Logistic Properties of the Americas Announces Filing of Its Form 20-F for Fiscal Year 2024
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Logistic Properties of the Americas (NYSE American: LPA) ('LPA' or the 'Company') announced that its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto (the "Annual Report") had been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') on April 7, 2025.
The Annual Report can be accessed by visiting either the SEC's website at www.sec.gov or the 'SEC Filings' section of the Company's Investor Relations website at https://ir.lpamericas.com.
The Company will provide a hard copy of the Annual Report containing audited consolidated financial statements, free of charge, to its shareholders upon request. Requests should be directed to the Company's Investor Relations Department at ir@lpamericas.com.
About Logistic Properties of the Americas
Logistic Properties of the Americas is a leading developer, owner, and manager of institutional quality industrial and logistics real estate in high-growth and high-barrier-to-entry markets in Central and South America. LPA's customers are multinational and regional e-commerce retailers, third-party logistic operators, business-to-business distributors, and retail distribution companies, among others. For more information visit https://ir.lpamericas.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Panel advances defense budget despite missing details from White House
House appropriators on Tuesday advanced plans for a $831.5 billion defense budget for next fiscal year over concerns from Democratic lawmakers that the spending package is rushed and incomplete, since the White House still has not unveiled its own detailed funding plans for the military. The appropriations bill topline essentially matches spending levels from the current fiscal year, leaving defense programs without any increase for inflation or cost-of-living hikes in the base budget plan. However, the funding plan is designed to run alongside congressional reconciliation plans, which would add another $150 billion in funds for the Defense Department. Republicans assert the combination could bring total military spending for next year to nearly $1 trillion, even though those funds would be spread out over four years. '[This bill] provides the resources necessary for maintaining American military superiority, leveraging our technological innovation into tactical advantages on the battlefield, and supporting the Defense Department's most valuable assets: our warfighters,'said Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel. Trump requests $892.6 billion base defense budget, a real-terms cut 'Together, with the significant defense funding advancing through Congress as part of the reconciliation process, the FY26 bill … [represents] a historic commitment to strengthening and modernizing America's national defense.' The measure calls for a 3.8% pay raise, eliminates 45,000 civilian defense jobs and allocates $13 billion to start the White House's proposed Golden Dome missile defense program. But Democratic lawmakers said the legislation — which could advance to the full chamber for approval later this month — still has too many gaps to support because the White House is months behind in its promise to provide a detailed budget to Congress. 'We have zip, nada, no idea where we are going,' Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a hearing before Tuesday's subcommittee vote. 'Give us the details … My hope was that we could get to it before a markup.' Hegseth said those details will be sent to lawmakers soon, but he also supported the committee moving ahead with the broad outlines of the defense spending plan. '[The president's plan] realigns the military to the historic strength that began in President Donald Trump's first term and makes generational investments in the president's priorities including developing the Golden Dome, sealing the Southwest Border, investing in the F-47, revitalizing our shipbuilding industry,' he told lawmakers. The 3.8% pay raise matches the federal formula for the recommended annual military pay raise, a calculation that Congress has followed most years for the last two decades. The formula is based on changes in wages for the civilian workforce and is designed to ensure that military paychecks don't lag behind compensation for other industries. Military pay has increased by at least 2% every year since 2017, and troops have seen a pay increase annually since the 1970s. Last January, that military pay raise was 4.5%. In addition, Congress approved a targeted pay raise for junior enlisted service members that went into effect on April 1, raising their paychecks by up to 10%. For junior enlisted troops, a 3.8% raise in 2026 would mean about $1,200 more in take-home pay. For senior enlisted and junior officers, the raise would add about $2,500 more to their annual paychecks. An O-4 with 12 years of service would see almost $4,300 more over 2025 pay levels. The pay increase will cost more than $6 billion next year, taking up nearly all of the planned increase in the appropriations bill's personnel account hike. As a result, other procurement accounts are being held flat or losing funding, potentially cutting other equipment and modernization priorities. The appropriations bill also projects $662 million in savings from 'slowing permanent change of station moves,' although specifics of that plan were not released by the committee. Democrats also objected to policy provisions in the bill blocking service personnel from traveling across state lines to seek reproductive health care, including abortion services. During former President Joe Biden's term in office, the department helped cover the cost of such trips, calling it a force readiness issue. Senate appropriators — both Republicans and Democrats — on Tuesday raised concerns about missing details from the White House's defense budget plan. That chamber is expected to unveil its appropriations draft of the military budget for next year in the next few weeks.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
EDITORIAL: Auditor general targets spending on fighter jets
Be alarmed. Be very alarmed. A day after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced he will invest billions of new taxpayer dollars to meet Canada's NATO target of spending 2% of our gross domestic product (GDP) on defence, a scathing report by the auditor general reveals massive cost overruns in the government's plan to modernize Canada's aging fleet of fighter jets. Karen Hogan reported Tuesday that the cost of buying 88 F-35 fighter jets to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s — estimated at $19 billion in 2022 because the government used outdated information — had increased by almost 50% to $27.7 billion by 2024. That's without including the added costs of building essential infrastructure — now more than three years behind schedule — and purchasing advanced weaponry to make the F-35s fully operational, which Hogan said will add at least $5.5 billion more to the final price tag. The fighter jet program also faces a shortage of qualified pilots, despite being warned about that issue in a 2018 report by the auditor general. Hogan said some of the government's cost increases were unavoidable due to inflation, fluctuations in foreign exchange rates and supply chain shortages caused by the 2020 global pandemic. But others were caused by government failures. 'National Defence's approach to managing risks … had weaknesses, lacking proactive measures to minimize the impact of potential threats and the project did not have robust contingency plans,' Hogan concluded. Adding to the uncertainty is that Carney has ordered a review on whether Canada should purchase all 88 American-made fighter jets or consider possible alternatives such as European-made fighter jets. EDITORIAL: Meeting NATO's 2% target the right move EDITORIAL: Jobless numbers spell trouble Defence Minister David McGuinty gave the standard government boilerplate response to the auditor general's findings, saying the government accepts the auditor general's recommendations and will implement some by Sept. 30 and others by Nov. 30. Which means that, as is the standard operating procedure in responses to critical auditor general reports these days, the same people who created the problems will now be trusted to fix them. That's disturbing in the context of the massive amount of new spending Carney has promised in order to hit Canada's NATO target of committing 2% of Canada's GDP annually to defence spending, starting during this fiscal year, which ends on March 31, 2026, compared to 1.4% last year.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
If Tennessee chooses state law over NIL pledge, it risks being kicked out of SEC
This story was updated to add new information. A new Tennessee law triggered the power conferences of college sports into demanding member schools like the University of Tennessee and Vanderbilt to sign a loyalty pledge over new player pay rules or face possible expulsion. Knox News confirmed the existence of the loyalty document through a source with direct knowledge of the situation. The source requested anonymity because those correspondence are between the conferences and member schools. The document is being circulated by the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and the SEC. It demands that member schools agree to follow new rules involving paying players despite state laws giving the freedom to circumvent the rules. And the pledge also requires schools to waive their right to sue the NCAA or conferences if they disagree with the implementation of those rules. The document has not been finalized. But potential consequences of not signing it include expulsion from the conference or participation in playing games against other power conference schools. The new Tennessee law applies to all four-year universities in the state, public and private. UT and Vanderbilt are in the SEC, one of four power conferences. A clause in the law permits Vanderbilt and private universities to opt out of the protections of the state law in order to cooperate with the NCAA or the College Sports Commission, a newly proposed entity overseen by the four power conferences. Additionally, it appears that UT is guiding the approach of the law because of how it's utilized lawmakers against the NCAA in the past. University of Memphis (American Athletic Conference), Middle Tennessee State (Conference USA) and other state universities are in mid-major conferences that likely won't require a pledge to follow the new college sports player pay rules. For better or worse, this makes Tennessee the epicenter of another earthquake in college sports. Expulsion from the SEC seems inconceivable for UT, a charter member since 1932. But whether it's a legitimate threat or a negotiating tactic remains to be seen. In a statement to Knox News, UT pledged to comply with the pending House settlement, which will create the new system for player pay, while acknowledging the need for the state law. 'The University of Tennessee has committed to following the House settlement if it is approved,' UT said in a statement. "That commitment has not changed. We appreciate the Tennessee General Assembly's forethought in passing NIL legislation that provides future protections for student-athletes and institutions beyond the House settlement." Vanderbilt and the SEC did not immediately respond to a Knox News request for comment. Threatening a loyalty pledge is a bold move by the NCAA and power conferences and, most certainly, in response to the new Tennessee law, which was signed by Gov. Bill Lee on May 1 and surfaced about two weeks later. The law protects Tennessee universities from anticipated antitrust lawsuits by athletes and NIL collectives unhappy with the player-pay rules coming to college sports. The new college sports system will include a salary cap of direct school-to-player pay, roster limits, revenue sharing that challenges Title IX principles of publicly funded institutions and a clearinghouse that vets NIL contracts. It could help stabilize college sports, but lawsuits challenging those rules are expected. If athletes, boosters or collectives sue, the new state law allows Tennessee universities to opt out of those college sports rules and shift liability toward the NCAA and conferences. It also prevents the NCAA from penalizing schools that circumvent those rules for purposes of following the law. Only a federal law, a valid court order or antitrust exemption for college athletics can supersede Tennessee's new law. That escape hatch for Tennessee schools sounded alarms across the college sports landscape. TENNESSEE DILEMMA: Why Vols winning too much could be a problem in player-pay era Opinions about Tennessee's approach vary around college sports. About a dozen states have enacted similar laws in the everchanging arms race of paying college athletes with few restrictions. But Tennessee's law is believed to be the strongest and most evasive to NCAA rules and the conditions of the pending House settlement. The timing of Tennessee's new law is also problematic. A new college sports system for paying athletes could begin as early as July 1, pending the multi-billion-dollar House settlement, which resolves three federal antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA and four power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC). That settlement could come any day now. There's growing skepticism that it will solve the legal and structural problems in college sports, although some are cautiously optimistic that it'll at least achieve some progress. Opponents of the new state law believe Tennessee is nixing an effective agreement days before it's signed by a federal judge. But proponents of the state law believe Tennessee is being proactive by keeping its legal options in anticipation of a system it believes will fail. The most straightforward take of the situation is that Tennessee is protecting its own interests ahead of the SEC or college sports. Whether that's a wise move or heavy handed is debatable, but it certainly got the attention of college sports leaders. Tennessee schools intend to comply with the system prescribed in the House settlement, but that plan remains hazy. UT, specifically, wants legal cover if the new rules violate antitrust law. Here are examples of what UT fears if it's not given liability protection by the state law. A new clearinghouse will determine if NIL deals are legitimate and of fair market value. Legally, that appears to be a difficult standard to define. If an athlete or collective sues because an NIL deal is declined, UT wants the flexibility to approve the contract independent of NCAA rules or at least opt out of the system to avoid a lawsuit. Lawsuits on numerous antitrust grounds are anticipated after the House settlement is approved. The NCAA, power conferences and schools could be sued. There's no indication whether those suits would be successful. But UT doesn't want to be among the defendants, and the state law says Tennessee schools don't have to follow anticompetitive NCAA rules. If damages are awarded in antitrust lawsuits, the state law says that Tennessee schools can't be held responsible for paying them. Instead, the NCAA would be liable. UT wants to avoid punishment from the NCAA if it opts out of rules that it finds to violate antitrust laws. If that occurs, the state law protects UT from NCAA sanctions. Notably, UT football is already on probation until July 13, 2028, as a result of the Jeremy Pruitt recruiting scandal. Some college sports stakeholders believe Tennessee isn't being a team player. But UT has reasons to distance itself from the NCAA in future lawsuits, and it has a good track record against the governing body. They faced off in federal court in 2024 after the state of Tennessee, on behalf of UT, sued the NCAA to loosen its stringent rules over NIL benefits. UT won that battle. On Jan. 31, 2025, the NCAA and a coalition of states led by Tennessee reached a settlement that protects student-athletes' NIL rights during the recruiting process and prohibits the NCAA from bringing back its NIL recruiting ban. And in 2023, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti threatened to sue the NCAA if it gave the UT football team a postseason ban in the Pruitt recruiting scandal. UT also won that battle, as the NCAA relented from issuing a postseason ban. The bad blood between UT and the NCAA can't be ignored as a backdrop to this state law. And don't be surprised if Skrmetti or Tennessee lawmakers get involved again if this situation escalates. Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: If Tennessee chooses state law over NIL pledge, it risks SEC expulsion
