Flow Becomes Inter Miami CF's Official Spring Water
Nicholas Reichenbach, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Flow, said, "We are thrilled to be partnering with Inter Miami, a fútbol club like no other, to bring Flow Mineral Spring Water to spectators at Chase Stadium. As Inter Miami continues to capture hearts and expand its fanbase, we see this as a prime opportunity to hydrate fans across the Miami area, aligning our brand with a city that champions a passion for sports and unity."
"At Inter Miami, we are always looking for ways to elevate the fan experience, and our refreshing partnership with Flow is a perfect match," said Euan Warren, Vice President of Partnerships at Inter Miami. "Flow's commitment to quality and sustainability makes them an ideal partner to help keep our fans hydrated as they bring their passion to Chase Stadium."
About Flow
Flow is one of the fastest-growing water companies in North America. Founded in 2014, Flow's mission since day one has been to reduce environmental impacts by providing sustainably sourced natural mineral spring water in the most sustainable product formats. Today, the brand is B-Corp Certified with a best-in-class score of 126.5, offering a diversified line of health and wellness-oriented beverage products: original mineral spring water, award-winning organic flavours and sparkling mineral spring water in sizes ranging from 300-ml to 1-litre. All products contain naturally occurring electrolytes and essential minerals and support Flow's overarching purpose to "bring wellness to the world through the positive power of water." Flow products are available at retailers in Canada and the United States, and online at flowhydration.com.
About Inter Miami CF
Club International de Fútbol Miami, known as Inter Miami CF, is an American professional sports team in its sixth season in Major League Soccer. Inter Miami plays and trains at its 34-acre centralized facility, which includes Chase Stadium, a 50,000-square-foot training center and seven fields in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In addition to the MLS team, the Club fields MLS NEXT Pro team Inter Miami CF II and has a youth Academy for ages U-12 to U-19. Inter Miami CF Main Partners include: Royal Caribbean, Fracht Group, JPMorgan Chase, Baptist Health, Florida Blue, and Polkadot. Please visit www.intermiamicf.com for more information.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking information and forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws ("Forward-Looking Statements"). The Forward-Looking Statements contained in this press release relate to future events or Flow's future plans, operations, strategy, performance or financial position and are based on Flow's current expectations, estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions. Such Forward-Looking Statements have been made by Flow in light of the information available to it at the time the statements were made and reflect its experience and perception of historical trends. All statements and information other than historical fact may be forward-looking statements. Such Forward-Looking Statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "may", "would", "should", "could", "expect", "intend", "estimate", "anticipate", "plan", "foresee", "believe", "continue", "expect", "believe", "anticipate", "estimate", "will", "potential", "proposed" and other similar words and expressions.
Forward-Looking Statements are based on certain expectations and assumptions and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond Flow's control, that could cause actual events, results, performance and achievements to differ materially from those anticipated in these Forward-Looking Statements. Forward-Looking Statements are provided for the purposes of assisting the reader in understanding Flow and its business, operations, prospects, and risks at a point in time in the context of historical and possible future developments, and the reader is therefore cautioned that such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Forward-Looking Statements should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these Forward-Looking Statements, which speak only as of the date of this press release. Unless otherwise noted or the context otherwise indicates, the Forward-Looking Statements contained herein are provided as of the date hereof, and the Company disclaims any intention or obligation, except to the extent required by law, to update or revise any Forward-Looking Statements as a result of new information or future events, or for any other reason.
The following press release should be read in conjunction with the management's discussion and analysis ("MD&A") and consolidated financial statements and notes thereto as at and for the year ended October 31, 2024. Additional information about Flow is available on the Company's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca, including the Company's Annual Information Form for the year ended October 31, 2024 dated January 29, 2025.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250210100346/en/
Contacts
Trent MacDonald, Chief Financial Officer1-844-356-9426investors@flowhydration.com
Inter Miami Communications:Paola GarcíaPaola.Garcia@intermiamicf.com
Investors:Marc Charbininvestors@flowhydration.com
Media:Natasha Koifmannk@nkpr.net
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
17 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Federal Reserve official gives green light to July rate cut
Is tariff inflation lagging, only to then burst and slip away? Or is it here to stay? Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Just ask Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller. Waller, a Trump appointee, surprised some Fed watchers late last month. He opined the Federal Open Markets Committee should cut the Federal Funds Rate at its July 29-30 meeting, citing slower-than-expected inflation data that wasn't going to be as hot as expected. Related: JPMorgan drops blunt forecast on future interest rate cuts Waller doubled down on that position July 17, saying the latest data, including the June CPI figure at 2.7% and other recent economic numbers, show it's definitely time for the Fed's first rate cut in 2025. But will the rest of Fed leadership vote for it? Image source: Bloomberg/Getty Images The tariffs, which President Donald Trump announced on "Liberation Day'' in April, now face an Aug. 1 deadline. They are the highest in nine decades, ranging from 10% to 50% on imported goods and services. An interest rate cut has been the mantra of President Trump for months, saying the current rates are holding back the American economy from robust growth. The Federal Reserve Board has one job: comply with the dual congressional mandate to maintain 2% inflation and keep unemployment rates stable with steady GDP growth. It uses interest rates as a tool to manage that balance. The Federal Open Meeting Committee (FOMC) is the Fed's 12-member policymaking panel headed by Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Related: Trump deflects reports on firing Fed Chair Powell 'soon' The FOMC has been holding the Federal Funds Rate steady at 4.25% to 4.50% in anticipation of inflation from President Trump's tariffs and trade wars. The Federal Funds Rate is the price the Fed charges U.S. banks to borrow money overnight. This, in turn, sets the pace for short-term costs of borrowing money, such as through credit cards and auto and student loans. The 10-year Treasury Bond yield is the benchmark for longer-term interest rates like the 30-year fixed mortgage, currently hovering around 6.8%. The market expectations for how the Fed will set rates in the future influence long-term rates. The president is calling for a hefty slash of 3%, saying it will benefit Americans looking to buy homes with lower mortgages and reduce interest on the trillions of dollars in the U.S. deficit. In addition, he believes it will kickstart the overall economy in tandem with the new tax reconciliation act once known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. He's also been calling Powell a rotating list of personal and professional nasty and vulgar names as well as threatening to fire him (which are likely illegal but still caused some wonky fireworks over D.C. this week.) The Trump administration and its allies say the tariffs impact will be transitory, meaning it will represent a one-time hit to prices but not multiply and ripple through permanently. And while past tariffs in modern U.S. history have proven to shock prices in the short term, they tend to settle back down over the long run, according to some economists. "I believe we should cut the policy rate at our meeting in two weeks," Waller said in a speech in New York June 17. He called for a Fed's policy rate of 3%, or 125-150 basis points lower than the current rate of 4.25%-4.5%. Waller advocated returning the Fed's policy settings to "neutral," meaning interest rates at a level that neither speeds up nor slows down business activity, The New York Times reported. "With inflation near target and the upside risks to inflation limited, we should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate," he said. More Federal Reserve: Fed interest rate cut decision resets forecasts for the rest of this yearFederal Reserve prepares strong message on long-term interest ratesFed official revamps interest-rate cut forecast for this year Waller has in the past defended his analysis as "not political." Earlier that day, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh said in a CNBC interview that the central bank was in need of a "regime change." Warsh was quick to say the independence of the Fed is essential, but just as quickly advocated for significant monetary policy adjustments. If Waller and Warsh sound vaguely familiar, their names have been circulating as President Trump's possible replacement for Powell when the chair's term expires in May 2026. The third name on that list appears to be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Powell has said he will not resign before the end of his term and emphasizes he is focusing on maintaining the Fed's dual mandate. Given the warming inflation seen in this week's CPI numbers for June, the unimpressive jobs numbers, and the unknown impact of the tariffs, Fed watchers expect the current rates will maintain their "wait-and-see" hold at the September FOMC meeting. The widely watched CME Group FedWatch Tool forecasts a Federal Funds Rate cut at 4.7% later this month. Related: June inflation numbers reset Fed interest rate cut expectations The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The U.S. is losing its biotech edge over China — and that's bad news for the Bay Area
From gene therapies to cancer breakthroughs, California has been the driving force behind America's biotechnology industry. But today, that edge is slipping. A National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report to Congress in April stated that the U.S. is dangerously close to falling behind China in biotechnology innovation, and called for urgent investment and strategic coordination to maintain global leadership. Genentech's founding in 1976 in South San Francisco marked the start of the modern biotech era, and, ever since, California has been at the forefront of countless scientific discoveries and medical innovations. However, recent funding cuts and an overreliance on China for manufacturing pipelines leave our nation vulnerable. As the report urges, the U.S. must prioritize biotechnology at the national level or risk relying on China to use this strategic power for good. In 2011, the Chinese government declared biotechnology a ' strategic emerging industry ' and has since committed billions to secure dominance in areas like synthetic biology, gene editing and biomanufacturing. In 2024 alone, China conducted over 7,100 clinical drug trials, surpassing the United States and accounting for nearly 40% of global trial activity. Despite U.S. tariffs under the Trump administration designed to counter China's economic influence, China's gross domestic product has remained strong, fueling even greater investment in strategic sectors like biotechnology. By contrast, the U.S. continues to lose ground, constrained by outdated regulatory frameworks and a lack of coordinated federal strategy. While China is building a biotech empire with deliberate, state-backed coordination, the U.S. is stuck playing defense with shrinking budgets. U.S. federal support for biomedical research is slipping, with the budget for the National Institutes of Health facing a 40% cut in the coming year. For a region like the Bay Area, home to some of the world's most promising biotech startups and research institutions, these cuts have a direct toll, including the termination of $314 million in funding that was to be used to train the next generation of biomedical and health researchers. Major institutions like UCSF, Stanford and UC Berkeley are now bracing for delayed projects, staffing freezes and reductions in early-career fellowships that are vital to sustaining long-term innovation. On a national level, promising studies have been halted midstream, leaving research gaps in breakthrough treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other major infectious diseases that impact millions of Americans. When U.S. investment in domestic biotech falters, it slows innovation at home and creates an opening for global competitors to step in. China's government is strategically positioning its biotech sector to fill the gap left by stalled American research. Just last month, U.S. pharmaceutical firms signed 14 licensing deals with Chinese biotech companies worth up to $18.3 billion, underscoring our growing dependence on China's rapidly maturing R&D capabilities. This shift carries significant implications for California. It is home to over 16,500 life sciences companies and establishments, more than any other state, according to the California Biotechnology Foundation. The state directly employs more than 466,000 workers and generates more than $414 billion in annual economic output. In 2023, California led the nation in venture capital investment, raising over $34 billion for life science companies. Further, California accounted for 40% of all U.S. life sciences patents filed in 2023, and more bioscience patents are issued to California researchers than to those in any other state. Losing ground to China isn't just an economic risk; it's also a national security threat that could reshape who controls the future of health care. While the U.S. system is built on competition and patient outcomes, China's state-controlled model prioritizes strategic control and global influence. In America, ethical safeguards, transparency and regulatory review shape medical progress. In China, the government's control allows for faster approvals but also looser oversight, creating the risk of untested or misused science. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology warned that China's biotech advances could be weaponized — from battlefield-ready biologics to more nefarious applications. As a scientist working in biotechnology in the Bay Area, I understand that California plays a central role in this global race. From early-stage research in university labs to large-scale manufacturing by leading biotech firms, the state's infrastructure, talent and capital drive America's competitiveness. The Bay Area remains one of the most dense and productive biotech ecosystems in the world, thanks to its concentration of top-tier research institutions, world-class hospitals, a culture of entrepreneurship and the ability to attract the world's best and brightest to its academic and industrial ecosystem. But even here, the warning signs are hard to ignore. Federal NIH cuts have already disrupted major research projects at UC campuses, impacting our ability to attract talented students to our graduate and postdoctoral research programs, while venture capital is increasingly eyeing faster-moving regulatory environments abroad, preferring to license in late-stage assets from China instead of funding early-stage research at home. If Washington fails to prioritize a national biotech strategy, California's innovation engine could slow just as competitors abroad gain momentum. The state's economic future, public health leadership and ability to attract global talent are all at stake. China is no longer a distant biotech challenger and is actively reshaping the industry with its speed, regulatory agility and cost-efficiency, shifting the innovation center of gravity away from the U.S. The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology has made clear that this is not just a matter of competition, but a strategic threat with long-term consequences for public health and national security. If America is to remain a global leader in biotechnology, we must urgently invest in our domestic research ecosystem and rebuild the infrastructure that has powered decades of discovery or be forced to surrender it to a rival that plays by different rules. Ash Jogalekar is a scientist and science writer based in the Bay Area. He is a scientist in residence at the Oppenheimer Project and works on emerging threats and technology risks in areas like biotechnology and AI.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
What it would take to escape the two-party system
Earlier this month, Elon Musk said he wanted to form a new political party. He'd been teasing the idea ever since clashing with President Donald Trump over his 'big, beautiful bill,' which Musk accused of exploding the deficit. In June, Musk ran a poll on X asking users whether it was 'time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' More than 5 million people responded, and 80 percent voted yes. Then, on July 5, Musk announced he was forming the American Party in hopes of giving voters their 'back [their] freedom.' Those who follow Musk closely, like Bloomberg Businessweek national correspondent Joshua Green, have said Musk's latest project is in line with his pursuit of political power and attention. 'I think he thought he'd essentially bought that by backing Donald Trump to the tune of $300 million in the last election,' Green said previously on Today, Explained. 'And Trump turned on him, ousted him, took away his EV tax credits, didn't cut the deficit, trashed him on social media. And now I think Elon is humiliated and looking for a way to respond and hit back.' Trump has called Musk's third-party proposal 'ridiculous.' And the billionaire appeared to have moved from his third obsession by mid-July — at least on X — posting instead about Europe's fertility rate and running damage control for the antisemitic rants of his AI platform Grok. But regardless of whether he follows through on the 'America Party,' Musk appears to have hit a chord with an American electorate disillusioned by the two-party system. On Today, Explained, co-host Noel King dove into voters' desires, the history of third parties, and possible solutions to the two-party stranglehold with Lee Drutman, senior fellow at the New America think tank and author of Breaking the Two Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You are not a big fan of the two-party system. You know, I think it's outlived its usefulness. I think America is a pretty big, diverse country these days, you may have noticed. And to fit everybody into just two parties seems like kind of insanity, and it's clearly not working. Also, it has divided this country into two teams — the red and the blue team — that have learned to absolutely hate each other. It's created these artificial divisions around this zero-sum, winner-take-all electoral politics that is just really breaking down the foundations of democracy in this country. So, I think there was a time when it worked reasonably well for certain reasons, but that time is in the past. You will know that Elon Musk agrees with you. He says he wants to start a third party. He ran one of his polls [on X], and the question was: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' I'm looking at that poll now. Eighty percent of people said yes, 20 percent said no. How does that match up with reality in the US? Well, there are two parts to that question. One is: How many people want a third party? And then two is: How many people want that party to be somewhere in the middle? Now, the first part: How many people want a third party? That 80 percent is a little bit high. There might be some selection bias there, but it is close to polls that I've seen. Generally, about 60 to 70 percent of Americans say there ought to be more than two parties when polled. So, overwhelmingly, Americans say they want more than two parties. Now, is the party that they want a party in the center? That's less clear. I think people's perception of the political center depends on themselves. [Most] people think that they're more reasonable and they're more moderate. But in reality, when you look at the viewpoints of the American electorate, as I've done repeatedly, you see that the support for a genuine center party is limited to maybe 10 to 15 percent. But there is a lot of interest in parties that are maybe not as traditional. Third-party candidates do run for office all the time in the United States, they very rarely win. If so many voters want more options, why don't we have more people in elected office from third parties? Here you're hitting on the core problem, which is that we have a single-winner system of elections. So in a single-winner election, third parties become spoilers and wasted votes, because one of the two major parties is going to win every election. So, voting for a third party is just basically a protest vote, or maybe it could spoil the election. And as a result, most people don't want to do that because they think, well, I want to vote for somebody who at least has a chance of winning. And, more importantly, people who have ambition in politics say, well, I'm not going to waste my time with one of these fringe parties. I want to actually win. So you get minor parties that are mostly cranks and weirdos and people say, well, I'd like to vote for another party, but not that third party. What's the recent history of third-party candidates? Serious third-party candidates at a national level? I have a vague memory of Ross Perot, but I couldn't give you many details. It was the nineties. How serious have third-party candidates been over time? Well, Ross Perot is the most recent third-party candidate to actually get a pretty decent share of the electorate. He got almost 20 percent of the electorate, although he didn't win a single state. A lot of people remember Ralph Nader in 2000, who only got about 3 percent of the vote, but it was a very well placed 3 percent because his votes were more than the difference between Bush and Gore in Florida and a few other states. Before that, you had George Wallace running in 1968 on the American Independent Party as sort of a 'preserve segregation' platform. And then 1912, you have Teddy Roosevelt running as a Bull Moose third-party candidate. [He] was the most successful third-party candidate. Of course, he had already been president. So you've periodically had third-party challenges at a presidential level. At a House and Senate level, you have a few people who run as independents. But people tend to go right for the presidency because that creates a level of visibility if you're trying to build a party. If one thinks that the two-party system is a problem, let's talk about solutions. You advocate for something called proportional representation. Explain what that is and why you think it might be a solution here. Well, proportional representation is the most common system of voting, and it basically, at its simplest level, it means that parties get shares of seats in proportion to what percent of the vote they get. So if a party gets 30 percent of the vote, it gets 30 percent of the seats in the legislature. If it gets 10 percent, it gets 10 percent. Now, there are varieties of proportional representation that we could spend an hour going in the weeds. Tell me the one you like the best. What would work in the US? What I think would work in the US is probably the most commonly used version, which is called open list proportional representation with multi-member districts — which is this idea that rather than having a single district with a single representative, you have a single district with five representatives. The district is larger, and then the parties put forward lists of candidates. You choose the candidate from the party that you like, all the votes for each party get tallied up, and then the seats get allocated in proportion. So if a party gets 40 percent of the votes in that five member district, its top two candidates go to represent the district. If a party gets 20 percent, its top candidate [goes]. So, in theory, you could have five parties representing the same district. 'We've never had this level of dissatisfaction with the two-party system as far back as we've seen polling.' We talk a lot about gerrymandering as a huge problem, and it is. But [if] you move to five member proportional districts, gerrymandering becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter because votes are going to be allocated proportionally no matter what. So, everybody gets to cast a meaningful vote because every seat matters. Every seat is competitive. Every vote matters. Electoral reform is the most powerful tool we have. So, at the end of the day, has Elon Musk done something admirable here [by] making this a topic of conversation in a kind of real way? Yeah. So, I think by raising the issue of the need for a third party, it certainly opens up a conversation about what it would take. I'm not sure Elon's approach is going to be successful. On the other hand, if he's strategic and wants to spoil a few races that will determine control of the House and the Senate by running a spoiler candidate, then, historically, that's actually what has led to a wider conversation about electoral reform. And that's one of the reasons that a lot of countries moved to electoral reform.
