The Richest State
Author

admin

Browsing
Investing

Prismo Metals Announces Closing of Private Placement

(TheNewswire)

 

Vancouver, British Columbia TheNewswire – December 31st, 2025 Prismo Metals Inc. (‘Prismo’ or the ‘Company’) (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) (OTCQB: PMOMF) is pleased to announce that further to its news release December 3, 2025, the Company has proceeded with an upsized closing (the ‘Closing’) of its previously announced non-brokered private placement of units of the Company (‘Units’) at an issue price of $0.10 per Unit (the ‘Private Placement’). The Closing consisted in the issuance of 2,940,000 Units for gross proceeds of $294,000.

‘With the exception of one investor, every subscriber in this last closing is a new shareholder of Prismo,’ said Alain Lambert CEO of Prismo. ‘Our immediate priority is to undertake our fully funded drill program, as previously announced. This drill campaign will focus primarily on the historic Silver King mine site and will be for a minimum of about 1,000 meters. The objective is to test the upper half of the steeply dipping pipelike Silver King mineralized body as well as potential mineralization adjacent to the dense stockwork that was the focus of historic mining.’

The Company previously announced the first closing of the Private Placement on November 12, 2025 for aggregate gross proceeds of $1,745,000 and a second closing of the Private Placement on December 2, 2025 for aggregate gross proceeds of $165,000. Due to strong investor demand, the Company has now raised aggregate gross proceeds of $2,204,000 through the sale of an aggregate of 22,040,000 Units.

Each Unit consists of one common share in the capital of the Company (a ‘Share‘) and one common share purchase warrant of the Company (a ‘Warrant‘). Each Warrant entitles the holder to purchase one Share for a period of thirty-six (36) months from the date of issue at an exercise price of $0.175.

The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the Private Placement primarily for drilling at its Silver King project and for general corporate purposes. There may be circumstances, however, where, for sound business reasons, a reallocation of funds may be necessary. The Company expects to accept additional subscriptions of Units from new shareholders in the coming days for an approximate amount of $75,000.

The Units issued pursuant to the Closing are subject to a four-month hold period from the closing date of the Closing under applicable Canadian securities laws, in addition to such other restrictions as may apply under applicable securities laws of jurisdictions outside Canada.

In connection with the Closing, the Company issued an aggregate of 185,200 finder’s warrants (the ‘Finder’s Warrants’) and paid finder’s commissions of $18,520 to a certain qualified finder. Each Finder’s Warrant is exercisable for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of issuance to purchase one Share at a price of $0.10. In addition, the Company paid a cash fee of $7,000 to a financial advisor.

The securities being issued in connection with the Closing have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act and may not be offered or sold in the United States, or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons or persons in the United States, absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of the securities in any State in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

About Prismo Metals Inc.

Prismo (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) is a mining exploration company focused on advancing its Silver King, Ripsey and Hot Breccia projects in Arizona and its Palos Verdes silver project in Mexico.

Please follow PrismoMetals on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube

Prismo Metals Inc.

1100 – 1111 Melville St., Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 3V6 Phone: (416) 361-0737

 

Contact:

Alain Lambert, Chief Executive Officer alain.lambert@prismometals.com

Gordon Aldcorn, President gordon.aldcorn@prismometals.com

 

Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Market Regulator (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

 

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This release includes certain statements and information that may constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect the expectations or beliefs of management of the Company regarding future events. Generally, forward-looking statements and information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as ‘intends’ or ‘anticipates’, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘would’ or ‘occur’. This information and these statements, referred to herein as ‘forward-looking statements’, are not historical facts, are made as of the date of this news release and include without limitation, statements regarding discussions of future plans, estimates and forecasts and statements as to management’s expectations and intentions with respect to, among other things: the timing, costs and results of drilling at Silver King; the intended use of any proceeds raised under the Closing; and the completion of an additional tranche.

These forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties, and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things: the potential inability of the Company to utilize the anticipated proceeds of the Private Placement as anticipated; the potential inability of the Company to complete an additional tranche on the terms disclosed, or at all; and those risks set out in the Company’s public disclosure record on SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.com) under the Company’s issuer profile.

In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, the Company has applied several material assumptions, including without limitation, that the Company will use the proceeds of the Closing as currently anticipated and on the timeline currently expected; and that the Company will complete an additional tranche.

Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and forward- looking information. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, forward-looking information or financial outlook that are incorporated by reference herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. We seek safe harbor.

 

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

Copyright (c) 2025 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Goldgroup Enters Into Agreement To Sell Subsidiary Minera Apolo, S.A. de C.V., Disposing of Pinos Project

VANCOUVER, BC / ACCESS Newswire / December 31, 2025 / Goldgroup Mining Inc. (‘Goldgroup‘ or the ‘Company‘) (TSXV:GGA,OTC:GGAZF)(OTCQX:GGAZF).

Goldgroup announces that, subject to the final approval of the TSX Venture Exchange (the ‘TSXV‘), it has entered into an agreement with a private arm’s length British Columbia company under which it has agreed to sell all of the issued and outstanding Class ‘A’ shares and Class ‘B’ common shares in the capital (collectively the ‘Apolo Shares‘) of Minera Apolo, S.A. de C.V. (‘Apolo‘), which owns all the issued and outstanding shares of Minera Catanava, S.A. de C.V. (‘MC‘). Apolo and MC collectively hold a 100% interest in the Pinos gold/silver project (‘Pinos‘) located in Zacatecas State, the second largest mining state in Mexico. Pinos comprises 30 contiguous mining concessions over 3,816 hectares. The sale of Apolo is an Arm’s Length Transaction and there are no finder’s fees payable.

Ralph Shearing, Chief Executive Officer, commented: ‘Having received an unsolicited bid for Pinos, management determined that it would be the best use of the Company’s resources to dispose of the Pinos asset based on the Company’s recent acquisition of the San Francisco gold mine, which is a much larger and more advanced project than Pinos. The Company’s focus will be the continued development and optimization of our flagship Cerro Prieto heap-leach gold mine and advancing towards a re-start of gold production at the San Francisco gold mine (see news release dated December 24, 2025). Both assets are located within 44km in a straight line from each other in the state of Sonora, Mexico. The San Francisco gold mine represents a unique opportunity to consolidate a highly prospective gold district.’ Mr. Shearing further stated: ‘At this stage of our Company’s development, with Pinos being a non-core asset, management and the board of directors has elected to monetize Pinos with an attractive, high cash purchase offer, deploying the sale proceeds towards Cerro Prieto optimization and re-starting gold production at San Francisco.

Under the terms of the Share Purchase Agreement, Goldgroup has agreed to sell all the Apolo Shares to a private arm’s length British Columbia company (the ‘Purchaser‘) in consideration of the payment to Goldgroup of US$5,000,000 in stages, with US$2,450,000 deposit payable on signing which will be refunded if the transaction does not close by February 16, 2026, US$550,000 to be paid on closing and US$2,000,000 to be secured by a Promissory Note and paid on or before the date that is six (6) months from the Closing Date. Further, the Purchaser has agreed to assume any and all liabilities of Goldgroup associated with Apolo, MC and the Pinos project, including the assumption of US$400,000 remaining payable on the original purchase agreement in addition to debt in the amount of US$1,500,000 payable to the previous owners of Apolo that will be triggered by the sale of Apolo. Goldgroup, the Purchaser and the previous owners of Apolo have also agreed to enter an Assumption and Acknowledgement Agreement under which the previous owners acknowledge and agree that they will have no further recourse against Goldgroup for any liabilities related to Apolo, MC and the Pinos project, all of which have been assumed by the Purchaser.

Cautionary Statement
The closing of the sale of Apolo is subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange.

Clarification regarding Investor Relations Agreement
At the request of the TSXV, Goldgroup wishes to clarify its news release of October 13, 2025, regarding the retention of Machai Capital Inc. to provide digital marketing services on behalf of the Company. Goldgroup advises that it paid Machai Capital Inc. $200,000 as an upfront fee. Further Goldgroup advises that neither Machai Capital Inc. nor its principal Suneal Sandhu owned any securities of Goldgroup as at October 13, 2025.

About Goldgroup
Goldgroup is a Canadian-based mining Company with two high-growth gold assets in Mexico. In addition to the San Francisco gold mine, the Company has a 100% interest in the producing Cerro Prieto heap-leach gold mine located in the State of Sonora. An optimization and exploration program is underway at Cerro Prieto to significantly increase existing production and resources. The acquisition of Molimentales del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V. (‘Molimentales‘), the owner of the San Francisco gold mine is subject to final approval from the TSXV.

Goldgroup is led by a team of highly successful and seasoned individuals with extensive expertise in mine development, corporate finance, and exploration in Mexico.

For further information on Goldgroup, please visit www.goldgroupmining.com

On behalf of the Board of Directors

‘Ralph Shearing’
Ralph Shearing, CEO

For more information:
+1 (604) 306-6867
410 – 1111 Melville St.
Vancouver, BC, V6E 3V6
www.goldgroupmining.com
ir@goldgroupmining.com

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 press release.

CAUTIONARY NOTES REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain information contained in this news release, including any information relating to future financial or operating performance, may be considered ‘forward-looking information’ (within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities law) and ‘forward-looking statements’ (within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). These statements relate to analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management. Actual results could differ materially from the conclusions, forecasts and projections contained in such forward-looking information.

These forward-looking statements reflect Goldgroup’s current internal projections, expectations or beliefs and are based on information currently available to Goldgroup. In some cases forward-looking information can be identified by terminology such as ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘should’, ‘expect’, ‘intend’, ‘plan’, ‘anticipate’, ‘believe’, ‘estimate’, ‘projects’, ‘potential’, ‘scheduled’, ‘forecast’, ‘budget’ or the negative of those terms or other comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking information is subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to materially differ from those reflected in the forward-looking information, and are developed based on assumptions about such risks, uncertainties and other factors including, without limitation: receipt of all required TSXV, regulatory and other interested party approvals in connection with the Concurso Mercantilprocess; uncertainties related to actual capital costs operating costs and expenditures; production schedules and economic returns from Goldgroup’s projects; timing to integrate acquisitions (San Francisco Mine) and timing to complete additional exploration and technical reports; uncertainties associated with development activities; uncertainties inherent in the estimation of mineral resources and precious metal recoveries; uncertainties related to current global economic conditions; fluctuations in precious and base metal prices; uncertainties related to the availability of future financing; potential difficulties with joint venture partners; risks that Goldgroup’s title to its property could be challenged; political and country risk; risks associated with Goldgroup being subject to government regulation; risks associated with surface rights; environmental risks; Goldgroup’s need to attract and retain qualified personnel; risks associated with potential conflicts of interest; Goldgroup’s lack of experience in overseeing the construction of a mining project; risks related to the integration of businesses and assets acquired by Goldgroup; uncertainties related to the competitiveness of the mining industry; risk associated with theft; risk of water shortages and risks associated with competition for water; uninsured risks and inadequate insurance coverage; risks associated with potential legal proceedings; risks associated with community relations; outside contractor risks; risks related to archaeological sites; foreign currency risks; risks associated with security and human rights; and risks related to the need for reclamation activities on Goldgroup’s properties, as well as the risk factors disclosed in Goldgroup’s MD&A. Any and all of the forward-looking information contained in this news release is qualified by these cautionary statements.

Although Goldgroup believes that the forward-looking information contained in this news release is based on reasonable assumptions, readers cannot be assured that actual results will be consistent with such statements. Accordingly, readers are cautioned against placing undue reliance on forward-looking information. Goldgroup expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, events or otherwise, except as may be required by, and in accordance with, applicable securities laws.

SOURCE: Goldgroup Mining, Inc.

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

News Provided by ACCESS Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
World

DAN GAINOR: These are the seven most annoying people of the year 2025

This year brought us Trump the Sequel and that meant the left had extra motivation to be annoying. Their hatred of President Donald Trump, conservatives and even the late Charlie Kirk defined 2025.

Still, there were some who outdid everyone else in their quest to be, drumroll, please, the Most Annoying Person of 2025. I ignored people who made news saying just one idiotic comment or who are just obscure media personalities. (Like Matthew Dowd who lost his bogus MSNBC job for his comments bashing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk for ‘hate speech’ after Kirk had been murdered.)

1. He was funny 20 years ago

No one deserves the top spot on this list more than ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ host Jimmy Kimmel. Most late-night programs have faded from view as their hosts have turned them into orgies of Trump-bashing. But Kimmel excels at hating conservatives so much that he almost qualifies to be a male cast member of ‘The View.’ (Yep, they’re here, too.)

Kimmel gained more attention for saying vile things and fighting Trump than for anything funny.

Former ‘Late Show’ host David Letterman termed Kimmel, ‘the leader of the resistance,’ and Kimmel later cried millionaire tears because he had a ‘hard year.’ He earned a temporary suspension with one of the worst comments about the Kirk assassination, saying, ‘We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and everything they can to score political points from it.’ He was wrong, of course, but we are used to that. Trump later said, ‘Jimmy Kimmel was horrible,’ and who am I to disagree with my president?

2. You knew they’d make the list

If the annoying people of Earth have a home base, it’s not some secluded island fortress, it’s ABC’s ‘The View.’ The gaggle of hosts — from leftist moderator Whoopi Goldberg to crackpot Joy Behar to pretend conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin — is a reminder that quantity is not quality. 

This year, they pretended radical Islamic Iran wasn’t worse than the U.S. (Goldberg); claimed using the National Guard to stop crime was ‘a pretext to stop the next election!’ (Behar); and compared the election of Trump to … Hitler. (Behar: ‘The Germans voted also. Just saying.’)

The show has become such an embarrassment that the TV show ‘Landman’ mocked it for being a, ‘bunch of pissed off millionaires bitching about how much they hate millionaires, Trump, and men, and you, and me, and everybody else they got a bee up their ass about.’ ‘The View’ has gone from mindless propaganda to a punchline.

3. The first of the pod people

If you’re lucky, you’ve never heard of podcaster Jennifer Welch. Just imagine a ghoul-like figure from your deepest nightmares, then give her blonde hair and a microphone.

She’s one of the two co-hosts for the ‘I’ve Had It’ podcast, and it’s well-named. She and her co-host first appeared in the Bravo series ‘Sweet Home Oklahoma,’ which no one ever heard of. But now, the press loves her because she says hateful things about conservatives. 

CNN’s profile of Welch quotes her calling Trump a, ‘fat, fascist f— who’s ruining everything for everybody.’ The New York Times notes, ‘‘Patriots, gaytriots, theytriots, Blacktriots and browntriots,’ is how Ms. Welch greets the listeners of their primary podcast.’ She left out morontriots who must make up the bulk of her audience.

Welch made news calling Kirk’s widow Erika a ‘grifter’ and TPUSA said that comment was, ‘beneath contempt.’ 

I’m sure Welch will say worse in 2026 because the media reward her bile with support. CNN said she and her co-host are, ‘two women who love their country and aren’t afraid to name and shame people.’ 

See what I mean?

4. More pod-ish people 

Podcaster antisemite Nick Fuentes and Twitch antisemite Hasan Piker showed the world that the worst users of social media have one thing in common — hatred. Both of them have dominated the social world and been everywhere in the media as civilized society reacts in horror. 

Fuentes calls himself an admirer of communist Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and says Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler was ‘really f—ing cool.’ Pretty much on brand.

Piker, when he’s not being accused of giving his dog electric shocks, spends his time saying offensive things, like, ‘America deserved 9/11.’ He later walked it back because of the backlash, but he still has millions of followers on multiple platforms. 

Fox News did an analysis of what he says, and it’s so vile, I don’t want to repeat it. He’s all across major media. The Times called him, ‘A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere.’’ 

The press is desperate to recreate their own Joe Rogan and this is the best they’ve got.

5. Spacey

Singer Katy Perry had not one, but two spacey experiences in 2025. First, she sort-of went into space on a Jeff Bezos rocket. The owner of Amazon and the Washington Post sent his then-fiancée Lauren Sanchez, and five other famous women, into near-space. 

Perry is in the cool kids’ club, so she got to go. The singer actually vowed to ‘put the ‘a–’ in astronaut’ and made a fool of herself when she landed, kneeling and kissing the ground because of an 11-minute rocket trip. She was quoted declaring, ‘I feel super connected to love.’ 

That must have been true. She is now dating her own space cadet, former lefty Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

6. Friday the 13th

Cynthia Erivo is 2025’s it gal. She’s everywhere and impossible not to see. As NBC put it, she’s ‘Proudly Bald and Has No Eyebrows.’ Throw in nails like Freddy Krueger and the bisexual star is everything the media want in a celebrity — weird and alternative. 

She’s the star of the two ‘Wicked’ movies and even played Jesus in the Hollywood Bowl (naturally) version of the musical ‘Jesus Christ Superstar.’ 

Erivo revels in her unusual look, even shaving her own eyebrows, ‘Whenever I’m talking to my makeup artist, I tell her that I just want to look like a pretty thumb.’ 

Yeah, I can’t top that.

7. It ain’t over till it’s over

The 2024 Democratic election debate wasn’t enough for Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris recently declared, ‘I am not done. I have lived my entire career a life of service, and it’s in my bones.’ Harris released her book, ‘107 Days’ and managed to annoy Democrats and Republicans about equally with her alleged recollection of events. 

At least former President Richard Nixon was nice enough to tell us, ‘You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.’ 

Harris will make us endure more garbled responses before she goes gently into that good night of her career.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
World

Putin residence drone attack dismissed as implausible as Ukraine accusations mount

Escalating claims by Russia that Ukraine tried to hit a residence used by President Vladimir Putin with drones have been dismissed by a top military drone expert, who called the alleged attack ‘hard to fathom’ and tactically implausible.

Cameron Chell’s comments came as Moscow doubled down on accusations Kyiv has flatly denied, with the drone industry leader arguing the alleged strike announced Monday runs counter to Ukraine’s drone tactics.

Chell, the CEO and co-founder of Draganfly, a drone manufacturer that supplies to the U.S. Department of Defense and allied militaries, including Ukraine, said Russia’s claims lack credibility.

‘What really makes things usually very signature about Ukraine is that they are always incredibly clever about how they use drones,’ Chell told Fox News Digital.

‘They are clever from a cost perspective — let’s call it an efficiency perspective — but also very clever in their tactics,’ he added.

‘I find it hard to fathom that this drone attack even happened on Putin’s residence or that it was something that Ukraine orchestrated for a number of reasons,’ Chell said.

‘Based on the description of the alleged attack over the top of Putin’s residence, the drones would not have been launched from a very long distance away,’ he said.

‘This would have avoided up to 1000 km of air defense systems and then likely attacking one of the most heavily fortified air defense networks surrounding Putin’s Valdai residence.

‘The cost benefit analysis, not to mention the political analysis, also does not make sense,’ he added.

Chell’s comments came as Russia doubled down Tuesday on accusations that Ukraine attempted to strike a presidential palace in the Novgorod region using drones, allegedly to disrupt peace efforts.

Kyiv dismissed the allegation, with the timing also raising questions given the upbeat tone of a recent meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Florida.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed late Monday that 91 drones were intercepted en route to Putin’s residence on the shores of Lake Valdai.

His statement appeared to contradict earlier Defense Ministry tallies, which said 89 drones were shot down over eight regions, including 18 over Novgorod, later adding another 23.

Only after Lavrov spoke did the ministry allege that 49 drones intercepted over Bryansk, nearly 300 miles away, were also targeting Valdai.

Asked about wreckage, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was ‘a matter for our military,’ while calling Zelenskyy’s denial and Western skepticism ‘completely insane.’

Peskov said Russia’s diplomatic stance would be toughened, and Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin vowed there could be ‘no forgiveness’ for Zelenskyy.

Chell said the story simply does not add up. ‘To attack Putin’s residence in the manner described would require much more sophisticated tactics than simply sending long-range, relatively slow-moving drones,’ he said.

Chell also noted that this was a night operation and therefore, it generally rules out accurate visual mapping navigation. 

‘Since the description of the attack also does not lend itself to the use of fiber optic communication, which requires a relatively close range launch point, these drones would likely have had to rely on GPS navigation,’ he explained.

‘This would easily have been thwarted in this area and the Ukrainians would have known this,’ Chell said.

Politically, Chell argued, Ukraine has nothing to gain. ‘They’re bold, but right in the middle of peace talks — when they need Trump on side — it makes no sense,’ he said. ‘Ukraine is just politically too smart to have done that.’

Zelenskyy on Monday also called the claim a complete fabrication, accusing Moscow of laying the groundwork for further attacks. 

Lavrov warned of retaliation but said Russia would continue talks with Washington.

Trump also said he learned of the alleged attack directly from Putin and was ‘very angry about it.’ Asked whether there was evidence, Trump replied, ‘We’ll find out.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Kremlin for comment.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
World

Congress blocks Obamacare subsidies after shutdown fight, premiums set to surge

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
World

Ukraine–Russia at a crossroads: How the war evolved in 2025 and what comes next

President Donald Trump spent much of 2025 attempting what had eluded his predecessors: personally engaging both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an effort to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. From high-profile summits to direct phone calls, the administration pushed for a negotiated settlement even as the fighting ground on and the map changed little.

By year’s end, the outlines of a potential deal were clearer than they had been at any point since Russia’s full-scale invasion, with U.S. and Ukrainian officials coalescing around a revised 20-point framework addressing ceasefire terms, security guarantees and disputed territory. But 2025 also made clear why the war has proven so resistant to resolution: neither battlefield pressure, economic sanctions nor intensified diplomacy were enough to force Moscow or Kyiv into concessions they were unwilling to make.

The Trump administration’s push for a deal

The year began with a high-profile fallout last February between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, when the Ukrainian leader stormed out of the White House after Trump told him he did not have ‘any cards’ to bring to negotiations with Russia.

Frustrated by the pace of talks after promising to end the war on ‘Day One’ of his presidency, Trump initially directed his ire toward Zelenskyy before later conceding that Moscow, not Kyiv, was standing in the way of progress.

‘I thought the Russia-Ukraine war was the easiest to stop but Putin has let me down,’ Trump said in September 2025.

That frustration had already surfaced publicly months earlier as Russian strikes continued despite diplomatic engagement. ‘He talks nice, and then he bombs everybody in the evening,’ Trump said in July.

Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin culminated in a high-profile summit in Alaska in August, though additional meetings were later called off amid a lack of progress toward a deal.

Still, Trump struck a more optimistic tone toward the end of the year. On Sunday, after meeting Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago, the president said the sides were ‘getting a lot closer, maybe very close’ to a peace agreement, while acknowledging that major obstacles remained — including the status of disputed territory such as the Donbas region, which he described as ‘very tough.’

Trump said the meeting followed what he described as a ‘very positive’ phone call with Putin that lasted more than two hours, underscoring the administration’s continued effort to press both sides toward a negotiated end to the war.

Where negotiations stand now

By the end of 2025, the diplomatic track had narrowed around a more defined — but still contested — framework. U.S. officials and Ukrainian negotiators have been working from a revised 20-point proposal that outlines a potential ceasefire, security guarantees for Ukraine, and mechanisms to address disputed territory and demilitarized zones.

Zelenskyy has publicly signaled openness to elements of the framework while insisting that any agreement must include robust, long-term security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression. Ukrainian officials have also made clear that questions surrounding occupied territory, including parts of the Donbas, cannot be resolved solely through ceasefire lines without broader guarantees.

Russia, however, has not agreed to the proposal. Moscow has continued to insist on recognition of its territorial claims and has resisted terms that would constrain its military posture or require meaningful concessions. Russian officials have at times linked their negotiating stance to developments on the battlefield, reinforcing the Kremlin’s view that leverage — not urgency — should dictate the pace of talks.

The result is a negotiation process that is more structured than earlier efforts, but still far from resolution: positions have hardened even as channels remain open, and talks continue alongside ongoing fighting rather than replacing it.

Russia’s territorial pressure — and Ukraine’s limited gains

Even as diplomacy intensified in 2025, the war on the ground remained defined by slow, grinding territorial pressure rather than decisive breakthroughs. Russian forces continued pushing for incremental gains in eastern and southern Ukraine, particularly along axes tied to Moscow’s long-stated objective of consolidating control over territory it claims as Russian.

Russian advances were measured and costly, often unfolding village by village through artillery-heavy assaults and sustained drone use rather than sweeping offensives. While Moscow failed to capture major new cities or trigger a collapse in Ukrainian defenses, it expanded control in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, maintaining pressure across multiple fronts and keeping territorial questions central to both the fighting and any future negotiations.

Ukraine, for its part, did not mount a large-scale counteroffensive in 2025 comparable to earlier phases of the war. Ukrainian forces achieved localized tactical successes, at times reclaiming small areas or reversing specific Russian advances, but these gains were limited in scope and often temporary. None translated into a sustained territorial breakthrough capable of altering the broader balance of the front.

Instead, Kyiv focused on preventing further losses, reinforcing defensive lines and imposing costs on Russian forces through precision strikes and asymmetric tactics. With decisive territorial gains out of reach, Ukraine expanded attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, targeting refineries, fuel depots and other hubs critical to sustaining Moscow’s war effort — including sites deep inside Russian territory.

Russia, meanwhile, continued its own campaign against Ukraine’s energy grid, striking power and heating infrastructure as part of a broader effort to strain Ukraine’s economy, civilian resilience and air defenses. The result was a widening pattern of horizontal escalation, as both sides sought leverage beyond the front lines without achieving a decisive military outcome.

The result was a battlefield stalemate with movement at the margins: Russia advanced just enough to sustain its territorial claims and domestic narrative, while Ukraine proved capable of blunting assaults and imposing costs but not of reclaiming large swaths of occupied land. The fighting underscored a central reality of 2025 — territory still mattered deeply to both sides, but neither possessed the military leverage needed to force a decisive shift.

That dynamic would increasingly shape the limits of diplomacy. Without a major change on the battlefield, talks could test red lines and clarify positions, but not compel compromise.

Why talks stalled: leverage without decision

For all the diplomatic activity in 2025, negotiations repeatedly ran into the same obstacle: neither Russia nor Ukraine faced the kind of pressure that would force a decisive compromise.

On the battlefield, Russia continued to absorb losses while pressing for incremental territorial gains, reinforcing Moscow’s belief that time remained on its side. Ukrainian forces, though increasingly strained, succeeded in preventing a collapse and in imposing costs through deep strikes and attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure — demonstrating an ability to shape the conflict even without major territorial advances.

Economic pressure also reshaped — but did not determine — Moscow’s calculus. Despite years of Western sanctions, Russia continued financing its war effort in 2025, ramping up defense production and adapting its economy to sustain prolonged conflict. While sanctions constrained growth and access to advanced technology, they raised the long-term costs of the war without producing the immediate pressure needed to force President Vladimir Putin toward concessions.

Those realities defined the limits of U.S. mediation. While the Trump administration pushed both sides to clarify red lines and explore possible frameworks for ending the war, Washington could illuminate choices without dictating outcomes, absent a decisive shift on the ground or a sudden change in Moscow’s calculations.

The result was a year of talks that clarified positions without closing gaps. As long as pressure produced pain without decision, negotiations could narrow options and define boundaries, even if they could not yet bring the conflict to an end.
 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
World

Congress fails to save Obamacare subsidies after shutdown fight, premiums set to surge

Lawmakers fought over Obamacare subsidies tooth and nail for the latter part of the year, and ultimately, neither side won.

Senate Democrats thrust the government into the longest shutdown in history in an effort to refocus the narrative in Congress on healthcare, and Republicans agreed to talk about it in the open. And both Republicans and Democrats got a shot to advance their own, partisan plans. Both failed.

Now, the subsidies are set to expire on Wednesday, sending price hikes across the desks of tens of millions of Americans that relied on the credits. 

When lawmakers return on the first week of January, healthcare will be front of mind for many in the Senate. But any push to either revive, or completely replace, the subsidies may, for a time, take a backseat to the government funding fight brewing ahead of the Jan. 30 deadline.

When asked if he was disappointed that lawmakers were unable to, at least in the short term, solve the subsidies issue, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was more concerned about people that would experience higher costs. 

‘I think who it’s most disappointing for are the people whose premiums are going to go up by two, three times,’ Hawley said. ‘So, it’s not good.’

Price hikes on premium costs will be variable for the roughly 20 million Americans that rely on them, depending on age, income and other factors. Broadly, a person’s out-of-pocket cost is expected to double with the credit’s lapse, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The nonpartisan healthcare think tank painted a broader picture of the disparate impact on premium cost increases in a report released late last month that, based on myriad factors, including where a person lives, their age range and where they sit above the poverty line, some could see price hikes as high as 361%.

While Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ separate plans failed to advance — despite four Republicans crossing the aisle to support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., plan — lawmakers are working together for a solution.

There are two plans with traction in the House. The GOP’s plan advanced on the floor earlier this month but doesn’t address the issue of the expiring tax credits. Then there is a bipartisan plan that calls for a three-year extension of the subsidies, similar to Senate Democrats’ plan, that is teed up for a vote.

The latter option, and its bipartisan momentum, has some Democrats hopeful that a three-year extension could get a shot in the upper chamber.

‘I’ll also say that the glimmer of hope is if we’re searching for a bipartisan deal that can pass the Congress, we don’t need to search any further than the three-year extension of the subsidies that’s going to pass the House of Representatives,’ Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told Fox News Digital. ‘We don’t need a negotiation any further. That bill can pass, if it can provide relief to the taxpayers, and it can pass, then that’s our vehicle.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, has maintained a deeply-rooted position against just a simple extension of the credits.

He argued that a straight-up extension for three years would be ‘a waste of $83 billion,’ and lacks any of the reforms that Republicans desire, like reinstalling an income cap, adding anti-fraud measures, and reaffirming language that would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

‘I mean, I think if nothing else, depending on if the House sends something over here, there would be a new vehicle available,’ Thune said. ‘And if there is some bipartisan agreement on a plan, then you know, it’s possible that we could — obviously it’d have to be something that we think the House could pass, and the president would sign.’

‘But I’m not ruling anything out, I guess is what I’m saying,’ he continued. ‘But you know, a three-year extension of a failed program that’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse is not happening.’

Senate Democrats are open to negotiating on a bipartisan plan, something that is already ongoing after Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, held a meeting with lawmakers before leaving Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

But Democrats are also making clear that they don’t want to budge on some of the Republicans’ demands.

‘Let’s put it this way, Republicans are asking to meet with me, and I’m telling them, I’ll listen, you know, I made it clear what I think is the only practical approach, and I’m certainly not going to go along with selling junk insurance,’ Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading
Investing

Stallion Uranium Announces Increase to Flow-Through Financing and Completes Private Placement

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

Stallion Uranium Corp. (the ‘Company’ or ‘Stallion’) (TSX-V: STUD; OTCQB: STLNF; FSE: B76) is pleased to announce that, further to its news releases dated December 12, 2025 and December 17, 2025, it has increased its non-brokered private placement to raise gross proceeds of $7,723,064 (the ‘Offering’). The Company also announces that it has closed the Offering, issuing 17,162,365 flow-through shares of the Company as a ‘flow-through share’ within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (each, a ‘FT Share’) at a price of $0.45 per FT Share.

The gross proceeds from the FT Shares will be used by the Company to incur eligible ‘Canadian exploration expenses’ that qualify as ‘flow-through critical mineral mining expenditures’ as such terms are defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the ‘Qualifying Expenditures‘) related to the Company’s uranium projects in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, on or before December 31, 2026. All Qualifying Expenditures will be renounced in favour of the subscribers of the FT Shares effective December 31, 2025.

The FT Shares issued pursuant to the Offering are subject to a four-month and one day hold period from the date of issuance under applicable Canadian securities laws.

In connection with the closing of the Offering, the Company paid the following cash fees to eligible arm’s length finders: $24,728 to Canaccord Genuity Corp., $353,524.84 to Accilent Capital Management Inc., $3,465 to Research Capital Corporation, $70,000 to PB Markets Inc., $47,250 to GloRes Securities Inc.; $28,000 to Wealth (WCPD Inc.), and $3,150 to Sightline Wealth Management.

This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any of the securities in the United States. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act‘), or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to or for the account or benefit of a U.S. person (as defined in Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act) unless registered under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available.

About Stallion Uranium Corp.:

Stallion Uranium is working to ‘Fuel the Future with Uranium’ through the exploration of roughly 1,700 sq/km in the Athabasca Basin, home to the largest high-grade uranium deposits in the world. The company, with JV partner Atha Energy holds the largest contiguous project in the Western Athabasca Basin adjacent to multiple high-grade discovery zones. With a commitment to responsible exploration and cutting-edge technology such as the use of the proprietary Haystack TI technology, Stallion is positioned to play a key role in the future of clean energy.

Our leadership and advisory teams are comprised of uranium and precious metals exploration experts with the capital markets experience and the technical talent for acquiring and exploring early-stage properties. For more information visit stallionuranium.com.

On Behalf of the Board of Stallion Uranium Corp.:

Matthew Schwab
CEO and Director

Corporate Office:
700 – 838 West Hastings Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia,
V6C 0A6

T: 604-551-2360
info@stallionuranium.com

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.

This news release contains forward-looking statements and forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation (collectively, ‘forward-looking statements’) that relate to the Company’s current expectations and views of future events. Any statements that express, or involve discussions as to, expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, through the use of words or phrases such as ‘will likely result’, ‘are expected to’, ‘expects’, ‘will continue’, ‘is anticipated’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘estimated’, ‘intends’, ‘plans’, ‘forecast’, ‘projection’, ‘strategy’, ‘objective’ and ‘outlook’) are not historical facts and may be forward-looking statements and may involve estimates, assumptions and uncertainties which could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in such forward-looking statements. No assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct and such forward-looking statements included in this material change report should not be unduly relied upon. These statements speak only as of the date they are made.

Forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, which could cause actual results and events to differ materially from those that are disclosed in or implied by such forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for the Company to predict all of them or assess the impact of each such factor or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. Any forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement.

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Sankamap Provides an Update on Status of Late Filing of Financial Statements

Sankamap Metals Inc. (CSE: SCU) (‘Sankamap’ or the ‘Company’) the Company and its auditor continue to work diligently toward the completion and filing of the Company’s annual audited financial statements and management’s discussion and analysis for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 (the ‘Required Filings’). The Company has applied to the Alberta Securities Commission for an extension of the Management Cease Trade Order (‘MCTO’), however, there can be no assurance that a further extension will be granted. The additional delay in completing the Required Filings is primarily due to the auditor awaiting the receipt of certain required information from government authorities in Solomon Islands, as well as timing constraints associated with the holiday period. The Company estimates that approximately 90% of the audit work has been completed.

The Required Filings were due to be filed by October 28, 2025. In connection with the anticipated delays in making the Required Filings, the Company made an application for a Management Cease Trade Order (‘MCTO‘) under National Policy 12-203 Management Cease Trade Orders (‘NP 12-203‘) to the Alberta Securities Commission, as principal regulator for the Company, and the MCTO was issued on October 29, 2025. The MCTO restricts all trading by the Company’s CEO and CFO in securities of the Company, whether direct or indirect. The MCTO does not affect the ability of persons who are not directors, officers or insiders of the Company to trade their securities. The MCTO will remain in effect until the Required Filings are filed or until it is revoked or varied.

The Company expects to proceed with the filing of its interim first-quarter financial statements shortly after the Required Filings have been completed and submitted.

The Company confirms that it intends to satisfy the provisions of the alternative information guidelines described in NP 12-203 by issuing bi-weekly default status reports in the form of a news release until it meets the Required Filings requirement. The Company has not taken any steps towards any insolvency proceeding and the Company has no material information relating to its affairs that has not been generally disclosed.

For further information with respect to the MCTO, please refer to the Company’s news releases dated October 21, 2025, November 4, 2025, November 18, 2025, December 3, 2025 and December 17, 2025, available for viewing on the Company’s SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca.

About Sankamap Metals Inc.

Sankamap Metals Inc. (CSE: SCU) is a Canadian mineral exploration company dedicated to the discovery and development of high-grade copper and gold deposits through its flagship Oceania Project, located in the South Pacific. The Company’s fully permitted assets are strategically positioned in the Solomon Islands, along a prolific geological trend that hosts major copper-gold deposits; including Newcrest’s Lihir Mine, with a resource of 71.9 million ounces of gold¹ (310 Mt containing 23 Moz Au at 2.3 g/t P+P, 520 Mt containing 39 Moz Au at 2.3 g/t indicated, 81 Mt containing 5 Moz Au at 1.9 g/t measured, 61 Mt containing 4.9 Moz Au at 2.3 g/t Inferred).

Exploration is actively advancing at both the Kuma and Fauro properties, part of Sankamap’s Oceania Project in the Solomon Islands. Historical work has already highlighted the mineral potential of both sites, which lie along a highly prospective copper and gold-bearing trend, suggesting the possibility of further, yet-to-be-discovered deposits.

At Kuma, the property is believed to host an underexplored and largely untested porphyry copper-gold (Cu-Au) system. Historical rock chip sampling has returned consistently elevated gold values above 0.5 g/t Au, including a standout sample assaying 11.7% Cu and 13.5 g/t Au2; underscoring the area’s significant potential.

At Fauro, particularly at the Meriguna Target, historical trenching has returned highly encouraging results, including 8.0 meters at 27.95 g/t Au and 14.0 meters at 8.94 g/t Au3. Complementing these results are exceptional grab sample assays, including historical values of up to 173 g/t Au3, along with recent sampling by Sankamap at the Kiovakase Target, which returned numerous high-grade copper values, reaching up to 4.09% Cu. In addition, limited historical shallow drilling intersected 35.0 meters at 2.08 g/t Au3, further underscoring the property’s strong mineral potential and the merit for continued exploration. With a commitment to systematic exploration and a team of experienced professionals, Sankamap aims to unlock the untapped potential of underexplored regions and create substantial value for its shareholders. For more information, please refer to SEDAR+ (www.sedarplus.ca), under Sankamap’s profile.

1.Newcrest Technical Report, 2020 (Lihir: 310 Mt containing 23 Moz Au at 2.3 g/t P+P, 520 Mt containing 39 Moz Au at 2.3 g/t indicated, 81 Mt containing 5 Moz Au at 1.9 g/t measured, 61 Mt containing 4.9 Moz Au at 2.3 g/t Inferred)

2. Historical grab, soil and BLEG samples from SolGold Kuma Review June 2015, and SolGold plc Annual Report 2013/2012

3. September 2010-June 2012 press releases from Solomon Gold Ltd. and SolGold Fauro Island Summary Technical Info 2012

QP Disclosure

The technical content for the Oceania Project in this news release has been reviewed and approved by John Florek, M.Sc., P.Geol., a Qualified Person in accordance with CIM guidelines. Mr. John Florek is in good standing with the Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (Member ID:1228) and a director and officer of the Company.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

s/ ‘John Florek’
John Florek, M.Sc., P.Geol
Chief Executive Officer
Sankamap Metals Inc.

Contact:
John Florek, CEO
T: (807) 228-3531
E: johnf@sankamap.com

The Canadian Securities Exchange has not approved nor disapproved this press release.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements made and information contained herein may constitute ‘forward-looking information’ and ‘forward-looking statements’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities legislation. These statements and information are based on facts currently available to Sankamap and there is no assurance that the actual results will meet management’s expectations. Forward-looking statements and information may be identified by such terms as ‘anticipates,’ ‘believes,’ ‘targets,’ ‘estimates,’ ‘plans,’ ‘expects,’ ‘may,’ ‘will,’ ‘could’ or ‘would.’

This press release contains forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding management’s expectations about obtaining the MCTO and completing the Required Filings within the anticipated timeline. Forward-looking statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Sankamap does not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements or information, except as required by applicable securities laws. For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings that are available at www.sedarplus.ca.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/279270

News Provided by Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
Investing

Top 5 Small-cap Biotech Stocks of 2025

The NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (INDEXNASDAQ:NBI) is trading at three year highs despite market volatility, responding to breakthrough innovations and increased deals involving NASDAQ biotech stocks.

After dropping to a low of 3,637.05 in October 2023, the index climbed to a nearly three year peak of 4,954.813 on September 19, 2024. While the index pulled back to 4,530.69 in August 2025, it staged a robust recovery in the second half of the year, closing at 5,766.59 on December 29, 2025, a gain of approximately 34 percent for the year.

The top NASDAQ biotech stocks have seen sizeable share price increases over the past year. For those interested in investing in biotech companies, the best-performing small-cap biotech stocks are outlined below.

Data was gathered on December 29, 2025, using TradingView’s stock screener. Small-cap biotech stocks with market caps between US$50 million and US$500 million at that time were considered for this list.

1. SELLAS Life Sciences Group (NASDAQ:SLS)

Year-to-date gain: 210.19 percent
Market cap: US$477.18 million
Share price: US$3.35

SELLAS Life Sciences Group is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on novel cancer immunotherapies. The company’s approach involves ‘teaching’ the immune system to recognize and kill cancer cells by targeting specific proteins that are overexpressed in tumors.

Its flagship asset is galinpepimut-S (GPS), a vaccine-like immunotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are in remission but at high risk of relapse. Its secondary asset, SLS009, is a highly selective CDK9 inhibitor currently showing promise in Phase 2 trials for various blood cancers.

The company’s stock price surged on December 29 after SELLAS shared an update on the Phase 3 REGAL trial evaluating GPS as a maintenance therapy in patients with AML. The trial is designed as a blind survival study, with the end point triggered on the 80th patient death.

In the update, the company reported that 72 deaths had occurred as of December 26. Because it is taking longer than expected for the trial to complete, which was previously anticipated to happen before the end of 2025, investors are speculating that the patients in the trial are living significantly longer than the historical average.

2. IO Biotech (NASDAQ:IOBT)

Year-to-date gain: 129.47 percent
Market cap: US$144.28 million
Share price: US$2.16

IO Biotech is developing immune-modulating therapeutic cancer vaccines based on its T-win technology platform, designed to activate T cells to target both tumor cells and the immune-suppressive cells.

The clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company’s lead cancer vaccine candidate is IO102-IO103, which has the brand name Cylembio. IO102-IO103 has breakthrough therapy designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when used in combination with Merck’s (NYSE:MRK) anti-PD-1 therapy Keytruda for the treatment of advanced melanoma based on positive Phase 1/2 first line metastatic melanoma data.

The candidate reached a major milestone in August 2025 with the readout of its pivotal Phase 3 trial of IO102-IO103 with Keytruda for treating advanced melanoma. While the vaccine combined with Keytruda showed a significant survival benefit — reaching 19.4 months of progression-free survival compared to 11 months for Keytruda alone — it narrowly missed the strict statistical significance threshold.

Following a December meeting with the FDA to discuss a path forward for Cylembio, IO Biotech ended the year focused on a new registrational trial to address the Phase 3 miss and securing further funding to extend its operations into 2026.

Throughout 2025, the company continued to expand its pipeline. In November, it presented new pre-clinical data for IO112 targeting arginase 1 and for IO170 targeting transforming growth factor.

3. Tiziana Life Sciences (NASDAQ:TLSA)

Year-to-date gain: 124.64 percent
Market cap: US$184.22 million
Share price: US$1.55

Tiziana Life Sciences is a clinical-stage biopharma which is developing therapies for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, degenerative diseases and cancer-related to the liver. Its pipeline of candidates is built on its patented drug delivery technology that provides a possible alternative to intravenous delivery.

Tiziana’s lead candidate is intranasal foralumab, a fully human anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, which it is currently studying for treatment of a range of conditions.

In March, the company filed an investigational new drug application with the FDA for a Phase 2 clinical trial in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is supported by the ALS Association. The Phase 2 trial is slated to begin in January 2026. Tiziana also began dosing patients in a Phase 2a trial for multiple system atrophy in August.

In April, John Hopkins University and the University of Massachusetts commenced dosing of the biotech company’s intranasal foralumab in Phase 2 trials for patients with non-active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). On May 7, the company shared positive results from the use of its lead candidate in improving the quality of life for patients with that form of MS.

Tiziana is also studying the use of intranasal foralumab for treating moderate Alzheimer’s disease. On May 9, it announced that PET scans of a patient with moderate Alzheimer’s showed a significant reduction in microglia activation associated with neuroinflammation after three months of treatment.

On July 21, the company announced an ‘unexpected discovery’ following immunologic analysis of the patient with Alzheimer’s disease: ‘The analysis revealed an increase in phagocytosis markers in classical monocytes, suggesting that nasal foralumab may enhance their ability to clear amyloid plaques. This unexpected effect may open new avenues for treating Alzheimer’s Disease by targeting both inflammation and amyloid accumulation.’

The company dosed the first patient in its randomized Phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial in December.

To end the year, Tiazana submitted a comprehensive safety report to the FDA documenting over 37 patient-years of treatment with no serious drug-related adverse events across its studies.

4. Spero Therapeutics (NASDAQ:SPRO)

Year-to-date gain: 119.05 percent
Market cap: US$129.58 million
Share price: US$2.30

Spero Therapeutics is developing novel treatments for rare diseases and multi-drug resistant bacterial infections with high unmet need.

The company’s lead drug candidate is tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (HBr), a late-stage development asset developed in collaboration with pharma giant GSK (NYSE:GSK). GSK has an exclusive license agreement to commercialize the drug candidate in most markets.

Tebipenem HBr is an oral carbapenem developed to treat complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including pyelonephritis. The FDA granted tebipenem HBr qualified infectious disease product and fast-track designations.

Spero’s stock surged 245 percent on May 28 to reach US$2.35 after the company reported that its Phase 3 trial evaluating tebipenem HBr for treating cUTIs met its primary endpoint and stopped early for efficacy.

On December 19, GSK officially filed the new drug application resubmission to the FDA for tebipenem HBr for treating cUTIs supported by the Phase 3 results. This filing triggered a US$25 million milestone payment to Spero that is expected in Q1 2026.

5. OKYO Pharma (NASDAQ:OKYO)

Year-to-date gain: 60.50 percent
Market cap: US$74.85 million
Share price: US$1.91

OKYO Pharma is a clinical-stage biopharma company developing therapies for the treatment of neuropathic corneal pain and dry eye disease. Its lead candidate is urcosimod, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and non-opioid analgesic.

OKYO is currently evaluating urcosimod for the treatment of neuropathic corneal pain. The treatment received fast track designation from the FDA in May after the company ended its Phase 2 clinical trial early to analyze data.

On July 17, the company posted strong top-line data from the Phase 2 trial and stated it is planning a meeting with the FDA to discuss next steps for its lead drug candidate. The following day, OKYO received US$1.9 million in non-dilutive funding to support its clinical development of urcosimod.

In September, OKYO announced a 120 patient, multi-center multiple ascending dose clinical trial designed to identify the optimal dose for Phase 3 registration.

A scientific breakthrough followed on December 11, when new imaging data revealed that urcosimod may actually help restore corneal nerve structure, showing median increases in nerve fiber count and length, while those in the placebo group saw median decreases for both.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagan Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading