https://www.welcomebc.ca/immigrate-to-b-c/guides-forms-reports-documents

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Minister’s statement on Medical Laboratory Week

    Josie Osborne, Minister of Health, has released the following statement in recognition of Medical Laboratory Week, April 13-19, 2025:

    “People throughout B.C. rely on the expertise of medical laboratory professionals. These dedicated specialists work behind the scenes in hospitals and community labs, and play a crucial role in diagnosing and preventing illnesses, so we can live our healthiest lives.

    “As vital members of B.C.’s allied health workforce, medical laboratory professionals bring specialized expertise that supports high-quality, team-based care. Their contributions help inform clinical decisions and are essential to delivering accurate and timely diagnoses, effective treatment and improved patient outcomes.

    “Medical Laboratory Week is an opportunity to recognize the invaluable contributions of these professionals. This year’s theme, Medical Laboratory Professionals Illuminate the Path to Diagnosis, highlights their critical role in enabling early detection, supporting life-saving treatments and raising awareness for complex medical conditions. From cancer screenings to infectious disease testing, their precision and dedication help shape the future of health care.

    “Our government continues to support and strengthen these health-care workers through recruitment, retention and training. By investing in our medical laboratory professionals, we ensure people in British Columbia receive the care they need when they need it.

    “On behalf of everyone in B.C., I extend my deepest gratitude to all medical laboratory professionals, including diagnostic cytology technologists, clinical genetics technologists, medical laboratory assistants, technologists, combined laboratory X-ray technologists, laboratory medicine physicians, pathologists and administrators. Their expertise and dedication are the foundation of high-quality, world-class care.”

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Attorney general’s statutes amendment act introduced

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Government introduced the attorney general statutes amendment act, 2025, to the legislative assembly on Monday, April 14, 2025.

    If passed by the legislature, the amendments will affect the following provincial statutes:

    Judicial Compensation Act:

    Amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act will statutorily implement the 2022 Judicial Compensation Commission’s recommendation with respect to non-judicial pensionable-service provisions in the Judicial Compensation Act. This will ensure Provincial Court judges, who were public servants before being appointed to the bench, receive the same benefits for their non-judicial service as other Public Service Pension Plan members.

    Land Title Act:

    Amendments to the Land Title Act will clarify the Land Title Office’s ability to transfer a deceased person’s land to a special administrator appointed by the court. Appointing administrators is a standard procedure that allows administrators to temporarily manage an estate, while there are ongoing legal proceedings about a will or other special circumstances. The amendment specifically addresses the transfer or sale of land, which may be desirable to preserve the value of an estate.

    Libel and Slander Act:

    Amendments to the Libel and Slander Act will update the description of the court document used to initiate a legal action for libel.

    Members Remuneration and Pensions Act:

    Amendments to the Members Remuneration and Pensions Act will implement the March 2025 decision of the legislative assembly management committee to forgo the statutorily authorized increase to members of the legislative assembly’s remuneration for 2025.

    Police Act:

    Amendments to the Police Act will allow the appointment of an acting chief civilian director of the Independent Investigations Office in the event that the director is unable to fulfil their role. Amendments will also authorize the appointment of a deputy chief civilian director of the Independent Investigations Office, to whom the chief civilian director could delegate their powers and duties. These amendments will allow the Independent Investigations Office to reduce operational risks and help ensure investigations into incidents involving police officers are conducted proficiently, without unnecessary delays and with the ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.

    Small Claims Act:

    Housekeeping amendments to the Small Claims Act will remove an outdated reference to a provision that was repealed in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. The provision concerned a previous process where a Civil Resolution Tribunal decision could be made void, and the claim could be disputed in the Provincial Court. Regular housekeeping amendments, such as this, provide clarity and make legislation easier to understand.

    Wills, Estates and Succession Act:

    Amendments to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act will add First Home Savings Accounts to the definition of a benefit plan. This will allow people to name beneficiaries for these accounts, helping in their life planning by ensuring surviving beneficiaries can access First Home Savings Accounts efficiently, in the same way they can access other registered savings plans, such as Tax Free Savings Accounts.

    The amendments will allow the government to quickly add new plans without needing to amend the legislation.

    Learn More:

    For more information about B.C. legislation, visit: https://strongerbc.gov.bc.ca/Legislation

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Hundreds of firefighters gather to train, learn ahead of 2025 wildfire season

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    To increase wildfire prevention and help keep people safe, the Province has taken action over the past six years to strengthen provincial and community capacity for wildfire mitigation and preparedness.

    In recent years, the BC Wildfire Service’s (BCWS) wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts have expanded rapidly, supported by the BCWS growing into a year-round organization focused on proactively reducing wildfire risks as well as responding to fires. Prevention efforts have included hundreds of wildfire risk-reduction and fuel-management projects with partner agencies, with 88 cultural and prescribed fire projects planned for 2025, of which eight have already been implemented this spring.

    Since 2018, the Province, through BCWS, has invested approximately $466 million in wildfire resiliency and risk-reduction projects. The Province’s approach to wildfire risk reduction is through strategic partnerships with communities, First Nations, and external partners, in addition to the BCWS’ direct wildfire mitigation. In advance of this year’s wildfire season, the Province continues to work on fuel mitigation and community preparedness activities to reduce the threat of wildfire, in partnership with local governments and First Nations, and the following organizations:

    FireSmart BC
    FireSmart actions are tested and proven, and they increase your home’s chance of survival in the event of a wildfire. FireSmart is the Canadian standard recognized by all provinces and territories based on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. This year, there are 250 FireSmart recognized neighbourhoods throughout B.C., and approximately 140 FireSmart co-ordinators within local governments and First Nations. More than 113 local governments and First Nations participate in the Wildfire Mitigation Program, formerly the Home Partners Program, including 20 of the 28 regional districts

    As a leader in wildfire mitigation and preparedness, work by FireSmart BC includes:

    • funding 309 local governments and First Nations to undertake FireSmart activities;
    • 231 FireSmart positions proposed for funding or partially subsidized in communities across the province; and
    • 57 garden centre locations across B.C. now participate in the FireSmart Plant Program. 

    Union of BC Municipalities and First Nations’ Emergency Services Society
    Since 2019, the Province has taken action in partnership with the Union of BC Municipalities and First Nations’ Emergency Services Society to reduce wildfire risk through FireSmart grants and supports, with $185 million committed to date. The Union of BC Municipalities, in partnership with First Nations Emergency Services Society (FNESS), administers the FireSmart Community Funding and Supports (FCFS) program to communities on behalf of the Province. More than 936 applications have been received since 2019, leading to more than $126 million in approved completed projects.

    Forest Enhancement Society of BC (FESBC)
    The Province partners with FESBC to reduce wildfire risks, enhance wildlife habitats, improve damaged or low-value forests, and manage greenhouse gases. Since 2016, $79.6 million has been invested in 201 community wildfire risk-reduction projects through FESBC. As part of Budget 2024, an additional $60 million was announced for FESBC, with $20 million to be allocated each year for the next three years. This funding supports wildfire risk reduction and/or enhanced wood fibre utilization.

    Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia
    The Fire Chiefs’ Association of British Columbia is a non-profit organization that serves as an essential source of information, education, and community for its members. It proactively engages with the government and standards organizations on issues relating to fire services, resulting in effective and supported fire departments across the province. Through an agreement with the Fire Chiefs Association of BC (FCABC), BC Wildfire Service has worked closely with local fire departments to co-ordinate equipment and personnel, with more than 100 fire departments that have pre-registered their personal and equipment for provincial deployments this season.

    Farmland Advantage
    Farmland Advantage helps farmers identify and enhance the natural values on a farm that can be protected, restored, and enhanced and develops recommendations and plans to preserve them. Since 2021, the BCWS has worked with Farmland Advantage on $1.4 million in wildfire risk-reduction and community resiliency projects, focusing on strategic areas in the wildland-urban interface.

    Fraser Basin Council 
    After the 2023 fire season, the Premier’s Expert Task Force on Emergencies recommended defining clear pathways for organized and trained local people to play a role in wildfire preparedness and response, based on consistent safety, pre-season training and readiness standards and plans, and integration into the BCWS or local emergency management structure with appropriate co-ordination, accountability and oversight. The BCWS partnered with the Fraser Basin Council in fall 2023 to engage rural communities as part of the Wildfire Roundtables they facilitate.

    Through this engagement, the Fraser Basin Council received responses from 37 out of 89 electoral area directors. Of the 37 responses, 35 identified existing groups that were outside of structural protection areas. Twenty-four of these groups were organized, and 11 were not organized at the time.

    The feedback received was instrumental in guiding the steps BCWS took leading into the 2024 fire season to invest in the preparedness for these groups by training more than 430 community members across 21 groups and engaging them in co-operative response efforts in the 2024 fire season. The groups that were hired in the 2024 fire season were engaged in low-complexity tasks aligned with their basic training such as mopping up, cooling ash pits and patrolling areas to prevent potential flare-ups.

    In recognition of the need to grow this program beyond the initial training intake in 2023, the Regional District Cooperative Community Wildfire Response Organizations program was established to assist in funding training and equipment purchasing of rural response groups.

    Columbia Basin Trust
    Initially launched as part of the BC Economic Recovery Plan in 2021 to support wildfire risk-reduction projects in the Columbia Basin, this program became the Columbia Basin Wildfire Resiliency Initiative in 2022-23. With an ongoing investment of $4 million to support expanded wildfire risk reduction in the Columbia Basin, the program is supported by the BCWS, the Ministry of Forests Regional Operations, and the Columbia Basin Trust. 

    To date, there have been 20 projects supported in 18 communities.  

    Cattlemen’s Association 
    The Province partners with the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association to support beef cattle producers in B.C. Since 2021, $300,000 has been provided in grant funding to build and expand on an existing initiative that develops, pilots and tests new models of targeted livestock grazing as a supplemental tool for managing fine fuels in B.C.’s forested rangelands. 

    B.C. Community Forest Association 
    BCWS works alongside the B.C. Community Forest Association (BCCFA) to reduce wildfire risk in community forests. BCCFA is a non-profit society serving as the voice and advocate of community forests in BC. Currently BCCFA represents more than 100 rural and Indigenous communities across the province. Under the BC Economic Recovery Plan, $5 million was allocated to the BCCFA to reduce wildfire risk and stimulate employment opportunities in 15 community forest tenure areas located around rural communities between 2020 and 2023.

    Additionally, community forests have invested $8 million of their own funds and managed more than $17 million in grants from outside sources such as FESBC to build wildfire resiliency and reduce risk through mechanical treatments and use of prescribed fire.

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI: Carbon Streaming Announces Filing of Claim Against Former Executives and Consultants

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, April 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Carbon Streaming Corporation (Cboe CA: NETZ) (OTCQB: OFSTF) (FSE: M2Q) (“Carbon Streaming” or the “Company”) today announces that it has started a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against several former executives, directors, consultants, and associated entities. As outlined in the lawsuit, Carbon Streaming is trying to hold the defendants to account for their breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment that have caused financial harm to the Company.

    The defendants named in the claim include Justin Cochrane, Conor Kearns, Anthony Milewski, Michael Beck, Maurice Swan, Andrew Scott Tester, Jeanne Usonis, The Oregon Group LLC, Regent Advisors LLC, Black Vulcan Resources LLC, Carbon Advisors LLC, and Angstrom Capital Limited.

    Key Allegations:

    • Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The lawsuit alleges that the defendants who were serving as Carbon Streaming’s executives and directors did not act in the Company’s best interests, including approving and allowing payments for advisory and consulting fees to entities that provided little to no real services to the Company.
    • Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The lawsuit alleges that certain defendants made false representations and omissions that misled the Company, resulting in financial losses.
    • Unjust Enrichment: The lawsuit also seeks to recover funds that were improperly diverted to some of the defendants and their associated entities, who were unjustly enriched at the expense of Carbon Streaming.

    Financial Impact:

    Carbon Streaming seeks damages against the defendants, including:

    • A minimum of USD $30.1 Million against Justin Cochrane.
    • A minimum of USD $4.1 Million against Conor Kearns.
    • A minimum of USD $1.4 Million against Anthony Milewski and The Oregon Group LLC.
    • A minimum of USD $4.1 Million against Anthony Milewski and Black Vulcan Resources LLC.
    • A minimum of USD $850,000 against Michael Beck and Regent Advisors LLC.
    • A minimum of USD $400,000 against Michael Beck, Anthony Milewski, and Carbon Advisors LLC.
    • A minimum of USD $4.1 Million against each of Maurice Swan, Andrew Scott Tester and Jeanne Usonis.

    A copy of the issued Statement of Claim can be found here.

    About Carbon Streaming

    Carbon Streaming’s focus is on projects that generate high-quality carbon credits and have a positive impact on the environment, local communities, and biodiversity, in addition to their carbon reduction or removal potential.

    ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY:
    Marin Katusa, Chief Executive Officer
    Tel: 365.607.6095
    info@carbonstreaming.com
    www.carbonstreaming.com

    Investor Relations
    investors@carbonstreaming.com

    Media
    media@carbonstreaming.com

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

    This news release contains certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively, “forward-looking information”) within the meaning of applicable securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future, are forward-looking information, including, without limitation, statements regarding the Company holding the defendants to account.

    When used in this news release, words such as “estimates”, “expects”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “will”, “believes”, “intends” “should”, “could”, “may” and other similar terminology are intended to identify such forward-looking information. This forward-looking information is based on the current expectations or beliefs of the Company based on information currently available to the Company. Forward-looking information is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of the Company to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking information, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on, the Company. They should not be read as a guarantee of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be an accurate indication of whether or not such results will be achieved. Factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things: general economic, market and business conditions and global financial conditions, including fluctuations in interest rates, foreign exchange rates and stock market volatility; volatility in prices of carbon credits and demand for carbon credits; change in social or political views towards climate change, carbon credits and environmental, social and governance initiatives and subsequent changes in corporate or government policies or regulations and associated changes in demand for carbon credits; the Company’s expectations and plans with respect to current litigation, arbitration and regulatory proceedings; limited operating history for the Company’s current strategy; concentration risk; inaccurate estimates of project value, which may impact the ability of the Company to execute on its growth and diversification strategy; dependence upon key management; impact of corporate restructurings; the inability of the Company to optimize cash flows or sufficiently reduce operating expenses; reputational risk; risks arising from competition and future acquisition activities failure or timing delays for projects to be registered, validated and ultimately developed and for emission reductions or removals to be verified and carbon credits issued (and other risks associated with carbon credits standards and registries); foreign operations and political risks including actions by governmental authorities, including changes in or to government regulation, taxation and carbon pricing initiatives; uncertainties and ongoing market developments surrounding the validation and verification requirements of the voluntary and/or compliance markets; due diligence risks, including failure of third parties’ reviews, reports and projections to be accurate; dependence on project partners, operators and owners, including failure by such counterparties to make payments or perform their operational or other obligations to the Company in compliance with the terms of contractual arrangements between the Company and such counterparties; failure of projects to generate carbon credits, or natural disasters such as flood or fire which could have a material adverse effect on the ability of any project to generate carbon credits; volatility in the market price of the Company’s common shares or warrants; the effect that the issuance of additional securities by the Company could have on the market price of the Company’s common shares or warrants; global health crises, such as pandemics and epidemics; and the other risks disclosed under the heading “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in the Company’s Annual Information Form dated as of March 31, 2025 filed on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

    Any forward-looking information speaks only as of the date of this news release. Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking information are reasonable, forward-looking information is not a guarantee of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein. Except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ezell, Carter, Letlow, Fields Introduce Bipartisan Flood Insurance Bill to Provide Stability to Mississippi Property Owners and the Real Estate Market

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Mike Ezell (Mississippi 4th District)

    Representatives Mike Ezell (MS-04), Troy A. Carter, Sr. (LA-02), Julia Letlow (LA-05), and Cleo Fields (LA-06) have introduced the bipartisan National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Authorization Extension Act which will extend the federal authorization for the NFIP. The bill would extend the program through December 31, 2026, significantly longer than the typical short-term extensions passed by Congress.

    “For far too long, families, businesses, and entire communities along our coast have lived with the uncertainty caused by short-term extensions of the National Flood Insurance Program,” Ezell said. The NFIP Authorization Extension Act delivers the stability South Mississippians need as they continue to face the devastating effects of flooding and natural disasters. By extending the program through the end of 2026, we’re sending a clear message: we are committed to protecting our coastal communities, giving them the tools to recover and rebuild, and working in a bipartisan way to strengthen and modernize the program for the future.” 

    “I am proud to introduce this bill to provide the long-overdue stability our communities deserve,” Carter said. “For too long, homeowners, small businesses, and local economies have lived under the cloud of short-term NFIP extensions, often attached to contentious government funding bills. This clean, multi-year reauthorization brings much-needed certainty to policyholders and ensures uninterrupted access to flood insurance across the country. As flooding becomes more frequent and severe, we must protect families and businesses by keeping this program operating while we work to deliver lasting, comprehensive reforms to strengthen and modernize the program.”

    “Given the frequent storms and flooding our state endures, I’m a strong advocate for renewing the National Flood Insurance Program and making sure it serves those who depend on it. For many Louisianans, flood insurance is not just a policy—it’s a lifeline. I’m committed to working with my colleagues to strengthen this vital program and ensure our communities get the support they need when disaster strikes,” Letlow said.

    “Passing the NFIP Authorization Extension Act is essential to protecting hardworking people across Louisiana,” Fields said. Given our state’s history with extreme weather events, we must ensure that flood insurance remains accessible to all. My colleagues in both the House and Senate will continue to fight for those most affected by flooding throughout the state and across the country.”

    The Senate companion NFIP Authorization Extension Act was introduced by Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) and John Kennedy (R-LA) in March 2025. Congressmembers Marc Veasey (D-TX), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), and LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) are original cosponsors of the House legislation.

    “Rather than experiencing a 33rd short-term extension, NFIP policyholders deserve certainty, and NFIP as a program requires stability. A two-year reauthorization will provide a runway for Congress and stakeholders to hold conversations and hearings around catastrophic insurance and towards highly-demanded comprehensive NFIP reform, like a means-tested benefit for affordability, a third-party review of the Risk Rating 2.0 methodology, and proper incentivization of flood risk mitigation,” GNO, Inc. President Michael Hecht said.

    “Extending the National Flood Insurance Program would ensure continuous operations and greater stability for policyholders until a long-term reauthorization is enacted into law – a valuable source of certainty for counties and our residents,” National Association of Counties Executive Director Matthew Chase said. “Counties thank Representatives Carter, Fields, Letlow, and Ezell for their leadership, and we look forward to working with our bipartisan congressional partners to secure passage of this legislation.”

    Background:

    The NFIP is a federal program managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that provides flood insurance to homeowners and businesses, aiming to reduce the financial impact of flooding. The program is vital for coastal communities with extensive low-lying areas and frequent exposure to hurricanes and heavy rainfall. The NFIP helps protect residents from devastating financial losses due to flood damage, encourages responsible development in flood-prone areas, and supports rebuilding efforts after disasters—making it a critical safety net for Mississippi communities.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Fitzgerald Statement on Wisconsin Teen Accused of Murder and Plotting to Assassinate President Trump

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05)

    Oconomowoc, WI – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05) issued the following statement in response to a Wisconsin teen accused of murdering his parents and plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump.

    “I want to thank the FBI and local law enforcement for their quick, coordinated response to stop another plot to assassinate the President. We grieve for the two innocent individuals who were killed in connection with this plot. My prayers are with their loved ones as they endure this unimaginable loss,” said Congressman Fitzgerald.

    “Unfortunately, this incident reflects a dangerous trend. Reckless political rhetoric—especially from the Left—continues to inflame tensions and, in some cases, encourage violence against our elected officials. I will continue to stand with law enforcement and support efforts to ensure the safety of our communities and elected officials,” Fitzgerald concluded.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Durbin Lead Illinois Democratic Delegation in Message to Secretary Kennedy: The Dismantling of HS Does Nothing to ‘Make America Healthy Again’

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
    April 11, 2025
    In a letter to the HHS Secretary, the lawmakers pushed back against the destruction of HHS and its impact on the state
    [SPRINGFIELD, IL] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) today led the Illinois Democratic Delegation in sending a letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressing frustration and concern that HHS has slashed critical federal funding for the state’s public health programs and infrastructure.
    “We write to express our real concern about the Department and Health and Human Services’ (HHS) actions to terminate federal funds for state and local health departments, fire critical public health staff, dismantle health agencies, and close regional offices, including the HHS Region 5 office in Chicago, Illinois.  Your decision puts the health and well-being of our people at risk, and will do nothing to ‘Make America Healthy Again,’” the lawmakers wrote.
    Last month, it was reported that HHS would terminate $11.4 billion in federal funding for state and local health departments, including more than $125 million in funding for the Illinois Department of Public Health.  Lawmakers were also told that Illinois would lose access to an additional $324 million in anticipated federal funding that was already allocated to protect Illinois residents from infectious diseases.  Further, Illinois could lose up to $28 million in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) grants for mental health and substance use disorder treatment.
    In an effort to combat the Trump Administration’s destructive funding rescissions, a 24-state coalition, which included Illinois, filed a lawsuit against HHS for the rollback of public health funding.  Earlier this month, a federal court barred HHS from terminating these funds for a 14-day period.
    “The state’s [Illinois’] efforts to prepare for future public health emergencies—which could include the worsening avian flu situation, measles outbreaks, and other respiratory illness challenges—will be severely hampered if HHS rescinds this essential federal funding.  Now that a federal court has blocked HHS from terminating these funds, we urge you to abandon these ill-conceived and dangerous plans,” the lawmakers continued their letter.
    In addition to ripping away billions in promised federal funding, Secretary Kennedy has overseen the destruction of HHS’ workforce and infrastructure, putting thousands of dedicated career civil servants out of a job while gutting critical federal agencies.  Since President Trump’s inauguration, 10,000 HHS employees have left the agency or been fired.  A couple weeks ago, HHS announced that an additional 10,000 public health workers will be fired, including 3,500 from the Food and Drug Administration, 2,400 workers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,200 workers from the National Institutes of Health and 300 workers from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 
    “A reduction in force of this magnitude threatens the ability of HHS to ensure the safety of our nation’s foods, drugs, and medical devices; to inspect and regulate nursing homes; to develop breakthrough cures and treatments for patients with cancer, ALS, and heart disease; and to respond quickly when a public health crisis emerges,” the lawmakers wrote.
    The lawmakers continued their letter, emphasizing that closing regional health offices and shutting out states from federal resources does nothing to support the health and safety of Americans.
    “Finally, it was reported that HHS would dismantle and consolidate several health agencies under an ‘Administration for a Healthier America,’ and close several regional offices, including the HHS Region 5 office in Chicago.  HHS Region 5 has been an essential partner in implementing and coordinating federal resources and initiatives.  It has worked with state, local, and tribal governments in Illinois to address a range of public health concerns, including infectious disease outbreaks, mental and behavioral health needs, food recalls, and more,” the lawmakers wrote.  “Eliminating this office or consolidating it into another regional office risks reducing access to agency personnel and HHS resources for Illinois.”
    The lawmakers concluded their letter by reminding Secretary Kennedy of his responsibility to improve public health, not destruct the institution that ensures Americans have the resources to stay healthy.
    “It is one thing to undertake efforts to address waste, fraud, and abuse in government.  It is quite another to cite these reasonable goals as an excuse to instead decimate our nation’s public health infrastructure.  HHS has provided no details on its plans or any explanation of how these steps will improve HHS’ ability to carry out its mission to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans.  The complete lack of transparency on these critical decisions supports the logical conclusion that these decisions were made for political purposes without considering their real-world impact,” the lawmakers wrote.
    “As HHS Secretary, you are tasked with the serious responsibility of protecting our nation’s health and you have the opportunity to make a positive difference in the lives of millions of Americans.   Do not neglect this responsibility, and do not waste this opportunity,” the lawmaker concluded their letter.
    A copy of the letter is available here and below:
    April 11, 2025
    Dear Secretary Kennedy,
                We write to express our real concern about the Department and Health and Human Services’ (HHS) actions to terminate federal funds for state and local health departments, fire critical public health staff, dismantle health agencies, and close regional offices, including the HHS Region 5 office in Chicago, Illinois.  Your decision puts the health and well-being of people at risk, and will do nothing to “Make America Healthy Again.”
    In March, it was reported that HHS would be terminating $11.4 billion in federal funding for state and local health departments, including more than $125 million for Illinois.  We also have been informed that Illinois will not be able to access an additional $324 million in anticipated federal funding for future work to prevent and address infectious disease.  The Illinois Department of Public Health has leveraged these federal funds to improve its technologies and laboratories, support the public health workforce, and strengthen local health departments.  However, the state’s efforts to prepare for future public health emergencies—which could include the worsening avian flu situation, measles outbreaks, and other respiratory illness challenges—will be severely hampered if HHS rescinds this essential federal funding.  Now that a federal court has blocked HHS from terminating these funds, we urge you to abandon these ill-conceived and dangerous plans. 
    It also was announced that an additional 10,000 public health workers will be fired from HHS, including 3,500 from the Food and Drug Administration, 2,400 workers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,200 workers from the National Institutes of Health, and 300 workers from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  This is on top of the reported 10,000 HHS employees who have already left the agency since January 20, including probationary employees who were fired earlier this year, many of whom were not rehired, despite two court rulings ordering their reinstatement.  A reduction in force of this magnitude threatens the ability of HHS to ensure the safety of our nation’s foods, drugs, and medical devices; to inspect and regulate nursing homes; to develop breakthrough cures and treatments for patients with cancer, ALS, and heart disease; and to respond quickly when a public health crisis emerges.
    Finally, it was reported that HHS would dismantle and consolidate several health agencies under an “Administration for a Healthier America,” and close several regional offices, including the HHS Region 5 office in Chicago.  HHS Region 5 has been an essential partner in implementing and coordinating federal resources and initiatives.  It has worked with state, local, and tribal governments in Illinois to address a range of public health concerns, including infectious disease outbreaks, mental and behavioral health needs, food recalls, and more.  Eliminating this office or consolidating it into another regional office risks reducing access to agency personnel and HHS resources for Illinois.
    It is one thing to undertake efforts to address waste, fraud, and abuse in government.  It is quite another to cite these reasonable goals as an excuse to instead decimate our nation’s public health infrastructure.  HHS has provided no details on its plans or any explanation of how these steps will improve HHS’ ability to carry out its mission to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans.  The complete lack of transparency on these critical decisions supports the logical conclusion that these decisions were made for political purposes without considering their real-world impact.  
    As HHS Secretary, you are tasked with the serious responsibility of protecting our nation’s health and you have the opportunity to make a positive difference in the lives of millions of Americans.   Do not neglect this responsibility, and do not waste this opportunity. 
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.  We look forward to your timely response.
    Sincerely,
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Governor Kehoe Announces Four Appointments to State Board of Education

    Source: US State of Missouri

    APRIL 14, 2025

    Jefferson City — Today, Governor Mike Kehoe announced four appointments to the State Board of Education. As his first appointments to the Board, these individuals reflect Governor Kehoe’s vision and commitment to supporting education.

    Michael Matousek, of Kansas City, was appointed to the State Board of Education.

    Mr. Matousek currently serves as the director of the Government Freight Conference at the American Trucking Association. He has previous experience as the state legislative affairs director for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and legislative director in the Office of Congressman Sam Graves. Mr. Matousek earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Florida.

    Kenneth “Brooks” Miller Jr., of Sunrise Beach, was appointed to the State Board of Education.

    Mr. Miller previously served as the president and CEO of Jordan Valley Community Health Center. In addition to his professional career, he has served as the vice president of the Springfield Board of Public Utilities and was most recently on the Truman State University Board of Governors. Mr. Miller earned his master’s degree in education administration and bachelor’s degree in business administration from Northeast Missouri State University.

    Jon Otto, of Kansas City, was appointed to the State Board of Education.

    Mr. Otto serves as corporate counsel for Evergy, Inc. focusing on corporate governance, SEC compliance, corporate finance, and real estate transactions. Prior to joining Evergy, he was an attorney at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP and Polsinelli, PC law firms. Mr. Otto has served as a board member for Académie Lafayette charter school, University Health KC, Missouri Charter Public School Association, Child Protection Center, Minddrive, and the UMKC Law Alumni Association. Mr. Otto earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law and his Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Clark Atlanta University.

    Dr. Thomas Prater, of Springfield, was appointed to the State Board of Education.

    Dr. Prater is a physician and partner at Mattax-Neu-Prater Eye Center in Springfield. From 2016 to 2020, he served as the Zone 2 Councilman on the Springfield City Council. He was also a member of the Springfield R-12 Board of Education from 1998 to 2014. Dr. Prater is an active member of the Missouri State Medical Society and the American Academy of Ophthalmology. He earned his Doctor of Medicine from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Companies Pay $1.3 Million to Resolve Allegations of False Claims Act Violations Concerning Small Business Size Representations

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Marc H. Silverman, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that Whitcraft LLC and Berkshire Manufactured Products, Inc. (collectively the “Whitcraft Companies”), have entered into a civil settlement agreement with the United States and have paid $1,317,653.44 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act when the Whitcraft Companies improperly obtained set-aside contracts reserved for small businesses that they were ineligible to receive.

    Whitcraft LLC, a limited liability company located in Eastford, Connecticut, and Berkshire Manufactured Products, Inc., a corporation located in Newburyport, Massachusetts, machine and fabricate sheet metal aerospace parts and components for commercial and military aviation applications.  In April 2017, controlling interests in both companies were acquired by a private equity group.

    The government contends that, after they were acquired in April 2017, the Whitcraft Companies ceased to qualify as “small business concerns” within the meaning of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) regulations relating to government contracts due to the Whitcraft Companies’ affiliation through stock ownership with other businesses.  Between April 2017 and November 2022, the Whitcraft Companies falsely certified that they were “small business concerns” and, as a result, they were awarded 71 small business set-aside contracts that they were ineligible to receive.

    Government contractors are required to timely disclose to the government, in writing, whenever they have credible evidence that they have committed a violation of the False Claims Act.  On December 23, 2022, in connection with due diligence performed relating to the Whitcraft Companies’ sale to another entity, the Whitcraft Companies voluntarily disclosed to the government facts concerning their potential affiliation with other businesses that the government contends made them ineligible to be awarded contracts set aside for small businesses. The Whitcraft Companies received credit in the settlement for their voluntary disclosure and cooperation with the government during its investigation.

    This investigation was conducted by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Defense Contract Audit Agency Operations Investigative Support Division, the SBA Office of General Counsel, and DLA Aviation Fraud Counsel.  This matter was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Gruber.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada is lagging in innovation, and that’s a problem for funding the programs we care about

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrew Maxwell, Bergeron Chair in Technology Entrepreneurship, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Canada

    As Canadians prepare to vote in another federal election, the country’s economy faces a sobering reality. As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) notes, productivity is stagnating, our innovation performance lags global peers and high-potential startups often fail to scale.

    Despite these warning signs, innovation policy remains largely absent from political discourse. Canadians hear a great deal about how political parties are going to spend money, but little about where the money is going to come from.

    This is a critical oversight. Canada’s enduring productivity gap is more than an economic statistic — it’s why the country is struggling to sustain the social programs, such as health care and education, that Canadians value.

    If Canadians want to maintain their standard of living, Canada must close that gap through a more deliberate, strategic approach to innovation.

    Innovation is economic strategy

    In today’s knowledge-based economy, as business executive and innovator Jim Balsillie observes, power flows to countries that own digital data and their “value-added applications” (like apps or platforms) and intellectual property.

    Countries like the United States, China and South Korea have embedded innovation into national strategy, investing in sectors like artificial intelligence (AI), clean technology and biotech to drive growth and resilience. Canada, by contrast, has taken a fragmented, reactive approach.

    Canada’s over-reliance on research and development (R&D) spending and patent counts has failed to translate into commercial success. According to the OECD, Canada ranks among the highest in public R&D investment but among the lowest in innovation outcomes such as productivity growth and technology adoption.

    Canada also often conflates research with innovation. While both are vital, innovation is about turning knowledge into use through deployment, adoption, commercialization and scaling. Much of today’s transformative innovation, particularly in AI and software, depends on the transfer of tacit knowledge (related to things like user insights, execution experience and expertise in a particular domain) not just codified knowledge (for example, patents, technical drawings and licenses).

    Why innovation policy fails

    Governments struggle with innovation because it defies conventional policymaking:

    • It requires failure tolerance. Innovation is iterative. But political systems fear failure.

    • It demands long-term vision. Results may take years, beyond typical electoral cycles.

    • It’s technically complex. Few policymakers have deep expertise in emerging technologies or understand the research and development process.

    • It’s often misunderstood. Funding research is not the same as building innovation capacity or developing innovation processes.

    • It’s hard to quantify. Quantifying innovation outcomes is complex and challenging to measure, making it also difficult to measure return.

    As economist and innovation policy expert Mariana Mazzucato argued in The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, innovation success depends on bold missions, cross-sector collaboration and a willingness to learn from failure. Canada’s current model lacks these ingredients.

    Breaking the cycle of failure

    To break this cycle, Canada needs a non-partisan national innovation institution — an agency empowered to advise on strategy, evaluate outcomes and embed technical expertise into policy at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

    Models like DARPA from the U.S., Vinnova from Sweden and the Israel Innovation Authority show how long-term, high-impact innovation can be achieved with the right institutional scaffolding and appropriate knowledge.

    Video about Vinnova, Sweden’s national innovation agency.

    Canadians have created a number of innovation organizations with national implications, such as the Council of Canadian Academies, the CD Howe Institute, Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity (ICP), which closed in 2019.

    Yet none have been national organizations that addressed the broad proposed mandate to explicitly advise governments on technology and policy strategy, evaluate innovation outcomes and embed technical expertise into recommendations.

    A non-partisan national innovation institution must:

    1. Track outcomes more than inputs. Innovation success can be measured by a number of project- or industry-specific outcomes, such as productivity, firm growth and export revenue. The ICP proposed measuring the “prosperity gap,” comparing innovation performance to peer jurisdictions.

    2. Support long-term strategic objectives, focusing on Canada’s strengths in critical areas like AI, clean technology, energy health-care technology, and leveraging expertise and experience in these and other areas.

    3. Embed technology experts alongside health-care and education experts in the decision-making process. Recruit scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to anticipate technology and market trends, guiding both implementation and policy development.

    4. Differentiate innovation from research. Support both, but recognize the differences and explicitly link innovation to adoption and new use cases.

    5. Promote value capture. Ensure Canadian firms and the country benefit from and retain control of key technologies that enable them to scale domestically.

    6. Recognize the inherent risks in innovation and the potential for failure. Evaluate and build on impact and learn from failure to enhance innovation processes and improve future outcomes.

    7. Align our educational institutions with innovation goals revising programs, creating more flexible learning options and enhancing entrepreneurship so that more research outcomes are commercialized.

    These steps aren’t hypothetical. They’re backed by evidence from countries that have succeeded in turning innovation into sustained economic performance.

    Why now?

    Canada’s economy is heavily dependent on resource exports and vulnerable to technological disruption. Meanwhile, the global AI and clean tech races are accelerating. Canada is at risk of falling further behind — not just economically, but geopolitically.

    But Canada also has strengths: world-class researchers, diverse entrepreneurial talent and global partnerships. What’s missing is a cohesive national strategy to harness this potential. Creating a non-partisan innovation institution would be a powerful first step.

    If Canadians want to provide revenue for governments decide how to fund education, health care and climate adaptation, they must grow their economy. And to do that, Canada needs smarter innovation policy.

    It’s time to stop celebrating activity and start rewarding outcomes. Let’s build the structures that allow Canadian ingenuity to thrive — not in theory, but in practice.

    Andrew Maxwell works for York University, but received no direct benefit from comments in this article. He receives funding from various research agencies for his work in the area, but none of which creates the potential for conflict. He is a member of the Academy of Management, the International Society for Professional Innovation Management and Professional Engineers Ontario..

    – ref. Canada is lagging in innovation, and that’s a problem for funding the programs we care about – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-lagging-in-innovation-and-thats-a-problem-for-funding-the-programs-we-care-about-254423

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: CLARKE MEETS WITH FACULTY LEADERS AT CORNELL TECH AND TOURS SMART CITY TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Yvette D Clarke (9th District of New York)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    April 14, 2025

    MEDIA CONTACT: 

    e: jessica.myers@mail.house.gov

    c: 202.913.0126

    NEW YORK, NY – Last week, Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09), Co-Chair of the Smart Cities Caucus, toured the Cornell Tech Campus at Cornell University. Rep. Clarke met with faculty leaders, including Dean and Vice Provost Greg Morrisett and Founding Director of the Urban Tech Hub Michael Samuelian, who debriefed her on their latest advancements in smart city technologies, provided insight into their revolutionary Urban Tech program, and highlighted the direct impacts their program has had on New York City. Since its founding in 2012, Cornell Tech has stood as a leading institution in the smart cities space. In the 118th Congress, Rep. Clarke introduced the Smart Cities and Communities Act to expand smart city technologies and improve governmental coordination of these programs.

    “Every American should have the right to call a clean, safe, and climate-resilient community their home, and it’s overwhelmingly clear smart city technologies represent the best, most practical path to making that aspiration a reality. As a leader in Congress’ efforts to shepherd the widespread adoption of smart cities, it was a privilege to tour Cornell Tech and learn from its many experts on the revolutionary research and work they are doing to make our cities run smoother,” said Congresswoman Clarke. “These visionaries are truly paving the way forward in smart city technology, which I am confident will benefit communities in New York and other cities across the nation. We know overcoming the climate crisis will demand bold, creative solutions to the myriad of challenges that lie ahead, and that is why I find great comfort in knowing Cornell Tech is a leader in this existential fight. I am honored to have had the opportunity to learn about their work firsthand, and I look forward to witnessing what they can achieve in the years ahead.”

    “We were honored to welcome Congresswoman Yvette Clarke to the Cornell Tech campus to discuss how our campus, faculty, students, and staff are creating and fostering technological solutions and advancements that enhance daily life for New Yorkers and beyond. Congresswoman Clarke’s leadership in advancing smart cities, digital equity, and innovation aligns closely with our mission to build a more inclusive, robust, and sustainable tech ecosystem,” said Greg Morrisett, Jack and Rilla Neafsey Dean and Vice Provost of Cornell Tech. “Shaping a future that supports all members of society and drives economic growth requires that policymakers, academia, and the tech and business communities work together. As co-chair of the Smart Cities Caucus, the Congresswoman shares our optimism for the catalyzing and positive role technology will continue to have in the world and we want to be a partner and resource in endeavors to improve communities through innovation and power New York forward.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with two secretive new temples planned for Australia

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Griffin, Casual Lecturer and Tutor in History, Indigenous Studies, and Politics, Flinders University

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will build 15 new temples in countries across the world, including one in Liverpool, New South Wales.

    This follows a similar announcement last year of plans to build a second temple for Queensland, in South Brisbane.

    The two new structures – together with existing temples in Sydney (1984), Adelaide (2000), Melbourne (2000), Perth (2001) and Brisbane (2003) – will bring the total number of Australian temples to seven.

    In a nation with fewer than 160,000 practising Mormons, these new buildings seek to increase the legitimacy and visibility of the church.

    The Melbourne temple was erected in 2000, as was the temple in Adelaide.
    Wikimedia

    The significance of temples

    There are currently at least 200 completed Mormon temples around the globe, with an additional 182 under construction or announced.

    Temples have a different purpose and scope to Mormon chapels, which are far more common: Australia has about 190 Mormon chapels.

    Chapels are used for weekly sacrament (or communion) and weekly sermons. They are open to visitors, and often hold cultural events, extra church activities and family history centres.

    Temples, on the other hand, represent the blending of the divine and temporal. According to the Mormon worldview and doctrines, they are the world’s most sacred structures.

    Each temple is emblazoned with the phrase “The House of the Lord, Holiness to the Lord”. This isn’t just symbolic. Mormons believe each temple is literally the house of God, in which his presence may be felt.

    Given the gravity of this belief, these spaces are reserved for those who have been deemed worthy to enter by Mormon leaders.

    Inside the House of the Lord

    The church itself maintains that temples are “sacred, not secret”. It has long worked to dispel speculation over what happens within temple bounds.

    One way it does this is through “open houses”, in which a newly-built temple may be toured by anyone for a brief period. Once the open house has ended and the temple has been “dedicated” by a church leader – a process that includes blessing the building and those who will use it – it becomes entirely closed to the public.

    Within the temples, the most sacred rituals and knowledge of “the gospel” are imparted upon faithful members. Rituals can be performed for both living people and deceased ancestors. They must never be conducted – or even discussed – outside the sacred temple space.

    One of these rituals is baptism and confirmation for the dead by proxy (baptisms for the living are conducted in chapels or other spaces). This provides the deceased individuals “ordinances” that are necessary for salvation, which they did not receive during life.

    These baptisms have been controversial at times, with ordinances performed on individuals who were not direct ancestors of Latter-day Saints, including Holocaust victims and historical figures such as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Even prominent Australians such as Ned Kelly, Malcolm Fraser, Neville Bonner and Truganini have allegedly appeared as “baptised” in Mormon records.

    Other temple ceremonies, conducted for both the dead and living, include washing and anointing with oil, “endowment” and “sealing”.

    The rituals are accompanied by various stages of knowledge progression for attendees. As with the rituals, temple knowledge is not to be discussed outside.

    Local opposition

    The air of secrecy and exclusivity surrounding Mormon temples has resulted in a flood of negative attention from Australian media, other religious institutions and society at large. News reports from as far back as the early 20th century sought to expose “Mormon temple secrets”.

    The first temple, built in Sydney in 1984, was widely protested by community groups and organisations. The building had to be modified by the church before it was eventually approved. A similar situation transpired in Brisbane in the early 2000s.

    In other cities, such as Adelaide and Melbourne, temples were not directly protested, but were still critiqued for their lavishness, with the average Australian temple costing around A$8 million in the late 1990s/early 2000s.

    Given the cost of living crisis, and contention over the place of religion in contemporary Australia, the two proposed temples will likely also face criticism.

    Reputational management

    The church’s reputation in Australia has become ever more complicated over the past 20 years, not least due to several controversies.

    In 2022 and 2023, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reported the church was allegedly abusing tax laws, to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. This was addressed, but not confirmed or denied, in the November 2022 Senate Estimates by Australian Tax Office Assistant Commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn, after questioning by Greens Senator David Shoebridge. Accusations of tax evasion have also been made in New Zealand and the United States.

    Other controversies relate to LGBTQIA+ discrimination, the church’s influence in Australian and global politics, and allegations resulting from the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse.

    The new Australian temples will be completed under a pall of critiques and accusations around church finances and other controversies. And while they might be briefly open to the public, their doors will just as quickly shut – adding more fuel to the speculation.

    Brenton Griffin was raised as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but is no longer a practising member of the church. His current research is focused on the religion’s place in Australian and New Zealand popular culture, politics, and society from the nineteenth century to present.

    – ref. Why the Mormon church is on an expansion project, with two secretive new temples planned for Australia – https://theconversation.com/why-the-mormon-church-is-on-an-expansion-project-with-two-secretive-new-temples-planned-for-australia-254217

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why is it so hard for everyone to have a house in Australia?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ehsan Noroozinejad, Senior Researcher, Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University

    Bilalnol/Shutterstock

    Home ownership in Australia was once regarded as proof of success in life. However, it remains elusive for many people today.

    Prices have soared beyond wage growth, rents keep rising, and even some well-intentioned government initiatives, including those announced by Labor and the Coalition at their election campaign launches on the weekend, risk driving up demand.

    What’s gone wrong?

    The Grattan Institute says increasing housing supply is essential to maintain price stability over time, but notes we are not making enough progress.

    Australia will miss its goal to build 1.2 million new homes within five years if we stick to the current housing policies and construction practices.

    Why it’s not working

    There is a wide range of reasons why Australia is failing to provide enough housing:

    Fragmented policy approach: A national approach involving all levels of government aligning their policies, rules and regulations is needed.

    Planning bottlenecks: Some projects face years of delay due to local council regulations and zoning requirements. The Productivity Commission has reported Australia’s planning system has excessive barriers to new projects, including medium-density developments.

    Land release delays: State governments are slow to release new land for housing. This is often because of community opposition, political considerations and market dynamics. This results in limited availability, which leads to higher costs for land that can be developed.

    Skills shortages: Recent immigration restrictions have worsened the shortage of skilled tradespeople in the residential construction sector.

    Demand-side subsidies: Government programs, such as first home buyer grants, help some people buy homes. However, they also make housing less affordable because they can result in increased prices.

    What could work without raising prices

    There are various changes that could be made without necessarily raising prices.

    Duplication and logjams could be removed if a national housing strategy was introduced. This should integrate policies and regulations across federal, state and local jurisdictions.

    Federal grants and incentives should be tied to states meeting targets for land release, re-zoning permits and streamlined approvals.

    Using innovative construction technologies can cut construction time by as much as 50%. These include prefabricated and modular building parts, which are made in factories and later assembled at the construction site.

    A government update of land use and zoning permits would make it easier and faster to build medium-density housing near transport and job hubs. This is a quick way to add dwellings without sprawl.

    Governments could also offer tax or planning concessions for developments that lock in affordable rents. This would help create stable, long-term rental options.

    Learning from other countries

    Australia can get ideas for increasing housing supply without raising prices from the experience of other countries.

    Through substantial investments in social housing, Finland has significantly reduced homelessness and created stable housing options for families with limited income.

    Large-scale prefab public housing originated in Singapore decades ago as a method to accelerate construction timelines and reduce expenses. Prefabrication is only used in 8% of projects in Australia at the moment.

    Prefabrication is widely used in building sectors in other countries as a cheaper and faster way of responding to housing shortages.
    brizmaker/Shutterstock

    Sweden has adopted advanced modular construction techniques, which result in 80% of homes being built off-site.

    Germany employs municipal-led housing associations along with rent controls to maintain price stability and tenant protection.

    And in the UK, inclusionary zoning regulations mandate that new developments either contain affordable housing units or contribute to a fund that supports affordable housing in different locations. This helps create diverse housing options in most neighborhoods.

    Election promises versus real change

    Significant reforms are needed – not election sweeteners. To make genuine progress, we need to invest heavily in modern construction techniques, transform housing approval processes and ensure states promptly release essential land.

    The solution requires a coordinated response from federal, state and local governments. This would enable more Australians to obtain homeownership and secure rental options.

    Our politicians must avoid short-term promises during elections because these threaten to return us to the destructive pattern of escalating prices and dissatisfied homebuyers. Long-term policy reform is what we need.

    Dr. Ehsan Noroozinejad has received funding from both national and international organisations to support research addressing housing and climate crises. His most recent funding on integrated housing and climate policy comes from the James Martin Institute for Public Policy (soon to be the Australian Public Policy Institute).

    – ref. Why is it so hard for everyone to have a house in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-hard-for-everyone-to-have-a-house-in-australia-254464

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Would looser lending rules help more people buy a house – or just put them at risk?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Grant, Associate Professor in Finance, University of Sydney

    doublelee/Shutterstock

    Big promises on housing were at the centre of both major parties’ announcements at the official federal election campaign launches on the weekend.

    Among the highlights, Labor pledged to build 100,000 new homes and extend a government-guaranteed 5% deposit scheme to all first home buyers. The Coalition promised to make interest payments on the first A$650,000 of a mortgage tax-deductible for up to five years, for eligible first home buyers purchasing new builds.

    Amid this flurry of policies, it’s important we don’t forget another Coalition promise from earlier this month – lowering the 3% mortgage serviceability “buffer”.

    Promising to help would-be homebuyers without access to the “bank of mum and dad”, the policy aims to make loans easier to get amid high interest rates and house prices. But it has also reignited debate over lending regulation.

    What exactly does this buffer do, and what might we lose by lowering it?

    Protecting banks and borrowers

    Mortgage buffers are a risk management tool, regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

    When banks assess a home loan, they don’t just check if you can repay it at today’s rate. They test whether you could still afford it if interest rates were higher.

    Suppose a borrower in Sydney takes out a mortgage of $780,000 (around the average loan size). At a 6% interest rate, the monthly repayments over 30 years would be about $4,672.

    Under the current serviceability buffer – three percentage points – banks assess whether this prospective borrower could still afford repayments if interest rates rose to 9%, which would increase their monthly repayments to around $6,270.

    This buffer doesn’t increase the price the borrower actually pays. It simply ensures they have the capacity to service higher repayments if conditions worsen.

    The last time mortgage rates were above 9% for an extended period (1996), Peter Dutton was in the Queensland Police Service, the Swans had lost the AFL Grand Final, and Oasis were about to cancel their Australian tour. Could history repeat itself?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    Why lower it?

    APRA increased the serviceability buffer from 2.5% to 3% in late 2021. But at the time, Australia’s cash rate was very low, at just 0.1%. It’s now 4.1%.

    Critics argue the buffer has become too restrictive now that rates are higher, locking out first home buyers and those without parental financial help.

    The buffer can also act as a barrier to refinancing. Those who qualified for a loan when interest rates were low may no longer meet serviceability requirements under higher rates. Research suggests that removing refinancing barriers can reduce loan defaults and support household spending.

    The risks

    There are good reasons for the measures we have to protect borrowers from future shocks.

    Reducing the buffer allows more borrowers to qualify for the same loan. But it also means there’s less built-in protection against future rate rises.

    Research shows the risk of a borrower defaulting on their mortgage increases sharply when their loan-to-value ratio – the amount borrowed divided by the property’s purchase price – is above 75%, or where a borrower is spending two-thirds of their income on the mortgage.

    But buffers also need to be set carefully, ensuring they don’t unnecessarily lock out creditworthy borrowers.

    The mortgage serviceability buffer is designed to protect borrowers from sudden financial shocks.
    doublelee/Shutterstock

    Help for first home buyers?

    When considered together with the Coalition’s additional policies – to allow first home buyers to withdraw up to $50,000 from their superannuation for a home deposit and deduct mortgage payments from their taxable income – the implications become clearer.

    Economic theory suggests that combined, such measures would move more borrowers closer to the margin of affordability.

    Many would likely take on the maximum debt they could qualify for, leaving them highly exposed if economic or interest rate conditions deteriorate.

    And the very borrowers likely to rely on superannuation withdrawals to fund their deposits are also those with limited savings and potentially high loan-to-value ratios. The borrowers most affected by the barrier are therefore among the most vulnerable to repayment stress.

    What about house prices?

    There’s the obvious question of what reducing the barriers to borrowing would do to house prices, without a corresponding increase in supply.

    Research has shown stricter borrower-level constraints are effective in slowing house price growth, especially during periods of rapid credit expansion.

    These policies are most effective when targeted toward high-risk borrower groups such as first home buyers or those with high loan-to-valuation ratios.

    Some economists argue buffers need not be static. Instead, they could be tightened during booms to prevent the housing market overheating, and eased during tougher times to avoid cutting off credit unnecessarily.

    So, should we lower the buffer?

    Serviceability buffers aren’t just bureaucratic hurdles. They are an unseen brake on unsustainable borrowing and a cushion against future shocks.

    Borrower constraints don’t only reduce default risk – research shows they also redistribute credit more efficiently, shifting it away from overheated urban markets and toward lower-risk borrowers.

    The first cut to the cash rate in nearly five years has eased Australian mortgage stress risk in the short term. With renewed borrowing appetite, the role of buffers becomes even more critical.

    Removing them may help more people into homes in the short run, but it comes at the risk of greater pain later.

    Andrew Grant has previously received funding from the Australian Institute of Credit Management and illion (Experian).

    – ref. Would looser lending rules help more people buy a house – or just put them at risk? – https://theconversation.com/would-looser-lending-rules-help-more-people-buy-a-house-or-just-put-them-at-risk-253658

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter McDonald, Honorary Professor of Demography, Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne

    Immigration is shaping as one of the most potent policy issues of the election campaign.

    Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would cut the two major migration programs – permanent and net overseas. He has directly linked the number of people coming into the country to high house prices, which feeds into the election’s hot button issue of cost of living:

    the first and foremost interest in mind is to get young Australians into housing.

    But will cutting immigration help fix the housing crisis? Or is this a smokescreen for other problems with the migration system that are not being addressed by the major parties?

    Fewer permanent migrants

    The Coalition is campaigning on its plans to reduce the Permanent Migration Program, from 185,000 a year to 140,000.

    This is the wrong time to make such a large cut. Permanent migration, more than temporary, is critical for Australia’s economic growth. It also helps offset the ageing of the population.

    For its part, Labor failed to include the permanent migration number in last month’s budget, so we have no idea about its plans if it is re-elected.

    It is best for our economy when the annual migration intake is between 160,000 and 220,000. From the Gillard government until today, the Permanent Migration Program has been set by governments of both shades within that range.

    Th Coalition’s proposed cut is problematic because extreme pressure is building in two visa categories that have close to 100% grant rates: Partners and Children in the Family stream and Employer Sponsored workers in the Skill stream.

    If recent experience is anything to go by, the number of applications lodged by family members of Australian citizens or permanent residents will skyrocket to 110,000 by June 30. It is important to note this category is largely demand-driven. These family members have a right to permanent residence under Section 87 of The Migration Act.

    Demand is also exploding in the visa category that allows employers to address labour shortages, which has a grant rate of over 98%. Almost 100,000 applications are expected in 2024–25. However, only 44,000 places have been allocated. Employers are going to be very unhappy whichever side is elected.

    Given the pent-up demand, the Coalition is avoiding the tricky questions about which parts of the Permanent Program it would cut and by how much. Labor is shirking the issue altogether by not providing any target.

    Dutton’s planned reduction to permanent migration numbers would have only a small impact on housing. In a normal year, 60% of grantees are already living in Australia. They won’t be adding to housing demand, because they are already here.

    The numbers don’t add up

    The other major category, Net Overseas Migration, includes temporary arrivals – mainly skilled workers, working holiday makers and international students. Treasury estimates 260,000 migrants in this category in 2025–26

    Dutton says the Coalition would cut this number by 100,000 people and would do it “straight away, once we get into government”.

    But this number is not achievable, at least not “straight away”. Arrivals can be lowered. But the number of departures will be way too low to reach the target.

    The category has already fallen by 100,000 in each of the past two years. It will continue to decline gradually over the next couple of years, but not nearly as fast as the Coalition target requires.

    The number of departures has been low due to the surge in temporary migrants that followed the COVID border closures. The majority of these people have valid visas until at least 2027–28. Only then, is there likely to be a flow of migrants leaving Australia.

    Dutton should have said a Coalition government would reach this target in its third year, not its first. But this would not have suited the false argument that net overseas migration has a big impact on housing affordability. It’s spurious because net overseas migration largely consists of temporary residents who rarely buy houses. And both major parties have policies banning temporary residents from purchasing established properties.

    New temporary migrants do have an impact on rental demand, but it’s highly localised near universities and along public transport routes. Even this demand is somewhat muted. According to 2021 Census data, a large minority (30–40%) of students and working holiday makers live in specialist accommodation or in very large households.

    Problems beyond the election

    Australia is facing an estimated shortfall of 130,000 housing construction workers. Both sides of politics are taking worthwhile steps to expand the number of apprentices. But the apprenticeship route is slow and likely to fall short of requirements.

    We need more skilled tradies from overseas, but it’s not happening due to obstacles in the migration system. Neither side of politics seems to be looking for creative solutions. Certainly, cutting the Permanent Program is not the answer.

    Another major issue is the difficulty successive governments have had in getting people to leave Australia once all their options to remain have been exhausted.

    As of January 2025, there were 92,000 individuals who had been refused a final Protection Visa, but had not yet departed. This number accumulated under the previous Morrison government and has continued to expand under Labor.

    Policy not politics

    Undue panic over the level of net overseas migration in an election context has made a mess of Australian migration policy.

    This is evidenced by the policy shambles over international education. The major parties both have plans to limit the number of foreign students, but the cap in both cases is not much below pre-COVID enrolments.

    On a more positive note, both sides of politics should be commended for not allowing racism and the “otherness” of migrants to enter the debate.

    But it’s time to drop the fantasy that cutting migration will help young Australians enter the housing market. This a blatant distraction from the real and tangible problems with the migration system that must be dealt with by whoever wins on May 3.

    This is the seventh article in our special series, Australia’s Policy Challenges. You can read the other articles here

    Peter McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and from the Department of Home Affairs (including its predecessors) for studies of migration issues, but not in the past decade.

    – ref. Cutting migrant numbers won’t help housing – the real immigration problems not being tackled this election – https://theconversation.com/cutting-migrant-numbers-wont-help-housing-the-real-immigration-problems-not-being-tackled-this-election-250646

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

    Shutterstock

    As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

    Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

    The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

    While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

    But first, the extent of the problem

    It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

    Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

    Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

    The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

    Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

    When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

    Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

    Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

    Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

    2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

    Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

    During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

    All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

    It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

    However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

    3. Think beyond new supply

    The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

    We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

    4. Aim before shooting

    Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

    Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

    Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

    Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

    The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

    5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

    As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

    For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.



    Read more:
    25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

    Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

    But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

    The elephant in the housing policy room

    At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

    Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

    By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

    Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

    Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

    Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

    – ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here are 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-here-are-5-ideas-253332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI: South Bow Announces Timing of First-quarter 2025 Results, Conference Call and Webcast, and Annual General Meeting

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CALGARY, Alberta, April 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — South Bow Corp. (TSX & NYSE: SOBO) (South Bow or the Company) will release its first-quarter 2025 financial and operational results after the close of markets on May 15, 2025.

    Conference call and webcast details

    South Bow’s senior leadership will host a conference call and webcast to discuss the Company’s first-quarter 2025 results on May 16, 2025 at 8 a.m. MT (10 a.m. ET).

    Register ahead of time to receive a unique PIN to access the conference call via telephone. Once registered, participants can dial into the conference call from their telephone via the unique PIN or click on the “Call Me” option to receive an automated call directly on their telephone.

    Visit www.southbow.com/investors for the replay following the event.

    Annual general meeting details

    As previously announced, South Bow’s annual meeting of shareholders (the Meeting) will be held virtually via live audio webcast on May 15, 2025 at 8 a.m. MT (10 a.m. ET) to enable greater shareholder attendance and participation.

    For full details on how to vote, as well as attend and participate in the Meeting, refer to South Bow’s management information circular and virtual meeting user guide, available on South Bow’s website at www.southbow.com/investors/shareholder-meeting, under South Bow’s SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca, and in South Bow’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at www.sec.gov.

    Copies of South Bow’s audited consolidated financial statements and notes and management’s discussion and analysis as at and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2024 are available electronically on South Bow’s website at www.southbow.com/investors, under South Bow’s SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca, and in South Bow’s filings with the SEC at www.sec.gov. Printed copies of these documents are available, free of charge, upon request by calling 1-844-318-7826 or e-mailing investor.relations@southbow.com.

    Forward-looking information and statements

    This news release contains certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively, forward-looking statements). In particular, this news release contains forward-looking statements, including timing of the release of financial and operational results, the related conference call and webcast and replay, and timing of the Meeting. The forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions that South Bow has made regarding, among other things: market conditions; economic conditions; and prevailing governmental policies or regulatory, tax, and environmental laws and regulations. Although South Bow believes the assumptions and other factors reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date hereof, there can be no assurance that these assumptions and factors will prove to be correct and, as such, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events or results to differ materially, including, but not limited to: the regulatory environment and related decisions and requirements; the impact of competitive entities and pricing; actions taken by governmental or regulatory authorities; adverse general economic and market conditions, and other factors set out in South Bow’s public disclosure documents. The foregoing list of assumptions and risk factors should not be construed as exhaustive. The forward-looking statements contained in this news release speak only as of the date hereof. South Bow does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements or information contained herein, except as required by applicable laws. All forward-looking statements contained in this news release are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

    Contact information                  
         
    Investor Relations
    Martha Wilmot
    investor.relations@southbow.com    		   Media Relations
    Solomiya Lyaskovska
    communications@southbow.com
         

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Five Outstanding Business Leaders Inducted into the Hall of Fame

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    The School of Business inducted five extraordinary business leaders into its Alumni Hall of Fame on Friday night, at a joyful ceremony that included a sold-out crowd of 400 at the Hartford Marriott Downtown.

    The new inductees included:

    • Trisha M. Bailey, Ph.D. ’99, ’23 H, a serial entrepreneur and owner and CEO of Bailey’s Pharmacy & Medical Equipment & Supplies;
    • Laurie A. Havanec ’82, ’94 JD, the retired Executive Vice President and Chief People Officer at CVS Health;
    • John Hodson ’85 President of True Benefit;
    • Gregory P. Lewis ’92 retired Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at Honeywell International; and
    • Robert J. Skinner ’93, Founding Partner & Co-CEO of IEQ Capital.

    Each of the inductees, all alumni who have had remarkable careers and made significant contributions to society, shared their personal stories about their journeys, their passion for helping others and their love of UConn.

    Bailey: UConn Saw the Light in Her When Others Didn’t

    Bailey is a serial entrepreneur who, in addition to running her flagship company, oversees 15 other businesses. She has been named the JP Morgan Chase Woman of the Year. She made the largest single donation in history to UConn Athletics, and is involved in numerous philanthropic endeavors in the U.S. and Jamaica. Bailey, a mother of five, is also the author of the book “UNBROKEN’’ about her life’s journey and her unwavering values of compassion, excellence, and empowerment.

    She told the audience that in 1990 she left behind a life of poverty of Jamaica to relocate to Hartford. A high school counselor had once told her she wasn’t “college material,’’ she recalled. “She doesn’t know what she’s talking about!’’ Bailey remembered thinking that day. The UConn audience cheered at her response. UConn, she said, saw the light in her when others didn’t, and gave her a full scholarship.

    She hopes that her success inspires many other girls and women.

    “Make sure your excellence is so profound it cannot be denied,’’ she said. “I want young girls across the globe to see that this honor is for you. Keep striving. You are amazing!’’

    Havanec Astonished by Today’s UConn Students

    Havanec, who recently retired from CVS Health, oversaw 300,000 employees in her role in talent development and acquisition, compensation and benefits, and diversity, equity and inclusion. She earned her bachelor’s degree in marketing from UConn, and six weeks after the birth of her second child, she returned to earn her JD degree from UConn Law. In 2019, she endowed a need-based scholarship to help other women attend law school. She is a two-time cancer survivor who advocates for early detection and prevention.

    She returned to Storrs last week, for the first time in 20 years, and said the experience was exhilarating. She was impressed by the sophistication, real-life decision-making, and leadership she found in the students. She said the student investors at the School of Business’ Hillside Ventures are exceptional.

    “When they leave UConn, they’ll be amazing sponsors for the university,’’ she said. “I know it is scary leaving college. Be courageous. Go out there and show the world what you have!’’

    Havanec, a passionate UConn basketball fan, also gave a shout-out to the UConn women’s basketball team, just days after they won the national championship. “They overcame so much adversity,’’ she said. “They are role models for all of us!’’

    Hodson Spoke About The Deeper Meaning of Dreams

    Hodson, founded his employee benefits company, True Benefit, to foster inclusivity, ethics, and community engagement. He has worked tirelessly to improve insurance policies for the transgender community. In addition, he has created scholarships for transgender students and has supported UConn’s ‘Name, Image and Likeness’ initiatives.

    In his award acceptance speech, he spoke about a recurring dream that he was on the golf course and something—a tree branch, an octogenarian, or a storm—prevents him from completing his round.

    “I know it was a metaphor for ‘Am I good enough?,’” he said. As his company grew, so did his stress and the pressure to not disappoint his stakeholders. He was in his early 50s when he met his wife, who believed in him and pushed him to the next level. Now he dreams of standing on the fairway and “smoking’’ the shot. He said he wouldn’t be where he is today without help from great friends.

    His message to students is one of compassion. “I think it is a lot harder to be a student today than it was when I was growing up,’’ he said. “Just be yourself, be kind to yourself, and don’t do it alone. Lean on others and you’ll be OK.’’

    Lewis: Push Past Fear; Don’t Lose Your Humanity

    Lewis has worked for Honeywell, a Fortune 100 company, since 2006. Most recently he was the Senior Vice President and CFO, providing leadership through corporate headquarter relocation, COVID-19, and economic and geo-political shifts. In February, he stepped down as CFO and became a special advisor to the CEO as the company separates into three.

    He praised his parents for showing him the pathway to success, teaching him care and compassion, and to strive to be the best every day. He told students and young alumni that he owes his success to doing hard things and doing them well; demonstrating leadership; and always caring about others.

    “Push past fear and uncertainty, say yes a lot, and don’t lose your humanity,’’ he said. “No one succeeds alone. Don’t live with regret. Struggle and failure is a step toward growth.’’

    Lewis, who met his wife Barbara (Reynolds ’89) at UConn, and raised two daughters together, spoke of his love for his family and the 40 people there to support him. He is active in community organizations including serving as the Chair of the Charlotte (NC) Small Business Innovation Fund, as a member of an organization fighting homelessness, and on the Board of Medtronic.

    Skinner: Play for the Name on the Front of the Jersey

    Skinner’s company, IEQ Capital, merges intellectual and emotional factors in investing. He has been named one of America’s top wealth advisors by Forbes. He is active in the board of several golf charities including PGA REACH, the foundation associated with PGA of America.

    Planning to become a lawyer, Skinner instead found himself in the business world and wanted to build a company.

    “UConn is my family. I have great memories and great friendships from those years,’’ he said. “At UConn I found myself. I developed the grit, excellence, and the belief that I can do something really big.’’

    In accepting his award, he told the audience to “play for the name on the front of the jersey, not the name on the back.’’

    He praised former UConn men’s basketball head coach Jim Calhoun, who was in attendance with current coach Dan Hurley and assistant coach Luke Murray, whom he met his freshman year. “He got my fire burning, got me to believe in winning and doing things that others don’t think you can,’’ he said. “I’m beyond grateful for the recognition. Every day I think about being a Husky!’’

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Ong ViforJ, John Curtin Distinguished Professor & ARC Future Fellow, Curtin University

    Shutterstock

    As the election campaign rolls on, housing has been, unsurprisingly, a major campaign focus. We’ve seen a series of housing policy announcements from across the political spectrum, including duelling announcements from the major parties in recent days.

    Labor will expand access to their Help to Buy and Home Gurantee schemes by either raising or removing income limits and price caps.

    The Liberals will allow first homebuyers to access their super for housing and deduct mortgage repayments from their income tax, while lowering the mortgage serviceability buffer.

    While the politicians make big promises, it’s worth thinking about what evidence shows would actually make a meaningful difference. We have five ideas.

    But first, the extent of the problem

    It’s old news that we have a significant housing affordability problem in Australia.

    Between 2004 and 2024, the national dwelling price to income ratio climbed rapidly from five to eight, hitting ten in Sydney.

    Advertised rents have climbed by more than 20% since the start of COVID.

    The public housing waitlist is around 170,000 households, and the number of homeless persons rose from 95,000 to 122,000 in the two decades to 2021.

    Policies of the past decade have not worked, and in some cases they’ve made it worse. So what would help?



    Read more:
    Labor and Coalition support for new home buyers welcome but other Australians also struggling with housing affordability

    1. It’s a cluster problem that needs a cluster solution

    When we talk of the affordability crisis, what we’re really talking about is a complicated cluster of interrelated problems that make housing unaffordable to buy, build and rent.

    Unaffordable housing comes from the interaction between the global economy, interest rates, inefficiencies in our construction and planning systems, as well as the outcomes of poor government policies. We should be wary of hitching our wagon to any of these alone.

    Reform of the planning system, for example, is held up by some as the simple solution. While the planning system needs to be improved, it does not make up the entirety of the housing production pipeline – and it’s definitely not a magical solution.

    Equal attention needs to be given to workforce shortages, productivity concerns in the construction industry, development financial risk and developer behaviour. These are all arguably as important as planning in delivering new supply.

    2. It’s not about supply versus demand. It’s both

    Many major housing policy announcements are either supply-focused or demand-focused. What Australia needs are coherent and integrated policy packages addressing both sides of the problem at the same time.

    During this election campaign, both major parties have made a series of demand-boosting policy announcements in rapid succession, designed to put more cash into the hands of first homebuyers.

    All these measures will further fuel increases in house prices at a pace that income growth cannot match.

    It is true both parties have proposed supply measures, such as Labor’s plan to build 100,000 new homes exclusively for first homebuyers.

    However, supply lags mean these houses will not be delivered in time to offset any rise in demand (and price) from the expansion of the demand-boosting schemes.

    3. Think beyond new supply

    The shortfall of dwellings in Australia is certainly a problem, but even an ambitious construction target is likely to add only about 2% to our existing stock each year.

    We need to look to the homes already built and how they can better meet demand. This might include measures to promote granny flats, or enable additional subdivision.

    4. Aim before shooting

    Too many housing programs are poorly targeted. We need to zero in on those in housing need. We shouldn’t be providing assistance to those who don’t need it.

    Policymakers need to confront the targeting errors that afflict their proposed plans.

    Currently, 11% of aspiring first homebuyers are able to meet deposit and repayment requirements to purchase a home.

    Labor’s plan to lift the income limits and caps on available places will open up the scheme to many homebuyers who don’t need government-funded assistance for a home purchase.

    The Liberals’ super for housing plan will also benefit higher-income and older groups.

    5. Design policies through an intergenerational lens

    As we live longer, policymakers must embrace the challenge of meeting the housing needs of multiple generations. This co-existence in society is the new normal.

    For instance, economists have consistently called for the abolition of stamp duties in home purchases, favouring instead a broad-based land tax. This removes a major upfront sum that would otherwise be paid by both young people looking to buy their first home and older “empty nesters” looking to downsize.



    Read more:
    25 years into a new century and housing is less affordable than ever

    Stamp duty is a major revenue source for state and territory governments. This reform needs Australian government financial support as we move to a more affordable future. Australia’s reliance on stamp duty is second only to South Korea among OECD countries.

    But even if stamp duties are not abolished, we could better use this revenue to meet housing needs, including building additional social housing, bolstering homelessness services and constructing new housing infrastructure.

    The elephant in the housing policy room

    At the end of the day, it’s worth remembering that housing isn’t all about supply, buildings, investment and construction. Our housing is also where we live, sleep and grow old.

    Our population aren’t just passive players in the housing system, they actively shape it, in their choices to buy housing, to rent, seek out major cities and renovate.

    By demonstrating, de-risking, and promoting a broader range of housing options (such as making rental an attractive lifetime tenure, expanding shared equity options, or championing advances in modular and prefabricated construction), governments can shape demand towards more affordable homes.

    Rachel Ong ViforJ is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project FT200100422). She also receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

    Andrew Beer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the City of Lithgow.

    Emma Baker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).

    – ref. Amid the election promises, what would actually help ‘fix’ the housing crisis? Here’s 5 ideas – https://theconversation.com/amid-the-election-promises-what-would-actually-help-fix-the-housing-crisis-heres-5-ideas-253332

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cortez Masto, Local Advocates Push for Tax Cuts for Working Nevadans, Not Billionaires

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Nevada Cortez Masto

     ***VIDEO AVAILABLE***

    Video download is available here.

    Las Vegas, Nev. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) hosted a press conference alongside representatives from For Our Future Nevada, the Children’s Advocacy Alliance, and New Day Nevada to highlight her legislation to cut taxes for everyday American families. As Republicans’ economic agenda continues to raise prices on working people, the Senator shared an alternative in her Tax Cuts for Workers Act and American Family Act. Earlier this week, Senators Cortez Masto and Bennet (D-Colo.) introduced these bills as part of Senate Democrats’ comprehensive plan to bring relief to the American people.

    “Working Nevadans need expanded tax relief – not Republicans’ cost raising agenda – to ensure they can keep providing for their families,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “In Congress, Republicans are working to lower taxes for billionaires at the expense of everyone else. On the other hand, what Democrats are proposing is simple: if government is going to be cutting taxes for anyone, then it should be for the hardworking families who would benefit the most.”

    The existing Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – the Worker Tax Cut – has been delivering tax relief for millions of workers for decades. But it’s just not enough, and Cortez Masto is determined to give more working Americans a break. The Tax Cuts for Workers Act would cut taxes for working class Americans without children, who currently receive a much smaller EITC than workers with children. This expansion would include over 136,000 Nevadans by nearly tripling the average tax break many of these Americans receive from the existing EITC. It also extends eligibility for the tax cut to workers under the age of 25 and over the age of 64.

    The 2021 expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) in the American Rescue Plan Act led to a historic reduction in poverty in the United States, particularly for children. Research showed that child poverty fell immediately and substantially to 5.2%, its lowest level on record. The American Family Act would increase the value of the CTC from the current level of $2,000 per child to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one through six, and $3,600 for children age six through 17; end the longstanding policy that reduces the value of the CTC for low-income families; provide for monthly delivery of the credit so families have access to the credit as bills arrive; and index the CTC for inflation to preserve the value of the credit moving forward.

    Senator Cortez Masto has consistently supported efforts to cut taxes and lower costs for hardworking Nevadans. She helped pass critical expansions to the Child Tax Credit in the American Rescue plan, and has been fighting to permanently increase this vital relief for working families. Cortez Masto also helped introduce the No Tax on Tips Act to exempt tipped wages from federal income tax. Additionally, Senator Cortez Masto supports raising the federal minimum wage and eliminating the minimum wage gap for tipped workers nationally. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reps. Carter, Fields, Letlow, Ezell Introduce Flood Insurance Bill to Provide Stability to Property Owners and the Real Estate Market

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Troy A. Carter Sr. (LA-02)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr. (D-LA), Congressman Cleo Fields (D-LA), Congresswoman Julia Letlow (R-LA), and Congressman Mike Ezell (R-MS) have introduced the bipartisan National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Authorization Extension Act which will extend the federal authorization for the NFIP. The bill would extend the program through December 31, 2026, significantly longer than the typical short-term extensions passed by Congress.

     

    “I am proud to introduce this bill to provide the long-overdue stability our communities deserve,” said Rep. Carter. “For too long, homeowners, small businesses, and local economies have lived under the cloud of short-term NFIP extensions, often attached to contentious government funding bills. This clean, multi-year reauthorization brings much-needed certainty to policyholders and ensures uninterrupted access to flood insurance across the country. As flooding becomes more frequent and severe, we must protect families and businesses by keeping this program operating while we work to deliver lasting, comprehensive reforms to strengthen and modernize the program.”

     

    “Passing the NFIP Authorization Extension Act is essential to protecting hardworking people across Louisiana. Given our state’s history with extreme weather events, we must ensure that flood insurance remains accessible to all. My colleagues in both the House and Senate will continue to fight for those most affected by flooding throughout the state and across the country,” said Rep. Fields.

     

    “Given the frequent storms and flooding our state endures, I’m a strong advocate for renewing the National Flood Insurance Program and making sure it serves those who depend on it. For many Louisianans, flood insurance is not just a policy—it’s a lifeline. I’m committed to working with my colleagues to strengthen this vital program and ensure our communities get the support they need when disaster strikes,” said Rep. Letlow.

     

    “For far too long, families, businesses, and entire communities along our coast have lived with the uncertainty caused by short-term extensions of the National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP Authorization Extension Act delivers the stability South Mississippians need and deserve as they continue to face the devastating effects of flooding and natural disasters. By extending the program through the end of 2026, we’re sending a clear message: we are committed to protecting our coastal communities, giving them the tools to recover and rebuild, and working in a bipartisan way to strengthen and modernize the program for the future,” said Rep. Ezell.

     

    The Senate companion NFIP Authorization Extension Act was introduced by Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) and John Kennedy (R-LA) in March 2025. Congressmembers Marc Veasey (D-TX), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), and LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) are original cosponsors of the House legislation.

     

    “Rather than experiencing a 33rd short-term extension, NFIP policyholders deserve certainty, and NFIP as a program requires stability. A two-year reauthorization will provide a runway for Congress and stakeholders to hold conversations and hearings around catastrophic insurance and towards highly-demanded comprehensive NFIP reform, like a means-tested benefit for affordability, a third-party review of the Risk Rating 2.0 methodology, and proper incentivization of flood risk mitigation,” said GNO, Inc. President Michael Hecht.

     

    “Extending the National Flood Insurance Program would ensure continuous operations and greater stability for policyholders until a long-term reauthorization is enacted into law – a valuable source of certainty for counties and our residents,” said National Association of Counties Executive Director Matthew Chase. “Counties thank Representatives Carter, Fields, Letlow, and Ezell for their leadership, and we look forward to working with our bipartisan congressional partners to secure passage of this legislation.”

     

    Background

     

    The NFIP is a federal program managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that provides flood insurance to homeowners and businesses, aiming to reduce the financial impact of flooding. The program is vital for Louisiana, a state with extensive low-lying areas and frequent exposure to hurricanes and heavy rainfall. The NFIP helps protect residents from devastating financial losses due to flood damage, encourages responsible development in flood-prone areas, and supports rebuilding efforts after disasters—making it a critical safety net for Louisiana’s communities.

     

    Over the last decade, Congress has passed 33 short-term NFIP authorization extensions, which have been attached to contentious government funding bills. Had Congress not been able to pass a government funding bill, not only would the government shut down, but the NFIP program’s authorization would have also lapsed. A lapse in the program’s authorization means new policies could not be issued, existing policies could not be renewed, and real estate transactions in flood-prone areas may stall, leaving homeowners and businesses vulnerable.

     

    A lapse in authorization also delays claims payments, increases reliance on taxpayer-funded disaster aid, and creates market instability. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), a lapse of NFIP could impact 1,360 home sale closings daily, translating to approximately 41,300 affected monthly transactions nationwide. By extending the program through December 31, 2026, this legislation ensures that Americans are not left in limbo and gives Congress the necessary time to work toward bipartisan solutions that strengthen and modernize the program.

     

    Flooding is the most common and costly natural disaster in the United States, affecting communities in every state. The NFIP is a lifeline for over five million policyholders, helping them recover and rebuild after disasters.

     

    Full bill text can be found here.

     

    ###

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: PHOTOS: Capito Tours Recovery Efforts in Welch

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito

    WELCH, W.Va. – Today, U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) traveled to Welch, W.Va. where she made several stops in the area focused on ongoing flood recovery and infrastructure upgrades.

    During the visit to Welch, Senator Capito met with Welch Mayor Harold McBride to discuss a number of topics, including a bridge infrastructure project. Next, Senator Capito traveled to the McDowell County 911 Center and Sheriff’s Office to discuss damage caused by the recent storms and ongoing recovery efforts. The visit concluded at the Welch Armory where Senator Capito met with local officials and agencies where they discussed recovery efforts that are already underway, as well as the community’s infrastructure needs.

    “The recent flooding in southern West Virginia was devastating, and it continues to impact the way businesses and the local economy function today,” Senator Capito said. “I am grateful to Mayor McBride and other local leaders in Welch for the opportunity to tour recovery efforts and discuss with them directly the needs they have. While we’ve made progress in rebuilding efforts, we still have more work to do, and I am committed to doing what I can to help in this effort.”

    BACKGROUND:

    Following the storms, Senator Capito led the West Virginia Delegation in sending a letter to the Trump administration in support of the state’s request for a major disaster declaration. Full text of the letter can be found here.

    On February 26, President Trump approved Individual Assistance (IA) in McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, and Wyoming counties. The IA Program provides funds to individuals experiencing significant damage to homes or property. The deadline to apply for these funds is April 28.

    On March 19, President Trump approved Public Assistance (PA) in Greenbrier, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Summers, Wayne, and Wyoming counties. On April 1, the president’s Major Disaster Declaration was amended to include PA for Boone and Raleigh counties, as well as IA for Raleigh County. The PA provides supplemental grants to state and local governments and certain private non-profits to cover their costs for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and infrastructure restoration. The deadline to apply for these funds for Greenbrier, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Summers, Wayne, and Wyoming counties is April 18, while the deadline for Raleigh and Boone counties is May 1.

    Photos from today’s visit are below:

    U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) meets with local leaders in Welch, W.Va. on Monday, April 14, 2025.

    U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) tours recovery efforts with Mayor Harold McBride in Welch, W.Va. on Monday, April 14, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: PrairieSky Announces First Quarter 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CALGARY, Alberta, April 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PrairieSky Royalty Ltd. (“PrairieSky” or the “Company”) (TSX: PSK) is pleased to announce its first quarter operating and financial results for the period ended March 31, 2025.

    First Quarter Highlights:

    • Oil royalty production volumes averaged a record 13,502 barrels per day, a 3% increase over Q1 2024(1). Total royalty production averaged 25,339 BOE per day, a 3% decrease from Q1 2024 due to declines in natural gas and NGL production.
    • Royalty production revenue of $119.9 million combined with other revenue of $8.2 million to generate total revenues of $128.1 million for Q1 2025(1). Other revenue included bonus consideration of $5.0 million earned on entering into 52 new leasing arrangements focused on Duvernay light oil and Mannville light and heavy oil targets.
    • Funds from operations totaled $85.8 million or $0.36 per share, an increase of 3% over Q1 2024 primarily due to increased oil royalty revenue with higher oil royalty production volumes combined with narrowed oil price differentials.
    • Declared a first quarter dividend of $61.2 million ($0.26 per common share), representing a payout ratio of 71%.
    • Purchased and cancelled 3,415,900 common shares under the Company’s normal course issuer bid (“NCIB”) for $90.0 million.
    • Completed acquisitions of both producing and non-producing royalty interests for $63.6 million, including the previously announced $50.0 million acquisition, before customary closing adjustments, of fee lands, lessor interests and gross overriding royalty interests in Central Alberta and Southeast Saskatchewan, as well as incremental royalty interests in the Duvernay, Clearwater and Mannville.
    • Net debt totaled $258.8 million as at March 31, 2025.
    		  


    President’s Message

    It was a busy first quarter across PrairieSky’s royalty properties with 200 wells spud on PrairieSky’s royalty acreage at an average royalty rate of 6.9%, an increase from 174 wells spud in Q1 2024 at an average royalty rate of 6.0%. In addition to robust activity in the Mannville heavy oil play with 39 wells spud, there were 20 wells spud in the Clearwater, 15 wells spud in the Duvernay light oil play, 8 wells spud in the liquids-rich Montney, and an incremental 118 oil and natural gas wells spud elsewhere across the basin.

    PrairieSky earned $119.9 in royalty revenues, 93% liquids, from total royalty production volumes of 25,339 BOE per day in Q1 2025, 3% lower than Q1 2024. Oil royalty revenue totaled $101.1 million, a 10% increase over Q1 2024, and was generated from record oil royalty production of 13,502 barrels per day, an increase of 3% over Q1 2024. Oil royalty production volumes were positively impacted by continued activity in the Clearwater, Mannville and Duvernay and the addition of 177 barrels per day of production from the previously announced royalty acquisition that closed on January 10, 2025. Natural gas royalty production added 55.9 MMcf per day, a decrease of 10% from Q1 2024, and included an estimate of 1.1 MMcf per day of downtime related to cold weather in the quarter. Natural gas royalty production added $8.7 million of royalty revenue with continued weak natural gas benchmark pricing with daily AECO index pricing averaging $2.16 per Mcf, a decrease of 14% from Q1 2024. NGL royalty production averaged 2,520 barrels per day, a slight decrease of 1% from Q1 2024. NGL royalty production generated total NGL royalty revenue of $10.1 million in the quarter.

    Other revenue totaled $8.2 million in Q1 2025 and included $5.0 million in bonus consideration from entering into 52 new leases with 39 separate counterparties. In addition to active leasing in the quarter, PrairieSky acquired incremental producing and non-producing royalty interests focused on heavy and light oil plays in Central Alberta and Saskatchewan for $63.6 million. Acquisitions included the previously announced purchase of fee lands, lessor interests and gross overriding royalty interests for cash consideration of $50.0 million, before customary closing adjustments, which closed on January 10, 2025.

    Funds from operations totaled $85.8 million ($0.36 per share) in the quarter. PrairieSky declared a dividend of $0.26 per share or $61.2 million in the quarter with a resulting payout ratio of 71%. Excess funds from operations were allocated to acquisitions, including the purchase and cancellation of common shares under PrairieSky’s NCIB. Under the NCIB, PrairieSky purchased 3,415,900 common shares at a weighted average price of $26.36 per share for $90.0 million, including commissions and before income tax of $1.8 million. The NCIB is a key component of our capital allocation strategy and the recent share repurchase represents a high-quality acquisition of 1.4% more of the business, equivalent to purchasing approximately 259,000 acres of royalty lands. Repurchased common shares were cancelled prior to PrairieSky’s March 31, 2025 dividend record date. Share repurchases were funded using PrairieSky’s credit facility, which PrairieSky expects to pay down using excess cash flow above its quarterly dividend over time. At March 31, 2025, PrairieSky maintained a strong balance sheet with net debt of $258.8 million.

    We will be holding our 2025 investor day and releasing our updated Royalty Playbook on May 14, 2025 which will highlight the unique attributes of our long-duration, high margin business model. The investor day will be broadcast via webcast for interested parties. Thank you to our staff for their hard work and our shareholders for their continued support.

    Andrew Phillips, President & CEO

    ACTIVITY ON PRAIRIESKY’S ROYALTY PROPERTIES

    Third-party operators spud 200 wells in Q1 2025 (Q1 2024 – 174 wells) comprised of 108 wells on gross overriding royalty acreage, 81 wells on fee lands, and 11 unit wells. There were a total of 186 oil wells (93% of wells) spud during the quarter which included 53 Mannville light and heavy oil wells, 38 Viking wells, 20 Clearwater wells, 17 Mississippian wells, 15 Duvernay wells and 43 additional oil wells across Alberta and Saskatchewan and including 11 Lindbergh and 6 Onion Lake thermal oil wells which are expected to come on production in 2026. There were 14 natural gas wells spud in Q1 2025 including 8 Montney wells as well as additional gas wells in the Mannville, Spirit River and Duvernay formations. PrairieSky’s average royalty rate for wells spud in Q1 2025 was 6.9% (Q1 2024 – 6.0%).

    NORMAL COURSE ISSUER BID

    PrairieSky will apply to the Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”) to extend its NCIB for an additional one-year period. The renewal of the NCIB has been approved by the Company’s board of directors; however, the NCIB, including the limit of purchases thereunder, will be subject to acceptance by the TSX and, if accepted, will be made in accordance with the applicable rules and policies of the TSX and applicable securities laws. Under the NCIB, common shares may be repurchased in open market transactions on the TSX, and/or other Canadian exchanges or alternative trading systems. The price that PrairieSky will pay for common shares in open market transactions will be the market price at the time of purchase. Common shares acquired under the NCIB will be cancelled. If approved, the NCIB is expected to commence shortly after regulatory approvals are obtained and after expiry of the current program on June 3, 2025.

    PrairieSky believes renewing the NCIB as part of its capital management strategy is in the best interests of the Company and represents an attractive opportunity to use cash resources to reduce PrairieSky’s share count over time and thereby enhance the value of the common shares held by remaining shareholders. Decisions regarding increases to the NCIB will be based on market conditions, share price, best use of funds from operations, and other factors including debt repayment and options to expand our portfolio of royalty assets.

    2025 INVESTOR DAY

    PrairieSky will be hosting an investor day on May 14, 2025, in Calgary, Alberta, where members of PrairieSky’s management team will present details on the Company’s oil and natural gas plays. The investor day will be webcast starting at 9:30 a.m. MDT (11:30 a.m. EDT). Interested parties may participate in the webcast which will be available through PrairieSky’s investor center at www.prairiesky.com. The webcast will be archived and accessible for replay after the event.

    NOTES AND REFERENCES

    (1)    In this press release, the financial reporting periods are referred to as follows: “Q1 2025” or “the quarter” refers to the three months ended March 31, 2025; “Q1 2024” refers to the three months ended March 31, 2024.

    Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, terms used in this press release but not defined above are as defined in in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2024 which is available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com and PrairieSky’s website at www.prairiesky.com.

    FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL INFORMATION

    The following table summarizes select operational and financial information of the Company for the periods noted. All dollar amounts are stated in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted.

    A full version of PrairieSky’s management’s discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) and unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2025 are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com and PrairieSky’s website at www.prairiesky.com.

        Three months ended
        March 31 December 31 March 31
    ($ millions, except $ per share or as otherwise noted)   2025 2024 2024
    FINANCIAL        
    Royalty production revenue     119.9     115.6     113.2  
    Other revenue     8.2     20.0     7.5  
    Revenues     128.1     135.6     120.7  
             
    Funds from operations     85.8     99.0     83.0  
    Per share – basic and diluted(1)     0.36     0.41     0.35  
             
    Net earnings     58.4     60.2     47.5  
    Per share – basic and diluted(1)     0.25     0.25     0.20  
             
    Dividends declared(2)     61.2     59.9     59.7  
    Per share     0.26     0.25     0.25  
             
    Dividend payout ratio(3)   71 % 61 % 72 %
             
    Acquisitions – including non-cash consideration(4)     63.6     31.5     8.8  
    Net debt(5)     258.8     134.9     208.3  
    Common share repurchases, inclusive of all costs     91.8     –     –  
             
    Shares outstanding (millions)        
    Shares outstanding at period end     235.5     239.0     239.0  
    Weighted average – basic and diluted     238.3     239.0     239.0  
             
    OPERATIONAL        
    Royalty production volumes        
    Crude oil (bbls/d)     13,502     13,317     13,142  
    NGL (bbls/d)     2,520     2,482     2,535  
    Natural gas (MMcf/d)     55.9     55.1     62.1  
    Royalty Production (BOE/d)(6)     25,339     24,982     26,027  
             
    Realized pricing        
    Crude oil ($/bbl)     83.16     81.66     77.18  
    NGL ($/bbl)     44.51     40.68     44.18  
    Natural gas ($/Mcf)     1.73     1.23     1.89  
    Total ($/BOE)(6)     52.58     50.30     47.79  
             
    Operating netback per BOE ($)(7)     42.85     45.86     39.60  
             
    Funds from operations per BOE ($)     37.62     43.07     35.04  
             
    Oil price benchmarks        
    West Texas Intermediate (WTI) (US$/bbl)     71.39     70.27     76.95  
    Edmonton light sweet ($/bbl)     95.20     94.90     92.18  
    Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude oil differential to WTI (US$/bbl)     (12.67 )   (12.55 )   (19.33 )
             
    Natural gas price benchmarks        
    AECO Monthly Index ($/Mcf)     2.02     1.46     2.05  
    AECO Daily Index ($/Mcf)     2.16     1.48     2.50  
             
    Foreign exchange rate (US$/CAD$)     0.6976     0.7147     0.7411  

    (1)    Funds from operations and net earnings per share are calculated using the weighted average number of basic and diluted common shares outstanding.
    (2)    A dividend of $0.26 per share was declared on March 10, 2025. The dividend will be paid on April 15, 2025 to shareholders of record as at March 31, 2025.
    (3)    Dividend payout ratio is defined under the “Non-GAAP Measures and Ratios” section of this press release.
    (4)    Excluding right-of-use asset additions.
    (5)    See Note 13 “Capital Management” in the interim condensed consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024 and Note 16 “Capital Management” in the annual audited consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023.
    (6)    See “Conversions of Natural Gas to BOE”.
    (7)    Operating netback per BOE is defined under the “Non-GAAP Measures and Ratios” section of this press release.

    CONFERENCE CALL DETAILS

    A conference call to discuss the results will be held for the investment community on Tuesday, April 15, 2025, beginning at 6:30 a.m. MST (8:30 a.m. EST). To participate in the conference call, you are asked to register at one of the links provided below. Details regarding the call will be provided to you upon registration.

    Live call participant registration
    URL:  https://register-conf.media-server.com/register/BIadb5efe7e21145bda3895f295f81b293

    Live webcast participant registration (listen in only)
    URL:  https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/be75c3go

    FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

    This press release includes certain forward-looking information and forward-looking statements (collectively, “forward-looking statements”) which may include, but are not limited to PrairieSky’s future plans, current expectations and views of future operations and contains forward-looking statements that the Company believes allow readers to better understand the Company’s business and prospects. All statements other than statements of historical fact may be forward-looking statements. The use of any of the words “expect”, “expected to”, “anticipate”, “continue”, “estimate”, “objective”, “ongoing”, “may”, “will”, “project”, “should”, “could”, “likely”, “believe”, “plans”, “intends”, “strategy” and similar expressions (including negative variations) are intended to identify forward-looking information or statements. Forward-looking statements contained in this press release include, but are not limited to, estimates regarding the impact of cold weather downtime on natural gas royalty production volumes, our expectations with respect to PrairieSky’s business and growth strategy and trajectory, including the benefits of the Company’s strategy of investing in low-cost oil plays, expectation that the 11 Lindbergh and 6 Onion Lake thermal oil wells spud in Q1 2025 will come on production in 2026 and the application of PrairieSky to renew the NCIB, the timing of when the NCIB will commence, the limit thereunder, and PrairieSky’s belief that repurchasing such common shares under the NCIB is a good allocation of PrairieSky’s capital resources and will enhance the value of the common shares held by remaining shareholders, and other statements.

    With respect to forward-looking statements contained in this press release, PrairieSky has made several assumptions including those described in detail in our MD&A and the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2024. Readers and investors are cautioned that the assumptions used in the preparation of such forward-looking statements, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be imprecise and, as such, undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking statements. PrairieSky’s actual results, performance, or achievements could differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, these forward-looking statements. PrairieSky can give no assurance that any of the events anticipated will transpire or occur, or if any of them do, what benefits the Company will derive from them.

    By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, some of which are beyond PrairieSky’s control, including but not limited to the impact of general economic conditions including inflation, industry conditions, volatility of commodity prices, lack of pipeline capacity, currency fluctuations, increasing interest rates, imprecision of reserve estimates, competitive factors impacting royalty rates, environmental risks, taxation, regulation, changes in tax or other legislation, competition from other industry participants, the lack of availability of qualified personnel or management, stock market volatility, political and geopolitical instability, the risks and impacts of tariffs imposed between Canada and the United States (and other countries) or other restrictive trade measures, retaliatory or countermeasures implemented by such governments affecting trade between Canada and the United States (and other countries), including the potential introduction of regulatory barriers to trade and the effect on the demand and/or market price for commodities, and the Company’s ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources. In addition, PrairieSky is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties in relation to acquisitions. These risks and uncertainties include risks relating to the potential for disputes to arise with counterparties, and limited ability to recover indemnification under certain agreements. The foregoing and other risks, uncertainties and assumptions are described in more detail in PrairieSky’s MD&A and the Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2024 under the headings “Risk Management” and “Risk Factors”, respectively, each of which is available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com and PrairieSky’s website at www.prairiesky.com.

    Further, any forward-looking statement is made only as of the date of this press release, and PrairieSky undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement or statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by applicable securities laws. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for PrairieSky to predict all of these factors or to assess, in advance, the impact of each such factor on PrairieSky’s business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

    CONVERSIONS OF NATURAL GAS TO BOE

    To provide a single unit of production for analytical purposes, natural gas production and reserves volumes are converted mathematically to equivalent barrels of oil (BOE). PrairieSky uses the industry-accepted standard conversion of six thousand cubic feet of natural gas to one barrel of oil (6 Mcf = 1 bbl). The 6:1 BOE ratio is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip. It does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead and is not based on either energy content or current prices. While the BOE ratio is useful for comparative measures and observing trends, it does not accurately reflect individual product values and might be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. As well, given that the value ratio, based on the current price of crude oil to natural gas, is significantly different from the 6:1 energy equivalency ratio, using a 6:1 conversion ratio may be misleading as an indication of value.

    NON-GAAP MEASURES AND RATIOS

    Certain measures and ratios in this press release do not have any standardized meaning as prescribed by IFRS and, therefore, are considered non-GAAP measures and ratios. These measures and ratios may not be comparable to similar measures and ratios presented by other issuers. These measures and ratios are commonly used in the oil and natural gas industry and by PrairieSky to provide potential investors with additional information regarding the Company’s liquidity and its ability to generate funds to conduct its business. Non-GAAP measures and ratios include operating netback per BOE and dividend payout ratio. Management’s use of these measures and ratios is discussed further below. Further information can be found in the Non-GAAP Measures and Ratios section of PrairieSky’s MD&A for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024.

    “Operating netback per BOE” represents the cash margin for products sold on a BOE basis. Operating netback per BOE is calculated by dividing the operating netback (royalty production revenue less production and mineral taxes and cash administrative expenses) by the average daily production volumes for the period. Operating netback per BOE is used to assess the cash generating and operating performance per unit of product sold and the comparability of the underlying performance between years. Operating netback per BOE measures are commonly used in the oil and natural gas industry to assess performance comparability. Refer to the Operating Results table on page 6 of PrairieSky’s MD&A for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024 and page 7 of PrairieSky’s MD&A for the year ended December 31, 2024.

        Three months ended
        March 31 December 31 March 31
    ($ millions)   2025 2024 2024
    Cash from operating activities     90.7     91.3     79.7  
    Other revenue     (8.2 )   (20.0 )   (7.5 )
    Other revenue – non-cash     –     8.2     –  
    Amortization of debt issuance costs     (0.1 )   (0.2 )   (0.1 )
    Finance expense     2.9     2.3     3.7  
    Current tax expense     17.3     16.2     14.7  
    Interest on lease obligation     –     (0.1 )   –  
    Net change in non-cash working capital     (4.9 )   7.7     3.3  
    Operating netback     97.7     105.4     93.8  

    “Operating Margin” represents operating netback as a percentage of royalty production revenue. Management uses this measure to demonstrate the comparability between the Company and production and exploration companies in the oil and natural gas industry as it shows net revenue generation from operations.

        Three months ended
        March 31 December 31 March 31
    ($ millions)   2025 2024 2024
    Royalty production revenue   119.9     115.6     113.2  
    Operating netback   97.7     105.4     93.8  
    Operating margin   81 % 91 % 83 %

    “Dividend payout ratio” is calculated as dividends declared as a percentage of funds from operations. Payout ratio is used by dividend paying companies to assess dividend levels in relation to the funds generated and used in operating activities.

        Three months ended
        March 31 December 31 March 31
    ($ millions, except otherwise noted)   2025 2024 2024
    Funds from operations     85.8     99.0     83.0  
    Dividends declared     61.2     59.9     59.7  
    Dividend payout ratio   71 % 61 % 72 %


    ABOUT PRAIRIESKY ROYALTY LTD.

    PrairieSky is a royalty company, generating royalty production revenues as oil and natural gas are produced from its properties. PrairieSky has a diverse portfolio of properties that have a long history of generating funds from operations and that represent the largest and most consolidated independently-owned fee simple mineral title position in Canada. PrairieSky’s common shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol PSK.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

    Andrew M. Phillips
    President & Chief Executive Officer
    PrairieSky Royalty Ltd.
    (587) 293-4005 

    Michael T. Murphy
    Vice-President, Geosciences & Capital Markets
    PrairieSky Royalty Ltd.
    (587) 293-4056 

    Investor Relations
    (587) 293-4000
    www.prairiesky.com

    		 Pamela P. Kazeil
    Senior Vice-President, Finance & Chief Financial Officer
    PrairieSky Royalty Ltd.
    (587) 293-4089

    PDF available: http://ml.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/582f0ac4-3c4f-4983-afeb-621e284659ef

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: CNB Financial Corporation Reports First Quarter 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CLEARFIELD, Pa., April 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

    CNB Financial Corporation (“Corporation”) (NASDAQ: CCNE), the parent company of CNB Bank, today announced its earnings for the three months ended March 31, 2025.

    Executive Summary

    • Net income available to common shareholders (“earnings”) was $10.4 million, or $0.50 per diluted share, for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Excluding after-tax merger costs, earnings were $11.9 million, or $0.57 per diluted share, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, reflecting decreases of $2.1 million, or 14.98%, and $0.09 per diluted share, or 13.64% compared to earnings of $14.0 million, or $0.66 per diluted share, for the three months ended December 31, 2024.1 The quarterly decrease was a result of a decrease in net interest income and non-interest income and an increase in non-interest expense, partially offset by a decrease in the provision for credit losses, as discussed in more detail below. Excluding after-tax merger costs in the first quarter 2025, earnings and diluted earnings per share when compared to earnings of $11.5 million, or $0.55 per diluted share, in the quarter ended March 31, 2024, increased $368 thousand, or 3.19%, and $0.02 per diluted share, or 3.64%, due to an increase in net interest income, partially offset by increases in non-interest expense and the provision for credit losses, coupled with a decrease in non-interest income.1
    • At March 31, 2025, loans totaled $4.5 billion excluding the balances of syndicated loans. This total of $4.5 billion in loans represented a quarterly increase of $11.7 million, or 0.26% (1.05% annualized), compared to December 31, 2024, and a year-over-year increase of $188.1 million, or 4.32%, compared to March 31, 2024. The increase in loans for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 compared to the quarter ended December 31, 2024 was primarily driven by growth in the BankOnBuffalo, Ridge View Bank and the legacy CNB markets. The year-over-year growth in loans as of March 31, 2025 compared to loans as of March 31, 2024 resulted primarily from growth in commercial and industrial loans in the ERIEBANK and Ridge View Bank markets, and growth in commercial real estate loans in the BankOnBuffalo market, ERIEBANK (primarily Cleveland, OH) and Ridge View Bank. Additional growth occurred in residential real estate loans in the Ridge View Bank and BankOnBuffalo markets and CNB Bank’s Private Banking division.
       
      • At March 31, 2025, the syndicated loan portfolio totaled $69.2 million, or 1.50% of total loans, compared to $79.9 million, or 1.73% of total loans, at December 31, 2024 and $78.7 million, or 1.78% of total loans, at March 31, 2024. The decreases in syndicated lending balances of $10.7 million compared to December 31, 2024 and $9.5 million compared to March 31, 2024 were the result of scheduled paydowns or early payoffs of certain syndicated loans. The Corporation closely manages the level and composition of its syndicated loan portfolio to ensure it continues to provide a high credit quality, profitable use of excess liquidity to complement the Corporation’s loan growth from its in-market customer relationships.
    • At March 31, 2025, total deposits were $5.5 billion, reflecting a quarterly increase of $88.7 million, or 1.65% (6.70% annualized), compared to December 31, 2024, and a year-over-year increase of $422.5 million, or 8.39%, compared to total deposits measured as of March 31, 2024. The increase in deposit balances compared to December 31, 2024 was driven by higher retail and municipal deposits, coupled with growth in retail time deposits. Additional deposit and liquidity profile details were as follows:
       
      • At March 31, 2025, the total estimated uninsured deposits for CNB Bank were approximately $1.6 billion, or approximately 27.94% of total CNB Bank deposits. However, when excluding $101.9 million of affiliate company deposits and $481.2 million of pledged-investment collateralized deposits, the adjusted amount and percentage of total estimated uninsured deposits was approximately $971.1 million, or approximately 17.46% of total CNB Bank deposits as of March 31, 2025.
         
        • The level of adjusted uninsured deposits at March 31, 2025 remained relatively unchanged, compared to the level at December 31, 2024, when the total estimated uninsured deposits for CNB Bank were approximately $1.5 billion, or approximately 27.71% of total CNB Bank deposits. Excluding $101.9 million of affiliate company deposits and $429.0 million of pledged-investment collateralized deposits, the adjusted amount and percentage of total estimated uninsured deposits were approximately $986.0 million, or approximately 18.01% of total CNB Bank deposits as of December 31, 2024.
           
      • At March 31, 2025, the average deposit balance per account for CNB Bank was approximately $34 thousand, which has remained stable at this level for an extended period.
         
      • At March 31, 2025, the Corporation had $447.1 million of cash equivalents held in CNB Bank’s interest-bearing deposit account at the Federal Reserve. These excess funds, when combined with collective contingent liquidity resources of $4.7 billion including (i) available borrowing capacity from the Federal Home Bank of Pittsburgh (“FHLB”) and the Federal Reserve, and (ii) available unused commitments from brokered deposit sources and other third-party funding channels, including previously established lines of credit from correspondent banks, resulted in the total available liquidity sources for the Corporation as of March 31, 2025 to be approximately 5.3 times the estimated amount of adjusted uninsured deposit balances discussed above.
         
    • At March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024, the Corporation had no outstanding short-term borrowings from the FHLB or the Federal Reserve’s Discount Window. 
    • At March 31, 2025, the Corporation’s pre-tax net unrealized losses on available-for-sale and held-to-maturity securities totaled $61.7 million, or 9.88% of total shareholders’ equity, compared to $74.8 million, or 12.25% of total shareholders’ equity, at December 31, 2024 and $85.0 million, or 14.69% of total shareholders’ equity, at March 31, 2024. The change in unrealized losses during the first quarter 2025 was primarily due to changes in the yield curve compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 and first quarter of 2024, coupled with the Corporation’s scheduled bond maturities, which were all realized at par. Importantly, all regulatory capital ratios for the Corporation would still exceed regulatory “well-capitalized” levels as of March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, and March 31, 2024 if the net unrealized losses at the respective dates were fully recognized. Additionally, the Corporation continued to maintain excess liquidity at its holding company totaling approximately $100.7 million of liquid funds at March 31, 2025, which more than covers the $61.7 million in combined available-for-sale and held-to-maturity unrealized losses on investments held primarily in its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, as an immediately available source of contingent capital to be down-streamed to CNB Bank, if necessary. 
    • Total nonperforming assets were approximately $56.1 million, or 0.89% of total assets, as of March 31, 2025, compared to $59.5 million, or 0.96% of total assets, as of December 31, 2024, and $30.7 million, or 0.53% of total assets, as of March 31, 2024. The decrease in nonperforming assets for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2024 was primarily due to paydowns to nonaccrual loans, charge-offs, and the sale of an other real estate owned property. The increase in non-performing assets at March 31, 2025 compared to March 31, 2024 was due to a commercial multifamily relationship totaling $20.3 million with a specific reserve balance of $885 thousand. Management does not believe there is a risk of significant additional loss exposure beyond the specific reserves related to this loan relationship and is actively working with the borrower and their real estate broker to facilitate the sale of the property. Other nonperforming assets contributing to the year-over-year increase include certain commercial and industrial and owner-occupied commercial real estate relationships as previously disclosed in the second quarter of 2024 and a commercial relationship (consisting of various loan types) in the third quarter of 2024. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, net loan charge-offs were $1.4 million, or 0.13% (annualized) of average total loans and loans held for sale, compared to $2.1 million, or 0.19% (annualized) of average total loans and loans held for sale, during the three months ended December 31, 2024, and $1.3 million, or 0.12% (annualized) of average total loans and loans held for sale, during the three months ended March 31, 2024. The fourth quarter of 2024 included net loan charge-offs related to (i) an owner-occupied commercial real estate relationship with a charge-off of $750 thousand (remaining balance of approximately $3.8 million with specific reserves of $1.4 million), and (ii) a nonowner-occupied commercial real estate relationship for $625 thousand (no remaining balance). 
    • Pre-provision net revenue (“PPNR”), a non-GAAP measure, was $15.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025.1 Excluding after-tax merger costs, PPNR was $17.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to $21.6 million and $16.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.1 The first quarter 2025 PPNR, excluding after-tax merger costs, when compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, reflected decreases in net interest income, non-interest income and an increase in non-interest expense. The increase in PPNR for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to the three months ended March 31, 2024 was primarily attributable to higher net interest income, partially offset by an increase in non-interest expenses.

    1 This release contains references to certain financial measures that are not defined by U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Management believes that these non-GAAP measures provide a greater understanding of ongoing operations, enhance comparability of results of operations with prior periods and show the effects of significant gains and charges in the periods presented. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures is provided in the “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section.

    Michael Peduzzi, President and CEO of both the Corporation and CNB Bank, stated, “Our first quarter performance reflects sound growth in both deposits and loans since year-end 2024. The net amount of loan growth was somewhat muted by some large unscheduled commercial loan payoffs that occurred early in the quarter and impacted our net interest income. This was evidenced by the quarterly average balance of total loans being less than both the quarter’s beginning and ending total loan balances. Favorably, we saw continued commercial loan growth and demand as we ended the quarter with both existing relationships and new prospects. Also, during the quarter, we continued to realize deposit growth based primarily in expanded Treasury Management relationships, as evidenced by favorable growth in our noninterest-bearing deposits. Concurrently, we reduced our cost of interest-bearing liabilities by 10 basis points to now being below three percent, as we continue to implement strategic reductions in deposit rates across our footprint. These fundamentals of well-priced and steadily growing loans and deposits position us well in our primary spread management business moving forward. Though we had some cyclical increases in noninterest elements, including base salaries and certain technology expenses with annual contract cost increases, and as we will have some additional non-recurring merger related costs as we pursue the regulatory and shareholder approval processes associated with our intended acquisition of ESSA Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary, ESSA Bank and Trust, we continue to focus on tightly managing the Corporation’s core overhead as we look to realize both positive operating leverage and improved efficiencies from economies of scale as we continue to expand the franchise. Additionally, we remain focused on growing our assets under management to realize more steady and sustainable growth in fee-based revenues from our wealth and asset management businesses.”

    Other Balance Sheet Highlights

    • Book value per common share was $27.01 at March 31, 2025. Excluding after-tax merger costs, book value per common share was $27.08, reflecting an increase from $26.34 at December 31, 2024 and $24.77 at March 31, 2024.1 Tangible book value per common share, a non-GAAP measure, was $24.91 as of March 31, 2025. Excluding after-tax merger costs, tangible book value per common share, a non-GAAP measure, was $24.98, reflecting an increase of $0.74, or 12.38% (annualized) from $24.24 as of December 31, 2024 and a year-over-year increase of $2.31, or 10.19%, from $22.67 as of March 31, 2024.1 The increases in book value per common share and tangible book value per common share, excluding after-tax merger costs, from December 31, 2024 to March 31, 2025 were primarily due to a $8.1 million increase in retained earnings, coupled with a $7.1 million decrease in accumulated other comprehensive loss primarily from the after-tax impact of temporary unrealized valuation changes in the Corporation’s available-for-sale investment portfolio for the first quarter of 2025. The increases in book value per common share and tangible book value per common share, excluding after-tax merger costs, from March 31, 2024 to March 31, 2025 were primarily due to a $35.6 million increase in retained earnings over the twelve months ended March 31, 2025 coupled with a $10.7 million decrease in accumulated other comprehensive loss primarily from the after-tax impact of temporary unrealized valuation changes in the Corporation’s available-for-sale investment portfolio for the past twelve months.

    Loan Portfolio Profile

    • As part of its lending policy and risk management activities, the Corporation tracks lending exposure by industry classification and type to determine potential risks associated with industry concentrations, and to identify any concentration risk issues that could lead to additional credit loss exposure. An important and recurring part of this process involves the Corporation’s continued measurement and evaluation of its exposure to the office, hospitality, and multifamily industries within its commercial real estate portfolio. Even given the Corporation’s historically sound underwriting protocols and high credit quality standards for borrowers in the commercial real estate industry segments, the Corporation monitors numerous relevant sensitivity elements, including occupancy, loan-to-value, absorption and cap rates, debt service coverage and covenant compliance, and developer/lessor financial strength both in the project and globally. At March 31, 2025, the Corporation had the following key metrics related to its office, hospitality and multifamily portfolios:
       
      • Commercial office loans:
        • There were 112 outstanding loans, totaling $109.2 million, or 2.37% of total Corporation loans outstanding;
        • There were no nonaccrual commercial office loans;
        • There were two past due commercial office loans that totaled $216 thousand, or 0.20% of total commercial office loans outstanding; and
        • The average outstanding balance per commercial office loan was $975 thousand.
           
      • Commercial hospitality loans:
        • There were 162 outstanding loans, totaling $323.1 million, or 7.01% of total Corporation loans outstanding;
        • There were no nonaccrual commercial hospitality loans;
        • There was one past due commercial hospitality loan that totaled $157 thousand, or 0.05% of total commercial hospitality loans outstanding; and
        • The average outstanding balance per commercial hospitality loan was $2.0 million.
           
      • Commercial multifamily loans:
        • There were 227 outstanding loans, totaling $373.4 million, or 8.10% of total Corporation loans outstanding;
        • There were two nonaccrual commercial multifamily loans that totaled $20.5 million, or 5.50% of total multifamily loans outstanding. As previously discussed, one customer relationship did have a specific reserve of $885 thousand, while the other customer relationship did not have a related specific loss reserve;
        • There were two past due commercial multifamily loans that totaled $20.5 million, or 5.50% of total commercial multifamily loans outstanding (included in nonaccrual loans disclosed above); and
        • The average outstanding balance per commercial multifamily loan was $1.6 million.

    The Corporation had no commercial office, hospitality or multifamily loan relationships considered by the banking regulators to be high volatility commercial real estate (“HVCRE”) credits.

    Performance Ratios

    • Annualized return on average equity was 7.52% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Excluding after-tax merger costs, annualized return on average equity was 8.49% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 9.79% and 8.79% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.1
    • Annualized return on average tangible common equity, a non-GAAP measure, was 8.15% for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Excluding after-tax merger costs, annualized return on average tangible common equity was 9.32% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to 10.90% and 9.77% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.1
    • The Corporation’s efficiency ratio was 72.07% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, and 71.28% on a fully tax-equivalent basis, a non-GAAP measure.1 Excluding merger costs, the efficiency ratio on a fully tax-equivalent basis, a non-GAAP measure, was 68.62%, compared to 63.02% and 68.29% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.1 The quarter-over-quarter increase was primarily driven by lower net interest income and non-interest income and increased non-interest expense, as further discussed below. The year-over-year increase was primarily driven by higher non-interest expense, partially offset by an increase in net interest income.

    Revenue

    • Total revenue (net interest income plus non-interest income) was $56.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, an increase when compared to $59.4 million and $54.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.
      • Net interest income was $48.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to $49.0 million and $45.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively. When comparing the first quarter of 2025 to the fourth quarter of 2024, the decrease in net interest income of $613 thousand, or 1.25% (5.07% annualized), was primarily due to lower loan yields on variable and floating-rate loans following the three Federal Reserve rate decreases totaling 100 basis points since mid-September 2024, coupled with changes in the yield curve, partially offset by targeted interest-bearing deposit rate decreases.
      • Net interest margin was 3.38%, 3.44% and 3.40% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively. Net interest margin on a fully tax-equivalent basis, a non-GAAP measure, was 3.37%, 3.43% and 3.38% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.1
        • The yield on earning assets of 5.73% for the three months ended March 31, 2025 decreased 11 basis points from December 31, 2024 and 8 basis points from March 31, 2024. The decrease in yield compared to December 31, 2024 was attributable to the net impact of declining interest rates on variable and floating-rate loans as a result of the Federal Reserve decreases since mid-September 2024, coupled with changes in the yield curve.
        • The cost of interest-bearing liabilities was 2.93% for the three months ended March 31, 2025, representing a decrease of 10 basis points from both December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024. The decrease in the cost of interest-bearing liabilities is primarily the result of the Corporation’s targeted interest-bearing deposit rate decreases in response to the Federal Reserve rate decreases since mid-September 2024.
    • Total non-interest income was $8.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025 compared to $10.3 million and $9.0 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively. The quarter-over-quarter decrease was primarily attributable to lower pass-through income from small business investment companies (“SBICs”), increases in unrealized losses on equity securities, and a decrease in wealth and asset management fees. The decrease year-over-year in non-interest income was primarily due to increases in unrealized losses on equity securities and lower mortgage banking income, partially offset by higher pass-through income from SBICs.

    Non-Interest Expense

    • For the three months ended March 31, 2025 total non-interest expense was $41.0 million. Excluding merger costs, total non-interest expense was $39.5 million, compared to $37.8 million and $37.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively. Excluding merger costs, the increase of $1.7 million, or 4.51%, from the three months ended December 31, 2024, was primarily driven by an increase in salaries and benefits, due to higher incentive compensation accruals, coupled with the timing of retirement plan contribution accruals, and higher supplemental executive retirement plan (“SERP”) accruals. Notably, SERP expenses were lower in the fourth quarter due to a reduction related to the departure of an executive, as previously disclosed. Excluding merger costs, the $2.1 million increase in non-interest expense compared to the three months ended March 31, 2024 was primarily driven by higher salaries and benefits, reflecting increased incentive compensation accruals and higher health insurance costs. Additionally, technology expense increased, primarily due to higher core processing charges associated with growth. These increases were partially offset by a decline in legal expenses.

    Income Taxes

    • Income tax expense for the three months ended March 31, 2025 was $2.9 million, representing a 19.96% effective tax rate, compared to $3.6 million, representing a 19.14% effective tax rate, for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and $2.8 million, representing an 18.36% effective tax rate, for the three months ended March 31, 2024. The effective tax rate for the first quarter of 2025 was impacted by non-deductible merger costs totaling $1.3 million.

    Asset Quality

    • Total nonperforming assets were approximately $56.1 million, or 0.89% of total assets, as of March 31, 2025, compared to $59.5 million, or 0.96% of total assets, as of December 31, 2024, and $30.7 million, or 0.53% of total assets, as of March 31, 2024, as discussed in more detail above.
    • The allowance for credit losses measured as a percentage of total loans was 1.03% as of March 31, 2025, compared to 1.03% remaining consistent with the allowance for credit losses as a percentage of total loans as of as of December 31, 2024, and 1.03% as of March 31, 2024. In addition, the allowance for credit losses as a percentage of nonaccrual loans was 87.57% as of March 31, 2025, compared to 84.08% and 159.41% as of December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively. The change in the allowance for credit losses as a percentage of nonaccrual loans was primarily attributable to the levels of nonperforming assets, as discussed in more detail above.
    • The provision for credit losses was $1.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to $2.9 million and $1.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively. The $1.4 million decrease in the provision expense for the first quarter of 2025 compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 was primarily a result of decreased net loan charge-offs in the first quarter of 2025. The $236 thousand increase in the provision expense for the three months ended March 31, 2025 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2024 was primarily due to higher net loan charge-offs in the first quarter of 2025 compared to the first quarter of 2024, coupled with an additional reserve for unfunded commitments. 
    • As discussed in more detail above, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, net loan charge-offs were $1.4 million, or 0.13% (annualized) of average total loans and loans held for sale, compared to $2.1 million, or 0.19% (annualized) of average total loans and loans held for sale, during the three months ended December 31, 2024, and $1.3 million, or 0.12% (annualized) of average total loans and loans held for sale, during the three months ended March 31, 2024.

    Capital

    • As of March 31, 2025, the Corporation’s total shareholders’ equity was $624.5 million, representing an increase of $13.8 million, or 2.26% (9.17% annualized), from December 31, 2024 and an increase of $45.9 million, or 7.93%, from March 31, 2024. The changes resulted from an increase in the Corporation’s retained earnings (net income, partially offset by the common and preferred stock dividends paid) and a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive loss primarily from the after-tax impact of temporary unrealized valuation changes in the Corporation’s available-for-sale investment portfolio.
    • Regulatory capital ratios for the Corporation continue to exceed regulatory “well-capitalized” levels as of March 31, 2025, consistent with prior periods.
    • As of March 31, 2025, the Corporation’s ratio of common shareholders’ equity to total assets was 9.00% compared to 8.93% at December 31, 2024 and 8.98% at March 31, 2024. As of March 31, 2025, the Corporation’s ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets, a non-GAAP measure, was 8.36%. Excluding after-tax merger costs, the Corporation’s ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets, a non-GAAP measure, was 8.38% compared to 8.28% at December 31, 2024 and 8.28% at March 31, 2024.1 The increase in the March 31, 2025 ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets compared to December 31, 2024 was primarily the result of a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive loss, coupled with an increase in retained earnings, as discussed above.1

    Recent Events

    • On January 10, 2025, the Corporation announced that the Corporation and CNB Bank entered into a definitive merger agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) with with ESSA Bancorp, Inc. (“ESSA”) and ESSA Bank and Trust in an all-stock transaction. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding share of ESSA common stock will be converted into the right to receive 0.8547 shares of the Corporation’s common stock. The transaction is currently expected to close in the third quarter of 2025, subject to customary closing conditions, including the receipt of regulatory approvals, and approval by the shareholders of ESSA and the Corporation.

    About CNB Financial Corporation

    CNB Financial Corporation is a financial holding company with consolidated assets of approximately $6.3 billion. CNB Financial Corporation conducts business primarily through its principal subsidiary, CNB Bank. CNB Bank is a full-service bank engaging in a full range of banking activities and services, including trust and wealth management services, for individual, business, governmental, and institutional customers. CNB Bank operations include a private banking division, one loan production office, one drive-up office, one mobile office, and 56 full-service offices in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Virginia. CNB Bank, headquartered in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, with offices in Central and North Central Pennsylvania, serves as the multi-brand parent to various divisions. These divisions include ERIEBANK, based in Erie, Pennsylvania, with offices in Northwest Pennsylvania and Northeast Ohio; FCBank, based in Worthington, Ohio, with offices in Central Ohio; BankOnBuffalo, based in Buffalo, New York, with offices in Western New York; Ridge View Bank, based in Roanoke, Virginia, with offices in the Southwest Virginia region; and Impressia Bank, a division focused on banking opportunities for women, which operates in CNB Bank’s primary market areas. Additional information about CNB Financial Corporation may be found at www.CNBBank.bank.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with respect to the Corporation’s financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, future performance and business. These forward-looking statements are intended to be covered by the safe harbor for “forward-looking statements” provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are those that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements include statements with respect to beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, expectations, anticipations, estimates and intentions that are subject to significant risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors (some of which are beyond the Corporation’s control). Forward-looking statements often include the words “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “forecasts,” “intends,” “plans,” “targets,” “potentially,” “probably,” “projects,” “outlook” or similar expressions or future conditional verbs such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “would” and “could.” The Corporation’s actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements, which are neither statements of historical fact nor guarantees or assurances of future performance. Such known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from the statements, include, but are not limited to, (i) adverse changes or conditions in capital and financial markets, including actual or potential stresses in the banking industry; (ii) changes in interest rates; (iii) the credit risks of lending activities, including our ability to estimate credit losses and the allowance for credit losses, as well as the effects of changes in the level of, and trends in, loan delinquencies and write-offs; (iv) effectiveness of our data security controls in the face of cyber attacks and any reputational risks following a cybersecurity incident; (v) changes in general business, industry or economic conditions or competition; (vi) changes in any applicable law, rule, regulation, policy, guideline or practice governing or affecting financial holding companies and their subsidiaries or with respect to tax or accounting principles or otherwise; (vii) governmental approvals of the Corporation’s pending merger with ESSA may not be obtained, or adverse regulatory conditions may be imposed in connection with governmental approvals of the merger; (viii) the Corporation’s shareholders and/or the shareholders of ESSA may fail to approve the merger; (ix) higher than expected costs or other difficulties related to integration of combined or merged businesses; (x) the effects of business combinations and other acquisition transactions, including the inability to realize our loan and investment portfolios; (xi) changes in the quality or composition of our loan and investment portfolios; (xii) adequacy of loan loss reserves; (xiii) increased competition; (xiv) loss of certain key officers; (xv) deposit attrition; (xvi) rapidly changing technology; (xvii) unanticipated regulatory or judicial proceedings and liabilities and other costs; (xviii) changes in the cost of funds, demand for loan products or demand for financial services; and (xix) other economic, competitive, governmental or technological factors affecting our operations, markets, products, services and prices. Such developments could have an adverse impact on the Corporation’s financial position and results of operations. For more information about factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, please refer to the “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” sections of and the forward-looking statement disclaimers in the Corporation’s annual and quarterly reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    The forward-looking statements are based upon management’s beliefs and assumptions and are made as of the date of this press release. Factors or events that could cause the Corporation’s actual results to differ may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for the Corporation to predict all of them. The Corporation undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements included in this press release or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those contained in such statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except to the extent required by law. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events discussed in this press release might not occur and you should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements.

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Income Statement          
    Interest and fees on loans $ 72,379     $ 74,164     $ 71,513  
    Interest and dividends on securities and cash and cash equivalents   10,000       9,514       6,392  
    Interest expense   (33,948 )     (34,634 )     (32,683 )
    Net interest income   48,431       49,044       45,222  
    Provision for credit losses   1,556       2,930       1,320  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses   46,875       46,114       43,902  
    Non-interest income          
    Wealth and asset management fees   1,796       1,976       1,802  
    Service charges on deposit accounts   1,714       1,712       1,694  
    Other service charges and fees   510       770       695  
    Net realized gains on available-for-sale securities   —       83       —  
    Net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on equity securities   (249 )     (13 )     191  
    Mortgage banking   96       93       196  
    Bank owned life insurance   760       784       767  
    Card processing and interchange income   2,107       2,222       2,016  
    Other non-interest income   1,773       2,694       1,594  
    Total non-interest income   8,507       10,321       8,955  
    Non-interest expenses          
    Salaries and benefits   20,564       18,501       18,787  
    Net occupancy expense of premises   4,038       3,816       3,640  
    Technology expense   5,378       5,743       5,072  
    Advertising expense   514       684       685  
    State and local taxes   1,292       1,090       1,143  
    Legal, professional, and examination fees   849       986       1,172  
    FDIC insurance premiums   985       864       990  
    Card processing and interchange expenses   1,160       1,325       1,179  
    Merger costs   1,529       —       —  
    Other non-interest expense   4,729       4,796       4,756  
    Total non-interest expenses   41,038       37,805       37,424  
    Income before income taxes   14,344       18,630       15,433  
    Income tax expense   2,863       3,566       2,833  
    Net income   11,481       15,064       12,600  
    Preferred stock dividends   1,075       1,076       1,075  
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 10,406     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
               
    Ending shares outstanding   20,980,245       20,987,992       21,024,695  
    Average diluted common shares outstanding   20,925,388       20,929,885       20,887,088  
    Diluted earnings per common share $ 0.50     $ 0.66     $ 0.55  
    Adjusted diluted earnings per common share, net of merger costs (non-GAAP) (1) $ 0.57     $ 0.66     $ 0.55  
    Cash dividends per common share $ 0.180     $ 0.180     $ 0.175  
    Dividend payout ratio   36 %     27 %     32 %
    Adjusted dividend payout ratio, net of merger costs (non-GAAP) (1)   32 %     27 %     32 %
                           

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Average Balances          
    Total loans and loans held for sale $ 4,591,395     $ 4,556,770     $ 4,428,751  
    Investment securities   798,427       744,149       731,366  
    Total earning assets   5,803,526       5,674,794       5,350,126  
    Total assets   6,220,575       6,085,277       5,729,779  
    Noninterest-bearing deposits   814,441       832,168       736,965  
    Interest-bearing deposits   4,574,700       4,442,150       4,229,135  
    Shareholders’ equity   619,409       612,184       576,528  
    Tangible common shareholders’ equity (non-GAAP) (1)   517,550       510,308       474,596  
               
    Average Yields (annualized)          
    Total loans and loans held for sale   6.41 %     6.50 %     6.51 %
    Investment securities   2.75 %     2.40 %     2.01 %
    Total earning assets   5.73 %     5.84 %     5.81 %
    Interest-bearing deposits   2.89 %     3.00 %     3.00 %
    Interest-bearing liabilities   2.93 %     3.03 %     3.03 %
               
    Performance Ratios (annualized)          
    Return on average assets   0.75 %     0.98 %     0.88 %
    Adjusted return on average assets, net of merger costs (non-GAAP) (1)   0.85 %     0.98 %     0.88 %
    Return on average equity   7.52 %     9.79 %     8.79 %
    Adjusted return on average equity, net of merger costs (non-GAAP) (1)   8.49 %     9.79 %     8.79 %
    Return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP) (1)   8.15 %     10.90 %     9.77 %
    Adjusted return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP) (1)   9.32 %     10.90 %     9.77 %
    Net interest margin, fully tax equivalent basis (non-GAAP) (1)   3.37 %     3.43 %     3.38 %
    Efficiency ratio, fully tax equivalent basis (non-GAAP) (1)   71.28 %     63.02 %     68.29 %
    Adjusted efficiency ratio, fully tax equivalent basis (non-GAAP) (1)   68.62 %     63.02 %     68.29 %
               
    Net Loan Charge-Offs          
    CNB Bank net loan charge-offs $ 926     $ 1,719     $ 878  
    Holiday Financial net loan charge-offs   513       425       466  
    Total Corporation net loan charge-offs $ 1,439     $ 2,144     $ 1,344  
    Annualized net loan charge-offs / average total loans and loans held for sale   0.13 %     0.19 %     0.12 %
                           

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Ending Balance Sheet          
    Cash and due from banks $ 68,745     $ 63,771     $ 38,953  
    Interest-bearing deposits with Federal Reserve   447,053       375,009       259,464  
    Interest-bearing deposits with other financial institutions   4,359       4,255       3,036  
    Total cash and cash equivalents   520,157       443,035       301,453  
    Debt securities available-for-sale, at fair value   516,412       468,546       348,565  
    Debt securities held-to-maturity, at amortized cost   282,159       306,081       381,706  
    Equity securities   10,293       10,456       9,581  
    Loans held for sale   860       762       1,010  
    Loans receivable          
    Syndicated loans   69,189       79,882       78,685  
    Loans   4,540,820       4,529,074       4,352,713  
    Total loans receivable   4,610,009       4,608,956       4,431,398  
    Less: allowance for credit losses   (47,357 )     (47,357 )     (45,832 )
    Net loans receivable   4,562,652       4,561,599       4,385,566  
    Goodwill and other intangibles   43,874       43,874       43,874  
    Core deposit intangible   190       206       260  
    Other assets   358,911       357,451       329,397  
    Total Assets $ 6,295,508     $ 6,192,010     $ 5,801,412  
               
    Noninterest-bearing demand deposits $ 842,398     $ 819,680     $ 749,178  
    Interest-bearing demand deposits   719,460       706,796       719,781  
    Savings   3,160,618       3,122,028       3,035,823  
    Certificates of deposit   737,602       722,860       532,771  
    Total deposits   5,460,078       5,371,364       5,037,553  
    Subordinated debentures   20,620       20,620       20,620  
    Subordinated notes, net of issuance costs   84,646       84,570       84,343  
    Other liabilities   105,656       104,761       80,256  
    Total liabilities   5,671,000       5,581,315       5,222,772  
    Common stock   —       —       —  
    Preferred stock   57,785       57,785       57,785  
    Additional paid in capital   220,254       219,876       218,224  
    Retained earnings   387,925       381,296       353,780  
    Treasury stock   (4,944 )     (4,689 )     (3,946 )
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss   (36,512 )     (43,573 )     (47,203 )
    Total shareholders’ equity   624,508       610,695       578,640  
    Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity $ 6,295,508     $ 6,192,010     $ 5,801,412  
               
    Book value per common share $ 27.01     $ 26.34     $ 24.77  
    Adjusted book value per common share (non-GAAP) (1) $ 27.08     $ 26.34     $ 24.77  
    Tangible book value per common share (non-GAAP) (1) $ 24.91     $ 24.24     $ 22.67  
    Adjusted tangible book value per common share (non-GAAP) (1) $ 24.98     $ 24.24     $ 22.67  
                           

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Capital Ratios          
    Tangible common equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP) (1)   8.36 %     8.28 %     8.28 %
    Adjusted tangible common equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP) (1)   8.38 %     8.28 %     8.28 %
    Tier 1 leverage ratio (2)   10.27 %     10.43 %     10.64 %
    Common equity tier 1 ratio (2)   11.85 %     11.76 %     11.70 %
    Tier 1 risk-based ratio (2)   13.50 %     13.41 %     13.43 %
    Total risk-based ratio (2)   16.30 %     16.16 %     16.27 %
               
    Asset Quality Detail          
    Nonaccrual loans $ 54,079     $ 56,323     $ 28,751  
    Loans 90+ days past due and accruing   308       653       49  
    Total nonperforming loans   54,387       56,976       28,800  
    Other real estate owned   1,664       2,509       1,864  
    Total nonperforming assets $ 56,051     $ 59,485     $ 30,664  
               
    Asset Quality Ratios          
    Nonperforming assets / Total loans + OREO   1.22 %     1.29 %     0.69 %
    Nonperforming assets / Total assets   0.89 %     0.96 %     0.53 %
    Ratio of allowance for credit losses on loans to nonaccrual loans   87.57 %     84.08 %     159.41 %
    Allowance for credit losses / Total loans   1.03 %     1.03 %     1.03 %
               
               
    Consolidated Financial Data Notes:
    (1) Management uses non-GAAP financial information in its analysis of the Corporation’s performance. Management believes that these non-GAAP measures provide a greater understanding of ongoing operations, enhance comparability of results of operations with prior periods and show the effects of significant gains and charges in the periods presented. The Corporation’s management believes that investors may use these non-GAAP measures to analyze the Corporation’s financial performance without the impact of unusual items or events that may obscure trends in the Corporation’s underlying performance. This non-GAAP data should be considered in addition to results prepared in accordance with GAAP, and is not a substitute for, or superior to, GAAP results. Limitations associated with non-GAAP financial measures include the risks that persons might disagree as to the appropriateness of items included in these measures and that different companies might calculate these measures differently. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures is provided below (dollars in thousands, except per share data).
    (2) Capital ratios as of March 31, 2025 are estimated pending final regulatory filings.
     

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

      Average Balances, Income and Interest Rates on a Taxable Equivalent Basis
      Three Months Ended,
      March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024   March 31, 2024
      Average
    Balance    		   Annual
    Rate    		   Interest
    Inc./Exp.    		   Average
    Balance    		   Annual
    Rate    		   Interest
    Inc./Exp.    		   Average
    Balance    		   Annual
    Rate    		   Interest
    Inc./Exp.
    ASSETS:                                  
    Securities:                                  
    Taxable (1) (4) $ 765,654       2.73 %   $ 5,461     $ 711,286       2.36 %   $ 4,487     $ 696,851       1.96 %   $ 3,651  
    Tax-exempt (1) (2) (4)   25,345       2.69       181       25,489       2.67       184       27,743       2.59       191  
    Equity securities (1) (2)   7,428       5.84       107       7,374       5.77       107       6,772       5.64       95  
    Total securities (4)   798,427       2.75       5,749       744,149       2.40       4,778       731,366       2.01       3,937  
    Loans receivable:                                  
    Commercial (2) (3)   1,466,323       6.74       24,369       1,458,902       6.77       24,824       1,429,718       6.90       24,519  
    Mortgage and loans held for sale (2) (3)   3,001,317       6.02       44,572       2,965,914       6.12       45,633       2,870,175       6.08       43,403  
    Consumer (3)   123,755       12.01       3,665       131,954       11.93       3,956       128,858       11.79       3,778  
    Total loans receivable (3)   4,591,395       6.41       72,606       4,556,770       6.50       74,413       4,428,751       6.51       71,700  
    Interest-bearing deposits with the Federal Reserve and other financial institutions   413,704       4.20       4,284       373,875       5.08       4,771       190,009       5.26       2,485  
    Total earning assets   5,803,526       5.73     $ 82,639       5,674,794       5.84     $ 83,962       5,350,126       5.81     $ 78,122  
    Noninterest-bearing assets:                                  
    Cash and due from banks   58,152               59,445               53,523          
    Premises and equipment   129,188               124,398               110,038          
    Other assets   277,051               273,326               261,863          
    Allowance for credit losses   (47,342 )             (46,686 )             (45,771 )        
    Total non interest-bearing assets   417,049               410,483               379,653          
    TOTAL ASSETS $ 6,220,575             $ 6,085,277             $ 5,729,779          
    LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:                                  
    Demand—interest-bearing $ 704,874       0.88 %   $ 1,527     $ 686,359       0.83 %   $ 1,437     $ 739,931       0.65 %   $ 1,195  
    Savings   3,131,697       3.09       23,840       3,068,451       3.26       25,139       2,965,279       3.47       25,611  
    Time   738,129       3.99       7,267       687,340       4.02       6,953       523,925       3.64       4,742  
    Total interest-bearing deposits   4,574,700       2.89       32,634       4,442,150       3.00       33,529       4,229,135       3.00       31,548  
    Short-term borrowings   —       0.00       —       —       0.00       —       —       0.00       —  
    Finance lease liabilities   15,143       6.32       236       212       3.75       2       282       4.28       3  
    Subordinated notes and debentures   105,228       4.15       1,078       105,153       4.17       1,103       104,925       4.34       1,132  
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   4,695,071       2.93     $ 33,948       4,547,515       3.03     $ 34,634       4,334,342       3.03     $ 32,683  
    Demand—noninterest-bearing   814,441               832,168               736,965          
    Other liabilities   91,654               93,410               81,944          
    Total Liabilities   5,601,166               5,473,093               5,153,251          
    Shareholders’ equity   619,409               612,184               576,528          
    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY $ 6,220,575             $ 6,085,277             $ 5,729,779          
    Interest income/Earning assets       5.73 %   $ 82,639           5.84 %   $ 83,962           5.81 %   $ 78,122  
    Interest expense/Interest-bearing liabilities       2.93       33,948           3.03       34,634           3.03       32,683  
    Net interest spread       2.80 %   $ 48,691           2.81 %   $ 49,328           2.78 %   $ 45,439  
    Interest income/Earning assets       5.73 %     82,639           5.84 %     83,962           5.81 %     78,122  
    Interest expense/Earning assets       2.36       33,948           2.41       34,634           2.43       32,683  
    Net interest margin (fully tax-equivalent)       3.37 %   $ 48,691           3.43 %   $ 49,328           3.38 %   $ 45,439  
                                                               
    (1) Includes unamortized discounts and premiums.
    (2) Average yields are stated on a fully taxable equivalent basis (calculated using statutory rates of 21%) resulting from tax-free municipal securities in the investment portfolio and tax-free municipal loans in the commercial loan portfolio. The taxable equivalent adjustment to net interest income for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024 was $260 thousand, $284 thousand and $217 thousand, respectively.
    (3) Average loans receivable outstanding includes the average balance outstanding of all nonaccrual loans. Loans receivable consist of the average of total loans receivable less average unearned income. In addition, loans receivable interest income consists of loans receivable fees, including PPP deferred processing fees.
    (4) Average balance is computed using the fair value of AFS securities and amortized cost of HTM securities. Average yield has been computed using amortized cost average balance for AFS and HTM securities. The adjustment to the average balance for securities in the calculation of average yield for the three months ended March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024 was $(48.1) million, $(47.0) million and $(55.1) million, respectively.
                                                               

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP):          
    Merger costs – non deductible $ 1,327     $ —     $ —  
               
    Merger costs – deductible   202       —       —  
    Statutory federal tax rate   21 %     21 %     21 %
    Tax benefit of merger costs (non-GAAP)   42       —       —  
    Merger costs – deductible, net of tax   160       —       —  
               
    Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP) $ 1,487     $ —     $ —  
                           
      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of net income available to common (GAAP):          
    Net income $ 11,481     $ 15,064     $ 12,600  
    Less: preferred stock dividends   1,075       1,076       1,075  
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 10,406     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
               
    Adjusted calculation of net income available to common (non-GAAP):          
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 10,406     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,487       —       —  
    Adjusted net income available to common shareholders (non-GAAP) $ 11,893     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
                           
      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of PPNR (non-GAAP): (1)          
    Net interest income $ 48,431     $ 49,044     $ 45,222  
    Add: Non-interest income   8,507       10,321       8,955  
    Less: Non-interest expense   41,038       37,805       37,424  
    PPNR (non-GAAP) $ 15,900     $ 21,560     $ 16,753  
               
    Adjusted calculation of PPNR (non-GAAP): (1)          
    Net interest income $ 48,431     $ 49,044     $ 45,222  
    Add: Non-interest income   8,507       10,321       8,955  
    Less: Non-interest expense   41,038       37,805       37,424  
    Add: Merger costs   1,529       —       —  
    Adjusted PPNR (non-GAAP) $ 17,429     $ 21,560     $ 16,753  
               
    (1) Management believes that this is an important metric as it illustrates the underlying performance of the Corporation, it enables investors and others to assess the Corporation’s ability to generate capital to cover credit losses through the credit cycle and provides consistent reporting with a key metric used by bank regulatory agencies.
     

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Basic earnings per common share computation:          
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 10,406     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
    Less: net income available to common shareholders allocated to participating securities   57       98       92  
    Net income available to common shareholders allocated to common stock $ 10,349     $ 13,890     $ 11,433  
               
    Weighted average common shares outstanding, including shares considered participating securities   20,981       20,992       20,979  
    Less: Average participating securities   114       135       155  
    Weighted average shares   20,867       20,857       20,824  
    Basic earnings per common share $ 0.50     $ 0.67     $ 0.55  
               
    Diluted earnings per common share computation:          
    Net income available to common shareholders allocated to common stock $ 10,349     $ 13,890     $ 11,433  
               
    Weighted average common shares outstanding for basic earnings per common share   20,867       20,857       20,824  
    Add: Dilutive effect of stock compensation   58       73       63  
    Weighted average shares and dilutive potential common shares   20,925       20,930       20,887  
    Diluted earnings per common share $ 0.50     $ 0.66     $ 0.55  
               
    Adjusted basic earnings per common share computation (non-GAAP):          
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 10,406     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,487       —       —  
    Less: net income available to common shareholders allocated to participating securities   57       98       92  
    Less: Adjustment to net income available to common shareholders allocated to participating securities for merger cost impact, net of tax (non-GAAP)   8       —       —  
    Adjusted net income available to common shareholders allocated to common stock (non-GAAP) $ 11,828     $ 13,890     $ 11,433  
               
    Weighted average common shares outstanding, including shares considered participating securities   20,981       20,992       20,979  
    Less: Average participating securities   114       135       155  
    Weighted average shares   20,867       20,857       20,824  
    Adjusted basic earnings per common share (non-GAAP) $ 0.57     $ 0.67     $ 0.55  
               
    Adjusted diluted earnings per common share computation (non-GAAP):          
    Adjusted net income available to common shareholders allocated to common stock (non-GAAP) $ 11,828     $ 13,890     $ 11,433  
               
    Weighted average common shares outstanding for basic earnings per common share   20,867       20,857       20,824  
    Add: Dilutive effect of stock compensation   58       73       63  
    Weighted average shares and dilutive potential common shares   20,925       20,930       20,887  
    Adjusted diluted earnings per common share (non-GAAP) $ 0.57     $ 0.66     $ 0.55  
                           

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of dividend payout ratio:          
    Cash dividends per common share $ 0.180     $ 0.180     $ 0.175  
    Diluted earnings per common share   0.50       0.66       0.55  
    Dividend payout ratio   36 %     27 %     32 %
               
    Adjusted calculation of dividend payout ratio (non-GAAP):          
    Cash dividends per common share $ 0.180     $ 0.180     $ 0.175  
    Adjusted diluted earnings per common share (non-GAAP)   0.57       0.66       0.55  
    Adjusted dividend payout ratio (non-GAAP)   32 %     27 %     32 %
                           
      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of net interest margin:          
    Interest income $ 82,379     $ 83,678     $ 77,905  
    Interest expense   33,948       34,634       32,683  
    Net interest income $ 48,431     $ 49,044     $ 45,222  
               
    Average total earning assets $ 5,803,526     $ 5,674,794     $ 5,350,126  
               
    Net interest margin (GAAP) (annualized)   3.38 %     3.44 %     3.40 %
               
    Calculation of net interest margin (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP):          
    Interest income $ 82,379     $ 83,678     $ 77,905  
    Tax equivalent adjustment (non-GAAP)   260       284       217  
    Adjusted interest income (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP)   82,639       83,962       78,122  
    Interest expense   33,948       34,634       32,683  
    Net interest income (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP) $ 48,691     $ 49,328     $ 45,439  
               
    Average total earning assets $ 5,803,526     $ 5,674,794     $ 5,350,126  
    Less: average mark to market adjustment on investments (non-GAAP)   (48,070 )     (46,988 )     (55,146 )
    Adjusted average total earning assets, net of mark to market (non-GAAP) $ 5,851,596     $ 5,721,782     $ 5,405,272  
               
    Net interest margin, fully tax equivalent basis (non-GAAP) (annualized)   3.37 %     3.43 %     3.38 %
                           

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of tangible book value per common share and tangible common
    equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP):    		          
    Shareholders’ equity $ 624,508     $ 610,695     $ 578,640  
    Less: preferred equity   57,785       57,785       57,785  
    Common shareholders’ equity   566,723       552,910       520,855  
    Less: goodwill and other intangibles   43,874       43,874       43,874  
    Less: core deposit intangible   190       206       260  
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP) $ 522,659     $ 508,830     $ 476,721  
               
    Total assets $ 6,295,508     $ 6,192,010     $ 5,801,412  
    Less: goodwill and other intangibles   43,874       43,874       43,874  
    Less: core deposit intangible   190       206       260  
    Tangible assets (non-GAAP) $ 6,251,444     $ 6,147,930     $ 5,757,278  
               
    Ending shares outstanding   20,980,245       20,987,992       21,024,695  
               
    Book value per common share (GAAP) $ 27.01     $ 26.34     $ 24.77  
    Tangible book value per common share (non-GAAP) $ 24.91     $ 24.24     $ 22.67  
               
    Common shareholders’ equity / Total assets (GAAP)   9.00 %     8.93 %     8.98 %
    Tangible common equity / Tangible assets (non-GAAP)   8.36 %     8.28 %     8.28 %
               
    Adjusted calculation of book value per common share (non-GAAP):          
    Common shareholders’ equity $ 566,723     $ 552,910     $ 520,855  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,487       —       —  
    Adjusted common shareholders’ equity (non-GAAP) $ 568,210     $ 552,910     $ 520,855  
               
    Ending shares outstanding   20,980,245       20,987,992       21,024,695  
               
    Adjusted book value per common share (non-GAAP) $ 27.08     $ 26.34     $ 24.77  
               
    Adjusted calculation of tangible book value per common share (non-GAAP):          
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP) $ 522,659     $ 508,830     $ 476,721  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,487       —       —  
    Adjusted tangible common equity (non-GAAP) $ 524,146     $ 508,830     $ 476,721  
               
    Ending shares outstanding   20,980,245       20,987,992       21,024,695  
               
    Adjusted tangible book value per common share (non-GAAP) $ 24.98     $ 24.24     $ 22.67  
               
    Adjusted calculation of tangible common equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP):          
    Adjusted common shareholders’ equity (non-GAAP) $ 524,146     $ 508,830     $ 476,721  
               
    Tangible assets (non-GAAP) $ 6,251,444     $ 6,147,930     $ 5,757,278  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,529       —       —  
    Adjusted tangible assets (non-GAAP) $ 6,252,973     $ 6,147,930     $ 5,757,278  
               
    Adjusted tangible common equity / Adjusted tangible assets (non-GAAP)   8.38 %     8.28 %     8.28 %
                           

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of efficiency ratio:          
    Non-interest expense $ 41,038     $ 37,805     $ 37,424  
               
    Non-interest income $ 8,507     $ 10,321     $ 8,955  
    Net interest income   48,431       49,044       45,222  
    Total revenue $ 56,938     $ 59,365     $ 54,177  
    Efficiency ratio   72.07 %     63.68 %     69.08 %
               
    Calculation of efficiency ratio (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP):          
    Non-interest expense $ 41,038     $ 37,805     $ 37,424  
    Less: core deposit intangible amortization   17       16       20  
    Adjusted non-interest expense (non-GAAP) $ 41,021     $ 37,789     $ 37,404  
               
    Non-interest income $ 8,507     $ 10,321     $ 8,955  
               
    Net interest income $ 48,431     $ 49,044     $ 45,222  
    Less: tax exempt investment and loan income, net of TEFRA (non-GAAP)   1,464       1,508       1,337  
    Add: tax exempt investment and loan income (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP)   2,076       2,111       1,932  
    Adjusted net interest income (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP)   49,043       49,647       45,817  
    Adjusted net revenue (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP) $ 57,550     $ 59,968     $ 54,772  
               
    Efficiency ratio (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP)   71.28 %     63.02 %     68.29 %
               
    Adjusted calculation of efficiency ratio (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP):          
    Adjusted non-interest expense (non-GAAP) $ 41,021     $ 37,789     $ 37,404  
    Less: Merger costs (non-GAAP)   1,529       —       —  
    Adjusted non-interest expense (non-GAAP) $ 39,492     $ 37,789     $ 37,404  
               
    Adjusted net revenue (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP) $ 57,550     $ 59,968     $ 54,772  
               
    Adjusted efficiency ratio (fully tax equivalent basis) (non-GAAP)   68.62 %     63.02 %     68.29 %
                           

    CNB FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
    Unaudited
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of return on average assets:          
    Net income $ 11,481     $ 15,064     $ 12,600  
    Average total assets $ 6,220,575     $ 6,085,277     $ 5,729,779  
               
    Return on average assets (GAAP) (annualized)   0.75 %     0.98 %     0.88 %
               
    Adjusted calculation of return on average assets (non-GAAP):          
    Net income $ 11,481     $ 15,064     $ 12,600  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,487       —       —  
    Adjusted net income $ 12,968     $ 15,064     $ 12,600  
               
    Average total assets $ 6,220,575     $ 6,085,277     $ 5,729,779  
               
    Adjusted return on average assets (non-GAAP) (annualized)   0.85 %     0.98 %     0.88 %
                           
      Three Months Ended
      March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Calculation of return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP):          
    Net income $ 11,481     $ 15,064     $ 12,600  
    Less: preferred stock dividends   1,075       1,076       1,075  
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 10,406     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
               
    Average shareholders’ equity $ 619,409     $ 612,184     $ 576,528  
    Less: average goodwill & intangibles   44,074       44,091       44,147  
    Less: average preferred equity   57,785       57,785       57,785  
    Average tangible common shareholders’ equity (non-GAAP) $ 517,550     $ 510,308     $ 474,596  
               
    Return on average equity (GAAP) (annualized)   7.52 %     9.79 %     8.79 %
    Return on average common equity (GAAP) (annualized)   7.51 %     10.04 %     8.94 %
    Return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP) (annualized)   8.15 %     10.90 %     9.77 %
               
    Adjusted calculation of return on average equity (non-GAAP):          
    Net income $ 11,481     $ 15,064     $ 12,600  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,487       —       —  
    Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) $ 12,968     $ 15,064     $ 12,600  
               
    Average shareholders’ equity $ 619,409     $ 612,184     $ 576,528  
               
    Adjusted return on average equity (non-GAAP) (annualized)   8.49 %     9.79 %     8.79 %
               
    Adjusted calculation of return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP):          
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 10,406     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
    Add: Merger costs, net of tax (non-GAAP)   1,487       —       —  
    Adjusted net income available to common shareholders $ 11,893     $ 13,988     $ 11,525  
               
    Average tangible common shareholders’ equity (non-GAAP) $ 517,550     $ 510,308     $ 474,596  
               
    Adjusted return on average tangible common equity (non-GAAP) (annualized)   9.32 %     10.90 %     9.77 %
                           

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Owners are officially no longer responsible for tourism accidents on their land – but they never really were

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Peace, Lecturer in Occupational Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    EyesWideOpen/Getty Images

    Newly announced reforms to the Health and Safety at Work Act mean landowners will no longer be responsible for tourism-related injuries on their properties. But it’s not clear this has ever really been a problem.

    Workplace Safety Minister Brooke van Velden says there was an “inadvertent climate of fear” affecting councils, farmers and landowners who allowed access to their land for hunting, fishing, mountain biking and horse trekking. The fear was that they would be held responsible if someone was hurt or killed on their land.

    The reforms targeting landowners are part of wider changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act, which was passed in 2015. Under section 37 of the act, a person who controls a workplace is responsible for ensuring that

    the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace, and anything arising from the workplace are without risks to the health and safety of any person.

    But we found just one instance of landowners being taken to court for adventure activities going wrong on their properties. This was the case against Whakaari Management Ltd, the owners of Whakaari/White Island after the 2019 eruption that claimed 22 lives and injured 25 others.

    In 2024, Whakaari Management was found guilty of failing to protect visitors to the island, but that decision was overturned in February this year.

    Adventure activities in New Zealand have been relatively safe, with just over 50 deaths in 35 years.
    Judith Lienert/Shutterstock

    Responsibilities under the law

    Under the current rules, responsibility for something going wrong rests with the “person conducting a business or undertaking”.

    A farmer, for example, is conducting business because they own or have control of their land. This does not apply if they are renting out the land but not involved in the activity’s management or control.

    In the Whakaari Management Ltd appeal the judge wrote:

    To be caught by [section] 37, a [a person conducting a business or undertaking] must in fact be exercising active control or management of the workplace in a practical sense. Owning it is not enough. Making money from it is not enough. Merely being able to manage or control a workplace, but not doing so, is not enough.

    Active control might include an agreement between the landowner and the activity operator to monitor conditions.

    While the Whakaari case is the only one we found where a landowner has been prosecuted under the current rules, there have been a number of court cases involving adventure activity companies.

    The key difference between successful and unsuccessful cases seems to be whether the business owners had the ability to influence or change what went wrong.

    For example, in cases where customers of diving businesses drowned, the courts have decided the businesses did not have control of the workplace, including the sea, a lake or river.

    In one case the judge wrote the business

    does not and cannot control flow or conditions nor can it control who uses or goes through the rapid […] It cannot give directions in relation to it, nor exercise any authority over it.

    A business owner operating a kayaking business did have control of the operational conditions and should have had a safe system of work, including checking the weather forecast.

    Similar failings were found after a school trip resulted in drownings and after the poor condition of tour buses and uncontrolled driving during a sand-surfing trip resulted in deaths.

    Making adventure activities relatively safe

    Even under the Adventure Activities Regulations – industry specific rule passed in 2010 and updated since – the responsibility for safety in the tourism industry fell on tourism operators, not landowners.

    And, from a safety perspective, the rules have been relatively successful. In the past 35 years, there have been about 52 deaths in adventure activities due to natural hazards (including the Whakaari/White Island tragedy). During the same period more than 30,000 workers died at or because of work.

    But this relative safety in adventure activities has come at a cost for small businesses. Under the 2010 regulations, the average cost of mandatory audits has been around NZ$5,000 – a cost borne by the small adventure activity businesses.

    If the government wants to further improve the safety of the outdoor tourism industry, then it needs to focus on making it easier and cheaper for businesses to comply with the regulations, rather than focusing on protecting landowners from a risk they never really faced.

    Danaë Anderson receives funding from the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust

    Joanne Crawford receives funding from the Health Research Council and the New Zealand Industrial Relations Trust

    Chris Peace 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. Owners are officially no longer responsible for tourism accidents on their land – but they never really were – https://theconversation.com/owners-are-officially-no-longer-responsible-for-tourism-accidents-on-their-land-but-they-never-really-were-253622

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Video: President Trump on Nvidia Production!

    Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)

    “Nvidia is so highly respected and… the reason they did it was because of the election on November 5th and because of a thing called tariffs.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PARZFmvLLi0

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Washington state joins coalition of AGs supporting challenges to unconstitutional executive orders singling out law firms

    Source: Washington State News

    OLYMPIA – Attorney General Nick Brown has joined 21 attorneys general in two amicus briefs on behalf of law firms that are fighting back against unconstitutional executive orders issued in retaliation for work the Trump administration opposes politically.

    “These illegal executive orders aimed at specific law firms are an attack on the rule of law,” Brown said. “The president’s actions could cause attorneys to avoid making certain legal claims or taking cases to avoid retribution. This would undermine our entire legal system and leave vulnerable communities in the state without representation.”

    President Donald Trump issued executive orders retaliating against law firms whose advocacy, clients, and staff he dislikes. These orders require federal officials to suspend any active security clearances held by the law firms’ workers, to refuse to engage with or hire employees of these firms, and to deny the law firms’ personnel entry to federal buildings. The orders also direct federal contractors to disclose any business with the law firms so that agencies can terminate any such contracts.

    The coalition’s briefs were filed in support of law firms in cases challenging two of these orders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In both cases, the law firms obtained temporary injunctive relief and are now asking a judge to permanently block the executive orders against them.

    Brown and the other attorneys general note that a fair and functioning judicial system depends on lawyers being willing to work on controversial cases or represent unpopular clients without fearing retribution by the government. The attorneys general say the orders will harm their states’ residents by making it more difficult for many potential clients — especially those who currently rely on pro bono representation — to obtain legal services and vindicate their rights in court.

    The coalition was led by the attorneys general from Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Joining them in filing the briefs were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

    The briefs can be found here and here.

    -30-

    Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

    Media Contact:

    Email: press@atg.wa.gov

    Phone: (360) 753-2727

    General contacts: Click here

    Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ

    MIL OSI USA News –