Yahoo | Business Finance, Stock Market, Quotes, News

on 24/01/2020 at 11:37 am

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde share their economic outlooks on the final day of the 2020 World Economic Forum.

on 24/01/2020 at 10:56 am

(Bloomberg) -- In an effort to settle tens of thousands of claims that Bayer AG’s Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, lawyers for some plaintiffs are discussing with the company deals that could lead to a total payout of about $10 billion, according to people with direct knowledge of the negotiations.In some discussions, Bayer’s lawyers have said the chemical maker will set aside $8 billion to resolve current cases and reserve $2 billion for future claims, the five people said. Roundup has been blamed for ailments including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which can take years to diagnose. Bayer declined to comment on the numbers or any terms under negotiation.Bayer shares rose as much as 3.9% Friday in Frankfurt, the most since October. They’re still down about 23% since the company acquired agricultural giant Monsanto Co. for $63 billion, giving it Roundup. The collapse has wiped about $18 billion off Bayer’s market value.If a settlement of the litigation costs Bayer $10 billion, its shares could rise quickly to 90 euros from the current level of about 76 euros, Markus Mayer of Baader Bank said by email Friday morning.To be sure, the $10 billion figure isn’t final and could change as talks continue, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the discussions.Ken Feinberg, the lead mediator for the cases, has indicated deals resolving as many as 85,000 Roundup claims in the U.S. may be reached within a month. Feinberg said he’s unaware of the numbers being discussed in settlement talks. The talks are taking place between company lawyers and separate groups of plaintiffs’ attorneys, each with a sizable inventory of cases.While Feinberg said in an email he remains optimistic, “any details about what may constitute a comprehensive agreement are pure speculation as to both dollars and eligibility criteria.”Chris Loder, a U.S.-based spokesman for the company, has said the figure cited by Feinberg is “a speculative estimate” that includes “potential plaintiffs” who haven’t filed court complaints and that “the number of served cases as reported on a quarterly basis remains significantly below 50,000.”“The mediation process is continuing diligently and in good faith to explore resolution under the auspices of Ken Feinberg,” Loder said Thursday. “There is also no certainty or timetable for a comprehensive resolution.”Read More: Bayer’s Roundup Challenge Is to Avoid Another ‘Nuclear’ Jury VerdictRoundup claims have surged since a trio of jury verdicts awarded plaintiffs almost $2.5 billion, increasing pressure on Bayer to settle. While several trials due to start this month have been postponed to give more time for negotiations, cases in Missouri and California got underway this week. Bayer is appealing the earlier verdicts, which judges have already slashed to $191 million.Analyst estimates vary on how much a deal could cost. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Holly Froum said this week it could take $10 billion to $13 billion. Thomas Claps, a litigation analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group, forecast $4.5 billion to $6.5 billion.Read More:Bayer CEO Opens Door to Roundup Settlement as Lawsuits SwellBayer Roundup Mediator Is ‘Optimistic’ With Talks Heating UpBayer Roundup Deal Is Close as Claims Surge, Mediator SaysThe St. Louis case, involving claims by four former Roundup users, is the first to be tried outside California. The city is regarded as a plaintiff-friendly venue -- a jury there awarded more than 20 women $4.7 billion in 2018 over claims Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder gave them cancer. J&J has appealed.Bayer has steadfastly maintained that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not a carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded it doesn’t require a cancer warning, something state regulators had advocated. But plaintiffs point to other research that shows glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.Feinberg, who was appointed in May to lead the settlement talks, has asked retired judges to serve as mediators in direct negotiations between Bayer’s attorneys and groups of plaintiffs’ lawyers, the people said. The strategy could produce a lower total settlement cost for Bayer than had it continued to seek a formal, global deal.But the company will need to make sure to address all claims as it would still have to fight the remainder in court, said Perry Weitz, a New York-based plaintiffs attorney whose firm is involved in the two trials underway. He declined to comment on any figures being discussed in the settlement talks.Defense attorneys have told plaintiffs’ lawyers Bayer won’t settle wrongful-death claims that are more than 10 years old and only will settle claims of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, according to a summary of the company’s settlement criteria seen by Bloomberg News. Some Roundup users are blaming their multiple myeloma cancers on the product.Some of Bayer’s lawyers also warned the company is prepared to put Monsanto into bankruptcy to deal with the wave of Roundup suits if it feels reasonable deals can’t be reached, people have said. Other companies faced with crippling litigation -- such as Purdue Pharma LP -- have taken that path.The case is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2741, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).(Updates with number of served cases in eighth paragraph)To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at [email protected];Tim Loh in Munich at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at [email protected], ;Eric Pfanner at [email protected], John Lauerman, Anne PollakFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

on 24/01/2020 at 10:55 am

Capstone Turbine Corporation's (NASDAQ:CPST): Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, and...

on 24/01/2020 at 10:39 am

(Bloomberg) -- Sign up here to receive the Davos Diary, a special daily newsletter that will run from Jan. 20-24.Volkswagen AG Chief Executive Officer Herbert Diess is preparing to muscle Elon Musk out of the electric-car lead.While Tesla Inc. is paving the way in sustainable mobility, the world’s biggest automaker is buying software companies and ramping up investments in electric vehicles and battery cells, Diess said Friday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.“It’s an open race,” Diess said in an interview with Bloomberg TV. “We are quite optimistic that we still can keep the pace with Tesla and also at some stage probably overtake” the U.S. carmaker.Tesla’s market value surpassed Volkswagen’s for the first time this week, even as the U.S. company sells a fraction of the cars VW churns out and has yet to record an annual profit. Volkswagen rose as much as 1.7% in Frankfurt trading after Diess’s comments.Still, Tesla has a competitive edge in electric cars and software, technologies that are underpinning a shift toward cleaner mobility. The threat is underscored by Musk’s plan to establish a factory near Berlin, in the heart of Germany’s automotive industry.While they’re competitors, Diess and Musk have cultivated somewhat friendly ties. The German CEO in October hailed Tesla as a serious competitor that’s pushing the industry toward sustainability -- just a few weeks after the South African-born billionaire tweeted that Diess is doing more than any big car CEO to go electric. Diess repeated his respect for Musk in Davos, saying Tesla’s product lineup “describes the future of the auto industry.”Last week, the German CEO called on his top managers to speed up Volkswagen’s overhaul efforts to make the German industrial giant more agile or risk being pushed aside. Volkswagen has earmarked about $66 billion to invest in electrification, hybrids, and digitalization, and in October plans to start churning out e-cars at a factory near Shanghai, where Musk opened a plant last year ahead of schedule.“The company which adopts fastest and is most innovative but also which has enough scale in the new world will make the race,” Diess said Friday.Trade ThreatTesla isn’t Diess’s only concern. The CEO was among executives who attended a dinner with U.S. president Donald Trump in Davos on Tuesday. While the meeting was “positive,” the threat of U.S. tariffs on European carmakers hasn’t been averted, he said.“It’s very difficult to read President Trump but he stated that he’s still not happy with Europe,” Diess said. “We’re doing what we can to avoid tariffs.”Volkswagen has been relatively resilient so far to industry headwinds exacerbated by trade friction, higher tariffs and a slowdown in China, the German manufacturer’s largest market. The company also will have to comply with Europe’s new fleet emission targets, he said, meaning VW will have to sell more sustainable cars or face penalties.“2020 for the auto industry will be a very difficult year,“ Diess said. “But we’re doing the right things to be competitive.”(Updates with Volkswagen shares in fourth paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Christoph Rauwald in Frankfurt at [email protected];Francine Lacqua in London at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Palazzo at [email protected], Stefan NicolaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

on 24/01/2020 at 10:36 am

Gil Van Bokkelen became the CEO of Athersys, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATHX) in 1995. This analysis aims first to contrast CEO...

on 24/01/2020 at 10:31 am

If you're interested in Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARWR), then you might want to consider its beta (a...

on 24/01/2020 at 10:14 am

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There’s never a good time for the outbreak of a deadly virus, but this one is particularly bad. China’s Lunar New Year is often dubbed the world’s largest migration, a stretch of weeks when hundreds of millions of people visit their families. Before the pandemic started spreading, officials were expecting 3 billion airplane and train trips during the holiday rush between Jan. 10 and Feb. 18. Millions more have gone abroad.Little wonder, then, that the travel industry is suffering. With the death toll up to 25 and more than 800 infected, tourists are staying home. Some have no choice: The government has put seven cities on lockdown and airports are stepping up screening measures. On Friday, China ordered all travel agencies to suspend sales of domestic and international tours.Shares of China Southern Airlines Co. – the carrier most exposed to the site of the outbreak – have slid 14% since the second death from the virus was confirmed, while Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., which said it would waive fees for tickets to and from the mainland, has slumped 7.6%. The country’s largest online travel agency, Trip.com Group Ltd. has tumbled 12%.If the SARS outbreak of 2003 is any guide, things could get even worse. In May of that year, Chinese air passenger traffic fell 71%, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Bernstein Research cited concerns of a repeat outcome when it cut Trip.com’s rating one notch to “market perform” earlier this week. The Nasdaq-listed company, which changed its name from Ctrip.com last year, issued a statement Thursday saying it would refund travelers who’ve been diagnosed, or those in close touch with them.The hope is that, like SARS, the turbulence will eventually pass. For Trip.com, however, the business challenges are bigger than the coronavirus. In recent years, the company has struggled to keep up with competition from digital rivals like Meituan Dianping and Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.Few travel companies have benefited more from China’s transition to the world’s biggest source of tourists in 2012. Despite the trade war and Hong Kong’s protests,(3) China’s outbound tourism numbers have continued to rise. According to Euromonitor International, 108.39 million overseas trips were taken last year, a 9.5% gain, after surging 11.7% in 2018. Trip.com now makes up a quarter of its total sales from outbound Chinese visitors, from under 15% five years ago, reckons Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Vey-Sern Ling.But the hotel-booking sector is getting crowded. Meituan Dianping has recently overtaken Trip.com as China’s top site, just five years after the food-delivery giant started dabbling in the business. Meituan now has 47% of China's market, ahead of Trip.com, with 34%, according to TrustData. Now, Meituan is moving further into Trip.com’s territory with luxury hotels, while chains like Marriott International Inc. are pushing for direct booking on their China websites. Alibaba said part of the $13 billion it raised from its Hong Kong listing in November would go toward fliggy.com, its online travel group site.If there’s any lesson to be gleaned from all this, it’s the benefit of diversification. While China’s superapp business model has arched some eyebrows (how can one company possibly provide digital payments, taxis, food delivery, massages and pet grooming?) there’s a decent case to be made for having some crisis-proof subsidiaries. Consider AirAsia Group Bhd, Southeast Asia's most successful budget airline, which is setting up a regional fast food franchise.Plans could already be underway for Trip.com to diversify its investor base, with the company discussing plans to go public in Hong Kong, Bloomberg News reported earlier this month. Here, Alibaba is a successful model. With its second listing, the company is now closer to its Chinese end-users, and Alibaba’s New York-listed stock has soared 14%.The four-month span of the SARS outbreak shows how quickly things can turn around: While China’s growth dipped in the second quarter of 2003, it swiftly resumed in the following months. Given how much more important the Chinese shopper is to the economy now, the damage could be more painful. A 10% fall in discretionary transportation and entertainment could shave 1.2 percentage points from China’s growth domestic product, according to “back of the envelope” estimates by S&P Global Inc. Hong Kong retailers and restaurants, just coming off the pain of last year's protests, were already suffering. For those companies that enjoyed the fast-rising Chinese consumer, it may be time to devise a plan B. (Updates to include China’s measures to suspend travel-agency sales.)(1) Hong Kong, followed by Macau, are the top two destinations of mainland Chinese travelers.To contact the author of this story: Nisha Gopalan at [email protected] contact the editor responsible for this story: Rachel Rosenthal at [email protected] column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Nisha Gopalan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals and banking. She previously worked for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones as an editor and a reporter.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

on 24/01/2020 at 10:04 am

The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) saw significant share price movement during recent months on the NYSE, rising to...

on 24/01/2020 at 9:00 am

(Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil dodged a bullet last month when a judge rejected a novel climate-change lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general. The case began with a promise from state officials that there would be a historic reckoning for the fossil fuel giant.It ended ignominiously as a failed accounting fraud claim.But that was just the beginning. Globally, humans are on the hook for trillions of dollars if they want to sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions, acclimate to the damage already done and prepare for what is yet to come. As more governments and taxpayers find themselves staring down the barrel at rising climate costs, they are increasingly turning to the courts to hold Big Oil accountable.The New York case was an outlier—it sought to make Exxon Mobil investors whole for an alleged bookkeeping bait-and-switch. The majority of U.S. climate litigation out there takes a more direct approach, seeking damages in so-called public nuisance lawsuits. Fossil fuel use runs counter to the inherent right to exist in a non-warming world, the argument goes, and the energy companies knew that right would be infringed when enough of it was burned.About a dozen cities, counties and states have sued Exxon, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and their peers. The suits seek to reimburse taxpayers for the costs associated with adapting to climate change—from building multibillion-dollar sea walls to repairing damage from powerful storms and, perhaps soon, moving whole communities inland.Federal appeals courts on both sides of the country are considering whether such cases may proceed. Their rulings—one of which may come any day—will have a powerful effect on the future of climate change litigation.“Through these cases, we will learn with great detail what the industry knew and when they knew it, and what they did to deceive the public about that knowledge,” said Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a charity that focuses in part on sustainability issues. “They are now leaving the public with an enormous bill.”And it’s not just Americans who are litigating the consequences of global warming. In the Netherlands, the supreme court recently upheld a landmark ruling forcing the government to combat climate change. The case has inspired similar lawsuits in France, Germany, New Zealand and Norway.In the U.S., there is precedent for such a massive attempt at legal redress. A few decades back, the tobacco industry was taken to court by a group of states after decades of holding individual litigants at bay. In the end, the companies settled for $246 billion and agreed to changes in the sale and marketing of cigarettes.But before history can repeat itself, climate litigants have to persuade judges (and the fossil fuel industry) that their lawsuits have a chance of succeeding. So far, their track record hasn’t been that great.Just last week, a novel case filed by a group of young Americans trying to force the government to address climate change was derailed by a federal appeals court panel. The two-judge majority concluded there is no constitutional right to a livable climate. (The plaintiffs say they will appeal.) Moreover, courts have been quick to note (as have defendants) that the production and use of fossil fuel by energy companies, utilities and manufacturers has been central to building modern civilization as we know it.Congress, and not the courts, is where the answer lies, industry lobbyists and lawyers say.Phil Goldberg serves as a special counsel to the National Association of Manufacturers. As such, he’s assumed a leading role in pushing back against climate litigation (an Exxon spokesperson deferred to him when asked about cases filed by Baltimore and Marin County, California). Goldberg argues that federal laws regulating the environment prevent states from foisting their own de facto regulation on the energy industry, and that nuisance suits are just regulation by another name.“They’re claiming that the mere act of selling oil, gas and other energy products is a liability-causing event because there’s downstream impacts from the use of their products,” he said. “There’s no liability if there are downstream impacts from legally using their products.”But since those “downstream impacts” are an accelerating global catastrophe, states and municipalities faced with a deadlocked Congress and a White House bent on unraveling existing climate regulations say the courts are their only hope. “Litigation,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief climate scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, “is essential to hold Big Oil accountable.”Public nuisance claims (what one judge recently called the “unreasonable interference” with a right “common to the general public”) have been made with varying degrees of success when it came to suits and settlements over lead paint, asbestos, opioids and of course tobacco. But making the theory work with fossil fuels is a different matter altogether.While “the potential liability is far greater,” Wasserman said, “courts have been known to shy away from their responsibility and pass the buck to another branch of government.”But just getting in the door may be enough, said Matt Pawa, a lawyer representing New York City in its climate litigation. If a city or state can survive a motion to dismiss its lawsuit, it usually means a company will be compelled to open its files and submit to depositions.“Important information comes out in litigation—the public learns what’s going on,” Pawa said. “The lawsuits, in a way, are shining a bright light on wrongful conduct.”The evidence climate litigants most want is proof of deception. Energy companies not only sold products they knew would damage the environment, plaintiffs claim, but spent millions of dollars over the decades purposely casting doubt on climate science.“For us, sea level rise is real, it’s not an abstraction.”California’s Marin County, at the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge, was among the first municipalities to file a nuisance claim against the oil industry. Kate Sears, a county supervisor, said the decision in 2017 was based on actual changes to the physical environment rather than projections. A critical roadway in her community floods regularly due to rising waters from the nearby bay.“For us, sea level rise is real, it’s not an abstraction,” Sears said. “I don’t think it’s appropriate that my taxpayer residents should be on the hook to pay for damages caused by the actions of this industry.”Rhode Island sued oil and gas producers the following year, accusing them of putting its 400 miles of economically crucial coastline at risk. “They profited from what they did, and they knew the effects of what was coming, and they tried to cloud the science,” Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said in an interview.In the Marin County case, defendant energy companies said the lawsuit “wrongfully calls into question” federal policies. In the Rhode Island litigation, the industry claimed the state is blaming oil companies for “global greenhouse gas emissions of countless actors, including Rhode Island and its residents.”These climate lawsuits, said Chevron spokesman Sean Comey, are “designed to punish a few companies in one industry who lawfully deliver” products to consumers. Exxon, Shell and BP either declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests seeking comment.Comey’s assertion does illustrate a problem with ascribing specific liability for global warming. Though the starring role of oil, gas and coal producers in the global climate crisis is irrefutable, figuring out how much of global warming is their fault as a whole—not to mention individual companies—may be impossible.For now, most climate cases are bogged down in fights over whether they belong in state or federal court. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed three state court lawsuits to proceed while the jurisdiction fight proceeds. But lower-court federal judges have largely sided with defendants, rejecting nuisance suits by New York City, San Francisco and Oakland. All have been appealed. Other pending nuisance cases have been filed by King County, Washington; Boulder, Colorado; and the cities of Imperial Beach, Santa Cruz and Richmond, California.“Their theory rests on the sweeping proposition that otherwise lawful and everyday sales of fossil fuels, combined with an awareness that greenhouse gas emissions lead to increased global temperatures, constitute a public nuisance,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in a 2018 decision tossing out a climate lawsuit. That same year, U.S. District Judge John Keenan said, in dismissing New York City’s case against Exxon, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell, that the “immense and complicated problem of global warming” is for Congress and the administration to fix.A federal appeals court could decide on New York City’s challenge to Keenan’s ruling in the coming weeks, while oral arguments of appeals by San Francisco and Oakland are slated for Feb. 5 before another appellate panel. Decisions in those cases are likely to inform climate litigation choices by other states and cities.Chris Chrisman, a corporate defense lawyer with Holland & Hart in Denver, predicts the courts will ultimately side with the energy industry.“It’s a recognition of the limitations of what state nuisance laws were designed to accomplish,” said Chrisman, who represents energy companies but isn’t involved in the nuisance cases. “They might be able to address the adverse effects of a smokestack going up right next door to your house, but they’re not designed to address a global problem like climate change.”Unsurprisingly, lawyers for the plaintiffs don’t see it that way. They argue their nuisance claims are bolstered by evidence that fossil fuel companies knew the damage their products did, and actively sought to steer public debate elsewhere. Many of the suits also allege negligence for “failure to warn,” negligence for design defects, strict liability and trespass.“For us, sea level rise is real, it’s not an abstraction.”In a lawsuit filed by the City of Baltimore, lawyers said energy companies were on notice about their impact on the Earth’s atmosphere in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson’s scientific advisory committee on environmental pollution warned that by 2000, humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions would “modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate … could occur.”Instead of taking action to prevent global warming, Baltimore said the defendants “embarked on a decades-long campaign designed to maximize dependence on their products and undermine national and international efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.”Marin County pointed to a now-defunct industry group whose members included “affiliates, predecessors and/or subsidiaries” of some of the defendants. In 1991, the county alleged in its complaint, the group launched a national climate denial campaign that targeted “less-educated males” in order to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” One of the group’s ads stated “Who told you the Earth was warming ... Chicken Little?”Goldberg, special counsel to the National Association of Manufacturers, said such allegations of corporate deception are “all window dressing to try to drive the public opinion and judicial reaction to it.” The legal effort by climate litigants is evolving, however. In October, a state court case filed by Massachusetts included claims under consumer protection laws, arguing that Exxon misled residents and investors about the environmental impact of the gasoline they buy.“It’s a different kind of case,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said in an interview. “Exxon made misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts about systemic climate change risks.”Exxon, having moved the case to federal court for now, claimed in a November filing that Healey is trying to stop the company “from producing and selling fossil fuels.” In a response filed this month, Healey rejected the company’s argument. She instead compared her claims to tobacco litigation, saying it’s “deceptive advertising and marketing that the Commonwealth is seeking to stop.”Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, said the increasing need to find someone other than taxpayers to pay the costs of climate change will continue to drive state and local governments toward litigation. Nevertheless, she’s skeptical about their chances for victory.“Plaintiffs in the remaining cases may yet see some success at the state level as they refine their claims,” she said. “But the federal court decisions indicate this remains a difficult path.”To contact the author of this story: Erik Larson in New York at [email protected] contact the editor responsible for this story: David Rovella at [email protected] more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

on 24/01/2020 at 8:45 am

Today we'll look at STMicroelectronics N.V. (EPA:STM) and reflect on its potential as an investment. In particular...

on 24/01/2020 at 8:13 am

Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple, has indicated that the firm could go public in the next 12 months. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Garlinghouse told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that an initial public offering (IPO) is a “natural evolution” for the company. “In the next 12 months, you’ll see IPOs The post Ripple’s IPO could come within 12 months, suggests CEO appeared first on The Block.

on 24/01/2020 at 5:06 am

Any hope retailers would extinguish the fires consuming them in 2020 is fading fast, with closures by Macy's, J.C. Penney, Express, Pier 1 and others.

on 24/01/2020 at 4:41 am

Q4 2019 Freeport-McMoRan Inc Earnings Call

on 24/01/2020 at 2:36 am

Q4 2019 FuelCell Energy Inc Earnings Call

on 23/01/2020 at 11:19 pm

The market is pricing up smartphone sellers, but the real long-term 5G growth is in the Internet of Things Continue reading...

on 23/01/2020 at 11:13 pm

Boeing has previously said the 777X, its largest-ever twin-engined model, designed to hold on average 406 people, was on track to be delivered in 2021. Boeing said on Thursday weather or other factors could still delay the test flight. The crisis surrounding the smaller jet following two fatal crashes has led new Chief Executive Officer Dave Calhoun to send the aerospace giant back to the drawing board on proposals for a new mid-market aircraft.

on 23/01/2020 at 11:00 pm

Many other members of Big Pharma spent more on dividends and stock buybacks, a strategy some view as shortsighted Continue reading...

on 23/01/2020 at 11:00 pm

More than 200 oil and gas companies in North America have filed for bankruptcy since 2015, and the list of casualties could continue to climb this year

on 23/01/2020 at 10:31 pm

(Bloomberg) -- Semiconductor makers Qorvo Inc. and Skyworks Solutions Inc. are weighing bids for Broadcom Inc.’s wireless-chip business, which could fetch about $10 billion in a sale, according to people familiar with the matter.Other potential buyers could be interested, said the people, who asked to not be identified because the matter isn’t public. The unit makes radio-frequency, or RF, chips.A final decision hasn’t been made and Qorvo and Skyworks may opt not to proceed with offers, they said.A representative for Broadcom declined to comment. Representatives for Qorvo and Skyworks didn’t respond to requests for comment.Broadcom on Thursday disclosed new agreements to provide components for Apple Inc. devices for several years. The disclosure lets potential acquirers of the radio frequency unit know that they’re buying into a substantial business relationship with Cupertino, California-based Apple.The potential sale comes as Broadcom Chief Executive Officer Hock Tan -- fresh off a $10.7 billion takeover of Symantec Corp.’s security software unit -- seeks to focus on businesses with strong share in profitable markets that don’t require excessive investment. He’s jettisoning components that don’t fit that plan. Broadcom agreed to sell a cybersecurity services business this month to Accenture Plc.The RF unit’s chips are used to filter and amplify radio frequency signals. Its filters also let wireless communications systems support a large number of subscribers at the same time by ensuring that voice and data streams don’t interfere with each other.The Wall Street Journal reported in December that Broadcom was seeking a buyer for the division.To contact the reporters on this story: Ed Hammond in New York at [email protected];Liana Baker in New York at [email protected];Ian King in San Francisco at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Liana Baker at [email protected], ;Alistair Barr at [email protected], Matthew Monks, Michael HythaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

on 23/01/2020 at 10:31 pm

(Bloomberg) -- Seven years ago, Wells Fargo & Co.’s security chief opened a few “undercover” bank accounts to aid law enforcement. Within 24 hours, two employees tacked on debit cards, claiming they each personally spoke to the new -- fictional -- customers.“All I could do was shake my head,” the security chief told a senior executive in an email.The exchange was among dozens of behind-the-scenes moments of frustration and fear cited by U.S. regulators Thursday seeking to impose a record $59 million in fines on the bank’s former leaders for allowing sales abuses to pervade its nationwide branch network. Three settled, including ex-Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf, who agreed to be banned from the industry and pay a $17.5 million penalty -- an unprecedented sanction of a former U.S. bank leader. Five others are fighting the case.The bank’s aggressive targets for opening new accounts “caused hundreds of thousands of employees to engage in numerous types of sales practices misconduct,” the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency wrote in its complaint against them.The bank’s staff confronted a stark dilemma every day for 14 years, according to the regulator: “They could engage in sales practices misconduct -- much of which was illegal -- to meet their goals, or they could struggle to meet their goals and face adverse consequences, including losing their jobs.”The OCC faulted Stumpf for failing “to respond to numerous warning signs.” Former chief administrative officer Hope Hardison and onetime risk chief Michael Loughlin also resolved its claims.‘Forced to Walk’The agency is looking to levy the heftiest penalty -- $25 million -- against former community banking chief Carrie Tolstedt. She and four other former executives -- general counsel Jim Strother, chief auditor David Julian, audit director Paul McLinko and community banking risk officer Claudia Russ Anderson -- are facing a public hearing before an administrative law judge. The regulator said it could decide to increase the civil penalties based on the evidence presented.An attorney for Russ Anderson didn’t respond to messages seeking comment. Representatives for the other four said the executives acted with integrity, sought to tackle problems and expect to clear their names once all of the facts are heard.The OCC laced its 100-page complaint against them with emails, internal memos and testimony, arguing that for years Wells Fargo’s management refused to ease off sales targets despite repeated warnings about abuses.“The bank had better tools and systems to detect employees who did not meet unreasonable sales goals than it did to catch employees” engaging in misconduct, the regulator said. Some were allegedly told that if they missed targets, they would be “transferred to a store where someone had been shot and killed” and if they did not make enough appointments they would be “forced to walk out in the hot sun around the block.”Gulf War StressWorkers warned bosses about the fallout of that pressure in impassioned memos.“The termination ax is suspended over our head one way or another,” an employee wrote in a complaint sent to Tolstedt’s office in 2012, according to the OCC. “Meet unreasonable goals or you will be terminated, cheat to meet the unreasonable goals and you will be terminated when caught.”“I was in the 1991 Gulf War,” another employee wrote to Stumpf’s office. “This is sad and hard for me to say, but I had less stress in the 1991 Gulf War than working for Wells Fargo.”Senior executives also heard about the trouble directly from affected customers. A former operating committee member’s wife received two debit cards in the mail that she hadn’t requested. The executive raised it with Tolstedt, who eventually told him to stop telling the story “because she thought it reflected poorly on the community bank,” the OCC wrote.The scandal erupted in September 2016, setting off a national furor. It prompted congressional hearings, Stumpf’s exit and more probes, including still-pending investigations by the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission. The ire has spanned the political spectrum from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren to Republican President Donald Trump.The OCC previously seized unusual control over hiring and firing the bank’s leaders and, with other regulators, inflicted billions of dollars in fines and other costs on the company. But Thursday’s case was the agency’s first targeting executives over the matter. And it contrasts with the years after the financial crisis, when no CEO of a major U.S. bank was punished for faulty mortgage-bond sales and home foreclosures that upended the economy and hurt millions of Americans.Stumpf’s successor, Tim Sloan, stepped down last year after lawmakers and the agency expressed frustration with the pace of the bank’s cleanup. His replacement, Charlie Scharf, took over in October.“We are reviewing today’s filings and will determine what, if any, further action by the company is appropriate with respect to any of the named individuals,” Scharf told employees on Thursday, noting the bank won’t make any remaining compensation payments to the individuals during the review. “This was inexcusable. Our customers and you all deserved more from the leadership of this company.”To contact the reporters on this story: Hannah Levitt in New York at [email protected];Jesse Hamilton in Washington at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael J. Moore at [email protected], ;Jesse Westbrook at [email protected], David Scheer, Dan ReichlFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.