четверг, 27 августа 2015 г.

uJudge Says Top Dole Execs Owe Shareholders $148M For Driving Down Company’s Stock Price Before Buyoutr


4 4 4 9
  • Two top executives at Dole are on the hook for $148 million after a judge ruled that CEO and chairman of the board David H. Murdock, and the company’s former chief operating officer, C. Michael Carter fraudulently drove down their company’s stock price so they could shortchange shareholders and buy the business on the cheap.

    Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of Delaware’s Court of Chancery ordered Murdock and Carter to reimburse shareholders $148 million, reports the New York Times. His decision [PDF]comes after a February trial prompted by shareholders in the company, who didn’t think Murdock’s deal to buy the 60% of the company he didn’t own in 2013 was entirely on the up-and-up.

    Before coming to the table with a deal for shareholders, Vice Chancellor Laster said Carter had misstated how much Dole could earn if it were to sell of some of its businesses, and canceled a stock buyback program.

    That drove down the valuation of the stock, the judge said in his decision. Murdock at first offered $12 per share, which was negotiated up to $13.50 per share after an independent board committee checked out the deal.

    Carter then gave the committee a set of artificially low management projects, while at the same time delivering a much more accurate picture to potential lenders involved in the takeover bid.

    The deal passed by a slim vote, and the company went private.

    “By taking these actions, Murdock and Carter deprived the committee of the ability to negotiate on a fully informed basis and potentially say no to the merger,” Vice Chancellor Laster wrote. “Murdock and Carter likewise deprived the stockholders of their ability to consider the merger on a fully informed basis and potentially vote it down.”

    Dole C.E.O. and Aide Found Liable for $148 Million in Buyout [New York Times]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uGap Will End On-Call Scheduling In All Of Its Storesr


4 4 4 9
  • On-call scheduling is a retail practice that looks great on a store’s budget on paper, but wrecks employees’ lives in real life. Gap Inc. is the third major retailer in recent months that has announced that they’re ending the practice across all of their brands, after months working on what they call “sustainable scheduling practices.”

    On-call scheduling means that a worker will be on a store’s schedule, but won’t necessarily have to work, depending on how busy the store is that day. It’s a nice cost-savings measure, but very inconvenient for employees, who can’t make plans during their on-call times, can’t be put on the schedule at other jobs, may have to arrange child care, and in the end may be sent home early, or may not be called in to make any money for that shift at all.

    Other retailers that have announced they’re stopping the practice are Victoria’s Secret and the Abercrombie & Fitch brands. Gap says that they have been phasing out on-call scheduling all summer, and plan to eliminate it entirely by September.

    All of these retailers aren’t suddenly re-evaluating their schedule practices just for fun, though. New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman asked thirteen national retailers for their scheduling data to determine whether they used on-call scheduling in a way that violated state or federal laws.

    Equality Is Woven into the Fabric of Gap Inc.’s Company DNA [Gap Inc. Blog]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uCollege-Bound Students Should Shop Around For Bank Accountsr


4 4 4 9
  • With millions of young adults heading off to college this month, federal regulators are reminding those consumers to do their homework. Okay, not that homework, but the kind related to researching college-sponsored bank accounts.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau this week reminded college-bound students that just because their school is sponsoring a certain bank account, that doesn’t mean it’s the best option.

    While many colleges may also negotiate with companies through million-dollar contracts to offer products that have lower fees or better terms than what students could get if they asked for the same deal on their own, a report last year from the Government Accountability Office revealed that many college-sponsored accounts were no better than what students could find themselves after shopping around, and in fact, were sometimes worse.

    To ensure that students are getting the best deal possible, the CFPB launched the Safe Student Account Scorecard earlier this year and called on companies to publish their agreements with colleges.

    The agency also suggests students keep a few things in mind when looking to set up a bank account while at college:

    1. Just because an offer looks like official mail from your college, you don’t have to accept it.

    Some colleges take steps to promote products through official email and mailings, and sometimes are compensated by banks for their efforts.

    “For example, a college might use its official email communications with incoming freshmen to promote a sponsored account by encouraging students to use the ‘hot new’ campus ID from its bank partner,” the blog post warns.

    Schools may also choose to provide printed materials at orientation or other official communications to highlight a banking partner.

    2. Some staff on campus may work for your college’s banking partner.

    “It’s always okay to ask questions when you’re deciding whether to open an account,” the post states. “Officials at your college can help you understand product terms and features in order to make an informed choice, but you should also ask questions about who you’re talking to.”

    3. Your college may get paid when you open an account.

    Some companies may pay colleges a fixed amount for each student that opens and uses the college-sponsored account, the CFPB reports.

    “You should ask questions about how your college gets paid and keep in mind that if you feel rushed or pressured into opening a college-sponsored account, it might be because your college wants to sign you up to maximize its revenue under the deal,” the post explains.

    Additionally, the Bureau warns students to be on the lookout for high fees associated with any financial account.

    “Ultimately, the account you select can support your saving goals and help you avoid fees,” the post states. “Many banks offer programs to help you manage your spending and saving. Taking advantage of free account alerts through email or text message can help you avoid overspending, as can simply keeping track of your purchases and withdrawals and monitoring your account balance regularly.”



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uIf You Sell Nail Polish, Try Not To Destroy Your Customers’ Nailsr


4 4 4 9
  • mentality_neonsIf you like to paint your nails, but are part of the drugstore polish-wearing masses, you might not be familiar with the vibrant online scene of small-batch cosmetics producers, or “indie beauty” businesses. The mini-industry drew outside attention this week when use of one brand of polish was linked to some scary and painful problems in customers’ nails.

    The brand is Mentality Nail Polish, a company out of California that sells some lovely colors and beautiful glitters. Customers and testers/models (“swatchers”) complained of some unusual things happening after they put on the polish. Some reported their fingertips tingling. Others reported pain and their nails separating from their fingertips and scabbing.

    You can see some of the results for yourself: people claiming damage from Mentality’s products posted photos of the damage to Instagram. We will spare you from including them in the body of the post. #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5.

    “I assumed I was overusing chemicals like acetone. Or having skin reactions to foods,” wrote the first person known to have a reaction to polishes from Mentality, Amy McMaster. She was one of their swatchers, meaning she was one of the first to try new polishes. “Really, I began to suspect nearly everything except my nail polish. When this was going on, I could find NO one else having the same issues with their nails.”

    If your nails look like this, you should seek medical attention, since nails that are discolored and falling off can indicate an annoying but treatable fungal infection. It’s hard to contaminate nail polish with fungus, though, and fungus doesn’t cause one’s fingertips to tingle.

    However, the important questions were: why did it happen, and is indie nail polish safe to use? Here’s the problem with the cosmetics industry: companies aren’t required to test their products, but they are responsible for ensuring that their products don’t harm customers.

    Ingredients don’t necessarily have to be approved by the FDA, either, unless they’re color additives. Even then, they must be approved for a given purpose: a dye that works in, say, a shampoo that you rinse out of your hair wouldn’t work for a lip gloss that the user wears for hours and could potentially ingest.

    For big companies, this means testing products on someone to prevent harming their customers. In response to questions from Consumerist, the company’s owner indicated that this means… wearing his own polishes. “I have used the TCR/Kolortek pigments for years now. I have been wearing these colors for years, on my own nails and skin,” the owner told us in an e-mail.

    Mentality admitted on its Facebook page that there were problems with some of their products due to a bad batch of the clear base into which polish-makers mix pigments and glitter to make the finished product. They offered refunds and replacements for polishes from the bad batch…until they didn’t.

    On Sunday, they posted:

    Important: Due to a massive surge in requests this weekend for remakes of polish made in the Arminex base, we unfortunately will no longer be able to grant any further remake requests or process any further refunds. We have reached a physical and financial limit.

    That’s what liability insurance is supposed to be for. In statements to media outlets and on Facebook, representatives of Mentality suggested different possibilities for what might be causing customers’ problems, all of which involved the base, produced by a company called Arminex.

    Consumerist contacted Arminex by phone and left a message. They didn’t get back to us, but the answer to our questions came a few hours later when the company issued a cease and desist order to Mentality, asking that they stop publicly blaming the supplier when laboratory results on the finished polishes aren’t back yet. Mentality posted the letter on their Facebook page, which is the exact opposite of how you’re supposed to react to a cease and desist letter.

    That’s where things stand now: the company says that it has sent off samples for testing, and is waiting for them to come back. Yet what should you do if you can’t resist a polish from a small, one-person company?

    This is all kind of scary, but don’t let it scare you away from some of the beautiful and interesting nail polishes out there from small sellers. Fans of the indie polish scene point out that the situation with Mentality is an anomaly, and that most companies use combinations of ingredients that are already proven safe.

    For as long as there’s been an active online community of people making, sampling, and chatting about polishes made by tiny manufacturers, beauty blogger Kirby Hartline told Consumerist, this is the first time something like this has happened. “99.9% of brands buy pre-mixed nail polish base from reputable companies that provide [material safety data] sheets and batch quality testing,” she explains. Polish-makers then add their own colors and glitters to this existing, pre-tested base. The color combinations might be original, but the formulas themselves are safe. If you want to sell more nail polish to people, it’s unwise to make their nails fall off.

    One way to screen polish brands ahead of time is to browse the very active communities of Instagram posters and bloggers, and find at least one whose reviews and opinions you respect and whose interests align with yours, and read up. “Finding a blogger whose opinion and reviews you can trust will take you far in your quest to purchase from brands with unique and high quality nail polish,” blogger Hartline advises. She also points out that price is one factor to pay attention to: not out of snobbery, but because low prices may indicate cut corners or other problems.

    However, if you are harmed by a cosmetic, matter how big the manufacturer is, the Food and Drug Administration advises that you should contact your own health care provider, contact the manufacturer, and make a report to the FDA. While they can’t give medical advice or immediately intervene, it’s reports from consumers that trigger investigations and get companies making bad products shut down. You can submit a report online complaints through Medwatch, or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

    FACT-CHECK: WHAT’S TO BLAME FOR THE MENTALITY NAIL POLISH PROBLEMS? [Lab Muffin]
    MENTALITY POLISH – MISTAKES HAPPEN BUT THIS RESPONSE IS UNACCEPTABLE [The Mercurial Magpie]
    about my nails + me [Amy McMaster]
    What’s Going on With Mentality? [Betty’s Beauty Bombs]
    Customers Complain that Mentality Polish Is Seriously Fucking Up Their Nails [Jezebel]
    Small Businesses & Homemade Cosmetics: Fact Sheet [FDA]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uHouse Couple Was Buying To Tear Down Over Fire Hazard Concerns Catches Fire While They Sign Deedr


4 4 4 9
  • Sometimes, bad things happen pretty much exactly when you’d expect them to, in a bit of unfortunate happenstance. Does it make you mad? Yes, maybe, but it was just meant to be. To wit: a couple in Pennsylvania who were buying a vacant house next door to tear it down because they were worried it was a fire hazard were proved correct when the home did, indeed, catch on fire… while they were signing the papers to become the owners.

    The couple were at the county courthouse putting pen to paper on the dead, reports the Associated Press, citing the Somerset Daily American (paywall site).

    The house in question sits a few feet from their home, so if it went up in flames, the fear was that a fire could spread to the couple’s home pretty quickly. They wanted to buy it and get rid of it to ensure that didn’t happen.

    A neighbor called 9-1-1 about the fire yesterday afternoon, and the fire department quickly extinguished flames on the first floor. Fire officials have since determined that the origin was suspicious.

    The woman told the paper that the vacant home had “been sitting empty for a couple years. We didn’t even know about the fire until the fire department was called.”

    ‘Fire hazard’ home burns as couple signs deed to buy it [Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uCheap Gas Prices Could Mean Travel Headaches This Labor Day Weekendr


4 4 4 9
  • (dmuth)

    (dmuth)

    While we’ve all been dancing around at the gas pump over the news that fuel prices are cheap nationwide right now on average and will keep dropping until it’s below $2 a gallon, there’s a potential down side to the cheap gas glory: an estimated 35.5 million Americans will hit the road for Labor Day weekend, spurred in part by the low cost of gas. More people driving translates into more cars on the road, which could mean you’ll be stuck playing car games while waiting for traffic to move.

    Folks heading out of town will be taking advantage of those low prices during the upcoming holiday weekend, AAA predicted, according to the Chicago Tribune, with more people traveling this year than in any year since 2008.

    AAA expects 35.5 million people to take trips of 50 miles or more over the weekend, while airports will also be busier this year too, compared to last year’s holiday.

    “A strong labor market, coupled with greater job security and rising home prices, have all helped to increase disposable income,” Beth Mosher of AAA Chicago said in a news release. “Though some consumers remain cautious, these positive indicators are driving a slight increase and allowing millions of Americans to travel on one last summer getaway.”

    Low gas prices will fuel heavy Labor Day holiday traffic, AAA says [Chicago Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uRegulators Halt Alleged Energy Drink Pyramid Scheme That Targeted College Students, Other Young Adultsr


4 4 4 9
  • vemma_trio_affiliateFederal regulators continued their crackdown on supposedly deceptive dietary supplement companies this week by temporarily shutting down an Arizona-based company that allegedly ran a pyramid scheme promising college students they would rake in the big bucks by selling energy drinks.

    The Federal Trade Commission announced today that a federal court granted its request to temporarily halt Vemma Nutrition Company’s alleged pyramid scheme that brought in more than $200 million annually in 2013 and 2014 based on promises that college students and other young adults could become rich by peddling their products.

    According to the FTC’s complaint [PDF], Vemma – a multilevel marketing company that claims to use its members, called “affiliates,” to promote its health and wellness drinks – focused on recruitment of these affiliates, rather than retail sales of its products, to generate income.

    The FTC claims Vemma employees visited college campuses and told students that selling the beverages was an alternative to a regular 9-to-5 job.

    The company’s websites, social media, and marketing materials show seemingly prosperous young people with luxury cars, jets, and yachts, and falsely claim that Vemma affiliates can earn substantial incomes – as much as $50,000 per week.

    “The defendants allegedly claim that affiliates’ earning potential is limited only by their own efforts and that Vemma provides young adults an opportunity to bypass college and student loan debt,” the complaint states.

    Those interested in selling the products were required to pay an initial investment of $600 for products and business tools and $150 in Vemma products had to be bought each month to receive bonuses. The affiliates were then encouraged to enroll others to also sell the products.

    The defendants provided affiliates little guidance for selling products, but instead taught them to give away products as samples when recruiting new participants.

    Vemma offers no meaningful discounts or incentives to encourage retail sales, according to the complaint.

    So instead of making the promised riches, the FTC found that the vast majority of consumers actually lost money while hawking the company’s products.

    “Consumer losses are inevitable because Vemma is an illegal pyramid scheme that rewards affiliates for recruiting participants rather than for selling products,” the FTC alleges.

    In addition to allegedly running an illegal pyramid scheme, the defendants are charged with making false earnings claims, failing to disclose that Vemma’s structure ensures that most people who join will not earn substantial income, and furnishing affiliates with false and misleading materials to recruit others.

    The FTC complaint names Vemma Nutrition Company, Vemma International Holdings Inc., Tom Alkazin, Bethany Alkazin and Benson K. Boreyko as defendants.

    Boreyko is under a 1999 court order after settling with the FTC for his involvement with New Vision International Inc. – another multilevel marketing company that sold nutritional supplements.

    FTC Acts to Halt Vemma as Alleged Pyramid Scheme [Federal Trade Commission]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist