Category: Trade

MIL-OSI: Alarum Technologies Announces First Quarter 2025 Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

Q1 2025 highlighted the growing traction of the company’s data collection solutions with leading AI and eCommerce players worldwide

Company strategically accelerated investments in scalable infrastructure and next-gen technologies to meet the rising demand for AI-ready data and to future-proof its position among top-tier global companies

First quarter 2025 revenue reached $7.1 million, in line with guidance, net profit was at $0.4 million and adjusted EBITDA exceeded guidance, reaching $1.3 million Cash and debt investments balance at quarter-end amounted to $24 million

TEL AVIV, Israel, May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Alarum Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq, TASE: ALAR) (“Alarum” or the “Company”), a global provider of web data collection solutions, today announced financial results for the three-month period ended March 31, 2025.

“2025 began with strong momentum, as demand for scalable, high-quality data continues to accelerate, driven by the rapid growth of AI technologies and eCommerce platforms,” said Shachar Daniel, Chief Executive Officer of Alarum.

“During the quarter, several of the world’s leading AI and eCommerce companies significantly expanded their usage of our platform, relying on our advanced proxy infrastructure, innovative data collector, and Website Unblocker, to power data collection, model training, and real-time access to public web data.”

“In line with our long-term vision, we made a deliberate decision to increase investments in our infrastructure and products, aiming to meet the growing global demand for large-scale data solutions. While this impacted our gross margin, it reinforces our position as a foundational player in the AI data ecosystem,” Mr. Daniel added.

“With discipline and vision, we are building the backbone of data access for the AI era. Our technology and collaborations with customers uniquely position us to deliver long-term value for our stakeholders as the market continues to evolve,” Mr. Daniel concluded.

Market Trends, Recent Developments and Business Highlights

Expanded strategic partnerships with major AI and eCommerce players during the first quarter: Notable new collaborations include a top Asian marketplace, a global electronics brand, and a European AI firm, for large-scale data labeling and model fine-tuning with fresh public data.
Redefining industry trends and market dynamics: A new market is emerging around high-quality, scalable data infrastructure. As AI models require constant training and fine-tuning, Alarum is positioned to play a key role in shaping this space and powering the global AI transformation.
Advancing and investing in long-term strategy, supported by strong financials: Alarum continues to pursue its strategic decision to reinvest earnings into innovative products, scaling operations, expanding infrastructure, and strengthening its IP network. This positions the Company to meet rising demand from AI-driven customers and capture long-term value, while maintaining operational efficiency during this pivotal growth phase.
Powering data collection with Alarum’s enhanced offerings portfolio: Tech giants and startups rely on Alarum’s data collector, Website Unblocker, and proxy network to overcome data access barriers.
Entering 2025 with a strong momentum: NetNut Net Retention Rate (“NRR”)¹ reached 1.13 as of March 31, 2025, in yet another consecutive quarter of achieving an NRR well above 1. With its data collection offering, the Company is well-positioned amid a shifting landscape, and early results from its strategic investments and pipeline visibility support the positive outlook for the second quarter of 2025.

______________________

¹ See definition under “Other Metrics”.

Summary of Financial Results²(in millions of U.S. dollars, rounded, except per share amounts and margins)
	For the Three Months Ended March 31,		For the Year Ended December 31,
	2025	2024	2024
	(Unaudited)	(Unaudited)	(Audited)

Total Revenue	7.1	8.4	31.8
of which, Web Data Collection Revenue was	7.0	8.1	30.9
Gross profit	4.8	6.6	23.9
Gross margin (in percentage)	67.5%	78.5%	75.1%
Non-IFRS gross margin (in percentage)	69.4%	80.4%	77.0%
Total operating expenses	4.5	4.0	17.2
Financial income (expense), net	0.2	(0.9)	0.3
Tax expense	0.1	0.3	1.2
Net profit	0.4	1.4	5.8
Adjusted EBITDA	1.3	3.2	9.4
Basic earnings per American Depository Share (“ADS”) (in U.S. dollars)	$0.06	$0.23	$0.87
Non-IFRS basic earnings per ADS (in U.S. dollars)	$0.16	$0.45	$1.26
Cash, cash equivalents and debt investments (including accrued interest)³	24.0	15.1	25.0
Shareholders’ equity²	27.6	17.1	26.4

First Quarter 2025 Financial Analysis

Revenue in Q1 2025 totalled $7.1 million (Q1 2024: $8.4 million). The 15% year-over-year change reflects market dynamics that affected the demand from certain customers since mid-2024.
Cost of revenue in Q1 2025 was $2.3 million (Q1 2024: $1.8 million). The increase is mainly due to the investment in the Company’s IP network, specifically in infrastructure and servers, aligning with its strategic decision to boost its expansion capabilities.
As a result, Gross profit in Q1 2025 amounted to $4.8 million (Q1 2024: $6.6 million).
Operating expenses in Q1 2025 totalled $4.5 million (Q1 2024: $4.0 million). The difference was driven mainly by the increase in research and development salaries and share based payments costs.
Financial income, net, in Q1 2025 was $0.2 million (Q1 2024: financial expense, net, of $0.9 million). This shift was mainly due to the fair value decrease of derivative financial instruments (warrants issued in 2019-2020), resulting from the share price changes during the measured periods.
Net profit in Q1 2025 reached $0.4 (Q1 2024: $1.4 million).
As of March 31, 2025, shareholders’ equity increased to $27.6 million, up from $26.4 million as of December 31, 2024. The increase was driven by the quarterly net profit.
Outstanding ordinary share count as of March 31, 2025, was approximately 69.3 million shares, or 6.9 million in ADSs.

______________________

¹ See definition under “Other Metrics”.
² The table below contains certain non-IFRS financial measures. See “Use of Non-IFRS Financial Results” for additional information regarding these measures and reconciliations to the most comparable IFRS measures.
³ As of the last day of the period.

Financial Outlook

“First quarter revenues were in line with guidance, whilst Adjusted EBITDA exceeded expectations, surpassing our outlook,” said Mr. Shai Avnit, Chief Financial Officer of Alarum.

“Alarum has entered the second quarter of 2025 with solid momentum and demand. Accordingly, second quarter 2025 revenues are estimated at $7.9 million ±3%, and Adjusted EBITDA for the second quarter 2025 is expected to range from $0.5 million to $0.8 million. We remain attentive to market dynamics as the AI market reshapes and are actively optimizing our network infrastructure and product delivery, with a clear roadmap to drive efficiency, maintain high margins, and deliver long-term value to our stakeholders,” Mr. Avnit concluded.

We are unable to present a reconciliation of our estimated Adjusted EBITDA to net profit as we are unable to predict with reasonable certainty, and without unreasonable effort, the impact and timing of certain expenses on our net profit. The financial impact of these expenses is uncertain and is dependent on various factors, including timing, and could be material to our consolidated statements of profit or loss and other comprehensive income (loss).

First Quarter 2025 Financial Results Conference Call

Mr. Shachar Daniel, Chief Executive Officer of Alarum, and Mr. Shai Avnit, Chief Financial Officer of Alarum, will host a conference call today, May 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. ET, 5:30 a.m. Pacific time, 3:30 p.m. Israel, to discuss the first quarter of 2025 results and the second quarter 2025 outlook, followed by a Q&A session.

To attend, log in here or dial one of the following numbers, at least five minutes before the call starts: 1-877-407-0789 or 1-201-689-8562. If you are unable to connect using the toll-free number, please try the international dial-in number. An Israeli toll-free number is: 1 809 406 247. Participants will be required to state their name and company upon dialling in.

Replay: The conference call will be broadcast live and available for replay here, after 11:30 a.m. ET on May 29, 2025.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates” and similar expressions or variations of such words are intended to identify forward-looking statements. For example, Alarum is using forward-looking statements in this press release when it discusses that the demand for scalable, high-quality data continues to accelerate, driven by the rapid growth of AI technologies and eCommerce platforms; the Company’s focus and strategic; that its technology and collaborations with customers uniquely position it to deliver long-term value for its stakeholders as the market continues to evolve; emergence of a new market around high-quality, scalable data infrastructure; that early results from its strategic investments; pipeline visibility support the positive outlook for the second quarter of 2025; and its estimates regarding second quarter 2025 revenues and Adjusted EBITDA. Because such statements deal with future events and are based on Alarum’s current expectations, they are subject to various risks and uncertainties and actual results, performance or achievements of Alarum could differ materially from those described in or implied by the statements in this press release. The forward-looking statements contained or implied in this press release are subject to other risks and uncertainties, including those discussed under the heading “Risk Factors” in Alarum’s annual report on Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 20, 2025, and in any subsequent filings with the SEC. Except as otherwise required by law, Alarum undertakes no obligation to publicly release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. References and links to websites have been provided as a convenience, and the information contained on such websites is not incorporated by reference into this press release. Alarum is not responsible for the contents of third-party websites.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
	March 31,				December 31,
	2025		2024		2024
	(Unaudited)				(Audited)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	13,952		15,060		15,081
Trade receivables, net	3,789		2,945		3,231
Other receivables	698		1,449		503
	18,439		19,454		18,815

Non-current assets:
Long-term deposits	119		104		121
Other non-current assets	85		119		85
Property and equipment, net	134		110		130
Right-of-use assets	429		709		498
Deferred tax assets	497		244		422
Debt investments at fair value through other comprehensive income	9,331		–		9,256
Debt investments at fair value through profit or loss	564		–		555
Intangible assets, net	677		1,225		811
Goodwill	4,118		4,118		4,118
Total non-current assets	15,954		6,629		15,996
Total assets	34,393		26,083		34,811

Liabilities and equity
Current liabilities:
Trade payables	373		416		251
Other payables	2,815		3,056		4,484
Current maturities of long-term loan	965		353		938
Contract liabilities	2,072		2,728		1,987
Derivative financial instruments	1		952		148
Short-term lease liabilities	362		365		359
Total current liabilities	6,588		7,870		8,167

Non-current liabilities:
Long-term lease liabilities	186		462		261
Long-term loans, net of current maturities	–		691		32
Total non-current liabilities	186		1,153		293
Total liabilities	6,774		9,023		8,460

Equity:
Ordinary shares	–		–		–
Share premium	112,059		104,097		111,892
Other equity reserves	11,705		13,856		11,012
Accumulated deficit	(96,145	)	(100,893	)	(96,553	)
Total equity	27,619		17,060		26,351
Total liabilities and equity	34,393		26,083		34,811

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) (in thousands of U.S. dollars, except per share amounts)
	For the Three Months Ended March 31,		For the Year Ended December 31,
	2025	2024	2024
	(Unaudited)	(Unaudited)	(Audited)

Revenue	7,133	8,376	31,824
Cost of revenue	2,318	1,803	7,915
Gross profit	4,815	6,573	23,909

Operating expenses:
Research and development	1,370	1,022	4,495
Sales and marketing	1,827	1,725	7,033
General and administrative	1,285	1,240	5,661
Total operating expenses	4,482	3,987	17,189

Operating profit	333	2,586	6,720

Financial income (expense), net	212	(848)	281
Profit from operations before income tax	545	1,738	7,001
Tax expense	(137)	(298)	(1,221)
Net profit for the period	408	1,440	5,780
Other comprehensive income (loss) for the period Change in fair value of debt investments	72	–	(80)
Total comprehensive income for the period	480	1,440	5,700

Basic profit per share	$0.01	$0.02	$0.09
Diluted profit per share	$0.01	$0.02	$0.08
Basic profit per ADS	$0.06	$0.23	$0.87

Use of Non-IFRS Financial Results

In addition to disclosing financial results calculated in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, this press release contains non-IFRS financial measures of EBITDA (EBITDA loss), Adjusted EBITDA (Adjusted EBITDA loss), non-IFRS net profit (loss), non-IFRS gross profit, non-IFRS gross margin and non-IFRS basic earnings (loss) per share or ADS for the periods presented. The Company defines EBITDA (EBITDA loss) as net profit (loss) before depreciation, amortization and impairment of intangible assets (if any), financial income (expense) and income tax; defines Adjusted EBITDA (Adjusted EBITDA loss) as EBITDA (EBITDA loss) as further adjusted to remove the impact of (i) impairment of goodwill (if any); and (ii) share-based compensation; defines non-IFRS net profit (loss) as net profit (loss) before depreciation, amortization and impairment of intangible assets (if any), impairment of goodwill (if any), financial income (expense) effects primarily related to derivative financial instruments as well as long-term loans, deferred tax effects and share-based compensation; defines non-IFRS gross profit as gross profit adjusted to remove the impact of depreciation, amortization and impairment of intangible assets and share-based compensation recorded under cost of revenues; defines non-IFRS gross margin as the percentage of the non-IFRS gross profit out of revenues; and defines non-IFRS basic earnings (loss) per share or ADS as non-IFRS net profit (loss) divided by the weighted average number of ordinary shares or ADSs. The Company’s management believes the non-IFRS financial information provided in this press release is useful to investors’ understanding and assessment of the Company’s ongoing operations. Management also uses both IFRS and non-IFRS information in evaluating and operating its business internally, and as such deemed it important to provide this information to investors. The non-IFRS financial measures disclosed by the Company should not be considered in isolation, or as a substitute for, or superior to, financial measures calculated in accordance with IFRS, and the financial results calculated in accordance with IFRS and reconciliations to those financial statements should be carefully evaluated. Investors are encouraged to review the reconciliations of these non-IFRS measures to their most directly comparable IFRS financial measures provided in the financial statement tables herein.

Other Metrics

Net retention rate (NRR) is a key indicator of customer base health and revenue expansion. It is based on NRR point in time, which measures the revenue growth of current customers over the past four quarters, compared to the revenue generated from these customers during the same period a year earlier.
NRR is calculated as an average of the NRR points in time for the end of the current period and the three preceding quarters.
NRR > 1 (or 100%): Indicates revenue growth driven by existing customers, where upsells and cross-sells outweigh churn.
NRR < 1 (or 100%): Shows revenue loss due to churn exceeding gains from upsells or cross-sells.

Non-IFRS Financial Measures
(in millions of U.S. dollars, rounded)

The following tables present the reconciled effect of the above on the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA; non-IFRS net profit; and non-IFRS gross profit for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, and the year ended December 31, 2024:

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,		For the Year Ended December 31,
	2025	2024	2024
Net profit	0.4	1.4	5.8
Adjustments:
Depreciation and amortization	0.2	0.2	0.6
Financial expense (income), net	(0.2)	0.9	(0.4)
Tax expense	0.1	0.3	1.4
EBITDA	0.5	2.8	7.4
Adjustments:
Share-based compensation	0.8	0.4	2.0
Adjusted EBITDA for the period	1.3	3.2	9.4

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,		For the Year Ended December 31,
	2025	2024	2024
Net profit	0.4	1.4	5.8
Adjustments:
Depreciation and amortization	0.2	0.2	0.6
Financial expense (income), net effects	(0.2)	0.9	0.1
Deferred tax effects	(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.1)
Share-based compensation	0.8	0.4	2.0
Non-IFRS net profit for the period	1.1	2.8	8.4

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,		For the Year Ended December 31,
	2025	2024	2024
Gross profit	4.8	6.6	23.9
Adjustments:
Depreciation and amortization	0.1	0.1	0.6
Share-based compensation	*	*	*
Non-IFRS gross profit for the period	4.9	6.7	24.5

* Less than $0.1 million

About Alarum Technologies Ltd.

Alarum Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq, TASE: ALAR) is a global provider of web data collection solutions, empowering organizations to gain a competitive edge by streamlining the collection, extraction, and analysis of large-scale structured data from public online sources. Our data collection solutions by NetNut, are based on our world’s fastest and most advanced and secured hybrid proxy network, which comprises both exit points based on our proprietary reflection technology and hundreds of servers located at our ISP partners around the world. Pushing the boundaries of innovation in data collection, we are building a robust platform, complemented by the Website Unblocker, Data Collector, Data Sets and AI data collector. As the impact of the AI revolution unfolds, Alarum, with its robust market-leading data collection offerings is preparing itself to play a meaningful role as the world reshapes in a new form.

For more information about Alarum and its web data collection solutions, please visit www.alarum.io.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Investor Relations Contact:

investors@alarum.io

The MIL Network –

May 30, 2025

MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Trump, tariffs and the Middle East are looming challenges for Albanese

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Australia these days receives invitations to big-league international conferences. And so Anthony Albanese will be off soon to the G7 meeting in Alberta, Canada, on June 15-17.

For the prime minister, what’s most important about this trip is not so much the conference itself, but his expected first meeting with US President Donald Trump, either on the sidelines of the G7 or in a visit to Washington while he’s in North America.

Nothing is locked in. But it’s impossible to think such a meeting won’t take place. The Australian PM certainly needs to have his first face-to-face talks with the US president sooner rather than later.

During the election, there was much argument over whether Albanese or Peter Dutton would be better at dealing with the difficult and unpredictable Trump, in particular, in trying to extract some concessions on his tariffs

Australia has been hit by Trump’s 25% tariff on aluminium and steel, as well as by his general 10% tariff.

The Trump tariff regime has been a chaotic story of decisions, pauses and changes of mind. In the latest drama, the United States Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs (as far as Australia goes, this relates to the 10% general tariff but not that on aluminium and steel). The court found the president had exceeded his powers. The administration immediately appealed the decision.

We can’t know how this imbroglio will play out. But assuming Australia will still be confronting some tariffs, Albanese’s pitch for special treatment will be made around what we can do for the Americans with our large deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. These are vital for the production of a huge range of items, including for defence purposes.

Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, speaking at a conference in Detroit this week, pointed out that the two countries already had a draft accord on these minerals.

“What we need to work out […] is how do we collaborate both on the mining, the extraction, the transportation and the processing and the stockpiling to make our economies resilient, including what you’ll need for future battery manufacture,” Rudd said.

When Albanese does get together with Trump, he will have the advantage of meeting him as the big winner of the recent election. Trump said of him post-election, “He’s been very, very nice to me, very respectful to me”.

But that’s no iron-clad guarantee of success. With the US president, there are always multiple “known unknowns”.

For Albanese, success on the tariff front would be important, but not, of course, as important politically as it would have been pre-election.

A range of other issues will also be on the agenda when the two meet: including progress on AUKUS.

The president would no doubt be pleased the government is in the process of booting the Chinese lessee out of the Port of Darwin (with American investment firm Cerberus expressing an interest in taking over, although the government’s preference is for the port to be in Australian hands).

Trump might not think, however, that the government’s commitment to defence spending, due to reach 2.3% of gross domestic product by 2033-34, is enough. The Americans would prefer a level of 3% of GDP.

No doubt the Middle East would also be canvassed in such talks. While Middle East policy is not a frontline issue in the Australian-American relationship, the Albanese government struggles at home to strike the right stance.

Since the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Australia has seen a deterioration in local social cohesion. Antisemitism spiked to a degree not anticipated; pro-Palestinian demonstrations became a regular and controversial feature. The government found itself under political fire from the Jewish community and pro-Palestinian critics alike.

With the Israeli government disregarding international criticism, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza growing more dire, Albanese this week toughened his rhetoric.

On Monday he said: “It is outrageous that there be a blockade of food and supplies to people who are in need in Gaza. We have made that very clear by signing up to international statements”. He described Israel’s actions as “completely unacceptable”.

Within Labor, the pressure to go further has been mounting. It is on two fronts. Some want sanctions against Israel (beyond the existing sanctions in relation to settlers on the West Bank). There is also the issue of whether Australia should recognise a Palestinian state ahead of a two-state solution.

Ed Husic, a Muslim, was relatively outspoken even while he was in cabinet. Since being dumped from the ministry, he is much freer to put forth his view.

This week, he was calling for imposing sanctions if other nations were to do so. “I think we should be actively considering […] drawing up a list of targeted sanctions where we can join with others”.

Significantly, former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans was another advocate, saying sanctions “would send a powerful message”.

Read more:
Gareth Evans: the case for recognising Palestine

But when the question of sanctions was put to Albanese, he was dismissive, raising the issue of substantive outcomes.

At the Labor party’s grassroots level, there is strong pressure for a more pro-Palestinian approach.

It is not unreasonable to think that would strike a sympathetic chord with both Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, but they are very cognisant of the politics – both international and local.

Wong a year ago raised the possibility of recognising Palestine statehood as a step along a peace process, ahead of a two-state solution.

Australia’s ambassador to the United Nations, James Larson, last week delivered an Australian statement to a preparatory meeting for a June conference in New York on “the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution”.

Echoing Wong’s earlier position, he said: “A two-state solution – a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel – is the only hope of breaking the endless cycle of violence, and the only hope of a just and enduring peace, for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

“Like other partners, Australia no longer sees recognition of a Palestinian state as only occurring at the end of negotiations, but rather as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution.”

Evans, in an article for Pearls and Irritations this week, says the “strongest and most constructive contribution” Australia could make on the issue would be to announce at the conference “that we are immediately recognising Palestinian statehood: not just as the final outcome of a political settlement but as a way of kickstarting it”.

The government is tight-lipped about what stand it will take for the June 17-20 conference, saying it doesn’t have details yet and is unable to say who will attend for Australia. It says it is not being framed as a conference where countries are expected to make pledges.

Nevertheless, many within Labor will be watching closely whether the coming weeks will see any change in Australia’s Middle East policy. But that, in turn, would depend on whether others make any moves, because Australia wants to have company from like-minded countries.

Michelle Grattan 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. Grattan on Friday: Trump, tariffs and the Middle East are looming challenges for Albanese – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-trump-tariffs-and-the-middle-east-are-looming-challenges-for-albanese-257333

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

May 29, 2025
Indian stock market ends in green over positive global cues

Source: Government of India

Source: Government of India (4)

The Indian stock market closed in green on Thursday amid positive global cues. Sensex closed 320.70 points or 0.39 per cent up at 81,633.02 while Nifty ended up 81.15 points or 0.33 per cent at 24,833.60.

Buying was seen in midcap and smallcap along with largecap. Nifty Midcap 100 index was up 315.85 points or 0.55 per cent at 57,457.25 and Nifty Smallcap 100 index was up 105.40 points or 0.59 per cent at 17,889.

On a sectoral basis, metal, IT, financial services, realty, media and energy indices were in the green, while, PSU Bank, FMCG and PSE sectors were in the red.

“Global sentiment improved after a US court struck down Donald Trump’s reciprocal tax policy. However, the domestic market remained mostly rangebound during the day due to rising oil prices and higher US 10-year bond yields,” said Vinod Nair, Head of Research, Geojit Investments Limited.

Some recovery was seen toward the end of the session, driven by F&O expiry led covering.

“Export-focused sectors like IT and Pharma performed well, supported by hopes of easing trade tensions. Lack of positive domestic triggers and a drop in industrial output to an eight-month low could lead to short-term market consolidation,” he mentioned.

Nifty witnessed a volatile session on the day of monthly expiry. The momentum continues to remain weak, with the RSI still pointing downward.

“The next crucial support is at 24,670. If the index falls below this level, a sharp correction may occur, potentially dragging the index down to 24,400/ 24,300. On the other hand, if Nifty holds above 24,670, it could witness a smart recovery towards 25,000 or 25,150 in the short term,” said Rupak De from LKP Securities.

Gold prices traded weak in the first half of the session after the FOMC meeting minutes indicated that the U.S. Federal Reserve is unlikely to ease interest rates in the near term, maintaining a data-dependent stance. In the domestic market, MCX gold holds support near Rs 94,000, with resistance around Rs 96,500, said experts.

–IANS

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: EU Fact Sheets – Trade regimes applicable to developing countries – 28-05-2025

Source: European Parliament

The EU’s development policy stresses the importance of trade, and focuses on the countries most in need. The Generalised Scheme of Preferences gives some goods from developing countries preferential access to the EU market. Economic Partnership Agreements ensure preferential commercial treatment for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, while the Everything But Arms scheme applies to least developed countries. These schemes are in line with World Trade Organization rules.

MIL OSI Europe News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: AMENDMENTS 001-001 – REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the modification of customs duties applicable to imports of certain goods originating in or exported directly or indirectly from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus – A10-0087/2025(001-001)

Source: European Parliament

AMENDMENTS 001-001
REPORT
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the modification of customs duties applicable to imports of certain goods originating in or exported directly or indirectly from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus
(COM(2025)0034 – C10-0006/2025 – 2025/0021(COD))
Committee on International Trade
Rapporteur: Inese Vaidere

Source : © European Union, 2025 – EP

MIL OSI Europe News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: ADDENDUM on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the modification of customs duties applicable to imports of certain goods originating in or exported directly or indirectly from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus (COM(2025)0034 ; C10-0006/2025 ; 2025/0021(COD)) – A10-0087/2025(ERR01)

Source: European Parliament

ADDENDUM on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the modification of customs duties applicable to imports of certain goods originating in or exported directly or indirectly from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus (COM(2025)0034 ; C10-0006/2025 ; 2025/0021(COD))
Committee on International Trade
Inese Vaidere

Source : © European Union, 2025 – EP

MIL OSI Europe News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI: Influencer Crypto Costa Opens Short Position on XRP via BYDFi
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

VICTORIA, Seychelles, May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Crypto Costa, a well-known trading educator and content creator, has announced that he is initiating a short position on XRP, drawing notable attention and discussion across the trading community. The position was opened on BYDFi, a globally renowned crypto trading platform where Costa serves as a global brand ambassador.

XRP Surges Past $2.3 Amid Bullish Momentum

XRP recently climbed to $2.3, marking a significant rally after clearing a key psychological resistance level. The price movement follows renewed optimism in the broader Ripple ecosystem, fueled by legal progress and sustained investor interest. Trading volumes and social metrics have surged, reflecting growing retail and institutional participation in the asset.

BYDFi Ambassador Crypto Costa Against the Tide

While broader sentiment remains optimistic, Costa has taken a contrarian stance by initiating a short-selling strategy against XRP’s rally.

“I’m starting to scale into a short on #XRP. First short entry at $2.3,” Costa posted on X. “I think the top for this centralized coin is long gone, so I’m planning to hold the short through the upcoming dumps in the coming weeks and months.”

While Costa’s tone remains provocative, the move has sparked renewed discussion about XRP’s short-term volatility. As a trader, he noted BYDFi’s execution speed, depth of liquidity, and contract infrastructure as factors influencing his choice of platform for this trade.

About Crypto Costa

Crypto Costa is recognized for his outspoken market views and educational content across X and YouTube. Known for his contrarian takes, he shares trading insights with a global audience and joined BYDFi as a brand ambassador earlier this year.

About BYDFi

Established in 2020, BYDFi has grown to serve over 1,000,000 users across 190+ countries and regions. The platform has been recognized by Forbes as one of the Best Crypto Exchanges & Apps for Beginners of 2025, and offers a full suite of trading products—including spot, perpetual contracts, copy trading, trading bots, and on-chain tools—designed to support both beginners and experienced crypto users.

BYDFi is committed to providing a world-class crypto trading experience for every user.

BUIDL Your Dream Finance.
- Website: https://www.bydfi.com
- Support email: cs@bydfi.com
- Business partnerships: bd@bydfi.com
- Media inquiries: media@bydfi.com
Twitter( X ) | LinkedIn | Telegram | YouTube | How to Buy on BYDFi

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/445ba42c-a6e0-4f63-b56b-e4243bd0f2d7

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/1c78e22a-1dca-4cd4-9368-678f28badf30

The MIL Network –
May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI: Defiance Launches CVNX: The First 2X Long ETF for Carvana Co.

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

MIAMI, May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Defiance ETFs introduces CVNX, the Defiance Daily Target 2X Long CVNA ETF (CVNX), a 2X leveraged single-stock ETF designed to provide amplified exposure to Carvana Co. (NYSE: CVNA). This ETF offers traders a way to pursue enhanced upside potential in Carvana without the need for a margin account.

CVNX seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, of two times (200%) the daily percentage change in the share price of Carvana Co., a trailblazer in the digital transformation of used-car retail.

“The Defiance Daily Target 2X Long CVNA ETF (CVNX) unleashes the full throttle of Carvana’s meteoric rise—up nearly 200% in the last year with Q1 2025 revenue smashing $4.23 billion. This ETF is built for savvy traders ready to amplify their stake in a company that’s rewriting the rules of used-car retail. With CVNA’s relentless growth, we’re giving investors the tools to seize this moment and ride the wave of automotive disruption.”
— Sylvia Jablonski, CEO and CIO, Defiance ETFs

For more information, visit DefianceETFs.com.

The Fund is not intended to be used by, and is not appropriate for, investors who do not intend to actively monitor and manage their portfolios. The Fund pursues a daily leveraged investment objective, which means that the Fund is riskier than alternatives that do not use leverage because the Fund magnifies the performance of the Underlying Security. The Fund is not suitable for all investors. The Fund is designed to be utilized only by knowledgeable investors who understand the potential consequences of seeking daily leveraged (2X) investment results, understand the risks associated with the use of leverage, and are willing to monitor their portfolios frequently. For periods longer than a single day, the Fund will lose money if the Underlying Security’s performance is flat, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money even if the Underlying Security’s performance declines over a period longer than a single day. An investor could lose the full principal value of their investment within a single day.

An investment in CVNX is not an investment in Carvana Co.

About Defiance ETFs

Founded in 2018, Defiance is at the forefront of ETF innovation. Defiance is a leading ETF issuer specializing in thematic, income, and leveraged ETFs. Our first-mover leveraged single-stock ETFs empower investors to take amplified positions in high-growth companies, providing precise leverage exposure without the need to open a margin account.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES

Defiance ETFs LLC is the ETF sponsor. The Fund’s investment adviser is Tidal Investments, LLC (“Tidal” or the “Adviser”).

The Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses must be considered carefully before investing. The prospectus and summary prospectus contain this and other important information about the investment company. Please read the prospectus and / or summary prospectus carefully before investing. Hard copies can be requested by calling 833.333.9383.

Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. As an ETF, the funds may trade at a premium or discount to NAV. Shares of any ETF are bought and sold at market price (not NAV) and are not individually redeemed from the Fund. A portfolio concentrated in a single industry or country, may be subject to a higher degree of risk.

There is no guarantee that the Fund’s investment strategy will be properly implemented, and an investor may lose some or all of its investment.

Total return represents changes to the NAV and accounts for distributions from the fund.

CVNA Risks: The Fund invests in swap contracts and options that are based on the share price of CVNA. This subjects the Fund to certain of the same risks as if it owned shares of CVNA even though it does not.

Indirect Investment Risk. CVNA is not affiliated with the Trust, the Fund, or the Adviser, or their respective affiliates and is not involved with this offering in any way and has no obligation to consider your Shares in taking any corporate actions that might affect the value of Shares.

Trading Risk. The trading price of the Fund may be subject to volatility and could experience wide fluctuations due to various factors. Short sellers may also play a significant role in trading CVNA, potentially affecting the supply and demand dynamics and contributing to market price volatility. Public perception and external factors beyond the company’s control may influence CVNA’s stock price disproportionately.

Performance Risk. CVNA may fail to meet publicly announced guidelines or other expectations about its business, which could cause the price of CVNA to decline.

Automotive Industry Risk. The automotive retail industry is subject to significant risks that can impact both profitability and competitiveness. The industry is highly dependent on consumer demand, which can be influenced by various factors such as economic conditions, consumer confidence, fuel prices, and preferences for particular vehicle types.

Additional Risks:

Compounding and Market Volatility Risk. The Fund has a daily leveraged investment objective and the Fund’s performance for periods greater than a trading day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which is very likely to differ from two times (200%) the Underlying Security’s performance, before the Fund’s management fee and other expenses.

Leverage Risk. The Fund obtains investment exposure in excess of its net assets by utilizing leverage and may lose more money in market conditions that are adverse to its investment objective than a fund that does not utilize leverage. An investment in the Fund is exposed to the risk that a decline in the daily performance of the Underlying Security will be magnified.

Derivatives Risk. The Fund’s investments in derivatives may pose risks in addition to, and greater than, those associated with directly investing in securities or other ordinary investments, including risks related to the market, leverage, imperfect daily correlations with underlying investments or the Fund’s other portfolio holdings, higher price volatility, lack of availability, counterparty risk, liquidity, valuation, and legal restrictions.

Swap Agreements. The use of swap transactions is a highly specialized activity, which involves investment techniques and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions.

Options Contracts. The use of options contracts involves investment strategies and risks different from those associated with ordinary portfolio securities transactions. The prices of options are volatile and are influenced by, among other things, actual and anticipated changes in the value of the underlying instrument, including the anticipated volatility, which are affected by fiscal and monetary policies and by national and international political, changes in the actual or implied volatility or the reference asset, the time remaining until the expiration of the option contract and economic events.

Counterparty Risk. The Fund is subject to counterparty risk by virtue of its investments in derivatives which exposes the Fund to the risk that the counterparty will not fulfill its obligation to the Fund.

Fixed Income Securities Risk. When the Fund invests in fixed income securities, the value of your investment in the Fund will fluctuate with changes in interest rates. Typically, a rise in interest rates causes a decline in the value of fixed-income securities owned by the Fund.

Liquidity Risk. Some securities held by the Fund may be difficult to sell or be illiquid, particularly during times of market turmoil. Markets for securities or financial instruments could be disrupted by a number of events, including, but not limited to, an economic crisis, natural disasters, epidemics/pandemics, new legislation, or regulatory changes inside or outside the United States.

New Fund Risk. The Fund is a recently organized management investment company with no operating history. As a result, prospective investors do not have a track record or history on which to base their investment decisions.

Diversification does not ensure a profit nor protect against loss in a declining market. Brokerage Commissions may be charged on trades.

Distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC

Contact Information
David Hanono
info@defianceetfs.com
833.333.9383

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/f9cbde05-7266-4bc8-9d94-24ec43e4a822

The MIL Network –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s global trade plans are in disarray, after a US court ruling on ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Susan Stone, Credit Union SA Chair of Economics, University of South Australia

A United States court has blocked the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs that US President Donald Trump imposed on imported goods from around 90 nations. This puts implementation of Trump’s current trade policy in disarray.

The Court of International Trade ruled the emergency authority Trump used to impose the tariffs could not override the role of Congress, which has the right to regulate commerce with other countries.

Tariffs imposed via other legislative processes – such as those dealing with cars, steel and aluminium – continue to stand. But the broad-based “reciprocal” tariffs will need to be removed within ten days of the court’s ruling. Trump administration officials have already filed plans to appeal.

The ruling calls into question trade negotiations underway with more than 18 different nations, which are trying to lower these tariffs. Do these countries continue to negotiate or do they wait for the judicial process to play out?

The Trump administration still has other mechanisms through which it can impose tariffs, but these have limits on the amount that can be imposed, or entail processes which can take months or years. This undermines Trump’s preferred method of negotiation: throwing out large threats and backing down once a concession is reached.

Emergency powers were a step too far

The lawsuits were filed by US importers of foreign products and some US states, challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

The lawsuits argued the national emergencies cited in imposing the tariffs – the trade deficit and the fentanyl crisis – were not an emergency and not directly addressed by the tariff remedy. The court agreed, and said by imposing tariffs Trump had overstepped his authority.

The ruling said the executive orders used were “declared to be invalid as contrary to law”.

The act states the president is entitled to take economic action in the face of “an unusual and extraordinary threat”. It’s mainly been used to impose sanctions on terrorist groups or freeze assets from Russia. There’s nothing in the act that refers to tariffs.

The decision means all the reciprocal tariffs – including the 10% tariffs on most countries, the 50% tariffs Trump was talking about putting on the EU, and some of the Chinese tariffs – are ruled by the court to be illegal. They must be removed within 10 days.

The ruling was based on two separate lawsuits. One was brought by a group of small businesses that argued tariffs materially hurt their business. The other was brought by 12 individual states, arguing the tariffs would materially impact their ability to provide public goods.

Some industry tariffs will remain in place

The ruling does not apply to tariffs applied under Section 201, known as safeguard tariffs. They are intended to protect industries from imports allegedly being sold in the US market at unfair prices or through unfair means. Tariffs on solar panels and washing machines were brought under this regulation.

Also excluded are Section 232 tariffs, which are applied for national security reasons. Those are the steel and aluminium tariffs, the automobile and auto parts tariffs. Trump has declared all those as national security issues, so those tariffs will remain.

Most of the tariffs against China are also excluded under Section 301. Those are put in place for unfair trade practices, such as intellectual property theft or forced technology transfer. They are meant to pressure countries to change their policies.

Other trade investigations are still underway

In addition, there are current investigations related to copper and the pharmaceuticals sector, which will continue. These investigations are part of a more traditional trade process and may lead to future tariffs, including on Australia.

The Trump administration is still weighing possible sector-specific tariffs on pharmaceuticals.
Planar/Shutterstock

Now for the appeals

The Trump administration has already filed its intention to appeal to the federal appeals court. This process will take some time. In the meantime, there are at least five other legal challenges to tariffs pending in the courts.

If the appeals court provides a ruling the Trump administration or opponents don’t like, they can appeal to the Supreme Court.

Alternatively, the White House could direct customs officials to ignore the court and continue to collect tariffs.

The Trump administration has ignored court orders in the past, particularly on immigration rulings. So it remains to be seen if customs officials will release goods without the tariffs being paid in ten days’ time.

The administration is unlikely to lie down on this. In addition to its appeal process, officials complained about “unelected judges” and “judicial overreach” and may contest the whole process. The only thing that continues to be a certainty is that uncertainty will drive global markets for the foreseeable future.

Susan Stone 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. Trump’s global trade plans are in disarray, after a US court ruling on ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – https://theconversation.com/trumps-global-trade-plans-are-in-disarray-after-a-us-court-ruling-on-liberation-day-tariffs-257812

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

May 29, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: New Australian data shows most of us have PFAS in our blood. How worried should we be?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University

New Africa/Shutterstock

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has this week released new data which tells us about the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Australians’ bodies.

The data comes from concentrations measured in blood samples of nearly 7,000 people aged 12 and over, collected as part of the National Health Measures Survey for 2022–24.

The findings are concerning, showing PFAS are detectable in the vast majority of the Australian population, to varying levels.

But are they cause for alarm? What do these findings mean for our health?

‘Forever chemicals’

PFAS, often called “forever chemicals”, are a group of thousands of different human-made chemicals. The molecular structure of PFAS chemicals – characterised by extremely strong bonds between carbon and fluorine atoms – makes PFAS resistant to degradation.

Many PFAS products are very effective for their resistance to water, oil, grease and stains, while others promote foaming. Since the 1940s, PFAS chemicals have been widely used in many consumer and industry products, such as non-stick pans, stain-resistant fabrics and firefighting foam.

One of the downsides of PFAS is their potential to bioaccumulate, or gradually build up in the body.

Important exposure pathways include ingestion of PFAS in drinking water, in food, or absorption through the skin. Absorption of small amounts progressively builds up in the organs of people and animals, particularly the liver.

Exposure to PFAS is associated with a heightened risk of many adverse health outcomes. These include reduced fertility, and increased risk of some cancers, liver disease, kidney disease, high cholesterol and obesity.

Digging into the data

The ABS data measured 11 types of PFAS. The group of PFAS chemicals they selected reflects the most commonly detected forms from previous studies. The concentration of PFAS chemicals is measured in blood serum in nanograms per millilitre (ng/mL).

Three types of PFAS were detected in the blood of more than 85% of Australians, while the remainder were detected in lower proportions of people.

The type of PFAS most commonly detected in blood was perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). It was found in 98.6% of samples.

PFOS accumulation has been a major problem in firefighters. Many were exposed occupationally to PFOS, sometimes for decades, and many suffered an unusually high incidence of disease, including a suspected cancer cluster.

The below graph shows the level of PFOS increases with age. This could be because it accumulates in the body over time, and because many types of PFOS are being phased out. From 2004 its use in firefighting was phased out by major users, such as the Department of Defence.

PFOS was also found to be higher in males – research shows PFAS is excreted more rapidly in females, including through menstruation and breastfeeding.

The second most commonly detected type of PFAS detected in Australian blood samples was perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in 96.1% of samples. PFOA has recently been classified by the World Health Organization as a group 1 carcinogen, meaning it’s a recognised cancer-causing agent.

The third most commonly detected type of PFAS was perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), which was detected in 88.1% of samples.

So what are the implications?

The National Health Measures Survey identified a relationship between higher mean PFOS levels and markers of chronic disease including high total cholesterol levels, diabetes and kidney function.

However, it’s important to note this is only 7,000 people, and the data were weighted to be representative of the Australian population. There may be other factors, such as lifestyle or occupation, that have influenced the results.

While these findings may be concerning, they’re not cause for alarm. The scientific evidence more broadly doesn’t tell us conclusively whether concentrations of PFAS equivalent to those seen in the current data would have a direct effect on disease outcomes.

Some good news is that overall, this data suggests we have less PFAS in our blood compared to people in other countries.

Why this data is important

The ABS report provides the most detailed national baseline data on PFAS in the Australian population to date.

While many people are concerned about PFAS, some Australian communities have been particularly worried.

For example, in August 2024 it was revealed that a water filtration plant in the Blue Mountains contained substantial concentrations of PFAS. This was probably due to a major petrol tanker crash in 1992 and residual effects of PFAS from firefighting foam used to respond to that incident.

While people can have a blood sample taken to measure PFAS levels, it’s very expensive. NSW Health advises PFAS testing is not covered by Medicare or private health insurance.

Reports are emerging of Blue Mountains residents that have paid for blood testing getting very high concentrations of PFAS. These ABS results will help people who do receive blood testing assess how their results compare with typical results of a person of the same age and sex. People with concerns should consult a medical professional.

The ABS data will also be valuable for medical practitioners and public health authorities, providing important information to guide the management of PFAS contamination and its potential health effects.

Ian Wright receives research and other funding from industry, local and state government bodies.

– ref. New Australian data shows most of us have PFAS in our blood. How worried should we be? – https://theconversation.com/new-australian-data-shows-most-of-us-have-pfas-in-our-blood-how-worried-should-we-be-257648

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI: Himax Subsidiary Liqxtal Technology Pro-Eye Vision Care Display Makes its Medical Taiwan 2025 Debut

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

TAINAN, Taiwan, May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Himax Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: HIMX) (“Himax” or “Company”), a leading supplier and fabless manufacturer of display drivers and other semiconductor products, and Liqxtal Technology Inc. (“Liqxtal”), a subsidiary of Himax dedicated to developing various liquid crystal optical components with exceptional design expertise, today jointly unveiled the industry’s first patented vision care display — the Liqxtal® Pro-Eye will be showcased at Medical Taiwan 2025, the premier medical and healthcare technology exhibition in the Asia-Pacific region taking place June 5 – 7 at the Taipei Nangang Exhibition Center, Hall 2. Liqxtal® Pro-Eye has already been deployed in multiple engineering projects with leading industry partners targeting applications addressing age-related presbyopia and slowing the progression of myopia for school-aged children, as well as eye comfort during extended viewing times. Alongside the Pro-Eye display, several other products will also be on display that integrate cutting-edge imaging and liquid crystal-based smart optical technologies.

Liqxtal® Pro-Eye employs patented electrically tunable liquid crystal technology to break beyond the typical 20 to 24-inch viewing distance of conventional computer monitors, projecting a virtual image roughly 16 feet away. This effectively relieves ciliary muscle fatigue, dramatically alleviating eye strain and creating a comfortable, low-effort virtual viewing distance, redefining the interactive experience of personalized displays. Liqxtal’s patented technology is especially suited for seniors and school-age children. It not only eases near-vision strain and eye dryness for individuals with presbyopia but also reduces the risk of axial elongation in children from prolonged close-range reading, thereby helping to delay myopia progression and support vision health.

Liqxtal^® Pro-Eye – Cutting-Edge Patented Vision Care Display

Dr. Hung Shan Chen, President of Liqxtal, will give a speech entitled “Presbyopia Savior! The Most Comfortable Vision-Care Display for Seniors,” on June 7 at 1:30 p.m. at the main stage where he will dive into the core technologies behind the Liqxtal® Pro-Eye and its revolutionary application scenarios.

Liqxtal will also showcase a range of other products that combine innovative imaging and smart optical technologies. Among them is the Liqxtal® Dim adaptive lens, which integrates Liqxtal’s exclusive pixelated light valve control with Himax’s WiseEye ultralow power AI sensing technology. Liqxtal® Dim can detect ambient light in real time and adaptively adjust light tuning, making it ideal for smart sunglasses and vision training devices, significantly improving user comfort in both bright sunlight and dim indoor conditions.

“Liqxtal has been relentlessly advancing liquid crystal-based optical technologies and expanding applications particularly in display and wearable applications. The Pro-Eye display showcased at Medical Taiwan is a prime example,” said Dr. Hung Shan Chen, President of Liqxtal. “With our patented electrically tunable liquid crystal technology, Pro-Eye significantly alleviates the fatigue and dryness associated with extended viewing, delivering unprecedented comfort and visual clarity. Whether for seniors, schoolchildren, or anyone who spends long hours in front of a screen, this truly is a tangible innovation in visual wellness for our digital age.”

Himax and Liqxtal warmly invite all interested media and professionals to visit Booth P0430 in the “Digital Health Pavilion” first floor of Hall 2 at the Taipei Nangang Exhibition Center. Come experience the Liqxtal® Pro-Eye display and other cutting-edge technologies firsthand and see how liquid crystal-based optics is transforming health-focused display applications.

About Liqxtal Technology Inc.

Liqxtal Technology Inc. is a Taiwan based company that has been focused on exploring opportunities with liquid crystal (“LC”) beyond just displays since the company’s inception. With a distinguished track record in liquid crystal optics, Liqxtal has developed liquid crystal based optical components such as LC lens for ophthalmic application, LC diffuser for 3D sensing and LC retarder for light sensing. Additionally, Liqxtal designed and released LQ001, a high voltage & tunable frequency LC driver with a 1mm x 2mm footprint, which is particularly ideal for portable products. As a subsidiary of Himax Technologies, Liqxtal also integrates novel display solutions such as tunable backlight with local dimming capability powered by FPGA for niche applications. Lastly, Liqxtal is dedicated to novel vision eyewear technology and strives to innovate and advance useful optical solutions to the world.

About Himax Technologies, Inc.

Himax Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: HIMX) is a leading global fabless semiconductor solution provider dedicated to display imaging processing technologies. The Company’s display driver ICs and timing controllers have been adopted at scale across multiple industries worldwide including TVs, PC monitors, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, automotive, ePaper devices, industrial displays, among others. As the global market share leader in automotive display technology, the Company offers innovative and comprehensive automotive IC solutions, including traditional driver ICs, advanced in-cell Touch and Display Driver Integration (TDDI), local dimming timing controllers (Local Dimming Tcon), Large Touch and Display Driver Integration (LTDI) and OLED display technologies. Himax is also a pioneer in tinyML visual-AI and optical technology related fields. The Company’s industry-leading WiseEye^TM Ultralow Power AI Sensing technology which incorporates Himax proprietary ultralow power AI processor, always-on CMOS image sensor, and CNN-based AI algorithm has been widely deployed in consumer electronics and AIoT related applications. Himax optics technologies, such as diffractive wafer level optics, LCoS microdisplays and 3D sensing solutions, are critical for facilitating emerging AR/VR/metaverse technologies. Additionally, Himax designs and provides touch controllers, OLED ICs, LED ICs, EPD ICs, power management ICs, and CMOS image sensors for diverse display application coverage. Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Tainan, Taiwan, Himax currently employs around 2,200 people from three Taiwan-based offices in Tainan, Hsinchu and Taipei and country offices in China, Korea, Japan, Germany, and the US. Himax has 2,603 patents granted and 389 patents pending approval worldwide as of March 31, 2025.

http://www.himax.com.tw

Forward Looking Statements

Factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those described in this conference call include, but are not limited to, the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Company’s business; general business and economic conditions and the state of the semiconductor industry; market acceptance and competitiveness of the driver and non-driver products developed by the Company; demand for end-use applications products; reliance on a small group of principal customers; the uncertainty of continued success in technological innovations; our ability to develop and protect our intellectual property; pricing pressures including declines in average selling prices; changes in customer order patterns; changes in estimated full-year effective tax rate; shortage in supply of key components; changes in environmental laws and regulations; changes in export license regulated by Export Administration Regulations (EAR); exchange rate fluctuations; regulatory approvals for further investments in our subsidiaries; our ability to collect accounts receivable and manage inventory and other risks described from time to time in the Company’s SEC filings, including those risks identified in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in its Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the SEC, as may be amended.

Liqxtal Contact:
Henry Hung, Deputy Director of Market & Sales Division
Liqxtal Technology Inc.
Tel: +886-6-505-0880
Email: info@liqxtal.com

Himax Contacts:
Karen Tiao, Head of IR/PR
Himax Technologies, Inc.
Tel: +886-2-2370-3999
Fax: +886-2-2314-0877
Email: hx_ir@himax.com.tw
www.himax.com.tw

Mark Schwalenberg, Director
Investor Relations – US Representative
MZ North America
Tel: +1-312-261-6430
Email: HIMX@mzgroup.us
www.mzgroup.us

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a129e586-9c5f-4f5f-998a-e831ea57972e

The MIL Network –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI: XenDex Presale Extension: $XDX Token Still Selling As The Project Team Reveals Investors’ Request For Presale Extension
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

SYDNEY, May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — In a dramatic turn of events, XenDex has announced a short extension to its presale following overwhelming requests from late investors. With less than 7% of the $XDX allocation remaining and growing demand, this short extension gives stragglers one last chance to secure tokens before listings go live. The timing is impeccable considering Ripple’s acquisition of Circle and Volatility Shares’ launch of the XRPI Futures ETF have intensified institutional interest in XRP, setting a bullish tone across the ecosystem.

Buy $XDX Before Listing On Exchanges Soon

As major buyers scramble to grab the last batch of tokens, the team has confirmed that the presale will not be extended again. $XDX is in discussion to be listed on Binance, BitMart, Gate.io, MagneticX, and FirstLedger, and investors who delay now risk buying at significantly higher post-launch prices.

What is XenDex on XRP Blockchain?

XenDex is the first all-in-one decentralized exchange (DEX) built entirely on the XRP Ledger. Designed for speed, security, and scalability, XenDex merges advanced DeFi tools into a clean, user-friendly interface.

Purchase XDX And Earn Rewards

Features and Problems XenDex Aims to Solve on XRPL

XenDex brings long-awaited DeFi functionality to XRP, including:
- AI Copy Trading – Auto-mirror expert traders and minimize loss
- Lending & Borrowing – Lend or borrow crypto without intermediaries
- Cross-Chain Trading – Swap XRP across other blockchain on Solana, Ethereum, BNB, etc.
- DAO Governance – Token holders vote on upgrades via $XDX
Why Should I Buy $XDX?

Holding $XDX gives users:
- rewards through Staking and liquidity provision
- Platform fee discounts
- Early access to features, airdrops, and listings
- Voting power on future platform decisions and upgrades
Where Can I Trade $XDX?

After the presale, $XDX is expected to be available for trading on major exchanges, with active discussions currently underway with Binance, Gate.io, MEXC, BitMart, MagneticX, and FirstLedger

Purchase $XDX At Its Cheapest Price Before Going Public

Is XenDex a Legit Project on XRP?

Yes. Developed by blockchain veterans with roots in Cardano and SUI, XenDex is undergoing full smart contract audits and integrates with Xaman, XRP Toolkit, and Github.

How Do I Buy $XDX?

Visit: https://xendex.net/presale
Rate: 1.25 XRP = 10 XDX
Minimum Buy: 150 XRP
Detailed Guide On How To Buy $XDX: https://xdxdocs.gitbook.io

XenDex Presale Details
- Soft Cap: Reached
- Hard Cap: 93% SoldTime Left: 72-Hour Grace Period Only
- Presale Rate: 150 XRP = 1200 $XDX
Buy XDX At A Discount Before Pumping Upon Listing on Exchanges: https://xendex.net/presale

Join XenDex Community Below

Website: https://xendex.net
Presale: https://xendex.net/presale
Telegram: https://t.me/xendexcommunity
Twitter/X: https://x.com/xendex_xrp
Docs: https://xdxdocs.gitbook.io

Contact:
Frank Richards
Frank@xendex.net

Disclaimer: This is a paid post provided by XenDex. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice.
Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed.Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release. In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility.Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.

Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/90def1a0-c55a-45eb-868a-c8c3060f6431

The MIL Network –
May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Governor Ivey, Joined by Commissioner Newton and Adjutant General Pritchett, Releases Memorial Day Video Honoring America’s Fallen Heroes

Source: US State of Alabama

MONTGOMERY – Governor Kay Ivey today released a special Memorial Day video message, joined by Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs Commissioner Jeff Newton and Alabama National Guard Adjutant General David Pritchett, to honor the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our nation.

The video features individual messages from each leader. Together, they reflect on the meaning of Memorial Day, recognize the families of the fallen and urge all Alabamians to remember those who never made it home.

[embedded content]

Click here or the above for VIDEO.

Script:

GOVERNOR IVEY:

Memorial Day is a time we pause as a nation.

A day we set aside to honor the brave men and women who paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

COMISSIONER NEWTON:

These heroes wore the uniform. They answered the call. They fought with courage.

And they gave their lives to protect the very values that define us as Americans.

ADJUTANT GENERAL PRITCHETT:

They were soldiers, sailors, marines, guardians and air men.

They came from every corner of our country – rural towns, big cities and everywhere in between.

Many of them, from right here in Alabama.

GOVERNOR IVEY:

As governor, I’m proud that Alabama stands strong in our commitment to honor their legacy.

Because behind every fallen hero is a family that carries the weight of their sacrifice every day.

To those families – we support you. We grieve with you. And we thank you.

COMISSIONER NEWTON:

Freedom isn’t free. It’s paid for by the men and women who stepped into danger so we could live in peace.

Their legacy lives on in every flag flying high…in every moment of liberty we enjoy.

ADJUTANT GENERAL PRITCHETT:

We ask you to reflect on the true meaning of the day.

And to remember those who never made it home.

GOVERNOR IVEY:

Their sacrifice is a debt we can never repay.

But we can – and must – honor it.

Not just today, but every day.

EVERYONE:

This Memorial Day, Alabama remembers.

We honor.

We salute.

And we will never forget.

For your publishing and broadcasting purposes, the governor’s video message can be downloaded here:

###

MIL OSI USA News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Africa: African Mining Week (AMW) 2025 to Unpack the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (DRC) Cobalt Market Prospects, Global Significance

Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:

CAPE TOWN, South Africa, May 29, 2025/APO Group/ —

As the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) seeks to maximize the financial and economic returns from its cobalt reserves – considered some of the largest worldwide -, the upcoming African Mining Week will spotlight the country’s expanding investment opportunities across the cobalt value chain.

Taking place October 1-3, 2025, in Cape Town, the event is Africa’s premier gathering of mining stakeholders. A dedicated panel discussion, titled Cobalt Opportunity: DRC’s Strategic Position in the EV Revolution, will unpack the DRC’s pivotal role in the global cobalt market, detailing how the nation is boosting value addition, addressing global demand while creating lucrative prospects for international investors.

African Mining Week serves as a premier platform for exploring the full spectrum of mining opportunities across Africa. The event is held alongside the African Energy Week: Invest in African Energies 2025 conference from October 1-3 in Cape Town. Sponsors, exhibitors and delegates can learn more by contacting sales@energycapitalpower.com.

A key ingredient for lithium-ion batteries, cobalt is witnessing a surge in demand as countries worldwide accelerate the deployment of energy transition technologies such as renewable energy, electric vehicles (EV) and energy storage. The World Bank posits that global cobalt consumption could increase to 344,000 tons in 2030, representing a 9.6% annual increase between 2017 and 2030. Accounting for 70% of global cobalt production, the DRC is strategically positioned to leverage its comparative advantage in the industry to increase revenue, drive development and consolidate its position as a global cobalt supplier.

Given this potential, the country is enhancing its role in the global EV value chain by promoting local value addition and establishing direct supply agreements. The country partnered with Zambia and the African Export-Import Bank to develop regional Special Economic Zones (SEZs) for EV manufacturing, leveraging local cobalt resources to build a competitive industrial base. Supporting this vision is the creation of the Congolese Battery Council, which facilitates SEZ development, and a $350 million cobalt smelting plant under development in partnership with U.S.-based Delphos International. Similarly, Congolese firm Buenassa – backed by $3.5 million in initial funding from the government – is also constructing a hydrometallurgical plant in Lualaba province, set to produce 30,000 tons of copper cathode and 5,000 tons of cobalt sulphate annually by 2027.

In addition to infrastructure advancements, the DRC is proving an attractive environment for foreign investment. Ivanhoe Mines reported revenues of $973 million in Q1, 2025 – a 57% year-on-year increase – at its Kamoa-Kakula Copper-Cobalt mine, demonstrating the potential for strong returns within the country. Meanwhile, China’s CMOC Group, the world’s top cobalt producer, achieved record-breaking production in 2024 from its Tenke Fungurume and Kisanfu mines and is on track to exceed those volumes in 2025, further strengthening the DRC’s global footprint in the EV revolution.

Amid these developments, African Mining Week will connect global investors with the DRC’s rapidly evolving cobalt sector and its broad array of high-return opportunities. The panel discussion will outline investment opportunities, challenges and upcoming initiatives.

MIL OSI Africa –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI China: Trade volume exceeds 100B yuan at Beijing’s Daxing airport

Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

Beijing Daxing International Airport had handled a cumulative import and export value of 102 billion yuan ($14.19 billion) as of April this year since its opening in 2019, according to the Beijing Customs on Wednesday. This included 33.77 billion yuan in import and 68.23 billion yuan in export.

Data shows that the airport has seen solid growth in import and export value in recent years, with annual figures surpassing 20 billion yuan in 2023 and 50 billion yuan in 2024. In the first four months of this year, the airport handled a total trade value of 16.1 billion yuan, up 6.8% year on year.

“Trade at Daxing airport is characterized by a focus on high-tech products and close ties with Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) partner countries,” said Dong Ruiqiang, director of the Statistics and Analysis Department at Beijing Customs.

High-tech goods have played a leading role, with total trade in such products reaching 61.98 billion yuan, accounting for 60.8% of all import and export through the port. In the first four months of this year, high-tech product trade reached 9.33 billion yuan, up 6.7% year on year.

Since 2019, the airport has established trade links with 127 countries participating in the BRI, with the cumulative import and export value hitting 56.3 billion yuan, accounting for 55.2% of the total foreign trade volume handled by the airport. From January to April 2025, the airport saw trade with BRI partner countries totaling 7.83 billion yuan, up 48.6% year on year.

Daxing airport is emerging as a new engine for the coordinated development of the Beijing-Tianjin- Hebei region. Data shows that since opening, the airport has served enterprises from 31 provinces and municipalities nationwide, with non-Beijing enterprises contributing 60 billion yuan in trade volume, accounting for 75% of the total.

Notably, companies from Tianjin and Hebei posted sharp increases, with trade volumes reaching 1.4 billion and 1.35 billion yuan, respectively, up 113.9% and 59% year on year.

The Daxing airport free trade zone is also seeing rapid growth, with total trade volume hitting 9.89 billion yuan in 2024, closing in on the 10-billion-yuan mark. In the first four months of the year, trade through the zone reached 2.67 billion yuan, up 50.9% year on year, with imports surging 260.3% to 2.4 billion yuan.

MIL OSI China News –

May 29, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Over £7.4 million put back in working people’s pockets by employers

Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

Press release

Over £7.4 million put back in working people’s pockets by employers

Employers who have left workers over £7.4 million out of pocket by failing to pay the National Living and National Minimum Wage named.

More money put into the pockets of hardworking people, as government delivers the biggest upgrade to worker’s rights in a generation, as part of the Plan for Change
Workers will be paid over £7.4 million by employers after nearly 60,000 workers have been left out of pocket.
Action builds on recent uplift to the National Living and National Minimum Wage which puts £1,400 into the pockets of workers and families across the UK

Nearly 60,000 workers who have been left out of pocket will be repaid over £7.4 million the Government has announced today [Thursday 29th May] in its latest move to Make Work Pay.

This follows a significant uplift to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage – putting £1,400 into the pockets of full-time workers on NLW and supporting millions of families across the country – as well as the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation under the Employment Rights Bill.

As part of the Plan for Change, this Government’s priority is to grow the economy and raise living standards. A strong economy can only be built when people have financial security whilst in work and robust enforcement action will be taken against employers who do not pay their staff correctly.

The 518 employers and businesses named today have since paid back what they owe to their staff and faced financial penalties of up to 200% of their underpayment. The investigations by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) concluded between 2015-2022.

Minister for Employment Rights, Justin Madders said:

There is no excuse for employers to undercut their workers, and we will continue to name companies who break the law and don’t pay their employees what they are owed.

Ensuring workers have the support they need and making sure they receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is a key commitment in our Plan for Change. This will put more money in working people’s pockets, helping to boost productivity and ending low pay.

Baroness Philippa Stroud, Chair of the Low Pay Commission, said:

We welcome today’s publication. Underpayment leaves workers out of pocket and disadvantages the majority of employers who do abide by the rules.

These naming rounds play an important part in ensuring that all workers receive their full wages and that they are aware there is support for them to ensure that they do.

Putting more money into the pockets of the lowest paid increases workers’ financial security, offers stability to help increase staff retention and lowers recruitment costs for businesses in the long run. Whilst not all minimum wage underpayments are intentional, the Government is clear that enforcement action will be taken against employers who do not pay their staff correctly.

Ahead of permanently lowering tax rates for high street retail, hospitality, and leisure (RHL) from 2026/27, we have prevented the current RHL relief from ending this April, extending it for one year to ensure that over 250,000 RHL properties see a full 40 per cent reduction on their liability, and we have frozen the small business multiplier.

Notes to Editors:

If workers suspect they are being underpaid, they can visit gov.uk/checkyourpay to find out more about what they can do.
Workers can also call the Acas helpline on 0300 123 1100 or visit their website for free, impartial and confidential advice or complain to HMRC at Pay and work rights helpline and complaints
The minimum wage law applies to all parts of the UK.
Employers should always carry out the necessary checks – see the guidance: Calculating the Minimum Wage
HMRC consider all complaints from workers, so workers are being reminded to check their pay with advice available through the Check your pay website
National Living Wage and National Minimum wage rates:

	2024 rate	2025 rate
National Living Wage (21 and over)	£11.44	£12.21
18 to 20	£8.60	£10.00
Under 18	£6.40	£7.55
Apprentice	£6.40	£7.55

1. Capita Business Services Ltd, City of London, EC2V, failed to pay £1,154,461.97 to 5,543 workers.
2. Pizzaexpress (Restaurants) Limited, Croydon, CR0, failed to pay £760,701.61 to 8,470 workers.
3. Virtual Marketing Services (Gibraltar) Ltd, Birmingham, B3, failed to pay £478,282.71 to 41 workers.
4. L. Rowland & Company (Retail) Limited , Runcorn, WA7, failed to pay £307,342.87 to 2,293 workers.
5. Templar Corporation Limited, Lewisham, SE16, failed to pay £298,143.12 to 26 workers.
6. Lidl Great Britain Limited, Merton, SW19, failed to pay £286,437.18 to 3,423 workers.
7. British Airways PLC, Harmondsworth, UB7, failed to pay £231,276.10 to 2,165 workers.
8. Scottish Midland Co-operative Society Limited, Newbridge, EH28, failed to pay £186,883.56 to 1,795 workers.
9. Interserve (Facilities Management) Ltd, Lambeth, SE1, failed to pay £177,268.08 to 2,297 workers.
10. Prezzo Limited, Woodford Green, IG8, failed to pay £163,702.67 to 2,550 workers.
11. Halfords Ltd, Redditch, B98, failed to pay £140,829.79 to 4,341 workers.
12. The Southern Co-Operative Limited , Portsmouth, PO6, failed to pay £126,739.33 to 2,300 workers.
13. TUI UK Retail Limited, Luton, LU2, failed to pay £107,611.04 to 2,044 workers.
14. Heart Of England Co-Operative Society Limited, Coventry, CV6, failed to pay £90,870.95 to 1,017 workers.
15. CDS (Superstores International) Limited, Plymouth, PL6, failed to pay £89,158.47 to 1,648 workers.
16. Day Lewis PLC, Croydon, CR0, failed to pay £82,819.47 to 604 workers.
17. Petrogas Group UK Limited, Ampthill, MK45, failed to pay £63,026.69 to 602 workers.
18. Mr Guiseppe Caruso , London, W2, failed to pay £59,780.03 to 2 workers.
19. William Strike Limited, Carlisle, CA6, failed to pay £56,657.01 to 798 workers.
20. Property Management Services (NI) Limited, Belfast, BT3, failed to pay £54,852.44 to 414 workers.
21. Coghlan Lodges Limited, Uxbridge, UB8, failed to pay £52,062.45 to 45 workers.
22. Ant Marketing Limited, Sheffield, S2, failed to pay £46,260.65 to 340 workers.
23. Maclean Services (L) Limited, London, W2, failed to pay £43,583.26 to 781 workers.
24. ABM Aviation UK Limited, Hounslow, TW6, failed to pay £40,243.10 to 880 workers.
25. Malvern Tyres (Wholesale) Limited, Gloucester, GL1, failed to pay £39,012.15 to 158 workers.
26. Halfords Autocentres Limited, Redditch, B98, failed to pay £38,470.94 to 760 workers.
27. J M McGill Ltd, Doncaster, DN4, failed to pay £38,178.62 to 364 workers.
28. R.T. Stuart Limited, Methil, KY8, failed to pay £37,384.89 to 310 workers.
29. Deluxe Beds Ltd, Huddersfield, HD2, failed to pay £27,233.68 to 64 workers.
30. Freedom Hotels West Limited, Nr Fort William, PH49, failed to pay £26,814.06 to 37 workers.
31. Mytime Active, Orpington, BR6, failed to pay £26,414.51 to 414 workers.
32. Parkdean Resorts UK Limited, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE12, failed to pay £26,360.91 to 291 workers.
33. Whitakers Chocolates Limited, Skipton, BD23, failed to pay £26,183.83 to 141 workers.
34. Suttons Tankers Limited, Widnes, WA8, failed to pay £25,631.33 to 35 workers.
35. Health Care Resourcing Group Limited, Prescot, L34, failed to pay £25,344.45 to 86 workers.
36. Veecare Ltd, Loughton, IG10, failed to pay £23,567.49 to 168 workers.
37. Meridian Marlow Ltd, Marlow, SL7, failed to pay £22,993.97 to 66 workers.
38. Managing Care Limited, Croydon, CR9, failed to pay £21,834.52 to 83 workers.
39. Mr Sri Krishna Ratnasinkam and Mrs Saraswathy Ratnasinkam , Ringmer, BN8, failed to pay £20,504.98 to 1 worker.
40. M Buckingham & Company Limited
, Maulden, MK45, failed to pay £20,361.01 to 3 workers.
41. Regency Hotel (Northern Ireland) Limited, Belfast, BT3, failed to pay £19,952.21 to 201 workers.
42. Baxters Food Group Limited, Fochabers, IV32, failed to pay £19,765.00 to 62 workers.
43. Thrive Childcare and Education Limited, Musselburgh, EH21, failed to pay £19,420.47 to 24 workers.
44. Hillgate Investments Limited, Rotherhithe , SE16, failed to pay £19,358.74 to 40 workers.
45. Hilton UK Hotels Limited, Watford, WD24, failed to pay £18,924.07 to 20 workers.
46. Oscar Mayer Limited, Chard, TA20, failed to pay £18,830.92 to 172 workers.
47. BA Cityflyer Limited, West Drayton, UB7, failed to pay £17,988.39 to 102 workers.
48. Crystal Property Cleaning Ltd, Twickenham, TW2, failed to pay £17,767.18 to 1 worker.
49. Key Care And Support Ltd, Manchester, M34, failed to pay £17,649.66 to 189 workers.
50. Sean Elliott, Ballymena, BT42, failed to pay £17,518.00 to 1 worker.
51. YTC Limited, Driffield, YO25, failed to pay £17,194.32 to 226 workers.
52. Virtual Marketing Services (Gibraltar) Ltd, Gibraltar, GX11, failed to pay £17,155.36 to 1 worker.
53. Wargrave Auto Centre Limited , Hounslow, TW5, failed to pay £17,114.70 to 37 workers.
54. Lawrence Davis Design Limited, Stoke On Trent, ST1, failed to pay £16,936.97 to 2 workers.
55. BJ Bright Day Nurseries Limited, Doncaster, DN5, failed to pay £16,759.85 to 19 workers.
56. Thorntons Limited, Alfreton, DE55, failed to pay £16,449.00 to 444 workers.
57. 24/7 Security and Events Ltd, Driffield, YO25, failed to pay £15,962.00 to 74 workers.
58. Winemark The Winemerchants Limited, Belfast, BT3, failed to pay £15,738.33 to 186 workers.
59. Anochrome Limited, Walsall, WS2, failed to pay £15,600.86 to 49 workers.
60. Allen Day Associates Limited, Bidwell, LU5, failed to pay £15,525.26 to 387 workers.
61. Equitas Solicitors Limited, Preston, PR2, failed to pay £15,412.15 to 72 workers.
62. Kingwood Limited, Wokingham, RG40, failed to pay £15,090.99 to 1 worker.
63. The Eastbury (Sherbourne) Limited, Sherborne, DT9, failed to pay £14,813.03 to 7 workers.
64. Elmoreton Limited, Belfast, BT7, failed to pay £14,782.81 to 391 workers.
65. Elliott Baxter & Company Limited , Farnborough, GU12, failed to pay £14,411.44 to 43 workers.
66. MA Bureau Limited, Croydon, CR0, failed to pay £13,226.91 to 6 workers.
67. Moto Hospitality Limited, Toddington, LU5, failed to pay £13,164.96 to 734 workers.
68. Slo Drinks Limited, Stockport, SK3, failed to pay £12,716.05 to 1 worker.
69. The Crown Hotel (Colne) Limited, Colne, BB8, failed to pay £12,642.18 to 2 workers.
70. EA Coaching Ltd, Birmingham, B34, failed to pay £12,378.25 to 18 workers.
71. Hydes’ Brewery Limited, Salford, M50, failed to pay £12,281.18 to 176 workers.
72. Elior UK PLC, Macclesfield, SK11, failed to pay £12,198.61 to 496 workers.
73. Savoy Tyres Limited, Kingston Upon Hull, HU8, failed to pay £11,921.60 to 6 workers.
74. PK Sales & Lettings Ltd, Greenwich, SE18, failed to pay £11,885.46 to 5 workers.
75. Quokka Solutions Ltd, Sunderland , SR5, failed to pay £11,605.84 to 15 workers.
76. Elix-Irr Consulting Services Limited, London, EC2V, failed to pay £11,101.13 to 21 workers.
77. Go To The Venue Limited, Oswestry, SY11, failed to pay £10,974.19 to 21 workers.
78. JWDW Limited, Doncaster, DN4, failed to pay £10,699.64 to 21 workers.
79. Mr Stuart Benson, Heywood, OL10, failed to pay £10,600.34 to 1 worker.
80. Philip Russell Limited, Belfast, BT6, failed to pay £10,507.58 to 111 workers.
81. Energy Kidz Ltd, Wokingham , RG41, failed to pay £10,479.36 to 199 workers.
82. ABC Pre-School Limited, Culcheth, WA3, failed to pay £10,393.39 to 16 workers.
83. YAM 110 Limited, Bradford, BD8, failed to pay £10,021.48 to 22 workers.
84. Lord Charles P Courtenay, Kenton, EX6, failed to pay £9,930.78 to 1 worker.
85. React Homecare Ltd, Mansfield, NG21, failed to pay £9,907.42 to 127 workers.
86. Lutonestateandlettings Ltd, Luton, LU3, failed to pay £9,887.66 to 4 workers.
87. Jill Birt, Bolton, BL5, failed to pay £9,819.79 to 3 workers.
88. The House That Jack Built (Day Nursery) Limited, Marlow, SL7, failed to pay £9,810.00 to 8 workers.
89. IWE Services Limited, Staxton, YO12, failed to pay £9,803.34 to 3 workers.
90. At Home – Specialists in Care Ltd, Pocklington, YO42, failed to pay £9,737.27 to 26 workers.
91. Mr Albert Cepa, Chesterfield, S40, failed to pay £9,677.33 to 4 workers.
92. Top Gas Heating & Plumbing Limited, Bristol, BS15, failed to pay £9,675.90 to 4 workers.
93. Brookfield Retail Ltd, Dewsbury, WF12, failed to pay £9,544.19 to 52 workers.
94. Clock House Farm Limited, Maidstone, ME17, failed to pay £9,384.53 to 69 workers.
95. Panic Deliveries Limited, Oldbury , B69, failed to pay £9,362.96 to 29 workers.
96. Steve Kane Painting & Decorating Limited, Doncaster, DN3, failed to pay £9,317.13 to 11 workers.
97. Wine Inns Limited, Belfast, BT3, failed to pay £9,295.35 to 103 workers.
98. SOS Homecare Ltd, Stretford, M32, failed to pay £9,186.36 to 293 workers.
99. Parkway Derby Limited, Derby, DE24, failed to pay £9,083.64 to 11 workers.
100. Lashes Nails and Brows Ltd, Thornton Heath, CR7, failed to pay £9,074.84 to 3 workers.
101. Mrs Carol Olsen , Bedlington, NE22, failed to pay £8,988.13 to 25 workers.
102. Teddy Bear Nursery Limited, Rochdale, OL16, failed to pay £8,982.22 to 32 workers.
103. R.H. Wilson (Chemists) Limited, Blackburn, BB1, failed to pay £8,925.53 to 11 workers.
104. Mr James Westcott, Newport, PO30, failed to pay £8,587.49 to 33 workers.
105. Mr Orhan Esen, Dumfries, DG1, failed to pay £8,513.17 to 5 workers.
106. Waterloo and Taunton Conservative Club, Ashton-Under-Lyne, OL7, failed to pay £8,468.51 to 3 workers.
107. Aramark Limited, Leeds, LS16, failed to pay £8,407.77 to 154 workers.
108. Mr Mario Wood, Stalybridge, SK15, failed to pay £8,040.26 to 3 workers.
109. Mr Paul S Clerehugh T/A , Henley-On-Thames, RG9, failed to pay £8,029.07 to 20 workers.
110. Waggon & Horses (Matley) Ltd, Stalybridge, SK15, failed to pay £8,016.08 to 57 workers.
111. Rice Solutions Limited, Southport, PR8, failed to pay £7,921.26 to 2 workers.
112. UK Hairdressers 2019 Limited, Birmingham, B16, failed to pay £7,870.93 to 13 workers.
113. LIBERTY MUSIC PR LTD, Brighton, BN1, failed to pay £7,663.84 to 3 workers.
114. Turkuaz Limited, Cheadle, SK8, failed to pay £7,655.93 to 3 workers.
115. Belgravia Mews Hotel Limited, South Kensington, SW5, failed to pay £7,646.84 to 14 workers.
116. Start Afresh Cleaning Limited, Ipswich, IP1, failed to pay £7,630.05 to 15 workers.
117. Mr Atul Patel & Mr Bhikhubhai Patel, Northampton, NN5, failed to pay £7,386.13 to 1 worker.
118. K J Curson Growers Limited, Wisbech, PE14, failed to pay £7,311.72 to 11 workers.
119. Artico Limited, Monmouth, NP25, failed to pay £7,306.40 to 1 worker.
120. Tristan HCW Ltd, Bedford, MK41, failed to pay £7,227.75 to 7 workers.
121. Mainstage Festivals Limited, Southwark, SE1, failed to pay £7,089.61 to 4 workers.
122. Talash Limited, CV32, failed to pay £7,053.17 to 53 workers.
123. J D Wetherspoon Plc, Watford , WD24, failed to pay £7,000.00 to 282 workers.
124. Aroma Expresso Bar Limited, London, NW4, failed to pay £6,967.02 to 2 workers.
125. Lymedale Motors Limited, Newcastle Under Lyme, ST5, failed to pay £6,859.90 to 3 workers.
126. Golders Green Hairdressing Limited, Finchley, NW11, failed to pay £6,846.53 to 10 workers.
127. Head Office Hair and Beauty (Scotland) Ltd., Glasgow, G61, failed to pay £6,803.01 to 2 workers.
128. The Stair Arms Hotel Ltd, Pathhead, EH37, failed to pay £6,787.54 to 1 worker.
129. Springfields Supported Services Limited, Barking, IG11, failed to pay £6,693.35 to 19 workers.
130. Network Tyre & Auto Limited, Dartford, DA1, failed to pay £6,529.19 to 7 workers.
131. Specialist Computer Centres Plc, Birmingham, B11, failed to pay £6,491.66 to 28 workers.
132. Treetops Childrens Nursery Ltd, Blackpool, FY2, failed to pay £6,450.52 to 45 workers.
133. McDonald & Munro Limited, Elgin, IV30, failed to pay £6,436.10 to 2 workers.
134. Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd, Maidenhead, SL6, failed to pay £6,387.96 to 47 workers.
135. Woodhall Capital Limited, London, EC4N, failed to pay £6,294.25 to 1 worker.
136. Mr Steven Prested, Meadowfield, DH7, failed to pay £6,207.12 to 1 worker.
137. Best Social Enterprise Ltd, London, SE1, failed to pay £6,171.64 to 10 workers.
138. The Buck House Limited, Wrexham, LL13, failed to pay £6,101.67 to 1 worker.
139. Mahmoud Shaduman Ali , Derby , DE23, failed to pay £6,091.90 to 6 workers.
140. Get Your Mobi Limited, Lancaster, LA1, failed to pay £6,069.51 to 8 workers.
141. Robertson Facilities Management Limited, Elgin, IV30, failed to pay £5,864.37 to 51 workers.
142. Orion Group London Limited, Wandsworth, SW18, failed to pay £5,818.69 to 1 worker.
143. Dee Kay Knitwear Ltd, Leicester, LE4, failed to pay £5,801.65 to 38 workers.
144. Miss J J Smart, Southampton, SO31, failed to pay £5,778.65 to 1 worker.
145. Zhanna Horn, Torquay, TQ2, failed to pay £5,749.66 to 2 workers.
146. The Fernlea Hotel Limited, Lytham St Annes, FY8, failed to pay £5,698.56 to 4 workers.
147. Gogo and Fried Chicken Limited, Coventry, CV1, failed to pay £5,665.58 to 9 workers.
148. Chess People Limited, Alderley Edge, SK9, failed to pay £5,629.12 to 1 worker.
149. Building Blocks Day Nursery (NI) Ltd, Toome, BT41, failed to pay £5,576.45 to 45 workers.
150. Mr Christopher Owston, North Shields, NE29, failed to pay £5,571.27 to 1 worker.
151. LJ Care Homes Ltd, Lincoln, LN4, failed to pay £5,568.84 to 56 workers.
152. Crossgates Stop N Shop Ltd, Leeds, LS15, failed to pay £5,545.63 to 4 workers.
153. BLFL Services Ltd, Burnham on Crouch, CM0, failed to pay £5,496.06 to 3 workers.
154. Mr Nigel Ian Fisher, Romsey, SO51, failed to pay £5,442.49 to 1 worker.
155. Mr Mathew James Hicks, Whitchurch, RG28, failed to pay £5,439.43 to 3 workers.
156. Old Town Car Wash Ltd, Hastings, TN35, failed to pay £5,422.92 to 5 workers.
157. London Street Brasserie Limited, Reading, RG1, failed to pay £5,343.77 to 13 workers.
158. Coton Care Limited, Wolverhampton, WV4, failed to pay £5,342.58 to 47 workers.
159. Epilepsy Society, Chalfont St Peter, SL9, failed to pay £5,293.99 to 1 worker.
160. Premier Work Support Limited, Chatham, ME4, failed to pay £5,272.92 to 428 workers.
161. Power Leisure Bookmakers Limited, Hammersmith, W6, failed to pay £5,245.57 to 257 workers.
162. Star Lite Jobs Limited, Ilford, IG1, failed to pay £5,237.44 to 67 workers.
163. Vivienne Westwood Limited, Wandsworth, SW11, failed to pay £5,232.00 to 1 worker.
164. A.P.C. Panels Ltd, Barry, CF63, failed to pay £5,220.60 to 7 workers.
165. Ghani Systems Ltd, Glasgow, G42, failed to pay £5,209.68 to 15 workers.
166. Taylor Dental Laboratory Limited, Leicester, LE5, failed to pay £5,189.75 to 1 worker.
167. MEDS2U Limited, Barnsley, S73, failed to pay £5,057.78 to 8 workers.
168. Total Cleaning South Limited, Manston, CT12, failed to pay £5,054.94 to 218 workers.
169. Decorative Panels Furniture Limited , Elland, HX5, failed to pay £5,045.43 to 62 workers.
170. Supercar Italia Ltd, Westerham, TN16, failed to pay £4,997.94 to 1 worker.
171. Miss Gemma Tattersall, Horsham, RH13, failed to pay £4,886.88 to 3 workers.
172. Mr Muhammed Afzal Jabarkhail , Clydebank, G81, failed to pay £4,873.12 to 1 worker.
173. Mr Shamim Ahmed, Braunton, EX33, failed to pay £4,867.46 to 1 worker.
174. Canei International Limited, Nottingham, NG10, failed to pay £4,752.20 to 1 worker.
175. Kitty Café Leeds Limited, Leeds, LS1, failed to pay £4,745.99 to 10 workers.
176. DES Healthcare Limited, Lincoln, LN5, failed to pay £4,634.94 to 36 workers.
177. Lakeside Day Nursery Limited , Swansea, SA6, failed to pay £4,631.93 to 3 workers.
178. Zayani Limited, West Drayton, UB7, failed to pay £4,593.39 to 2 workers.
179. Eaton Electrical Systems Limited, Doncaster, DN2, failed to pay £4,576.09 to 24 workers.
180. Mr Fadhil Omar Ibrahim , Ripley, DE5, failed to pay £4,482.40 to 5 workers.
181. Central Garage (Chesham) Ltd, Hyde Heath, HP6, failed to pay £4,416.25 to 1 worker.
182. Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Exhibition Road, SW7, failed to pay £4,372.16 to 1 worker.
183. Penrhyn Inns Limited, Oldham, OL4, failed to pay £4,324.94 to 33 workers.
184. Everest Hotels Limited, Powys, NP8, failed to pay £4,274.77 to 4 workers.
185. Coastal Heating Ltd, Sheringham, NR26, failed to pay £4,267.76 to 1 worker.
186. UK Solutions Limited, Chelmsford, CM1, failed to pay £4,267.22 to 28 workers.
187. NEO Property Solutions Limited, Leeds, LS9, failed to pay £4,263.52 to 16 workers.
188. Mountford House Nursery Limited, Nottingham, NG5, failed to pay £4,195.32 to 1 worker.
189. Major Cleaning Services Limited, Potters Bar, EN6, failed to pay £4,194.74 to 25 workers.
190. Witham Valeting Ltd, Witham , CM8, failed to pay £4,166.48 to 8 workers.
191. Parsons Bakery Limited, Bristol, BS3, failed to pay £4,134.64 to 44 workers.
192. Mr Amir Rasool, Langholm, DG13, failed to pay £4,083.79 to 1 worker.
193. Grosvenor Concierge Limited (previously GCS Facility Services Limited), Skegness, PE25, failed to pay £4,056.99 to 120 workers.
194. Industrial Cleaning Services (UK) Ltd, Camden, WC1N, failed to pay £4,048.91 to 41 workers.
195. Spring Cleaning Services Limited, Cheltenham, GL51, failed to pay £3,989.71 to 16 workers.
196. Sunlit Ltd, Lewisham, SE6, failed to pay £3,973.49 to 4 workers.
197. Blink Productions Limited, Holloway, N7, failed to pay £3,910.06 to 4 workers.
198. DSM Joinery Contractors Limited, Dunfermline, KY11, failed to pay £3,905.50 to 2 workers.
199. Fashion Fabric Transprinters Limited, Leicester, LE4, failed to pay £3,779.70 to 2 workers.
200. Mrs Imogen Katherine Wyvill, Mr Marmaduke D’Arcy William Wyvill and Mr Marmaduke Charles Astey Wyvill, Leyburn, DL8, failed to pay £3,724.37 to 16 workers.
201. Mrs Nalani Carr, Haverhill, CB9, failed to pay £3,702.83 to 1 worker.
202. Temple Farm Limited, Ramsgate, CT11, failed to pay £3,696.54 to 57 workers.
203. Walker Outboard Services Limited, Reading, RG4, failed to pay £3,647.76 to 1 worker.
204. Shah Foods Ltd, Newham, E16, failed to pay £3,638.69 to 2 workers.
205. City Office (NI) Ltd, Belfast, BT12, failed to pay £3,622.46 to 2 workers.
206. Ms Stacey Baker, Doune, FK16, failed to pay £3,582.87 to 1 worker.
207. Joarr Hot Food Emporium Limited, Southport, PR9, failed to pay £3,564.00 to 1 worker.
208. St John’s Road Garage Limited, Dartford, DA2, failed to pay £3,525.63 to 1 worker.
209. Alanya Catering Ltd, Nottingham, NG1, failed to pay £3,489.42 to 7 workers.
210. Care Direct Group Limited, Eastbourne, BN21, failed to pay £3,484.98 to 35 workers.
211. Baudelaire Limited, Alresford , SO24, failed to pay £3,454.06 to 1 worker.
212. House Of Glamour Limited, East Dulwich, SE22, failed to pay £3,433.06 to 1 worker.
213. Oshibori Scotland Ltd, Dundee, DD1, failed to pay £3,328.44 to 5 workers.
214. Yatab Company Ltd, Rainham, RM13, failed to pay £3,292.77 to 7 workers.
215. Cheeky Monkey Day Nurseries Limited, Birmingham, B15, failed to pay £3,272.93 to 22 workers.
216. S & W Developments Limited, Doncaster, DN5, failed to pay £3,253.46 to 1 worker.
217. The Lady Cleaner Ltd, Eastbourne, BN23, failed to pay £3,233.28 to 26 workers.
218. Mi Casa Care Ltd, Mansfield, NG19, failed to pay £3,221.07 to 23 workers.
219. SNC-LAVALIN RAIL & TRANSIT LIMITED, Epsom, KT18, failed to pay £3,212.78 to 11 workers.
220. Little Flowers Limited, Renfrew, PA4, failed to pay £3,162.05 to 1 worker.
221. Little Ducklings Day Nursery (Garstang) Limited, Preston, PR3, failed to pay £3,157.18 to 1 worker.
222. Fresh 75 Limited, Newport, PO30, failed to pay £3,132.90 to 1 worker.
223. Excel Parking Services Limited, Sheffield, S9, failed to pay £3,124.95 to 14 workers.
224. Mr Simon Foster and Mrs Jane Foster, Skipton, BD23, failed to pay £3,124.66 to 1 worker.
225. Mr Daniel Jenkinson , Preston, PR1, failed to pay £3,104.72 to 1 worker.
226. Spanners & Sparks (EK) Limited, Glasgow, G75, failed to pay £3,093.15 to 5 workers.
227. Central Electrical Contracts Limited, Wolverhampton, WV6, failed to pay £3,086.28 to 5 workers.
228. Branded Housewares Limited, Wolverhampton, WV2, failed to pay £3,066.72 to 4 workers.
229. Valerie Anne Sheen , Honiton, EX14, failed to pay £3,057.10 to 18 workers.
230. Rosebridge Private Day Nursery Limited, Wigan, WN1, failed to pay £3,056.94 to 19 workers.
231. Elite Motors Bodyshop Limited, Northampton, NN5, failed to pay £3,055.68 to 8 workers.
232. Roux Waterside Inn Limited, Bray, SL6, failed to pay £3,022.52 to 19 workers.
233. P.B Services (Wales) Limited, Mountain Ash, CF45, failed to pay £3,008.30 to 2 workers.
234. Lostock Hall Academy Trust, Preston, PR5, failed to pay £2,993.98 to 2 workers.
235. Taylor Shaw Limited, Macclesfield, SK11, failed to pay £2,958.43 to 2 workers.
236. Sage Hair Care (Salons) Limited, Cardiff, CF5, failed to pay £2,938.09 to 3 workers.
237. Mr Andrew Petrou, Walworth, SE17, failed to pay £2,907.33 to 1 worker.
238. Crystal Car Wash and Valeting Ltd, Loughborough, LE11, failed to pay £2,852.00 to 1 worker.
239. KEYSIGNS LIMITED, Bellshill, ML4, failed to pay £2,851.78 to 4 workers.
240. Centerplate UK Limited, Camden, WC1B, failed to pay £2,829.64 to 167 workers.
241. MN Support Services Limited, Queens Park, W10, failed to pay £2,829.17 to 294 workers.
242. Kirklees Active Leisure , Huddersfield, HD1, failed to pay £2,821.46 to 18 workers.
243. Marsden Healthcare Limited, Nelson, BB9, failed to pay £2,811.05 to 22 workers.
244. Mrs Michelle S Chandler, Birmingham, B44, failed to pay £2,806.72 to 2 workers.
245. Jamie Stevens (Kensington) Ltd, Kensington, W8, failed to pay £2,779.88 to 2 workers.
246. Filco Supermarkets Limited, Llantwit Major, CF61, failed to pay £2,772.41 to 118 workers.
247. AFH Ltd, Cardiff, CF24, failed to pay £2,771.99 to 4 workers.
248. Ms Philippa Funnell, Dorking, RH5, failed to pay £2,746.65 to 2 workers.
249. Kids at Heart (Harrogate) Limited, Knaresborough, HG5, failed to pay £2,746.08 to 3 workers.
250. Sparkle Cleaning Co. (London) Limited, Croydon, CR5, failed to pay £2,732.94 to 25 workers.
251. Lexington Catering Limited, Camden, EC4N, failed to pay £2,714.52 to 64 workers.
252. What A Hoot Day Nursery Limited, Blyth, NE24, failed to pay £2,712.53 to 4 workers.
253. Mr Andy B Fitzsimmons, Mr Ford B Fitzsimmons and Mrs Theresa G Fitzsimmons, Kilwinning, KA13, failed to pay £2,694.78 to 15 workers.
254. QSO Ltd, Leeds, LS4, failed to pay £2,675.41 to 10 workers.
255. Parkers Pets Limited, Southsea, PO5, failed to pay £2,665.49 to 2 workers.
256. Kazoku Restaurant Group Ltd, Sevenoaks, TN13, failed to pay £2,665.15 to 1 worker.
257. Madames Hair & Beauty Limited, Swindon, SN3, failed to pay £2,656.41 to 1 worker.
258. Acerta Group Limited , Warwick, CV34, failed to pay £2,629.00 to 13 workers.
259. London Auto Parts Limited, Wembley, HA0, failed to pay £2,622.17 to 2 workers.
260. Killan Structural Limited, Oldham, OL3, failed to pay £2,620.45 to 2 workers.
261. Sandersons (N.W.) Ltd, Blackpool, FY4, failed to pay £2,603.82 to 3 workers.
262. A & K Home Care Services Ltd, Napton, CV47, failed to pay £2,603.14 to 78 workers.
263. Chaplins Hotel Limited, Blackpool, FY1, failed to pay £2,586.56 to 2 workers.
264. Calmac Developments Limited, Dumfries, DG2, failed to pay £2,583.77 to 17 workers.
265. La Reserve Aparthotel (Manchester) Limited, Manchester, M1, failed to pay £2,567.66 to 13 workers.
266. Ultimate Stores Limited, London, NW1, failed to pay £2,560.34 to 4 workers.
267. Drayton Manor Resort Limited, Tamworth, B78, failed to pay £2,559.58 to 25 workers.
268. Community Foundation, Birmingham, B19, failed to pay £2,500.24 to 2 workers.
269. D and G Pub Company Limited, Darlington, DL3, failed to pay £2,498.17 to 35 workers.
270. Poplars Blossoms Nursery School Limited, Nottingham, NG5, failed to pay £2,494.39 to 1 worker.
271. Vonsung Limited, Islington, EC1Y, failed to pay £2,485.20 to 1 worker.
272. Cornish Premier Pasties Limited, Newquay, TR9, failed to pay £2,467.45 to 53 workers.
273. The Clansmans Rest Ltd, Glasgow, G40, failed to pay £2,417.22 to 3 workers.
274. Natural Care 53 Limited, Manchester, M12, failed to pay £2,412.03 to 1 worker.
275. TKE Landscaping Ltd, Wendens Ambo, CB11, failed to pay £2,403.16 to 3 workers.
276. Mockingbird Lane Ltd, Glasgow, G11, failed to pay £2,387.07 to 1 worker.
277. Mr Patrick G Neilan, Glasgow, G43, failed to pay £2,383.29 to 2 workers.
278. Brean Leisure Park Ltd, Berrow, Burnham-on-Sea, TA8, failed to pay £2,371.57 to 12 workers.
279. Davidsons Plumbing & Heating Limited , Bristol, BS5, failed to pay £2,349.54 to 4 workers.
280. Motor Body Centre Limited, Birmingham, B18, failed to pay £2,346.49 to 1 worker.
281. S & S Care (UK) Limited, Caergwrle, LL12, failed to pay £2,340.72 to 49 workers.
282. Kelton Nursery, Liverpool, L18, failed to pay £2,334.79 to 10 workers.
283. Asset India Limited, Harrow, HA1, failed to pay £2,334.54 to 2 workers.
284. Safegas UK Ltd, Swinton, M27, failed to pay £2,277.54 to 1 worker.
285. Mert GB 2 Limited, East Ham, E6, failed to pay £2,261.38 to 1 worker.
286. Hallwell Projects Ltd, Plymouth, PL1, failed to pay £2,211.32 to 3 workers.
287. Mr Andrew Roy Milward, Pembroke Dock, SA72, failed to pay £2,205.31 to 1 worker.
288. R & R Retail UK Limited, Luton, LU4, failed to pay £2,201.05 to 16 workers.
289. Salon IPS Ltd, Ipswich, IP4, failed to pay £2,189.12 to 1 worker.
290. Mr Narinder Kumar Nar, Birmingham, B18, failed to pay £2,173.86 to 2 workers.
291. Old Mill Holiday Park Limited, St Helens, PO33, failed to pay £2,172.06 to 1 worker.
292. Ms Caroline Wright, Birmingham, B43, failed to pay £2,170.63 to 1 worker.
293. Dolphin Care (IOW) Limited, Wroxall Ventnor, PO38, failed to pay £2,155.09 to 6 workers.
294. Whistledown Inn Limited, Newry, BT34, failed to pay £2,154.29 to 46 workers.
295. Renegade Hair Studio Limited, Leeds, LS2, failed to pay £2,148.74 to 1 worker.
296. Lethendy Cheltenham Limited, Cheltenham, GL53, failed to pay £2,144.90 to 44 workers.
297. Heminstone Estates Limited, Colchester, CO2, failed to pay £2,137.35 to 10 workers.
298. S Leicester Ltd, Leicester, LE5, failed to pay £2,127.17 to 38 workers.
299. GB Vape Limited, Heckmondwike, WF16, failed to pay £2,119.82 to 7 workers.
300. P McCarthy Limited, Brandon, IP27, failed to pay £2,108.75 to 9 workers.
301. K. Foley Limited, Great Blakenham, NR2, failed to pay £2,104.81 to 94 workers.
302. AGL Attractions Limited , Burnham-On-Sea, TA8, failed to pay £2,090.06 to 24 workers.
303. Techlogico Limited, Knottingley, WF11, failed to pay £2,056.43 to 6 workers.
304. Mr Iain Stewart Matheson, Paisley, PA1, failed to pay £2,036.50 to 6 workers.
305. GLASGOW WATERLOO LIMITED, Glasgow, G2, failed to pay £2,020.36 to 41 workers.
306. R J Ferguson Company Limited, Stewartstown, BT71, failed to pay £2,014.04 to 3 workers.
307. Ms Susan Meheux, Southampton, SO31, failed to pay £2,008.66 to 12 workers.
308. Mr David Odudu, Sheffield, S9, failed to pay £1,992.53 to 1 worker.
309. Mr Hazar Ibrahim Hamid, Doncaster, DN5, failed to pay £1,961.64 to 5 workers.
310. M&C Jones Building Contractors Limited, Rhyl, LL18, failed to pay £1,954.46 to 2 workers.
311. Hi-Spec Facilities Services Ltd, Dartford, DA2, failed to pay £1,938.75 to 96 workers.
312. Calibre Building & Decorating Services Limited, Lichfield, WS13, failed to pay £1,937.89 to 1 worker.
313. CPM Electrical Ltd, Omagh, BT79, failed to pay £1,937.71 to 4 workers.
314. Ashbrook Roofing & Supplies Limited, Nr Matlock, DE4, failed to pay £1,912.65 to 5 workers.
315. Mr Thomas Hutchison, Prestonpans, EH32, failed to pay £1,901.44 to 1 worker.
316. Mr Khalid Javid, Chester, CH2, failed to pay £1,891.42 to 1 worker.
317. South Golden Mountain Limited, Eastbourne, BN21, failed to pay £1,888.52 to 1 worker.
318. Oldbury Grange Nursing Home Ltd, Nuneaton, CV10, failed to pay £1,878.02 to 65 workers.
319. OC Electric Limited, Benton, NE12, failed to pay £1,869.32 to 1 worker.
320. Seagrave Decorations Limited, Kettering, NN16, failed to pay £1,847.76 to 4 workers.
321. Little Angels Fun Club and Nursery Limited, Bedlington, NE22, failed to pay £1,832.96 to 92 workers.
322. GAPJ Ivinghoe Ltd, Leighton Buzzard, LU7, failed to pay £1,828.25 to 5 workers.
323. Vapour C Co Ltd, Gillingham, ME7, failed to pay £1,822.57 to 2 workers.
324. Wide Range Services Limited, Hull, HU12, failed to pay £1,816.72 to 1 worker.
325. Hughes (Family Bakers) Holdings Limited, Bradford, BD18, failed to pay £1,811.57 to 26 workers.
326. A W Pettitt Limited, Windermere, LA23, failed to pay £1,810.90 to 5 workers.
327. Smartway Holding Limited, Holloway, N7, failed to pay £1,800.00 to 1 worker.
328. Beaux Health and Wellbeing Ltd, Taunton, TA1, failed to pay £1,791.96 to 1 worker.
329. Saggiomo Luxury Foods Limited, Croydon, CR0, failed to pay £1,787.60 to 1 worker.
330. John Clark (Holdings) Limited , Aberdeen, AB12, failed to pay £1,785.63 to 5 workers.
331. Swiftclean (UK) Limited, Southend-on-Sea, SS2, failed to pay £1,761.48 to 5 workers.
332. Reachout Healthcare Limited, Stockport, SK5, failed to pay £1,757.42 to 31 workers.
333. Mr Ian T Henderson, Accrington, BB5, failed to pay £1,740.90 to 2 workers.
334. Clarke Group Construction Limited, Wyberton, PE21, failed to pay £1,736.49 to 1 worker.
335. MRB Cleaning Limited, Swansea, SA1, failed to pay £1,733.88 to 1 worker.
336. Mr John Fulton Allen & Mr John Gary King, Strabane, BT82, failed to pay £1,725.59 to 1 worker.
337. Belmont Hotel (Leicester) Limited, Leicester, LE1, failed to pay £1,710.28 to 36 workers.
338. Mini Me Private Day Nursery Limited, Newport, NP19, failed to pay £1,708.33 to 15 workers.
339. Glow Trade Ltd, Leicester, LE5, failed to pay £1,706.46 to 20 workers.
340. Mr Jason Hearn, Taunton, TA1, failed to pay £1,706.12 to 2 workers.
341. Country Park Leisure Limited, Hessle, HU13, failed to pay £1,705.13 to 13 workers.
342. C & C Precision Engineering Services Limited, Rowley Regis, B65, failed to pay £1,704.30 to 1 worker.
343. Karen Jeffrey , Wishaw, ML2, failed to pay £1,683.58 to 4 workers.
344. DNA Cleaning Solutions Limited, Twickenham, TW2, failed to pay £1,670.29 to 25 workers.
345. Assured Care (Stockport) Ltd., Stockport, SK1, failed to pay £1,666.57 to 79 workers.
346. Graylaw International Freight Group Ltd, Skelmersdale, WN8, failed to pay £1,663.46 to 7 workers.
347. SPI Trading Limited, Lisburn , BT28, failed to pay £1,656.74 to 3 workers.
348. Executive Hire Ltd., Glasgow, G74, failed to pay £1,650.54 to 3 workers.
349. Accelerate Cleaning Solutions Ltd, Ipswich, IP7, failed to pay £1,650.38 to 106 workers.
350. LGH Plumbing & Heating Services Limited, Leigh, WN7, failed to pay £1,624.77 to 1 worker.
351. Samuel Eales Silverware Limited, Sheffield, S3, failed to pay £1,619.79 to 1 worker.
352. High Grove Beds Limited, Liversedge, WF15, failed to pay £1,610.43 to 8 workers.
353. Shakes n Cakes Aberdeen Ltd, Aberdeen, AB24, failed to pay £1,597.98 to 1 worker.
354. Bespoke Cuisine Ltd, Bethnal Green, EC1V, failed to pay £1,587.04 to 1 worker.
355. Mascallkelly Limited, Cleveland, TS12, failed to pay £1,576.59 to 19 workers.
356. Sher Gill Enterprises Limited, Dunoon, PA23, failed to pay £1,557.58 to 1 worker.
357. Ms Hiromi Sato, London, SW4, failed to pay £1,551.71 to 2 workers.
358. R.Loughlin Electrical Services Ltd, Castlederg, BT81, failed to pay £1,542.58 to 3 workers.
359. Papermoon Nurseries (Boultham Park) Limited, Lincoln, LN6, failed to pay £1,535.25 to 11 workers.
360. SB Rom Food Center Ltd, Hounslow, TW3, failed to pay £1,533.80 to 9 workers.
361. Mr Robert Pontefract, Stamford, PE9, failed to pay £1,531.55 to 1 worker.
362. Grant Leisure Group Limited, Blackpool, FY3, failed to pay £1,495.62 to 15 workers.
363. Everbright Lodge Ltd, Llangollen, LL20, failed to pay £1,475.07 to 25 workers.
364. Biscuit Clothing Ltd, Edinburgh, EH10, failed to pay £1,469.89 to 1 worker.
365. Brockencote Hall Hotel Limited, Leamington Spa, CV33, failed to pay £1,468.25 to 19 workers.
366. Mr Francis Joseph McParland and Mr Peter Liam McParland , Armagh, BT61, failed to pay £1,466.04 to 4 workers.
367. Colemans Garden Centre Ltd, Templepatrick, BT39, failed to pay £1,450.11 to 35 workers.
368. Southcoast Homecare Ltd, Chichester, PO19, failed to pay £1,438.93 to 9 workers.
369. Booth & Stirland Limited, Ripley, DE5, failed to pay £1,434.97 to 3 workers.
370. Grieve Decor Limited, Berwick Upon Tweed, TD15, failed to pay £1,415.11 to 2 workers.
371. Barry Tyre Centre Limited, Barry, CF63, failed to pay £1,408.88 to 1 worker.
372. Piddle Brewery Limited, Dorchester, DT2, failed to pay £1,407.79 to 1 worker.
373. Forseti Law Ltd, Bolton, BL1, failed to pay £1,403.87 to 1 worker.
374. Wash Me Clean Ltd, Bracknell, RG12, failed to pay £1,400.27 to 1 worker.
375. Colonnade (Operator) Limited, Little Venice, W9, failed to pay £1,385.11 to 1 worker.
376. Mario Gianni Limited, Stockport, SK7, failed to pay £1,378.94 to 3 workers.
377. Moyo’s Brothers Limited, Brighton, BN1, failed to pay £1,373.14 to 2 workers.
378. Atticus Cleaning Services Limited, Altrincham, WA14, failed to pay £1,364.89 to 1 worker.
379. Mrs Jane Boome and Miss Verity Jane Boome, Peterborough, PE7, failed to pay £1,360.84 to 13 workers.
380. Get Grip Auto Ltd, Cheltenham, GL53, failed to pay £1,348.25 to 2 workers.
381. Downs Holdings Limited, Yarm, TS15, failed to pay £1,339.48 to 8 workers.
382. Direct Cleaning Services (Oxford) Limited, Weston-Super-Mare, BS22, failed to pay £1,323.74 to 1 worker.
383. Viv Designs Ltd, Gravesend, DA12, failed to pay £1,317.95 to 1 worker.
384. Sycamore Farm Park Limited, Skegness, PE24, failed to pay £1,311.54 to 2 workers.
385. SMK Building & Joinery Contractors Ltd, Todmorden, OL14, failed to pay £1,297.16 to 1 worker.
386. Richard Tate Limited, Leeds, LS10, failed to pay £1,294.02 to 1 worker.
387. JDP Hotels Ltd, Wakefield, WF2, failed to pay £1,289.98 to 34 workers.
388. Miss Abby Fox, Widnes, WA8, failed to pay £1,270.35 to 10 workers.
389. Polish Village Bakery Ltd, Manchester , M17, failed to pay £1,267.37 to 43 workers.
390. ENERGY DUNDEE 4 U LTD , Dundee, DD4, failed to pay £1,263.65 to 15 workers.
391. Synvestment Ltd, High Wycombe, HP12, failed to pay £1,262.39 to 2 workers.
392. Peony Culture Communication Limited, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1, failed to pay £1,247.02 to 1 worker.
393. Easy Clean Contractors Limited, Peterborough, PE7, failed to pay £1,246.92 to 125 workers.
394. R Binks Construction Limited, Bolton, BL2, failed to pay £1,244.33 to 3 workers.
395. Mrs Julie Shaw, Knaresborough, HG5, failed to pay £1,231.68 to 20 workers.
396. Mrs Karaimjit Gill, Barry, CF63, failed to pay £1,230.73 to 1 worker.
397. Mcaleer & McGarrity Ltd, Cookstown, BT80, failed to pay £1,207.77 to 2 workers.
398. M.P.M Consumer Products Limited, Manchester, M11, failed to pay £1,205.73 to 32 workers.
399. K.L.N. Limited , Brent, NW6, failed to pay £1,203.83 to 2 workers.
400. GMD SERVICES LIMITED, Kingston Upon Hull, HU3, failed to pay £1,193.24 to 2 workers.
401. C.V.East Ltd, Colchester , CO1, failed to pay £1,185.68 to 7 workers.
402. Mr Jonathan Hope and Mr Charlie Hope, Slough, SL3, failed to pay £1,183.12 to 3 workers.
403. Belshaw Bookkeeping Services Limited, Bacup, OL13, failed to pay £1,179.76 to 1 worker.
404. D Allen Transport Limited, St Helens, WA9, failed to pay £1,178.73 to 4 workers.
405. Mrs S & Mr G Clough, Bradford, BD12, failed to pay £1,162.79 to 1 worker.
406. Golden Cue Snooker Club Limited, Bilston, WV14, failed to pay £1,147.43 to 1 worker.
407. South Wales Building and Construction Limited, Newport, NP11, failed to pay £1,135.47 to 2 workers.
408. Form Communal Maintenance Limited, Hartford, CW8, failed to pay £1,131.97 to 1 worker.
409. SMS Bars Limited, Stockport, SK1, failed to pay £1,115.11 to 2 workers.
410. Grace Construction and Management Ltd, Derby, DE1, failed to pay £1,113.49 to 1 worker.
411. Alveston House Hotel Limited, Thornbury, BS35, failed to pay £1,109.12 to 1 worker.
412. Mrs Pearl Moore, Blackpool, FY4, failed to pay £1,094.75 to 3 workers.
413. Think Wraps Ltd, Poole, BH12, failed to pay £1,053.08 to 1 worker.
414. Telebizz Ltd, Plymouth, PL7, failed to pay £1,048.56 to 72 workers.
415. Hill Top Day Nursery Limited, Swadlincote, DE12, failed to pay £1,041.04 to 2 workers.
416. W. Corbett & Co. (Galvanizing) Limited, Telford, TF7, failed to pay £1,039.53 to 36 workers.
417. Autocare (Benfleet) Limited, Stanford-Le-Hope, SS17, failed to pay £1,032.23 to 2 workers.
418. Pork Farms Limited, Nottingham, NG2, failed to pay £1,029.77 to 9 workers.
419. Galdin Limited, Hackney, N1, failed to pay £1,024.50 to 5 workers.
420. Trinity Park Nursery Ltd, Craigavon, BT67, failed to pay £1,020.97 to 17 workers.
421. Mr Thanabalasingam Ketheeswarathas and Mrs Sivasuki Ketheeswarathas, Ipswich, IP2, failed to pay £1,006.83 to 2 workers.
422. G P H Carpentry Limited, Newquay, TR8, failed to pay £1,003.04 to 2 workers.
423. Euro Car Wash (South East) Limited, Greenwich, SE7, failed to pay £992.56 to 3 workers.
424. Mrs Melanie Elizabet Brown, Kirkcaldy, KY1, failed to pay £986.58 to 1 worker.
425. A O Hand Car Wash & Valeting Ltd, Peckham, SE15, failed to pay £982.62 to 3 workers.
426. Dash-Cae Limited, Oxford, OX14, failed to pay £976.19 to 1 worker.
427. Janette Allen Limited, Braintree, CM77, failed to pay £976.18 to 1 worker.
428. Ms Sarah Balfour, York, YO10, failed to pay £967.87 to 1 worker.
429. Allied Industrial Products Limited, Salford, M5, failed to pay £955.78 to 1 worker.
430. Cummins Ltd, Darlington, DL1, failed to pay £954.04 to 11 workers.
431. Ramsbottom Cricket Club, Bury, BL0, failed to pay £931.67 to 2 workers.
432. Soughton Shoot Limited, Northop, Mold,, CH7, failed to pay £927.24 to 1 worker.
433. Mrs Penni Durdy, Doncaster, DN9, failed to pay £924.04 to 1 worker.
434. Friends Care Agency Limited, Sandy, SG19, failed to pay £923.84 to 20 workers.
435. French Connection UK Limited, Camden, NW1, failed to pay £917.95 to 57 workers.
436. Precision Workwear Limited, Stamford, PE9, failed to pay £916.35 to 1 worker.
437. Joinex Joinery Express Limited, Brentford, TW8, failed to pay £882.61 to 12 workers.
438. Yorkcloud Limited, Ulverston, LA12, failed to pay £872.20 to 2 workers.
439. KR Scotland Ltd, Edinburgh, EH3, failed to pay £849.21 to 3 workers.
440. The KLE (Berwick) Group Ltd, Berwick Upon Tweed, TD15, failed to pay £838.48 to 2 workers.
441. Zig Zag Day Nursery Limited, Peterborough, PE1, failed to pay £827.98 to 21 workers.
442. Birdies Day Nursery Limited, Lisburn, BT28, failed to pay £821.32 to 8 workers.
443. Sooty Olive Ltd, Waterside, BT47, failed to pay £819.24 to 33 workers.
444. Bright Bees Nursery Ltd, Leicester, LE4, failed to pay £817.06 to 1 worker.
445. What The Fish Limited, Richmond upon Thames, SW14, failed to pay £801.08 to 1 worker.
446. SFC (Edmonton) Limited, Enfield, N9, failed to pay £798.22 to 2 workers.
447. Fairytales Day Nursery Limited, Dudley, DY2, failed to pay £793.38 to 7 workers.
448. R.G.R. Garages (Cranfield) Limited, Bedford, MK43, failed to pay £791.65 to 1 worker.
449. Mad Goose Catering Limited, Ellington, PE28, failed to pay £788.54 to 3 workers.
450. Mr Grzegorz Biezunski, Trowbridge, BA14, failed to pay £787.80 to 1 worker.
451. Futurerate Limited, Loughborough, LE12, failed to pay £787.20 to 1 worker.
452. Kids Korner Day Nurseries Ltd, Belfast, BT6, failed to pay £779.81 to 23 workers.
453. Inter County Cleaning Services Limited, Rushden, NN10, failed to pay £754.38 to 106 workers.
454. Spring Clean Commercial Ltd, Norwich, NR16, failed to pay £753.17 to 107 workers.
455. Clean Living Services Limited, Lambeth, SW8, failed to pay £749.48 to 16 workers.
456. Le Petit Francais Ltd, Edinburgh, EH6, failed to pay £744.52 to 10 workers.
457. Playworks Childcare Limited, Caerphilly, CF83, failed to pay £743.64 to 5 workers.
458. Wickhambrook Stores Limited, Newmarket, CB8, failed to pay £729.88 to 1 worker.
459. Rothco Independent Mortgages Ltd, Alnwick, NE66, failed to pay £729.83 to 1 worker.
460. James David Segal, Hull, HU1, failed to pay £729.22 to 6 workers.
461. Daniel Thwaites Public Limited Company, Blackburn, BB2, failed to pay £724.73 to 23 workers.
462. HRUK Group of Companies Ltd, Leeds, LS8, failed to pay £719.11 to 1 worker.
463. Historic Hotels & Properties Ltd, Scarborough, YO11, failed to pay £707.11 to 5 workers.
464. Penge Car Care ltd, Croydon, SE25, failed to pay £682.48 to 2 workers.
465. Craig Gordon Building Services Ltd, Edinburgh, EH11, failed to pay £680.17 to 1 worker.
466. Mountview Hotels Ltd, Callander, FK17, failed to pay £672.60 to 1 worker.
467. Paragon Quality Foods Ltd, Doncaster, DN3, failed to pay £670.56 to 21 workers.
468. Core Electrical Solutions Ltd, Beckenham, BR3, failed to pay £658.78 to 2 workers.
469. Snacks Van Ltd, Watford, WD25, failed to pay £658.20 to 1 worker.
470. MacDonald Hotels (Management) Limited, Bathgate, EH48, failed to pay £648.78 to 1 worker.
471. Kelly Teggin Hairdressing Ltd, Knaresborough, HG5, failed to pay £647.19 to 1 worker.
472. Safe Gas (N.I.) Limited, Newtonabbey, BT36, failed to pay £639.10 to 1 worker.
473. Harrison Wade Ltd, Manchester, M1, failed to pay £636.04 to 2 workers.
474. Spectrum Energy Guard Ltd, Bournemouth, BH1, failed to pay £621.72 to 1 worker.
475. Gastronomy Foods UK Limited, Shrewsbury, SY1, failed to pay £618.76 to 51 workers.
476. Jobseekrs Limited, Manchester, M15, failed to pay £613.88 to 1 worker.
477. Stepping-Stones-Services Limited, Rochdale, OL11, failed to pay £611.13 to 19 workers.
478. Tramp Hair Boutique Limited, Stockport, SK1, failed to pay £610.40 to 1 worker.
479. Emporio Fashion Ltd, Leicester, LE5, failed to pay £608.85 to 18 workers.
480. Halton Concrete Ltd, Widnes, WA8, failed to pay £607.43 to 2 workers.
481. Kanto Stranmillis Limited, Belfast, BT9, failed to pay £590.15 to 1 worker.
482. Complete Payroll and Accountancy Limited, Altrincham, M33, failed to pay £584.24 to 1 worker.
483. Flawless Cleaning Ltd, Smethwick, B66, failed to pay £582.02 to 1 worker.
484. Al Halal Supermarket Limited , Bradford, BD7, failed to pay £581.64 to 7 workers.
485. Max & Molly Limited, Wigan, WN3, failed to pay £579.96 to 1 worker.
486. Happy Children Day Nursery Limited, Ballynahinch, BT24, failed to pay £573.74 to 12 workers.
487. Jagard Valeting & Cleaning Services Ltd, Wellingborough, NN8, failed to pay £573.47 to 2 workers.
488. 247 Convenience Store (Bury) Ltd, Bury, BL8, failed to pay £571.63 to 1 worker.
489. The Race Horses Hotel Limited, Skipton, BD23, failed to pay £566.05 to 2 workers.
490. Strategic Facilities Management Ltd, Leeds, LS17, failed to pay £561.18 to 3 workers.
491. Mr C Saudin & Mrs P Saudin, Canterbury, CT1, failed to pay £560.48 to 2 workers.
492. Golden Car Limited , Perivale, UB6, failed to pay £551.80 to 1 worker.
493. Your Friendly Local Limited, Rotherham, S60, failed to pay £549.95 to 6 workers.
494. Steven Boom, East Hunsbury, NN4, failed to pay £547.20 to 2 workers.
495. M A Fashions Ltd, Leicester, LE5, failed to pay £545.60 to 17 workers.
496. Comserv Contracting & Commercial Limited, Stoke-on-Trent, ST3, failed to pay £544.19 to 1 worker.
497. Bonner Studs Limited, Walsall, WS2, failed to pay £537.45 to 1 worker.
498. M & C Retail Limited, Darlington, DL1, failed to pay £537.36 to 4 workers.
499. Legacy Resorts Limited, Newton Stewart, DG8, failed to pay £536.69 to 1 worker.
500. E.K.S Living Clean Ltd, Norwich, NR6, failed to pay £533.58 to 5 workers.
501. SC HCW Ltd, Belfast, BT5, failed to pay £533.54 to 7 workers.
502. David Alexander Forbes, Inverurie, AB51, failed to pay £531.64 to 2 workers.
503. Arunagiri UK LTD, Rickmansworth, WD3, failed to pay £530.92 to 2 workers.
504. Millfield Haulage Limited, York, YO26, failed to pay £530.91 to 2 workers.
505. Ardmore (Co. Derry) Pre-Cast Concrete Limited, Ardmore, BT47, failed to pay £525.69 to 1 worker.
506. W1 Soho Ltd., Soho, W1D, failed to pay £523.20 to 1 worker.
507. Shree Siddhi Limited, Glasgow, G66, failed to pay £515.76 to 7 workers.
508. 41 Cars Hull Ltd, Hull, HU9, failed to pay £515.72 to 2 workers.
509. Felix Inns Ltd, Solihull, B92, failed to pay £514.09 to 20 workers.
510. Eastchurch Holiday Centre Limited, Eastchurch, ME12, failed to pay £511.70 to 1 worker.
511. Surf N Turf Limited, Leicester, LE2, failed to pay £511.63 to 2 workers.
512. Red House Garage Limited, St Helens, WA11, failed to pay £511.43 to 1 worker.
513. Classic Decorators (UK) Limited, Barry, CF63, failed to pay £511.43 to 1 worker.
514. John Codona’s Pleasure Fairs Limited, Aberdeen, AB24, failed to pay £505.82 to 3 workers.
515. Timberquay Limited, Derry, BT48, failed to pay £503.98 to 14 workers.
516. Ace Support FM Ltd, Barnet, N14, failed to pay £501.60 to 1 worker.
517. Sleepwell (Cumbria) Limited, Barrow In Furness, LA14, failed to pay £500.95 to 1 worker.
518. Blank Brixton Ltd, Brixton, SW2, failed to pay £287.31 to 1 worker.

Published 29 May 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

May 29, 2025

MIL-OSI: SPEC Releases New SPECapc for SNX 2024 Benchmark
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

GAINESVILLE, Va., May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC), the trusted global leader in computing benchmarks, today announced the availability of an all-new SPECapc for SNX 2024 benchmark, providing a completely new take on measuring Siemens NX CAD and CAM software performance. Siemens NX is award-winning, processor-intensive software that helps designers and manufacturers deliver better products faster through a powerful combination of CAD and CAM solutions. The new benchmark runs on the continuous release version of Siemens NX, which will enable SPEC to update the benchmark more frequently.*

The SPECapc for SNX 2024 benchmark executes graphics tests that include rotation, pan, zoom and clipping for each model. Viewport tests within the benchmark measure performance for field of view and feature regeneration operations. Anti-aliasing can be enabled or disabled to allow users to assess performance differences between the two modes. With the SPECapc for SNX 2024 benchmark, the range of application users, including professionals, students, and artists, as well as hardware developers and vendors, can discover how different hardware configurations affect the performance of the application.

“SPEC is committed to providing the Siemens NX user and development communities with a fair and reliable benchmark for Siemens NX, and we are grateful for the opportunity to work with Siemens to make this happen,” said SPECapc Chair Jessica Heerboth. “We rigorously developed this benchmark according to our principles for creating a good benchmark, which include it being vendor agnostic, unbiased, use-case-dependent, scalable, extensible and more. These characteristics ensure the most accurate performance measurements, enabling the best possible decisions when making hardware purchases to run this processor-intensive design software.”

Key features of the SPECapc for SNX 2024 benchmark
- Exporting models to different file formats – This test measures exports to STEP and IGES, the most frequently used file formats.
- Closest point calculations – This test measures a picked point in space for every surface / edge on a model and calculates which point on the model is closest.
- Mass property calculations – For every solid body in the model, this test calculates the vector of mass / inertia / movement, etc. The test calculates forces in physical simulations: volume, mass, center of mass, moments, moments of inertia, spherical moments of inertia, radii of gyration, etc.
- Model loading – This test measures the basic app function of opening and loading a model.
- Display mode – This test iterates through multiple modes.
- Cross section – This test cuts a model in half and rotates it around, providing a detailed look at the inside of a model – all the parts and details and how they fit together.
- Explosion – This test explodes out to show an inner view of a model. It is similar to the cross section test but provides a view of each part individually without the detail of how they fit together.
- Sync views – This test provides two different views of the model and rotates them in a synchronized fashion, providing a view of how things fit and potentially fuse together from different angles.
- Multiple viewports – This test provides six different views of a model from different perspectives. It continuously shows the model from all angles to increase awareness of how changes affect the model.
Available for Immediate Download
The SPECapc for SNX 2024 benchmark is available for immediate download from SPEC under a two-tiered pricing structure: free for the user community and $2,500 for sellers of computer-related products and services. SPEC/GWPG members receive benchmark licenses as a membership benefit.

About SPEC
SPEC is a non-profit organization that establishes, maintains and endorses standardized benchmarks and tools to evaluate performance for the newest generation of computing systems. Its membership comprises more than 120 leading computer hardware and software vendors, educational institutions, research organizations, and government agencies worldwide.

*Please note: The SPECapc for SNX 2024 benchmark can run on the latest continuous release version of Siemens NX; however, since each new application build version can differ in terms of performance and output, please refer to the benchmark run rules for the exact Siemens NX build version officially supported.

Media contact:
Brigit Valencia
360.597.4516
brigit@compel-pr.com

Images available upon request.
SPEC® and SPECapc® are trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. All other product and company names herein may be trademarks of their registered owners.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/2f0ac75e-fb34-4c2b-855a-c839ce7313c0

The MIL Network –
May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Russia: US Trade Court Bans Trump from Imposing Import Tariffs

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

NEW YORK, May 29 (Xinhua) — The New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency powers law.

The ruling comes after a series of lawsuits alleging that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on imports.

A three-judge panel ruled that executive orders imposing fentanyl-related tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China, as well as tariffs on countries around the world, announced April 2, “will be rescinded and permanently terminated.”

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize any of the orders, the court said.

“The worldwide retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority that IEEPA gives the President to regulate imports through tariffs. Tariffs imposed in response to smuggling do not work because they do not address the threats outlined in these orders,” the report concluded.

The judges ruled on two lawsuits against the U.S. federal government filed by five companies on April 14 and by 12 states on April 23.

“Unelected judges should not decide the appropriate response to a national emergency. President Trump has promised to put America first, and the administration intends to use every lever of the executive branch to address this crisis and restore America to greatness,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. -0-

MIL OSI Russia News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI: Lovart Launches The First Design Agent, Draws Global User Surge

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

SAN FRANCISCO, May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Lovart, a San Francisco-based AI startup, has officially launched its autonomous design agent — a platform designed to automate the entire creative process, from concept to final deliverables.

Unlike traditional AI tools focused on single outputs, Lovart enables users to generate dozens of professional-grade assets simultaneously, spanning images, video, audio, and 3D. The system integrates multiple AI models, orchestrating hundreds of design steps automatically to produce layered, editable content ready for direct use.

From Concept to Production: A New Design Paradigm

Users input a single prompt, and Lovart delivers up to 40 outputs, including storyboards, branding kits, UI flows, and multimedia content. The platform features an infinite canvas with advanced editing tools familiar to designers, such as layers, masks, and text refinement. Export formats include PNG, SVG, video, and audio — ensuring outputs meet professional standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBeHmuRAJ7I&t=1s

Launch Reception and Market Response

Within the first 24 hours of its launch on X (formerly Twitter), a discussion thread about Lovart garnered over 5,000 posts, reflecting strong community engagement. The waitlist grew rapidly, surpassing 100,000 users across 70+ countries within five days.

Lovart’s Discord server has become a vibrant hub where users hold “Agent Battles,” competitions that pit the platform’s AI agents against complex creative briefs in real time.

Industry Context: The Rise of Vertical AI Agents

Industry analysts view Lovart as a prime example of the growing trend towards vertical AI agents — domain-specific AI systems designed to replace traditional workflows.

YC partner Jared Friedman characterizes these agents as “autonomous teammates” that extend beyond general-purpose AI, bringing specialized expertise to complex tasks.

Community and Creative Use Cases

Early adopters are using Lovart to produce full marketing campaigns, multimedia storyboards, and interactive design projects with minimal manual input. The platform’s seamless orchestration of multimodal AI models allows creatives to focus on ideas while the agent handles execution.

Access and Further Information

Lovart continues to onboard new users and expand its feature set. Interested professionals can learn more or join the waitlist via:

Lovart positions itself as a new standard in creative automation, offering professionals an autonomous agent capable of handling complex, multimodal design workflows from start to finish.

About Lovart

Lovart AI is a San Francisco-based technology company pioneering the world’s first Design Agent — an AI-native system that interprets creative intent, decomposes complex tasks, and coordinates leading multimodal models to deliver comprehensive outputs across image, video, and 3D formats. Co-founded by Haofan Wang, an AI researcher with training from Carnegie Mellon University, and supported by a global team of experts in AI systems and creative tooling, Lovart is transforming the creative landscape. Since launching in 2025, the platform has rapidly gained traction with over 100,000 users joining within just 5 days, fundamentally changing how modern creators and studios approach design workflows.

Media Contact

Organization: Resonate International lNC

Contact Person: Jane Huo

Email: aimeey@int.lovart.ai

Country: United States

City: San francisco

Website:https://www.lovart.ai/

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/3c892497-f390-404c-9675-758657c5431e
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/6481863c-d379-4206-8354-2c73aba65e10

The MIL Network –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Klobuchar Statement on the U.S. Court of International Trade Overturning President Trump’s Tariff Taxes

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) released the following statement on the U.S. Court of International Trade overturning President Trump’s tariff taxes in a unanimous three-judge decision.

“This unanimous verdict by judges appointed by Presidents Trump, Obama, and Reagan restores sanity and stability to our trade policies. Instead of raising costs by nearly $3,000 per family, we should bring relief to the American people who have faced higher costs and chaos for far too long under Trump’s tariff taxes. As the judges ruled, ‘The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”’ The President clearly overstepped his authority with these across-the-board tariffs.”

In April, the Senate passed Klobuchar’s bipartisan resolution with Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA) to reverse President Trump’s across-the-board tariffs on Canadian goods.

Klobuchar joined Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to introduce the Trade Review Act of 2025, bipartisan legislation that would bring stability and accountability to U.S. trade policy by reasserting limits on the president’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.

MIL OSI USA News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s global trade plans are in disarray, after a US court ruling on ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Stone, Credit Union SA Chair of Economics, University of South Australia

A US court has blocked the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs that US President Donald Trump imposed on imported goods from around 90 nations. This puts implementation of Trump’s current trade policy in disarray.

The Court of International Trade ruled the emergency authority Trump used to impose the tariffs could not override the role of Congress, which has the right to regulate commerce with other countries.

Tariffs imposed via other legislative processes such as those dealing with cars, steel and aluminium continue to stand. But the broad-based “reciprocal” tariffs will need to be removed within 10 days of the court’s ruling. Trump administration officials have already filed plans to appeal.

The ruling calls into question trade negotiations underway with more than 18 different nations that are trying to lower these tariffs. Do these countries continue to negotiate or do they wait for the judicial process to play out?

The Trump administration still has other mechanisms through which it can impose tariffs, but these have limits on the amount that can be imposed, or entail processes which can take months or years. This undermines Trump’s preferred method of negotiation: throwing out large threats and backing down once a concession is reached.

Emergency powers were a step too far

The lawsuits were filed by United States importers of foreign products and some US states, challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

The lawsuits argued the national emergencies cited in imposing the tariffs – the trade deficit and the fentanyl crisis – were not an emergency and not directly addressed by the tariff remedy. The court agreed, and said by imposing tariffs Trump had overstepped his authority.

The ruling said the executive orders used were “declared to be invalid as contrary to law”.

The act states the president is entitled to take economic action in the face of “an unusual and extraordinary threat”. It’s mainly been used to impose sanctions on terrorist groups or freeze assets from Russia. There’s nothing in the act that refers to tariffs.

The decision means all the reciprocal tariffs – including the 10% tariffs on most countries, the 50% tariffs Trump was talking about putting on the EU, and some of the Chinese tariffs – are ruled by the court to be illegal. They must be removed within 10 days.

The ruling was based on two separate lawsuits. One was brought by a group of small businesses that argued tariffs materially hurt their business. The other was brought by 12 individual states that argued the tariffs would materially impact their ability to provide public goods.

Some industry tariffs will remain in place

The ruling does not apply to tariffs applied under Section 201, known as safeguard tariffs. They are intended to protect industries from imports allegedly being sold in the US market at unfair prices or through unfair means. Tariffs on solar panels and washing machines were brought under this regulation.

Also excluded are Section 232 tariffs, which are applied for national security reasons. Those are the steel and aluminium tariffs, the automobile and auto parts tariffs. Trump has declared all those as national security issues, so those tariffs will remain.

Most of the tariffs against China are also excluded under Section 301. Those are put in place for unfair trade practices, such as intellectual property theft or forced technology transfer. They are meant to pressure countries to change their policies.

Other trade investigations are still underway

In addition, there are current investigations related to copper and the pharmaceuticals sector, which will continue. These investigations are part of a more traditional trade process and may lead to future tariffs, including on Australia.

The Trump administration is still weighing possible sector-specific tariffs on pharmaceuticals.
Planar/Shutterstock

Now for the appeals

The Trump administration has already filed its intention to appeal to the federal appeals court. This process will take some time. In the meantime, there are at least five other legal challenges to tariffs pending in the courts.

If the appeals court provides a ruling the Trump administration or opponents don’t like, they can appeal to the Supreme Court.

Alternatively, the White House could direct customs officials to ignore the court and continue to collect tariffs.

The Trump administration has ignored court orders in the past, particularly on immigration rulings. So it remains to be seen if customs officials will release goods without the tariffs being paid in 10 days’ time.

The administration is unlikely to lay down on this. In addition to its appeal process, officials complained about “unelected judges” and “judicial overreach” and may contest the whole process. The only thing that continues to be a certainty is that uncertainty will drive global markets for the foreseeable future.

Susan Stone 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. Trump’s global trade plans are in disarray, after a US court ruling on ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – https://theconversation.com/trumps-global-trade-plans-are-in-disarray-after-a-us-court-ruling-on-liberation-day-tariffs-257812

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: EU Fact Sheets – The European Union and its trade partners – 28-05-2025

Source: European Parliament 2

Over the years, the EU has been moving away from the production of labour-intensive, low-value products in order to specialise in higher-value, branded goods. With its open economy, trade is essential to the EU, which is a founder of and key player in the World Trade Organization (WTO). In addition, to overcome trade barriers and level the playing field for its businesses, the Union negotiates a number of free trade agreements (FTAs).

MIL OSI Europe News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Hong Kong Customs detects money laundering case involving about $3.46 million following unfair trade practice investigation

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

Hong Kong Customs detects money laundering case involving about $3.46 million following unfair trade practice investigation
In mid-2022, Customs detected two unfair trade practice cases and arrested a local man. In July 2023, the man was convicted of engaging in commercial practices involving misleading omissions in the sale of training services on dating techniques, in contravention of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance, and was sentenced to 160 hours of community service order.

A subsequent financial investigation and fund-flow analysis revealed that there were numerous suspicious transactions, which were suspected to be crime proceeds, in the personal bank accounts of the man. Meanwhile, the investigation also revealed that another local man used his personal bank accounts to assist the man to receive the suspected crime proceeds, totaling about $3.46 million, during the period between April 2020 and February 2025.

Upon further investigation, Customs arrested the two local men, aged 26 and 35, yesterday for “dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of indictable offenses” (commonly known as money laundering) under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO) and searched their residential premises in Tsuen Wan, Tsing Yi and Quarry Bay. Two mobile phones, a computer notebook and a batch of bank documents were seized in the operation.

The arrested persons have been released on bail pending investigation. The investigation of the case is still ongoing, and the likelihood of further arrests is not ruled out.

Under OSCO, a person commits an offence if he or she deals with any property knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that such property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $5 million and imprisonment for 14 years while the crime proceeds are also subject to confiscation.

Members of the public may report any suspected money laundering activities to Customs’ 24-hour hotline 182 8080 or its dedicated crime-reporting email account (crimereport@customs.gov.hkIssued at HKT 12:50

NNNN

CategoriesMIL-OSI

MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Cantwell on Trade Court Decision Striking Down Trump’s Global Tariffs

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell

05.28.25

Cantwell on Trade Court Decision Striking Down Trump’s Global Tariffs

EDMONDS, WA– Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, praised the U.S. Court of International Trade for striking down Donald Trump’s global tariffs, which amounted to massive new taxes on American consumers:

“I am glad the Court of International Trade unanimously recognized that the President exceeded his authority. We need trade to flow through our ports. The remaining 10 percent global tariffs on Europe and 30 percent tariff on China should be lifted to lower prices for American families and to stabilize supply chains for US manufacturers. And Congress and the courts should take a close look at the other tariffs the president has planned.”

MIL OSI USA News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Board of Commissioners

Source: Tertiary Education Commission

Our Board:

sets our strategic direction, makes decisions about funding allocations and provides guidance on our operations
monitors the performance of the Chief Executive and the organisation
oversees management of strategic risk.

Dr Alan Bollard CNZM, Chair

Alan Bollard is Chair of the New Zealand Portrait Gallery. He is New Zealand Governor of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, a Director of China Construction Bank (NZ), and Chair of the New Zealand Pacific Economic Cooperation Council.
He has been Chair of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Professor of Pacific Region Business at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, and Chair of the Centres for Asia-Pacific Excellence.
Alan was the Director of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research from 1987 to 1994, Chair of the New Zealand Commerce Commission from 1994 to 1998, and the Secretary to the Treasury between 1998 and 2020. From 2002 to 2012, he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. He was the Executive Director of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Singapore from 2012 to 2018.
Alan has published a number of economics and popular books. He is a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, a Fellow of Royal Society Te Apārangi, and has honorary doctorate degrees from the University of Auckland and Massey University.
Robin Hapi CNZM, Deputy Chair

Robin Hapi was a former Commissioner of the Tertiary Education Commission from 2007 to 2013 and joins TEC for a second time from February 2025. This follows a term of 12 years as Amokapua/Chair of Te Wānanga o Raukawa. He has served on several Boards and led a range of commercial and not-for-profit entities.
Robin is currently Chair of Tū Ātea Ltd and Co-Chair of the Pūhoro STEMM Academy. His previous service includes positions on the Boards of Te Mātāwai, Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities, WorkSafe NZ and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency; he has also been Chair of the Māori Economic Development Advisory Board, Chair of BERL and Deputy Chair of Callaghan Innovation.
Robin is an old boy of Hato Pāora College and an alumni of Massey University, where he graduated with a Master of Business Administration with Distinction. In December 2015 Robin was awarded the Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (CNZM) in recognition of his contribution to governance, community and Māori, and in 2022 he received the Dame Mira Szászy Lifetime award from the University of Auckland Business School for his contribution to governance. Robin is also a Distinguished Fellow of the NZ Institute of Directors.
Robin is of Ngāti Kahungunu descent and affiliates to Kahurānaki Marae, Te Hauke.
Dr Alastair MacCormick, Commissioner, Chair Whatitata Whakau – Risk and Assurance Committee

TEC’s longest serving Commissioner, Alastair was first appointed to the TEC Board of Commissioners in May 2017, and appointed as Chair of the Whatitata Whakau – Risk and Assurance Committee in August 2017.
Alastair is an Emeritus Professor of the University of Auckland. He holds a Doctorate in Management Science from Yale University and an MCom in Economics and a BSc in Mathematics and Physics from Auckland. For a decade he was Dean of Business and Economics at the University of Auckland and subsequently Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic).
Alastair also served over nine years on the Grants Committee of Callaghan Innovation for the Government support of Private Sector R&D and is a professional director with global experience in both public, private and listed companies.
Alastair’s generosity with his time and expertise is demonstrated in his role as Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Elizabeth Knox Home and Hospital (a voluntary role which Alastair has supported for almost 40 years) along with founding the New Zealand Education and Scholarship Trust in 1991. He has also spent 14 years on the Board of Trustees for Auckland Grammar School, serving as Chair of the Board for six years.
Alastair was awarded a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in The Queen’s Birthday and Platinum Jubilee Honours for services to tertiary education and the community.
Kirk Hope, Commissioner

“People are our greatest asset and the drivers of our economy. Business needs a training and development system to ensure everyone can reach their potential and New Zealand continues to prosper”.

Appointed in November 2019, Kirk brings strong current business sector knowledge to the TEC Board table. Kirk is the Chief Executive of the Financial Services Council. Previously, he was the Chief Executive of BusinessNZ, New Zealand’s largest business advocacy group with approximately 80,000 business connections.
It is not just his knowledge and understanding of business that Kirk brings to TEC. He has held the positions of CEO of the New Zealand Bankers’ Association, Executive Director of the Financial Services Federation, along with several executive positions in both government and banking industries.
The pairing of business acumen with a strong financial base, a Master’s in Law, an honours degree in political science, easily makes Kirk a great fit for TEC.
Kirk’s passion is giving back, so sometime in the future we could see him sharing his wealth of knowledge and business expertise through teaching – perhaps that will be after he finishes PhD in economic history (a long term goal) or when he isn’t surfing.
Samuelu (Sam) Sefuiva, Commissioner, Chair Ohu Tangata – People and Culture Committee

Sam has over 30 years’ experience in public policy, strategic and business advice, cultural and economic development and executive leadership. He has a strong professional and personal interest in the Pacific region particularly in human rights, social enterprise and public policy. Sam joined the TEC Board in January 2023.
Sam has mentored, led and facilitated senior executives in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific in improving international, regional and domestic non-government and community enterprise environments. His strengths are in high level policy advice and relations, strategic thinking, business planning and facilitation.
Currently his leadership roles include: Mana Whakapai-AMPTI (consortium) Manager, Auckland Māori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative; Trustee, Digital Wings Trust; and Trustee Black Grace (Dance) Trust. Previously, Sam was Chief Advisor to the Race Relations Commissioner at the NZ Human Rights Commission.
Sam enjoys spending time with his family and including grandchildren, his wider Samoan fanau and village (Salani, Falealili), as well as some passive recreational activities such as reading, surfing, fishing.
Deidre Shea, Commissioner

“Accessible, quality educational opportunities for all New Zealanders throughout their lives are key to the health and success of our communities and our nation. I am privileged to be able to contribute to this as a member of TEC’s board.”

Commissioned in 2023, Deidre received her Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2022 Queen’s Birthday honours for services to Education.
Deidre held leadership roles with Ōnehunga High School (OHS) from 1995 and was Principal from 2007 until 2022. Her leadership extended to the Auckland Secondary School Principals’ Association from 2008 to 2015 and the Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand (SPANZ) 2014 to 2023. She became President of SPANZ from 2019 to 2021, leading through numerous challenges including the COVID-19 pandemic.
Deidre is committed to excellent, lifelong educational opportunities for all. She has overseen the establishment of a Construction School at OHS in 2005, followed by a Services Academy in 2007 and later a Health Science Academy. OHS operates the nation’s largest school-based Adult and Community Education programme.
Deidre has chaired Te Hikoi (formerly the AIMHI Alternative Education consortium) for the past decade.
Bharat Guha, Commissioner

Bharat Guha is the current Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for the Invercargill Licensing Trust. He is a chartered accountant with extensive experience in the education and hospitality sector.
Bharat has held numerous senior positions as CEO, Deputy CEO and CFO in different New Zealand and overseas organisations. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Bharat was based in London, working as the Group CFO for an LSE-listed company with branches in the UK, Malaysia, Singapore and Nepal.
Bharat was recognised as a Fellow of the Australia New Zealand Chartered Accountants for his financial work on the Zero Fee Scheme for the Southern Institute of Technology. In addition, he has developed and led successful government–private tertiary institution partnerships for attracting international students to New Zealand.
Bharat is a graduate of the University of Otago, undertaking a Bachelor of Commerce (Accounting and Information Systems) and a Master in Business Administration. He also completed the Executive Leadership Programme at Oxford University and the Southland Leadership Academy.
Bharat is committed and passionate about ensuring the future growth of tertiary education in New Zealand.
Sharon McGuire, Commissioner

Sharon McGuire has a strong commercial background and knowledge of the polytechnic and broader tertiary sector. She also has governance experience with several entities. Her tertiary experience includes being a director for regional economic development with the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology.
Sharon’s commercial experience includes working as a general manager in the hotels sector, as a director of a major sports franchise, work with Chambers of Commerce, and as a business owner specialising in project services and advising on business viability.
Sharon has held senior executive roles and is an experienced Director in the Not-for-Loss sector. Sharon is a great supporter of community organisations, and was awarded the Paul Harris Fellow for services to Rotary and the wider community.
Top

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

May 29, 2025
US court blocks most Trump tariffs, says president exceeded his authority

Source: Government of India

Source: Government of India (4)

A U.S. trade court blocked President Donald Trump’s tariffs from going into effect in a sweeping ruling on Wednesday that found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners.

The Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president’s emergency powers to safeguard the U.S. economy.

“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”

The judges also ordered the Trump administration to issue new orders reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days. The Trump administration minutes later filed a notice of appeal and questioned the authority of the court.

The court invalidated with immediate effect all of Trump’s orders on tariffs since January that were rooted in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law meant to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during a national emergency.

The court was not asked to address some industry-specific tariffs Trump has issued on automobiles, steel and aluminum, using a different statute.

The decisions of the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade, which hears disputes involving international trade and customs laws, can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

TRADE TURMOIL

Trump has made charging U.S. importers tariffs on goods from foreign countries the central policy of his ongoing trade wars, which have severely disrupted global trade flows and roiled financial markets.

Companies of all sizes have been whipsawed by Trump’s swift imposition of tariffs and sudden reversals as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.

A White House spokesperson on Wednesday said U.S. trade deficits with other countries constituted “a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute.”

“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Kush Desai, the spokesperson, said in a statement.

Financial markets cheered the ruling. The U.S. dollar rallied following the court’s order, surging against currencies such as the euro, yen and the Swiss franc in particular. Wall Street futures rose and equities across Asia also rose.

The ruling, if it stands, blows a giant hole through Trump’s strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries.

Trump has promised Americans that the tariffs would draw manufacturing jobs back to U.S. shores and shrink a $1.2 trillion U.S. goods trade deficit, which were among his central campaign promises.

Without the instant leverage provided by tariffs of 10% to 54% or higher, the Trump administration would have to find new forms of leverage or take a slower approach to negotiations with trading partners.

BUSINESSES HURTING

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states.

The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business.

“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” the judges wrote in their decision.

At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the states’ lawsuit, called Trump’s tariffs unlawful, reckless and economically devastating.

“This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Rayfield said in a statement.

Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs.

The Justice Department has said the lawsuits should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not been harmed by tariffs that they have not yet paid, and because only Congress, not private businesses, can challenge a national emergency declared by the president under IEEPA.

In imposing the tariffs in early April, Trump called the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports, with higher rates for countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits, particularly China.

Many of those country-specific tariffs were paused a week later. The Trump administration on May 12 said it was also temporarily reducing the steepest tariffs on China while working on a longer-term trade deal. Both countries agreed to cut tariffs on each other for at least 90 days.

(Reuters)

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Beyer Statement On U.S. Court of International Trade Ruling Striking Down Key Trump Tariffs

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)

Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA), who serves on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade and chairs the New Democrat Coalition’s Trade Task Force, issued the following statement on a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade vacating and permanently enjoining Donald Trump’s across-the-board tariffs on nearly every country in the world, including his “Liberation Day” tariffs and separate tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China:

“This ruling is a major victory for the American people, who have spent months under threat of a stupid, self-imposed economic disaster thanks to Donald Trump’s trade war. Trump’s tariffs have already raised costs on Americans, strained our alliances, hurt our credibility, and threatened the global economy. They’ve driven uncertainty to a peak, hurt our small businesses, and greatly raised the danger of a recession.

“The U.S. Court of International Trade agreed with what I and others have said for months: Trump was clearly abusing emergency authorities in ways not authorized by Congress to impose damaging tariffs on other countries, with obviously pretextual excuses. Abuse of power has been the most consistent theme of Trump’s presidency, including power grabs on immigration, elections, and the structure of the government itself, which are clearly illegal and unconstitutional. Such is the case here.

“It is important to note that while Trump’s broadest tariffs, which he imposed using authorities under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, were just blocked by the Court, but his sector-based tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, and auto parts are not affected by this ruling and remain in place. Trump has threatened additional tariffs under this authority, known as Section 232, on semiconductor chips, copper, and pharmaceuticals, and he clearly is intent on abusing this power as well. My bill, the Congressional Trade Authority Act, would prevent Trump from abusing this provision, return trade authority to Congress, where it belongs, and stop Trump’s trade war from doing further harm to the United States and the world. Congress should pass it.”

Beyer is the sponsor of the Congressional Trade Authority Act, which would rein in presidential abuses of authorities under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and the co-lead, with Rep. Suzan DelBene, of legislation to end abuses of International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff authorities.

MIL OSI USA News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI China: US trade court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs

Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

U.S. President Donald Trump attends an event celebrating the Greek Independence Day at the White House in Washington, D.C., the United States, on March 24, 2025. Trump on Monday said that he may “give a lot of countries breaks” on tariffs, as his April 2 deadline to impose “reciprocal tariffs” on U.S. trading partners draws closer. [Photo/Xinhua]

A U.S. federal court blocked on Wednesday President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, according to U.S. media.

The ruling from a New York-based Court of International Trade came after a number of lawsuits arguing Trump has overstepped his authority on imposing across-the-board duties on imports.

MIL OSI China News –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children and pregnant women – a public health expert explains the new guidance

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Libby Richards, Professor of Nursing, Purdue University

Until now, the CDC has recommended that everyone ages 6 months and older get a yearly COVID-19 vaccine. Asiaselects via Getty Images

On May 27, 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer include the COVID-19 vaccine on the list of immunizations it recommends for healthy children and pregnant women.

The announcement, made in a video posted on the social platform X, comes on the heels of another announcement, made on May 20, in which the Food and Drug Administration revealed that it will approve new versions of the vaccine only for adults 65 years of age and older and for people with one or more risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. The agency will require vaccine manufacturers to conduct clinical trials to demonstrate that the vaccine benefits low-risk groups.

The Conversation U.S. asked Libby Richards, a nursing professor from Purdue University involved in public health promotion, to explain what these announcements mean for the general public.

Why are HHS and FDA diverging from past practice?

Currently, getting a yearly COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older, regardless of their health risk.

In the video announcing the plan to remove the vaccine from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women, Kennedy spoke alongside National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. The trio cited a lack of evidence to support vaccinating healthy children. They did not explain the reason for the change to the vaccine schedule for pregnant people, who have previously been considered at high-risk for severe COVID-19.

Similarly, in the FDA announcement made a week prior, Makary and the agency’s head of vaccines, Vinay Prasad, said that public health trends now support limiting vaccines to people at high risk of serious illness instead of a universal COVID-19 vaccination strategy.

Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus?

Many public health experts and professional health care associations have raised concerns about Kennedy’s latest announcement, saying it contradicts studies showing that COVID-19 vaccination benefits pregnant people and children. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, considered the premier professional organization for that medical specialty, reinforced the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, especially to protect infants after birth. Likewise, the American Academy of Pediatrics pointed to the data on hospitalizations of children with COVID-19 during the 2024-to-2025 respiratory virus season as evidence for the importance of vaccination.

Kennedy’s announcement on children and pregnant women comes roughly a month ahead of a planned meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts that offers guidance to the CDC on vaccine policy. The meeting was set to review guidance for the 2025-to-2026 COVID-19 vaccines. It’s not typical for the CDC to alter its recommendations without input from the committee.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has removed COVID-19 vaccines from the vaccine schedule for healthy children and pregnant people.

FDA officials Makary and Prasad also strayed from past established vaccine regulatory processes in announcing the FDA’s new stance on recommendations for healthy people under age 65. Usually, the FDA broadly approves a vaccine based on whether it is safe and effective, and decisions on who should be eligible to receive it are left to the CDC, which bases its decision on the advisory committee’s research-based guidance.

The advisory committee was expected to recommend a risk-based approach for the COVID-19 vaccine, but it was also expected to recommend allowing low-risk people to get annual COVID-19 vaccines if they want to. The CDC’s and FDA’s new policies on the vaccine will likely make it difficult for healthy people to get the vaccine.

What conditions count as risk factors?

The CDC lists several medical conditions and other factors that increase peoples’ risk for severe COVID-19. These conditions include cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease and some lung conditions like COPD and asthma. Pregnancy is also on the list.

The article authored by Makary and Prasad describing the FDA’s new stance on the vaccine also contain a lengthy list of risk factors and notes that about 100 million to 200 million people will fall into this category and will thus be eligible to get the vaccine. Pregnancy is included. Reversing the recommendation for vaccinating healthy pregnant women thus contradicts the new framework described by the FDA.

Studies have documented that COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy and may reduce the risk of stillbirth. A study published in May 2025 using data from 26,783 pregnancies found a link between COVID-19 infection before and during pregnancy and an increased risk for spontaneous abortions.

Importantly, a 2024 analysis of 120 studies including a total of 168,444 pregnant women with COVID-19 infections did not find enough evidence to suggest the infections are a direct cause of early pregnancy loss. Nonetheless, the authors did state that COVID-19 vaccination remains a crucial preventive measure for pregnant women to reduce the overall risk of serious complications in pregnancy due to infection.

Immune changes during pregnancy increase the risk of severe illness from respiratory viruses. Vaccination during pregnancy also provides protection to the fetus that lasts into the first few months of life and is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization among infants.

Change is coming to COVID-19 vaccine policy.
Rick Obst, CC BY-SA

The changes to the CDC’s and the FDA’s plan for COVID-19 vaccines also leave out an important group – caregivers and household members of people at high risk of severe illness from infection. This omission leaves high-risk people more vulnerable to exposure to COVID-19 from healthy people they regularly interact with. Multiple countries with risk-based vaccination policies do include this group.

What about vaccines for children?

High-risk children age 6 months and older who have conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 are still eligible for the vaccine. Existing vaccines already on the market will remain available, but it is unclear how long they will stay authorized and how the change in vaccine policy will affect childhood vaccination overall.

To date, millions of children have safely received the COVID-19 vaccine. Data on whether children benefit from annual COVD-19 vaccines is less clear. Parents and clinicians make vaccination decisions by weighing potential risks with potential benefits.

Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot?

Not automatically. Kennedy’s announcement does not broadly address healthy adults, but under the new FDA framework, healthy adults who wish to receive the fall COVID-19 vaccine will likely face obstacles. Health care providers can administer vaccines “off-label”, but insurance coverage is widely based on FDA recommendations. The new, narrower FDA approval will likely reduce both access to COVID-19 vaccines for the general public and insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccines.

Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance providers are required to fully cover the cost of any vaccine endorsed by the CDC. Kennedy’s announcement will likely limit insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccination.

Overall, the move to focus on individual risks and benefits may overlook broader public health benefits. Communities with higher vaccination rates have fewer opportunities to spread the virus.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 22, 2025.

Libby Richards has received funding from the American Nurses Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute.

– ref. RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children and pregnant women – a public health expert explains the new guidance – https://theconversation.com/rfk-jr-says-annual-covid-19-shots-no-longer-advised-for-healthy-children-and-pregnant-women-a-public-health-expert-explains-the-new-guidance-257705

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

May 29, 2025
MIL-OSI China: China’s vast market unlocks opportunities for ASEAN amid global trade headwinds

Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

At a fully automated production line in south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, cans of energy drinks rolled off conveyors, destined for shelves across China.

Operated by Thai conglomerate T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd., this 1.3-billion-yuan (about 180.8 million U.S. dollars) facility with four automated production lines exemplifies the deepening foothold of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in China’s consumer market.

Launched in January this year, the plant generated 75 million yuan in first-quarter output value, matching expectations.

“China’s 1.4-billion-strong market, undergoing dual upgrades in consumption and industrial chains, is unlocking opportunities for high-level opening up,” said Bai Ming, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. “ASEAN, as our close neighbor, is uniquely positioned to share these dividends.”

Despite global trade headwinds, China-ASEAN trade surged 9.2 percent year on year to 2.38 trillion yuan in the first four months of 2025, with ASEAN retaining its position as China’s top trading partner, according to China’s General Administration of Customs (GAC).

Guangxi, the country’s gateway to ASEAN, brings this partnership to life. At a center for China-ASEAN specialty commodities in Nanning, capital of Guangxi, Singaporean specialty dishes and Thai spices sit alongside Cambodian rice — all purchasable with a quick QR code scan.

Since its launch in 2022, the center has featured over 5,500 types of products, serving as a one-stop platform for cross-border trade. Malaysian durian mooncakes find their way to Chinese dining tables via promotional livestreaming, while Chinese cosmetics gain traction in ASEAN markets thanks to multilingual influencers’ skillful introduction.

Such centers tackled what was previously a headache for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in ASEAN — a lack of access to efficient cross-border industrial chains and storage solutions.

“By providing these solutions and value-added supporting services, the center helps SMEs in ASEAN capitalize on China’s ultra-large market, facilitating smoother exchanges of high-quality products between China and ASEAN countries,” said Lu Chunmei, a deputy general manager at the center.

This growing trade between China and ASEAN is also reshaping careers. In the bustling cross-border e-commerce training base of Guangxi International Business Vocational College, Indonesian student Putriyani enthusiastically showcased Chinese specialty products to global buyers via livestreaming. Nearby, her classmates from Vietnam, Thailand and Laos could be seen promoting products in their native languages.

As the first college in Guangxi to offer cross-border e-commerce training programs, this institution graduates some 300 professionals annually, nurturing a talent pool fluent in both ASEAN languages and digital trade.

“As the combined population of China and ASEAN accounts for about a quarter of the world’s total, their integrated development has continuously unleashed market potential, establishing an exemplary model of cooperation amid global headwinds,” said Lyu Daliang, spokesperson for the GAC.

This synergy is set to deepen with the recent completion of negotiations on the Version 3.0 China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA), the world’s largest free trade zone among developing countries. The upgraded pact will introduce nine new chapters, including digital economy and support for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises that account for the majority of ASEAN’s business entities.

Feng Gui, a law professor at Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, said the conclusion of CAFTA 3.0 negotiations will significantly enhance industrial capacity, technological collaboration and trade ties between China and ASEAN, accelerating their economic growth and industrialization.

“This breakthrough provides renewed support for the multilateral trading system while charting the right pathway for the majority of countries committed to preserving free trade principles,” he added.

MIL OSI China News –

May 29, 2025

Category: Trade

Emergency powers were a step too far

Some industry tariffs will remain in place

Other trade investigations are still underway

Now for the appeals

‘Forever chemicals’

Digging into the data

So what are the implications?

Why this data is important

Over £7.4 million put back in working people’s pockets by employers

Share this page

Updates to this page

Emergency powers were a step too far

Some industry tariffs will remain in place

Other trade investigations are still underway

Now for the appeals

Cantwell on Trade Court Decision Striking Down Trump’s Global Tariffs

Why are HHS and FDA diverging from past practice?

Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus?

What conditions count as risk factors?

What about vaccines for children?

Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot?