bankruptcy

Twink-ruptcy: Hostess May Go Under In Labor Dispute

by Dave Jamieson on April 17, 2012

Huffington Post…

Marking the peak of a heated labor dispute, Hostess Brands and the Teamsters union are squaring off in bankruptcy court Tuesday in a case that could decide the iconic company’s future. The union, which represents 7,500 Hostess workers, hasn’t reached a contract agreement with the bankrupt maker of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder bread, saying the company is demanding too much in the way of concessions. Hostess argues that its pension and labor costs are untenable. A ruling against Hostess in court would force the company back to the bargaining table with the Teamsters. A ruling in favor of Hostess would allow the company to escape its current labor contracts. “And in that case, we will be on strike,” Ken Hall, Teamsters vice president, told The Huffington Post. According to Hall, the union’s Hostess workers voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike. Though he wouldn’t put a date on it, he said the strike could happen “very soon.” The union recently acknowledged to the court that negotiations were ” in crisis .” Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn said in an emailed statement that a strike by either the Teamsters or the workforce’s other major union, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, would put the company under. “Hostess will be forced to liquidate if there were a strike by either of its largest unions because its lenders would pull their financing,” Rayburn said. “That’s why the company has tried to reach a consensual agreement with its unions that would lower the costs of its union pension and health plans while still providing employees with good, industry standard benefits.” The two sides failed to reach an agreement in advance of the hearing in bankruptcy court in New York, each arguing that the other’s proposals were unreasonable. After an offer made by Hostess over the weekend calling for steep pension cuts, the Teamsters made a counter offer with more modest concessions that amount to $150 million annually, including the temporary suspension of pension payments, according to the union. Hostess maintains that the current employee pension plans are too costly and financially unstable. In a letter to employees Monday, Hostess warned that a strike would cripple the company: “All Hostess Brands operations would shut down and liquidation would begin. The 18,500 jobs, plus the health insurance that comes with them, would be lost for good.” The union’s hard stance suggests a degree of frustration among rank-and-file workers. Dow Jones reported earlier this month that Hostess’ creditors were concerned that the company may have manipulated executive pay leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, possibly allowing Hostess managers to sidestep compensation requirements under bankruptcy law. The company has denied the creditors’ implications. Joseph Ortuso, a Hostess route salesman and Teamster based in New Jersey, said the news about executive pay was galling, given the talk of the need for shared sacrifice as the company struggles. “They’re saying they can’t afford to pay pensions when they’ve given [huge] increases to executives,” Ortuso, 53, said. According to Hostess, the raises put in place for executives last year were scrapped, and the company’s top four executives have agreed to work for $1 until either the end of this year or when the company emerges from Chapter 11, whichever comes first. The company also says unionized employees have had more generous raises than non-unionized employees during the past three years. “It is factually incorrect to claim that union employees are the only ones being asked to sacrifice,” Rayburn said. Hall, the Teamsters official, has been critical of Hostess management since the company came out of its last restructuring three years ago. He said the company needs to steer its branding and image toward healthier products to appeal to modern consumers. “All the other companies have changed with consumers’ desires,” Hall said. “This company hasn’t. We want to make sure whatever our members are giving up will help make this company profitable.” The company maintains that it, too, would like to invest in branding, marketing and research and development, but can’t under its current cost structure. The bankruptcy judge is expected to make a decision on Hostess’ union contracts in several weeks.

Read more from the original source:
Twink-ruptcy: Hostess May Go Under In Labor Dispute

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Huffington Post…

By Megan Murphy and Vanessa Houlder, Financial Times and Jeff Gerth, ProPublica In November 2001, Bank of New York, a mid-tier U.S. bank, transferred nearly $8 billion of its own assets to a trust in the small, business-friendly state of Delaware through several layers of newly created companies. A mixture of home mortgages, shares and other securities, the transferred assets made up almost 10 percent of the bank’s total assets at the time. Yet, the transaction was not discussed with BNY’s regulators; nor was it noted in the bank’s financial statements or annual report. It had little practical effect on the lender’s day-to-day operations 2014 the assets continued to be managed and serviced by the same employees in New York. But it was a critical first step in setting up a complex structure known as STARS 2014 structured trust advantaged repackaged securities 2014 which U.S. tax authorities claim was used by several American banks as an abusive tax shelter that has cost the government more than $1 billion in tax revenue in the past decade. This week, BNY will square off against the Internal Revenue Service in U.S. Tax Court in New York over STARS and the tax benefits tit triggered for the U.S. bank and U.K.-based Barclays, its counterpart in the deal. At issue is whether STARS was set up primarily to generate artificial foreign-tax credits, as the IRS contends; or was a legal way for BNY to obtain financing at rock-bottom rates. The arguments heard this week will pose a crucial test of the U.S. government’s resolve to rein in sophisticated corporate tax planning that has sapped vast amounts of potential revenue. Tax authorities worldwide, notably in the U.S. and U.K., are under mounting pressure to show that large companies are shouldering their share of the tax burden as part of a broader political debate about fairness and corporate social responsibility. “We are upping our game in the large business area, particularly as it relates to international tax issues,” Douglas Shulman, the U.S. internal revenue commissioner, said in a speech this month in Washington, D.C. For the IRS, losing the STARS disputes would be a serious blow to its strategy in high-value cases, tax lawyers said. For the banks, the risk is both financial 2014 $900 million is at stake in the BNY case alone 2014 and to their reputations. An investigation last year by the Financial Times and ProPublica first detailed how STARS produced tax benefits for U.S. banks beginning in 1999. In all, six banks 2014 BNY (now Bank of New York Mellon), BB&T, Sovereign (now a unit of Santander), Wachovia (now part of Wells Fargo), Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo 2014 participated in STARS deals with Barclays between 1999 and 2006. Five of those banks are challenging IRS rulings that disallowed foreign tax credits generated in those transactions. WaMu has settled a STARS dispute in bankruptcy court by agreeing to forgo $160 million in claimed tax credits. In total, the IRS says, the STARS deals created $3.4 billion in foreign tax credits. Now, documents filed in BNY’s case in the past few weeks 2014 the court proceedings begin Monday 2014 provide unprecedented detail about how STARS was crafted at a time when banks and accounting firms were offering deals for multinational corporations to take advantage of loopholes in rules governing foreign tax credits. At the simplest level, foreign tax credits are designed to prevent U.S. companies from being taxed twice on overseas income by allowing them to claim credit for taxes paid in foreign jurisdictions. In the BNY case, the IRS claims STARS allowed both Barclays and BNY to claim credits for the same “illusory” foreign tax charges, ultimately reducing the U.S. government’s tax revenue by $18.15 for every $100 of income funneled through the Delaware trust. “The record will establish that STARS was a pricey financing that no prudent banker would undertake but for the tax benefits generated by the meaningless circulation of cash flows,” according to a court filing by the IRS on March 27. BNY has argued that the deal was a complex but entirely legal , allowing the bank access to low-cost financing from Barclays for its everyday business activities. Brainchild of Barclays Like hundreds of other foreign-tax-driven transactions sold to companies in the boom years before the financial crisis of 2008, STARS was developed by Barclays’ famed structured finance group, known as Structured Capital Markets. Roger Jenkins, one of Britain’s best-known dealmakers, and Iain Abrahams, the expert behind most of the bank’s tax arbitrage transactions, led SCM. The idea was for STARS to manufacture tax credits for Barclays and a U.S. corporate taxpayer by circulating U.S. income through an entity taxed in the U.K., the IRS said in its filing. Because of the differences between U.S. and U.K. accounting rules, STARS would allow Barclays to reimburse a U.S. company for half the tax paid in the U.K. while not reducing the amount of foreign tax credits that could be claimed by either party, the IRS said. Barclays is not a party to the IRS dispute with BNY and has not been accused of wrongdoing by U.S. authorities. According to the IRS, blue-chip U.S. companies including Microsoft and insurers AIG and Prudential Life passed on early versions of STARS for unspecified reasons. But the IRS said BNY, which bought the deal in 2001, had grown “addicted” to tax-driven transactions, which provided it with an important source of revenue. Before buying STARS, the IRS says, BNY had entered into more than 100 “lease-back” transactions, known as Lilos and Silos, that produced tax advantages. Shortly after participating in STARS, BNY also purchased from Barclays another foreign-tax-credit structure, nicknamed Toga, that involved high-grade debt securities, the IRS said. “Barclays understood that BNY was highly receptive to a wide range of tax-based ideas, and had targeted BNY for an SCM 2018tax product’ after discussions with BNY senior executives,” the IRS said in its court filing. The IRS also described KPMG as a pivotal player. The accounting firm provided a U.S. tax opinion blessing the structure for Barclays and sold STARS to BNY for a fee of $6 million, according to the IRS filing. David Brockway, then of KPMG, was engaged to provide the firm’s opinion on STARS, and is expected to testify at trial, according to the IRS. Brockway, a leading U.S. tax lawyer, left KPMG in April 2005 amid scrutiny of the firm’s previous sales of potentially abusive tax shelters. The IRS also has named lawyer Raymond Ruble, formerly a partner at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., as a key adviser on the structure. Ruble was convicted of multiple counts of income-tax evasion in a separate tax-shelter case involving wealthy taxpayers in 2009. He is in a federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa. The IRS, Barclays, BNY, KPMG and Sidley Austin declined to comment on the case. Jenkins, now a partner at the Brazilian investment bank BTG Pactual; Abrahams, still a senior executive at Barclays in London; and Brockway, now a Washington-based partner at the law firm Bingham McCutchen LLP, also declined to comment. $900 Million Disputed Both sides acknowledge that BNY’s STARS deal was executed through highly choreographed steps. First, BNY transferred about $7.9 billion of income-producing assets to the Delaware trust through layers of newly created subsidiaries. Barclays, as the counterpart, acquired shares in the trust, giving it a right to nearly all the income generated by the assets. In return, Barclays loaned $1.5 billion to BNY, also via the trust. Barclays and BNY then executed a repurchase agreement, or “repo,” under which BNY agreed to buy back the shares in the Delaware trust five years later, in November 2006. BNY appointed a U.K. company as trustee of the Delaware trust, making the income it produced subject to U.K. tax. At the outset of the deal, the trust’s pool of assets were expected to generate about $460 million of income a year 2014 of which, at a tax rate of 22 percent, $100 million would be paid to U.K. tax authorities. When the trust income failed to reach $460 million, as expected, BNY injected extra assets, essentially to boost the income stream. At the heart of the structure are differences between how it is treated under U.S. and U.K. tax law. Under U.K. rules, Barclays was allowed to take a deduction against its other taxable income in the U.K. on the condition that it immediately reinvested the income produced by the assets in the trust. But it was able to simultaneously take a credit for the tax paid by the trust. According to the IRS, those tax benefits were shared with BNY, generating gains for both banks. For every $100 of income circulated through the trust, the U.S. government lost $18.15, which funded BNY’s profit of $7.15, Barclays’ profit of $7.70 and U.K. tax receipts of $3.30, the IRS claims. But under U.S. tax law, the deal was considered a secured lending arrangement. So, subject to U.S. tax rules, BNY, as owner of the U.K. trust, could also claim a foreign tax credit for the U.K. taxes paid. In 2001 and 2002, BNY claimed nearly $200 million in foreign tax credits from the STARS structure, which the IRS has disallowed. Including interest, the total amount in dispute is about $900 million, according to the bank’s most recent annual report. “The foreign tax credits that Bank of New York claimed in the U.S. at a 22 percent rate were far more than the actual U.K. tax attributable to STARS,” the IRS said in its filing. “In other words, Bank of New York claimed credits for phantom U.K. tax expense.” BNY is challenging the IRS’ refusal to allow the credits and says it entered the STARS deal to borrow low-cost funds. Because of the U.K. tax benefits the structure generated for Barclays, BNY claims the British bank was able to provide it with the five-year, $1.5 billion loan at more than three percentage points below the prevailing benchmark lending rate. “The complication was required by Barclays’ U.K. tax objectives, not by BNY,” the bank said in a court filing March 27. “By lending to [BNY] through the structure that Barclays designed, Barclays could offer a very favorable borrowing rate.” In the coming weeks, U.S. Tax Court will hear from the bankers, lawyers and accountants involved as well as a raft of experts. A final decision is not expected for at least several months. With much at stake, BNY and the IRS appear to be digging in for a protracted battle. In its latest filing, BNY accuses the government of using “emotionally laden” arguments to try to deliver a “sweet sound bite.” The IRS says “no rational person” would have participated in STARS if not for the foreign tax credits. Let the war of words begin. Vanessa Houlder covers taxation and Megan Murphy investment banking for the Financial Times in London. Senior reporter Jeff Gerth is in Washington, D.C.

Read the original here:
U.S. Lost $1 Billion To Banks In Last 10 Years Thanks To Tax Shelter

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

More Trouble For Twinkies Maker

April 15, 2012

DALLAS — The company that makes Twinkies, Wonder bread and Ding Dongs says it’s making a final offer to workers to accept cost-cutting before it asks a bankruptcy court to impose the cuts. Hostess Brands Inc. wants the Teamsters and bakers’ unions to accept reduced pension benefits and changes in work rules to lower costs. It wants to outsource some delivery work. The company said Saturday that if the unions reject the offer, it will push ahead with efforts in bankruptcy court to throw out the unions’ collective bargaining agreements. A union official warned that could lead to a strike. Hostess Brands filed for Chapter 11 protection in January, its second trip through bankruptcy court in less than a decade. A trial to decide the fate of the union contracts is scheduled to start Tuesday. Hostess wants to withdraw from some multi-employer pension plans, although it opened the door Saturday to possibly rejoining a few of the financially strongest plans. New hires would be covered by the same 401(k)-type retirement accounts used by nonunion and management employees. The company’s new CEO, Gregory F. Rayburn, said Hostess wants to cut annual pension contributions from $103 million to $25 million. Hostess also wants to change work rules that sometimes require two trucks instead of one, and to outsource deliveries to small stores. Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters, said the union would reject the company’s proposal and make a counteroffer Sunday. He said Hostess had provided only the barest details of how the new pensions program would work, and that employees already accepted big concessions in 2008. Workers represented by the Teamsters and the bakery and confectionary workers’ unions voted in February to authorize a strike, and Hall vowed Saturday that workers would walk off the job if the bankruptcy judge agrees to the company’s cuts. Rayburn said that if workers strike, the company will be forced to shut down and liquidate. Hostess makes sugary confections familiar to generations of Americans and it bakes Wonder bread, a leading white bread. Consumers increasingly have been buying other snacks, such as yogurt, and more wheat bread. White bread’s popularity has plunged – in 2000, it was eaten in 54 percent of all U.S. homes compared to 36 percent last year, according to consumer-marketing research firm NPD Group. Rayburn blamed Hostess’ problems on high pension and labor costs that led to insufficient investment in the company and new products. Rayburn said he doesn’t buy the healthy-diet explanation. “If that were the case and that was sort of the downfall, there wouldn’t be any chocolate companies out there either,” he said. “There’s a market for Twinkies and Ho Hos and Ding Dongs.” As part of its turnaround plan, Hostess wants to raise at least $400 million from current lenders or new investors or by selling brands. Rayburn said he has talked with a potential buyer of one of its small, regional brands. Before the company filed for bankruptcy protection, eight top executives got pay raises last year of up to 80 percent. This month, some agreed to take $1 a year until the company comes out of bankruptcy or Dec. 31, whichever comes first, while others gave up their pay raises.

Read the full article →

In Retrospect, Not Best Idea For MF Global Exec To Have Said That

April 14, 2012

* Edith O’Brien was involved in MF Global fund transfers * Refused to testify before Congress on her role * O’Brien appeared at CFTC in 2010 defending safeguards * Said customer safeguards work “extremely well” By Sarah N. Lynch and Aruna Viswanatha WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) – MF Global’s assistant treasurer, now a key figure in the mystery over the bankrupt firm’s missing customer money, praised how well customer safeguards work one year before the firm’s collapse. Edith O’Brien was a panelist at a Commodity Futures Trading Commission public meeting held on Oct. 22, 2010, to discuss the protection of individual customer funds, especially if a customer defaults. According to a transcript of the meeting, O’Brien told the other panelists that they were taking “an extraordinarily myopic view of the current safeguard structure that operates in America and has effectively worked to the best of my knowledge for years.” O’Brien appears to have played a critical role in the firm’s final days, as the futures brokerage suffered a liquidity crisis and desperately shifted funds before filing for bankruptcy on Oct. 31, 2011. Investigators including the CFTC and Justice Department are probing why more than $1 billion in customer funds are missing, and whether the firm raided customer money to meet the firm’s needs – a major violation of industry rules. Former MF Global Chief Executive Jon Corzine has specifically named O’Brien as someone who gave him assurances that fund transfers were proper. O’Brien has not spoken publicly about her version of events, and invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination at a congressional hearing last month. Neither the firm nor its executives have been formally charged with wrongdoing. At the 2010 CFTC meeting, O’Brien went on to say that there are multiple layers of safeguards for customer funds, including rules segregating customer funds from firm funds, and rules restricting what firms can do with customer funds while they are holding them. “So, as we continue the conversation this afternoon, I want everyone to consider the fact that there’s a greater framework at hand here, one that has actually worked extremely well,” she said according to a transcript on the CFTC’s website. A lawyer for O’Brien declined to comment about O’Brien’s remarks at the CFTC meeting. BATTLE OVER PROTECTIONS The CFTC was holding the roundtable, in part, to discuss a requirement in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law that calls for firms to legally protect each individual account for swaps customers, and not just protect a pool of accounts. How to devise such a customer fund protection scheme for swaps was a major source of contention. At the CFTC’s roundtable in 2010, futures brokerages like MF Global argued for using the customer fund protection model used in the futures market, where all of the customer money is pooled together in “omnibus” accounts. But pension funds and money managers have strongly opposed that idea, saying that pooling the money together puts customer collateral at risk. They have argued in favor of having individual, separate customer accounts. Futures brokerages have pushed back against individual account segregation, with the Futures Industry Association arguing it could cost firms nearly $100 million a year. The CFTC struck a compromise and finalized a rule earlier this year that allowed for firms to pool swaps customer funds together, but with strong record-keeping requirements to identify the accounts. On another proposal regarding stricter customer safeguards, Corzine, a former U.S. senator and a governor of New Jersey, personally lobbied the CFTC. He participated in phone calls in which he warned about a proposal to put tighter limits on “in-house” transactions in which futures brokerages use customers’ funds to make proprietary trades for their own accounts. MF Global and other industry players succeeded in delaying the proposal, which the CFTC ended up finalizing in December, after MF Global collapsed. (Reporting By Sarah N. Lynch and Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Karey Wutkowski and Tim Dobbyn)

Read the full article →

Will The Judge Approve Dodger Sale?

April 13, 2012

WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal bankruptcy court judge in Delaware is deciding whether to approve a reorganization plan by the Los Angeles Dodgers that would put the team on track to exit bankruptcy by April 30. The team said earlier this week that it expects U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross will confirm Frank McCourt’s plan to sell the team for $2 billion to Guggenheim Baseball Management. Mark Walter, chief executive officer of the financial services firm Guggenheim Partners, would become the controlling owner; former Atlanta Braves president Stan Kasten would run the team. During a morning portion of the hearing, lawyers for the Dodgers and Fox, the Dodgers’ current broadcaster, said they’d agreed on language Fox had sought stating Time Warner Cable is not involved in the purchase.

Read the full article →

High Five! Dodgers On Track To Exit Bankruptcy Thanks To Magic Sale

April 6, 2012

DOVER, Del. — The Los Angeles Dodgers filed a revised reorganization plan on Friday and said they are on track to exit bankruptcy as planned by April 30. The amended Chapter 11 plan filed Friday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware is based on an agreement announced last week to sell the team for more than $2 billion, which the Dodgers say will allow for the payment of all allowed creditor claims in full. The Dodgers are being bought by Guggenheim Baseball Management, a group that includes former Los Angeles Lakers star Magic Johnson and longtime baseball executive Stan Kasten. The $2 billion purchase price includes about $412 million of existing debt financing that will remain in place. The balance, just under $1.6 billion, will be paid in cash from equity financing by the owners and affiliates of Guggenheim, which has provided a cash deposit of about $159 million. “This agreement is the culmination of an auction process that was conducted over several months and reflects the highest and best bid generated by that process,” the team said in a prepared statement. The April 30 date was included in a settlement that resolved a dispute between the Dodgers and Major League Baseball over the team’s bankruptcy. It coincides with the deadline for current owner Frank McCourt to pay $131 million to his ex-wife, Jamie, as part of their divorce settlement. The judge presiding over the bankruptcy case has scheduled a hearing next Friday to consider whether to confirm the plan. While the purchase agreement with Guggenheim calls for the sale to close on April 30, it also allows the Dodgers to seek approval from MLB or the court to extend the closing date to sometime next month if need be. Court papers indicate that Dodgers chief financial officer Peter Wilhelm will remain in that post with the reorganized company. Kasten, former president of the Atlanta Braves and Washington Nationals, will serve as president and CEO. “By any measure, the plan is a remarkable outcome for the debtors, their estates, and all parties in interest, especially taking into account where these cases began,” Dodgers attorneys wrote in a memorandum supporting the revised plan. The Dodgers sought bankruptcy protection in June after baseball Commissioner Bud Selig refused to approve a new TV deal with Fox Sports that McCourt was counting on in order to make payroll and keep the franchise solvent. After the bankruptcy filing, attorneys for Selig successfully fought to force the Dodgers to accept bankruptcy financing from Major League Baseball, arguing at the same time that McCourt had looted more than $180 million from the team for his own use and reasons not related to baseball, and that he should be forced to sell the team. The Dodgers, meanwhile, threatened to seek court permission to enter into a new media rights deal without the approval of MLB. After battling for several months, the Dodgers and MLB reached an agreement last year that authorized a sale of both the team and a process to market the media rights to games starting in 2014. Fox Sports objected to the settlement with MLB and the proposed marketing of future media rights, saying it violated Fox’s rights under its existing telecast contract with the Dodgers. The Dodgers reached a settlement with Fox in January after a federal district court judge said Fox likely would win an appeal of the bankruptcy judge’s ruling authorizing the marketing of the media rights.

Read the full article →

Man Duped by Car Loan Scam Tells His Story

April 5, 2012

Scott Zane, 42, was desperate the day he contacted Hope for Car Owners. It was the summer of 2010, and the Orlando, Fla.-based IT specialist had recently lost his job. Zane had a $1,600 monthly mortgage payment and a $600 monthly car payment. Even though he had secured a new job in law enforcement, he had taken a huge pay cut. Just months earlier he had been making $80,000 a year but was now pulling in just $48,000. Something had to give. He had resigned himself to losing his condominium but was determined to keep his 2007 Dodge Durango. “I’d tried to talk to my [auto] lender and say, ‘Hey, I don’t want to lose my vehicle,’” Zane told The Huffington Post. “‘I love my vehicle. I purchased a lifetime warranty on it. Help me.’ But they didn’t want to work with me. So Hope for Car Owners was a last ditch effort.” While looking online for help with his car loan, Zane had discovered Hope for Car Owners. For an up-front fee of $399, Hope for Car Owners promised to renegotiate Zane’s car loan so his monthly payments would be lower. The thought crossed his mind that it could be a scam, that he might pay the fee and never get the help, but as he read the customer testimonials on the company’s website, he began to feel more confident. He called the toll-free number and spoke with a company representative. “They said they have strategic alliances with major lenders, and I was told my lender was one of them,” said Zane, who decided to pay the fee. Turns out he would have been better off if he had followed his gut instinct. Hope for Car Owners is now facing federal charges for defrauding consumers . For weeks Zane did not hear anything from Hope for Car Owners. He did receive a letter from his lender stating that he had been approved for a 60-day deferment. Although Zane called and emailed Hope for Car Owners for a status update and guidance about how to proceed after the deferment period ended, no one replied. Unsure what to do, Zane resumed making his payments after the 60 days passed and continued to try to contact the company. He eventually reached a Hope for Car Owners representative who informed him that the company had delivered its promised services in securing the deferment and therefore had closed his account. “I was like, ‘Really?’ Most lenders will give you a deferment if you ask,” Zane said. “I could have done that myself. Why would I pay $399 for something I could have done on my own?” Arguing that he had hired the company to secure him a loan modification, Zane asked for a refund. Although the company advertised on its website that it grants refunds to dissatisfied customers, it refused to do so. Zane is among many customers believed to have been duped by Hope for Car Owners, one of two California auto loan modification companies that the Federal Trade Commission alleges have scammed struggling car owners. The FTC announced it was filing charges against both companies in district court on Wednesday , the first time the agency has brought cases against companies offering car loan modifications. One car owner filed a complaint against the company with the FTC alleging that she paid $400 to the company to renegotiate her loan. Since Hope for Car Owners advised her to stop making payments on her vehicle, she did not send her next payment; her lender informed her that her car was going to be repossessed. The Better Business Bureau has received 30 complaints about Hope for Car Owners and rated it an F on a scale of A+ to F because the “complaints contain a pattern of serious allegations that after paying fees the company failed to negotiate auto loans.” One Hope for Car Owners customer reported to the bureau that not only did the company fail to secure her a loan modification but that she had to pay her lender the difference between the loan balance and the auction sale price when her car was then sold at an auction. Hope for Car Owners could not be reached for comment and the company website hope4carowners.com no longer seems to be in operation. For his part, Zane filed for bankruptcy last summer, at which point he surrendered his Durango. “It absolutely broke my heart because I’d never liked a vehicle as much as this vehicle, and I only owed $17,000 by that point,” he said. Upon learning that the FTC is bringing charges against Hope for Car Owners, Zane said he was pleased that justice might be served. “I strongly believe in karma,” Zane said. “It took a while but karma apparently did catch them sooner or later, and karma’s a bitch when it comes back around.”

Read the full article →

Tribune, DirecTV Reach Deal

April 5, 2012

NEW YORK (AP) — DirecTV subscribers in 19 U.S. markets have regained access to a host of channels that had been blacked out since Sunday because of a contract impasse with Tribune Broadcasting. The two companies said late Wednesday that they had struck a deal that will allow DirecTV Inc. to carry all of Tribune Broadcasting’s local stations and WGN America for the next five years. Terms were not disclosed. DirecTV Inc. subscribers in the markets lost access to programming ranging from “American Idol” to Major League Baseball after the previous contract with Tribune Broadcasting expired at midnight Saturday. The Tribune Broadcasting channels were restored at about 9 p.m. EDT Wednesday, DirectTV said. The blackout affected DirecTV subscribers in major markets including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Philadelphia. The blackout also extended to stations in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, Washington state and Washington, D.C. DirectTV said 5 million homes were affected. In its statement Wednesday, DirecTV accused Tribune of being “willing to hold our customers hostage in an attempt to extract excessive rates.” But it described the final agreement as a fair deal at market rates. Tribune also said it was pleased with the deal. “On behalf of Tribune Broadcasting, I want to thank viewers across all of our markets for their support, understanding and patience during the negotiating process — we truly regret the service interruptions of the last several days,” said Nils Larsen, president of Tribune Broadcasting. Chicago-based Tribune Co.’s broadcasting group owns or runs 23 television stations, WGN America on national cable and Chicago radio station WGN-AM. Its publishing arm includes daily newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and The Baltimore Sun. Tribune Co. filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2008 after suffering a financial downturn brought on by a steep slump in newspaper advertising and a debt-laden buyout engineered by real estate mogul Sam Zell. DirecTV, based in El Segundo, Calif., serves 32 million people in the U.S. and Latin America.

Read the full article →

Student Loan Debt In Their 60s

April 2, 2012

It’s not just twenty-somethings that are carrying the weight of the student loan debt crisis. In fact, a sizable chunk of nation’s student loan debt is held by senior citizens–many of whom cannot afford to pay off the debt. Two million seniors in the U.S. who are age 60 and over have student loan debt, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. These seniors owe 4.2 percent of all student loan debt, or $36.5 billion in student loans. ( H/t The Washington Post .) 11.2 percent of all student loan debt held by seniors is in default, according to the New York Fed. Student loans can be a lifelong burden because people who declare bankruptcy cannot get student loan debt forgiven unless they can prove that their student loans are an “undue hardship.” As a result, seniors can lose much of their Social Security income to student loan payments. Many seniors are barely getting by, debt aside. Nearly half of all Baby Boomers are at risk of having to downgrade their living standards after retirement, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. There are a number of reasons why seniors may still carry student loan debt. While some are still paying off debt they took on in their 20s, others have gone back to school. They also may take on more debt by co-signing student loans for their children or grandchildren, according to The Washington Post . Because of the tough economy, Baby Boomers have gone back to school in droves to build their job skills. The number of U.S. college students between the ages of 50 and 64 surged 17 percent between the fall of 2007 and the fall of 2009, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics cited by the Columbus Dispatch . At Columbus State Community College, the number of students who are at least age 50 has spiked 81 percent since fall of 2007, according to the Columbus Dispatch . Some have borrowed so much in student loans that it would require an unrealistic salary to pay the loans off. The top 1 percent of student loan borrowers owe at least $150,000 in student loans, according to the New York Fed. It would require a salary of at least $207,000 per year in order to pay off $150,000 in 10 years; $137,000 per year to pay off the loans in 20 years; $117,000 per year to pay off the loans in 30 years; or $109,000 per year to pay off the loans in 40 years, according to the FinAid calculator . Total U.S. student loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion , topping credit card debt as the largest source of unsecured consumer debt in the U.S., according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Read the full article →

Major Flight Attendant Drama

April 1, 2012

— Flight attendants at US Airways voted down a tentative agreement that would have been their first joint contract since the merger with America West in 2005. The deal was rejected by 75 percent of 5,832 voting flight attendants, according to their union. America West bought the old US Airways out of bankruptcy protection in 2005 to form the current US Airways Group Inc. But flight attendants and pilots have both continued to operate under separate contracts. That has meant the airline has to schedule them separately, in some ways running two separate airlines. Flight attendants from the old US Airways are still working under pay cuts they took under a 2005 contract while the airline was still operating under bankruptcy protection. The rejected deal would have given them 11 percent raises. America West flight attendants would have gotten raises of 22 percent to 65 percent, although they would have also given up vacation time and paid more for health insurance, according to materials distributed by the union before the vote. Both groups are covered by separate units of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA. A joint negotiating committee had unanimously recommended approval of the deal. “We believe that to get more money out of this company would require a strike,” which is difficult under federal labor rules, the committee wrote to workers on March 20. But the next day, the council that runs the part of the union for pre-merger US Airways flight attendants ousted long-time president Mike Flores, apparently over his strong support for the deal. On Friday, the union said it will push to restart talks, which are controlled by the federal National Mediation Board. US Airways Chairman and CEO Doug Parker said in a written statement that the airline is disappointed by the vote. He said the company will consult with the union and the National Mediation Board “to determine the best steps going forward to one day reach a ratified agreement.” Shares of the Tempe, Ariz.-based airline fell 30 cents, or 3.8 percent, to $7.59 in aftermarket trading after the vote was released.

Read the full article →

China’s Sino-Forest declares bankrupt at Canadian court

April 1, 2012

(MENAFN) Sino-Forest Corp., once China’s largest forestry company by market value, filed for bankruptcy in Canada, nine months after it was accused of fraud by short seller Carson Block, Bloomberg …

Read the full article →

Tribune Broadcasting: No Deal Reached With DirecTV

April 1, 2012

NEW YORK (AP) — DirecTV Inc. subscribers in 19 U.S. markets have lost access to certain programming, after Tribune Broadcasting said it failed to reach a settlement with the satellite television provider in their contract negotiations. Tribune Broadcasting said late Saturday in a statement that without a deal in place, DirecTV was barred by federal law from carrying the signal of Tribune’s local television stations after midnight, when their agreement expired. The affected markets include New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Philadelphia. Customers could lose TV programs including “American Idol,” ”Gossip Girl,” and Major League Baseball, depending on who owns local affiliates that carry the shows. Tribune president Nils Larsen called the situation “extremely unfortunate.” In its own statement, DirecTV said it had hoped Tribune would allow its programming to remain up while negotiations continue. But as it struck midnight in each time U.S. time zone, Tribune channels carried by DirecTV went blank. Earlier, DirecTV said that it had accepted the financial terms that Tribune’s management offered it by telephone two days ago. But Tribune came out with its own statement shortly after, saying it had not reached a deal or come to terms with DirecTV on any aspect of the contract. DirecTV fired back, saying in another statement that it had a handshake deal with Tribune on Thursday with an agreed upon rate for their channels. “Their actions are the true definition of ‘bad faith’ in every sense of the term,” DirecTV said. The satellite TV provider also wondered whether Tribune was having difficulty negotiating because of its bankruptcy process. “Threatening station blackouts to extract an exorbitant fee for all of Tribune’s content may provide an improved return for certain banks and hedge funds, but is not in the interest of its viewers and is not a cure for bankruptcy,” DirectTV said. Negotiations have been ongoing for months. DirecTV subscribers in the markets where Tribune owns the local Fox affiliate lost access to programs such as “American Idol” and Major League Baseball. Where Tribune owns the local affiliate of The CW Network, DirecTV subscribers are unable to see shows such as “Gossip Girl” and “Vampire Diaries.” Larsen said in a statement Thursday that if an agreement was not reached, DirecTV subscribers would still be able to watch programs on broadcast stations for free in high definition with a TV antenna or by signing up with an alternative pay-TV provider. Tribune’s broadcasting group owns or runs 23 television stations, WGN America on national cable and Chicago radio station WGN-AM. Its publishing arm includes daily newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and The Baltimore Sun. DirecTV serves 32 million people in the U.S. and Latin America.

Read the full article →

Why You Don’t Want To Win The Lottery

March 30, 2012

Strange but true: an extra-big lottery prize means you’ve got an extra-big chance of going bankrupt. That’s the implication of a paper published in 2010 by researchers at Vanderbilt University, the University of Kentucky and the University of Pittsburgh. The authors looked at lottery winners as separated into two groups: those who won sizable cash prizes (between $50,000 and $150,000) and those who won more modest prizes of $10,000 or less. They found that five years after the fact, the big winners were the ones more likely to have filed for bankruptcy . We’re bringing this up today, of course, because America went crazy for lottery tickets this week, buying up so many entries in the Mega Millions drawing that the jackpot soared to a record-smashing $640 million. That number could get higher still: if a winner isn’t picked Friday night, according to The Boston Globe , the pot will climb to an estimated $975 million . It’s tempting stuff — especially at a moment when half of all Americans earn less than $27,000 a year , and more and more people can’t afford the basics . But this paper — plus a wealth of additional evidence, anecdotal and otherwise — suggests that winning the lottery may not be the best thing that could happen to you. The researchers, led by Mark Hoekstra of the University of Pittsburgh, found that five years down the line, there were almost no meaningful differences between the big lottery winners and the small. The two groups had comparable assets and debts. But there was one big distinction — the big winners were more likely to have gone bankrupt, for the simple reason that, as the authors put it, they had “consumed their winnings.” The study notes that the researchers controlled for the financial health of the lottery winners — meaning that before they actually won , the big winners were no more or less likely to file for bankruptcy than the small winners were. So the risk of bankruptcy seems to have been directly linked to the size of the prize. Obviously, $150,000 is a sum on a totally different scale from $640 million — or even $324 million, after taxes . So whoever takes home the Mega Millions cash may not have exactly the same experience as the people in the study. Still, recent history is thick with examples of people who struck gold in the lottery and saw their lives take a sharp turn for the worse. Business Insider has a collection of numerous grim cases , including people who lost their money to gambling or drug addiction, and one Pennsylvania man whose brother tried to have him killed in the hopes of inheriting a share of the cash. And Jen Doll at the Atlantic Wire offers an even more comprehensive primer , including people whose lottery wins prefaced social ostracization, destitution, suicide and other tragic outcomes.

Read the full article →

You Won’t Believe How Many Older Women Can’t Pay Their Bills

March 29, 2012

Every day, more of America’s older women reach retirement age — and then struggle to pay for the simplest things. Among all women in the United States, age 65 or older, living alone or with a spouse, 60 percent have trouble covering their monthly expenses such as food, housing and health care, according to research published Thursday by the nonprofit group Wider Opportunities for Women, based on an analysis of U.S. Census data. It’s a problem that Donna Addkison, the president and chief executive of WOW, called “staggering.” “We’re talking about what it takes to just simply cover the everyday necessities,” Addkison told The Huffington Post. “Older women are very quietly making decisions at home to split their pills in an attempt to stretch their medication. They’re choosing between having heat in the winter and having nutritious food on the table.” The situation transcends geography, with “no states in the nation” that can be described as “a haven for older adults,” she said. Indeed, with the economy the way it is, older women aren’t the only ones being forced to make these kinds of decisions. In post-recession America, deprivation is increasingly a way of life for millions. With the jobless rate high and wages more or less holding steady, vast swaths of the population today are leading a precarious, savings-less existence , in which one financial emergency is all it would take to tip a family into poverty. Record numbers of Americans are now counted as poor , and the percentage of people who say they can’t afford food is at its highest level since the financial crisis . Among all this, seniors face their own set of challenges, from rising health care bills to the growing industry of financial scammers who target elderly people . More than 9 million people age 65 and older don’t have enough money to cover their basic costs, according to a separate WOW report published earlier this month. And within that group, women are having a rougher time of it. While 60 percent of women are unable to pay for necessities, only 41 percent of men wrestle with the same problem, WOW calculated. For women of color, the problem is more pronounced, according to WOW: While about 49 percent of older white women have trouble covering their basic costs, the rate for older Asian women is 61 percent, older African-American women 74 percent and older Hispanic women 75 percent. “That goes beyond staggering,” said Addkison. “That becomes epidemic.” This gender gap is the result of a lifetime of imbalances, Addkison told HuffPost. Women earn less than men — the disparity varies by industry , but averages out to about 77 cents on the dollar . For college graduates, this pay gap tends to emerge within a year of their entering the workforce, and it only grows wider over time . Ultimately, the result is that most women, compared with most men, have smaller Social Security benefits waiting for them when they reach the end of their working lives. The roots of the disparity are so multiform that it’s hard to know how to begin fixing them. At the state and federal level, Addkison said, policies that encourage pay equity would be welcome, as would efforts to protect safety-net programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Looking at how young men and women make career choices — how students at high schools and community colleges separate themselves or become separated, onto different vocational paths, for example — could also contribute to an understanding of the pay gap, Addkison said. It’s also important, she said, for working-age women to look at the statistics about widowhood and divorce and understand that they’re real possibilities. “These are life events for which we have to plan,” Addkison told HuffPost. “At some point, we as women may be taking care of ourselves alone.” Given the economic shockwaves of the past few years — the collapse of home equity, the spikes in unemployment — it seems likely that more retired women might find themselves financially challenged, Addkison said. “My suspicion is that things are certainly no better than they were five years ago, and have the potential to be much worse,” she said. “That doesn’t mean that we can’t do something about it. It just means that we have to start paying attention.”

Read the full article →

GOP Lawmaker To Colleagues: Stop ‘Pointing Fingers’ On Solyndra

March 29, 2012

WASHINGTON — Following months of investigations into Solyndra and other Department of Energy loans, one Republican lawmaker says his colleagues might be too caught up in trying to find a political smoking gun. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) was asked by Environment & Energy Daily’s John McArdle if this were the case at a Wednesday appropriations subcommittee meeting about the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office’s 2013 budget request. Simpson replied to McArdle, ” Maybe ,” adding that he was reluctant to discuss the Solyndra issue at the hearing. Solar technology firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million loan guarantee issued by the Department of Energy and was lauded by the Obama administration, abruptly declared bankruptcy last August, resulting in considerable controversy. When The Huffington Post asked Simpson to elaborate on his comments, he responded by email, “I was trying to make a very simple point that while we look at the role politics might play in the Administration’s decision-making, perhaps we should also be looking at the role it plays in our own decision-making.” “If we are going to have these loan programs, then I want politics removed from the decision-making process so we don’t end up with more Solyndras in the future,” he added. “And if we are going to remove politics from the process, it is incumbent upon Members of Congress to reflect on their own actions as much as they reflect on the actions of others, including the Administration. I’m less interested in pointing fingers and more interested in protecting taxpayers from having this happen to them again in the future.” Simpson also admitted during Wednesday’s appropriations hearing amid questioning by David Frantz, acting executive director of the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, that he had routinely queried Frantz’s predecessor about a $2 billion loan guarantee for AREVA for a “clean-energy” nuclear project in Idaho Falls. AREVA received a conditional commitment for a loan guarantee from the Department to Energy in May 2010. Since the Department of Energy has to answer to Congress for its funding, the GOP lawmaker said he could understand how some people might see his repeated meetings with Energy Department representatives about the AREVA project as applying political pressure. “Did I put undue influence on the administration?” Simpson asked at the hearing. “Maybe.” At the meeting, Frantz, however, assured Simpson the project had been approved on its merits. Yet Simpson isn’t the only GOP lawmaker who has sought special consideration from the department for his favored energy projects. At least 10 Republicans on the the GOP-led House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, which spearheaded the Solyndra investigation, have signed letters aimed at landing green energy jobs in their districts, according to HuffPost’s Mike McAuliff. The committee’s Darrell Issa has written to Energy Secretary Steven Chu seeking help for clean-energy projects in his home state of California. And Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), an outspoken critic of the department’s loan guarantee program, has lobbied that very program about energy projects in his home state. Simpson appears to suggest those lawmakers should examine their actions but he isn’t apologizing for his own. “I am very comfortable with my support of the AREVA project because it is important to my district and my constituents,” Simpson told HuffPost in a statement. “The point I was trying to make is that any act of support for a project can be perceived to be political and that’s why it is important that while we are examining the actions of others, we also examine our own actions,” he added. “In the end, we should be more worried about how our actions impact the folks who pay the bills, the taxpayers, than we are about exploiting any situation for political gain.”

Read the full article →

Japanese Chip Maker Memory Company Removed from Tokyo Bourse

March 29, 2012

(MENAFN – Qatar News Agency) Shares in Japanese chip maker Elpida Memory Inc were delisted from the Tokyo Stock Exchange Wednesday after it filed for bankruptcy protection a month ago. The …

Read the full article →

It Wasn’t Me! MF Global Executives Plead Fifth, Offer No Answers on Disappearing Money

March 29, 2012

Who authorized the transfer of millions in customer investments just before the collapse of brokerage firm MF Global? That’s the question no one testifying at a congressional hearing Wednesday afternoon seemed able to answer. Top executives from the brokerage firm appeared before a House subcommittee in Washington to say that none of them knew what happened to the customer money or what led to the firm’s ultimate loss of more than a billion dollars. “This reminds me of a hearing we had I don’t know how many years ago on Enron,” said House Financial Services Oversight subcommittee member Rep. Mike Capuond (D-Mass). “Apparently, no one did anything wrong, but there’s a billion dollars missing.” MF Global filed for bankruptcy protection Oct. 31. Former CEO Jon Corzine, a former New Jersey governor and U.S. senator from the state, stepped down in November. About $1.6 billion in customer money hasn’t been recovered. The key answer lawmakers were looking for Wednesday was whether, as Bloomberg reported earlier this week, MF Global executives ordered $175 million transferred from customer accounts to pay down an overdraft in the firm’s own brokerage account — and whether that transfer was legal. But during a lengthy question-and-answer session with members of the subcommittee, witnesses claimed ignorance on the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the funds, which happened in the days prior to the company’s bankruptcy filing. “I have limited knowledge of the specific movement of funds in the last two or three days prior to the bankruptcy filing,” said Henri J. Steenkamp, chief financial officer of MF Global’s parent company, MF Global Holdings, during his opening remarks to the subcommittee. “My attention was appropriately focused on crisis management and strategic issues relating to the sale of the company.” Chief Financial Officer of MF Global’s North American Operations Christine Serwinski said she also knew little of the transfer. “I was away for the majority of that week (in question),” she said. “I apologize in advance if I am unable to provide enough detail.” Serwinski seemed to place the blame for oversight of the transfer partly on a witness who wasn’t talking, former Assistant Treasurer of MF Global Holdings Edith O’Brien. O’Brien declined to answer the panel’s questions — pleading the Fifth before being excused from the session altogether. The firm’s chief lawyer, MF Global’s general counsel Laurie Ferber, concurred with her colleagues. “There was a terrible failure here of some kind, but what it was I don’t know.” In a separate session Wednesday, JP Morgan Chase deputy general counsel Diane Genova, said she received multiple assurances from MF Global executives that the fund transfer was legal. JP Morgan Chase oversaw the accounts subjected to the overdraft. MF Global, which specialized in derivatives trading, invested money for smaller-scale institutions, such as a Midwestern grain elevator company. According to Reuters, the City of Austin Electric Utility, as well as a number of Fortune 500 companies also were among its clients. The lack of answers Wednesday was met with anger from some lawmakers. No one at the hearing “owned up to this responsibility even though you’re all three in major positions of responsibility (at MF Global)” complained Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.). Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) concurred, and suggested that the lack of a willingness to take responsibility for the fund transfer indicated witnesses were trying to shield themselves from potential legal liability. “Here we have three intelligent and capable people who were in positions of tremendous responsibility,” said Hayworth. “And among you … it seems that there’s been a great effort to maintain plausible deniability.” The hearing Wednesday was the third in a series of similar congressional inquiries. Last December, Corzine told the panel, “I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date.” According to the panelists, investigators from the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Commodities Future Trading Commission have been in contact with at least one of the firm’s executives as regulators look into the firm’s collapse. At one point in the hearing, Pearce seemed to suggest that the CFTC was urged by another government agency to cease its investigation MF Global, asking the panelists, “Do you have any idea why the CFTC would be asked to cease and desist their investigation?” They were not aware. A CFTC did not immediately return a request for clarification.

Read the full article →

After Sale Approval In Bankruptcy Court, Grubb & Ellis Moves To Next Phase Under BGC

March 29, 2012

This week a bankruptcy court judge approved the sale of the venerable but cash-strapped Grubb & Ellis Co. to BGC Partners, Inc., ushering in the latest in a series of changes that have roiled the commercial real estate brokerage business. Next comes the hard work involved in exiting bankruptcy and integrating the new acquisition. Among the challenges the two firms face are preserving Grubb & Ellis’s property and facilities management and brokerage…

Read the full article →

Bahrain-based Arcapita Bank Files Ch. 11, Protecting $2 Billion in U.S. Properties

March 29, 2012

Arcapita Bank BSC, an international investment firm based in Bahrain, put itself and some of its affiliates into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in the United States. Included in the Chapter 11 filings is Arcapita Investment Holdings Ltd., which controls a $2.37 billion portfolio of investments in real estate, private equity and venture capital, and infrastructure. Its largest U.S. real estate holdings include: Arcapita US Residential…

Read the full article →

Reality Is Setting In

March 28, 2012

LOS ANGELES — Magic Johnson is about to learn $2 billion only buys you so much. Now he’ll need to bring the Los Angeles Dodgers the same success he brought the Lakers. News that Johnson and his partners agreed to purchase the team sparked a groundswell of excited chatter and optimism Wednesday that the man who ran “Showtime” could restore luster to the once-proud franchise. The amount Johnson and his partners are paying would be mind-blowing if it was just for the team itself. But it also gives Johnson’s group the right to reel in future riches from TV and real estate associated with the Dodgers. “A big part of the purchase price is all those other things,” said David Carter, executive director of USC Sports Business Institute. “You’ve got a great piece of property you can develop and make a game-day experience around Chavez Ravine. A likely billion-dollar cable (television) rights deal that will come out of it makes it a very unique sale.” Current owner Frank McCourt handpicked Johnson’s group to buy the Dodgers just five hours after Major League Baseball approved three finalists in a bankruptcy auction. “The interest in this franchise and its historic sale price are profound illustrations of the great overall health of our industry,” baseball Commissioner Bud Selig said. “This has been a long, difficult process, and I once again want to thank the great Dodger fans for their loyalty and patience.” Johnson is seemingly a perfect fit. He lives locally, he already knows what it takes to win championships, and he’s proven he can succeed in real estate, retail and entertainment – keys to helping the team bolster its coffers in pursuit of big-money free agents. “He’s well-grounded and well-respected,” Carter said. “You have a strong presence in the community, he’s connected to city hall, and has a good relationship with the media. All these things are important and will help the community get over Frank.” And Johnson still has the dazzling smile that will make him a great public face for what once was – and could be again – one of baseball’s marquee franchises. “Great day for the Dodgers,” slugger Matt Kemp said from spring training in Glendale, Ariz. “As Magic used to say, the Dodgers were the team that used to run L.A. Definitely we were going to have more fans out there this year. Now there’s another reason to have the fans turn out.” Retired Dodgers manager Tom Lasorda has known Johnson since he first came to play for the Lakers. “The most important part is he’ll talk to some of the players individually about how to win. That’s what we got to do right now is win again and bring our fans back,” he said. “He knows how to talk to people, he knows how to impress people and how to build people up.” Hours after the announcement that Johnson’s group was the winning bidder, the Dodgers said their April 10 home opener was sold out. “As soon as you hear the name Magic Johnson, it turns into a positive,” Dodgers manager Don Mattingly said. “There’s positive energy around the ball club, around the city.” Johnson’s business acumen is equal to his success on the court. The 52-year-old Hall of Fame guard won championships at Everett High in Lansing, Mich., at Michigan State and five NBA titles with the Lakers. After being forced to retire suddenly in 1991 with HIV, Johnson remade himself into a successful entrepreneur and became a respected voice as an HIV activist and campaigned to educate people about the disease. Johnson is well-known for his self-named nationwide chain of movie theaters, movie studio, and promotion company. He previously owned more than 100 Starbucks franchises and had a minority ownership in the Lakers. His other ventures include commercial real estate and health clubs. “Magic Johnson is probably the most beloved sports figure in Los Angeles history,” Lakers owner Jerry Buss said. “He has been a success in everything else he’s become involved with, most notably his spectacular business career and also his educational campaign on behalf of HIV awareness.” Johnson’s reputation as a winner in sports and business lends a new air of credibility to the Dodgers, who saw attendance plummet below 3 million in McCourt’s final season when fans bashed his stewardship of the team. “I think they’ll be able to fill the stadium just because of Magic,” said Mike Baldwin, a longtime fan who quit going to games after McCourt bought the team in 2003. “I don’t think baseball could have done a better job than to pull him in.” Johnson’s partners in buying the Dodgers include Stan Kasten, former president of the Atlanta Braves and Washington Nationals; and Peter Guber, a longtime Hollywood executive and co-owner of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors. Mark Walter, chief executive officer of the Chicago-based financial services firm Guggenheim Partners, would be the controlling owner. The group’s other investors include Guggenheim Partners President Todd Boehly and Bobby Patton, whose investments include oil and gas properties. But Johnson’s name and smile are what lit up fans’ moods in the city where he remains the most enduring and beloved sports superstar. “There’s a lot of euphoria about the fact that it’s Magic and it’s no longer Frank,” Carter said. “He’ll have a honeymoon period and I think most people in Southern California hope he doesn’t need it.” ___ Associated Press Writer John Rogers contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Frank McCourt Agrees To Sell Los Angeles Dodgers For $2 Billion

March 28, 2012

NEW YORK — Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has announced an agreement Monday night to sell the bankrupt team for $2 billion to a group that includes former Lakers star Magic Johnson and former Atlanta Braves and Washington Nationals President Stan Kasten. The agreement, revealed about five hours after Major League Baseball owners approved three finalists for the auction, is to lead to a transfer of the team by the end of April. It is subject to approval in federal bankruptcy court. Mark Walter, chief executive officer of the financial services firm Guggenheim Partners would become the controlling owner. The price would be easily a record for a North American sports franchise. As part of the agreement, the Dodgers said McCourt and “certain affiliates of the purchasers” would acquire the land surrounding Dodger Stadium for $150 million. The acquiring group, called Guggenheim Baseball Management, includes Mandalay Entertainment chief executive Peter Guber. “This agreement with Guggenheim reflects both the strength and future potential of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and assures that the Dodgers will have new ownership with deep local roots, which bodes well for the Dodgers, its fans and the Los Angeles community,” McCourt said. McCourt paid $430 million in 2004 to buy the team, Dodger Stadium and 250 acres of land that include the parking lots, from the Fox division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., a sale that left the team with about $50 million in cash at the time. The team’s debt stood at $579 million as of January, according to a court filing, so even after the divorce payment, taxes and legal and banking fees, he stands to make several hundred million dollars. Kasten is expected to wind up as the team’s top day-to-day executive. The other two finalists were: _ Stan Kroenke, whose family properties own the NFL’s St. Louis Rams, the NBA’s Denver Nuggets, the NHL’s Colorado Avalanche and Major League Soccer’s Colorado Rapids, and who is majority shareholder of Arsenal in the English Premier League. _ Steven Cohen, founder of the hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors and a new limited partner of the New York Mets; biotechnology entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong; and agent Arn Tellem of Wasserman Media Group. “I am thrilled to be part of the historic Dodger franchise and intend to build on the fantastic foundation laid by Frank McCourt as we drive the Dodgers back to the front page of the sports section in our wonderful community of Los Angeles,” Johnson said in a statement.

Read the full article →

American Airlines asks bankruptcy court to cancel labor agreements

March 28, 2012

(MENAFN) AMR Corp’s CEO, Thomas W. Horton, said that in order to increase pressure on unions to accept concessions, American Airlines asked a federal bankruptcy court to cancel its labor contracts …

Read the full article →

MF Global’s 10 Highest-Profile Former Clients

March 27, 2012

March 26 (Reuters) – ConocoPhillips, billionaire investor Carl Icahn, Coca Cola, Dominion Resources and giant energy trader Mercuria were among high-profile former clients of bankrupt futures brokerage MF Global. Following is a list of 60 large former MF Global clients, with a total of $1.3 billion at the broker when it collapsed. The list is based on a Reuters analysis of more than 10,000 of nearly 28,000 total customer claims in the bankruptcy case. NOTE: This list was generated from a Reuters analysis of more than 10,000 MF Global claims. Multiple claims have been under single parent entities. When account value was unavailable, Reuters used the figure reported for cash and other property in the account. May contain rounding errors. Full claims database contains 27,727 claims. Here Are Some Of MF Global’s Most High-Profile Former Clients: Firm name Account value at market, Oct. 31 1 CONOCOPHILLIPS $310,590,454 2 SAPERE CTA FUND LP CONSOLIDATED $298,569,434 3 ICAHN STRATEGY 2 LLC $84,839,896 4 DOMINION RESOURCES $68,468,300 5 MARATHON PETROLEUM CO LP $59,287,561 6 HIGHRIDGE FUTURES FUND LP $50,103,087 7 MERCURIA ENERGY AMERICA $41,949,688 8 PRICE ASSET MANAGEMENT $35,477,484 9 NOBLE AMERICAS CORP $31,045,373 10 TESORO COMPANIES INC $28,910,668 11 WH TRADING LLC $26,228,409 12 MAGIC CAPITAL FUND $26,179,278 13 WILLIAM HUNT $26,154,390 14 CHOPPER TRADING AND SECURITIES $18,247,278 15 COLONIAL OIL INDUSTRIES INC $16,818,989 16 COCA-COLA CO $16,638,808 17 CYPRESS TRADING LLC $12,744,486 18 GENON ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLC $11,990,654 19 BREAKWATER TRADING LLC $11,836,440 20 FRIEDBERG MERCANTILE GROUP $11,793,184 21 VIGILANT FUTURES $10,471,037 22 NESTLE USA INC $9,205,074 23 POWEREX CORP $9,059,692 24 3 RED TRADING LLC $8,005,535 25 WISCONSIN GAS AND ELECTRIC POWER COS $7,538,689 26 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION $6,611,741 27 BIMBO FOODS $6,240,248 28 WRB REFINING LLC $5,415,988 29 GENESIS DIVERSIFIED CTA TRADING COMPANY LLC $5,388,595 30 DANIEL BOWMAN $5,187,090 31 QUIK TRIP CORP $5,048,388 32 JUMP TRADING $4,558,194 33 HSBC BROKING $4,497,632 34 ABERDEEN ENERGY LLC/ GLACIAL LAKES ENERGY $4,459,875 35 HENNING CAREY PROPRIETARY TRADING $4,419,855 36 CALATRAVA GRAIN FUND $4,127,981 37 ELDORADO TRADING GROUP $4,041,670 38 STELBAR OIL CORP INC $3,764,712 39 HORMEL FOODS CORP $3,486,354 40 DEARBORN CAP RESERVE GLOBAL ONLINE TRADING INC $3,451,950 41 CITY OF AUSTIN ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPT $3,450,918 42 LEAGUE TRADING $3,339,210 43 JEROME J ISRAELOV TRUSTEE $3,085,199 44 MADISON GAS & ELECTRIC CO $2,982,663 45 FORECAST VENTURE FUND LP $2,954,012 46 MIECO $2,872,657 47 ATLAS TRADING AND SHIPPING $2,704,844 48 MITSUI & CO USA INC $2,531,800 49 INFINITY INVESTMENT FUND LLC $2,527,186 50 ADM INVESTOR SERVICES $2,501,459 51 ALPHAWORKS FUND LLC $2,363,926 52 GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS $2,351,223 53 CABO TRADING $2,231,980 54 DAVE WESCOTT $2,092,326 55 DOULOS FUND $1,395,557 56 DITTMER TRADING LLC $1,382,245 57 TRADEFORECASTER GLOBAL MARKETS LLC $1,380,356 58 ICARUS TRADING LLC $1,290,744 59 COSMO OIL OF USA INC $1,286,229 60 ANHEUSER BUSCH COS INC $1,012,270 TOTAL $1,348,590,965 (Reporting by Ann Saphir and Tom Polansek)

Read the full article →

California Food Executive Pleads Guilty In Tomato Price-Fixing Scandal

March 24, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A former California food company owner pleaded guilty to racketeering Thursday in a tomato price-fixing plot that authorities said drove up costs to consumers across the nation. Frederick Scott Salyer, 56, was charged with bribing purchasing managers at food giants including Kraft Foods Inc. and Frito-Lay to buy tomato products from his company, Monterey-based SK Foods. Prosecutors said he and his co-conspirators fixed prices and rigged bids for the sale of tomato products to McCain Foods USA Inc., ConAgra Foods Inc. and Kraft. Salyer pleaded guilty in federal court in Sacramento to two charges: racketeering and price fixing. Racketeering carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence and price-fixing 10 years, although under a plea agreement Salyer is expected to face four to seven years behind bars. He remains under house arrest at his Pebble Beach estate on $6 million bail until his sentencing, which is scheduled for July 10. Salyer and his lawyer, Malcolm Segal, declined to comment outside the courtroom. Salyer was accused of being at the center of price-fixing ring that helped SK Foods capture 14 percent of the processed tomato market and rise to the second largest tomato processor in the state before investigators raided the company in 2008. He also admitted that SK Foods routinely falsified lab test results for its tomato paste and that he ordered former employees to falsify information including the product’s mold content, production date and whether it qualified as “organic,” the U.S. attorney’s office said. “Salyer and his co-conspirators manipulated prices on millions of pounds of processed tomatoes and improperly influenced supermarkets and big food companies into buying substandard tomato products put into brands found in almost every American home,” said Rick Goss, the assistant special agent in charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal investigations unit. “Salyer and the defendants’ scheme ripped off consumers and reaped big profits.” Herbert M. Brown, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Sacramento field office, said it took authorities more than six years to unravel the “web of lies and bribes that Salyer and his cohorts wove.” Salyer was indicted in 2010 on 12 counts, including bribery, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Buyers from Kraft, PepsiCo Inc.’s Frito-Lay unit, Safeway Inc. and B&G Foods Inc. have pleaded guilty to accepting bribes in the case. In all, 10 former employees or customers of SK Foods have pleaded guilty in the investigation. U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said about $100,000 in bribes changed hands. Salyer’s guilty plea essentially ends the government’s prosecution, Wagner said. However, several lawsuits have been filed against SK Foods, which filed for bankruptcy protection in May 2009. Olam International of Singapore purchased the company two months later for $39 million. As part of Friday’s plea, Salyer agreed to forfeit at least $3.25 million in foreign bank accounts where prosecutors say he moved funds after SK Foods filed for bankruptcy. According to court documents, Salyer moved the money to Andorra, a small country in the Pyrenees Mountains between France and Spain that has no extradition treaty with the U.S. He made a $50,000 deposit on a condominium there. California produces more than 90 percent of tomato products in the U.S., and SK Foods was one of the largest producers of tomato products in the nation, Wagner said. Salyer himself is the product of one of the West’s oldest land dynasties, a multi-generation enterprise that started with cotton farming and branched into tomatoes under Salyer and his father. Just a handful of companies controlled the tomato products industry, Wagner said, which made it possible for several of the companies to conspire to drive up prices to food processors. Food companies lost more than $2 million, mainly through overpayments, as a result of the price-fixing scheme, Wagner said. Authorities have seized about $600,000 stemming from the investigation, including fines and restitution, Goss said. Prosecutors said there was no evidence that consumers became ill because of SK Foods’ substandard and outdated products, some of which had mold contents above federal guidelines.

Read the full article →

Corzine Denies Allegations That He Authorized Transfer Of Customer Funds

March 24, 2012

* MF Global employee: Corzine authorized transfer from customer account * Corzine stands by previous testimony * Corzine did not direct or know of inappropriate transfers-spokesman * MF Global employee Edith O’Brien to testify before Congress next week * Investigators still searching for missing customer funds By Alexandra Alper and Ann Saphir WASHINGTON, March 23 (Reuters) – Congressional investigators released details of emails from just before MF Global’s bankruptcy that renew questions about whether anyone at the failed brokerage authorized the use of customer funds to cover an overdraft in London. Former MF Global official Edith O’Brien said in an October 2011 email that CEO Jon Corzine gave “direct instructions” to transfer $200 million from a customer account to cover an overdraft in its account at JPMorgan in London, according to a congressional memo released on Friday. The Oct. 28 email, written days before MF Global’s collapse, was quoted in a document released in advance of a House Financial Services subcommittee hearing scheduled for next week on the collapse of brokerage MF Global and the continued search for missing customer funds. The committee this week subpoenaed O’Brien to appear before the panel. Steven Goldberg, a spokesman for Corzine, said that Corzine has testified before Congress that he asked that the JPMorgan Chase & Co overdraft be corrected, but never gave any instructions to misuse customer funds. “He never directed Ms. O’Brien or anyone else regarding which account should be used to cure the overdrafts, and he never directed that customer funds should be used for that purpose,” Goldberg said in an email on Friday. Goldberg added that Corzine testified “he recalls having received written material indicating that the funds used to cure the overdrafts were appropriate for that purpose.” A representative for JPMorgan Chase was not immediately available for comment. O’Brien served as an assistant treasurer in the firm’s Chicago office. She has not been accused of any wrongdoing. It was not known if she might choose to invoke her right against self-incrimination at the hearing next week. MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31 after it was forced to reveal that it had made a $6.3 billion bet on European sovereign debt, spooking investors and customers. Corzine resigned as CEO days later. A trustee liquidating the firm has estimated the customer funds shortfall could be as high as $1.6 billion. Congressional and regulatory officials have been investigating whether customer funds were improperly transferred in the chaotic days before the firm collapsed and what executives knew about the status of various accounts. The $200 million transfer from a customer fund account to JPMorgan was made to cover a $175 million overdraft in one of MF Global’s accounts at the bank in London, the memo said. The memo prepared by committee staff points out that segregated customer accounts like the one in question can contain funds that belong to the futures brokerage and can be used for transfers. The memo says, however, that JPMorgan chief risk officer Barry Zubrow called Corzine directly to seek assurances that the funds being transferred belonged to MF Global and did not include customer funds. The bank followed up with a letter requesting written assurances that all MF Global transfers – “past, present and future” – complied with Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules about keeping customer money separate from the broker’s own, the committee staff said. Laurie Ferber, MF Global Holding’s chief lawyer, balked at the request as being too broad and sought to narrow the written assurance to include only the Oct. 28 transfer, the memo said. MF Global employees drafted several versions of the letter but the firm did not return one to JPMorgan before it collapsed. The committee document says Corzine identified JPMorgan Chase and Interactive Brokers as the parties “most interested” in purchasing MF Global assets as he updated regulators of efforts find a buyer. Next week’s hearing is the latest in a series of congressional efforts to grill former senior managers of MF Global. Former Chief Executive Jon Corzine, Chief Financial Officer Henri Steenkamp and Chief Operating Officer Bradley Abelow have all testified to Congress, and denied any intent to misuse customer funds and any specific knowledge of how that misuse may have occurred. None have been formally accused of any wrongdoing.

Read the full article →

Judge On Ex-Lehman Broker: ‘He Betrayed The Trust Of Everyone’

March 23, 2012

* Devlin stole secrets from PR executive wife * Helped convict four friends of insider trading By Grant McCool NEW YORK, March 23 (Reuters) – A former Lehman Brothers broker who stole corporate secrets from his executive wife and shared them with friends avoided a prison term on Friday, with the judge describing his crime as a “tragic and senseless” act for a gain of just $23,000. Matthew Devlin, 38, pleaded guilty more than three years ago to insider trading and cooperated with authorities – sometimes wearing a recording device – to help convict four people and obtain civil judgments against two others. U.S. District Judge William Pauley in New York sentenced Devlin to three years’ probation when he could have been imprisoned for almost four years. “He betrayed the trust of everyone … All of it completely tragic and senseless for a sum of money that to his benefit was a rounding error in his compensation,” Pauley said. The case was not linked to the high-profile U.S. investigation of insider trading at the Galleon Group hedge fund, but it is one of dozens of insider trading prosecutions in New York in recent years. Devlin’s case was made public in December 2008 with tawdry details about his betrayal of his wife, public relations executive Nina Devlin. By listening to her conversations and assessing the implications of her travel schedule, he illegally obtained corporate secrets without her knowledge. Devlin received $23,000 in cash and gifts from friends for sharing stock tips with them, according to court documents. The deals included Novartis AG’s acquisition of Eon Labs in 2005, Electronic Arts Inc’s hostile bid in 2008 for Take-Two Interactive Software Inc and InBev’s acquisition of Anheuser-Busch. Nina Devlin was an executive at Brunswick Group who worked with clients on mergers and acquisitions. She was not accused of any wrongdoing and is no longer working at the firm. Devlin worked for Lehman for eight years, continued with Barclays after Lehman’s September 2008 collapse and he is now the primary care provider for the couple’s three year-old son. Lehman emerged from bankruptcy 2-1/2 weeks ago, but Devlin’s career in the financial industry was destroyed by his offences. Four of his friends made millions trading on the inside information, the office of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney said. Prosecutor Reed Brodsky asked the judge to show leniency toward Devlin because he helped convict the four men. Devlin’s lawyer, Mary Mulligan, asked the judge to sentence him to one year’s probation. Devlin, in tears, told the judge at the sentencing proceeding that his conduct was “reckless, selfish and inexcusable” and that he had spent the last 3-1/2 years trying to repair the damage. The four who pleaded guilty based on evidence provided by Devlin were Miami day traders Jamil Bouchareb and Daniel Corbin, former Lehman broker Frederick Bowers and Eric Holzer, a former tax lawyer at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in New York. The case is USA v Devlin, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 08-01307

Read the full article →

Corzine Gave ‘Direct Instructions’ To Transfer Hundreds Of Millions From Customer Account

March 23, 2012

WASHINGTON — A former MF Global executive is contradicting testimony from Jon Corzine, saying the former senator ordered the transfer of $200 million last fall out of a customer account days before the firm collapsed, according to an email obtained by congressional investigators. Edith O’Brien, the former assistant treasurer, says Corzine ordered the money shifted to one of the firm’s bank accounts overseas on Oct. 28 to cover an overdraft, according to a memo that cited the e-mail. The email noted that the transfer was made “per JC’s direct instructions.” MF Global filed for bankruptcy protection on Oct. 31. The firm failed because of a disastrous bet on European debt. About $1.6 billion of customers’ money hasn’t been recovered. A House Financial Services subcommittee released the memo Friday in advance of a hearing Wednesday. O’Brien has been subpoenaed to testify. The Associated Press could not reach her for comment. In December, Corzine told the panel: “I did not instruct anyone to lend customer funds to MF Global or any of its affiliates.” Corzine also told the subcommittee he didn’t know about “the use of customer funds on any loan or transfer.” And Corzine told a Senate panel two days earlier: “I never gave any instruction to anyone at MF Global to misuse customer funds.” A representative for Corzine didn’t immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. Client money is required by law to be held separately from a brokerage firm’s cash to protect investors in case a firm fails. If MF Global misused client money, it would violate a fundamental investor protection for people who trade options and futures. Many lawmakers have heard from farmers, ranchers and small business owners in their states who are missing money that was deposited with the firm. Agricultural businesses use brokerage firms like MF Global to help reduce their risks in an industry vulnerable to swings in oil, corn and other commodity prices. Corzine, a former New Jersey governor and U.S. senator from the state, led MF Global until early November. He testified before three congressional panels in December. He said he didn’t become aware of the shortfall in customer money until hours before MF Global’s bankruptcy filing. No one has been charged in the MF Global case. In addition to Congress, federal regulators and a federal grand jury in Chicago are investigating.

Read the full article →

American Apparel’s ‘Sex Slave’ Lawsuit Thrown Out

March 22, 2012

It appears that American Apparel’s famous CEO may be out of hot water, for now. A Brooklyn judge threw out a lawsuit Thursday accusing Dov Charney, head of the hipster chain, of using one of his employees as a “sex slave.” The suit brought by 21-year-old Irene Morales last year alleged that Charney began sexually harassing her when she was 17 and held her “prisoner” in his apartment while she was forced to pleasure him sexually, according to the New York Post . The claim, which seeks $260 million, will now be heard in arbitration. Four more former employees of the hipster clothing chain filed a suit against Charney shortly after Morales filed her suit, claiming among other allegations that the CEO brought one of them into his bedroom while he was wearing a towel, undressed her and tried to have sex with her. The sexual harassment allegations are just some of the troubles American Apparel has faced in recent years. The company has been on the brink of bankruptcy at various points due to sluggish demand for its iconic zip-up hoodies and deep V-neck tees. Famed billionaire George Soros recently extended the company an $80 million credit line through Crystal Financial, a Boston-based firm where Soros is a top investor. In addition to the money troubles, the company has also come under fire for some of its racy ads, including last year’s Christmas campaign , which featured topless models in scarves. American Apparel also may have recently riled up some of its hipster base when it installed sensors in its stores to prevent theft. The company allegedly used to have a policy that encouraged managers to turn a blind eye when the right type of customer lifted clothes from stores. Still, the company’s sales did increase by 13 percent in February compared to last year, according to MarketWatch.

Read the full article →

Driven To Violence: Are Big Banks To Blame For Repossessions Gone Wrong?

March 22, 2012

As auto repossessions go, the case of the 2004 Dodge Ram looked to be an easy one. The assignment was what industry insiders call a “voluntary repo,” meaning the owner had agreed to give up his pickup truck without a fight. No sleuthing, no hide-and-seek. All the repo man had to do was show up at the appointed time, hook the Ram up to a tow truck and haul it away for the lender. Nobody should have been hurt, let alone killed. Three years ago, a repo company dispatched Michael Faron Brown, a 27-year-old South Carolina newlywed, on a rare trip across state lines into Georgia to return a few cars to debtors who were back in their lenders’ good graces. Brown worked on contract for a subsidiary of a national repossession company called Renovo Services LLC, and his boss asked him to also handle a few repossessions for a colleague who had bailed on his assignments. That’s how Brown picked up the account for Lidie “Joe” Clements. Clements, a paint contractor near Augusta, Ga., was having a hard time finding jobs due to the sour economy, so he’d fallen behind on the payments for his Ram. He tried to work out a payment plan with his lender, Nuvell National Auto Finance, then a subsidiary of the massive home and auto lender GMAC. According to trial court records, once it became clear that Clements couldn’t make good on his bills, he told Nuvell that he would voluntarily surrender his truck, which, as is custom, would likely be sold or auctioned off to cut Nuvell’s losses. Brown apparently showed up at Clements’ home a day early for the scheduled repo — with his pregnant wife, Victoria, in the passenger seat of the tow truck. According to court records, once they were outside Clements’ house, the newlyweds called him on their cellphone. The conversation quickly turned combative. Clements said he wasn’t home and demanded they not take his truck until the following day, once he’d had a chance to clear out his belongings. But Brown didn’t leave. Under the aggressive incentives that many financial institutions and their repo contractors now force on agents, industry veterans say a repo man like Brown would have been eager to get the truck right then and there. In a system that’s fast becoming industry standard, Brown was working on a flat-rate contingency basis: If he didn’t repossess the vehicle, then nobody owed him a dime for his efforts. If he waited until the following day, he’d be sinking more time and gas money into the assignment. In the topsy-turvy repo world, it was also in Brown’s financial interests to have a reluctant target. According to his payment plan, Brown was earning $70 for each involuntary repo he completed and a mere $30 for each voluntary one. If Clements was no longer surrendering his truck by choice, then Brown stood to earn more money. According to the version he later told in court, Brown called his office seeking advice. The woman handling the Clements account told him to proceed, he testified. “If you see the unit, get it,” she allegedly told Brown. It didn’t matter that a friend of the Clements’ had parked her van in the driveway behind the pickup, blocking it in almost entirely. As Brown would later say in court, “I was always up for a challenge.” So he backed his truck into the Clements’ driveway, maneuvering his tow in the narrow space between the van and the house. Chaos ensued. Joe Clements and his friend Bill Jacobs returned to the house just as Brown was trying to drive off with the pickup. According to Clements’ version, Brown clipped the van repeatedly as he tried to thread the pickup between the van and the house. The van belonged to Jacobs and his wife, Pamela, who had been inside the house with Clements’ wife, Cindy. Joe Clements would later tell police that he pleaded with Brown to stop damaging the van — he was giving the truck up voluntarily, he said, and he just wanted to remove his tools first. “Stop! You’re hitting the van! Stop! We’ll give it to you!” he allegedly said, according to court records. Brown dropped the pickup from the tow. Bill Jacobs confronted him on the driver’s side of the tow truck, while Cindy Clements confronted Victoria Brown on the passenger side, according to court documents. Brown later claimed Jacobs was acting overtly hostile. Whatever the case, Jacobs was knocked to the ground during the commotion, falling in front of the tow truck. Brown drove over Jacobs, through the yard and down the street. Brown would later say he never meant to run over Jacobs, that it was all an accident. “Them tires don’t have a conscience,” he said in court. When Pamela Jacobs came outside, her husband was lying in the street; she lay down with him. His pelvis and abdomen had been crushed by the truck tires, according to a doctor who later examined him. His ribcage had been fractured, his broken ribs puncturing his lungs. His chest and bowels were filling with blood. The 64-year-old would be pronounced dead an hour later. As Jacobs lay dying, Michael and Victoria Brown fled the area. It isn’t clear whether the repo man knew he’d just killed someone — although it wasn’t long before the gravity of the situation set in, and the Browns realized they were fugitives. The following day, they wrote on the wall of their joint MySpace account, “ready to stop repoing. When you have to worry about criminal charges … I say that is enough!” “Stressing the f**k out,” they wrote a short time later. “Why did we have to go to GA to repo yesterday?” Wanted for murder, the Browns turned themselves in to the police five days later. ‘WHERE THE RECESSION AND THE FINANCE WORLD COME RIGHT INTO THE FRONT YARD’ Clements lost his truck during a boom time for auto repossessions. Just like the housing market, the auto finance industry — which ranges from big banks (like Bank of America and Santander) to major auto loan specialists (like Ford Motor Credit, Toyota Motor Credit, and Ally Financial, formerly GMAC) to thousands of smaller credit unions — had experienced its own subprime-fueled credit binge during the last decade. When the economy finally cratered, a record number of car owners were unable to pay their bills. Many borrowers had taken on more debt than they could handle or, like Clements, suddenly had a hard time finding steady work. In many cases, their auto loans had been securitized and sold off to investors, &agrave la the mortgage debacle. More recently, the number of auto repossessions has fallen dramatically, due to tightening credit standards. Of the estimated 1.3 million repossessions performed last year, the overwhelming majority ended peacefully. But plenty of repos have gone bad since the economy went south. According to the industry website CUCollector, which recently started tracking repo-related violence, press accounts indicated there were at least 16 shootings and five deaths stemming from repossessions in 2011. Often it was the repo man who was hurt. In 2009, the same year Jacobs died, two Alabama repo agents were shot and killed. In some ugly cases, you might blame the ill will of debtors. In others, the carelessness of bad-apple agents. In many cases, however, industry insiders trace the problems back to decisions by lenders at the top. According to insurers, lawyers and longtime repo agents, the big-time financial institutions as a group are paying less than ever to have vehicles recovered in the event of default. In the minds of many repo agents, the penny-pinching by lenders has pitted them against one another, as reputable firms struggle to do the job on thinner margins and less-reputable agents willingly take on the cheaper work. “This is where the recession and the finance world come right into the front yard,” says Kevin Armstrong, a former repo man who is now a collections manager and runs CUCollector on the side. Mary Jane Hogan, president of the national trade group American Recovery Association , believes that lenders’ push to cut costs at the expense of repo agents is ultimately lowering standards in her industry. “I’ve been in this since the day the cars were hotwired, and the difference is just unbelievable — the way things have changed, the way repossession agents are treated by clients,” says Hogan. “The clients at this point in time, all they want to know is the price, who’s the cheapest. They call for a quote, and they don’t care what the job involves. They want a flat rate.” The squeeze has been gradual over the past decade. One of the first things repo companies lost was reimbursement for mileage. Lenders used to cover the cost of travel, making long-distance repos more feasible. No more, agents say. Lenders used to cover the repo agency’s cost of holding onto a repossessed car until it could be auctioned off. Now all too often, the agencies are storing those cars for free. Also gone are the payments many repo companies received for cutting keys for the cars they repossessed. Now, many lenders demand that the companies cut keys gratis — even though modern electronic keys can run several hundred dollars apiece. Most controversially, many repo agencies have taken work on a contingency basis, which has driven other agencies to work on contingency as well if they want to stay in business. “It doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense,” says Joe Taylor, a repo expert in Florida who developed one of the few certification programs for the industry. “It’s bad enough to have these inherent risks associated with repossession. But then if I don’t get this car, then I don’t get paid. And then I don’t feed my family. So you’re willing to take chances that an intelligent person wouldn’t take. The result is violence.” “It’s turning good people into bad, making them do things they wouldn’t normally do,” says Debra Durham, owner of Midwest Adjusters, a repo outfit in Springfield, Mo. Although there remain financial institutions that don’t require repo contractors to work on contingency — notably, many smaller credit unions — it’s becoming the rule rather than the exception, according to veteran repo agents and industry experts. It isn’t always clear who’s actually putting the work out on contingency — the banks or the growing number of middlemen they contract with. Several lenders with large auto loan portfolios, including Bank of America, Santander, Ford Motor Credit and Toyota Motor Credit, declined to discuss how they carry out repossessions when contacted for this story. Sometimes big lenders have wound up on the hook for repos gone awry. This past fall, Ford Motor Credit, a tow company and a private investigation firm agreed to pay a total of $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the widow of a debtor killed during a repo-turned-catastrophe in upstate New York in 2007. According to press accounts, a repo man ran over Edward Kosloski, 44, in plain view of his three children. Kosloski had climbed onto the back of the flatbed truck that was hauling away his Ford Excursion in order to remove his tools, according to witnesses. The repo man apparently feared Kosloski might become hostile and tried to speed away, causing Kosloski to fall beneath the truck tires. Joseph Granich, the lawyer who sued on behalf of the Kosloski family, can’t comment directly on the case due to the settlement, but he describes the broader problem as poorly trained agents who aren’t invested in the work — and who are paid on contingency. “It’s my opinion, irrespective of this case, that that’s the problem,” he says. “You’ve got six-gun repo guys out there. The law goes out the window because they’re not going to make seven attempts to get a car for 150 bucks.” “Something has to change,” Granich says. “It’s one of these cases where it will take a couple more high-profile deaths until one of these companies gets hit with an excessive verdict and then decides to change their internal policies.” ‘HE HAS A LICENSE TO STEAL AND WILL JACK YOUR S**T’ The bar to entry into the repo business is extremely low. Most states don’t require special licensing or training to carry out a repossession, and states where licensing exists have set minimal certification requirements, according to an analysis by the National Consumer Law Center , a consumer advocacy group. Repo agents could be trained, for example, in dealing with hostile debtors and the finer points of debt collection law. But the certification programs offered by a handful of trade groups are, for the most part, voluntary. Certified veterans like Hogan and Taylor are frustrated that more agents don’t bother with formal training, which, of course, requires time and money. Judicial oversight of auto repossession is also minimal. In most cases, lenders don’t need a court order to repossess a car, as they often do if they wanted to foreclose on a house. Hence the term “self-help repossession”: When the borrower stops making payments, the lender simply helps itself to the car, via a repo agent. In the Georgia case, the defendants named in a suit brought by Pamela Jacobs — GMAC subsidiary Nuvell, Renovo and agent Brown — were recently found liable for Bill Jacobs’ death to the tune of $2.5 million . (The judgment has been appealed, and a lawsuit filed by the Clements family against the same parties has not yet been resolved.) A spokesperson for GMAC successor Ally said the company “requires its third party repossession agencies to follow certain procedures and all applicable laws when recovering a vehicle. The safety of the parties involved is of the highest importance to Ally.” The Jacobs’ lawyer was nonetheless able to convince the jury that Brown, Renovo and Nuvell had acted negligently and that Brown may have had no business repoing cars to begin with. Although Brown had worked for his father’s repossession company before joining Renovo, his criminal history might have overshadowed his employment history in the jury’s eyes. According to South Carolina records, Brown had been charged three separate times with criminal domestic violence, pleading guilty twice. He had also pleaded guilty to assault and battery in a separate case. On the MySpace page he kept with his wife, Brown’s bio read in part, “HE IS THE REPO MAN AND SO IF YOU DONT PAY YOUR CAR PAYMENT HE HAS A LICENSE TO STEAL AND WILL JACK YOUR S**T :) ” Brown responded to a Craigslist ad and signed a contract with Renovo two months before the fatal incident, according to court documents. He later said he didn’t realize it, but Brown, who didn’t finish high school, wasn’t working as a direct employee. He signed an agreement saying that he would carry his own insurance, although he didn’t purchase coverage and later said in court that he didn’t know it was his responsibility. His training consisted of a few days riding around with another agent, he said. He was leasing the truck he used from the company, paying it a fee for every car he repossessed. Kevin Flynn, the chairman and chief executive of Renovo, says that the Georgia tragedy couldn’t have been prevented by Renovo. Brown testified in court that Jacobs had acted like “Mr. Billy Bad Ass” and had “caused himself to get run over,” a version of events to which Flynn ascribes as well. Flynn says that the agents with whom Renovo contracts are trained professionals, and he insists that the contingency payment system had nothing to do with Jacobs’ death. “I don’t know what training or pricing or lenders’ desire could have done to avoid that tragedy,” says Flynn. “You do something two million times, the one-in-a-million thing is going to happen twice. All the prudence in the world isn’t going to stop that. If we were talking about pizza delivery men, the danger is significantly greater.” ‘WANT TO BE A REPO MAN?’ It would seem that just about anyone can become a repo man — like this reporter, for instance. Much like Michael Brown, I once responded to a job ad on the Internet that carried what I considered an irresistible subject line: “WANT TO BE A REPO MAN?” I was working as a freelance writer at the time, and I figured repo work could give me some insight into a little-seen facet of the finance industry. I also badly needed money. My bank account empty, I hadn’t had an interview for a journalism job in months. Unlike the many editors I’d emailed seeking employment, the repo guy responded to my query almost immediately. I met with him the following day. I thought I’d get schooled in the hard times of the recession’s debtors. Instead, I learned how difficult the repo man’s job could be. My boss, who I’ll simply call “T,” had come to the East Coast to open a new office for a repossession company. (Because I signed a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of employment, I won’t be naming the firm.) T was an affable if slightly intimidating man who looked upon his job dispassionately, viewing himself as a necessary cog in the greater financial infrastructure: People default on their loans; they have to give up their rides, however sad their personal circumstances may be. I liked T, and he seemed to like me — particularly my background as a crime reporter, which meant I knew how to track people down. What industry types call “skip tracing” is the hallmark of a good repo agent. Still, T wondered if I had the requisite nerve to do the job. “You’re either going to kick ass at this,” he told me, “or you’re going to fall on your face really, really fast.” My formal training was briefer than Michael Brown’s was. It consisted of an afternoon on the road with T, making what I recall to be three stops. The first two yielded no vehicles and no useful information on the debtors. The third ended in a successful repossession, the sad sack watching from his front porch as his sedan was hooked up to the tow truck and hauled out of sight. With that, I was part of the repo team. My job was to locate cars whose owners had fallen two months or more behind on their payments and then call our tow truck drivers to have the cars taken to the lot. I can’t remember whether I was walked through the details of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , the federal law that lays out what’s fair game and what’s abusive as agencies pursue debtors and their assets. I had only a vague handle on what was legal and what wasn’t, although I was encouraged to be creative. T told me he had a favorite ruse: Sometimes, when he was trying to confirm that a debtor lived at a certain address, he would knock on the door posing as a local pizzeria employee who was doling out free pies to lucky recipients. Even wary debtors, T told me, would let their guard down. I asked him why pizza. “Everyone loves free pizza,” he shrugged. By almost any standard, my arrangement with the repo company was a crummy one. For starters, my contract stipulated that I wasn’t an employee but an independent contractor — the same arrangement Brown had with his firm. That way, I wasn’t protected by the basic minimum wage and overtime laws that apply to most employees. Nor did the company provide me with health insurance benefits. Rather than earn a set hourly wage, I was to be paid a flat fee of $75 per auto I recovered, earnings on which I would eventually have to pay taxes out of pocket. I had to borrow a Windows-based computer from a friend to access the company’s network. I wouldn’t be reimbursed for gas and wasn’t given a vehicle, meaning that on certain assignments I’d be lucky to break even — assuming I actually found the debtor’s car. The way old-school repo agents see it, I was part of the new crop of fools who are willing to work for next to nothing, whose desperate need to complete the repo can endanger themselves as well as the debtors. It wasn’t easy work. Each morning the queue on my computer filled with cases of late-model cars that I found nearly impossible to track down on cluttered urban side streets. It didn’t help that the banks’ loan documents provided what was often outdated information on the debtor’s whereabouts. Many times with a simple fee-paid database search — I had access to Nexis at the time — I was able to find more accurate address information than what was listed on the loan. After two weeks on the job, I had netted no repossessions, and my own car was starting to break down. The last straw came when I successfully tracked down a Honda CR-V slated for repossession. Unfortunately, it was parked in a driveway next to an identical CR-V. The repo agency had been too cheap to pay to check the license plate number, so I didn’t know which vehicle was the right one. The debtor drove away in one CR-V while I hung back with the other. Once the agency finally ran the plate number, I found out I’d chosen the wrong CR-V. When I told T how frustrated I was, he pleaded with me to keep trying. He had a hard time finding prospects who were willing to venture into more dangerous urban neighborhoods for a highly uncertain paycheck. Having lost money on my boondoggles, I told him I didn’t understand how the work was supposed to be viable. I quit without having made a single repo. ‘A THINKING MAN’S GAME’ To find repo-related violence, Americans need look no further than cable television. Every Wednesday night at 9 p.m., Turner Broadcasting-owned truTV airs a program called ” Operation Repo .” Shot in the style of cinema verit&eacute, the program shows scripted scenes of California’s delinquent borrowers losing their cars to a family-run repo agency and getting violently in the process. The documentary feel no doubt leaves some viewers with the impression that everything on the show is real and that most repossessions devolve into mayhem. Set props have included baseball bats, guns and pepper spray. After lamenting lenders’ shrinking payments, “Operation Repo” is often the next exhibit presented by repo agents making a case for their troubles. “They’re a nightmare, the TV shows,” says Hogan, the American Recovery Association president. “You go and you knock on the [borrower's] door and you’re professional. They open the door and people have this horrified look on their face, like you’re going to knock them out or drag them through the yard.” “Operation Repo” is the brainchild of Lou Pizarro , a repo agent and former Marine who years ago began shooting video of his assignments as a way to indemnify himself in cases where the debtor grew hostile. The show started out as “Operaci&oacuten Repo” on Spanish-language Telemundo, where it’s been highly rated. Although most real-world repossessions end without incident, Pizarro makes no apologies for his show’s sensationalism. “The show is entertainment,” Pizarro says, adding that the scenes are based on his own experiences. “The repossessors who say we’re giving them a bad name — maybe they need to work harder. … This is a thinking man’s game. It’s not about brute strength. It’s about being smarter than the next guy.” Though the show may unsettle debtors, it certainly seems to inspire would-be repo agents turned on by the excitement. “After each show, I get a flood of emails from people telling me, ‘What do I need to do to get into the business?’” Pizarro says. “I tell them where to go, what to do, and I wish them well.” No entity has done comprehensive long-term tracking of injuries or violence within the repo industry, be it against debtors or agents, but one indicator of industry trends might be the cost of insurance for repo agencies. According to Ed Marcum, CEO of Recovery Specialist Insurance Group (provider of accidental death and dismemberment coverage, among other foreboding policies), insurance rates for repo agencies have shot up by about 70 percent over the last decade. “I think there’s a lot more violence toward the repossessor than there was years ago. Ten years ago, you heard of two or three in a year, and that was a lot. Now it’s three or four or five or six a month,” says Marcum. A former repo agency owner and insurance investigator, Marcum, too, attributes many of the recent mishaps and disasters — and, ultimately, the rising insurance premiums — to the narrowing profit margins for repo operators and the accompanying pressures. “A lot of the violence is strictly due to the fact that they have to get cars,” he said. “There’s a lot more risk. You have guys out here now, if they’re not successful, they don’t eat. There’s no doubt in my mind that the contingency adds a lot of liability. So they’re paying for it more.” A 2010 report from the National Consumer Law Center detailed a rash of repo-related violence that it attributed to the financial pressures applied by lenders and the light regulations governing the industry. In the three years leading up to the report, at least six people had been killed, dozens had been injured or arrested, and three children under the age of nine had been hauled away in repossessed cars. The way the National Consumer Law Center sees it, state laws protecting automobile owners haven’t evolved to reflect the importance of cars, and too few states require certification to repossess. Debtors facing repossession are often in dire financial straits. Even a highly professional repo agent might incite a borrower whose livelihood depends on his car. “With most repossessions occurring without the involvement of law enforcement, parties often assert their rights in a sort of vigilante justice,” the report noted. “The current system, unfair to families subject to repossession, also endangers repo agents.” Smaller, independent repo agencies bemoan the recent rise of large “forwarding” companies within the industry. Forwarding companies essentially act as middlemen, picking up large numbers of accounts from lenders and then distributing them, often on a contingency basis, to repo agencies, some of which may be subsidiaries of the forwarding companies themselves. Big lenders like the system because it’s convenient: They can unload all their accounts to a one-stop shop that takes care of finding agents and, in some cases, even auctions off the repossessed autos, all at a low price. Which is why long-time repossession pros like to blame forwarding houses for depressing wages in the business. Many independent agencies that used to deal directly with lenders now find themselves picking up jobs from the forwarders instead. “They all hate it, every one of them,” says Marcum, the insurance group CEO. “I know guys who’ve been in the business 50 years, and they’re having to take the work from forwarders. Why? They say, ‘I have to have income.’ “It really shows you how the little man basically gets manhandled by the large corporations, all for investor dollars,” he says. “This business model endangers consumers. I truly believe it does,” says Patrick Altes, a repo agency owner and private investigator in Florida. “If you don’t pay an agent for anything but getting the car, it liberates you from having to provide good information. There’s nothing that motivates them. They can assign it to five or six agents, pull up a credit report and assign it to a whole bunch of them. It’s a free-for-all, and the only one who gets paid is the one who comes up with the car.” ‘DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PICK UP MORE CARS’ The focus of many critics’ ire is Chicago-based forwarding company Renovo , whose subsidiary had a contract with Brown, the agent involved in the Georgia death. On its website, Renovo calls itself the repo world’s “most fully integrated single source solution to the financial services industry.” With its growth in the last few years, it has all but revolutionized the repo industry and now finds itself competing with similar companies that have adopted its one-stop-shop model. Flynn, Renovo’s CEO, was in the casino business before shaking up the repo world. He says that Renovo has won such a large share of the market because it was willing to “standardize and professionalize and build a national brand that it seemed the lenders were really looking for.” He also says the idea that Renovo has been driving down prices and abetting the spread of contingency work is nonsense. Renovo, too, has struggled as lenders have come to expect more for less, he says. “I’ve had eight of our largest 10 customers reduce price in the last two years,” Flynn says. “Lenders are really driving the pricing. Our margins have been squeezed tremendously. … Lenders expect more efficiency than ever now.” Renovo’s detractors point to a handful of incidents in which its contractors have wound up in the police blotter. In addition to the Georgia death, an agent working for a Renovo-owned firm shot and killed an Alabama debtor whose car he was repossessing in the middle of the night in 2008. Jimmy Tanks apparently came outside with a gun as the agent, Kenneth Alvin Smith, was trying to make off with his Chrysler Sebring, but the agent had a gun of his own. In other cases, Renovo’s contractors have landed the company in court after less disastrous repossessions. Preston Shaw of Nashville, Tenn., sued Renovo and Toyota Financial Services after an agent allegedly dragged Shaw’s Lexus out of his garage without his permission. Shaw said in court filings that he was in bankruptcy proceedings at the time and that the lender had no right to reclaim the car. Shaw’s two young daughters, one of whom is blind, were home alone during the commotion. The girls ran upstairs after a repo agent began banging on the door, according to Shaw. “It freaked them out, especially my blind child. For a while, we couldn’t leave my oldest daughter home alone,” the 41-year-old Shaw says. “There were drag marks going out of the garage and into the driveway and into the street. You can still see them.” Shaw’s case was settled for an undisclosed sum. Renovo has also squared off in court with its own employees. In a 2007 class action, a group of repo agents sued Renovo for allegedly misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees and violating overtime laws. In an email that surfaced in the lawsuit, one manager told agents, “The trucks simply need to roll more hours, and pick up more units. Each of you have the ability to do WHATEVER it takes to pick up more cars. Having an ‘Apprentice’ or two or three is the best way.” The case was also settled for an undisclosed sum. Flynn says a lot of the criticism leveled at Renovo is little more than sour grapes coming from smaller competitors who are losing their market share. Those firms, he says, need to accept the industry’s new paradigm. “I understand there are detractors, but I can tell you we run a professional operation,” he says. “I think that everyone is going to have to get efficient. I’m not sure economics will allow it to go any other way. The most efficient and progressive companies will remain in business, the ones who adapt to market conditions. You can complain or you can adapt.” ‘HE BLAMED HIMSELF FOR BILL’S DEATH’ Shortly after Bill Jacobs died in Georgia, Michael and Victoria Brown were charged in his death. Michael pleaded guilty to first-degree vehicular homicide and criminal property damage, receiving a prison sentence of 20 years. Victoria pleaded guilty to reduced charges of property damage and simple battery, receiving two years in prison and another four years of probation. In a civil trial, Pamela Jacobs tried to explain what she’d lost with her husband. “He still took very good care of me and really was in love with me, and I really loved him,” she said. “And I miss him very much.” Devastated by Bill Jacobs’ death, Joe Clements didn’t live much longer than his friend. Just six weeks after the fatal incident, Clements died of an undisclosed illness. In the lawsuit filed by Cindy Clements against Renovo and Nuvell, his family blamed the horror in his front yard for the quick unraveling of Joe Clements’ health. “From the time of the incident until his death, Mr. Clements began a severe downward spiral to depression,” having witnessed “the traumatic death of his friend and work colleague,” the complaint read. According to Cindy Clements, her husband held himself partially accountable for what had happened to his close friend. After all, Brown was there on a repo assignment only because Clements could no longer make the payments on his truck. “He would just sit and think,” Cindy Clements said in a deposition, describing her husband’s behavior after the tragedy. “He blamed himself for Bill’s death. And it just ate on him.” The Clements had been married since 1975. According to court filings, Cindy Clements moved out of the house she had shared with her husband, saying it was too emotionally difficult to stay there after he died. She bounced around to different addresses and different jobs. She could not be reached to comment for this story. Pamela Jacobs still lives in the Augusta house she shared with her husband. When I showed up unannounced on her porch recently, she apologized and said she wouldn’t be able to talk about his death. She explained that she wasn’t comfortable commenting because of all the litigation. All she would say, as she choked back tears, was that it was a shame so many lives were destroyed over $70.

Read the full article →

Path Cleared For Bankruptcy Court Approval of Grubb & Ellis Sale

March 22, 2012

Grubb & Ellis Co. has canceled a bankruptcy auction to sell off its assets, leaving BGC Partners, LP as the only bidder and clearing the way for a court hearing on Thursday to approve the sale. Santa Ana, CA-based Grubb & Ellis filed for bankruptcy protection on Feb. 20 and entered into a letter of intent in which BGC Partners, acting as a stalking horse buyer, acquired the brokerage’s outstanding secured debt and submit the minimum bid to acquire…

Read the full article →

Greek Parliament Approves Second Bailout Loan Contract

March 22, 2012

(MENAFN – Qatar News Agency) The Greek parliament approved early Wednesday the terms of a second international bailout loan contract aiming to avoid a catastrophic Greek bankruptcy during a …

Read the full article →

Amish Man Pleads Guilty To Swindling Fellow Amish

March 16, 2012

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — As members of his community watched quietly in court, an Ohio man admitted Thursday that he defrauded fellow Amish in 29 states out of nearly $17 million. Monroe L. Beachy, 77, of Sugarcreek changed his plea to guilty in U.S. District Court before Judge Benita Pearson. She ordered a pre-sentence report and scheduled sentencing for May 24. A one-count mail fraud indictment returned last year charged Beachy with promising investors safe securities but moving money to riskier investments. The indictment says nearly 2,700 people and entities, including an Amish community loan fund, lost about $16.8 million since 2006. Beachy’s company has filed for bankruptcy protection. The charge carries a maximum 20-year sentence, but under federal sentencing guidelines, he is likely to face 12 to 15 years. The government hasn’t indicated what sentence recommendation it might make to the judge, U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesman Mike Tobin said. Beachy’s lawyer, Gerry Ingram, told the judge he intends to ask for leniency. “Mr. Beachy did not personally benefit and the loss was not a result of him secretly stashing away money, but was a result of market fluctuations,” Ingram said. “He has always lived a very modest lifestyle.” But the government said Beachy had misled investors. “Beachy told the investors that their money would be used to purchase risk-free U.S. government securities, which would generate returns for the investors,” the Securities and Exchange Commission said last year in a civil filing. “In reality, Beachy used the money to make speculative investments in high yield (junk) bonds, mutual funds, and stocks.” Beachy, bearded with a shock of white hair, is a member of an Amish church near Sugarcreek, about 60 miles south of Cleveland. Ohio’s Amish communities, concentrated in rural counties south and east of Cleveland, have a modest lifestyle, traveling by horse and buggy and forgoing most modern conveniences. It’s uncommon for them to take their disputes public and enlist authorities. Fellow Amish had sought to intervene in the bankruptcy case involving Beachy’s investment company and have it settled out of court, but the judge rejected the move. Members of the Plain Community said Beachy had “accepted the counsel” of his church.

Read the full article →

Senators: Giving MF Global Execs Bonuses Probably Not A Good Idea

March 15, 2012

WASHINGTON — Senators are telling the trustee overseeing MF Global that it would be outrageous to pay bonuses to top executives of the collapsed brokerage firm that was led by former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. They say it would be wrong to pay bonuses while about $1.6 billion of customers’ money hasn’t been recovered. All the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee signed a letter sent Thursday to former FBI director Louis Freeh, who acts on behalf of MF Global creditors as trustee. The committee is one of several congressional panels investigating MF Global, which filed for bankruptcy protection Oct. 31. “It is absolutely outrageous to propose paying bonuses to the very people who were responsible for the firm’s operational, legal and financial management at the time customer money disappeared,” the letter said. The Wall Street Journal had reported last week that Freeh was planning to seek permission for paying bonuses. Freeh has since said he hasn’t decided whether to ask the bankruptcy judge to approve bonuses for the executives. The Journal said Freeh planned to ask U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn to approve bonuses for Bradley Abelow, MF Global’s president and chief operating officer; Chief Financial Officer Henri Steenkamp, General Counsel Laurie Ferber and about 20 other executives, who are helping Freeh unravel the firm’s finances. The Journal story cited unnamed people familiar with the situation. Freeh said in a letter Monday to Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who earlier had objected to the payment of bonuses, that he hadn’t yet made any recommendations to the bankruptcy court or “any decisions on the subject, notwithstanding reports to the contrary that have appeared in the media.” There was no immediate response from Freeh on Thursday to the letter from the Senate Agriculture Committee, which is led by Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, a Democratic senator from Michigan. Abelow and Steenkamp testified at congressional hearings in December that they did not play a role in any decision to transfer customers’ money. No one has been charged in the MF Global case. The firm failed after a calamitous bet on European debt spooked its investors, trading partners and clients, becoming the eighth-largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history. Federal regulators, Congress and a federal grand jury in Chicago are investigating MF Global’s failure and the disappearance of customers’ money. Much of the money belonged to farmers, ranchers and other business owners who used MF Global to reduce their risks from the fluctuating prices of commodities such as corn and wheat. Corzine, who was co-chairman of Goldman Sachs before going into politics and serving as a Democratic senator and governor of New Jersey, resigned as MF Global CEO in November. He has testified that he didn’t know any customer money was missing until Oct. 30, the day before MF Global’s bankruptcy filing. Separately Thursday, another MF Global trustee, who is overseeing the liquidation of its brokerage operations, asked the bankruptcy court for permission to distribute an additional $685 million to customers. The trustee, James Giddens, already has returned $3.9 billion to customers. In his latest request, Giddens is seeking permission to give $50 million to customers who traded on foreign markets, the first such payment to those trading on foreign exchanges. He also wants to distribute up to $600 million to customers who traded commodity futures on U.S. exchanges and $35 million to owners of physical property. ___ AP Business Writer Matthew Craft in New York contributed to this story

Read the full article →

Evelyn Robert de Rothschild: Monetary Express

March 14, 2012

I owe my life to the remarkable generosity of America’s political system, which under legislation from Franklin D. Roosevelt, welcomed thousands of children from England during World War II. It is out of this respect, and out of a fear for how money is corroding America’s political system, that I call for a rethink of how we approach campaign finance. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Perhaps no other words have played as important of a role in shaping the freedom and prosperity of the United States as have the ones found in the First Amendment. And perhaps no other amendment in the constitution has led to more unintended consequences by America’s political and judiciary system. Under the cloak of freedom of speech, and thanks to the Supreme Court’s systematic effort to remove barriers preventing the unlimited use of money in political campaign, political spending has spiraled out of control in America. The pervasiveness of money in American politics is no more apparent than in presidential elections. In 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain collectively raised over $1.7 billion. That is more than double the money raised by George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004. Obama alone spent $730 million to get elected to the White House in 2008. By contrast, the entire 2010 UK general election, which fielded over 4,000 candidates for Parliament, cost just £31.5 million ($49 million), £10.8 million ($16.8 million) less than the 2005 general elections. David Cameron spent a mere £14,000 ($22,000) on his campaign in 2010, and the average candidate spent just under £3,500. The rise of outside spending, and particularly of ‘SuperPACs,’ will push the cost of the 2012 election even higher. Going into Super Tuesday, outside groups had already spent over well over $88 million during this 2012 election cycle. SuperPACs alone have already spent $66 million, $1 million more than SuperPACs spent during the entire 2010 election cycle, and we are still nine months away from the general election. While factors, such as the advent of 24 hour news industry, have contributed, unbridled political campaign costs, shielded by the systematic misinterpretation of the First Amendment, have been the main barriers preventing those without access to vast amounts of money from running for political office. Beginning in the 1970s, and culminating in the Citizen’s United case in 2010, the Supreme Court has equated political spending to free speech, arguing that any restrictions to that spending curtails a candidates First Amendment rights. Many since abused this interpretation unethically, flooding campaigns with cash at the expense of those without similar financial power. In effect, those without money cannot compete in the US political system. Restricting political spending is not a ‘substantial burden’ on free speech rights of candidates, as Chief Justice Roberts recently put it when he struck down matching funds in Arizona last year. Quite the opposite. It broadens free speech to candidates with less money, and requires those with money to compete in a larger field. The monetary express that has taken over America’s politics has gotten out of hand. Only without the distraction of unlimited contributions will politicians be able to focus on their job of governing again. To do this, we must rebuild a campaign finance system predicated on competitive and balanced political spending. More importantly, we must stop abusing the First Amendment as the right to spend unlimited amounts and begin treating the freedom to speech more ethically.

Read the full article →

Greece escapes default

March 10, 2012

(MENAFN – Khaleej Times) Â Greece has cleared a major hurdle in its race to avoid bankruptcy by persuading the vast majority of its private creditors to sign up to the biggest national debt …

Read the full article →

Dan Coats: Hurry Up, DOE, And Approve Those Loans

March 9, 2012

An Indiana senator who last fall became one of the most vocal critics of the government’s automaker advanced tech loan program — calling it a process of picking winners and losers among private companies — had earlier lobbied the Energy Department to hurry up and approve the loan requests of companies based in his state. Letters obtained by The Huffington Post show Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) had pushed the Energy Department to speed up its loan approval process, given the fact that many companies were complaining the process was taking too long. In June, Coats wrote a letter urging the Energy Department to speed up its decision making process and start doling out some of the funds. “I believe the agency is capable of much better performance,” Coats wrote to Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “DOE has received many dozen qualified applicants, including several strong applicants from my home state of Indiana … I encourage DOE to improve its process and start approving qualified loans.” In August, Coats helped lobby for Bright Automotive, which was planning to renovate a former Humvee plant in northern Indiana to make hybrid delivery vans. On Aug. 2, Coats forwarded to Jonathan Silver, then head of the Energy Department’s loan program, two emails, which came from Bright employees asking Coats to help with the company’s loan application. But that same day, Aug. 2, Coats also criticized the Energy Department’s automaker tech loan program, after learning Russian steelmaker Severstal had scored an initial approval for a $730 million loan for its manufacture of lighter-weight, high-strength steel in Michigan. In November, Coats and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) questioned the Severstal decision and demanded that the U.S. inspector general investigate. Coats criticized the Department of Energy’s process of giving loans to private companies. “This is another example of why the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers,” he said. Ultimately, the Energy Department decided in January to not finalize the Severstal loan and Coats said the decision was a boon for Indiana steelmakers. Companies in his home state manufacture the type of steel Severstal wanted to make in Michigan. Coats’ spokeswoman did not return calls for comment. The Energy Department’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was initiated during the administration of President George W. Bush in the fall of 2007 and expanded under the Obama administration. The $8 billion allocated has gone to just five companies: Ford, Nissan, Fisker Automotive, Tesla and natural-gas van maker the Vehicle Production Group. Executives from companies that have withdrew their loan applications have complained that the decision-making process took way too long, with waits of 30 to 36 months. Chrysler, which backed out of the application process last month, said the Energy Department kept changing the structure of the loan. In the past two weeks, two companies have announced they failed to get the Energy Department loans that they had been hoping for. Both had operations in Indiana. After failing to get a loan, Bright Automotive last week announced it was closing its doors. William Santana Li, CEO of Carbon Motors, which is building a plant in Indiana, said loan applicants are caught up in a political mess. Republicans are trying to bash President Barack Obama’s administration over the cases of Severstal and Solyndra, and the Energy Department is too skittish to hand out any more money out of fear it will become more election-year fodder, he said. (Solar panel maker Solyndra filed for bankruptcy two years after receiving an Energy Department loan through another program.) Carbon Motors’ application for a Energy department loan was rejected earlier this week. “It is clear that this was a political decision in a highly charged election-year environment,” Santana Li said.

Read the full article →

Richard Brodsky: The Great Unraveling: Yonkers, Stockton and Municipal Bankruptcy

March 7, 2012

Yesterday, the new Mayor of Yonkers, Mike Spano, created a Commission of Inquiry to get to the truth of the City’s financial crisis. Yonkers is a city of 200,000 on the Hudson just north of New York City. It’s got a budget of about $1 billion and a budget gap in the upcoming year that looks like it can’t be bridged. The mayor asked me to serve on the Commission. At the heart of the crisis is a political disconnect of a kind we see all over the country. People demand, and need, municipal services such as police, fire, sanitation and education. They can not, or will not, pay for them. There are reasons aplenty. Like many urban centers the Yonkers manufacturing base disappeared, the middle-class moved out and the people simply can’t afford the property and sales tax burden that ensued. Anti-tax fervor hit and elected officials refused to raise recurring revenues. Gimmicks, one-shots, borrowing for operating expenses, asset sales and assorted maneuvers “kicked the can down the road” for a couple of years, in Spano’s words. The City has now run out of gimmicks. The State and the Feds, also broke, have turned their backs on Yonkers. The right-wing attempt to “starve the beast” as a way to diminish the Federal Government hasn’t worked in Washington, but the municipal beast has been starved into a coma, and the things that we take for granted as we walk the streets of our cities, towns and villages are withering. Blame is attached to public employees, with allegations of excessive salaries and pensions everywhere. Rarely, such as in Stockton, California , elected officials go beyond attacking public employees and threaten banks and lenders with having to share the pain. Appointed Control Boards are created and municipal bankruptcy becomes a real option as we’ve just seen in Alabama. It’s as though we stand on the shore and watch a tsunami gather and shrug and hope we’ll get through it. Only one presidential candidate, Ron Paul, has been seriously talking about it. That needs to change, and if the list of endangered cities gets larger this will force itself onto the national stage. But for now the great national battle about the size of government and the level of taxation will be played out in the streets of small cities across America, with school kids, garbage pick-up, fire-protection and safe streets the competing with each other for inadequate resources. It’s an ugly way to solve a problem. I’ve agreed to serve on the Mayor’s Commission of Inquiry, and I’ll know more as we delve into the specifics of the Yonkers situation. But it’s starting to unravel, everywhere.

Read the full article →

Real Mex Abruptly Closes 10 More Eateries; Proceeds with Bankruptcy Sale

March 7, 2012

Noteholders including affiliates of Tennenbaum Capital Partners, Z Capital Partners and J.P. Morgan Investment Management, have won the bankruptcy auction to acquire virtually all of the assets of Real Mex Restaurants Inc.in Cypress, CA. The group offered an $80 million credit bid for Real Mex’s second-lien notes, as well as about $49 million in cash and the assumption of certain liabilities. Real Mex Restaurants is the largest full-service, casual…

Read the full article →

Ann O’Leary: Working Parents Need Protections Now

March 4, 2012

Ever wonder what happens to a worker who becomes disabled for weeks from injuries in a car accident? Or the worker who has a baby but no maternity leave? Or the worker whose parent, suffering from Alzheimer’s, falls and hits his head and can no longer live alone? Here’s what happens, and neither option is appealing: One, they stay home, a necessity in such cases as an auto accident or giving birth. It risks losing pay, and, sometimes, the job. In either case, it can set off a downward spiral. A 2001 Harvard Law School study found that a quarter of two-income couples who filed for bankruptcy did so after one of them missed work to recover from an illness or to care for a family member suffering an illness. Or, two, they can work through the illness or injury, or they can return to work before recovery is complete. Neither is ideal — for the health of the worker or for the affected family member. Workers who return too soon often relapse, causing more lost productivity; and in the case of sick kids, The American Academy of Pediatrics says “family-centered care” is a key contributor to better health outcomes but for kids whose parents can’t stay home their health suffers. Whichever the choice, workers are left to fend for themselves with no protections against lost income. It happens every day across America, and in each instance, it’s neither right for the family nor smart for businesses or the economy. Slowly, that’s changing. While partisan rancor in Congress undermines the possibility of passing legislation any time soon that would require employers to offer a minimum number of paid sick days, or create a national insurance program for paid family and medical leave, a handful of cities and states have enacted programs that safeguard workers and their families, and others are considering them. Connecticut along with San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and Seattle now all require at least some employers to offer a minimum level of paid sick days. California and New Jersey now offer paid family and medical leave insurance, allowing workers to take up to six weeks of leave for the birth of a child or to care for a seriously ill family member and longer to recover from one’s own illness. Now, it’s Washington state’s turn. Recently, I had the privilege of testifying before a joint session of its House and Senate labor committees on two important measures under consideration. One would provide funding for a program enacted in 2007 yet never implemented that would allow workers to take up to 6 weeks of paid parental leave. The other would expand that law to allow leave for family care and for a worker’s own medical needs. Lawmakers have yet to identify funding streams. Despite the urgent need in a changed world, where we no longer have stay-at-home moms to care for ailing family members and the obvious medical, economic and social benefits of paid leave, some committee members seemed unconvinced. They expressed concerns about the impact on the state budget and on businesses. Those concerns are misplaced. Administrative costs would be minimal because Washington state, like all states, has an agency already processing unemployment insurance claims. Adding paid family leave would take a little time but not a lot of additional money. The business argument doesn’t wash either. In California, where paid family leave is funded entirely through a payroll tax on employees, a new study by researchers Ruth Milkman and Eileen Appelbaum found that 89 percent of state businesses viewed paid family leave as positive or having no effect, 87 percent said it generates no additional costs and 9 percent said it actually saved money. Families are struggling today and the economic costs of being ill, having a baby or taking care of a sick family member only make families and children more vulnerable. But it’s not only families who lose — employers lose valuable employees who must choose care over work, and the economy loses income that is reinvested in the community. The question before lawmakers in Washington state and else where isn’t whether workers should be able to take time off to care for ill family members or to recover, without losing pay. The real question is why all states aren’t following California, New Jersey, and Connecticut with a smarter economic policy that protects families against these risks, reduces the shock on business and the economy and preserves the health and well-being of America’s next generation.

Read the full article →

James Kwak: Fiscal Affairs: Democrats and the Bush Tax Cuts

March 2, 2012

Mark Thoma provides an excerpt from Noam Scheiber on Peter Orszag’s attempt to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. In short, Orszag wanted to extend the “middle-class” tax cuts for two years (letting the tax cuts for the rich expire); then he expected the middle-class tax cuts to expire as well. President Obama was interested in the plan, which Scheiber takes as evidence that “the president is a true fiscal conservative.” Thoma frames this as a bad thing: The explanation, of course, is that despite hopes to the contrary (and denial by some), the president is, ‘a true fiscal conservative’ — it’s not just an act in an attempt to capture the middle — and that could be bad news not just for middle class tax cuts, but also for important social insurance programs such as Social Security. I like and respect Mark Thoma a great deal, and I generally think of him as a mainstream Democrat on economic issues, neither a socialist nor a “moderate Democrat” (what we used to call a Republican). To me, his post is evidence that many Democrats think that most of the Bush tax cuts were and are a good thing. This confuses me. When did we become the party of tax cuts? Let’s leave aside the question of whether Barack Obama is a fiscal conservative (and whether that term has any meaning anymore) and focus on the narrower question of whether it would be good to let the “middle class” tax cuts (usually defined as tax cuts for married couples making less than $250,000) expire. There are three logically separable issues here. The first is whether, leaving aside considerations of the business cycle, we would be better off with the Clinton tax code (mainly set in 1993, tweaked in 1997) or the Bush tax code (set in 2001 and 2003, extended in piecemeal fashion during the Bush administration, and finally extended in 2010 through 2012). On this question I think the answer has to be that the Clinton tax code is preferable, at least for people with generally Democratic preferences. One way to think about it is this: In 2001 and 2003, did you think the Bush tax cuts were good policy? If you didn’t think they were good policy then, why would they be good policy now? If you can’t remember what you thought about them then, let me remind you. EGTRRA and JGTRRA were huge tax cuts for the rich and small tax cuts for the middle class and the poor. EGTRRA was passed at a time when large majorities of the country wanted to bolster Social Security and Medicare rather than cut taxes;* JGTRRA was passed after a recession and September 11 had already wiped out the Clinton-era surpluses and less than two months after the invasion of Iraq. More generally, tax cuts always have to be paid for, one way or another, in lower transfers, fewer services, or higher taxes in the future. Since the poor and middle class are net beneficiaries of transfers and services, the Bush tax cuts were, on balance, bad for the poor and the middle class (unless they would be paid for by tax increases that made the tax code even more progressive than before — an unlikely prospect). For a quantitative analysis, see Elmendorf, Furman, Gale, and Harris (2008) . (I’m not going to bother rebutting the supply-side justification for the tax cuts since, for now, I’m talking to Democrats; I know why Republicans liked the tax cuts.) If the tax cuts were bad a decade ago, what has changed since then (for now, leaving aside cyclical issues)? We have had one more decade of aging and health care inflation (and war), so the long-term budget outlook looks considerably worse. The need to ensure the long-term survival of Social Security and Medicare is greater. Increased income inequality has made provision of basic safety net services even more important. These are all things that demand more tax revenue, not less. The case against the Bush tax cuts has only become stronger. Assuming you’re with me so far, the second issue is whether it would be good to have just the middle-class tax cuts and not the tax cuts for the rich, which is what President Obama has proposed. (Leave aside for now the question of whether this would be politically feasible with today’s Republican Party.) This is a closer call, but I still think the right answer is no tax cuts. To begin with, who among you (again, I’m aiming this at Democratic policy wonks) thought that the thing we needed in 2001 was a middle-class tax cut? Not many, if I recall correctly. Democrats wanted more money for education, infrastructure, job training, and child care. We wanted better health care. We wanted to set aside money for Social Security and Medicare. We didn’t want tax cuts. Again, I think the past decade has just strengthened all of these concerns. Yes, the middle class is struggling with stagnant wages and rising economic insecurity. But in aggregate, middle class families need robust social insurance programs to protect them from falling into poverty more than they need a few hundred dollars of after-tax income. And given the current political climate, that is the choice we face. The third issue is whether, given the actual business cycle, we should raise taxes on the middle class right now. Here I will go along with Thoma and DeLong and Krugman and all the rest and agree that it might not be good to raise taxes on the middle class on January 1, 2013. If I were king, I might extend the middle-class tax cuts for another two years and then let them expire. But this “if I were king” stuff is meaningless. First of all, if I were actually king, I would still let all the tax cuts expire; then I would use the additional revenues to increase government spending. (Remember, fellow Democratic policy wonks, we usually say that spending has a higher multiplier than tax cuts.) Second, I’m not king, and neither are you. We are dealing with a Republican Party that will block any package that raises taxes on anybody. They will block any tax increase, even if it hurts them in the general elections, because they are completely locked in by the Grover pledge and the Koch brothers. The only choice we have is between extending all of the tax cuts and complete gridlock, which means that they all expire. And if we extend the Bush tax cuts, we are just four Senate seats away from making them all permanent.** Given that choice, I vote for gridlock. I understand the counterargument: tax increases would weaken the recovery and increase unemployment in the short term. But those tax revenues are crucial to the long-term health of the middle class. Ending the Bush tax cuts will slash projected deficits and push right-wing claims about the bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare decades into the future. Yes, conservatives will always want to privatize Social Security and dismantle Medicare, but they only have a chance of actually succeeding when government deficits make those programs seem unsustainable, bringing so-called centrists over to their side. So, for me, letting all the tax cuts expire on December 31 is better than making them permanent. Letting them all expire is also better than making just the “middle-class” tax cuts permanent. (Another note to Democrats: since when do we push for tax cuts for families making $200,000 a year?) There’s one more option you may say you prefer: letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, extending the middle-class tax cuts for another two years, and then letting them expire (assuming we are back to trend growth). As I said above, I don’t think this is politically feasible, given who’s in charge of the Republican Party. But if that’s what you want, that’s also what Peter Orszag wanted and Barack Obama seriously considered. So why are they the bad guys?*** (Note that I’m not defending Obama’s willingness to negotiate away Social Security and Medicare, which I do not agree with.) In the end, I think the Bush tax cuts were one of the two most catastrophic policy decisions of this century (the other was the Iraq War). They were a terrible idea then and they are a terrible idea now. I think letting them all expire would be good for the world and for the middle class. And whether or not that makes me a “fiscal conservative,” I think it makes me a Democrat. * See Hacker and Pierson, Off Center , pp. 49-53. ** Does anyone think Obama would veto a bill passed by both houses that locks in lower taxes? *** You could say that Orszag wanted to implement this policy two years ago, which meant a tax increase in 2013, while you want to implement it now, which means a tax increase in 2015. I see the point, but that’s a tactical distinction, not a difference of philosophy. James Kwak is the co-author of White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters To You , available from April 3rd. This post is cross-posted from The Baseline Scenario .

Read the full article →

Manufacturer Of Strollers That Cut Off Children’s Fingers Quietly Files For Bankruptcy

March 2, 2012

This past Dec. 29, as many families were beginning to enjoy recently received gifts, including Maclaren’s high-end strollers or cribs, the American unit of that company quietly filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. The filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Bridgeport, Conn., went unnoticed for nearly two months until a blog for new dads, Daddytypes.com, wrote about it last week.

Read the full article →

Adam Levin: Best Way to Win the Gas Game: Don’t Play

March 1, 2012

Earlier this week, the New York Post shouted the headline ” US Credit Card Debt Nearing Toxic Levels. ” The article was referring to the latest report from the Fed that in December, total consumer debt, which is the sum of both non-revolving and revolving debt, increased by 9.3 percent to almost $2.5 trillion. The increase in revolving debt, principally consisting of credit card balances , was at an annual rate of 4.1%. Thus, despite the fact that for a few short months in 2011 the amount of outstanding debt actually fell, the long-standing trend of strong expansion in consumer credit card debt returned with a vengeance in December, measured month over month, quarter over quarter, and year-over-year. We’re slowly killing ourselves with our oil addiction, and the dealer yet again is jacking up the prices. Well, maybe it was just a merrier Christmas; maybe people caught up in acquisition ecstasy overspent during the holidays, but then again, we have nine months to pare down those balances before Santa’s redux. I would really like to believe that, but I’m not sure that I do. I believe that the real reason credit card debt is increasing is because American consumers are being squeezed between stagnant personal incomes and ever-increasing prices, particularly oil prices, which affect most everything else. Is there anyone who is still surprised by seeing the words “fuel surcharge” on bills of every description? It seems clear to me that whatever the consumer price index may say, the skyrocketing price of petroleum is starting to take a significant bite out of disposable income for many American consumers. Let’s consider a few facts — according to the AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular is today about $3.72 (the highest ever recorded at the end of a February), as compared to about $3.39 only a month ago. The AAA’s most recent figures for American gas consumption show that the average driver travels about 1000 miles a month, with average fuel economy of about 22 miles per gallon. Therefore, the average American uses about 45 gallons every month, which means that he or she will spend about $14.99 more on gasoline this month as compared to last. This number, which is less than the price of two adult movie tickets, might not sound like a lot, but it adds up, especially when you multiply it across the nation. Make no mistake: changes in gas prices have a profound psychological impact on consumers. For instance, one way that drivers deal with increased gas prices is to switch from higher-grade gasoline to lower octane. In a recent University of Chicago study , researchers found that consumers are far more sensitive to changes in gas prices than they are to the price fluctuations of other commodities, like orange juice and milk. The study found that drivers in fact, treated a $1,313 loss in net income from higher gas prices as if their households were making $100,000 less a year. And now, once again, oil prices are spiking. If you haven’t noticed by looking at the sign above the gas pump, price hikes are becoming so bold and fluid — please excuse the pun — that recently the numbers on a gas station roadsign changed in the middle of a live television report , you could easily tell by the promises coming from various political figures. “Gas for two dollars a gallon!” “Gas for $2.50 a gallon!” “Don’t worry folks, the Saudis will simply up production in an amount equal to the shortfall resulting from a problem in Iran, if any…” Right now, most experts agree that the most important driver of the price of oil — the world’s most globalized commodity — is the threat of a major disruption in Iran. Those of us who are old enough may well recall that the cause of the energy crisis in 1979 — and those long gas lines where Americans idled away as much as 150,000 gallons a day just waiting for an accommodating pump — was a “disruption” in Iran. That was bad enough, but, of course, times have changed since then. During the oil shortages of the 1970s, the US was — relatively speaking — much richer. We were not only the country that needed the most oil — we could also better afford to pay for it than anyone else. But today, dramatically escalating consumption in the East, particularly in China and India, means that there are people out there who need as much or more of it than we do. And in China, there is a quite substantial ability to pay for it. In fact, China provides massive subsidies to its state oil companies principally to improve their position in jockeying for reliable and reasonably-priced supply around the globe. So if a butterfly can flap its wings in Tokyo and cause a hurricane in Brazil, what is the effect of millions of consumers having to flap open their wallets at the pump more? If, as the University of Chicago researchers and others have shown, consumers essentially “overreact” to the price of gas relative to its actual impact on their income, what is that cumulative downward drag going to do to the economy? Bottom line, part one: the reason candidates of every stripe are promising Magical Mystery solutions to the problem of high gasoline prices is because those prices are political dynamite in an election year. If the price of regular increases by another dollar a gallon — hopefully improbable but certainly not impossible — all those credit cards that are used at all those gas pumps will be paying $60 a month more than they did in January of 2012. I can’t do the numbers, but I’d bet that gas prices like that will put a lot of American consumers above their debt limit on a whole lot of credit cards. Moreover, prices like that would be a significant drag on an economy that is already exhibiting not enough momentum and too much friction. And, what would happen if there simply wasn’t enough gasoline to go around? There is no one in American politics on either side of the aisle who wants to deal with a question like that before November of 2012, so you’ll probably hear many more promises. But… Bottom line, part two: there is no one in Washington — or for that matter in Beijing or Moscow or Riyadh — who can directly prevent a short-run catastrophe in the form of gasoline prices in Paris, Ohio that look a lot like gasoline prices in Paris, France. There is no amount of drilling, limitations on speculation, lengths of pipeline, or jawboning that can forestall a crisis if the major players — who are all in Tehran or Tel Aviv — do something that precipitates another “disruption” in Iranian oil production. All that anyone else can do is to attempt to influence, with either a carrot or a stick, what happens over there. So you might as well get used to it — no one can do much in the short term about the high price of gasoline. But you the consumer can do something to protect yourself against it, and that’s really your only sane course of action. Forget about promises of lower prices, and stop worrying about who does what to whom somewhere in the Gulf. Oil is a matter of macro concern but your finances involve very micro considerations. Pick a day or two a week where you simply keep your credit card in your purse or wallet . Save money wherever you can, but save oil everywhere you can. Replace the SUV with a hybrid when your lease expires or you get ready to replace the gas guzzler. Turn down the heat, turn off the lights, and curtail the buying of things that come packaged in plastics produced with petroleum. Can you imagine what would happen if we all decided to flap our wallets shut more often? After all, the butterfly effect goes both ways. This article originally appeared on Credit.com .

Read the full article →

MF Global Transfer Of Astonishing Size Approved In Single Minute

March 1, 2012

Apparently at MF Global, moving hundreds of millions of dollars around is the type of decision you don’t spend too much time on. Five days before MF Global collapsed, one employee got approval to move $165 million of the company’s funds from one of its accounts to another, in a single minute , according to internal emails reviewed by the Wall Street Journal . Within about 15 minutes of the request, the money had been transferred, but employees soon realized that the funds had actually been taken out of a separate account of customer money — not one of the firm’s own. The nearly split second decision may have cost the firm and it’s customers big time. MF Global went bankrupt October, largely from risky bets on European debt, and managed to lose more than $1 billion of its clients’ money in the process. Still, the firm will likely escape criminal prosecution , according to The New York Times , because investigators are having trouble finding evidence that MF Global workers intentionally misused the money. Even if the company didn’t lose the cash intentionally, its ex-CEO Jon Corzine still provoked outrage when he said he couldn’t find it. He told a Congressional committee in December: “I simply do not know where the money is” in reference to the missing funds. Much of the money has been traced to customer accounts and banks , according to an Associated Press report earlier this month. Still, regulators are taking steps to try and ensure that a disaster of MF Global-proportions doesn’t happen again. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved a rule in December that put tighter restrictions on how firms can use their customers’ money. That’s likely of little comfort to MF Global customers, who have been left wondering what will happen to their money and this year’s tax forms . One possibility? A battle with hedge funds over a total of more than a billion dollars. Stay tuned.

Read the full article →

Eliot Daley: Why Should Employers Control Health Care Benefits?

March 1, 2012

Why should your employer have any say whatsoever about how you manage your reproductive health? Why? Can you think of one good reason? Your employer, of all people, influencing the most intimate decisions in your life — could anything be more ridiculous? Because it’s all we have ever known in the U.S., we Americans think it normal for employers to be enmeshed in the provision of health care for their employees. Few realize that this arrangement is both unique and absurd in comparison with other industrialized countries, where employers have absolutely nothing to do with health care. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Abroad, nationally funded programs enable private doctors and hospitals to care for one and all, unfettered by what any employer does or does not like — just like Medicare, the most popular and cost-effective health care program in America. People who feel insulted by the notion of the U.S. following anybody else’s lead are quick to bad-mouth the national health programs elsewhere. And while one can find something to criticize about any of them, the fact is that they produce healthier citizens than our way does — by a long shot. The New England Journal of Medicine shows Americans floundering around in 37th place in terms of health status (e.g., mortality, life expectancy). Did you get that? Thirty-seventh place. Despite spending nearly twice as much per-person as the next most-costly nation’s program. Let’s review the reasons why it is time to sever the connection between employers and health care. First, the connection was simply an accident of history, rather than a carefully designed arrangement to provide the most cost-effective care possible for Americans. In the race to secure scarce labor right after World War II, employers (who were constrained by wage and price controls) offered health coverage as a fringe-benefit inducement for new hires. Our whole messy, expensive, ineffectual system evolved mindlessly forward from that moment. Second, employers are burdened not only by paying for employees’ health care but in maintaining the internal bureaucracy to manage those benefits. U.S. employers find it increasingly difficult to compete with non-U.S. companies because of the financial burden of covering employees’ health — even after their retirement, in many cases. What is more, the issue of health care coverage is a perennial aggravation to both employers and labor unions as they negotiate appropriate compensation; this bone of contention simply need not exist. Third, the scattergun array of private payers who administer employers’ coverage has failed miserably in their half-hearted efforts to bring sanity to their reimbursement policies. No wonder. When presenting a cost-saving idea to the medical director of one of the two largest private health insurers in the country, I was told bluntly and without embarrassment that saving money was not a concern of theirs, as they simply pass increasing costs along to the employers (and their co-paying employees) as increased premiums. They largely shell out whatever providers put on the bill, irrespective of the value any particular procedure or medication might have in restoring the patient’s health. By contrast, Medicare conducts extensive clinical research on the most cost-effective actions and tailors reimbursement accordingly. And what some call “Obamacare” is boosting this research dramatically. Medicare’s purchasing power has proved to be vastly more effective in restraining costs than the feeble and inconsistent efforts of private payers, most of whom eventually just fall into line behind whatever Medicare is doing. If all they are doing is mimicking Medicare while adding costs as a for-profit middleman, why do we need them? Fourth, if anyone still doubts the idiocy of the U.S. practice of issuing health care coverage through employers, these past days surely must have banished their doubts for good. While other industrialized countries serenely offer pre-paid healthcare for all their citizens irrespective of employment, we find ourselves the laughingstock of the world as we bicker over whether employees of Roman Catholic organizations can be denied employer-sponsored coverage for contraception. And now, to make the matter even more ridiculous, Congress may soon be voting on a proposal to let any employer restrict any facet of coverage that doesn’t happen to fit that employer’s own idiosyncratic sense of morality and ethics. Where will this deepening entanglement of bosses with their employees’ health matters ever end? And why would we even perpetuate it, let alone exacerbate the problem? I have been an employer, and I can tell you that employers already have enough to worry about: solvency and profitability, competition, workforce capabilities, innovation, markets, product safety, and legitimate governmental protections like OSHA. Can’t you just imagine the coast-to-coast whoosh of relief if employers awoke one morning to find the whole health care mishegas gone forever from their To-Do list? And can’t you just imagine the coast-to-coast whoosh of relief if the unemployed and the about-to-be unemployed all awoke that morning to find themselves members of Medicare for All? That’s actually the best reason of all. No more terror of falling out of a job and into medical bankruptcy. No more being reduced to medical beggars cringing hopefully at the door of the Emergency Room. And for the employed, no more revealing your most sensitive medical situations to a fellow employee in the H.R. department as you grope for a pathway forward through the confusing coverages. To be sure, Medicare for All means that some taxpayers will find their tax dollars supporting particular health care activities they may deplore (e.g., contraception). But we citizens already do underwrite all manner of expenditures, from health care to warfare, that include elements certain individuals may personally object to. It’s called democratic majority rule. Who better to define health care benefits for American citizens — the American citizens themselves or their employers? Americans on Medicare love it. Let’s share those benefits with all Americans, and get a grip on runaway costs at the same time. Why wouldn’t we? (For more on Medicare for All, check out http://www.medicareforall.org .)

Read the full article →

Five Surprising Things You Need To Pay Taxes On

March 1, 2012

Remember: Taxes for 2011 are due on Tuesday, April 17. The IRS has said it plans to issue taxpayer refunds in 10 to 21 days. Electronic filing and using direct deposit can speed up a return. If you have not yet filed your taxes, consider whether have missed these taxable items.

Read the full article →

Did You Get Your Check? IRS Has $1 Billion Waiting For You

February 29, 2012

Did you file your 2008 tax return? One million people did not, and as a result, the Internal Revenue Service is sitting on a pile of cash — $1 billion to be precise — in unclaimed tax refunds , the IRS announced last week. Half of the refunds waiting to be had are worth $637 or more, the IRS said. It’s not too late to claim your refund if you were one of the million people who were not required to file a tax return because you made under a certain amount of money. In fact, you have until April 17, 2012 to file a 2008 tax return , according to the IRS, before the extra cash becomes the property of the U.S. Treasury. Tax refunds are not the only money you could potentially lose out on by not filing a tax return. According to the IRS: Some people, especially those who did not receive an economic stimulus payment in 2008, may qualify for the Recovery Rebate Credit. In addition, many low-and moderate-income workers may not have claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Think you’re owed money? You can access old tax forms at IRS.gov .

Read the full article →

Tax Day Is Not When You Think

February 29, 2012

One hundred forty-four million individuals will file personal income tax returns on Tax Day, which falls on Tuesday, April 17 this year. Typically, Tax Day is on April 15. The deadline was delayed by the Internal Revenue Service this year because April 15 lands on a Sunday and the following Monday is Emancipation Day, a holiday observed in the District of Columbia. (President Abraham Lincoln freed D.C.’s slaves on April 16, 1862–nine months before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.) Are you scrambling to file on time? You can file an extension and get an extra six months to file. But be sure to send a check in with your extension if you know you’ll owe money; a tax extension doesn’t exempt you from paying your taxes on time. Late payments are still subject to interest and penalties. Don’t think you’ll have the money to pay what you owe? The IRS advises you to still file on time : If your return is completed but you are unable to pay the full amount of tax due, do not request an extension. File your return on time and pay as much as you can. The IRS will send you a bill or notice for the balance due. Whether you’re doing your taxes yourself or working with an accountant, do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with the 1040 . Make sure you’re taking advantage of tax credits deductions . If you need help, seek it . Check out some of the most unbelievable taxes, past and present…

Read the full article →

GM To Spend $500 Million On Employee Bonuses, Profit-sharing

February 29, 2012

DETROIT — General Motors is likely to spend more than $500 million on employee bonuses and profit-sharing based on the company’s performance last year. GM, which made a record profit in 2011, will pay bonuses of at least $182 million to white-collar workers such as engineers, car designers and managers on Wednesday, according to a formula obtained by The Associated Press. That’s on top of $332.5 million in profit-sharing it already agreed to pay factory workers. In the past, such payments have drawn criticism from those who believe the government shouldn’t have bailed out GM and Chrysler. But GM, which made a record $7.6 billion last year, says the payments are needed to hold on to skilled employees. It’s also keeping fixed costs down by giving bonuses instead of annual pay raises. The bonuses will go to most of the company’s 26,000 salaried employees, many of whom make more than $100,000 a year. The bonuses will range from 8 percent of base pay to 14 percent, according to the formula. The company would not release the percentages, nor would it say how much it will spend on the bonuses. But it’s likely the average bonus for salaried employees will be more than the $7,000 that each of GM’s 47,500 factory workers will get in March. The white-collar bonuses are determined by a worker’s pay grade, individual performance and company metrics that measure whether GM met goals including pretax earnings, market share, cash flow and quality. This year’s salaried bonuses will be smaller than last year’s, when the company met all of its goals. A small number of top performers will get pay raises or larger bonuses, the company has said. “It’s a pay-for-performance type approach that really drives accountability in the organization and helps employees connect their compensation with performance,” says GM spokeswoman Lynda Messina. GM must reward employees because the labor market is starting to become competitive again, especially for computer experts, engineers and other skilled jobs, says James Stoeckmann, senior compensation specialist for World at Work, an organization of human resources executives who specialize in pay issues. “Companies are having a hard time finding all those critical skills they need,” he says. At almost every company, white-collar bonuses are higher than those given to blue-collar workers, he says. The formula to calculate the bonus percentages was given to the Associated Press by a person familiar with GM’s compensation. The person didn’t want to be identified because the company did not make the formula public. The U.S. spent nearly $50 billion to save GM three years ago, and some Republicans think the government should get its money back before bonuses are paid. The company nearly ran out of cash when auto sales dropped during the financial crisis. With little or no private loans available, GM needed a bailout to make it through bankruptcy protection. The government agreed to take stock in GM in exchange for most of the debt. So far it has recouped more than $22 billion. Taxpayers still own 500 million shares of GM, or 26.5 percent of the company. If the government sold those shares at the current price of around $26, it would get about $13.2 billion. But it’s waiting for the stock price to rise before selling. Shares would have to sell for more than $53 each for the government to get all its money back, which is unlikely. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a critic of the bailout, said the Obama administration needs to figure out a way to get the money back. “As the company gives out bonuses, the Treasury Department needs to have an exit strategy for getting GM to repay the taxpayers for helping the company survive,” he said in a statement. “Without an exit strategy, GM can expect more questions and scrutiny regarding employee bonuses.” The bailout has become a key issue in the Presidential campaign. Republican candidates are slamming President Barack Obama for approving it, but he has touted its success, including thousands of new jobs at Detroit automakers. The issue was especially troublesome for GOP front-runner Mitt Romney in Tuesday’s Michigan primary, which Romney narrowly won. Romney grew up in the auto-dominated state but was against the bailout. His closest opponent, Rick Santorum, also is against it. GM announced earlier this month that it plans to freeze its U.S. pension plan for white-collar workers and move to a 401 (k)-type plan. GM also gave salaried employees five more vacation days. White-collar workers fared better at crosstown rival Ford Motor Co. Ford said last month that 20,000 salaried workers will get 2.7 percent pay raises on April 1, plus bonuses based on individual performance. In addition, Ford will make profit-sharing payments of around $6,200 each to its 41,600 U.S. factory employees in March. GM CEO Daniel Akerson has been against giving annual raises, saying the added costs limit the company’s flexibility in an economic downturn. But that could hurt GM over time, if Ford workers get pay raises and their salaries grow far larger than those at GM, says David Whiston, auto equity analyst for Morningstar. Ford, which borrowed billions from banks but avoided a government bailout, said the raises are needed to stay competitive with other big companies. The automaker made a $20 billion profit last year Salaried workers at Chrysler Group LLC, which made far less money than GM or Ford, also will get profit-sharing checks. The company, which is not publicly traded, would not disclose the amounts. About 26,000 union workers at Chrysler, which also took a government bailout, will get checks of about $1,500. Chrysler made $183 million last year. GM, Chrysler and Ford agreed to the profit-sharing for factory workers in contract talks last year with the United Auto Workers union. Most of the workers won’t get pay raises.

Read the full article →

Apple Opponent Introduced ‘iPAD’ 10 Years Before Apple

February 27, 2012

SHANGHAI — The battle between an ailing Chinese electronics maker and Apple Inc. over the iPad name is just as much a tale of obsolescence in the fast-moving global technology industry as it is a legal row over a trademark. When businessman Rowell Yang Long-san launched his own iPAD-branded device in 2000, a decade before Apple unveiled its hit tablet, he declared it received an “overwhelming market response.” “We are confident that we will be one of the major players in the new post-PC era – the information appliance era,” Yang said in the announcement of his new Internet Personal Access Device, which was jointly developed with National Semiconductor. But unlike Apple’s iPad, introduced in 2010, Proview’s version failed to hit the market sweet spot that might have made it a hit. Today, the company is deeply in debt and threatened with removal from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. But Proview still claims ownership of the trademark in China and is waging its fight on multiple fronts: court cases, asking commercial authorities to ban iPad sales in dozens of Chinese cities, and seeking a ban on exports of iPads from China where Apple supplier Foxconn employs about a million people in manufacturing the sleek tablet computer. There has been no sign yet of intervention from Beijing but top officials are unlikely to allow serious disruption of a business that employs a significant number of people. Proview Electronics Co., a unit of Proview International Holdings, filed a lawsuit against Apple’s use of the trademark in mainland China at the Santa Clara Superior Court on Feb. 17. An attempt by Proview to win an injunction to stop Apple from selling iPads in Shanghai was foiled last week when a court there rejected the case pending the resolution of a similar lawsuit in a higher court in China. Other court cases in China are pending. Proview International, the Hong Kong-listed parent company of the group, was once one of the world’s leading makers of bulky cathode ray tube computer monitors, with sales in 50 countries and as many as 10,000 employees in factories in Taiwan and China. But the company’s fortunes waned along with the headwinds battering the world economy and rapid advances in the consumer technology business that it failed to adapt to. The Taiwan arm of the business once thrived on low-cost manufacturing for major brand names, until evaporating demand and surging costs put paid to that. It lacked Apple’s forte in designing and generating consumer demand for slick new products and online applications. “Proview’s products failed because they were not significantly differentiated from the competition and did not offer new features that consumers were interested in,” said Ben Cavendish, an analyst at China Market Research Group in Shanghai. Proview’s iPAD included a 15-inch CRT monitor, keyboard and mouse and promised “one-click access to email, online applications, chat, shopping and search engines,” the company said. It also offered “a simple and intuitive means of accessing the Internet without the cost and complexity often associated with personal computers,” according to a PR release from August 2000. But Yang, speaking to reporters in Beijing recently, conceded that Proview’s iPAD was pricey and had technical problems that prevented it from functioning very smoothly. Just as Proview geared up to sell its “iFamily” line of products, including the iPAD, iTerminal and others, the dot.com bubble burst. Then came the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. As the CRT monitors that once were Proview’s bread-and-butter business gave way to LCD monitors and televisions, Yang segued into LCD production, vastly expanding the business. Then came the 2008 global financial crisis. Proview’s annual reports and its filings to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange chart its downward trajectory, as profits shrank, costs rose and accounts went unpaid. Bankruptcy proceedings started in 2009 but have since halted. Creditors have been selling off buildings, equipment and vehicles owned by subsidiaries, scraping money together bit-by-bit. The company is in the midst of restructuring. Asked if Proview could supply a sample of its iPAD to test, company spokeswoman Alice Wang said that in 2009 it shifted into making LED lights instead of computer monitors. The company faces a June 29 deadline to meet stock exchange requirements or be delisted. The companies are battling over whether Proview sold the mainland Chinese rights to the iPad trademark to Apple in a 2009 deal. Proview claims that sale, by its Taiwan affiliate, was invalid. Proview has not challenged the sale of other worldwide rights to the iPad trademark to Apple in the 35,000 British pound ($55,000) deal. Apple contends that Proview included the mainland Chinese trademark in the sale and says it violated that contract by failing to transfer the trademark rights to Apple. Proview’s lawyers have indicated their company is open to settling its claim to the trademark. In the meantime, the two sides have engaged in legal skirmishes in Hong Kong and in southern China’s Guangdong province. There, lower courts have sided with Proview in two cases. The Guangdong High Court is due to hear Apple’s appeal of the first decision on Feb. 29. According to documents from the High Court of Hong Kong, where Apple has sued Proview for breach of contract, mainland banks have sought “asset preservation orders” to secure control of the China iPad trademark. Those documents say Proview has sought to sell the iPad Chinese trademark to Apple for $10 million. Proview appears keen to wring a settlement out of Apple. Though its lawyers say Apple could incur huge losses if mainland courts rule in favor of Proview, the U.S. company has shown no signs of moving toward settling out of court. In Apple’s lawsuit against Proview in Shenzhen, which it lost and is now appealing, Apple sought 4 million yuan ($635,000) in damages. That’s far less than the amount that may be at stake if it loses the right to sell the iPad in China, but more than the 10,000 yuan in expenses Proview asked for as it sought and failed to win an injunction to stop iPad sales by Apple stores in Shanghai. Pressed by the judge for an estimate of how much damage Proview claims to have suffered from the Apple iPad’s huge success, its lawyers said they didn’t know. ___ Researcher Fu Ting contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Japan’s Elpida plans filing for bankruptcy

February 27, 2012

(MENAFN) Japan’s sole maker of dynamic random-access memory chips (RAM) Elpida Memory Inc finally put struggling to rest as it plans filing for bankruptcy protection, Reuters reported. The …

Read the full article →