NewzIntel.com

Category: Ukraine

  • MIL-OSI Global: What resources will US gain access to under Ukraine mineral deal? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gavin D. J. Harper, Research Fellow, Birmingham Centre for Strategic Elements & Critical Materials, University of Birmingham

    Ukraine and the US have signed a much-anticipated deal on natural resources. The deal would open up some of the war-torn country’s mineral and energy resources to the United States.

    The Conversation spoke to Dr Gavin Harper a Critical Materials Research Fellow at the Birmingham Centre for Strategic Elements and Critical Materials about the deal and what it means for both Washington and Kyiv.

    What mineral resources exist in Ukraine?

    The agreement between Ukraine and the US provides a list of 57 mineral resources which it applies to. Ukraine has reserves of lithium and rare earth metals valued in the trillions of dollars. Rare earth metals are a group of 17 elements, including scandium and yttrium, that are used in technology and important industrial processes.

    Ukraine is also a producer of manganese, a key material in metallurgy and some of the widely used lithium-ion batteries, as well as graphite which is also used in lithium ion batteries. Ukraine also holds major deposits of zirconium silicate, which is indispensable in the ceramics industry. Ukraine’s extraction of graphite is limited, and lithium deposits have gone untouched due to the ongoing war and the need for new mining technology and investment.

    The regions of Ukraine that are currently occupied by Russia are known to possess considerable reserves of critical minerals, which are vital for modern technologies. These critical minerals include lithium, titanium, graphite, and rare earth elements.

    There are, however, significant challenges. Many geologists have contended that some of the critical materials Ukraine possesses are not particularly desirable to extract from an economic point of view. Some in the mining industry believe that other aspects of the deal, such as oil and gas, and access to mining infrastructure, may in the near term be the more desirable components of the deal.

    While the agreement considers the primary, mined resources from the ground, Ukraine is also a large importer of new and used electric vehicles. When the components in these vehicles reach the end of life, there is an enormous opportunity to harvest and recycle these critical materials “above the ground”. There may be ways to processing these materials in tandem with the new industries that will be developed to take advantage of Ukraine’s mineral wealth.

    Why is the US so interested in Ukraine’s mineral resources?

    Elements and materials that are economically important, but at risk of short supply are known as critical materials. There are various reasons why these might be in short supply.

    Sometimes one or a small number of countries have a monopoly on the supply of a material and can leverage that position for geopolitical influence. For some materials, it is not about the accessibility of material in the ground, but the ability to process and refine it. This is known as “mid-stream processing”.

    The US realises that critical materials are key to the technologies that will power the economies of the future, and seeks to secure their supply. This allows them to capitalise on the economic opportunity.

    Many of these materials are essential to building the technologies that will aid decarbonisation. Given that China currently controls around 60% of global critical materials supply chains and 85% of processing capacity, it is clear why the US sees a strategic interest in developing other supply chains.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has already caused significant challenges around the supply of certain materials, and the ongoing war presents significant challenges to being able to take advantage of and develop the mineral resources Ukraine possesses.

    What applications are these minerals used in?

    Graphite and lithium are key to electric vehicle batteries and are considered important critical materials due to their essential roles in the booming lithium-ion battery industry, powering everything from smartphones to electric vehicles and grid storage.

    Beryllium, valued for its exceptional lightness, stiffness, and thermal conductivity, is crucial for demanding specialised applications in aerospace, defence and electronics. Manganese is vital in steel production, because it significantly enhances steel’s strength and resistance to wear. It’s also an increasingly important component of some batteries.

    Uranium’s most well-known application is as the fuel source in nuclear reactors, and it also has niche uses in medicine and industry.

    An excavator at a manganese ore mine in Ukraine.
    Romeo Rum / Shutterstock

    How will these resources be extracted?

    The implementation of the US-Ukraine minerals deal will be challenging because of Russia’s war. A primary concern revolves around the significant geographical overlap between Ukraine’s critical mineral deposits and the active war zones in the eastern and southern regions of the country.

    The significant damage to Ukrainian infrastructure presents a challenge to the development of new industries and the movement of extracted goods to onward markets.

    The economic case for developing critical material deposits rests on a clear and accurate understanding of the mineral wealth that exists, and for some of the resources, it is unclear how accurate that data is.

    For some of the types of deposit that are in Ukraine, extractive technologies have not been currently developed to a level where they can be commercialised. It takes a long time to develop new mines and the industries associated with them. So the timescales of developing Ukraine’s mineral wealth will be longer than those of political administrations.



    Read more:
    US-Ukraine minerals deal looks better for Kyiv than expected – but Trump is an unpredictable partner

    It has taken some time for the parties to negotiate the deal, which at times has been contentious. The deal has evolved significantly from the initial proposals, and Ukraine has now agreed to the revised terms.

    One thing to note is that the US was one of the signatories, alongside the UK and Russia, of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. The memorandum’s signatories agreed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and to refrain from threat and use of force and economic coercion against Ukraine. Given the distressed situation Ukraine finds itself in, the at times challenging negotiations sometimes felt at odds with the wording of this document.

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

    – ref. What resources will US gain access to under Ukraine mineral deal? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/what-resources-will-us-gain-access-to-under-ukraine-mineral-deal-expert-qanda-255734

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Treasury Sec Scott Bessent on the signing of the historic agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine.

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

    #Trump #PresidentTrump #POTUS #USA #America #Treasury #Deal #Dealmaker #Peace #Prosperity #Economy #Econ #Ukraine #Zelensky

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRrw-9S6TWk

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine minerals deal: the idea that natural resource extraction can build peace has been around for decades

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bridget Storrie, Teaching Fellow, Institute for Global Prosperity, UCL

    Ukraine has finally signed its minerals agreement with the US. The deal states that Washington will eventually receive a share of the profits from the sale of Ukrainian natural resources, providing an economic incentive to continue investing in Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction.

    The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessant, says the deal demonstrates the Donald Trump administration’s commitment to peace in Ukraine.

    On the surface, there is nothing surprising about the deal. The idea that natural resource extraction can play a role in building peace has been around for a decade or two, and has been promoted by the World Bank, the UN and the mining industry itself.

    But what is surprising is how the conversation about mining and peace has changed. It used to be about increasing prosperity in war-torn countries, rather than the “who gets what” that has been associated with this deal.



    Read more:
    US-Ukraine minerals deal looks better for Kyiv than expected – but Trump is an unpredictable partner

    The idea that mining can contribute to peace emerged somewhat paradoxically from the demonstrated capacity of natural resources to drive conflict in places like Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Sierra Leone. The theory is that mining can also lead to development – and therefore peace – if it is managed properly.

    If local communities are consulted, revenues are shared fairly, harms are minimised, and if there is transparency and accountability, a mine can play a role in lifting countries out of the economic, environmental and social mess war brings.

    In reality, things are more complicated. The idea that mining can bring about positive change suffers from the same top-down and externally led approach to building peace as the wider peacebuilding model in which it sits. It doesn’t necessarily take local realities and aspirations into account.

    But over the past two decades, natural resources in conflict-affected areas have attracted an enormous amount of attention from UN agencies. The United Nations Environmental Programme (Unep), for example, established an initiative in 2008 aimed at understanding the risks and opportunities presented by high-value natural resources.

    It developed policies and practices related to mining intended to be part of the UN’s peace and security architecture. These included guidance for UN staff working in post-conflict countries that are rich in resources.

    In Sierra Leone, Unep identified the inability of the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor environmental performance and force compliance as a significant risk to the sustainable development of the mining industry. The agency had become overwhelmed by the number of environmental impact assessments submitted for review as the sector expanded after the end of the civil war in 2002.

    A dedicated project to build capacity in Sierra Leone was set up by the UN to remedy this. The project team report that the environmental impact assessment process itself provided an opportunity for dialogue and trust-building between those involved.

    Around the same time, a raft of initiatives were was developed for the extractive sector itself to encourage responsible mining. These included the Kimberley Process, a UN-mandated certification scheme designed to eliminate the trade in conflict diamonds. Sierra Leone has been a member since it was launched in 2003.

    The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), an Oslo-based organisation of government, industry and civil society representatives was also established in 2003. Its aim is to promote the good governance of oil, gas and mineral extraction through the reporting of revenues and payments.

    The concept of good governance has been expanded to include promoting the participation of women, as well as the disclosure of information relating to the environmental impact of a mine. Over 50 countries now implement the EITI Standard.

    All these initiatives and processes can be criticised. But the point is that natural resources in conflict zones have, to a degree at least, been understood as sites for negotiation and dialogue for some time.

    Lowering the bar

    The natural resources beneath Ukraine have become sites for something else – a conflict-riven back-and-forth over their control. And it’s not just in Ukraine. The US is reportedly considering a minerals-for-security deal in the DRC, where Rwandan-backed rebels are currently seizing resource-rich territory in the east.

    The bar appears to have dropped substantially where mining and peacebuilding is concerned. In the heyday of the liberal peacebuilding project, metal and mineral deposits in war-torn countries, like the copper beneath Afghanistan, promised a more positive future, albeit with caution. That optimism now seems misplaced.

    In Afghanistan, this is because the country has fallen back under the control of the Taliban. Mines are quickly being developed to take advantage of the country’s mineral wealth. But the technical, financial and environmental checks associated with mining are reportedly being bypassed. There are concerns that any revenues won’t benefit the population in the way they should.

    In Ukraine, it’s something different. The mineral deposits there are being used to prop up geopolitical ambitions that reflect the dangerous, transactional and increasingly extractive world we now seem to live in. Specifically, the Ukrainian mineral deposits are bringing an authoritarian, Trumpian version of peace to life.

    It is a peace that comes through the geopolitical expression of power by the operation of mines, the acquisition of territory, the expulsion of citizens from certain places, and the top-down transformation of other people’s space.

    This has already expressed itself in Trump’s vision for the US to take over the Gaza Strip, which prompted the UN’s secretary-general, António Guterres, to warn against ethnic cleansing.

    An opencast manganese ore mine in Ukraine.
    Romeo Rum / Shutterstock

    I have written about the problem of natural resource-related peacebuilding before. Whether liberal or illiberal, this problem is the same: geological resources are non-renewable.

    There is a profound paradox here. Whatever we want these resources to do for us, they can’t do it indefinitely. And we are heading for even more trouble if we think they can.

    Expecting a voracious Trump administration or a beleagured Ukrainian one to think about this is expecting too much. But therein lies the tragedy of current peacebuilding endeavours.

    They are fixated on the here-and-now, in the hope that the social, environmental, ecological and geological future will take care of itself. Unfortunately, it won’t.

    Bridget Storrie 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. Ukraine minerals deal: the idea that natural resource extraction can build peace has been around for decades – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-minerals-deal-the-idea-that-natural-resource-extraction-can-build-peace-has-been-around-for-decades-252090

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Video: WH Press Sec: “President Trump is our Dealmaker-in-Chief.”

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

    #Trump #PresidentTrump #deal #dealmaker #potus #unitedstates #usa #ukraine

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTzfj8hZ-AI

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are a threat to global food security

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lotanna Emediegwu, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Billion Photos/Shutterstock

    Donald Trump’s tariffs will make many things more expensive for his fellow US citizens. The price of imported cars, building materials and some tech will go up – and so will the cost of the food on American dining tables.

    The US currently imports around 16% of its food supply, with a large proportion of its fruit and vegetables coming from countries now hit by tariffs.

    Mexico stands out. It supplies over half the fresh fruit and nearly 70% of the fresh vegetables consumed in the US.

    And even when it comes to home grown produce, the US still depends on imported fertiliser for its crops, with Canada providing up to 85% of its neighbour’s supply.

    So grocery bills for American families, especially for fresh produce (and processed foods dependent on foreign ingredients) will get higher. But there will also be a noticeable effect on food prices outside the US.

    The consequences could be particularly serious for developing economies that rely on stable international prices to secure affordable food imports. The prices of many global staples including maize, wheat and soybeans are benchmarked against US markets so when disruptions occur, they reverberate globally.

    Research I conducted with a colleague found that when international prices are disturbed, local food prices, especially in developing countries, go up.

    Take global maize prices, which this year rose by 7% between April 2 (Trump’s “liberation day”) and April 11. Our study suggests this will immediately lead to a similar increase in local maize prices in places like sub-Saharan Africa.

    This is where many of the world’s poorest people live, with hundreds of millions in households earning below the World Bank’s poverty line of US$2.15 (£1.61) per day. When much of that income is spent on food, a 7% increase in the price of maize could be devastating.

    Growth market

    According to another study, tariffs on agricultural products such as fertiliser will increase global production costs, potentially lowering crop yields and worsening food insecurity.

    While the US has reduced tariffs on Canadian potash from 25% to 10%, other fertiliser producers face steeper levels (up to 28% for another major exporter, Tunisia, before Trump’s reciprocal tariffs were paused).

    This is especially worrying for agriculture in countries like Brazil, India and Nigeria, which are still reeling from fertiliser shortages caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine. As with food costs, US tariffs are likely to drive up prices in the global fertiliser market, making it more expensive for everyone, everywhere.

    And when the cost of farming rises, crop production can suffer. This could significantly weaken food production in developing countries that are already battling climate change and volatile markets.

    Another study I conducted found that countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia – already struggling with food insecurity – are among the most vulnerable to local food price shocks. These economies depend heavily on food imports and face high exposure to currency fluctuations and transport costs.

    A banana field in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    giulio napolitano/Shutterstock

    If the trade war escalates, farmers in these regions may be forced to abandon staple crops for cash commodities such as cocoa or coffee, deepening their reliance on volatile global markets and reducing their food self-sufficiency. Global inequality will worsen unless things change.

    One option would be to protect essential agricultural imports, especially fertilizers and staple foods, from punitive tariffs. This would stabilise prices and protect vulnerable economies. The recently announced 90-day pause for negotiations offers a glimmer of hope, but it must be used wisely to build a more equitable trading system.

    In the long term, developing countries need to bolster the resilience of their food systems. My research recommends investing heavily in mechanised agriculture which is resilient to climate change, incentivising farmers with government support, and strengthening regional trade.

    The global food system is heavily interconnected. Decisions made in Washington can quickly affect food prices in Lagos, Cairo and New Delhi. And if tariffs go unchecked, they may unleash a silent and subtle crisis – one measured not in GDP, but in millions of empty stomachs.

    Lotanna Emediegwu 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. Why Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are a threat to global food security – https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trumps-trade-tariffs-are-a-threat-to-global-food-security-255064

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI: Lloyds Bank PLC: 2025 Q1 Interim Management Statement

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LONDON, May 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

    Lloyds Bank plc
    Q1 2025 Interim Management Statement
    1 May 2025

    Member of the Lloyds Banking Group

    FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

    This document contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and section 27A of the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to the business, strategy, plans and/or results of Lloyds Bank plc together with its subsidiaries (the Lloyds Bank Group) and its current goals and expectations. Statements that are not historical or current facts, including statements about the Lloyds Bank Group’s or its directors’ and/or management’s beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Words such as, without limitation, ‘believes’, ‘achieves’, ‘anticipates’, ‘estimates’, ‘expects’, ‘targets’, ‘should’, ‘intends’, ‘aims’, ‘projects’, ‘plans’, ‘potential’, ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘could’, ‘considered’, ‘likely’, ‘may’, ‘seek’, ‘estimate’, ‘probability’, ‘goal’, ‘objective’, ‘deliver’, ‘endeavour’, ‘prospects’, ‘optimistic’ and similar expressions or variations on these expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements concern or may affect future matters, including but not limited to: projections or expectations of the Lloyds Bank Group’s future financial position, including profit attributable to shareholders, provisions, economic profit, dividends, capital structure, portfolios, net interest margin, capital ratios, liquidity, risk-weighted assets (RWAs), expenditures or any other financial items or ratios; litigation, regulatory and governmental investigations; the Lloyds Bank Group’s future financial performance; the level and extent of future impairments and write-downs; the Lloyds Bank Group’s ESG targets and/or commitments; statements of plans, objectives or goals of the Lloyds Bank Group or its management and other statements that are not historical fact and statements of assumptions underlying such statements. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk and uncertainty because they relate to events and depend upon circumstances that will or may occur in the future. Factors that could cause actual business, strategy, targets, plans and/or results (including but not limited to the payment of dividends) to differ materially from forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: general economic and business conditions in the UK and internationally (including in relation to tariffs); imposed and threatened tariffs and changes to global trade policies; acts of hostility or terrorism and responses to those acts, or other such events; geopolitical unpredictability; the war between Russia and Ukraine; the conflicts in the Middle East; the tensions between China and Taiwan; political instability including as a result of any UK general election; market related risks, trends and developments; changes in client and consumer behaviour and demand; exposure to counterparty risk; the ability to access sufficient sources of capital, liquidity and funding when required; changes to the Lloyds Bank Group’s or Lloyds Banking Group plc’s credit ratings; fluctuations in interest rates, inflation, exchange rates, stock markets and currencies; volatility in credit markets; volatility in the price of the Lloyds Bank Group’s securities; natural pandemic and other disasters; risks concerning borrower and counterparty credit quality; risks affecting defined benefit pension schemes; changes in laws, regulations, practices and accounting standards or taxation; changes to regulatory capital or liquidity requirements and similar contingencies; the policies and actions of governmental or regulatory authorities or courts together with any resulting impact on the future structure of the Lloyds Bank Group; risks associated with the Lloyds Bank Group’s compliance with a wide range of laws and regulations; assessment related to resolution planning requirements; risks related to regulatory actions which may be taken in the event of a bank or Lloyds Bank Group or Lloyds Banking Group failure; exposure to legal, regulatory or competition proceedings, investigations or complaints; failure to comply with anti-money laundering, counter terrorist financing, anti-bribery and sanctions regulations; failure to prevent or detect any illegal or improper activities; operational risks including risks as a result of the failure of third party suppliers; conduct risk; technological changes and risks to the security of IT and operational infrastructure, systems, data and information resulting from increased threat of cyber and other attacks; technological failure; inadequate or failed internal or external processes or systems; risks relating to ESG matters, such as climate change (and achieving climate change ambitions) and decarbonisation, including the Lloyds Bank Group’s or the Lloyds Banking Group’s ability along with the government and other stakeholders to measure, manage and mitigate the impacts of climate change effectively, and human rights issues; the impact of competitive conditions; failure to attract, retain and develop high calibre talent; the ability to achieve strategic objectives; the ability to derive cost savings and other benefits including, but without limitation, as a result of any acquisitions, disposals and other strategic transactions; inability to capture accurately the expected value from acquisitions; and assumptions and estimates that form the basis of the Lloyds Bank Group’s financial statements. A number of these influences and factors are beyond the Lloyds Bank Group’s control. Please refer to the latest Annual Report on Form 20-F filed by Lloyds Bank plc with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC), which is available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov, for a discussion of certain factors and risks. Lloyds Bank plc may also make or disclose written and/or oral forward-looking statements in other written materials and in oral statements made by the directors, officers or employees of Lloyds Bank plc to third parties, including financial analysts. Except as required by any applicable law or regulation, the forward-looking statements contained in this document are made as of today’s date, and the Lloyds Bank Group expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained in this document whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. The information, statements and opinions contained in this document do not constitute a public offer under any applicable law or an offer to sell any securities or financial instruments or any advice or recommendation with respect to such securities or financial instruments.

    FINANCIAL REVIEW

    Income statement

    The Group’s profit before tax for the first three months of 2025 was £1,177 million, 26% lower than the same period in 2024. This was driven by higher operating expenses and a higher impairment charge. Profit after tax was £881 million (three months to 31 March 2024: £1,159 million).

    Total income for the first three months of 2025 was £4,371 million, broadly in line with the same period in 2024 (three months to 31 March 2024: £4,385 million). Net interest income of £3,244 million was up 4% on the prior year (three months to 31 March 2024: £3,127 million), driven by a higher margin and higher average interest-earning assets. Other income decreased by 10% to £1,127 million (three months to 31 March 2024: £1,258 million). The decrease in other income reflected improved performance in UK Motor Finance, with fleet growth and higher average vehicle rental values, which was more than offset by negative market volatility and a reduction in income from fellow Lloyds Banking Group undertakings.

    Total operating expenses of £2,884 million were 6% higher than in the prior year. This reflects higher costs, combining inflationary pressures, timing of strategic investment including planned higher severance front-loaded into the first quarter of 2025 and business growth costs, partly offset by cost savings and continued cost discipline. This is alongside higher operating lease depreciation, as a result of fleet growth, the depreciation of higher value vehicles and declines in used electric car prices over 2024.

    No net remediation charge was recognised by the Group in the first three months of 2025 (three months to 31 March 2024: £25 million). There have been no further charges relating to motor finance commission arrangements. The Supreme Court heard the appeal of the Wrench, Johnson and Hopcraft decision in early April and has stated that it is likely to produce its judgment in July. The FCA has indicated that the decision will inform its next steps in the discretionary commission arrangements (DCA) review and that it will confirm within six weeks of the decision if it is proposing a redress scheme and if so, how it will take that forward. The FCA has also noted that its next steps on non-DCA complaints will be informed by the decision.

    The impairment charge was £310 million, up from £70 million in the three months to 31 March 2024. Asset quality remained resilient in the quarter. The charge included strong portfolio performance in Retail, more than offset by a higher charge in Commercial Banking, partly due to the non-recurrence of a release from loss rates used in the model in 2024. The charge also included a £100 million central adjustment to address downside risks to the base case related to the potential impact from US tariff policies announced at the start of April. These were becoming apparent around the balance sheet date and were determined to not be fully captured within the modelled divisional ECL allowances. This is partially offset by benefits to the MES from small increases to house price and wage growth expectations.

    FINANCIAL REVIEW (continued)

    Balance sheet

    Total assets were £5,143 million, or 1%, higher at £616,356 million at 31 March 2025 (31 December 2024: £611,213 million).

    Financial assets at amortised cost were £3,135 million higher at £508,032 million (31 December 2024: £504,897 million) with increases in loans and advances to customers. This included growth of £4,807 million in UK mortgages and growth across UK Retail unsecured loans, credit cards, UK Motor Finance and the European retail business. Lending balances reduced in Commercial Banking as a result of repayments of government-backed lending. The growth in loans and advances to customers was partly offset by a £908 million reduction in reverse repurchase agreements, a £302 million reduction in loans and advances to banks and a £1,474 million reduction in debt securities.

    Cash and balances at central banks decreased 1% to £42,000 million. Financial assets held at fair value through profit or loss increased by £733 million, due to increased reverse repurchase agreements. Derivative financial assets were £520 million lower at £3,715 million (31 December 2024: £4,235 million), driven by interest rate and currency movements in the period. Financial assets at fair value through other comprehensive income were stable in the period at £30,682 million. Other assets were £1,853 million higher, primarily reflecting increased settlement balances.

    Total liabilities were £3,230 million higher at £574,696 million (31 December 2024: £571,466 million). Customer deposits of £456,574 million increased in the period by £4,780 million. Retail deposits increased by £2,637 million in the period, driven by net inflows to limited withdrawal and fixed term deposits alongside higher current account balances. Commercial Banking deposits were up in the quarter, aided by short term balances.

    Other liabilities increased by £1,034 million reflecting increased settlement balances, while debt securities in issue decreased by £2,789 million, with higher levels of maturities in the period.

    Total equity increased to £41,660 million at 31 March 2025 (31 December 2024: £39,747 million). The increase primarily reflected profit attributable to ordinary shareholders alongside unwind of the cash flow hedge reserve and issuance of an AT1 capital instrument in February 2025 to Lloyds Banking Group plc.

    Capital

    The Group’s common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio reduced to 13.6% at 31 March 2025 from 13.7% at 31 December 2024. Profit for the first three months of the year was offset by the accrual for foreseeable ordinary dividends and an increase in risk-weighted assets.

    The Group’s total capital ratio at 31 March 2025 remained at 19.9% (31 December 2024: 19.9%). The increase in CET1 capital and the issuance of a new AT1 capital instrument were offset by the increase in risk-weighted assets and a reduction in tier 2 capital reflecting an instrument call and other movements.

    Risk-weighted assets increased by £3,955 million to £190,951 million at 31 March 2025 from £186,996 million at 31 December 2024. This reflects the impact of lending growth, but also includes a temporary c.£2.5 billion increase primarily due to hedging activity that is expected to reverse by the third quarter. The growth in risk-weighted assets was partly offset by continued optimisation activity and other movements.

    The Group’s UK leverage ratio increased to 5.5% at 31 March 2025 from 5.4% at 31 December 2024, reflecting an increase in the total tier 1 capital position, partially offset by an increase in the leverage exposure measure. The latter reflects increases across loans and advances and other assets, due in part to lending growth, partially offset by a reduction in the measure for securities financing transactions.

     
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT (UNAUDITED)
               
      Three
    months
    ended
    31 Mar
    2025
    £m    		     Three
    months
    ended
    31 Mar
    2024
    £m    		  
           
    Net interest income 3,244     3,127  
    Other income 1,127     1,258  
    Total income 4,371     4,385  
    Operating expenses (2,884 )   (2,728 )
    Impairment (310 )   (70 )
    Profit before tax 1,177     1,587  
    Tax expense (296 )   (428 )
    Profit after tax 881     1,159  
           
    Profit attributable to ordinary shareholders 774     1,069  
    Profit attributable to other equity holders 98     86  
    Profit attributable to equity holders 872     1,155  
    Profit attributable to non-controlling interests 9     4  
    Profit after tax 881     1,159  
               
     
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED)
               
      At 31 Mar
    2025
    £m    		     At 31 Dec
    2024
    £m    		  
               
    Assets          
    Cash and balances at central banks 42,000     42,396  
    Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss 3,054     2,321  
    Derivative financial instruments 3,715     4,235  
    Financial assets at amortised cost 508,032     504,897  
    Financial assets at fair value through other comprehensive income 30,682     30,344  
    Other assets 28,873     27,020  
    Total assets 616,356     611,213  
    Liabilities          
    Deposits from banks 3,899     3,144  
    Customer deposits 456,574     451,794  
    Repurchase agreements 38,474     37,760  
    Due to fellow Lloyds Banking Group undertakings 3,981     4,049  
    Financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss 4,538     4,630  
    Derivative financial instruments 5,327     5,787  
    Debt securities in issue at amortised cost 42,492     45,281  
    Other liabilities 12,844     11,810  
    Subordinated liabilities 6,567     7,211  
    Total liabilities 574,696     571,466  
    Total equity 41,660     39,747  
    Total equity and liabilities 616,356     611,213  
               

    ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION

    1.  Basis of presentation

    This release covers the results of Lloyds Bank plc together with its subsidiaries (the Group) for the three months ended 31 March 2025.

    The Group’s Q1 2025 Interim Pillar 3 Disclosures can be found at: www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/investors/financial-downloads.html.

    Accounting policies

    The accounting policies are consistent with those applied by the Group in its 2024 Annual Report and Accounts.

    2.  Loans and advances to customers and expected credit loss allowance

    At 31 March 2025 Stage 1
    £m    		     Stage 2
    £m    		   Stage 3
    £m    		   POCI
    £m    		   Total
    £m    		     Stage 2
    as % of
    total    		   Stage 3
    as % of
    total
    Loans and advances to customers                          
    UK mortgages 275,816     31,912   4,137   6,016   317,881     10.0   1.3
    Credit cards 13,875     2,327   261   –   16,463     14.1   1.6
    UK unsecured loans and overdrafts 9,660     1,325   171   –   11,156     11.9   1.5
    UK Motor Finance 14,197     2,491   131   –   16,819     14.8   0.8
    Other 18,462     471   151   –   19,084     2.5   0.8
    Retail 332,010     38,526   4,851   6,016   381,403     10.1   1.3
    Business and Commercial Banking 25,778     2,946   1,160   –   29,884     9.9   3.9
    Corporate and Institutional Banking 36,705     2,528   1,007   –   40,240     6.3   2.5
    Commercial Banking 62,483     5,474   2,167   –   70,124     7.8   3.1
    Other1 (414 )   –   –   –   (414 )        
    Total gross lending 394,079     44,000   7,018   6,016   451,113     9.8   1.6
                               
    Customer related ECL allowance (drawn and undrawn)
    UK mortgages 52     245   322   179   798          
    Credit cards 199     308   130   –   637          
    UK unsecured loans and overdrafts 167     240   114   –   521          
    UK Motor Finance2 170     118   75   –   363          
    Other 14     14   38   –   66          
    Retail 602     925   679   179   2,385          
    Business and Commercial Banking 133     183   172   –   488          
    Corporate and Institutional Banking 108     149   323   –   580          
    Commercial Banking 241     332   495   –   1,068          
    Other3 50     50   –   –   100          
    Total 893     1,307   1,174   179   3,553          
                               
    Customer related ECL allowance (drawn and undrawn) as a percentage of loans and advances to customers
      Stage 1
    %    		     Stage 2
    %    		   Stage 3
    %    		   POCI
    %    		   Total
    %    		          
    UK mortgages –     0.8   7.8   3.0   0.3          
    Credit cards 1.4     13.2   49.8   –   3.9          
    UK unsecured loans and overdrafts 1.7     18.1   66.7   –   4.7          
    UK Motor Finance 1.2     4.7   57.3   –   2.2          
    Other 0.1     3.0   25.2   –   0.3          
    Retail 0.2     2.4   14.0   3.0   0.6          
    Business and Commercial Banking 0.5     6.2   14.8   –   1.6          
    Corporate and Institutional Banking 0.3     5.9   32.1   –   1.4          
    Commercial Banking 0.4     6.1   22.8   –   1.5          
    Other         –   –            
    Total 0.2     3.0   16.7   3.0   0.8          
                                   

    1 Contains central fair value hedge accounting adjustments.
    2 UK Motor Finance includes £178 million relating to provisions against residual values of vehicles subject to finance leases.
    3 Other includes a £100 million central adjustment that has not been allocated to specific portfolios.

    ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION (continued)

    3.  UK economic assumptions

    Base case and MES economic assumptions

    The Group’s base case scenario is for a slow expansion in gross domestic product (GDP) and a modest rise in the unemployment rate alongside small gains in residential and commercial property prices. Inflationary pressures remain persistent, but gradual cuts in UK Bank Rate are expected to continue during 2025. Risks around this base case economic view lie in both directions and are largely captured by the generation of alternative economic scenarios.

    The Group has taken into account the latest available information at the reporting date in defining its base case scenario and generating alternative economic scenarios. The scenarios include forecasts for key variables as of the first quarter of 2025. Actuals for this period, or restatements of past data, may have since emerged prior to publication and have not been included. The Group’s approach to generating alternative economic scenarios is set out in detail in note 19 to the financial statements of the Group’s 2024 annual report and accounts.

    The Group had included assumptions for expected tariffs and potential responses in its quarter-end base case conditioning assumptions prior to announcements at the start of April. Initial non-UK tariffs announced in the first few days of April and the immediate market response were larger than expected. Accordingly, the Group has adopted a £100 million central adjustment to reflect the potential ECL impact, informed by high level sensitivity to key UK economic metrics based on tariff scenarios. Subsequent developments through April were judged to relate to conditions after the balance sheet date and will be reflected in the second quarter reporting period.

    UK economic assumptions – base case scenario by quarter

    Key quarterly assumptions made by the Group in the base case scenario are shown below. GDP growth is presented quarter-on-quarter. House price growth, commercial real estate price growth and CPI inflation are presented year-on-year, i.e. from the equivalent quarter in the previous year. Unemployment rate and UK Bank Rate are presented as at the end of each quarter.

    At 31 March 2025 First
    quarter
    2025
    %    		 Second
    quarter
    2025
    %    		 Third
    quarter
    2025
    %    		 Fourth
    quarter
    2025
    %    		 First
    quarter
    2026
    %    		 Second
    quarter
    2026
    %    		 Third
    quarter
    2026
    %    		 Fourth
    quarter
    2026
    %
                     
    Gross domestic product growth 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
    Unemployment rate 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
    House price growth 3.8 3.8 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.8
    Commercial real estate price growth 2.6 2.8 2.7 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1
    UK Bank Rate 4.50 4.25 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.75 3.50 3.50
    CPI inflation 2.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.7
                     

    ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION (continued)

    3.  UK economic assumptions (continued)

    UK economic assumptions – scenarios by year

    Key annual assumptions made by the Group are shown below. GDP growth and CPI inflation are presented as an annual change, house price growth and commercial real estate price growth are presented as the growth in the respective indices within the period. Unemployment rate and UK Bank Rate are averages for the period.

    At 31 March 2025 2025
    %    		   2026
    %    		   2027
    %    		   2028
    %    		   2029
    %    		   2025-2029
    average
    %    		  
                 
    Upside            
    Gross domestic product growth 1.3   2.2   1.6   1.5   1.4   1.6  
    Unemployment rate 4.1   3.2   3.1   3.1   3.2   3.3  
    House price growth 2.9   5.9   6.8   5.4   4.3   5.1  
    Commercial real estate price growth 6.1   5.7   2.6   1.0   0.4   3.2  
    UK Bank Rate 4.43   4.72   4.86   5.06   5.20   4.85  
    CPI inflation 3.3   2.8   2.8   3.1   3.0   3.0  
                 
    Base case            
    Gross domestic product growth 0.8   1.4   1.6   1.6   1.5   1.3  
    Unemployment rate 4.7   4.8   4.6   4.5   4.5   4.6  
    House price growth 1.7   1.8   1.9   2.5   2.9   2.1  
    Commercial real estate price growth 1.3   1.1   1.2   0.6   0.3   0.9  
    UK Bank Rate 4.19   3.63   3.50   3.50   3.50   3.66  
    CPI inflation 3.4   2.8   2.5   2.5   2.4   2.7  
                 
    Downside            
    Gross domestic product growth (0.2 ) (0.9 ) 0.9   1.5   1.5   0.6  
    Unemployment rate 5.6   7.4   7.6   7.3   7.0   7.0  
    House price growth 0.5   (3.4 ) (6.7 ) (4.2 ) (1.1 ) (3.0 )
    Commercial real estate price growth (4.7 ) (5.7 ) (1.7 ) (2.2 ) (2.3 ) (3.4 )
    UK Bank Rate 3.83   1.67   0.96   0.65   0.42   1.51  
    CPI inflation 3.4   2.8   2.0   1.5   1.0   2.1  
                 
    Severe downside            
    Gross domestic product growth (1.1 ) (2.3 ) 0.7   1.4   1.5   0.0  
    Unemployment rate 6.8   10.0   10.2   9.7   9.3   9.2  
    House price growth (0.6 ) (8.4 ) (13.8 ) (9.6 ) (5.0 ) (7.6 )
    Commercial real estate price growth (12.5 ) (13.3 ) (7.1 ) (5.7 ) (4.9 ) (8.8 )
    UK Bank Rate – modelled 3.38   0.39   0.09   0.03   0.01   0.78  
    UK Bank Rate – adjusted1 4.25   2.94   2.80   2.76   2.75   3.10  
    CPI inflation – modelled 3.4   2.5   1.3   0.4   (0.2 ) 1.5  
    CPI inflation – adjusted1 3.8   3.8   3.2   2.7   2.4   3.2  
                 
    Probability-weighted            
    Gross domestic product growth 0.5   0.6   1.3   1.5   1.5   1.1  
    Unemployment rate 5.0   5.6   5.6   5.4   5.4   5.4  
    House price growth 1.4   0.5   (0.8 ) 0.1   1.3   0.5  
    Commercial real estate price growth (0.4 ) (1.0 ) (0.1 ) (0.7 ) (1.0 ) (0.6 )
    UK Bank Rate – modelled 4.07   3.04   2.81   2.76   2.74   3.08  
    UK Bank Rate – adjusted1 4.16   3.30   3.08   3.04   3.01   3.32  
    CPI inflation – modelled 3.4   2.7   2.3   2.1   1.9   2.5  
    CPI inflation – adjusted1 3.4   2.9   2.5   2.4   2.2   2.7  
                             
    1 The adjustment to UK Bank Rate and CPI inflation in the severe downside is considered to better reflect the risks to the Group’s base case view in an economic environment where the risks of supply and demand shocks are seen as more balanced.
                             

    CONTACTS

    For further information please contact:

    INVESTORS AND ANALYSTS
    Douglas Radcliffe
    Group Investor Relations Director
    020 7356 1571
    douglas.radcliffe@lloydsbanking.com

    Rohith Chandra-Rajan
    Director of Investor Relations
    07786 988936
    rohith.chandra-rajan@lloydsbanking.com

    Nora Thoden
    Director of Investor Relations – ESG
    020 7356 2334
    nora.thoden@lloydsbanking.com

    Tom Grantham
    Investor Relations Senior Manager
    07851 440 091
    thomas.grantham@lloydsbanking.com

    Sarah Robson
    Investor Relations Senior Manager
    07494 513 983
    sarah.robson2@lloydsbanking.com

    CORPORATE AFFAIRS
    Matt Smith
    Head of Media Relations
    07788 352 487
    matt.smith@lloydsbanking.com

    Emma Fairhurst
    Media Relations Senior Manager
    07814 395 855
    emma.fairhurst@lloydsbanking.com

    Copies of this Interim Management Statement may be obtained from:
    Investor Relations, Lloyds Banking Group plc, 33 Old Broad Street, London, EC2N 1HZ
    The statement can also be found on the Group’s website – www.lloydsbankinggroup.com

    Registered office: Lloyds Bank plc, 25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN
    Registered in England No. 2065

    This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the London Stock Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct Authority to act as a Primary Information Provider in the United Kingdom. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Secures Agreement to Establish United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund

    US Senate News:

    Source: The White House
    A FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND HISTORIC PARTNERSHIP: Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the US and Ukraine entered into a historic agreement on April 30, launching a first-of-its-kind partnership for the reconstruction and long-term economic success of Ukraine.
    From start to finish, this agreement is a fully collaborative partnership between our nations, that both the United States and Ukraine will benefit from.
    This partnership represents the United States taking an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.
    This agreement will also strengthen the strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine for long-term reconstruction and modernization, in response to the large-scale destruction caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion.

    The Treasury Department and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) will work together with the Government of Ukraine to finalize governance and advance this important partnership.
    The United States’ DFC will work together with Ukraine’s State Organization Agency on Support Public-Private Partnership, both of which are backed by the full faith and credit of their respective nations.

    LONG TERM RETURNS FOR BOTH COUNTRIES: President Trump envisioned this partnership between the Americans and the Ukrainians to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine
    This partnership between the United States and Ukraine establishes a fund that will receive 50% of royalties, license fees, and other similar payments from natural resource projects in Ukraine.
    That money will be invested in new projects in Ukraine, which will generate long term returns for both the American and Ukrainian peoples.
    As new projects are identified, resources in the fund can be quickly allocated towards economic growth, job creation, and other key Ukrainian development priorities.
    Indirect benefits will include a stronger private sector and more robust, lasting infrastructure for Ukraine’s long-term success.

    The partnership will be controlled by a company with equal representation of three Ukrainian and three American board members, who will work together through a collaborative process to make decisions for allocation of fund resources, such as investment and distributions.
    The partnership will also bring the highest levels of transparency and accountability to ensure that the people of Ukraine and the United States are able to enjoy the benefits of Ukraine’s reconstruction.

    Natural resource projects will include minerals, hydrocarbons, and related infrastructure development.
    If the United States decides to acquire these resources for ourselves, we will given first choice to either acquire them or designate the purchaser of our choice.
    Economic security is national security, and this important safeguard prevents critical resources from falling into the wrong hands.

    Importantly, this partnership sends a strong message to Russia – the United States has skin in the game and is committed to Ukraine’s long-term success.
    No state, company, or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine, including participation in projects supported by fund resources.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US-Ukraine minerals deal looks better for Kyiv than expected – but Trump is an unpredictable partner

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

    The United States and Ukraine have finally signed a long-awaited agreement on Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction – and, at first reading, the details appear more favourable for Kyiv than many observers expected.

    At the core of the “economic partnership agreement” is the exploitation of Ukraine’s mineral wealth. Ukraine will get access to US investment and technology, and the US will eventually get a share of the profits. The rest will finance the war-torn nation’s recovery if and when a peace agreement is signed with Russia.

    Several aspects of this deal stand out as positive for Ukraine. Unlike in previous drafts, the country retains ownership of its natural resources. All profits are to be invested in Ukraine for ten years after the agreement comes into force.

    Washington can also make its contribution in the form of new military aid, although it will be down to the US president to decide whether or not to do that.

    Earlier in the negotiations, a major sticking point was the demand from the US president, Donald Trump, that the agreement include compensation for past US aid to Ukraine, which he insisted amounted to US$350 billion (£260 billion). Many analysts estimate the figure is closer to US$120 billion.

    Before the deal was signed, Ukraine’s prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, said the deal would “not include assistance provided before its signing”. And the Ukrainian government announcement stated that the new agreement “focuses on further, not past US military assistance”. But when the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, spoke to journalists, he described the deal as “compensation” for “the funding and the weapons”.

    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

    Whether Bessent’s statement represents political spin, or whether there is still distance between Washington and Kyiv on this critical point, remains to be seen. The formal text has not been released, and many details remain to be ironed out. Trump can be an erratic negotiator who is prone to sudden changes of direction.

    Indeed, the signing of this agreement is just the latest twist in a broader effort to bring the war in Ukraine to an end – one which probably still has many surprises ahead. Trump appears to be losing patience with what he views as Russia’s refusal to engage with the peace process. Signing the deal may have been intended as a warning to Moscow to get serious about ending the conflict.

    The new agreement reportedly states that the US and Ukraine share a “long-term strategic alignment”. That’s a far cry from Trump’s rhetoric only a few months ago, when he called Ukraine’s president, Vlodomyr Zelensky, a “dictator”“ and blamed Kyiv for starting the war with Russia. But given Trump’s changes of mood, this agreement is unlikely to be the final word on how he views the conflict.

    Despite talk of a long-term strategic alignment, one thing the deal doesn’t contain is any explicit security guarantees for Ukraine. But the White House argues – and other observers hope – that US investment in Ukraine will give the US an implicit stake in the country’s security. That might deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again, out of fear the US would act to protect its investment.

    However, once we move from the realm of politics and security to economics, several glaring flaws in this logic become apparent. They all come down to whether the mineral wealth at the heart of this agreement can be profitably exploited – and, indeed, whether it even exists.

    Is this a game-changing deal?

    The American humorist Mark Twain is said to have once defined a mine as “a hole in the ground owned by a liar”. Assessing the precise scale of underground mineral deposits is notoriously difficult – and not every deposit can be extracted in a profitable fashion.

    In Ukraine, the exploratory work has simply not been done. Even the supposed size of the deposits, which are based on old Soviet surveys conducted in a superficial fashion, is not certain.

    Many of the minerals that supposedly lie under Ukraine’s surface are so called “rare earths”, which are critical to hi-tech supply chains. But they are also expensive and time-consuming to exploit, requiring a massive upfront investment which may eventually be lost. Even in successful cases, it generally takes over a decade to get production onstream.

    Today, there are few rare-earth projects under development anywhere in the world outside China – even in countries that are not current (and possibly future) war zones. Most of Ukraine’s supposed deposits lie in the east of the country in areas vulnerable to Russian attack, making investment risky.

    All of this makes economic partnership agreement of doubtful long-term significance for the broader peace process. The potential gains from it are too hypothetical to make much difference within a meaningful timescale. The deal is unlikely to generate much real economic incentive for the US to defend Ukraine, and so is unlikely to become a new source of military assistance for Kyiv.

    For the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, the deal doesn’t change a lot. While it might indeed be a signal that Trump is running out of patience with Russia, it does little to change the underlying realities of the conflict.

    We can’t rule out the possibility that Trump, as unpredictable as ever, might make a more meaningful commitment to Ukraine in the future, one that changes the course of the war. But – at first glance, certainly – this minerals deal is not it.

    Andrew Gawthorpe 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. US-Ukraine minerals deal looks better for Kyiv than expected – but Trump is an unpredictable partner – https://theconversation.com/us-ukraine-minerals-deal-looks-better-for-kyiv-than-expected-but-trump-is-an-unpredictable-partner-255723

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI: Westhaven Announces Brokered Private Placement for Gross Proceeds of up to C$4.0 Million

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWS WIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

    VANCOUVER, British Columbia, May 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Westhaven Gold Corp. (TSX-V:WHN) (“Westhaven” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that the Company has entered into an agreement with Red Cloud Securities Inc. (the “Agent”) to act as sole agent and bookrunner in connection with a best efforts, private placement (the “Offering“) for aggregate gross proceeds of up to C$4,000,000 from the sale of any combination of the following, provided that at least 50% of the gross proceeds of the Offering, which includes the potential gross proceeds of the Agent’s Option (as defined below), will be raised from the sale of Units (as defined herein):

    • units of the Company (each, a “Unit”) at a price of C$0.12 per Unit;
    • common shares of the Company that will qualify as “flow-through shares” within the meaning of subsection 66(15) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (each, a “FT Share”) at a price of C$0.135 per FT Share; and
    • flow-through units of the Company to be sold to charitable purchasers (each, a “Charity FT Unit”, and collectively with the Units and FT Shares, the “Offered Securities”) at a price of C$0.18 per Charity FT Unit.

    Each Unit will consist of one common share of the Company (each, a “Unit Share”) and one-half of one common share purchase warrant (each whole warrant, a “Warrant”). Each Charity FT Unit will consist of one FT Share and one half of one Warrant. Each whole Warrant shall entitle the holder to purchase one common share of the Company (each, a “Warrant Share”) at a price of C$0.18 at any time on or before that date which is 24 months after the closing date of the Offering.

    The Agent will have an option, exercisable in full or in part, up to 48 hours prior to the closing of the Offering, to sell up to an additional C$600,000 in Offered Securities (the “Agent’s Option”).

    The Offered Securities will be offered by way of the “accredited investor” and “minimum amount investment” exemptions under NI 45-106 in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan. The Units may also be sold in offshore jurisdictions and in the United States on a private placement basis pursuant to one or more exemptions from the registration requirements of the United States Securities Act of 1933 (the “U.S. Securities Act“), as amended. The Unit Shares, FT Shares and Warrant Shares issuable from the sale of Offered Securities will be subject to a hold period ending on the date that is four months plus one day following the closing date of the Offering under applicable Canadian securities laws.

    The Company intends to use the net proceeds from the sale of Units for working capital and general corporate purposes. The gross proceeds from the issuance of the FT Shares will be used for Canadian exploration expenses on the Company’s projects in British Columbia and will qualify as “flow-through mining expenditures”, as defined in subsection 127(9) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Qualifying Expenditures”), which will be incurred on or before December 31, 2026 and renounced to the subscribers with an effective date no later than December 31, 2025 in an aggregate amount not less than the gross proceeds raised from the issue of the FT Shares.

    The Offering is scheduled to close on or around May 15, 2025, or such other date as the Company and the Agent may agree, and is subject to certain conditions including, but not limited to, receipt of all necessary approvals including the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange.

    The Company will pay to the Agent a cash commission of 6% of the gross proceeds raised in respect of the Offering, including any exercise of the Agent’s Option (the “Agent’s Commission”). In addition, the Company will issue to the Agent warrants of the Company (each warrant, a “Broker Warrant”), exercisable for a period of 24 months following the Closing Date, to acquire in aggregate that number of common shares of the Company which is equal to 6% of the number of Offered Securities sold under the Offering, including any exercise of the Agent’s Option, at an exercise price equal to C$0.12 per common share.

    To the extent that any directors and/or officers of the Company participate in the Offering, such participation will constitute a “related party transaction” within the meaning of Multilateral Instrument 61-101 – Protection of Minority Security Holders in Special Transactions (“MI 61-101“). The Company expects any participation by directors and officers in the Offering will be exempt from the formal valuation and minority shareholder approval requirements of MI 61-101 pursuant to sections 5.5(a) and 5.7(1)(a) of MI 61-101 based on the fact that neither the fair market value of the Units, FT Shares or Charity FT Units subscribed for by directors and officers, nor the consideration for such securities to be paid by them, will exceed 25% of the Company’s market capitalization.

    The securities offered have not been, nor will they be, registered under the U.S. Securities Act, as amended, or any state securities law, and may not be offered, sold or delivered, directly or indirectly, within the United States, or to or for the account or benefit of U.S. persons, absent registration or an exemption from such registration requirements. This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of securities in any state in the United States in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

    On behalf of the Board of Directors

    WESTHAVEN GOLD CORP.

    “Gareth Thomas”

    Gareth Thomas, Director

    Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

    About Westhaven Gold Corp.

    Westhaven is a gold-focused exploration company targeting low sulphidation, high-grade, epithermal style gold mineralization within Canada’s newest gold district, the Spences Bridge Gold Belt. Westhaven controls ~61,512 hectares (~615 square kilometres) within four gold properties spread along this underexplored belt. The Shovelnose Gold Project is the most advanced property, with an updated 2025 Preliminary Economic Assessment that validates the Project’s potential as a robust, low cost and high margin 11-year underground gold mining opportunity with average annual life-of-mine gold production of 56,000 ounces and having a Cdn$454 million after-tax NPV6% and 43.2% IRR (base case parameters of US$2,400 per ounce gold, US$28 per ounce silver and CDN/US$ exchange rate of $0.72). Initial capital costs are projected to be Cdn$184 million with a payback period of 2.1 years. Please see Westhaven’s news release dated March 3rd, 2025 (Link: March 3, 2025 News Release) for details of the updated PEA. The technical report supporting this disclosure can be found under the Company’s profile on Sedar+ (www.sedarplus.ca) and on the Company’s website. The Shovelnose Gold Project is situated off a major highway, near power, rail, large producing mines, pipelines and within commuting distance from the city of Merritt, which translates into low-cost exploration and development. Qualified Person: The technical and scientific information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Peter Fischl, P.Geo, who is a Qualified Person for the Company under the definitions established by National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Westhaven trades on the TSX Venture Exchange under the ticker symbol WHN. For further information, please call 604-681-5558 or visit Westhaven’s website at www.westhavengold.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements:

    This press release contains “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities laws, which is based upon the Company’s current internal expectations, estimates, projections, assumptions and beliefs. The forward-looking information included in this press release are made only as of the date of this press release. Such forward-looking statements and forward-looking information include, but are not limited to, statements concerning the Company’s expectations with respect to the Offering; the use of proceeds of the Offering; completion of the Offering and the date of such completion. Forward-looking statements or forward-looking information relate to future events and future performance and include statements regarding the expectations and beliefs of management based on information currently available to the Company. Such forward-looking statements and forward-looking information often, but not always, can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects”, “potential”, “is expected”, “anticipated”, “is targeted”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “believes” or the negatives thereof or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved.

    Forward-looking information involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such risks and other factors include, among others, and without limitation: that the Offering may not close within the timeframe anticipated or at all or may not close on the terms and conditions currently anticipated by the Company for a number of reasons including, without limitation, as a result of the occurrence of a material adverse change, disaster, change of law or other failure to satisfy the conditions to closing of the Offering; the Company will not be able to raise sufficient funds to complete its planned exploration program; that the Company will not derive the expected benefits from its current program; the Company may not use the proceeds of the Offering as currently contemplated; the Company may fail to find a commercially viable deposit at any of its mineral properties; the Company’s plans may be adversely affected by the Company’s reliance on historical data compiled by previous parties involved with its mineral properties; mineral exploration and development are inherently risky industries; the mineral exploration industry is intensely competitive; additional financing may not be available to the Company when required or, if available, the terms of such financing may not be favourable to the Company; fluctuations in the demand for gold or gold prices generally; the Company may not be able to identify, negotiate or finance any future acquisitions successfully, or to integrate such acquisitions with its current business; the Company’s exploration activities are dependent upon the grant of appropriate licenses, concessions, leases, permits and regulatory consents, which may be withdrawn or not granted; the Company’s operations could be adversely affected by possible future government legislation, policies and controls or by changes in applicable laws and regulations; there is no guarantee that title to the properties in which the Company has a material interest will not be challenged or impugned; the Company faces various risks associated with mining exploration that are not insurable or may be the subject of insurance which is not commercially feasible for the Company; the volatility of global capital markets over the past several years has generally made the raising of capital more difficult; inflationary cost pressures may escalate the Company’s operating costs; compliance with environmental regulations can be costly; social and environmental activism can negatively impact exploration, development and mining activities; the success of the Company is largely dependent on the performance of its directors and officers; the Company’s operations may be adversely affected by First Nations land claims; the Company and/or its directors and officers may be subject to a variety of legal proceedings, the results of which may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business; the Company may be adversely affected if potential conflicts of interests involving its directors and officers are not resolved in favour of the Company; the Company’s future profitability may depend upon the world market prices of gold; dilution from future equity financing could negatively impact holders of the Company’s securities; failure to adequately meet infrastructure requirements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business; the Company’s projects now or in the future may be adversely affected by risks outside the control of the Company; the Company is subject to various risks associated with climate change, the Company is subject to general global risks arising from epidemic diseases, the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, rising inflation, tariffs and interest rates and the impact they will have on the Company’s operations, supply chains, ability to access mining projects or procure equipment, supplies, contractors and other personnel on a timely basis or at all is uncertain; as well as other risk factors in the Company’s other public filings available at www.sedarplus.ca. Readers are cautioned that this list of risk factors should not be construed as exhaustive. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking information are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. The Company cannot guarantee future results, performance, or achievements. Consequently, there is no representation that the actual results achieved will be the same, in whole or in part, as those set out in the forward-looking information. The Company undertakes no duty to update any of the forward-looking information to conform such information to actual results or to changes in the Company’s expectations, except as otherwise required by applicable securities legislation. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The forward-looking information contained in this offering document is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Key markers on the bumpy road to this election

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

    When we look back, we can see the road to election day has had a multitude of signposts, flashing red lights, twists, turns and potholes. Some came before the formal campaign; others in the final countdown days; some have been major, others symbolic.

    The importance of certain markers has been obvious in the moment; the significance of others became clear in retrospect. Here is a recap of a few of those that have shaped this campaign and its battle for votes.

    1. Anthony Albanese’s January 6 $7.2 billion announcement to upgrade the Bruce Highway

    Why start here? Because this was the prime minister jumping out of the blocks at the start of January, with multiple announcements over the summer. Albanese laid down policy groundwork in these weeks, giving voters time to absorb the initiatives.

    In contrast, Peter Dutton, although he had a “soft” launch on January 12, was running slowly, believing voters weren’t yet paying attention.

    2. Donald Trump’s inauguration

    January 21 unleashed a tsunami; its waves would wash over the coming months, and profoundly affect the election. At first, the Coalition thought – wrongly – that the election of Trump would favour it, but Labor became the beneficiary. Many Australians (including Dutton) were appalled at the way Trump and Vice President JD Vance treated Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Later, Trump’s tariffs hit Australia (although not as hard as many countries).

    Dutton argued he’d be better able than Albanese to handle the capricious president, but it became a spurious debate. Labor painted Dutton as Trump-lite and some of his decisions played into its hands, notably appointing in late January Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to a Musk-like role to pursue efficiencies in government. She later made the comparison even more obvious by saying the Coalition would “make Australia great again”.

    But the central factor was this: suddenly, the world had become more uncertain and many voters would think it wasn’t the time to change.

    3. The Reserve Bank’s cut in interest rates on February 18

    The amount was modest, 25 basis points, but the psychology was the thing. The cut reinforced Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ argument that the worst was over and the outlook was positive. In the campaign’s final week, just at the right time for the government, inflation figures pointed to another expected cut in May.

    4. Cyclone Alfred’s March 7 election delay

    Albanese appeared set to call an April 12 poll, when the approaching winds blew the plan off course. The prime minister was able to put himself at the middle of the response to the cyclone, projecting himself as a national leader as distinct from a partisan one; he appeared with Queensland LNP Premier David Crisafulli, and at the Canberra National Situation Room.

    The election delay meant Labor had to bring down the March 25 budget. Many in the government had wanted to avoid a budget, because of its deficits into the distance. But the budget became a useful frame for the start of the formal campaign, with Albanese going to Government House at the end of budget week.

    5. Dutton’s budget reply

    The opposition leader’s reply contained his proposal to cut petrol excise but did not include tax cuts. The opposition had already voted against the government’s budget tax cut package, and committed to repealing it.

    The excise move was popular – Dutton would visit countless service stations over coming weeks – but the government was able to say a Coalition government would raise taxes.

    At his campaign launch subsequently, Dutton promised a $1,200 tax offset, despite earlier flagging he would not be able to announce any income tax relief during the campaign. The tax offset was an attempt to rectify what had been the mistake of thinking that the Coalition – traditionally committed to lower taxes – could go to the election on the wrong side of the tax argument.

    6. Dutton’s April 7 backtrack on working from home

    The opposition policy to get public servants back into the office all week was a disaster-in-the-making from the start. Workers in the private sector would, rightly, see it as sending a signal to non-government employers.

    Women hated the policy, and it would further alienate the female vote. Dutton had to ditch the idea and apologise. Finance spokeswoman Jane Hume didn’t help the retreat by saying it was a good policy that hadn’t found its appropriate time.

    7. News on April 15 that the Russians wanted to base planes in Papua

    The story appeared on the respected military site Janes, and Dutton rushed to pick it up, but went off half-cocked, declaring wrongly that the Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto had announced the Russian request. It was symptomatic of Dutton being under-prepared. He had to make another apology.

    8. Neo-Nazis heckle during the Welcome to Country at the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance Anzac Day Dawn Service

    This led to Dutton launching into “culture wars” in the final days of the campaign. In criticising the disruption, he at first said, “We have a proud Indigenous heritage in this country and we should be proud to celebrate it as part of today”.

    Subsequently he said most veterans didn’t want the Welcome to Country as part of the Anzac Day ceremonies, although it was a matter for the organisers. In general, he believed Welcome to Country ceremonies were used too frequently.

    Dutton segued the controversy back to criticism of the Voice, and seized on confusing remarks by Foreign Minister Penny Wong to claim Labor was still committed to bringing in a Voice, something Albanese flatly denied.

    9. The price of eggs

    In the last of the four debates neither leader could specify the cost of a dozen eggs. Dutton was way out ($4.20); Albanese rather closer (“$7, if you can find them.”. It was a small moment but sent the message that even in a cost-of-living election, the leaders do live in bubbles.

    10. Dutton comments on Thursday

    Almost at the road’s end, the opposition leader appealed to voters to overlook a flawed campaign. “This election really is a referendum not about the election campaign but about the last three years.”

    Asked if there was anything he could have done differently, he said “we should have called out Labor’s lies earlier on”.

    It was as though he was speaking to a postmortem, while praying for a miracle.

    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: Key markers on the bumpy road to this election – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-key-markers-on-the-bumpy-road-to-this-election-255613

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: expert reaction to US-Ukraine Minerals Deal

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Scientists comment on the US-Ukraine resources deal. 

    Dr Gavin Mudd, Director of the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre at the British Geological Survey, said:

    “Ukraine has important deposits of titanium, rare earths, lithium and graphite – and has also produced gallium and scandium in the recent past. Rare earths are particularly sought after for use in digital technologies, renewable energy, aerospace and the automotive sectors, but also have various applications in military technologies too – such as in laser guidance systems. Titanium metal is often used in aerospace given that it is stronger and lighter than steel.

    “If this agreement paves the way for new supplies of rare earths, that should have a notable impact on the diversification of global mining activities for rare earths – and reduce the dominance of China in the supply of these sought after materials. That would have a positive impact for all countries seeking rare earths, including the UK.

    “While the details of this agreement will still need to be considered closely, it is likely that some developments in terms of mineral production could be achieved quickly – assuming peace and security in the regions of focus. This could apply to titanium, lithium and graphite, while Ukraine may have an increased ability to rebuild some of their former capacity for scandium and gallium under the terms enshrined the deal.

    “However, in the case of rare earths, it will take years to ramp up capacity – studies will need to be completed to assess and determine how best to mine the deposits and process the ores and produce rich concentrate, and a new refinery will be needed to produce high purity metals and oxides for use in numerous technologies. All of this sits alongside the need to actually mine the minerals. We are looking at about a decade or longer for this to come online.

    “I see this deal as the continuation of a recent trend of critical minerals having a central impact on geopolitics and international affairs, and I expect this impact to continue to grow, given the fundamental importance of critical minerals to the energy transition and net zero, national security and the ongoing rise of digitalisation – including AI and the coming rise of quantum computing.

    “Although rare earths currently appear to take centre stage in such negotiations, there are many other critical minerals where China enjoys a dominant position in terms of supply – including gallium, germanium, tungsten. With recent export controls placed on them by China, it is a solid bet that geopolitical interest in securing a reliable supply of these materials will grow over the coming years.

     

     

    Declared interests

    No reply to our request for DOIs was received.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – The need to update Europe’s policy on the Ukrainian conflict given recent diplomatic trends and the changing international landscape – E-000683/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The President of the Commission welcomed the proposal for a ceasefire which came out of the US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah on 11 March 2025, as a positive development that can be a step towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine. She declared that the EU is ready to take its full part in the upcoming peace negotiations[1].

    Similarly, the High Representative/Vice-President, in the statement on behalf of the EU, welcomed the ceasefire proposal, as well as humanitarian efforts and the resumption of the United States’ intelligence sharing and security assistance.

    She reiterated that the EU’s objective is to support Ukraine to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, based on the principles of the United Nations’ Charter and international law.

    She declared that the EU is ready to play its full part in supporting the upcoming steps, together with Ukraine, the United States, and other partners. She underlined that it is now for Russia to show its willingness to achieve peace[2].

    • [1] https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/1899538326438261074
    • [2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/03/11/ukraine-statement-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-following-the-ukraine-us-meeting-in-saudi-arabia/
    Last updated: 30 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – PFAS chemicals dumped in Ukraine – E-000767/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission has not received any evidence related to the claims of illegal dumping, which could substantiate possible intervention. Nonetheless, the EU is working on addressing the issue of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through a comprehensive set of actions.

    Certain PFAS are already regulated under the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation[1] and the regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)[2].

    The export of fire-fighting foams containing perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is banned according to the Stockholm Convention[3] and the export ban is implemented in EU legislation as per Article 15(2) and Annex V Part 1 of Regulation (EU) No 649/2012[4].

    A proposal to restrict PFAS in all firefighting foams has been published for discussion with Member States[5] and adoption is expected by the end of 2025[6].

    The Commission is committed to providing long-term support to Ukraine in its efforts to align with EU environmental and health standards, including the management of chemicals.

    This includes assistance in approximating Ukraine’s chemicals legislation to the EU’s Regulation for the Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures[7] and to REACH, which introduce modern approaches to chemical safety and management.

    Ukraine has access to funding and assistance through the Ukraine Facility[8] and other mechanisms, which target post-war reconstruction needs[9], including bilateral cooperation with EU Member States[10].

    This support aims to help Ukraine react to the environmental and health incurred damage, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russian military aggression.

    • [1] Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (recast), OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 45-77.
    • [2] Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006.
    • [3] Article 3 and Annex A.
    • [4] Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals (recast), OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 60-106.
    • [5] in November 2024.
    • [6] https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitology-register/screen/documents/102503/1/consult?lang=en
    • [7] Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1-1355.
    • [8] https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-technical-assistance/ukraine-facility_en
    • [9] Including hazardous waste management, capacity building, and other aspects of safe chemical management.
    • [10] For example, a cooperation between the Swedish Chemicals Agency and Ukraine on EU chemicals legislation, on reduction of negative effects of chemicals on health and the environment and conditions for the free movement of goods.
    Last updated: 29 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI: Radware Lands Largest Cloud Security Services Agreement to Date

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MAHWAH, N.J., May 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Radware® (NASDAQ: RDWR), a global leader in application security and delivery solutions for multi-cloud environments, today announced it recorded a major customer win, securing its largest cloud security services agreement to date. The multi-year, multimillion dollar agreement is part of a renewal and expanded relationship with a global, Fortune 500 financial services and payments company and top 10 U.S. merchant acquirer. To manage business growth and increasing cyber threats, the customer plans to scale its security operations across Radware’s full suite of AI-powered Cloud DDoS Protection and Application Protection Services, safeguarding thousands of applications and billions of digital transactions.

    The company selected Radware for its ability to deliver a fully integrated, high-capacity application and network protection solution that seamlessly scales usage while minimizing the burden of operational overhead. The agreement spans Radware’s Cloud DDoS Protection Service and Cloud Application Protection Service, which also includes its Cloud Web Application Firewall Service, bot manager, and Web DDoS Protection.

    “Our customer’s rapid growth trajectory required an end-to-end cloud security platform that could keep pace with evolving cyber threats without burdening operational resources,” said Neal Quinn, head of North American cloud security services at Radware. “This landmark agreement reinforces Radware’s enormous potential in cloud security and is a testament to our continued investment in the U.S. market. It showcases the trusted partnerships we have built with some of the most demanding digital businesses in the world.”

    Radware’s cybersecurity suite includes application and network security solutions infused with EPIC-AI, state-of-the-art AI and generative AI algorithms which are built to block modern attacks while delivering consistent real-time protections across cloud, on-prem, and hybrid environments. Designed to automatically adapt to changes in the threat landscape, applications and infrastructure, Radware’s EPIC-AI approach to security helps organizations significantly improve attack detection and mitigation, reduce mean time to resolution (MTTR), and meet compliance challenges.

    Radware has received numerous awards for its application and network security solutions. Industry analysts such as Aite-Novarica Group, Forrester, Gartner, GigaOm, IDC, KuppingerCole, and QKS Group continue to recognize Radware as a market leader in cybersecurity.

    About Radware
    Radware® (NASDAQ: RDWR) is a global leader in application security and delivery solutions for multi-cloud environments. The company’s cloud application, infrastructure, and API security solutions use AI-driven algorithms for precise, hands-free, real-time protection from the most sophisticated web, application, and DDoS attacks, API abuse, and bad bots. Enterprises and carriers worldwide rely on Radware’s solutions to address evolving cybersecurity challenges and protect their brands and business operations while reducing costs. For more information, please visit the Radware website.

    Radware encourages you to join our community and follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, Radware Blog, X, and YouTube.

    ©2025 Radware Ltd. All rights reserved. Any Radware products and solutions mentioned in this press release are protected by trademarks, patents, and pending patent applications of Radware in the U.S. and other countries. For more details, please see: https://www.radware.com/LegalNotice/. All other trademarks and names are property of their respective owners.

    Radware believes the information in this document is accurate in all material respects as of its publication date. However, the information is provided without any express, statutory, or implied warranties and is subject to change without notice.

    The contents of any website or hyperlinks mentioned in this press release are for informational purposes and the contents thereof are not part of this press release.

    Safe Harbor Statement
    This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any statements made herein that are not statements of historical fact, including statements about Radware’s plans, outlook, beliefs, or opinions, are forward-looking statements. Generally, forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “estimates,” “plans,” and similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “should,” “would,” “may,” and “could.” For example, when we say in this press release that this landmark agreement reinforces our enormous potential in cloud security, we are using forward-looking statements. Because such statements deal with future events, they are subject to various risks and uncertainties, and actual results, expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, could differ materially from Radware’s current forecasts and estimates. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to: the impact of global economic conditions, including as a result of the state of war declared in Israel in October 2023 and instability in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, tensions between China and Taiwan, financial and credit market fluctuations (including elevated interest rates), impacts from tariffs or other trade restrictions, inflation, and the potential for regional or global recessions; our dependence on independent distributors to sell our products; our ability to manage our anticipated growth effectively; our business may be affected by sanctions, export controls, and similar measures, targeting Russia and other countries and territories, as well as other responses to Russia’s military conflict in Ukraine, including indefinite suspension of operations in Russia and dealings with Russian entities by many multi-national businesses across a variety of industries; the ability of vendors to provide our hardware platforms and components for the manufacture of our products; our ability to attract, train, and retain highly qualified personnel; intense competition in the market for cybersecurity and application delivery solutions and in our industry in general, and changes in the competitive landscape; our ability to develop new solutions and enhance existing solutions; the impact to our reputation and business in the event of real or perceived shortcomings, defects, or vulnerabilities in our solutions, if our end-users experience security breaches, or if our information technology systems and data, or those of our service providers and other contractors, are compromised by cyber-attackers or other malicious actors or by a critical system failure; our use of AI technologies that present regulatory, litigation, and reputational risks; risks related to the fact that our products must interoperate with operating systems, software applications and hardware that are developed by others;  outages, interruptions, or delays in hosting services; the risks associated with our global operations, such as difficulties and costs of staffing and managing foreign operations, compliance costs arising from host country laws or regulations, partial or total expropriation, export duties and quotas, local tax exposure, economic or political instability, including as a result of insurrection, war, natural disasters, and major environmental, climate, or public health concerns; our net losses in the past and the possibility that we may incur losses in the future; a slowdown in the growth of the cybersecurity and application delivery solutions market or in the development of the market for our cloud-based solutions; long sales cycles for our solutions; risks and uncertainties relating to acquisitions or other investments; risks associated with doing business in countries with a history of corruption or with foreign governments; changes in foreign currency exchange rates; risks associated with undetected defects or errors in our products; our ability to protect our proprietary technology; intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties; laws, regulations, and industry standards affecting our business; compliance with open source and third-party licenses; complications with the design or implementation of our new enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system; our reliance on information technology systems; our ESG disclosures and initiatives; and other factors and risks over which we may have little or no control. This list is intended to identify only certain of the principal factors that could cause actual results to differ. For a more detailed description of the risks and uncertainties affecting Radware, refer to Radware’s Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the other risk factors discussed from time to time by Radware in reports filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made and, except as required by applicable law, Radware undertakes no commitment to revise or update any forward-looking statement in order to reflect events or circumstances after the date any such statement is made. Radware’s public filings are available from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov or may be obtained on Radware’s website at www.radware.com.

    Media Contacts:
    Gerri Dyrek
    Radware
    Gerri.Dyrek@radware.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Impact of Greece’s golden visa scheme on the housing market – E-000613/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Since the adoption of the European Parliament resolution[1] on investor residence schemes[2], the Commission has taken action to address the risks related to security, money-laundering, tax evasion and corruption.

    In its 2022 Recommendation[3], the Commission called on Member States to take measures to prevent such risks and take specific actions regarding investor residence permit granted to nationals of Russia and Belarus.

    The new Anti-Money Laundering package[4] also introduces strict obligations on involved actors and requires Member States running these schemes to assess and monitor risks, and to put in place mitigating measures.

    In addition, the proposed recast of the Long-Term Residents Directive[5] includes rules to prevent third-country investors from abusively acquiring EU long-term resident status.

    With regards to the social impact of “golden visa” schemes, the Commission notes that in respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, primary responsibility for housing is within the remit of Member States, and regional and local authorities. However, the Commission is already providing support to Member States through a variety of funding and programmes[6].

    In addition, the Commission appointed the first-ever Commissioner responsible for housing and established a Task Force for Housing. The Commission will put forward a European Affordable Housing Plan to help national, regional and local authorities address structural drivers of the housing crisis.

    The Commission will foster investments in affordable housing through a pan-European investment platform[7], by allowing Member States to double cohesion policy investments in this area and by reviewing state aid rules to enable housing support measures.

    • [1] European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2022 with proposals to the Commission on citizenship and residence by investment schemes (2021/2026(INL)) proposed to phase out CBI (Citizenship by investment Schemes) by 2025, and proposed other measures to address the risks posed by RBI (Residence by investment schemes) which are commonly named as ‘golden visas (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0065_EN.pdf).
    • [2] Commonly known as “golden visa” schemes.
    • [3] C(2022) 2028 final, Commission Recommendation on immediate steps in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in relation to investor citizenship and investor residence schemes .
    • [4] In particular: Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive(EU) 2019/1937, and amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849; Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing.
    • [5] COM(2022) 650 final.
    • [6] Including the Recovery and Resilience Plans, the European Regional Development Fund , the Cohesion Fund and Just Transition Fund, as well as the InvestEU programme’s Social Investments and skills window and sustainable infrastructure window and the European Social Fund+ .
    • [7] To be established in cooperation with the European Investment Bank and other financial institutions.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI: Political risk tops companies’ ERM risk registers, according to latest Willis Political Risk Survey

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LONDON, May 01, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Political risks rank among the top five risks on the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) risk register for 75% of global companies, with 11% identifying it as the number one risk. Highly exposed industries, such as contracting, transport and mining are disproportionately affected, according to the eighth annual Political Risk Survey and Report by Willis, a WTW business, (NASDAQ:WTW).

    The survey revealed that 58% of respondents anticipated a negative financial impact on their organization due to the imposition of tariffs by the US. This figure is nearly as high as the 60% who reported financial setbacks from the Russia – Ukraine conflict in 2023 and significantly exceeds the 28% who cited negative effects from Western tensions with China and the Middle East conflict.

    Other key findings were:

    • Over the past eight years since the survey began, 2023 saw the highest political risk losses, driven by expropriation, political violence and currency convertibility issues. Notably, 18% of respondents faced losses significant enough to require corporate earnings restatements.
    • Companies were most likely to rely on direct negotiations with host governments and political risk insurance to recover such prior losses. In 2025, the most common risk mitigation strategies against potential future losses were diversification and a “three lines of defense” approach
    • Top political risk concerns for 2025 included U.S. policy uncertainty (especially tariffs) and tensions between the U.S. and its allies.
    • Other major risks included restricted access to key markets due to geopolitical tensions and the threat of state-backed cyber and disinformation attacks.

    The research includes a survey of 66 companies and in-depth, anonymized interviews with 15 companies. 

    “In the eight years since we began this research, companies’ political risk concerns have changed almost unrecognizably,” said Sam Wilkin, Director of Political Risk Analytics at Willis. “In 2018, political risk was mostly a worry for highly exposed sectors investing in risky countries like Venezuela. Today, political risk concerns apply across sectors, involve a much higher level of potential loss, and are focused on United States policy.”

    The complete report can be downloaded here.

    About WTW

    At WTW (NASDAQ: WTW), we provide data-driven, insight-led solutions in the areas of people, risk and capital. Leveraging the global view and local expertise of our colleagues serving 140 countries and markets, we help organizations sharpen their strategy, enhance organizational resilience, motivate their workforce and maximize performance.

    Working shoulder to shoulder with our clients, we uncover opportunities for sustainable success—and provide perspective that moves you. Learn more at wtwco.com.

    Media Contacts

    Sarah Booker
    Sarah.booker@wtwco.com / +44 (0)7917 722040

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Ukraine: attacks against civilians and diplomatic efforts – UN Security Council briefing | UN

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    UN chief of political affairs Rosemary DiCarlo condemned “all attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, wherever they occur,” reiterating that “direct attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure is prohibited under international humanitarian law and must cease immediately.”

    The Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs told the Council that today’s meeting is taking place at a potential inflection point in the three-year war in Ukraine.

    She noted the intensified efforts to bring the parties to negotiations, which offer a glimmer of hope for progress towards a ceasefire and an eventual peaceful settlement. But at the same time, the world continues to witness relentless attacks on Ukrainian cities and towns.
    As of 24 April, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had verified 151 civilians killed and 697 injured in April. With verification ongoing, this figure is expected to surpass the March figures, which were already 50 percent higher than in February, DiCarlo told the Council.

    Since February 2022, OHCHR has verified 13,015 civilians, including 699 children, killed, and 31,628 more civilians, including 2,016 children, injured, in Ukraine. She also noted recent media reports quoting local Russian authorities that indicate civilian casualties in the Kursk, Bryansk and Belgorod regions of the Russian Federation.

    The UN top political affairs official echoed the Secretary-General’s repeated calls for de-escalation and a durable ceasefire in Ukraine, and is encouraged by the diplomatic efforts underway.

    DiCarlo reiterated, “The UN remains engaged, particularly on the safety of navigation in the Black Sea to support global food security and maintain vital supply chains strained by the war.”

    She continued, “The continued exchange of prisoners of war between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, including the largest to date on 20 April involving 500 prisoners, shows that with political will, diplomacy can yield tangible results even in the most difficult circumstances.”

    As the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War approaches, the UN official reminded the Council – with even greater urgency – of the centrality of the Charter of the United Nations and international law in safeguarding peace and security.

    She said, “The Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine stands as an egregious challenge to these fundamental principles, jeopardizing stability in Europe and threatening the broader international order.”

    “The war in Ukraine is a war of choice,” DiCarlo stressed, adding that “what is needed now is a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire as a critical first step towards ending the violence and creating the conditions for a just, comprehensive and sustainable peace.”

    For her part, senior OCHA official Joyce Msuya said that as the war continues, millions of lives are impacted daily, essential services are disrupted and humanitarian needs deepened.

    She highlighted, “Attacks on healthcare services and health facilities are crippling access to maternal care,” highlighting that pregnant women are now giving birth amid blackouts, medicine shortages and under attack, with a 12 per cent rise in birth complications reported by health workers.

    “For many expectant mothers, basic, life-saving care is simply no longer available,” Msuya said.

    The Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator emphasized once again, “Under international humanitarian law, civilians and civilian objects must be protected.”

    “This means that indiscriminate attacks are strictly prohibited. It also means that parties must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm, whether they are launching attacks or defending against them,” Msuya stressed.

    The Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator also noted that underfunding is forcing critical programmes to scale down, even as the operational environment becomes more complex and dangerous.

    “Additional resources are needed now to save lives and sustain assistance,” she concluded.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1y84hIEvo4

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Video: UN Chief in memory of His Holiness Pope Francis – General Assembly, 79th session | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    On behalf of the UN family, Secretary-General António Guterres today (29 Apr) extended “deepest condolences to the Catholic community and to so many others around the world grieving this tremendous loss.”

    At a tribute ceremony at the General Assembly Hall, GA President Philémon Yang said, “to the faithful around the world, Pope Francis was more than the leader of the Catholic Church. He was a moral voice and a global conscience. With humility and courage, he championed the dignity of the marginalised, the poor and the voiceless.”

    Yang said, Pope Francis “reminded us that the pursuit of common good must guide all our actions, whether in politics, economics or diplomacy” and had “urged all nations to rise above self-interest, and to act in solidarity with future generations.”

    He said, “His Holiness never ceased to remind us that human dignity is a collective responsibility.”

    Guterres recalled that as a young man, “Pope Francis found his calling in the slums of Buenos Aires, where his dedication to serving the poor earned him the title Bishop of the Slums.”

    These early experiences, he said, “sharpened his conviction that faith must be an engine of action and change,” and “put that engine into overdrive as an unstoppable voice for social justice and equality.

    The Secretary-General said Pope Francis “stood with conviction for innocents caught in war zones such as Ukraine and Gaza.”

    He recalled that “every day without fail, precisely at 7:00 p.m., he would quietly call the Church of the Holy Family in Gaza City. As someone at the Church said, ‘He would ask us how we were, what did we eat, did we have clean water, was anyone injured?’ It was never diplomatic or a matter of obligation. It was the questions a father asks to their son.”

    The representative of the Holy See, Archbishop Gabriele Caccia told the General Assembly that “the best way we can commemorate Pope Francis today is to take that torch of hope and rediscover the spirit which 80 years ago created this organisation, so that together we can all work to end on a better world to the generations that will come after us.”

    For his part, Argentine Ambassador Fabián Oddone said, “Pope Francis was a spiritual leader whose passing humanity is mourning. He was also a beacon who illuminated the human dignity of which he was such a staunch defender, particularly that human dignity that shone through the eyes of those most forgotten, marginalised unborn children who suffered as a result of the scourge of abortion. Older people, who were the victims of carelessness when euthanasia was placed on the table as an option. Women who suffer trafficking and exploitation or children put up for sale as a result of surrogacy and those who suffer the denials of their freedom and thought and religion rights so threatened for so many victims of bombs dropped or attacks conducted on religious grounds throughout the world.”

    Pope Francis away on 21 April in Vatican City at the age of 88. The pontiff – born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina – was elected in March 2013. He was the first priest from the Americas region to lead the Catholic Church worldwide and a strong voice for social justice globally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ky7n94rsNE

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Video: India/Pakistan, Palestine & other topics – Daily Press Briefing (29 April 2025) | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    Noon Briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

    Highlights:
    India/Pakistan
    Security Council
    Occupied Palestinian Territory
    Secretary-General/Syria
    Lebanon
    General Assembly/Pope
    Security Council/Ukraine
    Afghanistan
    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Haiti
    Locusts
    Noon Briefing Guest
    Financial Contribution

    INDIA/PAKISTAN
    This morning, the Secretary-General spoke separately by telephone with Muhammad Shebaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and he also spoke earlier in the day with Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, the Minister for External Affairs of the Republic of India. In his phone calls, the Secretary-General reiterated his strong condemnation of the 22 April terrorist attack that took place in Jammu and Kashmir. The Secretary-General noted the importance of pursuing justice and accountability for these attacks through lawful means.
    The Secretary-General also expressed his deep concern at the rising tensions between India and Pakistan and he also underscored the need to avoid a confrontation that could result in tragic consequences.
    The Secretary-General offered his Good Offices to support any de-escalation efforts.

    SECURITY COUNCIL
    The Secretary-General, in a briefing to the Security Council this morning on Israel and Palestine, said that the promise of a two-State solution is at risk of dwindling to the point of disappearance. The political commitment to this long-standing goal is farther than it has ever been, he said.
    The world cannot afford to watch the two-State solution disappear, heasserted. Political leaders face clear choices — the choice to be silent, the choice to acquiesce, or the choice is to act.
    Regarding Gaza, Mr. Guterres said that the recent ceasefire had brought a glimmer of hope – the long-sought release of hostages and the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian relief. But those embers of opportunity were cruelly extinguished with the shattering of the ceasefire on 18 March.
    The Secretary-General said that he was alarmed by statements by Israeli government officials about the use of humanitarian aid as a tool for military pressure. Aid is non-negotiable, he said. Israel must protect civilians and must agree to relief schemes and facilitate them, he said.
    The Secretary-General told the Council that there must be no hindrance to humanitarian aid – including through the vital work of UNRWA. We need the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and we need a permanent ceasefire.
    Mr. Guterres added that it’s time to stop the repeated displacement of the Gaza population – along with any question of forced displacement outside of Gaza, and the trampling of international law must end.

    Full Highlights: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=29%20April%202025

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

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney speaks with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, spoke with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

    President Zelenskyy congratulated Prime Minister Carney on his election. The Prime Minister underscored Canada’s commitment to supporting Ukraine in achieving lasting peace and security. The two leaders agreed that a durable peace can only be achieved with Ukraine at the table.

    The leaders agreed to remain in close contact and to meet at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June.

    Associated Links

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Mast Applauds U.S.-Ukraine Minerals Deal

    Source: US House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Media Contact 202-321-9747

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast issued the following statement after the U.S. and Ukraine signed today’s historic agreement, led by President Trump, to create the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.

    “Thank you, President Trump, for creating American partnerships, instead of American dependents,” Chairman Mast said.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: In Senate Floor Speech, Senator Murray Calls Out Trump’s Staggeringly Lawless and Inhumane Immigration Policy

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    60 Minutes: U.S. sent 238 migrants to Salvadoran mega-prison; documents indicate most have no apparent criminal records

    ***WATCH: Senator Murray’s remarks on the Senate Floor***

    Washington, D.C. – Today U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, took to the Senate floor to deliver a speech on President Trump’s lawless immigration policy. Senator Murray highlighted the absence of any semblance of due process for—in many cases—legal residents with no criminal record being detained and deported—and even sent to a prison in El Salvador with no outside contact and no end date. She also discussed how Trump’s crackdown has caused confusion for international students, fear among farmworkers, and led to U.S. citizens being detained, having their homes raided, and even to some U.S. citizens who are children being deported with their parents.

    Emphasizing the complete lack of transparency from the Trump administration on why the people sent to El Salvador are being detained and what is being done to bring them home, Senator Murray demanded more information from the Trump administration about its recent actions—from the full details of the secret agreement with El Salvador, to the names of all the individuals sent to El Salvador, their current status, what sort of evidence and process has been afforded them, and what sort of contact they can make with lawyers and family. She also pressed for a good faith effort to follow Supreme Court orders, to return everyone wrongly sent to El Salvador, and to establish lines of communication for individuals to speak with their lawyers and families.

    “I heard from one of my Republican colleagues say last week ‘I don’t see any pattern here.’ Well, I ask him now—I ask everyone now—to pay attention to the full picture. Because of course you won’t see the pattern if you just look at one case and you ignore the many, many others,” said Senator Murray. “There is the case of Andry Hernandez Romero, he’s a barber who came here legally, he has no criminal record. There is the case of Arturo Suárez Trejo, he’s a musician, he came here legally, he has no criminal record. There is the case of Merwil Gutiérrez, who—you guessed it—came here legally, no criminal record. In fact, he was apparently grabbed by mistake. One officer reportedly said ‘No, he’s not the one,’ and another said, ‘Take him anyway.’ Trump sent them all to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador—with no trial. Disappeared. They have no contact with their lawyer. No contact with family. We do not know if they are alive, and they don’t know if anyone is even advocating for them. How hopeless that must feel. How dark. So, is that enough of a pattern for my Republican colleagues? Do you still need more?”

    Senator Murray has championed comprehensive and humane immigration reform throughout her Senate career, repeatedly pushing for legislative solutions that would offer a fair pathway to citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America, including Dreamers, farmworkers, and those with Temporary Protected Status. During Trump’s first administration, Senator Murray helped lead the charge in pushing back against Trump’s appalling treatment of migrant children and families at the southern border— cosponsoring the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, which would require unaccompanied children and vulnerable individuals to be provided with legal assistance during immigration court proceedings, the Stop Cruelty to Migrant Children Act to end family separations at the border, and legislation to prevent the separation of families at sensitive locations such as schools, religious institutions, and hospitals, among many other efforts.

    Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below, and video is HERE:

    “Thank you, M. President.

    “Over the past month we have seen a wave of righteous outrage across the country in response to President Trump’s completely lawless move to disappear hundreds of people to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, without even the barest semblance of due process.

    “And as I join my colleagues in calling for the Trump Administration to abide by the Supreme Court ruling, and facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a man they said, in court, was sent to El Salvador by mistake—I have to emphasize, his case is one of many where Trump has completely shredded our norms and laws. In addition to Garcia, Trump sent off some two hundred people—including innocent people who were in our country legally—to a foreign prison without any due process whatsoever.

    “And they did it all on the basis of some arrangement negotiated in secret and paid for with millions of taxpayer dollars. What we do know, is that many of these people were sent there without any criminal conviction—the Administration actually admitted that! In their own court filing the Trump Administration acknowledged that many of these people have no criminal records in the U.S. And yet, all of these people have now been imprisoned in a foreign country with no end date in sight—unconstitutional doesn’t even begin to cover that.

    “There are so many questions, basic questions, about this that we all should be demanding answers to. At the barest, smallest, slimmest minimum, and I mean as a starting point, the Administration must release more details about this secret agreement where it is paying El Salvador with our taxpayer dollars to imprison people without a trial. Details like: who all is being imprisoned, how long is El Salvador holding these people with  Trump’s orders, how many people is El Salvador going to imprison under this agreement, what outside contact is possible for those people, and how do we learn their status and condition—are they alive, are they healthy? What are those details?

    “Most of these details we do have are from reporting—and news reports say the deal was only for El Salvador to take convicted criminals—so why did Trump send people with no criminal record? And importantly: where in the world is this money coming from? Does anyone here remember voting to pass a single dollar in appropriations to fund a torture prison in El Salvador? Because I sure don’t! And last I checked Congress has the power of the purse.

    “You know what else we don’t know? We still don’t know the names of everyone they did this to. Think about that. We don’t even have their names! That information should be released immediately. Today. Because there are families who still have no confirmation where their loved ones are, and the only list we have right now was not even released by the Administration! It was reported by the press.

    “Some families only learned their son was gone, their husband was gone, their father was gone, through photos of them being marched into a torture prison. This is the first, last, and only update we have on just about all of those people. We don’t know if they are alive. We don’t know if they are being treated decently. We don’t even know if they have been moved. Even their lawyers can’t reach them.

    “Here’s what we do know: there are many names on the El Salvador list of people who were here legally, who had no criminal record. That seems to be getting lost in the debate for some of my Republican colleagues. This is not about any one case, or any one person, it is about a lawless system for the President to deny due process. And when you cut out due process, you put innocent people in harm’s way.

    “I heard from one of my Republican colleagues say last week ‘I don’t see any pattern here.’ Well, I ask him now—I ask everyone now—to pay attention to the full picture. Because of course you won’t see the pattern if you just look at one case and you ignore the many, many others.

    “There is the case of Andry Hernandez Romero, he’s a barber who came here legally, he has no criminal record.

    “There is the case of Arturo Suárez Trejo, he’s a musician, he came here legally, he has no criminal record.

    “There is the case of Merwil Gutiérrez, who—you guessed it—came here legally, no criminal record. In fact, he was apparently grabbed by mistake. One officer reportedly said ‘No, he’s not the one,’ and another said, ‘Take him anyway.’

    “Trump sent them all to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador—with no trial. Disappeared. They have no contact with their lawyer. No contact with family. We do not know if they are alive, and they don’t know if anyone is even advocating for them. How hopeless that must feel. How dark. 

    “So, is that enough of a pattern for my Republican colleagues? Do you still need more?

    “Because there’s also Jerce Reyes Barrios, he’s a soccer player, he came here legally. Again—no criminal record.

    “There’s Gustavo Aguilera, a food delivery driver. Legally here. No criminal record.

    “Or Anyelo Sarabia. Here legally. No criminal record.

    “I mean, how many more before my colleagues can actually admit this is a pattern? How many people have to be disappeared with no due process before it becomes a problem? Because for me—one is too many. And the pattern isn’t even over yet. Trump was reportedly ready to disappear even more people to El Salvador—before the Supreme Court put its foot down. In this latest round, the Trump Administration was preparing to disappear a man who came here legally, had no record, except traffic violations!

    “Another was a young man accused of being a gang member because of a photo with a toy water gun. That is the level of so-called ‘evidence’ that gets you locked away in a foreign torture prison under President Trump. And I will keep saying it Mr. President, most of the people they disappeared have no criminal records, and many were even here legally. They came here for a better life, and Trump disappeared them based on nothing more than tattoos that say ‘mom’ and ‘dad,’ or that they celebrate soccer teams, or a daughter’s birth, or autism awareness.

    “And Mr. President, I realize, I keep hammering home that—many of these people are not criminals—and many of these people came here legally. But I do want to remind my colleagues, this question is not whether someone who was vanished to El Salvador without a trace is good or bad, the question is whether everyone in this country—including American citizens—have the rights they were promised in our Constitution.

    “At the end of the day, this is not about who these people are, it is about who we are—whether we are a country of due process, or not. A country of laws, or not.

    “Trump has said where he stands. He literally said ‘We don’t have time’ to give them due process. If the Trump Administration think’s someone is a criminal, if they are really bad and dangerous, prove it in court. Prove it! Just simply prove it! It shouldn’t be hard. That is how this works. Everyone in this country understands that.

    “You can’t just say ‘criminals don’t get due process’—when due process is how you determine who is a criminal in the first place! I mean, in the case of one person they sent to El Salvador, not only did the government’s file against him show no criminal record, it also got his name wrong several times, and used two different identification numbers! Those are pretty major errors to make when you are locking someone away. The kind of errors that due process helps to avoid.

    “That’s not some theory—we are seeing that happen in another case right now. There is a couple that Trump is saying are part of a gang, but instead of just disappearing them with no trial to speak of, the Administration was forced to prove it, to prove it in court. And you know what happened? The government failed. The judge found the government’s claims, ‘completely and wholly unsubstantiated’ and ordered the couple to be released.

    “That just goes to show, if we ignore our laws, if we tear down the guardrails that saved that couple, it’s not criminals who pay the price, it is innocent people. Because due process protects them too! Due process allows us to confirm whether people are lawfully present. Due process lets us confirm whether Trump is about to send them to a foreign prison. Due process lets us confirm whether people are guilty—instead of going off how they look, or what tattoo they have.

    “And at the end of the day, due process means they get an actual determination of guilt or innocence, instead of getting disappeared with a question mark. But no one here was told they are facing ‘X’ years in a foreign prison.

    “There is no end date in El Salvador! Because there was no sentence! Because there was no trial! There was just Trump, ignoring our laws, ignoring our courts, and sending people to gulags to rot, to die, to never be heard from again. How can anyone ignore that outrageous breach of our laws—of our values!

    “And M. President—as a co-equal branch of this government, I want to impress upon my colleagues: It is not just due process that is getting trampled here, it is basic checks and balances. Trump is imprisoning these people under the Alien Enemies Act. He is using a war power. We are not at war! Everyone here should know that. After all, Congress, we, have to vote to declare war. I remember every war vote we have taken in my time here in Congress—and I can tell you—there has never been a vote on this so-called war Trump declared all on his own.

    “As if that weren’t enough, earlier this month the National Intelligence Council, the National Intelligence Council, determined that Venezuela is not directing an ‘invasion’ by gangs. That directly undercuts what Trump claimed when he announced his illegal end run around Congress. Here’s a simple question for everyone, there is no invasion, there is no war, so why is Trump invoking a wartime authority?

    “But add on top of that—that Trump has reached some secret, multi-million-dollar deal to pay El Salvador to imprison these people without a trial. I’m Vice Chair of the Appropriations Committee—I can tell you, we did not include a single cent—not one penny!—for running torture prisons in El Salvador in our last funding bill.

    “Congress has the power of the purse, but Trump is picking our pockets to fund his own personal gulag. And by the way, while we talk about checks and balances, let’s not forget how the Trump Administration is arresting judges, his allies and advisors are attacking judges publicly and calling to impeach those who disagree with him, and of course, Trump is blatantly ignoring the courts. And worse than that, the White House is in open defiance of the Supreme Court.

    “The Supreme Court wrote the Administration must facilitate Mr. Garcia’s release. The White House wrote that he is never coming back.

    “The Supreme Court wrote people being targeted under the Alien Enemies Act must have a reasonable opportunity to file for habeas corpus. The Trump Administration said, ‘no—we will give them 12 hours.’

    “Foreign policy is not an end run around the courts or the constitution. The President cannot just be given unilateral authority to cut completely unethical deals with foreign nations. What happens when a President negotiates in secret to have his political rivals detained abroad? Is that allowed? Can he argue the courts can’t require him to call such a deal off? Or maybe he just denies it and says any agreements are state secrets? Does that work?

    “If President Trump said he would pay El Salvador $6 million to assassinate his rivals—I think we would all agree that is blatantly unconstitutional. And if the court said he had to facilitate a reversal of that deal, and he said ‘well.. it’s a sovereign nation… I can’t stop them from assassinating anyone,’—I think we all would have a huge problem with that. So, do we want to say that is wrong now—or are we going to have to wait until he tries it?

    “What are we waiting for? We cannot just all stand by silent as the President pries open a pandora’s box that is all together unprecedented—and that poses a direct threat to our Republic. And let’s cut through this BS where Trump and El Salvador are both trying to pretend there is no way to facilitate the return of people sent there wrongly.

    “Cause here’s the thing: El Salvador has already sent back people that Trump tried to disappear. El Salvador immediately sent back a Nicaraguan individual. And they sent back women—yeah, Trump tried to disappear women to their all-male torture prison in El Salvador. If anyone wants to try and pretend this was some careful vetting process, pleaseexplain that to me. So it’s not like El Salvador can’t send people back—they have already done that.

    “The Administration should be making clear—one: that these people were wrongly sent, and two: that, as with others wrongly sent, they need to be returned. Though, I want to keep in mind of course, that ‘wrongly sent’ is still an enormous understatement. The reality is these people were completely denied due process. The reality is President Trump is not just disappearing these people to El Salvador, he is disappearing our most basic constitutional rights, and he is doing it in plain sight.

    “Not just in El Salvador either! Right here, in America, his immigration crackdown is upturning lives, and overturning some of our most basic values, like freedom of speech. We have people who are here legally—who are being detained and threatened with deportation. Not for any crime, not for any violence, but for speech, for protest, for things as simple and fundamental as writing an op-ed the Administration disagreed with.

    “In America, the land of the free and the land of free speech, is dissent the bar for deportation now? Is that what this country has come to? What next? How far does Trump’s new standard apply? Can you get deported for saying we shouldn’t invade Canada? Can you get detained for an op-ed saying Greenland is not going to be a state? Are you going to have legal status revoked for admitting Biden won the 2020 election?

    “Because that may seem outrageous—but it also seems perfectly in line with Trump’s new policy which amounts to—disagree with the President and your rights are gone. That is fundamentally un-American.

    “And beyond people who are being targeted for protest, there are thousands of students in this country, that Trump is trying to push out over minor issues; fishing citations, jay walking, speeding tickets, even charges that were dismissed. So far, some 1,800 foreign students are having their visa revoked with little to no explanation, to say nothing of due process.

    “That includes students in Washington state, my homes state, at the UW, at Gonzaga, at Shoreline Community College—where I once worked—my alma mater WSU, and more! It’s not clear whether these students have done anything wrong, and it’s not clear in some cases—what exactly they are supposed to do next. Because when the Administration can’t revoke visas—it has been trying to remove students’ records—something courts have already ruled against.

    “One of the judges really put it best. And I want to read this and quote it to you. This is a judge. ‘I’ve got two experienced immigration lawyers on behalf of a client who is months away from graduation, who has done nothing wrong, who has been terminated from a system that you all keep telling me has no effect on his immigration status, although that clearly is BS. And now, his two very experienced lawyers can’t even tell him whether or not he’s here legally, because the court can’t tell him whether or not he’s here legally, because the government’s counsel can’t tell him if he’s here legally.’

    “M. President, the point seems to be, if we can’t deport you, we can scare and confuse you. And to add even more confusion, DOJ announced they were reversing course on some of this, only to then say they are still working on a plan to push out all these students. And by the way, we are only still scratching the surface of just how inhumane Trump’s immigration crackdown has become.

    “Trump is slashing funds to ensure 26,000 migrant kids have legal assistance—meaning more four-year-olds are being marched in front of immigration judges, expected to make their own legal case with a plushy toy. Trump is also trying to mass cancel protected status for people who came here who were fleeing harsh conditions and dictators. Trump is sending Christian refugees and women back to live under the Taliban—where they will face near certain persecution. Trump is sending ICE officials to elementary schools, where they have tried to gain access by lying about having permission from parents to speak with their kids.

    “ICE officials are arresting people with maximum violence and lawlessness—showing up without a judicial warrant, since the Trump Administration says it is fine to storm into someone’s house without one, showing up in masks, grabbing people off the streets without any badge or identification to distinguish them from a kidnapper, whisking people away in unmarked cars, and even smashing in windshields.

    “M. President, back in my home state of Washington—I have heard from folks who saw that firsthand. Last month, ICE aggressively detained Lelo, a farmworker in my state—and it appears he may have even been targeted because of his advocacy for better working conditions for his fellow farmworkers. They are still denying him bond—despite no criminal charges. I spoke with his wife last week—who watched in horror as they arrested her husband shortly after he dropped her off at work. She told me through tears about how officers broke his window and pushed him against the car. And how, Lelo wants to be free so he can take care of his brothers and sisters and work so they can study. He wants to continue doing his work in the community and with the union. And they are working right now to try and get bond—something I strongly support. This is not someone M. President, with a dangerous record—it is someone with a record of hard work, and of trying to make his community better.

    “Skagit County is known for its agricultural industry—and that industry doesn’t survive without the immigrant farmworkers who help power that local economy. Period.

    “More than that, we are talking about many families who have been here for decades. They are part of our community—they’re not just the people who feed this country. These people work hard, they follow the law. They should not be terrorized as if they were violent criminals. Last week, I met with farmworkers there who told me there have been days they have been afraid to go to work, because an unmarked vehicle was seen in their neighborhood. They are absolutely terrified of being grabbed off the street by ICE and locked up with no semblance of due process, regardless of their legal status.

    “And this situation is not unique to Skagit County or even to my state. It’s happening across the country. Let’s not forget, Trump is trying to deport a cancer researcher to Russia where she fears retaliation for protesting the war in Ukraine. Sending her away would both put her in danger and completely upend groundbreaking cancer research—her colleagues say her role is irreplaceable.

    “But it’s not just cancer research, Trump also deported a little girl, a U.S. citizen, who was on her way to get cancer treatment! She was with her mother, an undocumented immigrant—who was forced to choose between being separated from her 10-year-old daughter or being sent away together. What an unthinkable choice to force on a mother. What an unthinkable thing to do to a child, a citizen, a citizen who is fighting cancer.

    “And Trump has done that twice. That’s right twice, he has deported a mother—along with a kid who is fighting cancer—a kid who is an American citizen. And he is doing that without giving these parents any meaningful time to talk to a lawyer, or a spouse, to figure out what is best for their child. We know that because Trump deported another U.S. citizen last week—that’s right another one. Trump deported a two-year-old, an American citizen. They refused to tell this kids’ father where his wife and kid were being held. They refused to let him talk to his wife for more than a minute. They even forced him to hang up the phone when he tried to give his wife their lawyer’s number. And then, as the judge put it, they seem to have ‘deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.’

    “And now we are hearing about a family in Oklahoma—U.S. citizens who recently moved in who had their home raided by ICE. A mom and her daughters—forced out of their house, in the rain, in underwear. ICE agents seized phones, laptops, even their full life savings—and didn’t leave so much as a number they could call to get their stuff back. That happened to U.S. citizens, who did nothing but move into a new house.

    “These horror stories underscore something important—Trump’s cruel war on immigrants is hurting American citizens too. U.S. citizens are having their spouses ripped away, even servicemembers are seeing their families targeted. They are having their parents ripped away. They are having their lives turned upside down.

    “And—let’s not forget—U.S. citizens are even being detained by this administration. We have several instances now—where American citizens have been caught up in Trump’s immigration crackdown. American citizens have been detained and wrongly locked up—even after someone showed them their birth certificates. Even for days! And let’s keep in mind—if you are a citizen who is mistakenly detained, and you are being denied due process, and you can’t reach someone to show your birth certificate, how are you supposed to get released? What if you are put on the next plane to El Salvador before you get the chance to set the record straight? And let’s not pretend that’s far-fetched.

    “Not when citizens havealready been mistakenly detained. Not when the government hasalready admitted it sent some people to El Salvador by mistake. Now when Trump has already disappeared some people who were here legally, and many people who had no criminal record—with no due process. And not when Trump hasalreadysaid he wants to send U.S. citizens to El Salvador prisons. He was caught on mic telling the President of El Salvador he needs to build more jails, telling him the ‘homegrowns’ are next. What happens when you get sent there, and you can’t contact a lawyer? These are serious questions—what happens? Because if there is nothing we can do for the people there now, what precedent does that set for the people that are sent there next?

    “M. President—I’ve been speaking for a while now and I’ve posed a lot of questions, and I hope my colleagues think about this carefully. So, I am going to wrap it up, but I will end now with just one more.

    “Where will Republicans draw the line? Because we are well past the bounds of law—and we are well past the bounds of basic humanity. So, I hope more of my colleagues will join me in saying enough is enough. And in demanding transparency, accountability, and justice from the Trump Administration. That starts with some very basic things.

    “First—accurate, up-to-date information on the names of people who are being detained in, and deported from, ICE facilities across the country—including by the way, the Northwest ICE Detention Center in Tacoma, so that their loved ones and community members can at least know where they are!

    “And we need a clear list of every person who was disappeared to El Salvador, along with what evidence—if any—the government has. As well as the full terms of whatever agreement the Trump administration has negotiated with El Salvador’s dictator.

    “But it doesn’t stop there. We need to see clear, good faith efforts to abide by court orders, and to bring back everyone wrongfully, unjustly sent to a foreign prison. We need to have lines of communication so these people can talk to their lawyers, or talk to their loved ones, and let us know if they are okay.

    “And we need due process—with evidence, with judges, and a meaningful opportunity for people to present a defense. Let’s be clear we are not saying everyone is innocent. We are saying no more than what the constitution says, no more than what the courts have said time and again: Everyone, in the United States of America, gets due process.

    “Thank you.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Freehold Royalties Announces Refinement of Business Structure with Termination of the Management Agreement

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CALGARY, Alberta, April 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Freehold Royalties Ltd. (Freehold or the Company) (TSX:FRU) and Rife Resources Management Ltd. (Rife) have mutually agreed to terminate the management agreement and associated services that Rife has historically provided Freehold.

    Effective May 1, 2025, Freehold will have a fully dedicated executive team and employee base and will no longer use the shared or advisory services of Rife to conduct its business. Freehold will not pay any termination fees or future management fees to Rife and the Company does not anticipate any meaningful differences in its go-forward cost structure.

    The Freehold executive team will be the seasoned and familiar team that has built the Company into the high margin North American royalty business that we are today. David Spyker will continue as President and CEO, David Hendry as CFO and VP Finance until his successor is named, Rob King as COO along with VP’s Susan Nagy and Colin Strem leading our asset optimization and acquisition initiatives and Lisa Farstad leading corporate services. They will be supported by 46 full time employees with technical, financial and asset management expertise. The leadership and employee continuity will ensure a seamless and stable transition to the revised governance and operating model, while focusing 100% of their talents into continuing to build the North American royalty platform.

    “With the strategic positioning and business growth of Freehold over the past five years, our Board of Directors felt it was the right time to evolve from the management arrangement that has been in place since 1996”, said Marvin Romanow, Chairman of Freehold. “Having a dedicated team solely focused on Freehold’s assets and strategies will streamline our operations and simplify our governance as we drive sustained value creation for our shareholders and continue to position Freehold as a leading North American royalty company.”

    “CN Investment Division (CNID), through Rife, has been a skilled provider of the leadership and resources required to manage the Freehold business since its’ IPO in 1996 and has always been the Company’s largest shareholder. As Freehold has grown considerably in recent years, including its’ successful entry into the premier resource basins in the United States, now is the ideal time to revise its’ governance and facilitate a new business structure. CNID fully supports this transition and is excited about the next chapter in Freehold’s story. CNID remains committed to the energy and royalties’ sector and continues to be a strong supporter of Freehold through its long-standing ownership and representation on the Board of Directors” said Mathieu Roy, Managing Director Real Assets at CNID, investment advisor of the CN Pension Trust Funds, and a Freehold board member. CNID will continue to have a nomination right for one director under a new governance agreement which is expected to be in place by year-end 2025.

    The termination date for the management agreement will be December 31, 2025. With the dedicated leadership and employee team in place from May 1, 2025, the Company will work on an orderly and efficient transition of systems, software, workflows, files and office space. Freehold’s sharpened focus, dedicated leadership and energized team mark a new era of possibilities as we continue our journey of business excellence.

    For further information contact

    Freehold Royalties Ltd.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release offers our assessment of Freehold’s future plans and operations as at April 30, 2025 and contains forward-looking information including, without limitation, with regards to: the expectation that the Company will not pay any termination fees or future management fees; the expectation that the Company will not have any meaningful differences in its go forward cost structure; the anticipated leadership team of Freehold; the effective date of termination of the management agreement; certain terms associated with termination of the management agreement; the expected benefits of the termination of the management agreement; the expectation that there will be seamless and stable integration of the new governance structure; the intent to continue to build the North American royalty platform; the expectation that a new governance agreement will be agreed to prior to year-end December 31, 2025 that will continue to give CNID a nomination right for one director.

    This forward-looking information is provided to allow readers to better understand our business and prospects and may not be suitable for other purposes. By its nature, forward-looking information is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, some of which are beyond our control, including the demand for oil and natural gas, general economic conditions, the impacts of tariffs and other retaliatory trade actions taken by the United States, Canada and other countries; industry conditions, the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict on the global economy and commodity prices, volatility of commodity prices, currency fluctuations, imprecision of reserve estimates, royalties, environmental risks, taxation, regulation, changes in tax or other legislation, competition from other industry participants, the lack of availability of qualified personnel or management, stock market volatility, our ability to access sufficient capital from internal and external sources. Certain terms relating to the termination of the management agreement and the transition to independent management of Freehold are yet to be negotiated and determined by Freehold and Rife and, as such, there is a risk that the transition may not occur in the manner or on the terms as contemplated herein. Risks are described in more detail in Freehold’s annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024 which is available under Freehold’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

    The forward-looking information contained in this press release is based on certain assumptions including that Freehold and Rife will successfully negotiate and determine all transitional matters required for Freehold to successfully operate under independent management and certain other assumptions identified herein. You are cautioned that the assumptions used in the preparation of such information, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be imprecise and, as such, undue reliance should not be placed on forward looking information. We can give no assurance that any of the events anticipated will transpire or occur, or if any of them do, what benefits we will derive from them. The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. Our policy for updating forward-looking statements is to update our key operating assumptions quarterly and, except as required by law, we do not undertake to update any other forward-looking statements.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Feuding mob families, mind control and a murder at the White House: what to watch in May

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexa Scarlata, Lecturer, Digital Communication, RMIT University

    Disney+/Prime/Netflix/Paramount+/The Conversation

    It’s May! Where did the year go? It must be all the amazing TV we’re watching that’s making the time whiz by. This month’s lineup of expert picks is packed with standout shows across all genres.

    Whether you’re in the mood for laugh-out-loud comedies, powerful historical fiction, or sci-fi that will leave your brain rattling for days, there’s something binge-worthy waiting for you.

    MobLand

    Paramount+

    Lately, I’ve found myself counting down the days each week for a new episode of MobLand to drop on Paramount+ on Sunday afternoon. The crime series is executive produced (and the first two episodes directed) by Guy Ritchie, and stars Tom Hardy, Pierce Brosnan and Helen Mirren – along with a heavyweight supporting cast – in a story about two rival mob families in London.

    When tensions escalate after a night out, Hardy’s “fixer” character, Harry, works to keep the peace between the Harrigans and the Stevensons – be it with a quiet word or brutal force.

    MobLand is as twisty, gruesome and fun as we’ve come to expect from Ritchie’s popular gangster titles. But while others have been regularly criticised for their lack or limited portrayal of female characters, MobLand benefits from the scheming and swearing of the inimitable Helen Mirren as matriarch Maeve Harrigan, and the quiet fury of Joanne Froggatt as Harry’s wife, Jan, as she tries to force the enforcer into marriage counselling.

    The series has been a huge success for Paramount+ in Australia – becoming the largest launch in the platform’s history. And while some may find the weekly episode drop frustrating, for me it adds to the suspense.

    – Alexa Scarlata

    The Residence

    Netflix

    Faced with Donald Trump, show makers turn to alternative visions of leadership. The latest: a gay president, who is only a bit of a player, in a ridiculously entertaining picture of a crime within the White House.

    At a US state dinner for visiting Australian Prime Minister Stephen Roos (Julian McMahon), the dead body of the chief usher is discovered, and the world’s greatest detective, Cordelia Cupp (Uzo Aduba), is called in. Not only is Cupp an avid bird-watcher, she is also an Agatha Christie devotee who likes to assemble all her suspects for a prolonged denouement.

    The Residence is full of oblique references to current US politics. One former senator, Al Franken, plays a fictional senator named Aaron Filkins. And Tripp Morgan (Jason Lee), US President Perry Morgan’s odious brother, has several real-life precursors.

    The series is also a guide to the White House itself, complete with the sort of lavish detail we’d expect from Shondaland productions. And it’s nice to see Netflix acknowledging Australians. Even if they couldn’t persuade Hugh Jackman to actually show up, there’s plenty of other home-grown talent – including cameos by Kylie Minogue.

    – Dennis Altman

    Last One Laughing UK

    Prime Video

    Last One Laughing is a battle royale for stand-ups. Ten comedians, one room, surrounded by cameras. Laugh once and they’re warned. Laugh again, and they’re out. Last comic left wins.

    An international TV phenomenon in 29 countries, the latest season is from the United Kingdom, hosted by Jimmy Carr and featuring comedians like Bob Mortimer, Sara Pascoe and Joe Lycett.

    Comedy takes time, but laughter can take less than a moment. Richard Ayoade nearly catches out two players when, asked what his childhood hobbies were, he replies: “I don’t know. I cried a lot?”

    Last One Laughing doubles our laughs. We watch the actual joke, we get it, we laugh. And then we see comedians desperately trying not to laugh – but we know that they get the joke too! And so we get an unexpected second look at the joke.

    Last One Laughing helps us understand why we laugh at our own jokes, why we can’t always explain what’s funny, and why gags don’t need words. We’re watching professional comedians get the joke (as we do!) without laughing (as we expect?) but we know that it’s all OK. And, however briefly, we glimpse the world anew.

    – Fergus Edwards



    Read more:
    We’re hardwired to laugh – this is why watching comedians try to be the ‘Last One Laughing’ is so funny

    Dying for Sex

    Disney+

    Based on a popular podcast by Molly Kochan and Nicki Boyer, Dying for Sex is a funny, raunchy, heartfelt exploration of pleasure and death.

    When Molly (Michelle Williams) finds out her cancer is back and this time it is terminal, she seeks out sexual desire and satisfaction in unusual places, making profound discoveries along the way.

    The show is rated R for good reason: the depiction of sexual acts is graphic, but not exploitative or voyeuristic. Rather it embraces the messiness of having a body that is dying but seeking joy.

    While Molly’s sexual adventures feature heavily (and explicitly), the heart of the show is Molly’s friendship with Nicki (Jenny Slate), which feels achingly real. Molly and Nicki are long-term friends, as such they adore and encourage each other’s idiosyncrasies and perceived flaws.

    Williams is luminous and well-matched with Slate, who brings a levity and longing to caring for her best friend and supporting her new goals. Despite its relatively short runtime of just eight 30 minute episodes, we are treated to nuanced renderings of Molly’s complex relationships with her mother (Sissy Spacek), husband (Jay Duplass) and neighbour (Rob Delaney).

    Dying for Sex is infuriating and heartbreaking, as well as absurdly funny – kinda like death.

    – Jessica Ford

    Black Mirror, season seven

    Netflix

    The seventh season of Black Mirror is an ominous return to the dark world of modern technology. This season comprises six new episodes, two of which are sequels to episodes from previous seasons.

    Common People is a powerful opening to the season, starring two of the most famous actors to appear throughout. Amanda (Rashida Jones) and Mike (Chris O’Dowd) are an ordinary suburban couple struck by tragedy in the form of a serious medical emergency – a narrative turn that is compounded by an unexpected departure from Jones and O’Dowd’s comedic reputations. The collapse of their life reaches greater and greater depths, before culminating in a horrifying final scene.

    The other five episodes of the season are not as dismal. USS Callister: Into Infinity, in particular, provides some resolution that the earlier episode USS Callister had not. Plaything, the sequel to the interactive film Bandersnatch, echoes USS Callister’s interest in video gaming, but takes its invasion of human life to an even more powerful conclusion. Bête Noire similarly toys with the idea of mind control.

    Hotel Reverie and Eulogy are quieter episodes, and not as overtly critical of technological advance as the others. Both are very moving, and like Common People, are interested in the lengths one might go to for the people they love.

    Black Mirror’s seventh season is both a warning and a guide for how to be human – and how not to.

    – Jessica Gildersleeve

    The Wheel of Time, season three

    Prime Video

    The Wheel of Time is Prime’s most recent entry into the increasingly popular epic fantasy genre. Despite a lacklustre first two seasons, season three finally rewards fans for their patience.

    Adapted from Robert Jordan’s sprawling 14-book series, the new season begins full throttle with a violent battle between the all-female One Power-wielding Aes Sedai. While some episodes lag due to overly complicated exposition and agonising character development (just embrace the wolf already, Perrin), for the most part showrunner Rafe Judkins maintains the propulsive momentum established in the spectacular opening.

    Episode four, The Road to the Spear, is a standout sure to please die-hard Jordan fans and new audiences alike. Cinematic in scope, the episode faithfully recounts Rand (Josha Stradowski) and Moiraine’s (Rosamund Pike) journey to Rhuidean in the Aiel Waste where Rand is confirmed as the Dragon Reborn.

    Pike continues to provide much-needed gravitas as the steely Moiraine and Stradowski is a revelation. It doesn’t hurt that the episode makes good use of its deliciously vampy leather-clad villain Lanfear (Natasha O’Keeffe).

    No doubt references to Jordan’s expansive lore might continue to baffle some viewers. However, the sumptuous costumes, increasingly assured performances and modernised relationships suggest the series has finally found its footing.

    Long may The Wheel of Time continue to turn.

    – Rachel Williamson

    The Narrow Road to the Deep North

    Prime Video

    The Narrow Road to the Deep North stands as some of the most visceral and moving television produced in Australia in recent memory, marking a new accessibility and confidence to director Justin Kurzel.

    Dorrigo Evans (Jacob Elordi/Ciarán Hinds) is a doctor sent to World War II. Captured during the Battle of Java he is taken as a prisoner of war (POW), where he is forced to lead his Australian soldiers on the building of the Burma-Thailand Railway.

    Rather than an executor of violence, he is a pacifist and victim. Ultimately he has to make peace with his own trauma and guilt of survival when many around him perished – some of whom he knowingly sent to their inevitable death to ensure his own survival.

    Faithfully adapted from Richard Flanagan’s novel in a screenplay by Shaun Grant, this production effectively creates interchanging timelines (seamlessly edited by Alexandre de Francesch) including prewar, war and postwar, and then flashes forward to Dorrigo in his mid-70s.

    Structurally immaculate, The Narrow Road to the Deep North is not defined by its brutal torture of the POWs or comradeship of the starving soldiers (though they are powerful to watch). Instead, it points us towards the quieter visions of characters having to sit alone with their distorted memories.

    Contemporary television is rarely this good.

    – Stephen Gaunson



    Read more:
    Contemporary television is rarely as good as The Narrow Road to the Deep North

    Andor, season two

    Disney+

    Andor returns for a second season, as we follow the early days of the Rebel Alliance leading up to events in Rogue One.

    One year after the events of season one, we open with Cassian (Diego Luna) impersonating an Imperial test pilot so he can steal a prototype Imperial ship. After stealing the ship, he must navigate a ragtag brigade whose infighting becomes violent.

    Elsewhere on planet Mina-Rau, Bix (Adria Arjona) and other undocumented farm workers await Cassian’s arrival with the ship. Over on Chandrila, Imperial Senator Mon (Genevieve O’Reilly) navigates the diplomacy of her daughter’s wedding while continuing to discreetly support the rebellion.

    The most chilling scenes in the opening episodes are perhaps those that show Imperial supervisor Dedra Meero (Denise Gough) attend a top-secret meeting where they strategise how best to cleanse the population of Gorman so they can mine a rare mineral.

    As film academic Daniel Golding notes in an article about how Andor takes on the era of Trump 2.0, showrunner Tony Gilroy takes inspiration from several real world revolutionary events. Given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s assault on Gaza and Trump’s increasing authoritarianism, it will be interesting to see how the revolution in this season continues to reflect real-world precarity.

    I recommend refreshing your memory of season one before diving in, as the new season’s complexity relies on considerable assumed knowledge.

    – Stuart Richards

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

    – ref. Feuding mob families, mind control and a murder at the White House: what to watch in May – https://theconversation.com/feuding-mob-families-mind-control-and-a-murder-at-the-white-house-what-to-watch-in-may-255222

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI: Landmark Bancorp, Inc. Announces Growth in First Quarter 2025 Net Earnings of 43.2%. Declares Cash Dividend of $0.21 per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Manhattan, KS, April 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (“Landmark”; Nasdaq: LARK) reported diluted earnings per share of $0.81 for the three months ended March 31, 2025, compared to $0.57 per share in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $0.48 per share in the same quarter last year. Net income for the first quarter totaled $4.7 million, compared to $3.3 million in the prior quarter and $2.8 million in the first quarter of 2024. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, the return on average assets was 1.21%, the return on average equity was 13.71% and the efficiency ratio(1) was 64.1%.

    First Quarter 2025 Performance Highlights

    • Loan growth totaled $22.6 million or an annualized increase of 8.7% over the prior quarter.
    • Net interest margin improved 25 basis points to 3.76% compared to 3.51% in prior quarter.
    • Deposits increased $42.3 million, or 3.3%, from the same quarter last year and $7.1 million, or 2.2%, from prior quarter.
    • Other borrowed funds decreased $11.8 million compared to the prior quarter.
    • Non-interest expenses declined $1.1 million compared to the prior quarter.
    • Credit quality remained stable with net charge-offs totaling $23,000 in the first quarter.
    • Ratio of equity to assets increased to 9.04% this quarter.

    In making this announcement, Abby Wendel, President and Chief Executive Officer of Landmark, commented, “I am pleased to report strong growth in net income this quarter driven by growth in net interest income, lower expenses and excellent credit quality. We continued to experience solid loan demand in the first quarter 2025, especially for commercial real estate and residential mortgage loans. In the first quarter 2025, total gross loans increased by $22.6 million or 8.7% (annualized) with growth in most loan categories. Total deposits also increased in the first quarter by $7.1 million, exceeding the typical seasonal decline in money market and interest checking accounts. Over the last two quarters, deposits have increased over $60 million. Other borrowed funds declined by $11.8 million, which reduced interest expense and improved our net interest margin. Growth in our balance sheet, plus the shift in our funding position led to net interest income growth of 22.1% over the previous year and net interest margin expansion of 25 basis points to 3.76%. Non-interest expense also declined this quarter by $1.1 million compared to the prior quarter. Credit quality remained solid overall with minimal net charge-offs, and no provision for credit losses was taken this quarter. These strong results are a tribute to the associates who work hard every day to make Landmark the bank of choice for our customers and stockholders.”

    Landmark’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.21 per share, to be paid June 4, 2025, to common stockholders of record as of the close of business on May 21, 2025.

    Management will host a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial results at 9:30 a.m. (Central time) on Thursday, May 1, 2025. Investors may participate via telephone by dialing (833) 470-1428 and using access code 866149. A replay of the call will be available through May 8, 2025, by dialing (866) 813-9403 and using access code 282640.

    Net Interest Income

    Net interest income in the first quarter of 2025 amounted to $13.1 million representing an increase of $720,000, or 5.8%, compared to the previous quarter. The increase in net interest income resulted from a combination of both higher interest income on loans and lower interest expense on deposits and other borrowed funds (FHLB, repurchase agreements and other debt). Net interest margin increased to 3.76% during the first quarter from 3.51% during the prior quarter. Compared to the previous quarter, interest income on loans increased $440,000 to $16.4 million due to higher average balances combined with higher yields on loans. Average loan balances increased $38.4 million, while the average tax-equivalent yield on the loan portfolio increased 6 basis points to 6.34%. Interest on investment securities declined slightly due to lower balances, partially offset by higher earning rates. Compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, interest on deposits decreased $114,000, or 2.1%, due to lower rates as average interest-bearing deposit balances increased by $34.8 million. Interest on other borrowed funds declined by $216,000, due to lower rates and average balances. The average rate on interest-bearing deposits decreased 8 basis points to 2.17% while the average rate on other borrowed funds decreased 15 basis points to 5.09% in the first quarter.

    Non-Interest Income

    Non-interest income totaled $3.4 million for the first quarter of 2025, a decrease of $13,000 from the previous quarter. The decrease in non-interest income during the first quarter of 2025 was primarily due to a $704,000 decline in bank owned life insurance income relating to one-time benefits recorded in the fourth quarter, coupled with a $322,000 decline in fees and service charges relating to lower deposit related fee income, partially due to fewer days in the quarter. Partially offsetting those declines was a $1.0 million loss on the sales of lower yielding investment securities in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to a loss of only $2,000 in the first quarter of 2025.

    (1) Non-GAAP financial measure. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation.

    Non-Interest Expense

    During the first quarter of 2025, non-interest expense totaled $10.8 million, a decrease of $1.1 million compared to the prior quarter. The decrease in non-interest expense was primarily due to decreases of $350,000 in other non-interest expense, $298,000 in occupancy and equipment and $298,000 in professional fees. The decreases in other non-interest expenses and occupancy and equipment were primarily related to branch closures in 2024 and associated cost savings in 2025. The decrease in professional fees this quarter was primarily due to higher consulting costs in the prior quarter related to several initiatives.

    Income Tax Expense (Benefit)

    Landmark recorded income tax expense of $1.0 million in the first quarter of 2025 compared to an income tax benefit of $886,000 in the fourth quarter of 2024. The effective tax rate was 17.8% in the first quarter of 2025. The fourth quarter of 2024 included the recognition of $1.0 million of previously unrecognized tax benefits, which significantly reduced the effective tax rate.

    Balance Sheet Highlights

    As of March 31, 2025, gross loans totaled $1.1 billion, an increase of $22.6 million, or 8.7% annualized since December 31, 2024. During the quarter, loan growth was primarily comprised of commercial real estate (growth of $14.4 million), one-to-four family residential real estate (growth of $3.4 million) and construction and land loans (growth of $3.3 million). Investment securities decreased $16.5 million during the first quarter of 2025 mainly due to maturities. Pre-tax unrealized net losses on the investment securities portfolio decreased from $20.9 million at December 31, 2024, to $17.1 million at March 31, 2025, mainly due to lower market rates for these securities at March 31, 2025.

    Period end deposit balances increased $7.1 million to $1.3 billion at March 31, 2025. The increase in deposits was driven by increases in non-interest-bearing demand deposits (increase of $16.9 million), certificates of deposit (increase of $10.0 million) and savings (increase of $3.7 million), partially offset by a decline in money market and checking accounts (decrease of $23.5 million). The decrease in money market and checking accounts was mainly driven by a seasonal decline in public fund deposit account balances. Total borrowings decreased $11.8 million during the first quarter 2025. At March 31, 2025, the loan to deposits ratio was 79.5% compared to 78.2% in the prior quarter.

    Stockholders’ equity increased to $142.7 million (book value of $24.69 per share) as of March 31, 2025, from $136.2 million (book value of $23.59 per share) as of December 31, 2024. The increase in stockholders’ equity was due mainly to a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive losses (lower unrealized net losses on investment securities) along with net earnings from the quarter. The ratio of equity to total assets increased to 9.04% on March 31, 2025, from 8.65% on December 31, 2024.

    The allowance for credit losses totaled $12.8 million, or 1.19% of total gross loans on March 31, 2025, compared to $12.8 million, or 1.22% of total gross loans on December 31, 2024. Net loan charge-offs totaled $23,000 in the first quarter of 2025, compared to $219,000 during the fourth quarter of 2024. No provision for credit losses on loans was recorded in the first quarter of 2025 compared to a provision of $1.5 million recorded in the fourth quarter of 2024.

    Non-performing loans totaled $13.3 million, or 1.24% of gross loans, at March 31, 2025, compared to $13.1 million, or 1.25% of gross loans, at December 31, 2024. Loans 30-89 days delinquent totaled $10.0 million, or 0.93% of gross loans, as of March 31, 2025, compared to $6.2 million, or 0.59% of gross loans, as of December 31, 2024.

    About Landmark

    Landmark Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Landmark National Bank, is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “LARK.” Headquartered in Manhattan, Kansas, Landmark National Bank is a community banking organization dedicated to providing quality financial and banking services. Landmark National Bank has 29 locations in 23 communities across Kansas: Manhattan (2), Auburn, Dodge City (2), Fort Scott (2), Garden City, Great Bend (2), Hoisington, Iola, Junction City, La Crosse, Lawrence (2), Lenexa, Louisburg, Mound City, Osage City, Osawatomie, Overland Park, Paola, Pittsburg, Prairie Village, Topeka (2), Wamego and Wellsville, Kansas. Visit www.banklandmark.com for more information.

    Contact:
    Mark A. Herpich
    Chief Financial Officer
    (785) 565-2000
     

    Special Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of Landmark. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of our management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this press release, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Landmark undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events. A number of factors, many of which are beyond our ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (i) the strength of the local, state, national and international economies and financial markets, including the effects of inflationary pressures and future monetary policies of the Federal Reserve in response thereto; (ii) changes in local, state and federal laws, regulations and governmental policies concerning the Company’s general business, including changes in interpretation or prioritization of such laws, regulations and policies; (iii) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of our assets; (iv) increased competition in the financial services sector and the inability to attract new customers, including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and “fintech” companies; (v) timely development and acceptance of new products and services; (vi) changes in technology and the ability to develop and maintain secure and reliable electronic systems; (vii) our risk management framework; (viii) interruptions in information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party services; (ix) effects on the U.S. economy resulting from the threat or implementation of, or changes to, existing policies and executive orders, including tariffs, immigration policy, regulatory and other governmental agencies, foreign policy and tax regulations; (x) the economic effects of severe weather, natural disasters, widespread disease or pandemics, or other external events; (xi) the loss of key executives or employees; (xii) changes in consumer spending; (xiii) integration of acquired businesses; (xiv) the commencement, cost and outcome of litigation and other legal proceedings and regulatory actions against us or to which the Company may become subject; (xv) changes in accounting policies and practices, such as the implementation of the current expected credit losses accounting standard; (xvi) the economic impact of past and any future terrorist attacks, acts of war, including ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or threats thereof, and the response of the United States to any such threats and attacks; (xvii) the ability to manage credit risk, forecast loan losses and maintain an adequate allowance for loan losses; (xviii) fluctuations in the value of securities held in our securities portfolio; (xix) concentrations within our loan portfolio, concentration large loans to certain borrowers, and large deposits from certain clients (including commercial real estate loans); (xx) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current FDIC insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (xxi) the level of non-performing assets on our balance sheets; (xxii) the ability to raise additional capital; (xxiii) the occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches or failures of our or our third-party vendors’ information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents, including as a result of sophisticated attacks using artificial intelligence and similar tools or as a result of insider fraud; (xxiv) declines in real estate values; (xxv) the effects of fraud on the part of our employees, customers, vendors or counterparties; (xxvi) the Company’s success at managing and responding to the risks involved in the foregoing items; and (xxvii) any other risks described in the “Risk Factors” sections of reports filed by Landmark with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Additional information concerning Landmark and its business, including additional risk factors that could materially affect Landmark’s financial results, is included in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES  
    Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited)  
                                   
    (Dollars in thousands)   March 31,     December 31,     September 30,     June 30,     March 31,  
        2025     2024     2024     2024     2024  
    Assets                              
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 21,881     $ 20,275     $ 21,211     $ 23,889     $ 16,468  
    Interest-bearing deposits at other banks     3,973       4,110       4,363       4,881       4,920  
    Investment securities available-for-sale, at fair value:                                        
    U.S. treasury securities     58,424       64,458       83,753       89,325       93,683  
    Municipal obligations, tax exempt     101,812       107,128       112,126       114,047       118,445  
    Municipal obligations, taxable     70,614       71,715       75,129       74,588       75,371  
    Agency mortgage-backed securities     125,142       129,211       140,004       142,499       149,777  
    Total investment securities available-for-sale     355,992       372,512       411,012       420,459       437,276  
    Investment securities held-to-maturity     3,701       3,672       3,643       3,613       3,584  
    Bank stocks, at cost     6,225       6,618       7,894       9,647       7,850  
    Loans:                                        
    One-to-four family residential real estate     355,632       352,209       344,380       332,090       312,833  
    Construction and land     28,645       25,328       23,454       30,480       24,823  
    Commercial real estate     359,579       345,159       324,016       318,850       323,397  
    Commercial     190,881       192,325       181,652       178,876       181,945  
    Agriculture     101,808       100,562       91,986       84,523       86,808  
    Municipal     7,082       7,091       7,098       6,556       5,690  
    Consumer     31,297       29,679       29,263       29,200       28,544  
    Total gross loans     1,074,924       1,052,353       1,001,849       980,575       964,040  
    Net deferred loan (fees) costs and loans in process     (426 )     (307 )     (63 )     (583 )     (578 )
    Allowance for credit losses     (12,802 )     (12,825 )     (11,544 )     (10,903 )     (10,851 )
    Loans, net     1,061,696       1,039,221       990,242       969,089       952,611  
    Loans held for sale, at fair value     2,997       3,420       3,250       2,513       2,697  
    Bank owned life insurance     39,329       39,056       39,176       38,826       38,578  
    Premises and equipment, net     19,886       20,220       20,976       20,986       20,696  
    Goodwill     32,377       32,377       32,377       32,377       32,377  
    Other intangible assets, net     2,426       2,578       2,729       2,900       3,071  
    Mortgage servicing rights     3,045       3,061       3,041       2,997       2,977  
    Real estate owned, net     167       167       428       428       428  
    Other assets     24,894       26,855       23,309       28,149       29,684  
    Total assets   $ 1,578,589     $ 1,574,142     $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,553,217  
                                             
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity                                        
    Liabilities:                                        
    Deposits:                                        
    Non-interest-bearing demand     368,480       351,595       360,188       360,631       364,386  
    Money market and checking     613,459       636,963       565,629       546,385       583,315  
    Savings     149,223       145,514       145,825       150,996       154,000  
    Certificates of deposit     204,660       194,694       203,860       192,470       191,823  
    Total deposits     1,335,822       1,328,766       1,275,502       1,250,482       1,293,524  
    FHLB and other borrowings     48,767       53,046       92,050       131,330       74,716  
    Subordinated debentures     21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651  
    Repurchase agreements     6,256       13,808       9,528       8,745       15,895  
    Accrued interest and other liabilities     23,442       20,656       25,229       20,292       20,760  
    Total liabilities     1,435,938       1,437,927       1,423,960       1,432,500       1,426,546  
    Stockholders’ equity:                                        
    Common stock     58       58       55       55       55  
    Additional paid-in capital     95,148       95,051       89,532       89,469       89,364  
    Retained earnings     60,422       56,934       60,549       57,774       55,912  
    Treasury stock, at cost     –       –       (396 )     (330 )     (249 )
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (12,977 )     (15,828 )     (10,049 )     (18,714 )     (18,411 )
    Total stockholders’ equity     142,651       136,215       139,691       128,254       126,671  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity   $ 1,578,589     $ 1,574,142     $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,553,217  
    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES  
    Consolidated Statements of Earnings (unaudited)  
       
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   Three months ended,  
        March 31,     December 31,     March 31,  
        2025     2024     2024  
    Interest income:                        
    Loans   $ 16,395     $ 15,955     $ 14,490  
    Investment securities:                        
    Taxable     2,180       2,210       2,428  
    Tax-exempt     719       738       764  
    Interest-bearing deposits at banks     48       49       63  
    Total interest income     19,342       18,952       17,745  
    Interest expense:                        
    Deposits     5,236       5,350       5,457  
    FHLB and other borrowings     565       737       1,022  
    Subordinated debentures     357       389       412  
    Repurchase agreements     65       77       107  
    Total interest expense     6,223       6,553       6,998  
    Net interest income     13,119       12,399       10,747  
    Provision for credit losses     –       1,500       300  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     13,119       10,899       10,447  
    Non-interest income:                        
    Fees and service charges     2,388       2,710       2,461  
    Gains on sales of loans, net     562       522       512  
    Bank owned life insurance     272       976       245  
    Losses on sales of investment securities, net     (2 )     (1,031 )     –  
    Other     138       194       182  
    Total non-interest income     3,358       3,371       3,400  
    Non-interest expense:                        
    Compensation and benefits     6,154       6,264       5,532  
    Occupancy and equipment     1,252       1,550       1,390  
    Data processing     396       452       481  
    Amortization of mortgage servicing rights and other intangibles     239       240       412  
    Professional fees     745       1,043       647  
    Valuation allowance on real estate held for sale     –       –       129  
    Other     1,975       2,325       1,960  
    Total non-interest expense     10,761       11,874       10,551  
    Earnings before income taxes     5,716       2,396       3,296  
    Income tax expense (benefit)     1,015       (886 )     518  
    Net earnings   $ 4,701     $ 3,282     $ 2,778  
                             
    Net earnings per share (1)                        
     Basic   $ 0.81     $ 0.57     $ 0.48  
     Diluted     0.81       0.57       0.48  
    Dividends per share (1)     0.21       0.20       0.20  
    Shares outstanding at end of period (1)     5,778,610       5,775,198       5,747,560  
    Weighted average common shares outstanding – basic (1)     5,777,593       5,775,227       5,743,452  
    Weighted average common shares outstanding – diluted (1)     5,814,650       5,789,764       5,748,595  
                             
    Tax equivalent net interest income   $ 13,291     $ 12,574     $ 10,925  
                             
    (1) Share and per share values at or for the periods ended March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2024 have been adjusted to give effect to the 5% stock dividend paid during December 2024.
    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Select Ratios and Other Data (unaudited)
                 
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   As of or for the
    three months ended,
        March 31,   December 31,   March 31,
        2025   2024   2024
    Performance ratios:                        
    Return on average assets (1)     1.21 %     0.83 %     0.72 %
    Return on average equity (1)     13.71 %     9.54 %     8.88 %
    Net interest margin (1)(2)     3.76 %     3.51 %     3.12 %
    Effective tax rate     17.8 %     -37.0 %     15.7 %
    Efficiency ratio (3)     64.1 %     70.8 %     72.1 %
    Non-interest income to total income (3)     20.4 %     25.0 %     24.1 %
                             
    Average balances:                        
    Investment securities   $ 377,845     $ 409,648     $ 456,933  
    Loans     1,048,585       1,010,153       945,737  
    Assets     1,574,295       1,568,821       1,555,662  
    Interest-bearing deposits     979,787       944,969       935,417  
    FHLB and other borrowings     48,428       57,507       72,618  
    Subordinated debentures     21,651       21,651       21,651  
    Repurchase agreements     8,634       12,212       14,371  
    Stockholders’ equity   $ 139,068     $ 136,933     $ 125,846  
                             
    Average tax equivalent yield/cost (1):                        
    Investment securities     3.29 %     3.03 %     2.96 %
    Loans     6.34 %     6.28 %     6.16 %
    Total interest-bearing assets     5.53 %     5.34 %     5.11 %
    Interest-bearing deposits     2.17 %     2.25 %     2.35 %
    FHLB and other borrowings     4.73 %     5.10 %     5.66 %
    Subordinated debentures     6.69 %     7.15 %     7.65 %
    Repurchase agreements     3.05 %     2.51 %     2.99 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities     2.38 %     2.52 %     2.70 %
                             
    Capital ratios:                        
    Equity to total assets     9.04 %     8.65 %     8.16 %
    Tangible equity to tangible assets (3)     6.99 %     6.58 %     6.01 %
    Book value per share   $ 24.69     $ 23.59     $ 22.04  
    Tangible book value per share (3)   $ 18.66     $ 17.53     $ 15.87  
                             
    Rollforward of allowance for credit losses (loans):                        
    Beginning balance   $ 12,825     $ 11,544     $ 10,608  
    Charge-offs     (108 )     (246 )     (141 )
    Recoveries     85       27       134  
    Provision for credit losses for loans     —       1,500       250  
    Ending balance   $ 12,802     $ 12,825     $ 10,851  
                             
    Allowance for unfunded loan commitments   $ 150     $ 150     $ 300  
                             
    Non-performing assets:                        
    Non-accrual loans   $ 13,280     $ 13,115     $ 3,621  
    Accruing loans over 90 days past due     —       —       —  
    Real estate owned     167       167       428  
     Total non-performing assets   $ 13,447     $ 13,282     $ 4,049  
                             
    Loans 30-89 days delinquent   $ 9,977     $ 6,201     $ 4,064  
                             
    Other ratios:                        
    Loans to deposits     79.48 %     78.21 %     73.64 %
    Loans 30-89 days delinquent and still accruing to gross loans outstanding     0.93 %     0.59 %     0.42 %
    Total non-performing loans to gross loans outstanding     1.24 %     1.25 %     0.38 %
    Total non-performing assets to total assets     0.85 %     0.84 %     0.26 %
    Allowance for credit losses to gross loans outstanding     1.19 %     1.22 %     1.13 %
    Allowance for credit losses to total non-performing loans     96.40 %     97.79 %     299.67 %
    Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1)     0.01 %     0.09 %     0.00 %
                             
    (1) Information is annualized.  
    (2) Net interest margin is presented on a fully tax equivalent basis, using a 21% federal tax rate.
    (3) Non-GAAP financial measures. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP equivalent.
    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Non-GAAP Finacials Measures (unaudited)
                 
    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   As of or for the
    three months ended,
        March 31,   December 31,   March 31,
        2025   2024   2024
                 
    Non-GAAP financial ratio reconciliation:                        
    Total non-interest expense   $ 10,761     $ 11,874     $ 10,551  
    Less: foreclosure and real estate owned expense     (50 )     (13 )     (50 )
    Less: amortization of other intangibles     (152 )     (151 )     (170 )
    Less: valuation allowance on real estate held for sale     —       —       (129 )
    Adjusted non-interest expense (A)     10,559       11,710       10,202  
                             
    Net interest income (B)     13,119       12,399       10,747  
                             
    Non-interest income     3,358       3,371       3,400  
    Less: losses on sales of investment securities, net     2       1,031       —  
    Less: gains on sales of premises and equipment and foreclosed assets     —       (273 )     9  
    Adjusted non-interest income (C)   $ 3,360     $ 4,129     $ 3,409  
                             
    Efficiency ratio (A/(B+C))     64.1 %     70.8 %     72.1 %
    Non-interest income to total income (C/(B+C))     20.4 %     25.0 %     24.1 %
                             
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 142,651     $ 136,215     $ 126,671  
    Less: goodwill and other intangible assets     (34,803 )     (34,955 )     (35,448 )
    Tangible equity (D)   $ 107,848     $ 101,260     $ 91,223  
                             
    Total assets   $ 1,578,589     $ 1,574,142     $ 1,553,217  
    Less: goodwill and other intangible assets     (34,803 )     (34,955 )     (35,448 )
    Tangible assets (E)   $ 1,543,786     $ 1,539,187     $ 1,517,769  
                             
    Tangible equity to tangible assets (D/E)     6.99 %     6.58 %     6.01 %
                             
    Shares outstanding at end of period (F)     5,778,610       5,775,198       5,747,560  
                             
    Tangible book value per share (D/F)   $ 18.66     $ 17.53     $ 15.87  

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Ansys Announces Q1 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    / Q1 2025 Results

    • Revenue of $504.9 million
    • GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.59 and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $1.64
    • GAAP operating profit margin of 11.7% and non-GAAP operating profit margin of 33.5%
    • Operating cash flows of $398.9 million and unlevered operating cash flows of $407.1 million
    • Annual contract value (ACV) of $410.1 million
    • Deferred revenue and backlog of $1,627.7 million on March 31, 2025

    PITTSBURGH, April 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ANSYS, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANSS) today reported first quarter 2025 revenue of $504.9 million, an increase of 8% in reported currency, or 10% in constant currency, when compared to the first quarter of 2024. For the first quarter of 2025, the Company reported diluted earnings per share of $0.59 and $1.64 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, compared to $0.40 and $1.39 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, for the first quarter of 2024. Additionally, the Company reported first quarter ACV growth of 1% in reported currency, or 2% in constant currency, when compared to the first quarter of 2024. The results for the first quarter met the Company’s expectations and it continues to expect double-digit FY 2025 ACV growth.

    As previously announced, on January 15, 2024, Ansys entered into a definitive agreement with Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) under which Synopsys will acquire Ansys. Since the Company’s last earnings release, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority has formally cleared the transaction in Phase 1 subject to previously announced divestitures. Additionally, Ansys and Synopsys have received clearances from the Turkey Competition Authority, Japan Fair Trade Commission, Korea Fair Trade Commission and Taiwan Fair Trade Commission. We continue to work with the regulators in other relevant jurisdictions to conclude their reviews. The transaction is anticipated to close in the first half of 2025, subject to the receipt of required regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. As previously announced, in light of the pending transaction with Synopsys, Ansys has suspended quarterly earnings conference calls and no longer provides quarterly or annual guidance.

    The non-GAAP financial results highlighted represent non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these measures to the comparable GAAP measures can be found later in this release.

    / Summary of Financial Results

    Ansys’ first quarter 2025 and 2024 financial results are presented below. The 2025 and 2024 non-GAAP results exclude the income statement effects of stock-based compensation, excess payroll taxes related to stock-based compensation, amortization of acquired intangible assets, expenses related to business combinations and adjustments for the income tax effect of the excluded items.

    Our results are as follows:

      GAAP
    (in thousands, except per share data and percentages) Q1 2025   Q1 2024   % Change
    Revenue $   504,891     $   466,605     8.2 %
    Net income $     51,865     $     34,778     49.1 %
    Diluted earnings per share $        0.59        $        0.40        47.5 %
    Gross margin   85.6 %     85.3 %    
    Operating profit margin   11.7 %     9.3 %    
    Effective tax rate   19.6 %     15.1 %    
                       
      Non-GAAP
    (in thousands, except per share data and percentages) Q1 2025   Q1 2024   % Change
    Net income $   144,149     $   121,996     18.2 %
    Diluted earnings per share $        1.64        $        1.39        18.0 %
    Gross margin   91.2 %     90.9 %    
    Operating profit margin   33.5 %     32.2 %    
    Effective tax rate   17.5 %     17.5 %    
                       
      Other Metrics
    (in thousands, except percentages) Q1 2025   Q1 2024   % Change
    ACV $   410,068   $   407,405   0.7 %
    Operating cash flows $   398,935   $   282,817   41.1 %
    Unlevered operating cash flows $   407,128   $   292,667   39.1 %
                     
    Supplemental Financial Information

    / Annual Contract Value

    (in thousands, except percentages) Q1 2025   Q1 2025 in
    Constant Currency    		   Q1 2024   % Change   % Change in
    Constant Currency
    ACV $        410,068   $         416,640   $        407,405   0.7 %   2.3 %
                                 

    Recurring ACV includes both subscription lease ACV and all maintenance ACV (including maintenance from perpetual licenses). It excludes perpetual license ACV and service ACV.

     

    / Revenue

    (in thousands, except percentages) Q1 2025   Q1 2025 in
    Constant Currency    		   Q1 2024   % Change   % Change in
    Constant Currency
    Revenue $        504,891   $         512,570   $        466,605   8.2 %   9.9 %
                                 
    REVENUE BY LICENSE TYPE
                           
    (in thousands, except percentages) Q1 2025   % of Total   Q1 2024   % of Total   % Change   % Change in
    Constant Currency
    Subscription Lease $          96,919   19.2 %   $          94,800   20.3 %   2.2 %   4.0 %
    Perpetual              63,036   12.5 %                65,521   14.0 %   (3.8)%   (2.9)%
    Maintenance1            324,392   64.2 %              289,340   62.0 %   12.1 %   13.9 %
    Service              20,544   4.1 %                16,944   3.6 %   21.2 %   22.5 %
    Total $        504,891       $        466,605       8.2 %   9.9 %
                           

    1Maintenance revenue is inclusive of both maintenance associated with perpetual licenses and the maintenance component of subscription leases.

    REVENUE BY GEOGRAPHY
                           
    (in thousands, except percentages) Q1 2025   % of Total   Q1 2024   % of Total   % Change   % Change in
    Constant Currency
    Americas $        230,377   45.6 %   $        208,697   44.7 %   10.4 %   10.5 %
                           
    Germany              35,021   6.9 %                36,198   7.8 %   (3.3)%   (0.4)%
    Other EMEA              83,839   16.6 %                82,417   17.7 %   1.7 %   3.9 %
    EMEA            118,860   23.5 %              118,615   25.4 %   0.2 %   2.6 %
                           
    Japan              43,297   8.6 %                36,532   7.8 %   18.5 %   20.9 %
    Other Asia-Pacific            112,357   22.3 %              102,761   22.0 %   9.3 %   12.9 %
    Asia-Pacific            155,654   30.8 %              139,293   29.9 %   11.7 %   15.0 %
                           
    Total $        504,891       $        466,605       8.2 %   9.9 %
                                   
    REVENUE BY CHANNEL
           
      Q1 2025   Q1 2024
    Direct revenue, as a percentage of total revenue 69.1 %   66.5 %
    Indirect revenue, as a percentage of total revenue 30.9 %   33.5 %
               

    / Deferred Revenue and Backlog

    (in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   December 31,
         2024    		   March 31,
    2024
    Current Deferred Revenue $            490,318   $            504,527   $            433,167
    Current Backlog                511,197                  524,617                  433,106
    Total Current Deferred Revenue and Backlog            1,001,515               1,029,144                  866,273
               
    Long-Term Deferred Revenue                  30,840                    31,778                    21,434
    Long-Term Backlog                595,388                  657,345                  481,746
    Total Long-Term Deferred Revenue and Backlog                626,228                  689,123                  503,180
               
    Total Deferred Revenue and Backlog $        1,627,743   $        1,718,267   $        1,369,453
                     

    / Currency

    The first quarter of 2025 revenue, operating income and ACV, as compared to the first quarter of 2024, were impacted by fluctuations in the exchange rates of foreign currencies against the U.S. Dollar. The currency fluctuation impacts on revenue, GAAP and non-GAAP operating income and ACV based on 2024 exchange rates are reflected in the tables below. Deferred revenue and backlog as of March 31, 2025, as compared to the balances at December 31, 2024, were also impacted by fluctuations in the exchange rates of foreign currencies against the U.S. Dollar. Amounts in brackets indicate an adverse impact from currency fluctuations.

    (in thousands) Q1 2025
    Revenue $          (7,679 )
    GAAP operating income $          (2,848 )
    Non-GAAP operating income $          (3,044 )
    ACV $          (6,572 )
    Deferred revenue and backlog $         19,166  
           

    The most meaningful currency impacts are typically attributable to U.S. Dollar exchange rate changes against the Euro and Japanese Yen. Historical exchange rates are reflected in the charts below.

      Period-End Exchange Rates
    As of EUR/USD   USD/JPY
    March 31, 2025                    1.08                       150
    December 31, 2024                    1.04                       157
    March 31, 2024                    1.08                       151
           
      Average Exchange Rates
    Three Months Ended EUR/USD   USD/JPY
    March 31, 2025                    1.05                       152
    March 31, 2024                    1.09                       148
           

    / GAAP Financial Statements

    ANSYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (Unaudited)
    (in thousands) March 31, 2025   December 31, 2024
    ASSETS:      
    Cash & short-term investments $                      1,828,559   $                      1,497,517
    Accounts receivable, net                              754,655                             1,022,850
    Goodwill                          3,799,809                             3,778,128
    Other intangibles, net                              694,235                                716,244
    Other assets                              903,755                             1,036,692
    Total assets $                      7,981,013   $                      8,051,431
    LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY:      
    Current deferred revenue $                          490,318   $                          504,527
    Long-term debt                              754,287                                754,208
    Other liabilities                              556,933                                706,256
    Stockholders’ equity                          6,179,475                             6,086,440
    Total liabilities & stockholders’ equity $                      7,981,013   $                      8,051,431
               
    ANSYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
    (Unaudited)
        Three Months Ended
    (in thousands, except per share data)   March 31,
    2025    		   March 31,
    2024
    Revenue:        
    Software licenses   $              159,955     $              160,321  
    Maintenance and service                     344,936                       306,284  
    Total revenue                     504,891                       466,605  
    Cost of sales:        
    Software licenses                         9,370                         10,044  
    Amortization                       23,429                         22,484  
    Maintenance and service                       39,770                         36,139  
    Total cost of sales                       72,569                         68,667  
    Gross profit                     432,322                       397,938  
    Operating expenses:        
    Selling, general and administrative                     230,415                       219,643  
    Research and development                     137,292                       128,811  
    Amortization                         5,722                           6,145  
    Total operating expenses                     373,429                       354,599  
    Operating income                       58,893                         43,339  
    Interest income                       16,743                         10,995  
    Interest expense                     (10,177 )                     (12,369 )
    Other expense, net                           (930 )                       (1,007 )
    Income before income tax provision                       64,529                         40,958  
    Income tax provision                       12,664                           6,180  
    Net income   $                51,865     $                34,778  
    Earnings per share – basic:        
    Earnings per share   $                     0.59     $                     0.40  
    Weighted average shares                       87,653                         87,067  
    Earnings per share – diluted:        
    Earnings per share   $                     0.59     $                     0.40  
    Weighted average shares                       88,127                         87,780  
                     

    / Glossary of Terms

    Annual Contract Value (ACV): ACV is a key performance metric and is useful to investors in assessing the strength and trajectory of our business. ACV is a supplemental metric to help evaluate the annual performance of the business. Over the life of the contract, ACV equals the total value realized from a customer. ACV is not impacted by the timing of license revenue recognition. ACV is used by management in financial and operational decision-making and in setting sales targets used for compensation. ACV is not a replacement for, and should be viewed independently of, GAAP revenue and deferred revenue as ACV is a performance metric and is not intended to be combined with any of these items. There is no GAAP measure comparable to ACV. ACV is composed of the following:

    • the annualized value of maintenance and subscription lease contracts with start dates or anniversary dates during the period, plus
    • the value of perpetual license contracts with start dates during the period, plus
    • the annualized value of fixed-term services contracts with start dates or anniversary dates during the period, plus
    • the value of work performed during the period on fixed-deliverable services contracts.

    When we refer to the anniversary dates in the definition of ACV above, we are referencing the date of the beginning of the next twelve-month period in a contractually committed multi-year contract. If a contract is three years in duration, with a start date of July 1, 2025, the anniversary dates would be July 1, 2026 and July 1, 2027. We label these anniversary dates as they are contractually committed. While this contract would be up for renewal on July 1, 2028, our ACV performance metric does not assume any contract renewals.

    Example 1: For purposes of calculating ACV, a $100,000 subscription lease contract or a $100,000 maintenance contract with a term of July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 would each contribute $100,000 to ACV for fiscal year 2025 with no contribution to ACV for fiscal year 2026.

    Example 2: For purposes of calculating ACV, a $300,000 subscription lease contract or a $300,000 maintenance contract with a term of July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2028 would each contribute $100,000 to ACV in each of fiscal years 2025, 2026 and 2027. There would be no contribution to ACV for fiscal year 2028 as each period captures the full annual value upon the anniversary date.

    Example 3: A perpetual license valued at $200,000 with a contract start date of March 1, 2025 would contribute $200,000 to ACV in fiscal year 2025.

    Backlog: Deferred revenue associated with installment billings for periods beyond the current quarterly billing cycle and committed contracts with start dates beyond the end of the current period.

    Deferred Revenue: Billings made or payments received in advance of revenue recognition.

    Subscription Lease or Time-Based License: A license of a stated product of our software that is granted to a customer for use over a specified time period, which can be months or years in length. In addition to the use of the software, the customer is provided with access to maintenance (unspecified version upgrades and technical support) without additional charge. The revenue related to these contracts is recognized ratably over the contract period for the maintenance portion and up front for the license portion.

    Perpetual / Paid-Up License: A license of a stated product and version of our software that is granted to a customer for use in perpetuity. The revenue related to this type of license is recognized up front.

    Maintenance: A contract, typically one year in duration, that is purchased by the owner of a perpetual license and that provides access to unspecified version upgrades and technical support during the duration of the contract. The revenue from these contracts is recognized ratably over the contract period.

    / Reconciliations of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures (Unaudited)

      Three Months Ended
      March 31, 2025
    (in thousands, except percentages and per share data) Gross Profit   % of Revenue   Operating Income   % of Revenue   Net Income   EPS – Diluted1
    Total GAAP $      432,322   85.6 %   $        58,893   11.7 %   $      51,865     $        0.59  
    Stock-based compensation expense               3,977   0.8 %              70,243   14.0 %             70,243                 0.80  
    Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards                  354   0.1 %                6,016   1.2 %               6,016                 0.07  
    Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions             23,429   4.6 %              29,151   5.7 %             29,151                 0.33  
    Expenses related to business combinations                  405   0.1 %                4,787   0.9 %               4,787                 0.05  
    Adjustment for income tax effect                     —   — %                      —   — %           (17,913 )             (0.20 )
    Total non-GAAP $      460,487   91.2 %   $      169,090   33.5 %   $    144,149     $        1.64  
                                           

    1 Diluted weighted average shares were 88,127.

      Three Months Ended
      March 31, 2024
    (in thousands, except percentages and per share data) Gross Profit   % of Revenue   Operating Income   % of Revenue   Net Income   EPS – Diluted1
    Total GAAP $      397,938   85.3 %   $       43,339   9.3 %   $      34,778     $        0.40  
    Stock-based compensation expense               3,343   0.7 %             58,664   12.7 %             58,664                 0.66  
    Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards                  378   0.1 %                5,362   1.1 %               5,362                 0.06  
    Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions             22,484   4.8 %             28,629   6.1 %             28,629                 0.33  
    Expenses related to business combinations                     —   — %             14,261   3.0 %             14,261                 0.16  
    Adjustment for income tax effect                     —   — %                      —   — %           (19,698 )             (0.22 )
    Total non-GAAP $      424,143   90.9 %   $     150,255   32.2 %   $    121,996     $        1.39  
                                           

    1 Diluted weighted average shares were 87,780.

      Three Months Ended
    (in thousands) March 31,
    2025    		   March 31,
    2024
    Net cash provided by operating activities $            398,935     $            282,817  
    Cash paid for interest                    9,931                      11,939  
    Tax benefit                   (1,738 )                     (2,089 )
    Unlevered operating cash flows $            407,128     $            292,667  
                   

    / Use of Non-GAAP Measures

    We provide non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP diluted earnings per share and unlevered operating cash flows as supplemental measures to GAAP regarding our operational performance. These financial measures exclude the impact of certain items and, therefore, have not been calculated in accordance with GAAP. A detailed explanation of each of the adjustments to these financial measures is described below. This press release also contains a reconciliation of each of these non-GAAP financial measures to its most comparable GAAP financial measure, as applicable.

    We use non-GAAP financial measures (a) to evaluate our historical and prospective financial performance as well as our performance relative to our competitors, (b) to set internal sales targets and spending budgets, (c) to allocate resources, (d) to measure operational profitability and the accuracy of forecasting, (e) to assess financial discipline over operational expenditures and (f) as an important factor in determining variable compensation for management and employees. In addition, many financial analysts that follow us focus on and publish both historical results and future projections based on non-GAAP financial measures. We believe that it is in the best interest of our investors to provide this information to analysts so that they accurately report the non-GAAP financial information. Moreover, investors have historically requested, and we have historically reported, these non-GAAP financial measures as a means of providing consistent and comparable information with past reports of financial results.

    While we believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide useful supplemental information to investors, there are limitations associated with the use of these non-GAAP financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures are not prepared in accordance with GAAP, are not reported by all our competitors and may not be directly comparable to similarly titled measures of our competitors due to potential differences in the exact method of calculation. We compensate for these limitations by using these non-GAAP financial measures as supplements to GAAP financial measures and by reviewing the reconciliations of the non-GAAP financial measures to their most comparable GAAP financial measures.

    The adjustments to these non-GAAP financial measures, and the basis for such adjustments, are outlined below:

    Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions. We incur amortization of intangible assets, included in our GAAP presentation of amortization expense, related to various acquisitions we have made. We exclude these expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance because these costs are fixed at the time of an acquisition, are then amortized over a period of several years after the acquisition and generally cannot be changed or influenced by us after the acquisition. Accordingly, we do not consider these expenses for purposes of evaluating our performance during the applicable time period after the acquisition, and we exclude such expenses when making decisions to allocate resources. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology and information used by us in our financial and operational decision-making, and (b) compare our past reports of financial results as we have historically reported these non-GAAP financial measures.

    Stock-based compensation expense. We incur expense related to stock-based compensation included in our GAAP presentation of cost of maintenance and service; research and development expense; and selling, general and administrative expense. We also incur excess payroll tax expense related to stock-based compensation, which is an additional non-GAAP adjustment. Although stock-based compensation is an expense and viewed as a form of compensation, we exclude these expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance. Specifically, we exclude stock-based compensation during our annual budgeting process and our quarterly and annual assessments of our performance. The annual budgeting process is the primary mechanism whereby we allocate resources to various initiatives and operational requirements. Additionally, the annual review by our Board of Directors during which it compares our historical business model and profitability to the planned business model and profitability for the forthcoming year excludes the impact of stock-based compensation. In evaluating the performance of our senior management and department managers, charges related to stock-based compensation are excluded from expenditure and profitability results. In fact, we record stock-based compensation expense into a stand-alone cost center for which no single operational manager is responsible or accountable. In this way, we can review, on a period-to-period basis, each manager’s performance and assess financial discipline over operational expenditures without the effect of stock-based compensation. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate our operating results and the effectiveness of the methodology used by us to review our operating results, and (b) review historical comparability in our financial reporting as well as comparability with competitors’ operating results.

    Expenses related to business combinations. We incur expenses for professional services rendered in connection with acquisitions and divestitures, which are included in our GAAP presentation of selling, general and administrative expense. We also incur other expenses directly related to business combinations, including compensation expenses and concurrent restructuring activities, such as employee severances and other exit costs. These costs are included in our GAAP presentation of cost of maintenance and service, selling, general and administrative and research and development expenses. We exclude these acquisition-related expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance, as we generally would not have otherwise incurred these expenses in the periods presented as a part of our operations. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate our operating results and the effectiveness of the methodology used by us to review our operating results, and (b) review historical comparability in our financial reporting as well as comparability with competitors’ operating results.

    Non-GAAP tax provision. We utilize a normalized non-GAAP annual effective tax rate (AETR) to calculate non-GAAP measures. This methodology provides better consistency across interim reporting periods by eliminating the effects of non-recurring items and aligning the non-GAAP tax rate with our expected geographic earnings mix. To project this rate, we analyzed our historic and projected non-GAAP earnings mix by geography along with other factors such as our current tax structure, recurring tax credits and incentives, and expected tax positions. On an annual basis we re-evaluate and update this rate for significant items that may materially affect our projections.

    Unlevered operating cash flows. We make cash payments for the interest incurred in connection with our debt financing which are included in our GAAP presentation of operating cash flows. We exclude this cash paid for interest, net of the associated tax benefit, for the purpose of calculating unlevered operating cash flows. Unlevered operating cash flow is a supplemental non-GAAP measure that we use to evaluate our core operating business. We believe this measure is useful to investors and management because it provides a measure of our cash generated through operating activities independent of the capital structure of the business.

    Non-GAAP financial measures are not in accordance with, or an alternative for, GAAP. Our non-GAAP financial measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP financial measures and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP.
    We have provided a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures as listed below:

    GAAP Reporting Measure Non-GAAP Reporting Measure
    Gross Profit Non-GAAP Gross Profit
    Gross Profit Margin Non-GAAP Gross Profit Margin
    Operating Income Non-GAAP Operating Income
    Operating Profit Margin Non-GAAP Operating Profit Margin
    Net Income Non-GAAP Net Income
    Diluted Earnings Per Share Non-GAAP Diluted Earnings Per Share
    Operating Cash Flows Unlevered Operating Cash Flows
       

    Constant currency. In addition to the non-GAAP financial measures detailed above, we use constant currency results for financial and operational decision-making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons by excluding the effects of foreign currency fluctuations on the reported results. To present this information, the 2025 period results for entities whose functional currency is a currency other than the U.S. Dollar were converted to U.S. Dollars at rates that were in effect for the 2024 comparable period, rather than the actual exchange rates in effect for 2025. Constant currency growth rates are calculated by adjusting the 2025 period reported amounts by the 2025 currency fluctuation impacts and comparing the adjusted amounts to the 2024 comparable period reported amounts. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology and information used by us in our financial and operational decision-making, and (b) compare our reported results to our past reports of financial results without the effects of foreign currency fluctuations.

    / About Ansys

    Our Mission: Powering Innovation that Drives Human Advancement™

    When visionary companies need to know how their world-changing ideas will perform, they close the gap between design and reality with Ansys simulation. For more than 50 years, Ansys software has enabled innovators across industries to push boundaries by using the predictive power of simulation. From sustainable transportation to advanced semiconductors, from satellite systems to life-saving medical devices, the next great leaps in human advancement will be powered by Ansys.

    / Forward-Looking Information

    This document contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Forward-looking statements are statements that provide current expectations or forecasts of future events based on certain assumptions. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and factors relating to our business which could cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements.

    Forward-looking statements use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “intend,” “likely,” “may,” “outlook,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target” or other words of similar meaning. Forward-looking statements include those about the proposed transaction with Synopsys, including the expected date of closing and the potential benefits thereof, and other aspects of future operations. We caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law.

    The risks associated with the following, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in any forward-looking statements:

    • our ability to complete the proposed transaction with Synopsys on anticipated terms and timing, including completing the associated divestiture of our PowerArtist RTL business and obtaining regulatory approvals, and other conditions related to the completion of the transaction with Synopsys;
       
    • the realization of the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction with Synopsys, including potential disruptions to our and Synopsys’ businesses and commercial relationships with others resulting from the announcement, pendency or completion of the proposed transaction and uncertainty as to the long-term value of Synopsys’ common stock;
       
    • restrictions on our operations during the pendency of the proposed transaction with Synopsys that could impact our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic transactions, including tuck-in M&A;
       
    • adverse conditions in the macroeconomic environment, including inflation, recessionary conditions and volatility in equity and foreign exchange markets;
       
    • political, economic and regulatory uncertainties in the countries and regions in which we operate;
       
    • impacts from tariffs, trade sanctions, export controls or other trade barriers, including export control restrictions and licensing requirements for exports to China;
       
    • impacts resulting from the conflict between Israel and Hamas and other countries and groups in the Middle East, including impacts from changes to diplomatic relations and trade policy between the United States and other countries resulting from the conflict;
       
    • impacts from changes to diplomatic relations and trade policy between the United States and Russia or between the United States and other countries that may support Russia or take similar actions due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine;
       
    • constrained credit and liquidity due to disruptions in the global economy and financial markets, which may limit or delay availability of credit under our existing or new credit facilities, or which may limit our ability to obtain credit or financing on acceptable terms or at all;
       
    • our ability to timely recruit and retain key personnel in a highly competitive labor market, including potential financial impacts of wage inflation and potential impacts due to the proposed transaction with Synopsys;
       
    • our ability to protect our proprietary technology; cybersecurity threats or other security breaches, including in relation to breaches occurring through our products and an increased level of our activity that is occurring from remote global off-site locations; and disclosure or misuse of employee or customer data whether as a result of a cybersecurity incident or otherwise;
       
    • volatility in our revenue due to the timing, duration and value of multi-year subscription lease contracts; and our reliance on high renewal rates for annual subscription lease and maintenance contracts;
       
    • declines in our customers’ businesses resulting in adverse changes in procurement patterns; disruptions in accounts receivable and cash flow due to customers’ liquidity challenges and commercial deterioration; uncertainties regarding demand for our products and services in the future and our customers’ acceptance of new products; delays or declines in anticipated sales due to reduced or altered sales and marketing interactions with customers; and potential variations in our sales forecast compared to actual sales;
       
    • our ability and our channel partners’ ability to comply with laws and regulations in relevant jurisdictions; and the outcome of contingencies, including legal proceedings, government or regulatory investigations and tax audit cases;
       
    • uncertainty regarding income tax estimates in the jurisdictions in which we operate; and the effect of changes in tax laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate;
       
    • the quality of our products, including the strength of features, functionality and integrated multiphysics capabilities; our ability to develop and market new products to address the industry’s rapidly changing technology, including the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in our products as well as the products of our competitors; failures or errors in our products and services; and increased pricing pressure as a result of the competitive environment in which we operate;
       
    • investments in complementary companies, products, services and technologies; our ability to complete and successfully integrate our acquisitions and realize the financial and business benefits of such transactions; and the impact indebtedness incurred in connection with any acquisition could have on our operations;
       
    • investments in global sales and marketing organizations and global business infrastructure, and dependence on our channel partners for the distribution of our products;
       
    • current and potential future impacts of any global health crisis, natural disaster or catastrophe; the actions taken to address these events by our customers, our suppliers, and regulatory authorities; the resulting effects on our business, the global economy and our consolidated financial statements; and other public health and safety risks and related government actions or mandates;
       
    • operational disruptions generally or specifically in connection with transitions to and from remote work environments; and the failure of our technological infrastructure or those of the service providers upon whom we rely including for infrastructure and cloud services;
       
    • our intention to repatriate previously taxed earnings and to reinvest all other earnings of our non-U.S. subsidiaries;
       
    • plans for future capital spending and the extent of corporate benefits from such spending; and higher than anticipated costs for research and development or a slowdown in our research and development activities;
       
    • our ability to execute on our strategies related to environmental, social and governance matters, and meet evolving and varied expectations, including as a result of evolving regulatory and other standards, processes and assumptions, the pace of scientific and technological developments, increased costs and the availability of requisite financing, and changes in carbon markets; and
       
    • other risks and uncertainties described in our reports filed from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC).  

    Ansys and any and all ANSYS, Inc. brand, product, service and feature names, logos and slogans are registered trademarks or trademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States or other countries. All other brand, product, service and feature names or trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

    Visit https://investors.ansys.com for more information.

    ANSS-F

    Photos accompanying this announcement are available at
    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/555457d0-68c2-4e39-9654-7433c0575e9e

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/f9600ece-a84c-4586-bb8a-98965ce32a1c

    https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/131c8a8b-e47c-4724-bdab-f0846535f0df

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Ukrainian Men Charged with Illegal Entry

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Burlington, Vermont – The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont stated that Mykhailo Ivanchyn, age 21, and Ihor Zelskyi, age 27, of the Ukraine, have been charged by criminal complaint with illegally entering the United States.

    On April 29, 2025, Ivanchyn and Zelskyi appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Kevin J. Doyle, who ordered that they be held in custody pending their detention hearings.  Ivanchyn’s detention hearing is scheduled for May 2, 2025.  Zelskyi’s detention hearing is scheduled for May 5, 2025.

    According to court records, at approximately 12:30 a.m. on April 28, 2025, United States Border Patrol agents were alerted of at least two individuals wearing backpacks and walking south near the international border between the United States and Canada along the Sutton River in Franklin County, Vermont. Border Patrol agents responded and apprehended Ivanchyn and Zelskyi, who were wearing backpacks and water waders. Neither defendant had legal status in the United States or authorization to reside in the United States.

    The United States Attorney’s Office emphasizes that the complaint contains allegations only and that Ivanchyn and Zelskyi are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. The defendants face up to 6 months’ imprisonment if convicted. The actual sentence, however, would be determined by the Court with guidance from the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory sentencing factors.

    Acting United States Attorney Michael P. Drescher commended the investigatory efforts of the United States Border Patrol.

    The prosecutor is Assistant United States Attorney Nicole Cate. Ivanchyn is represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender Barclay Johnson.  Zelskyi is represented by Rick Bothfeld, Esq.

    This case is part of Operation Take Back America a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australian election. Will it prove decisive?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

    Donald Trump is everywhere, inescapable. His return to power in the United States was always going to have some impact on the Australian federal election. The question was how disruptive he would be.

    The answer is very – but not in the ways we might have thought.

    As soon as Trump was elected president, the political debate in Australia focused on whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would be best suited to managing him – and keeping the US-Australia security alliance intact.

    Initially, at least, this conversation was predictable.

    The Coalition looked set to continue an ideological alignment with Trumpism that had flourished under the prime ministership of Scott Morrison. Dutton prosecuted the argument that given his party’s experience with the first Trump administration, it would be better placed than Labor to handle the second.

    Albanese, meanwhile, appeared caught off guard by Trump’s victory and timid in his response.

    But as has become all too clear, the second Trump administration is radically different from the first. That has rattled the right of Australian politics and worked to Labor’s advantage.

    A turning point at the White House

    In January, the Coalition announced that NT Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price had been appointed shadow minister for government efficiency – a direct importation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being led by Elon Musk in the US.

    In a barely disguised imitation of the Trump administration’s attacks on “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) measures, members of the Coalition, including Price, singled out Welcome to Country ceremonies as evidence of the kind of “wasteful” spending it would cut.

    When the Coalition seemed to be riding high in the polls, Dutton, too, nodded at “wokeism” and singled out young white men feeling “disenfranchised”.

    Soon after, however, this began to change. The first few weeks of Trump’s second term were marked by a cascade of executive actions targeting trans people, climate action and immigration. Trump and his new appointees began the process of radically reshaping the United States and its role in the world.

    In February, polling by the independent think tank The Australia Institute found Australians saw Trump as a bigger threat to world peace than Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

    And then Volodymyr Zelensky went to the White House.

    The Ukrainian president was humiliated in an Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance, laying bare how the administration was willing to treat the leader of an ally devastated by a war it hadn’t started.

    Trump’s territorial threats towards Canada and Greenland, in addition to his dismissive statements about European allies, shattered the long-held assumptions about the US as a force for stability in the world.

    MAGA ideology isn’t ‘pick and choose’

    After this incident, Dutton was careful to distance himself from Trump’s abandonment of Ukraine. He even went so far as to say that leadership might require “standing up to your friends and to those traditional allies because our views have diverged”.

    Similarly, influential Coalition powerbroker Peta Credlin wrote in The Australian:

    it’s hard to see America made great again if the Trump administration’s message to the world is that the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

    Therein lies the bind for the Coalition – an ideological alignment with “Make America Great Again” cannot be fully reconciled with a nationalism that puts Australian interests first.

    MAGA ideology is all-or-nothing, not pick-and-choose.

    During the election campaign, the Coalition attempted to walk the path of “pick-and-choose”. And Labor quite successfully used this against them. Assertions the opposition leader was nothing but a “Temu Trump”, or “DOGE-y Dutton”, stuck because they had at least a ring of truth to them.

    The opposition’s pledge to dramatically reduce the size of the public service, for example, was clearly linked to Musk’s efforts at DOGE to take a chainsaw to the public service in the US. This idea has been deeply unpopular with Australian voters, and the Coalition has faced innumerable questions about it.

    For all the talk of “shared values” and how essential the US alliance is to Australian security, this campaign shows that Australia is not like America.

    Most Australians concerned about Trump’s impact

    When Trump’s tariffs arrived on “Liberation Day” in early April, both leaders claimed they were best placed to negotiate.

    Albanese insisted Australia had got one of the best results in the world, while Dutton asserted, without evidence, that he would be able to negotiate a better one.

    More broadly, the Trump tariffs have contributed to a growing sense of unease in the electorate.

    A recent YouGov poll found that 66% of Australians no longer believe the US can be relied on for defence and security. According to Paul Smith, the director of YouGov, this is a “fundamental change of worldview”.

    In the same poll, 71% of Australians also said they were either concerned or very concerned Trump’s policies would make Australia worse off.

    While neither party has signalled it would make a fundamental shift in Australia’s alliance with the US if elected, that doesn’t mean changes aren’t possible.

    Independents and minor parties may well play a significant role in the formation of the next government. Some, like Zoe Daniel and Jacqui Lambie, are increasingly vocal about the risks the Trump administration poses to Australia.

    A limit to Trumpism’s appeal

    As election day approaches, many of the assumptions driving conventional Australian political thinking are under pressure.

    Labor’s recovery in the polls, and the Liberals’ election win in Canada, suggest assumptions about the dangers of incumbency might have been misplaced. The dissatisfaction with incumbent governments last year may have had more to do with unresponsive political parties and systems.

    There’s evidence emerging, instead, that in more responsive democracies with robust institutions like Australia and Canada, Trumpism does not have great appeal.

    The idea that “kindness is not a weakness” may yet prove to be a winning political strategy.

    Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

    – ref. Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australian election. Will it prove decisive? – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-has-cast-a-long-shadow-over-the-australian-election-will-it-prove-decisive-255422

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Update 289 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    Ukrainian engineers and construction workers are carrying out temporary repairs of the Chornobyl site’s New Safe Confinement (NSC) that was severely damaged in a drone attack earlier this year, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said today.

    The drone strike on 14 February pierced a big hole through the roof of the large confinement structure built to prevent any radioactive release from the reactor destroyed in the 1986 accident and protect it from external hazards. It took several weeks to completely extinguish the fires and smouldering caused by this strike.

    The IAEA team based at the Chornobyl plant in northern Ukraine visited the NSC in recent days to discuss ongoing efforts by the site to assess the building’s structural integrity following the attack almost three months ago and to observe repairs of the inner and outer cladding to prevent water ingress.

    “Immediately after the drone strike Ukrainian emergency personnel rushed to contain and eventually put out the fires. The site is now focusing its efforts on assessing the full extent of the damage while also carrying out short-term repairs. It is clear that the confinement structure – constructed at huge expense and with major international support – suffered extensive damage,” Director General Grossi said.

    The Director General reiterated, however, that there has not been any radioactive release as a result of the damage, and that the NSC is able to continue to perform its protective function.

    At Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), the IAEA team has continued to hear explosions in the distance every day over the past week, a constant reminder of the potential dangers facing nuclear safety and security.

    The IAEA team has conducted walkdowns across the site to observe site activities, visiting all Emergency Control Rooms of the six reactors, the safety systems of unit 4, and the two fresh fuel storage facilities.

    At Ukraine’s three operating nuclear power plants (NPPs) – Khmelnytskyy, Rivne and South Ukraine – three of their total of nine reactors remained shutdown for maintenance and refuelling outages.  

    At the South Ukraine NPP, the IAEA team reported about many air raid alarms over the past week. The team was informed by the site that six drones were detected at a distance of 1.5 km from the plant in the night of 25 April, coinciding with the sound of military activity that appeared to be coming from an attempt to shoot them down.

    At the Khmelnytskyy NPP, the IAEA team members were required to shelter on the morning of 30 April due to an air raid alert.

    As part of the IAEA’s medical assistance programme for Ukraine, 200 boxes of influenza medication were delivered to the National Research Centre for Radiation Medicine of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine (NRCRM), funded by Japan.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Microsoft announces new European digital commitments

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: Microsoft announces new European digital commitments

    Includes datacenter operations in 16 countries and Digital Resilience Commitment.

    Forty-two years ago, Microsoft released the very first version of Microsoft Word. It was a major milestone in the company’s journey to enhance people’s productivity through innovation. It also marked the young and growing company’s first big step in Europe with the first Microsoft product localized in multiple European languages, starting with German and French.

    Since then, our economic reliance on Europe has always run deep. We recognize that our business is critically dependent on sustaining the trust of customers, countries, and governments across Europe. We respect European values, comply with European laws, and actively defend Europe’s cybersecurity. Our support for Europe has always been–and always will be–steadfast.

    In a time of geopolitical volatility, we are committed to providing digital stability. That is why today Microsoft is announcing five digital commitments to Europe. These start with an expansion of our cloud and AI infrastructure in Europe, aimed at enabling every country to fully use these technologies to strengthen their economic competitiveness. And they include a promise to uphold Europe’s digital resilience regardless of geopolitical and trade volatility.

    As a multinational company, we believe in trans-Atlantic ties that promote mutual economic growth and prosperity. ​We were pleased the Trump administration and the European Union recently agreed to suspend further tariff escalation while they seek to negotiate a reciprocal trade agreement. We hope that successful talks can resolve tariff issues and reduce non-tariff barriers, consistent with the recommendations in the recent Draghi report.

    We will always be dedicated to creating jobs, promoting economic opportunities, and strengthening cybersecurity on both sides of the Atlantic. The five commitments below, like the very first European version of Microsoft Word, take our support for Europe another step forward.

    1. We will help build a broad AI and cloud ecosystem across Europe

    We recognize that European nations want and need a world class and broad AI and cloud ecosystem. Today, we are announcing plans to increase our European datacenter capacity by 40% over the next two years. We are expanding datacenter operations in 16 European countries. When combined with our recent construction, the plans we’re announcing today will more than double our European datacenter capacity between 2023 and 2027. It will result in cloud operations in more than 200 datacenters across the continent.

    This expansion will play an important role in boosting Europe’s economic growth and competitiveness. We believe that broad AI diffusion will be one of the most important drivers of innovation and productivity growth over the next decade. Like electricity and other general-purpose technologies in the past, AI and cloud datacenters represent the next stage of industrialization. They are creating real-world capabilities to fuel business and manufacturing innovation, run national health systems, enable secure government services, and support digital tools in education—all while keeping data and operations close to home, subject to European laws and regulations.

    Public cloud datacenters

    Our public cloud datacenters are a foundation for the diversified cloud ecosystem we are committed to supporting across Europe. This includes the Microsoft Cloud for Sovereignty, a package of technologies and configurations to help governments and other customers run on Azure in our public cloud datacenters with greater control over data location, encryption, and administrative access.

    Sovereign cloud datacenters

    A second aspect of our diversified approach involves sovereign cloud datacenters. In France, Microsoft has partnered with Capgemini and Orange, who formed a joint venture named Bleu. Designed as a “cloud de confiance” (trusted cloud) platform, Bleu offers a broad range of Microsoft Azure cloud services and Microsoft 365 productivity tools operated under French control. In Germany, a similar sovereign cloud initiative is underway through a partnership between Microsoft, SAP, and Arvato Systems (a Bertelsmann IT subsidiary). This effort, through SAP’s subsidiary, Delos Cloud GmbH, is creating a sovereign cloud platform for the German public sector, hosted in German datacenters and operated by German personnel.

    Support for European cloud providers

    A third aspect of our work involves our collaboration with European cloud providers to offer Microsoft applications and services on their local cloud infrastructure. This partnership provides these European providers with the opportunity to run Microsoft applications on more favorable terms than we make available to Amazon and Google. Additionally, we are developing new technology and licensing solutions tailored for these European providers and the markets they serve.

    Emerging options

    Given recent geopolitical volatility, we recognize that European governments likely will consider additional options. Some of these may involve public financing to support European home-grown offerings. We recognize the importance of a diversified technology ecosystem, and we are committed to collaborating with European participants across the tech ecosystem.

    Respect for European laws

    Microsoft is investing tens of billions of dollars annually in expanding its datacenters across Europe. These investments aren’t on wheels. They are permanent structures and subject to local laws, regulations, and governments. Like every citizen and company, we don’t always agree with every policy of every government. But even when we’ve lost cases in European courts, Microsoft has long respected and complied with European laws.

    We understand that European laws apply to our business practices in Europe, just as local laws apply to local practices in the United States and similar laws apply elsewhere in the world. This includes European competition law and the Digital Markets Act, among others. We’re committed not only to building digital infrastructure for Europe, but to respecting the role that laws across Europe play in regulating our products and services.

    2. We will uphold Europe’s digital resilience even when there is geopolitical volatility

    By building a European cloud for Europe, Microsoft is committed to helping Europe navigate the uncertain geopolitical and trade environment and better manage risk by strengthening the continent’s digital resilience. We will always strive to be a voice of reason that promotes mutual opportunities and stable ties across the Atlantic. We in fact believe that even amidst current trade and tariff disputes, there is a strong consensus in Washington supporting the sustained flow of digital services from the United States to Europe.

    We also are listening closely to the views of European governments and leaders. We recognize that European countries, like nations everywhere, need to have rock-solid confidence in the digital infrastructure on which they rely. To ensure this confidence, we will take the following three steps:

    A European cloud for Europe

    Microsoft is headquartered in the United States, but we provide cloud services to Europe through corporate entities headquartered in Europe. To further cement the nexus between Microsoft and Europe, going forward our European datacenter operations and their boards will be overseen by a European board of directors that consists exclusively of European nationals and operates under European law.

    A Digital Resilience Commitment

    In the unlikely event we are ever ordered by any government anywhere in the world to suspend or cease cloud operations in Europe, we are committing that Microsoft will promptly and vigorously contest such a measure using all legal avenues available, including by pursuing litigation in court. By including a new European Digital Resilience Commitment in all of our contracts with European national governments and the European Commission, we will make this commitment legally binding on Microsoft Corporation and all its subsidiaries.

    Microsoft has a demonstrated history of pursuing litigation when that has been needed to protect the rights of our customers and other stakeholders. This includes four lawsuits we filed against the U.S. Executive Branch during President Obama’s tenure, including to protect the privacy of our customers’ data in the United States and Europe. It also included, during President Trump’s first term, a successful decision before the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the rights of employees who are immigrants. When necessary, we’re prepared to go to court.

    We are confident of our legal rights to ensure continuous operation of our datacenters in Europe. And we are prepared to back this confidence with our contractual commitments to European governments.

    Business continuity partnerships

    Finally, we will designate and rely upon European partners with contingency arrangements for operational continuity in the unlikely event Microsoft were ever required by a court to suspend services. We are already enabling our partners in France and Germany to do this for the Bleu and Delos datacenters, and we will pursue arrangements for our public cloud datacenters in Europe. We will store back-up copies of our code in a secure repository in Switzerland, and we will provide our European partners with the legal rights needed to access and use this code if needed for this purpose.

    3. We will continue to protect the privacy of European data

    Microsoft has long been at the forefront in designing and implementing technology solutions to protect customer data. We enable customers to control where their data is stored and processed, how it is encrypted and secured, and when Microsoft can access it. We offer customers robust capabilities across the entire cloud stack from infrastructure to platform to software as a service, from Azure to Microsoft 365 to Dynamics 365. We back our technical solutions with strong contractual commitments and, as noted above, a demonstrated history of going to court on behalf of our customers.

    The EU data boundary project

    Reflecting our continuing commitment to innovation, we recently finished implementing our EU Data Boundary project. This offers European customers the ability to have their data stored and processed in Europe. Since January 2024, our European commercial and public sector customers have been able to store and process their data and personal identifiers for Microsoft core cloud services—including Microsoft 365, Dynamics 365, Power Platform, and Azure services—within the EU and EFTA regions. Three months ago, Microsoft completed the project by extending the EU Data Boundary to include professional services data from technical support interactions. And, critically, we make these solutions available in all our European cloud regions and throughout our tech stack, from IaaS, to PaaS, to SaaS, including M365 Copilot.

    Additional security and encryption options

    In addition to the EU Data Boundary, we provide European customers with multiple options for securing and encrypting their data. Our Confidential Compute offerings in Azure eliminate the ability of third parties—including Microsoft—to access customer data by ensuring data is processed within a trusted environment the customer alone controls. We enable customers to create a “lockbox” around their data across Azure, Dynamics 365, and Microsoft 365 by giving them the ability to review and approve before Microsoft accesses their data for customer and service support operations. We also enable customers to secure their data with encryption keys that they, not Microsoft, control with Azure Key Vault and Microsoft Purview Customer Key. Our Microsoft Cloud for Sovereignty offers customers a range of other tools to secure data, protect against unauthorized access, and satisfy legal requirements.

    A strong legal track record

    In addition to technical measures, we will continue our fight to protect the rights of European customers. Microsoft has a strong track record of going to court in the rare instances that we need to protect European data from unauthorized access. We have consistently fought legal demands that conflict with European law and have taken our challenges all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 2018, as a direct result of litigation Microsoft brought on behalf of our European customers, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation that guarantees our right to object to U.S. law enforcement demands to access European data that conflict with EU law.

    We codified our promise to protect our European customers’ data with our Defending Your Data commitment, in which we agreed to challenge any government demand for EU public sector or enterprise customer data where we have a legal basis for doing so. We have included that commitment in our customer contracts and backed it up with a promise to compensate customers if we disclose their data in violation of EU law.

    New opportunities for innovation

    Today we commit to further strengthen and expand solutions that allow European customers to control and protect their data. We are embarking on new steps to listen to and consult with European customers to build on what already is the most complete, widest range of privacy, security, and sovereignty solutions that any cloud services provider now offers to customers in Europe. We look forward to sharing in the coming months the conclusions that emerge and the new steps we decide to take.

    For more details about Microsoft’s data protection and compliance programs, see the Microsoft Trust Center.

    4. We will always help protect and defend Europe’s cybersecurity

    As war erupted in 2022, Microsoft immediately helped evacuate Ukraine’s critical data and technology services to our datacenters across Europe. This move ensured Ukraine’s continued digital operation outside the range of cruise missile and air attacks. In many ways, this illustrates the role that a broad network of datacenters plays in supporting not only digital but broader resilience, both for a country and a continent.

    Uninterrupted, world-class cybersecurity protection

    In addition to safeguarding the country’s data, we immediately helped Ukraine’s officials and citizens defend their nation from Russian cyberattacks. Since the start of the war, Microsoft has provided more than $500 million of free technology and financial assistance to Ukraine and has sustained our substantial support to this day. Without interruption, we have provided cybersecurity support to NATO, Ukraine, and other European governments, including by sharing cybersecurity threat intelligence, protecting elections, and disrupting attacks against European governments, companies, and citizens.

    New measures to protect against new threats

    More than three years since the start of the war in Ukraine, European governments and countries confront ongoing cyberattacks from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. As these threats grow in number and sophistication, strong cybersecurity protection and coordination are more important than ever, as is the ability to respond rapidly to regional demands. That is why today we are announcing the following cybersecurity steps, which will be followed by additional announcements in the coming weeks.

    A new Deputy CISO for Europe

    Today, our Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Igor Tsyganskiy announced that we are appointing a new Deputy CISO for Europe as part of the Microsoft Cybersecurity Governance Council. This senior executive will be dedicated to Microsoft’s security responsibilities in Europe. Last year we created this council, consisting of our Global CISO and Deputy Chief Information Security Officers (Deputy CISOs) representing each of our technology services. This Council oversees the company’s cyber risks, defenses, and compliance across regions and domains.

    The appointment of a Deputy CISO for Europe reflects the importance and global influence of EU cybersecurity regulations and the company’s commitment to meeting and exceeding those expectations to prioritize cybersecurity across the region. This new position will report directly to Microsoft’s CISO. The Deputy CISO for Europe will be accountable for compliance with current and emerging cybersecurity regulations in Europe, including the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), the NIS 2 Directive, and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). These laws will prove transformative not only in EU markets, but worldwide, and Microsoft is actively engaged in preparing for what lies ahead.

    New security steps under the Cyber Resilience Act

    We believe the CRA will reshape the regulatory landscape as a new gold standard for cybersecurity, much as the GDPR did for privacy. We will build on the work of our Secure Future Initiative and dedicate additional resources to comply with the CRA. As its deadlines approach, we look forward to continuing our years of engagement with the European Commission, industry partners, and customers on CRA implementation efforts. We are committed to our role as a member of the European Commission’s Expert Group on Cybersecurity of Products with Digital Elements.

    To that end, Microsoft will continue to engage with stakeholders across a range of CRA topics. These will include incident and vulnerability reporting, security by design and default, cybersecurity best practices and improving open-source security and attestation. We will share our innovations that support implementing the CRA essential security requirements to help European economic operators also prepare for CRA compliance.

    Security is the foundation of trust. To sustain that trust, we will engage an independent auditor to verify and validate our commitments to Europe. We know that people will only use technology that they trust, which is why we are dedicating resources to accelerate our compliance with the CRA and committing to independent validation.

    5. We will help strengthen Europe’s economic competitiveness, including for open source

    Our AI Access Principles

    We recognize the importance of ensuring open access to our AI and cloud platform and infrastructure across Europe, including for open-source development. That is why we announced last year a set of AI Access Principles and we will introduce new enhancements to these commitments in the coming months.

    Open access across Europe

    These principles have ensured that our Azure AI platform and infrastructure is open to a variety of business models—both open-source and proprietary. We now host more than 1,800 AI models. Most of these models are open-source models, such as those from European-based AI developers Mistral and Hugging Face. And they are all available via public APIs to facilitate interoperability. This means that customers can choose which models to use and where to build their AI-powered solutions: on Azure, in another public cloud, or in their own datacenter. Finally, we enable customers to export and transfer their data. Last year we eliminated fees for the transfer of data when customers choose to switch to another cloud provider.

    A foundation for European competitiveness

    Over the past year, we have seen European startups, established businesses, and other organizations take advantage of the open access to models and tools that we provide to innovate, grow, and compete in the new AI economy. This includes technology startups such as Factorial in Spain to build AI-driven automation for HR professionals, iGenius in Italy to develop AI solutions for regulated industries, and Visma in Norway to provide AI solutions for companies in accounting, payroll, invoicing, and beyond. And it includes the Institute Curie in France to research new therapies for cancer, UBS in Switzerland to create the future of banking, and Heineken in The Netherlands to boost employee productivity.

    Building European infrastructure for Europe’s future

    We recognize that Microsoft must constantly remain focused on earning and sustaining our “license to operate” in each country across Europe. With datacenters and digital technology, this starts with each local community and country and includes officials with continental-wide responsibilities.

    Since we first brought the first version of Microsoft Word to Europe 42 years ago, digital technology has changed the ways people work many times over. Yet as we look forward, we believe the second quarter of the 21st century may bring even bigger changes ahead. Artificial intelligence offers what may become the most powerful tool for people in the history of humanity. And like all tools, there will be some who will seek to turn it into a weapon.

    More than ever, it will be critical for us to help Europe harness the power of this new technology to strengthen its competitiveness. We will need to partner with smaller and larger companies alike. We will need to support governments, non-profit organizations, and open-source developers across the continent. And we will need to listen closely to European leaders, respect European values, and adhere to European laws. We are committed to doing all these things well.

    As we celebrated Microsoft’s 50th birthday earlier this month, we recognized that our longstanding presence in Europe has been a lynchpin of our success. Europe has treated us well. Our support for Europe has always been—and always will be—steadfast.

    Tags: Digital commitments, Europe

    MIL OSI Economics –